Can I tow this?

So this point has always puzzled me a little bit. HD pickups weigh about 7k lbs, but can pull 20k lbs. Thats almost 3x the vehicle weight. A 5400 lb tundra pulling 10k lbs is less than 2x the weight. I realize Chas is, brakes, blah blah blah (not ignoring it, just putting it aside to focus on the point), but we are saying that 1500 lbs on the tow vehicle makes a 10,000 lb towing difference with a 100% trailer to truck ratio increase better? Then look at the new F350 SRW HO Diesel that is rated at 25k conventional trailer towing. That’s an even higher trailer to weight ratio. Yup, opening another can of worms. But that point never made a lot of sense to me except as a rule of thumb. Even still, most half tons since the late 90’s/early 2000’s were rated to pull more than the vehicle weight.

Yes, I have pulled enclosed trailers and camp trailers in heavy crosswinds. The enclosed trailer was a little bit to manage fully loaded. It was a pain unloaded. The weight helped.

 

The answer is all in there - as you pointed out, HD trucks can pull double what a half ton can but as the weight increases with those big trailers most times you don’t have any more wind surface area than what we’re discussing here so the trailers become more stable and less susceptible to wind forces. Also as you pointed out, trailers that weigh half as much and tend to get blown around a lot more so now you have a huge wind surface and relatively light trailer, like here, - mass of your tow vehicle is your friend. 1,500 pounds additional curb weight might not sound like a ton but it’s about 30% not to mention the HD trucks have bigger body profiles to lessen the drag effect of those big trailers.

 

And everyone loves to talk about what got pulled with old trucks - those trucks had 200 hp and a life expectancy of 80,000 miles. You’d be lucky to hit 55mph towing on flat ground - flying 80mph through mountain grades wasn’t a thing.

 

Just catching up on this thread.

I tow a trailer just under 30 feet. 5700 dry, around 7000 loaded up. I can’t even comprehend how much nope it would be to tow that trailer.

Absolutely no.

 

How far and what kind of terrain?

 

Can you and should you are two different things...

That is a very long trailer for such a short wheelbase and while you may find yourself under GVWR, I find it hard to believe that you'd be under payload rating. The truck will pull it, but stopping it and keeping it stable under adverse conditions is where you're going to experience deficiencies and possibly dangerous conditions. You have no control of those around you on the road, and you have no control over other factors such as weather, road conditions/hazards, and a peaceful towing experience can turn critical in the blink of an eye.

If you're wanting to tow something that large, I'd look toward a 3/4 ton or a 1 ton truck w/long wheel base.

Good luck

 

Toyota feels confident to conservatively rate the chassis for 16k gross, but our rules of thumb based off of outdated 1/2 ton platforms derate that even further to what we feel comfortable with. Those rules of thumb are always followed by comparing a near 20 year old tundra platform to a brand new 1 ton platform. So we cite the rigid paper rules on the door placard and owners manual to every guy that posts ‘can I tow it’ in a thread, and tell him to get a new truck.

Then the one guy that shows up with the unicorn truck that is actual has the right door sticker and line in the owners manual rated to pull a big trailer and we cite rules of thumb and tell him no way.

So which is it - follow the paper rules? Or follow the imaginary feelings rules of thumb?

I realize the trailer is at the top of the towing and payload range - but Toyota says it’s within range. So what’s the hold up? People aren’t comfortable following the guidelines? Or people aren’t comfortable realizing new guidelines that aren’t 50 years old?

As a single (yep, worthless, I know) point of comparison, my last truck was chevy 3/4 ton camper special one generation older than the tundra. It was a great truck; pulled great, towed great, rode ok, turning radius sucked, fuel economy was abysmal, tech - what’s that?? The “1/2 ton” tundra blows it out of the water - both on paper (more towing capacity, bigger parts - more on that below) and subjectively (more stable pull, more comfortable with or without weight, better fuel economy, more power, etc etc). That’s only one generation older than the tundra.

As points of discussion (really not trying to be argumentative but have a legitimate conversation about the capability of newer trucks) the hard parts on the tundra compare almost identically to 3/4 ton pickups of the same generation. I’ve had in depth discussions with driveline specialists, mechanics, parts slingers, etc that have worked on all makes and models for years. Every single one of them without fail have looked at bearings, brakes, axles, axles shafts, transmission hard parts, radiators, etc on the tundra and compared them to 3/4 ton parts. Axle bearings - same size as a 3/4 ton. Brakes - bigger and more pistons than most 3/4 tons of the age. Ring and pinion and axle shafts - same or bigger than 3/4 tons and some one tons. Frame - beefier in some spots than some 3/4 tons. All this to say that on paper, they all compared the chassis to a 3/4 ton. Compared to my last 3/4 ton, they are all bigger on the tundra.

As far as trailer size in concerned, frontal area is something that needs attention. Midsize trucks and smaller SUV’s typically come with a note about maximum frontal area for the tow rating assigned. Frontal area is about horsepower. Horsepower is about cooling. You can make the horsepower to pull a trailer but need the proper cooling to continue make that power safely. I won’t argue that. Toyota set no limitations on frontal area (within reason for typical road going trailers) at the maximum rating towing. That says they aren’t concerned about proper cooling. I may be misremembering, but I recall a member reaching out to Toyota about this exact issue and their response was as posted above - max towing does not change with frontal area. (I recall that response being posted in a thread about Ford ecoboost trucks coming with a note in the manual about the tow rating being derated by elevation and frontal area of the trailer).

But we were talking about trailer length earlier, not frontal area, being the concern. While trailer length can also be a concern in certain circumstances (again, not arguing that), it can be a help in many other areas such as stability and sway damping. For example, as that crosswind hits the trailer side the heavier trailer puts more force on the tires which creates more traction which resists the trailer moving to the side. The heavier trailer has heavier duty tires with stiffer sidewalls that also resist the movement. When taking about sway, a longer trailer creates a greater moment around the axles so so it takes more force and time to get the tip or stern of the trailer to move sideways and start oscillating to induce sway. This dampens the the sway and gives any sway device more time to dampen the oscillation. Short trailers are always squirly compared to a big trailer - empty or loaded.

We seem to write the rules of trailer length with our feelings instead of data. It may be based off the same outdated 1/2 ton rules, as a longer trailer typically makes for a heavier trailer. I have not seen any published data or limits by Toyota about limiting trailer length, just rules of thumb.

What I’m saying is - are we concerned with following the published limits of the truck? Or turning our own rules of thumb into moral taboos that must be adhered to by all? Are we recommending he not buy the trailer because it’s out of spec on paper? Or because we write our own rules and want everybody else to follow them? It appears he is asking the same question.

 

Everything I say is my opinion based off my experience driving and towing with 1/2 ton through 1 1/2 ton trucks personally and commercially for 25 years. That’s all.

Gassers, diesels, flatbeds, lift gates, even a boom truck or two.

And the Tundra axles are not a full float design so they will bend under extreme loads and eat bearings the remainder of its days - not something you’ll find on a HD truck that has twice the rating.

 

This is inaccurate. Unless there is nothing but a skinny driver in the truck it will be over payload, and that's only if the trailer sticker isn't complete BS on the hitch weight. If that's dry hitch and you need to add battery, propane, and anything you put in the trailer you're outside the limits. Plus you'd need a WDH that will eat more of the payload that's already been smoked.

It will be over on paper. Period.

 

I say no. 38’ is too long. I pull heavy everyday but I would not pull a camper that size with a tundra. Would be stressful and unsafe and would Toss the truck around.

 

Speculatively…

That’s my point. Towing threads are always speculative. Weighing my trailer on a scale put the trailer weight and tongue weight almost dead on published specs WITH two batteries, full propane, and a few basics under the front bed. So tongue weight may be BS. Or it might be accurate.

 

Well we dont have scale info or a list of what is or is not on/in the truck. It's impossible to know for certain but the odds slant heavily in one direction, so it's Russian roulette with 5 live rounds.

Difference here is that the gun is not just aimed at you, but potentially everyone else on the road. Do you pull that trigger and hope for the best, or do you play the odds and try to take a couple rounds out of the cylinder?

 

I value your opinion. Please don’t think that don’t.

I don’t disagree about the tundra axle not being a full float. It’s not as much as I wish it was (though I know a company that can make that happen…). Neither was my 3/4 camper special with the 9.5” 12 bolt semi floater. That axle was rated for 6xxx lbs with a much lighter construction judging by the calipers. More evidence of the conservative rating from Toyota.

But it’s a long way to go for the OP’s truck to reach the axle weight rating. Maybe if he didn’t use a WD hitch it would be easier with the weight transfer from the front axle. I have to put more than a full payload worth of gear in my bed THEN add the camp traile to get over axle rating, per the scale ticket.

So again, on paper - as that’s what we are armchair quarterbacking here - it would be hard for the OP to exceed that rating with a properly setup WD hitch.

 

But not hard to exceed payload. So, if we're sticking to paper, you need to stay compliant on all the ratings.

Payload accounts for more than just structural weight bearing capability. It's the cooling, handling, stop and start, and most importantly, IMO, emergency braking. Fine, say the axle can carry xxxx pounds, but if the truck as a whole falls short in any other aspect of the payload rating, does that matter?

 

More like The Price Is Right - closest without going over Russian roulette, some does gonna die at the end; price is right and the worst thing is that everybody is wrong.

As for the argument of exceeding payload… what are the actual odds of it resulting in death? No, really. I’m asking legitimately for data. Compared to speeding, going 10 mph under in the fast lane, playing ok your phone, eating a ham sammich, or coughing while driving, what are the actual odds? Statistically? I think we make that line payload number/towing number into a 10,000 ft cliff rather than a pebble in the shoe.

 

I think payload is important. But it’s also just a part of the overall equation for GCVW, which is a better rating of a chassis’ abilities. Payload on a Honda ridgeline is on par with or sometimes higher than the tundras. I believe your Tacoma is as well. But the ridgelike is limited to 1000 lbs in the bed and towing isn’t even close (meaning GCVW) to the tundras. The GCVW shows that the tundra is much better at handling that payload than the ridge line, and that the payload isn’t the limiting factor for the chassis, making it less important than axle ratings and GCVW from whence we derive tow capacity.

 

Odds of death are low. Odds of excess wear/stress that can result in premature failure of a multitude of components? You tell me.

You're making an argument to push to the absolute limit and saying "but did you die?" As thought lack of fatality disproves the lack of wisdom in the decision.

People do lots of stupid stuff all the time with no ill affects. It's totally fine... right up until it isn't. Then it's a problem. The low odds of it being fatal aren't much comfort to the dead people. Hell, they're not much comfort to people that broke their rigs being over payload.

 

Assumptions. No offense, but I'll take Toyota's engineering advice on this one. They say do not exceed X, Y, or Z. They do not say you can exceed Y so long as you don't exceed X or Z.

This discussion is pointless. You won't listen to me because I'm just words on a screen.

Go ask Toyota. If they tell you that your assumption is correct, bring that here in writing and tell OP to go for it. Until you get it officially from Toyota, then the current official word of the actual designers, builders, and testers trumps anything you think is more important or assume to be true.

 

I’m not making the argument for death; I believe that was the Russian Roulette comparison made earlier. But I am discussing it now that it has been brought up and was asking how likely death is to occur if your truck is loaded 1 lb over play load to illustrate a point.

As for pushing the absolute limit, I’m only talking about the guidelines imposed by the automaker themselves, not grossly exceeding them, with “proof” that nobody suffered an ignominious death as my evidence of correctness. I realize that not all drivers are confident pulling a large trailer, and that automakers don’t have the best track record for honesty in published numbers. But we have to remember that Toyota was the first to adhere to the J-sumthin-sumthin towing standard, and they did it with the Gen 2 tundra platform with zero modifications, while all other automakers made changes to their platforms - even introducing completely new platforms - just to compete with Toyota.

If you (the colloquial you) are uncomfortable towing a trailer that size, then don’t. That should be pretty simple. If it’s within spec and you are well equipped with experience and understanding, it’s no more risky than driving next to some ding ding playing with the radio dial, IMO. (again, no statistical evidence on the towing aspect, but plenty on distracted driving).

 

You must be misunderstanding me. I’m taking about Toyotas recommendations (EDIT - including payload limitations; I was making a point about stressing payload above all, as looking at payload alone shows a ridge line and sibling Odyssey van to be better tow rigs than the tundra platform), not what I think the truck can do. (You would definitely disagree with me on that one). I’m trying to keep the discussion within the scope of what Toyota says the truck can do.

I’m pointing out the assumptions made by others based on guesses and rules of thumbs. The door placard and GCVW of the OP’s says he can be within Toyotas guidelines. Assuming he is packing everything including the kitchen sink is no more accurate than me assuming he only packed a change of flip flops. The data he supplied us with (door placard, 500 lbs cargo, trailer weights) are the only semi-reliable data we have to base our assumptions on. Based on those numbers, he can very reasonably be within spec on the truck/trailer combo.

It goes without saying that a scale ticket is the best/only way to know for sure. But we would have to wait for that. So for now, armchair quarterbacking is the best we can do.

 

Love like jumping on a bicycle with the seat missing?

 

That sounds like a weird fetish, Pete… Ewww.

 

This is the bottom line to the majority of what's being argued back and forth here

OP already knows it's too much trailer for his rig, otherwise he never would've posted the question. If he was comfortable towing this particular trailer w/his rig, he'd just do it. Instead he's looking for someone to validate a potentially unwise decision.

 

This is where we disagree. He has a very narrow margin within which he might be within spec. Is it possible, sure, but I don't think it is very likely.

If you'd get $10,000 for being correct, but if you're wrong your wife/child is going to be thrown down a flight of stairs, and had to place a bet based on the current info as to whether or not OP would be fully within spec when loading that trailer up for a trip; what bet would you place? Over or under payload?

 

Sorry. I usually try to avoid them, but it's too damn hot to sleep and I'm mad that tomorrow's gonna be a low sleep day as a result.

 

You must watch weird game shows.. such dire odds. Drama. I only gamble with Swedish Fish.

I would agree that he could be overweight as much as he could be underweight. Absolutely.

 

It's easy to gamble when there's nothing to lose.