Is all up weight of 9500 lbs. too much for Tundra 5.7L?

[RVer_Andy]

Have a 2013 Tundra 5.7L w/ tow package and SR5 package. Looking at used Travel Trailer with dry weight of 8400lbs. (2006 Rorest River "Sandpiper" 34 ft.) Just totally guessing about an extra 900 lbs of carry-on maybe??

Anybody doing this kind of weight with this truck? What are your experiences? Had any problems due to too much weight? Tranny or other problems? What about mountains east and west? How does the truck handle with this kind of load? Any modifications ie upgrades etc.?

I would like to carry a Honda 2000 Watt genny in the bed of the truck along with portable BBQ grill, chairs, and miscellaneous tools.

Any experience with this particular travel trailer?

I've done the motor home thing for a short while but totally new to travel trailers.

Thank you.

[Perrysburg_Dodg]

64thunderbolt wrote:
almost all the tow behinds I see wheels up are towed by half tons & SUV's. That should tell you something.

tail waggin the dog

X2

[64thunderbolt]

almost all the tow behinds I see wheels up are towed by half tons & SUV's. That should tell you something.

tail waggin the dog

[bmanning]

rhagfo wrote:

bmanning wrote:
I for one think it's cool that, in a sense, Ford offers 2 three-quarter-ton options to the market.

Imagine you needed a 3/4 ton, liked Ford, but for whatever reason hated the styling or something about the Super Duties.

Voila, enter the F150HD with Max Tow & HD payload pkgs.

It wouldn't be necessary per se for GM or Ram to follow suit, as the body style, ergonomics, etc. remain consistent between 1500 and 2500/3500 series trucks.

No mater the payload and max GCVWR an F150 is no F250!
Lighter frame, smaller brakes, lighter drive train. How do you think they get large payloads with lower GVWR? It almost takes an engineer to read and decipher the tow rating tables.

The biggest difference is the basic strength of the load carrying rear axle! With a few exceptions the rear axle is a semi floating (car like) axle. This design the the axles shaft performs two functions it spins the tire, and supports the weight on it. This is a single small bearing ridding on the axles it's self.

On 3/4 ton and up (again with a few exceptions)use full floating rear axles. This is where the axle shafts only job is to spin the wheel. The weight is supported by TWO large bearings supported by the axle housing, a much stronger design.

Now put a 35' to 38' TT behind a light F150 and the first semi or gust of wind and you can have quite a hand full.

That and the fact that about 75% of people only look at the dry weight of the trailer, and not the GVWR of the trailer, some time a 2K to 3K difference!

Agree 100%; I was speaking very "broadly" in terms of the F150 being a true 3/4 ton. No question the F250 is a more serious platform.

[rhagfo]

bmanning wrote:
I for one think it's cool that, in a sense, Ford offers 2 three-quarter-ton options to the market.

Imagine you needed a 3/4 ton, liked Ford, but for whatever reason hated the styling or something about the Super Duties.

Voila, enter the F150HD with Max Tow & HD payload pkgs.

It wouldn't be necessary per se for GM or Ram to follow suit, as the body style, ergonomics, etc. remain consistent between 1500 and 2500/3500 series trucks.

No mater the payload and max GCVWR an F150 is no F250!
Lighter frame, smaller brakes, lighter drive train. How do you think they get large payloads with lower GVWR? It almost takes an engineer to read and decipher the tow rating tables.

The biggest difference is the basic strength of the load carrying rear axle! With a few exceptions the rear axle is a semi floating (car like) axle. This design the the axles shaft performs two functions it spins the tire, and supports the weight on it. This is a single small bearing ridding on the axles it's self.

On 3/4 ton and up (again with a few exceptions)use full floating rear axles. This is where the axle shafts only job is to spin the wheel. The weight is supported by TWO large bearings supported by the axle housing, a much stronger design.

Now put a 35' to 38' TT behind a light F150 and the first semi or gust of wind and you can have quite a hand full.

That and the fact that about 75% of people only look at the dry weight of the trailer, and not the GVWR of the trailer, some time a 2K to 3K difference!

[bimbert84]

BenK wrote:

Used to say just call and refer to them via their GVWR's but not many understand that

But know won't fly, as folks like the terms: "max tow", 'HD', etc vs the only real way to know whatch-a-got with GVWR's...guess just not sexy enough using techie vs marketing...

Good point, Ben. I think people use these terms because those are the packages you have to get in order to achieve the GVWR.


On edit: I deleted the rest of this post because it was addressing the wrong thread.


-- Rob

[Gdetrailer]

Turtle n Peeps wrote:

Gdetrailer wrote:

Hybridhunter wrote:
He did mention he only gets that mileage drafting a semi, which still seems to be a stretch, but whatever.
Why do so many posters get so hyper at the idea of 10% tongue weight? Lots of folks saying "that's unsafe"? 10% is a nice balance of rear axle loading and stability in my experience, no lower though. I've been towing for 15 years, and from the reading I've done, 10-12% is perfect. (only if it tows well though).
As for having to crank up the friction to keep a lid on sway, that's just kooky talk.

And for the OP, there's a reason Toyota gives those ratings, and even if you think it's underated, that's just a guess. There are HD half tons that will handle that trailer no problem, but Toyota doesn't offer one. My experience with my last Toyota truck, was I killed 3 sets of rear gears running it hard at GVWR, so Toyota's are not inherently any tougher than American iron.

I would bet that if YOU changed from 10%-12% TW to 13%-15% you WILL find that the trailer BEHAVES even better than 10%. That IS a fact.

What you (and many others) fail to notice is that is a STATIC weight as in stationary. Once towing that weight IS shifting up and down as the vehicle and trailer are bouncing down the road. If you run 10% while stationary you end up with a TW GOING BELOW the 10% as you drive. That is one of the reasons as to why folks get their shorts in a knot about it.

To make things even more confusing is something called "center of gravity" this ALSO shifts front to back, to much shifting to the back and the whole rig gets unstable.

If you have ever played with fork lifts or tractors with front loaders you become keenly aware of center of gravity. #1 rule is to ALWAYS move with the LOAD as close to the floor as possible.

Why?

Well, as the load goes up in the air, so does the center of gravity. Once the center of gravity goes up, the whole rig gets unstable. Once unstable driving on uneven, unlevel ground the LOAD makes the whole unit tippy.

Keeping MORE than 10% TW helps to KEEP the center of gravity FORWARD of the axles basically keeping the unit as a whole much more stable.

^^^^^^^ This should be a sticky in the TT forums. 🙂

(Let me guess: You either race, are an engineer, or you've towed and setup trailers a hellofalot?)

A few years back I was actually planning and designing to build a new TT from scratch. Did a lot of research on proper trailer design, learned a lot.

Just before I got the chance to get the frame built (I found a local trailer builder/shop that would make the frame and title it for me) I came across a good deal on a old trailer which was the length I wanted.

Bought the trailer and gutted inside and out and built it the way I wanted it to be. My research came in handy to ensure I didn't mess up the overall balance of the trailer.

[APT]

🙂

The 2051 is from my 7-passenger Suburban, not a Tundra. Just an example of what the "payload sticker" looks like.

[Ric_Flair]

APT wrote:
6k dry, dude.

Start by opening your drivers door and locate this sticker. Note what your truck has where mine says 2051:



Your number has to support trailer TW, family, and cargo (firewood, generator, bikes, etc.).

How do you get 5 people in the back of a Tundra? Are they counting the bed?

[bmanning]

I for one think it's cool that, in a sense, Ford offers 2 three-quarter-ton options to the market.

Imagine you needed a 3/4 ton, liked Ford, but for whatever reason hated the styling or something about the Super Duties.

Voila, enter the F150HD with Max Tow & HD payload pkgs.

It wouldn't be necessary per se for GM or Ram to follow suit, as the body style, ergonomics, etc. remain consistent between 1500 and 2500/3500 series trucks.

[BenK]

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:

Hybridhunter wrote:


An F150 HD has double the payload, and 2K more towing.
Payload numbers that mimic a ram 5.7 2500 Laramie Longhorn actually...

And that would be my point, at what time do you stop calling it a 150/1/2 ton truck. Those numbers are 3/4 ton truck numbers not 1/2 ton numbers. They (F-150) cost the same as the 3/4 tons also, like I said whatever trips the ole trigger.

Don

Used to say just call and refer to them via their GVWR's but not many understand that

Now say just call them all 'half ton' TV's (pickups, SUV's, etc) and then use
their GVWR's are model badges

That way, the majority of the TV herd that only wants a 'half ton' can get
their way and then the confusion of 'which half ton' becomes academic with
the inclusion of GVWR's...

But know won't fly, as folks like the terms: "max tow", 'HD', etc vs the
only real way to know whatch-a-got with GVWR's...guess just not sexy enough
using techie vs marketing...

[Turtle_n_Peeps]

Gdetrailer wrote:

Hybridhunter wrote:
He did mention he only gets that mileage drafting a semi, which still seems to be a stretch, but whatever.
Why do so many posters get so hyper at the idea of 10% tongue weight? Lots of folks saying "that's unsafe"? 10% is a nice balance of rear axle loading and stability in my experience, no lower though. I've been towing for 15 years, and from the reading I've done, 10-12% is perfect. (only if it tows well though).
As for having to crank up the friction to keep a lid on sway, that's just kooky talk.

And for the OP, there's a reason Toyota gives those ratings, and even if you think it's underated, that's just a guess. There are HD half tons that will handle that trailer no problem, but Toyota doesn't offer one. My experience with my last Toyota truck, was I killed 3 sets of rear gears running it hard at GVWR, so Toyota's are not inherently any tougher than American iron.

I would bet that if YOU changed from 10%-12% TW to 13%-15% you WILL find that the trailer BEHAVES even better than 10%. That IS a fact.

What you (and many others) fail to notice is that is a STATIC weight as in stationary. Once towing that weight IS shifting up and down as the vehicle and trailer are bouncing down the road. If you run 10% while stationary you end up with a TW GOING BELOW the 10% as you drive. That is one of the reasons as to why folks get their shorts in a knot about it.

To make things even more confusing is something called "center of gravity" this ALSO shifts front to back, to much shifting to the back and the whole rig gets unstable.

If you have ever played with fork lifts or tractors with front loaders you become keenly aware of center of gravity. #1 rule is to ALWAYS move with the LOAD as close to the floor as possible.

Why?

Well, as the load goes up in the air, so does the center of gravity. Once the center of gravity goes up, the whole rig gets unstable. Once unstable driving on uneven, unlevel ground the LOAD makes the whole unit tippy.

Keeping MORE than 10% TW helps to KEEP the center of gravity FORWARD of the axles basically keeping the unit as a whole much more stable.

^^^^^^^ This should be a sticky in the TT forums. 🙂

(Let me guess: You either race, are an engineer, or you've towed and setup trailers a hellofalot?)

[Perrysburg_Dodg]

Hybridhunter wrote:


An F150 HD has double the payload, and 2K more towing.
Payload numbers that mimic a ram 5.7 2500 Laramie Longhorn actually...

And that would be my point, at what time do you stop calling it a 150/1/2 ton truck. Those numbers are 3/4 ton truck numbers not 1/2 ton numbers. They (F-150) cost the same as the 3/4 tons also, like I said whatever trips the ole trigger.

Don

[fivecodys]

I wouldn't do it.
It's just too heavy...plain and simple.
I pull about 7,200 pounds with 1,200 lbs on pin weight (cargo weight)
Yes the truck has the power and a very good tranny....but you will more than likely over your gross axle weight rating. (GAWR)

It won't be a comfortable experience.

If you are commited to getting this new rig then go get the appropriate truck to pull it. you will not be sorry you did.

BTW...I am looking at 3/4 and 1 ton trucks myself.
Love the Tundra. 70,000 miles trouble free.
Best gas mileage so far towing was 10 mpg. I average about 9 mpg.

You have done the right thing by coming here and asking.
You now have to decide if you are going to listen to the advice given.

Have fun.

Bill

[Hybridhunter]

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:


Not sure what Hybridhunter means by this statement "As for having to crank up the friction to keep a lid on sway, that's just kooky talk." well cranking or tightening the bars is exactly how you use a sway bar system.

I was saying it should go straight without the friction cranked, and that the sway control is a net, not a crutch, that's all.

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:


Not sure why everyone thinks his set up so bad but the guys towing the same or heavier trailers with a F-150 supper-duper heavy duty extra payload want-to-be 250 pickup get told they are just fine. Whatever trips your trigger.

Don

An F150 HD has double the payload, and 2K more towing.
Payload numbers that mimic a ram 5.7 2500 Laramie Longhorn actually...