Tundra payload and tow rating

I have a 2014 Tundra TRD 4.6 Double cab 4x4.
I was comparing the tow rating and payload with a 2014 Tacoma Access Cab 4x4 and the ratings were nearly identical except the Tacoma had MORE on the payload; Tundra 1320lbs and the Tacoma 1395lbs.
Can someone please explain why the V8 Tundra is rated so poorly?
The 2010 Ford Range beats the Tundra in both categories.
So disappointed in the rated capability of my Tundra.

 

I can't answer your question but I did a real quick google search on 2023 ranger vs F150 for payload.

Ranger ranges from 1609-1905
F150 ranges from 1310-2238

In 2023, you can still get a brand new ranger with higher payload than a brand new F150.

Obviously I didn't dig into models trims etc.


So a Tacoma having higher payload than a Tundra is not insanity.

 

Class GVWR - vehicle weight = payload

 

Tundras are big fat heavy pigs thats why.

 

As far as the Ranger having a higher payload than the F150 only re-enforces the insanity. It doesn't explain it. Also....I'm sure the tow rating for the F150 far exceeds that of the Ranger.
I understand the math of how they get the payload rating..... I just don't agree with it. People buy full size trucks because they are marketed as more capable than mid-size trucks even though you sacrifice some (not much) on the mpg. Too add insult to injury... The Ford Maverick has a payload of 1500lbs.

 

Full size trucks are more capable than mid-size. Payload though isn't necessarily one of those higher capabilities. Size, power, comfort, cargo capacity etc are all higher capabilities.

You want more payload, you need more truck. Enter in the room the 3/4 and 1 ton's.

 

What’s the point of having payload, when I can’t even merge on freeway with a safe speed.

 

I feel like even with 2k in weight in the bed, these trucks (talking 5.7's here) have enough power to get up and move on the on ramp. Now load up a 3rd gen tacoma with 1600lbs, that's a different story. She'd be screaming and hunting 15 different gears.

 

Big fat heavy sexy pigs... you forgot sexy.




There's no shortage of people on the RV forum I belong to who bought their trailer because the specs said their Tacoma could tow it, which it did.... some for a season, some for only 2 or 3 camping trips.

Then they traded the perfectly good Taco in on a Tundra, 'cuz Tacoma and driver were working their asses off the whole time.

Specs on paper are one thing, real world is often another.

 

You have to go HD if you want/need heavier payload. I love my Tundra but its really a light duty truck. My RV is an 24’ ultralight at close to 5,000 lbs. That’s about max by the time I load the family, canoe, kayak, and a little firewood. Pretty lame.

 

The 1/2 ton market in general (I have a 2014 too) is only able to carry extra window tint, running boards, maybe a topper, and addl window stickers before you add 5 adults and full tank of gas and you are over payload.

As others have said, 3/4 tons are where it starts to get real.

When I see Tundras with big steel bumpers, lift, wheels, rock sliders, and the yeti cooler I know most of the payload has taken a hit before luggage, passengers and the 8K travel trailer gets connected. But lots of people do it that way.

 

People seem to conflate "full size" and heavy duty without bothering to read or research. A 1/2 ton is a light duty truck, same as a mid size. The 1/2 ton just tows better. If people want to haul a couch, fridge, and cab full of people while towing a 40' travel trailer then they need to buy an HD truck instead of assuming "full size mean truck do everything." It's not the manufacturer making assumptions or promises that disappoints the customer, it's the customer's uneducated assumptions that does it.

As for why the Tundra is rated so low on payload; it's got an open frame and narrow leaf springs. Neither is great for supporting heavy loads or maintaining rigidity.

 

Not the 3rd Gen

 

True, but that has nothing to do with the OP's question.

 

This. This is the answer.

 

No, that's the math. It doesn't answer the OP's question, because he is asking why it is design with a low payload, not how to calculate payload.

 

That’s why I didn’t quote the OP

 

Ok, fine. Your comment has nothing to do with my comment that you did quote. Nobody was talking about the 3rd gen, so what it does or doesn't have isn't relevant to the conversation.

 

Chill. Wasn’t meant to be this serious.

 

Sorry. My social battery is low so I'm not taking stuff the best. I'll see myself out.

 

Math is the answer to OP’s question.

It’s not “designed to have a low payload.” That’s a bit of a ridiculous statement.

It’s a product designed to fit into a weight category at a certain price point with the highest margin possible. The side effect is a low payload.

Say your GVWR weight envelope is 8k lbs. A base model, shortbed, shortcab, 2wd, manual trans base model truck with has a high payload because it’s got no extra features tk add weight. Now extend the frame to accommodate a large backseat, add the doors and bracing and crash protection. Now add 4wd. Throw in some beefier tires and off road shocks. Add some running boards and a sunroof. Add all the power motors and associated wiring. You’re adding a lot of weight here that’s closing in in your gvwr envelope. Of course you also have pricing concerns in your market segment and materials costs to worry about. Can you combat some of this weight gain? Sure, build the entire truck out of titanium and carbon fiber. Would anyone buy it at what it would cost to build? I doubt it, especially not for payload. They would simply buy a bigger truck designed with a larger 3/4 ton or 1 ton gvwr envelope.

let’s not forget that larger gvwr requires heavier axles, bigger brakes, etc. These things cost money.

So I would argue that it’s 100% a math problem, Several of them in fact. Market research says payload isn’t as important as price. Toyotas research says these are the features people want and the brand stands on reliability so here’s the product we deliver based on the math.

 

We’re all good

 

That is the answer for the OP. The math is not.

 

I don't see it as the Tacoma (or the Rager) is designed to haul more than the Tundra. The Taco is designed to haul 5600 lbs. That's its GVWR. The Tundra is designed to haul 7200 lbs. However, in the Tundra's case, the curb weight of the truck itself is a greater proportion of the GVWR, leading to a lower payload number.