What is a 3/4 ton pickup?

[Geewizard]

Since we all drive campers with pickups underneath, I suspect many will have an opinion to this question: just what constitutes a 3/4 ton pickup? Axle capacity? frame strength? brakes? GVWR? Payload? Hearsay? Common knowledge? The grocery store checkout person?

I ask because my Tundra has a payload of 1600-1800 lbs (depending on what you read). That makes it a 3/4 ton pickup in my mind. I've been hauling 1600 lbs at least once a week since I bought mine new. And there's no issues (other than one wheel bearing self-destructing at 89k).

This is a serious question, not a post to incite a riot.

thanks

[Geewizard]

jefe 4x4 wrote:
Geewiz,
Good to see your stats. Toys keep getting better and better in the GVWR department.
Back in the day, we drove Toyota Land Cruisers: an 1966 FJ40 ragtop w/factory pto winch about 90K miles. Bad brakes, bad carb, no PS or PB. No low gears. 3:1 1st gear/2:1 t.case. 4.10's. The saving grace was the 5000 pound rated rear end way before Dana 44'a and Dana 60's were common in jeep type rigs. I think in the full-size LC's now they are still using a variant on that axle, patterned after the legendary Ford 9" with that all important extra pinion bearing and banjo pig.
The second was a 1970 FJ55. We now had two kids and this was our dream 4x4 RV. It had a Chevy 307 V8, Hone OD, Power loc rr. diff/4.10's, 11-15 True Tracs, 3" spring lift, Warn 8K winch, we added PS, PB. 53 Gallon gas tank, ConFer Toyota spec all metal Jeep trailer that held 4 gas cans and was water proof and airtight. We also added a 'tent-boot' built by a sail maker that snapped on the hole left by lowering the tailgate. Looked like the back end of a stage coach! We could sleep 2 consenting adults and two wee ones in there with a modicum of comfort.We owned this one 14 years and 160K miles. Great machine. Their rust preventative in that era was not good. By 1980 the body was rusting out badly.
I'm glad to see Toyota is still at it.
While I'm here, I might as well tell my 'Toyota', that's "Mister Toyota-san" to you story. 1969 was my first year playing bass trombone in the L.A. Phil and we were on a 3 week concert tour of Japan. The 'band' got to Nagoya and the bus from the airport passed a huge sprawling complex that was the Toyota plant. When we got to the hotel, I asked the consierge to call Toyota and see if I could get an appointment to talk to the head man about my thoughts on their 3-on-the-tree transmission and 2:1 t. case used in Land Cruisers. Hell, i was 24 yrs old and had nothing to lose. By some miracle, the consierge set me up with a meeting the next day, at the plant. When I got there i was escorted into a holding room with tiny kimono clad ladies offering me tea and rice cookies. Some time passed and I was escorted in to see the HEAD MAN at Toyota. I think at that time it WAS Mr. Toyota! In his huge office, there were assistants bubbling around and one was an interpreter. I gulped, and put forth my complaint about not low enough gears and they really needed a H.D. four speed for the L.C. Everyone was very polite and bowed constantly (i got into that too) and in a few minutes it was over. I felt pretty sheepish when i took a cab back to the hotel thinking they must have thought i was crazy American. There was no chance any of that discussion was going to amount to anything. I knew that. However, a couple years after that, the land cruisers were starting to be equipped with 4 speeds with a 4:1, 1st gear and lower t. case gearing. Did i have anything to do with that? Who knows. Probably not, but it's a fun story.
regards, as always, jefe

Excellent story, jefe. I would like to think YOU made those changes happen.
Toyota asked me for feedback after I bought my Tundra. I told them they needed to put on extendable towing mirrors and make the clock visible in daylight when the headlights are on. I have no idea if these things have been made available.

[Geewizard]

austondog wrote:
300 pound lot lizard

400 pounds and not a penny more!

....um....what's your point, austondog?

[austondog]

300 pound lot lizard

[jefe_4x4]

Geewiz,
Good to see your stats. Toys keep getting better and better in the GVWR department.
Back in the day, we drove Toyota Land Cruisers: an 1966 FJ40 ragtop w/factory pto winch about 90K miles. Bad brakes, bad carb, no PS or PB. No low gears. 3:1 1st gear/2:1 t.case. 4.10's. The saving grace was the 5000 pound rated rear end way before Dana 44'a and Dana 60's were common in jeep type rigs. I think in the full-size LC's now they are still using a variant on that axle, patterned after the legendary Ford 9" with that all important extra pinion bearing and banjo pig.
The second was a 1970 FJ55. We now had two kids and this was our dream 4x4 RV. It had a Chevy 307 V8, Hone OD, Power loc rr. diff/4.10's, 11-15 True Tracs, 3" spring lift, Warn 8K winch, we added PS, PB. 53 Gallon gas tank, ConFer Toyota spec all metal Jeep trailer that held 4 gas cans and was water proof and airtight. We also added a 'tent-boot' built by a sail maker that snapped on the hole left by lowering the tailgate. Looked like the back end of a stage coach! We could sleep 2 consenting adults and two wee ones in there with a modicum of comfort.We owned this one 14 years and 160K miles. Great machine. Their rust preventative in that era was not good. By 1980 the body was rusting out badly.
I'm glad to see Toyota is still at it.
While I'm here, I might as well tell my 'Toyota', that's "Mister Toyota-san" to you story. 1969 was my first year playing bass trombone in the L.A. Phil and we were on a 3 week concert tour of Japan. The 'band' got to Nagoya and the bus from the airport passed a huge sprawling complex that was the Toyota plant. When we got to the hotel, I asked the consierge to call Toyota and see if I could get an appointment to talk to the head man about my thoughts on their 3-on-the-tree transmission and 2:1 t. case used in Land Cruisers. Hell, i was 24 yrs old and had nothing to lose. By some miracle, the consierge set me up with a meeting the next day, at the plant. When I got there i was escorted into a holding room with tiny kimono clad ladies offering me tea and rice cookies. Some time passed and I was escorted in to see the HEAD MAN at Toyota. I think at that time it WAS Mr. Toyota! In his huge office, there were assistants bubbling around and one was an interpreter. I gulped, and put forth my complaint about not low enough gears and they really needed a H.D. four speed for the L.C. Everyone was very polite and bowed constantly (i got into that too) and in a few minutes it was over. I felt pretty sheepish when i took a cab back to the hotel thinking they must have thought i was crazy American. There was no chance any of that discussion was going to amount to anything. I knew that. However, a couple years after that, the land cruisers were starting to be equipped with 4 speeds with a 4:1, 1st gear and lower t. case gearing. Did i have anything to do with that? Who knows. Probably not, but it's a fun story.
regards, as always, jefe

[Geewizard]

Interesting, jefe! As near as I can tell from the web, my 04 Tundra Double Cab 4x4 CGVWR is 12500. I'd go out and look but it's dark and raining right now. 😉

The CGVWR of an 08 Tundra Crew Max 4x4 is reported to be 16000 lbs.

And I see that the Lance 825, with a dry weight of 1730, is "compatible" with a Toyota Tundra.

My Apex 8 dry weight is 1450.

[jefe_4x4]

Then there is always the CGVWR of pickups, which has more to do with drivetrain strength and frame/suspension strength. I think the most accurate way to assess the rating of any pickup is by this "all you can carry and pull" number. The current Dodge 3500 (no one ton here) has a rediculously high CGVWR. What is it? 30K pounds? Why did they get such a quantum leap in CGVWR? Simply the Aisin transmission can take it. No manual trans need apply. The clutch can't take it.
My 14 year old Dodge 2500 has a puny 19, 300 pound CGVWR. It came with a Camper Package from the factory with upper secondaries similar, if not exactly like the 3500 came with only without the hub extensions and dual rr wheels. Dodge would not admit it, but it was the forerunner to the SRW 3500 that came shortly after that time.
*Remember, the weakest link in your assembly dictates the capacity of the entire vehicle. In my case it was tires.
My cast iron, 360 pound NV5600 has a 26K pound rating.
My Dana 80, 35 spline, full floating has a 13,500 pound rating just on the axle.
My NV241 H.D. has an extra wide chain put in with the snow plow prep package to mitigate shock loading you get feeding back through the drivetrain while plowing. The NV241, non-H.D. gets the narrow chain, but gets the same rating since the weak link is the rr output bearing, the same on both, but not subject to shock loading like the chain.
I did a lot of searching before I bought the Dodge and came up with some surprising numbers back then.
Factory GVWR: 8800 pounds
Gross front axle weight rating: 5200 pounds
Gross rr axle rating (standard lower rated D80) 6084 pounds
Gross rr axle rating (camper package, higher rated D80) 7500 pounds
Combined standard axle weight rating: 11, 284 pounds
Combined camper package axle weight rating: 12, 784 pounds
I had to dig a deep hole to find this info.
The Cummins gen 2 turbo diesel High Output engine by itself weighs 1022 pounds. It generates a measly 245 H.P. and a pretty good (at the time) 505 pound feet of torque @ 1600 rpm. Hardly a high revving V8; puts out that torque all the way down to 500 rpm.
There are lots of components to measure and calculate to find the unvarnished load and shock load rating of pick ups. Ford is the only mfgr. that makes it easy to find out what all these numbers are. Dodge traditionally obfuscates and underrates all their stats to bow to the legal/liability team on the 7th floor corporate. Ford has no fear.
What is a 3/4 t. pickup? Just about anything you want it to be, depending on the year, the mfgr. and the build sheet. I hope this is not just another TMI.
regards, as always, jefe

[valhalla360]

1/2 Ton = Your basic full size PU.
3/4 Ton = A beefed up full size PU.
1 Ton = The most beefed up full size before you move into what the layperson would consider commercial trucks.

[scottz]

Geewizard wrote:

scottz wrote:

Geewizard wrote:

I ask because my Tundra has a payload of 1600-1800 lbs (depending on what you read). That makes it a 3/4 ton pickup in my mind. I've been hauling 1600 lbs at least once a week since I bought mine new. And there's no issues (other than one wheel bearing self-destructing at 89k).

This is a serious question, not a post to incite a riot.

thanks

To be clear, your truck is not a 3/4ton, its payload ratings are about half of todays 3/4ton trucks.

You mean I've got a 0.375 ton truck (half of 0.75 ton)? And payload ratings have doubled in 10 years (2004 --> 2014)? Surely you jest, sir!

Not sure if you are messing with me or didn't read what I wrote correctly. I said your trucks payload ratings are about half of today's 3/4ton trucks, which I believe to be accurate. Thus your truck falls in the 1/2ton class. Sorry if you were sold a different story.

[elkhornsun]

A great deal depends upon the make and model year of the truck. With the 2011 GM trucks the 2500 and 3500 are virtually identical and some 2500 models have greater payload rating than some 3500 configurations (as calculated by the manufacturer). The 2013 RAM 3500 had a stronger frame than the 2500 models but in 2014 both use the same frame.

It would be better if the manufacturers produced only 3500 models all the way around but these decisions are driven by people in marketing so logic is not a factor.

[JIMNLIN]

billtex wrote:

Geewizard wrote:
Thanks all for the very informative discussion.

From what I'm reading here, there is still confusion about the tonnage labels given to trucks. The manufacturers seem to be covering their rear ends by not using those labels. Some say the "older" trucks can haul more, some say the "newer" trucks can haul more. And "it depends" seems to be about the sum of it.....depends on axle rating, drive line, brakes, etc.

I don't think there is any question that modern trucks are rated to haul/tow more than older trucks.
The capacities increase with each generation.
And that is true for all platforms; 1/2, 3/4, and 1 ton.

Bill

Good point. Those old '60s trucks were very anemic in go and stop performances and very low tow capabilities and load carrying ability.

OP asks "What is a 3/4 ton pickup?"

My first response is what brand and what year model 3/4 ton truck are we talking about as one size don't fit all.
My first for hire truck was a '64 3/4 GMC (Jimmy) with around mid 6xxx GVWR and low axle ratings. These numbers progressed upward through the years to 10000 GVWR with 6000-6200 RAWR.

[billtex]

Geewizard wrote:
Thanks all for the very informative discussion.

From what I'm reading here, there is still confusion about the tonnage labels given to trucks. The manufacturers seem to be covering their rear ends by not using those labels. Some say the "older" trucks can haul more, some say the "newer" trucks can haul more. And "it depends" seems to be about the sum of it.....depends on axle rating, drive line, brakes, etc.

I don't think there is any question that modern trucks are rated to haul/tow more than older trucks.
The capacities increase with each generation.
And that is true for all platforms; 1/2, 3/4, and 1 ton.

Bill

[Geewizard]

Thanks all for the very informative discussion.

From what I'm reading here, there is still confusion about the tonnage labels given to trucks. The manufacturers seem to be covering their rear ends by not using those labels. Some say the "older" trucks can haul more, some say the "newer" trucks can haul more. And "it depends" seems to be about the sum of it.....depends on axle rating, drive line, brakes, etc.

I wonder just how much FoS "factor of safety" is incorporated into the GVWR of a truck by the manufacturers. We'll never know unless someone incrementally loads up a truck until it fails. Or would that truck fail catastrophically?

....or just have a wheel bearing go bad?

Inquiring minds want to know......

[Geewizard]

scottz wrote:

Geewizard wrote:
Since we all drive campers with pickups underneath, I suspect many will have an opinion to this question: just what constitutes a 3/4 ton pickup? Axle capacity? frame strength? brakes? GVWR? Payload? Hearsay? Common knowledge? The grocery store checkout person?

I ask because my Tundra has a payload of 1600-1800 lbs (depending on what you read). That makes it a 3/4 ton pickup in my mind. I've been hauling 1600 lbs at least once a week since I bought mine new. And there's no issues (other than one wheel bearing self-destructing at 89k).

This is a serious question, not a post to incite a riot.

thanks

To be clear, your truck is not a 3/4ton, its payload ratings are about half of todays 3/4ton trucks.

You mean I've got a 0.375 ton truck (half of 0.75 ton)? And payload ratings have doubled in 10 years (2004 --> 2014)? Surely you jest, sir!

[Geewizard]

covered wagon wrote:

Geewizard wrote:

covered wagon wrote:
I think all pick ups are half ton. To make 3/4 or one ton rating it has to have diesel, 4wd, air bags and stick shift.:)

Geewizard, can you tell us what fuel mileage you get with your Toyota and camper?

Thanks, I'm might be going to downsize someday and think that is a simple way to go.

I get from 9.5 to 12 mpg with the camper on, depending on the usual variables.

Thank you, I like those Toyotas. Sometimes it feels like I'm hauling a huge behemeth with my Norrthern-Lite 10-2 even on an upgraded 3/4 t. camper package truck.

The 9.5 mpg was during my trip from Alaska to WA. I was in a hurry, did as much 70mph as I could regardless of the fuel cost, and I was pretty heavy overall.