Payload Stickers?

10% of 1,000,000 miles is still 100k...

Like a few in that thread said, that bearing had been failing for a long time. Plenty of people have had axle bearings fail while never hauling a load, and it's almost always the right one. With bearings like these if the mounting tolerances are off the bearings experience much higher side forces (which they aren't designed for) and they fail. If tolerances are good they last forever if they are kept lubed and clean.

From Jowitt Engineering: "The rear axle is just plain overkill on this truck... along with the rest of the truck. I'd say the weakest part of the axle is the 5 bolt hub. The rear bearing is a dual row ball angular contact. It measures 3.34" OD x 1.92" ID and 1.88" wide. So a 1.47" shaft tapering out to a tad over 1.92". Quite a bit larger than any previous generation big three truck. From what I can gather, the only other truck to use a double row ball is the Dodge with a 2.97" OD x 1.57" ID x 1.57" wide unit. The Ford and Chevy use single row rollers just under 3" OD, shafts of 1.6 - 1.7", bearing width of 1" - 1.19"

 

The million mile Tundra you keep referencing , is there any proof of it actually doing it or just the owners claim that it did it ?
As far as the frames go , how many Tundras on this forum alone that have an accident ( either front end , rear end or side impact ) that end up being totalled due to frame damage ? If the frames were so overbuilt why would they bend like that ? ( this is not a knock on the Tundra as I think any 1/2 ton would be the same ) .

 

Vehicles these days are designed to permanently bend (plastically deform) in a collision, in order to reduce G forces and protect occupants.

 

Read as; vehicle now days are made to crumple under high enough stress... so let's overload it...

 

We have 15 years of data for 2nd gen Tundras. Do they crumple when hauling a load? ... and flying over whoops and jumps in the desert?

 

Limited double cab.

 

These payload stickers are baffling. I've seen DC SR5's with only 10 lbs more than that Limited. No PANO roof, etc.

 

There must be pot of gold and iron hidden somewhere on these trucks that weigh a lot.....

The bottom line is no matter what the trim, model, etc..... I out are not going to see over 1,600 payload. If that even matters to you.

 

They really are. We need to start paying attention to GVWR listed as well. The more-equipped second gens had higher GVWRs…my payload/GVWR is 1270/7200; my neighbor’s 2020 double cab Limited TRD OR is 1300/7100. His truck is identical to mine underneath—same frame, shocks, springs, brakes, axles, wheels, tires, etc. Mine is just a bigger, fatter pig with the crewmax backseat, so I get a 100 lb bump in GVWR.

I wonder how much they’re raising GVWR in order to cushion the payload on various 3rd gens. Lowest 2nd gen GVWR I’ve seen is 7000 lb. so there is a 200 lb range that isn’t accounted for by anything in particular. It really seems they just raise it for trucks that have higher curb weights.

 

I thought the CM standard beds have 7395 or something like that.

 

I believe that is the upcoming hybrid models. They increase payload by 195 pounds to compensate for the 300 lb. Batteries.

 

True. What I've noticed over the years is for safety sake I beef up the rear suspension. For example, the '05 Tundra. I took it onto a 4-lane right away, did a simulated emergency lane change at 60mph. Rear end was difficult to control, wouldn't track with the front.

Solution was Bilstein HD shocks, Hellwig helper springs, Hellwig rear swaybar. Squat was controlled, rear end didn't twitch around yanking the wheel hard left-right simulating a highspeed emergency lane change.

Did the mods change the factory payload? No. Did the mods make the truck safer? Yes. Did the mods put too much stress on the rear axle/bearings, a false sense of security to overload the rear? No, just a matter of enhancing the soft Toyota rear end.

I figure the 3rd Gen has soft rear springs - progressive springs but still on the softer side. For those that are using it for loads I wouldn't hesitate to slap in HD aftermarket rear coils. Sumo and Timbren will have rear bumps out soon, those are really good for rear sway control and load management.

 

A 4x2 dc must be over 1500 or a sr?

 

No pic but I saw one on a dealer lot owned by the sales manager-1510 on a limited crewmax 4x2.

 

Yep, somebody needs to find one of those, because that's where the 1900+ lb claim was made.

 

I posted a pic that showed 1555 on a dc 2wd sr5. A 1940 payload does not exist. Toyota uses payload specs for "comparison sake only" and your Load Carrying Capacity on the sticker is what the truck is rated for, or your "payload".

 

Needs to be an SR; that's the "work truck" model.

I think we've already established that the GVWR is a bit arbitrary. Heck they might have put stiffer springs on the SR.

 

No, the SR is not gonna have any "payload" advantage over an SR5. They have the same specs, gvwr and curb weight.

 

I'm surprised they would have the same curb weight.

 

Ladies and Gents, we have a winner!!

 

I think you’re right, but the other moving target is GVWR. Toyota apparently exercises some leeway with their GVWR ratings as we’ve seen on this thread. If a truck exists that has the highest GVWR that they’ll allow on the 3rd gen while also being minimally optioned and having the lowest curb weight, maybe it could get there? But with all we’ve seen so far, it really doesn’t seem that way. In fact, it seems that Toyota bumps GVWR up to help the payload rating on the better-optioned (read: higher curb weight) trucks.

 

Above is correct with the leeway on gvwr and is the reason the 2wd dc sr5 longbed has a higher load carrying capacity than a shortbed by 30-40ish pounds. The longbed even has the big tank standard.

 

So it seems Toyota is just stick default payload stickers on the trucks and not actually applying stickers for the actual truck in that configuration?



So here is a Limited Crew 2x4 at 1420 lbs just like the manual says:


Limited Double cab 4x4 at 1490, just like the manual says:



SR5 Double cab 2x4 at 1555. Yup, same as the manual:



SR5 Double Cab 4x4. 1500, just like that manual:



These are all the pictures from this thread. And they are lock step with the numbers posted in the manual. I really wonder if people went and weighed their trucks they would find out they have more payload than they think. These can't be right. The door sticker on the SR5 DC 2x4 shows 7035 lb GVWR, but it has a payload of 1555. That would suggest the truck weighs 5445 lbs.

 

Andre's door sticker from TFL Truck. 4x4 Limited Crewmax:



1400, just like the manual.

 

My point is, the door stickers are BS. If you don't bring the truck to a CatScale than the door sticker might be selling the truck short by several hundred lbs.

 

Y'all, I'd pull back on the assumption that the trucks have higher payload than the door jamb. The door jamb sticker is gospel, unless you can get Toyota to change it out for you, that's the official payload, like it or not. The second yellow sticker is how Toyota adjusts the payload on the primary sticker. It seems every yellow sticker is zero or negative value, haven't seen one yet that adds capacity.

And we still haven't been explained the payload disparity yet...

 

Payload = GVWR - Vehicle Curb Weight with full fluids (oil, coolant, full tank of gas)

 

Not according to Toyotas fine print, payload is "for comparison only". The LCC is the "Gospel". The longbed 2wd has a higher LCC because of more games with GCWR...

 

Gospel to who... and for what?! There is no legal basis or requirement where the owner is concerned. If you are actually talking about the Brotherhood of Evangelic Fundamentalist Payload Stickerists ... then... ok. I guess you can make up the rules as you like.

 

Thank you for this information. Does the manual decipher the various model codes?