Truck Payload Exceedance

[Lunch]

Hi,

I appreciate all the great insights I gained from WTW forums. This is my foray into the world of pickups and camper shells and I am struggling. I am selecting/matching a pickup and a slide-in, pop-up camper shell. My preference is a small 4x4 pickup (Frontier, Tacoma, Colorado, etc.). I am looking at the All-Terrain Bobcat shell which I’m told by the manufacturer is 530 lb. dry wt. (this seems low so I’m guessing it does not include tie-downs, jack brackets, etc.). My comfort needs are best described as “Spartan”. I am comfortable sleeping in a tent at temps well below freezing. Consequently, I will have very few amenities and a very light build out.
I have been looking very closely at truck payloads, curb wt., GVWR, and GAWR. I simply can’t make even the lightest camper work with the biggest payload 4x4 small truck. I am treating manufacturer payload limits as absolute, not recommendations. I’m sure there is a healthy F.S. but I’m sticking to the spec (BTW, I’m going by the payload capacity on the inside door sticker, not the spec sheet, which is not always accurate).

From this process, I’ve drawn 2 conclusions:
(Please note, I am NOT talking about WTW forum readers. This is a much more sophisticated, informed crowd than the average camper owner.)

1) People (again, not WTW forum readers) seem very cavalier about keeping payloads within spec (and I’m just talking about camper shells, not winches, bumpers, awnings, etc., beefed up suspension, etc).

2) I will never by a used pickup that had a camper on it b/c of #1 above.

My thinking is that overloaded trucks present 2 safety issues – poor drivability and excessive wear & tear on components. It seems popular to mitigate drivability issues by beefing up the suspension but that won’t help and will probably exacerbate the wear and tear issue (e.g., adding spring leafs adds weight). The wear and tear problem is not just a maintenance cost issue, it’s also a matter of safety b/c I don’t want to breakdown in a hostile environment with no help readily available.

There are a lot on unknowns but I’ve been adding up my payload ounces (my friend always says to “watch the ounces and the pounds take care of themselves”). I’m estimating for short weekend trips with gear, I will be around 1350 lb. This is doable with certain small 4x4 trucks, in fact, my friends safely and successfully hit this mark. However, I’d like to have at least a 200 lb. buffer b/c my prospective passengers have a 125 wt. variance, I’d like to occasionally throw on some bikes or kayaks, I don’t always meet my dietary goals, etc. ;-)

So, should I just resign to driving a bigger pick-up or is there hope?

[SIZE=11pt]Thanks.[/SIZE]

 

[oldhotrod]

This is just going to start a bunch of back and forth, for every overthinker there will be those that don't sweat the details without issue. Plus there are a lot of variables that affect the posted gvw such as cab design. For example, manufacturers of crew cab light trucks factor in possible payload of people (potentially over 1000lbs) when engineering suspension and drive train. As overbuilt as trucks are, all are affected when saddled with over 1000lbs of payload whether it is sand, people or campers. Be smart and use a ton of common sense and you will never have an issue. If you want to play it safe, cheap insurance is using a truck bigger than you need....This applies to campers, pulling trailers or any other uses you can imagine.
While you are processing all of the info and opinions you are likely to get, I'm going camping...

 

[Wandering Sagebrush]

Lunch,

Please don’t take offense, but I think you’re being overly strict with your concern about weight. The ATC Bobcat shell weight is pretty accurate. I have a shell that is pretty built out, and I probably come in at about 1100#, on a Ford Ranger 4wd. I don’t detect accelerated wear of any parts, and I am obsessive about preventive maintenance. Another member has a similar camper on a Ranger, and they are over 200,000 (as I recall) miles. Based on what you’ve said, I believe a Bobcat shell on a Tacoma/Colorado/Frontier would be great setup for you.

Regardless, it’s your decision and I hope you find what you want. I’m going to give a shout out for ATC, they build great campers, and they are wonderful to work with. What ever size truck you choose, ATC will build you a superb camper.

Steve

 

[smlobx]

Lunch I commend you for taking the weight restrictions seriously.

In looking at the Colorado specs here
https://www.caranddriver.com/chevrolet/colorado/specs
it looks like you should be able to achieve your goals. Of course it will depend on how you spec your vehicle but in general the more base your truck is and the smaller the cab is the more weight you'll be able to carry.

Good luck!

 

[MidAtlantic]

Lunch,

Like you I have some concerns about overloading, but unlike you I acquired them after buying the rig, and so far have probably come down on the 'cavalier' side. I have a 2014 Tacoma TRD Off Road with access cab and an ATC Bobcat with factory-installed solar panel, one house battery, 2-way fridge, water tank, sink, 2-burner cooker, and furnace. The total dry weight (no water, food or humans and not fully gassed) is 5,180, and the GVWR (from the web not sticker) is 5,500. So, fully loaded I am undoubtedly exceeding the GVWR.

Having read many discussions a few years ago, and asking Marty at ATC, I added Firestone air bags and Bilstein 5100 shocks in the rear, and kept the original tires. I plan to replace the stock tires soon with E-rated LT versions soon, but am still agonizing about a rear spring upgrade (probably from All-Pro). I think the tires are necessary, and the springs would move me out of the cavalier category.

The air bags are a must to prevent bottoming out, but I find the ride a bit bouncy, which is one reason for considering heavier springs. My most extreme experience so far was the White Rim in Canyonlands done over five nights. I go very slowly on rough roads and had no difficulties, and only felt a wheel slip once, which I attribute more to the Tacoma's capabilities than my off-road expertise. I can't really comment on the wear-and-tear question, because I only use the rig a few weeks per year and it sits in storage the rest of the time.

I am sure you get further valid, but varied opinions, which will include getting a bigger truck. But I really like my Tacoma/Bobcat combo and really don't want a big truck. You should definitely have a look at past discussions about this topic here and elsewhere. For example: http://www.wanderthewest.com/forum/topic/7872-how-essential-are-shockstire-upgrade-for-bobcat/

Good luck with the decision and welcome to the club!

Jerry

 

[ntsqd]

I think knowing how close you are to the GVWR is a good way to temper your driving habits. Knowing that you're near the GVWR makes a conscientious driver less likely to go bombing down some twisty-curvy road.

From past surveys of a ref book ("Std. Catalog of 4X4's, 1945-1993"; ISBN 0-87341-203-6 [U.S production only]) it appears that the Section Modulus of the frame changes in response to GVWR and wheelbase. Which makes sense. Higher GVWR and/or longer WB needs a stronger frame.

Reading between the lines in the above book I suspect that the two biggest factors in the OEM's determination of GVWR is braking capacity and spring rate. The engine's power does not appear to ever be a factor. It's weight obviously subtracts from the payload, but it's power is of no concern to the rating. Can usually, or at least in the past, could buy a one ton pick-up with the same base engine that the 1/2 ton has. Few did, but it was usually possible.

 

[DesertDave]

Sorting through these issues back in the first decade of this century, I was lucky to be getting a Ford F350 where I was able to research and discover the engineered capacity of most of the actual components in the vehicle. I learned the capacity of the frame, transmission, steel wheels, axles, springs, etc. I learned that the GVWR was based upon the weakest link in the chain of components, which in my case, was the parking pawl on the transmission. This is the part that engages the flywheel to hold the vehicle in place with the transmission in park. One could supplement the transmission's holding power by engaging the parking brake.

I was therefore OK mentally when I weighed the complete and loaded rig, and found it to be 800 pounds (7%) over the factory GVWR. This was with my former full size hardside camper. Now, of course, with a 4WC, I have at least 1000 lbs of excess capacity available, based on weighing the current rig fully loaded up.

Under the assumption the original poster is a bit like me (we put the 'anal' into analysis), I'd suggest getting as much data as possible on your potential vehicles, and then, if you are finding that you must be a little bit overloaded, try and stay less than 10% over.

 

[smlobx]

Just to add a little bit more to the discussion and possibly further complicate your decision ( ) have you considered the new Ford Ranger that is coming out in a few months?
I will be testing one at the upcoming Expo East but in the mean time on the ranger5g.com website one of the guys has created the chart below to help in comparing the specs as we know them. Keep in mind that not all the new Ranger specs are out yet but I thought you might find this interesting... As I said above the specs will depend on your cab configuration etc...

 

[BillTheHiker]

Thanks for the Ranger info, smlobx. Payload is impressive, but makes me wonder how accurate are numbers like payload, GVWR, etc. Is there a standard, published algorithm vs. something the marketing folks make up.

 

[klahanie]

If I was Colorado I'd be ticked with that comparison chart. Every competitor shows a Payload Capacity higher than a mathematical calculation would support using the values shown (GWVR - Curb Weight = Payload Capacity). Colorado is the only one shown as less Payload Capacity and by 1,000lbs at that !

FWIW, there is talk of a Ranger chassis cab

 

[PackRat]

Forget the 4x4 part....

There are TWO basic concerns at play here.
1) GVWR which means truck, contents, fuel, passengers...the whole enchilada...are you OVER that limit?

2) More to the point here, what is maximum the REAR axle is rated for and when you weighed everything in #1 above and got the GVWR and the front and rear axle weights separately....what was the REAR axle weight?

Now....the $64,000 Question is: Are you running with excess weight on the REAR axle and how much?

If not then everything is cool...if you are, then by how much is the gamble you take in being able to STOP in an emergency and if the truck will survive a fish-tailing experience from a semi-truck going the other way or you blowing a tire on the rear at freeway speed. Beefing up a suspension is a false sense of security in my book...others will defend the practice when simply buying MORE truck ( a 3/4 ton or 1 ton) would take them OUT of the "red zone" and into the green zone unless you are carrying boulders or something in your camper!

Hey, its up to you though to decide if you have "enough truck" for your fully loaded camper/truck no matter what camper or truck combination you want to put together.

 

[Lunch]

Hey Everyone,

Thanks for the thoughtful feedback. I know there is a lot of anecdotal evidence of over-weighted trucks that have 1xx,xxx miles with little or no incident. That is great and I hope you continue to have safe, incident-free travels. I'm just a little more risk averse. I am in a good position of not having truck or camper, so I can be cautious. It's like I wouldn't knowingly get on an over-loaded elevator b/c it's not a big deal to just wait until the next one.

I know I over-simplified the weight issue on my original post. There are many other factors that have been pointed out (like tire load rating, necessary HP/torque, the GVWR weak link, stopping distance, load distribution, etc.). I'm taking all this into consideration. Other issues haven't been discussed like legality and liability (e.g., if in an accident with an overloaded truck), insurance procurement and settlements (if needed), etc.

Fortunately, there are a few strong prospects in the smaller pickup sizes. The Ranger, if the payload rating is accurate, would be great but the time-frame and cost are just a bit off. There is a Chevy Colorado 4x4 long-bed work truck that seems to fit the bill. The payload is more than adequate even for my most extreme loading scenarios and it gets good gas mileage (BTW, thanks to the "Senior Member" poster that confirmed my findings). No whistle or bells - but not needed. I have a Subie for my daily driver.

Would appreciate any insights others may have about this particular vehicle.

Thanks again. And keep posting. I think this is an important subject.

 

[Optimistic Paranoid]

Forget the 4x4 part....

There are TWO basic concerns at play here.
1) GVWR which means truck, contents, fuel, passengers...the whole enchilada...are you OVER that limit?

2) More to the point here, what is maximum the REAR axle is rated for and when you weighed everything in #1 above and got the GVWR and the front and rear axle weights separately....what was the REAR axle weight?

Interestingly enough, on another forum I'm on, someone just reported the results of weighing his fully loaded truck and camper on a CAT scale.

FAWR = 4550, actual FAW = 4320
RAWR = 6780, actual RAW = 6380
GVWR = 10600, actual GVW = 10700

So he was 100 lbs. OVER his GVWR, but still 200 pounds UNDER his FAWR and 400 lbs. UNDER his RAWR.

 

[ntsqd]

One note about those Fords and their aluminum bodies. A good friend works heavy line at a body shop. We were over at his work a month ago or so aligning a project vehicle of mine and there was a brand new Ford F-150 short bed sitting on stands. He pointed out the small tear in the skin near the tail light. Less than an inch long and the Ins. Co. had to buy a whole new bed! It was not structural and fixable by his shop, but the Ins. Co. wouldn't consider it.

I expect that the Ins. for these trucks will soon cost more than a steel bodied comparable truck if it doesn't already.

 

[kmcintyre]

I think in many ways, the bed is the weakest link. With that in mind, I put 4"x4" plates on top and bottom of my bed when I mounted my FWC. It has to help distribute the stress more, but by how much I have no idea. It's certainly better than a nut/washer combo. though.

 

[Lunch]

First of all, my apologies smlobx for referring to him as "senior member". I can't believe I didn't even see people's monikers. I was looking below the pics and completely missed them.

Anyway, more weight talk...

I am now trying to negotiate a tire swap in the purchase. The stock tires have ample load rating but the load index is SL -- 4 ply equivalent. I want more tire integrity. This is more a tire durability/reliability issue for off-road travel than a weight issue.However, a bigger footprint = decreased pressure, which may improve handling (at the expense of noise and fuel economy - no doubt).

I'll probably also add Firestone or Air Lift (which is better?) air bags. Again, strictly a performance issue, not weight. Since I don't plan on changing the bag pressure much, I was thinking of foregoing the remote. I have to have a compressor onboard for tire adjustments
anyway. Or, can you tap into the air bag compressor and use it for tires too? This is probably addressed elsewhere in another forum, if so, please point me in the right direction.

Thanks.

 

[smlobx]

First of all, my apologies smlobx for referring to him as "senior member". I can't believe I didn't even see people's monikers.....
Thanks.

Around here being a "Senior Member" could be considered a badge of honor!
No problem from me....

 

[jimjxsn]

Lunch,
I have Firestone air bags on my tundra and add air to them with a small bicycle pump, it takes that little. With the tundra, I need very little pressure.

You definitely want load range E tires. And with my light camper, I don't really need to air them up at all.

My 2 cents...

 

[rruff]

Now....the $64,000 Question is: Are you running with excess weight on the REAR axle and how much?

If not then everything is cool...if you are, then by how much is the gamble you take in being able to STOP in an emergency and if the truck will survive a fish-tailing experience from a semi-truck going the other way or you blowing a tire on the rear at freeway speed. Beefing up a suspension is a false sense of security in my book.

I agree that the axle rating is a good thing to look at... but your theory that poor braking and fish-tailing will be the result if its exceeded, doesn't follow from physics or common sense. Those are primarily controlled by the brakes, suspension, and tires. And most of your braking force comes from the front, not the rear. And you'd have to go >2x GVWR before your braking got as bad as a lot of bug trucks and RVs on the road.

A few other things to note...

GVWR is a warranty rating not a safety rating. If your truck with the 10 year bumper to bumper warranty needs new axle bearings, then you may be denied if they suspect you overloaded your truck.

GVWR is based on the soft tires and suspension that come stock on 1/2 ton trucks.

My '86 Toyota truck has the same payload rating as my Tundra. I can guarantee that the Tundra is infinitely better at braking and handling with that load. It isn't close.

Vehicles are designed for worst case scenarios. There is a world of difference in the stress your truck experiences in different situations. They are designed to give a reasonable lifespan while loaded and bombing down crappy washboard, rocky, rutted roads, and occasionally slamming into a ditch or big rock... because enough people who buy trucks drive that way. If you don't drive that way, no reason to expect your truck will break if it's 50lbs over GVWR.

Bottom line is: just use some common sense. Don't exceed GVWR by a stupid amount. Upgrade suspension and tires. Drive like you are in a heavy, high-CG vehicle. Get to know what your limitations are regarding braking and handling, and behave accordingly.

 

[PackRat]

I don't know what pick up truck VIN tags you are looking at, but I looked at my 85 F-150 VIN tag for all kinds of information on weight ratings and lo and behold, it also told me I needed P235/75R XL tires inflated for 35 front/41 rear.

However, my 88 F-25 vin tag calls for LT235/85R 16E tires...so I have to disagree with you when you say the GVWR is based on soft tires and stock suspension on a 1/2 ton truck. The VIN tag is telling you explicitly that you need tires CAPABLE of carrying the weight the truck is designed to handle...and that is all a part of the equation.

I do agree that a being a little over the weight rating of the rear axle isn't a deal killer...as long as you are still under the GVWR.

The problem for those smaller trucks and/or those with a short bed on them is you REALLY put the center of gravity and the heavier part of a non-C/O camper BACK if its hanging off the tailgate.

We can all decide what truck, what size truck, what camper, what size/style camper...but staying CLOSE to the mfgers VIN tag weight restrictions is SMART and SAFER than just jacking up the bed of the truck with the camper on it off the frame.

Reminds me of the phrase...."Never send a boy to do a man's job"....and not enough truck is just that.

Just sayin'....