GVWR, how much can a 200 safely carry? (1 Viewer)

[Taco2Cruiser]

FYI I got ahold of Lovell’s a while back and the GVM upgrade with 2” lift spring rate specs are as follows:

Front: TFR-121 – 675lbs/inch
Rear: TRR-122HD – 320lbs/inch

The front is less than the 750# you estimated above, but the rear is significantly higher.

For those who are interested in pushing the 3800kg limit of the GVM upgrade (which is 1200# more than factory) and are in the US, it’s reasonable to assume that other manufacturer suspensions with similar specs would also be capable of the increased load. Of course in the US the GVWR and GAWR are only set at manufacture time, so officially those numbers would still not be increased.

Very cool. Glad you got some numbers from them. They told me that their kits don’t go above 50% increase of the stock spring rate, but they wouldn’t give me actual numbers. Guess that 50% comment they said was incorrect.

So front 2701 or 2703 and rear 2723 springs make the cut.

Good for me, I have BPs (750) up front and 2723s in the rear.

 

[Chrisleduc1]

I’m trying to avoid starting a new thread. I’m thinking about legality and liability, in an accident.

Owning an LX with AHC makes me the odd ball.

It’s pretty clear that a simple suspension upgrade is all that is required in AU for a GVM upgrade. But that is for the LC.

How would one go about getting the AHC system up to a higher GVWR? Not necessarily asking how one would go about getting an LX certified, I’m more so asking about which upgrades would be necessary, it any, and why, if one needed to defend against a claim of unsafe use. Hopefully that makes sense.

 

[OregonLC]

The GVWR is the number that Toyota was able to demonstrate meeting the DOT required testing. Those tests also were conducted using highway tires and with the CG at the OE height. Add oversized tires, a lift, heavy items up high or at polar ends of the vehicle and you're now outside of the demonstrated performance envelope. Point being, if we're concerned with the liability of a vehicle not meeting it's OE performance specs then weight is just one of many things potentially adverse to highway performance to be concerned with. That we have a sticker on the door gives us a metric by which to judge, but it doesn't mean that an 8,000 lbs vehicle necessarily carries more liability risk than a heavily armored top-heavy 7,000 lbs truck with a 3" lift. And, of course, drive it appropriate to the build and load.

There are a number of users here with heavy LX's and (to my knowledge) no string of 200 series AHC failures. You're definitely not the odd man out in this crowd. A mild trail build on the LX is a very competent platform. Build it, wheel it, enjoy it.

 

[Markuson]

The GVWR is the number that Toyota was able to demonstrate meeting the DOT required testing. Those tests also were conducted using highway tires and with the CG at the OE height. Add oversized tires, a lift, heavy items up high or at polar ends of the vehicle and you're now outside of the demonstrated performance envelope. Point being, if we're concerned with the liability of a vehicle not meeting it's OE performance specs then weight is just one of many things potentially adverse to highway performance to be concerned with. That we have a sticker on the door gives us a metric by which to judge, but it doesn't mean that an 8,000 lbs vehicle necessarily carries more liability risk than a heavily armored top-heavy 7,000 lbs truck with a 3" lift. And, of course, drive it appropriate to the build and load.

There are a number of users here with heavy LX's and (to my knowledge) no string of 200 series AHC failures. You're definitely not the odd man out in this crowd. A mild trail build on the LX is a very competent platform. Build it, wheel it, enjoy it.

Ya, seem like if liability was sooooo iffy due to load...anyone cramming a huge, over-sized camper shell on their pickup or van...or just a dude with a very full truck/bed of bricks...would be in trouble...all the time.

 

[Chrisleduc1]

@OregonLC thanks for the comment. It allows me to further clarify.
I am referring to legal and civil liability as it relates to exceeding GVWR.
Let's say that I was driving and was at fault in an accident. Let's say that a claim was made that my being over GVWR was a primary factor. If I was in an LC, I could appeal to what is done in other countries, AU for example, to show that a simple suspension upgrade will suffice to raise a government approved GVWR. But I don't have an LC, I have an LX. I cannot just mimic what they do in AU and then use what is done and approved there as a defense.
Hopefully that makes more sense.

 

[Markuson]

@OregonLC thanks for the comment. It allows me to further clarify.
I am referring to legal and civil liability as it relates to exceeding GVWR.
Let's say that I was driving and was at fault in an accident. Let's say that a claim was made that my being over GVWR was a primary factor. If I was in an LC, I could appeal to what is done in other countries, AU for example, to show that a simple suspension upgrade will suffice to raise a government approved GVWR. But I don't have an LC, I have an LX. I cannot just mimic what they do in AU and then use what is done and approved there as a defense.
Hopefully that makes more sense.

It’s always been fascinating how Australia’s controls and regs on this are so stringent compared to US. Even here in regulation-crazy California, they don’t make a stink about it... so it’s curious.

Seems like there should be searchable precedent court cases on this topic. Maybe someone (lawyer or paralegal) with tools for easy look-up can poke around and help with an answer.

The bit of googling I’ve done makes it seem like it’s only heavily regulated if driving commercially. Lots of info for commercial, but almost nothing for private use. Seems DOT has enforcement jurisdiction over commercial, but not private...but I dunno. Hope someone chimes in who is legally familiar.

 

[Chrisleduc1]

It’s always been fascinating how Australia’s controls and regs on this are so stringent compared to US. Even here in regulation-crazy California, they don’t make a stink about it... so it’s curious.

Seems like there should be searchable precedent court cases on this topic. Maybe someone (lawyer or paralegal) with tools for easy look-up can poke around and help with an answer.

The bit of googling I’ve done makes it seem like it’s only heavily regulated if driving commercially. Lots of info for commercial, but almost nothing for private use. Seems DOT has enforcement jurisdiction over commercial, but not private...but I dunno. Hope someone chimes in who is legally familiar.

I’ve done a lot of searching as well. While I surely don’t have the access or knowhow to search court records, I tend to be pretty good at tracking down ordinances and laws etc. While not saying anything about the legality one way or another, I’m having a lot of difficulty finding anything that would indicate that exceeding GVWR, especially under 10k lbs, non-commercial, is illegal.

 

[Chrisleduc1]

@Taco2Cruiser what are you running for brakes, in light of your weight?

 

[TeCKis300]

I’m trying to avoid starting a new thread. I’m thinking about legality and liability, in an accident.

Owning an LX with AHC makes me the odd ball.

It’s pretty clear that a simple suspension upgrade is all that is required in AU for a GVM upgrade. But that is for the LC.

How would one go about getting the AHC system up to a higher GVWR? Not necessarily asking how one would go about getting an LX certified, I’m more so asking about which upgrades would be necessary, it any, and why, if one needed to defend against a claim of unsafe use. Hopefully that makes sense.

I don't have guidance to offer on the legal front.

Upgrade wise, it's easy. Simple spacers will do the trick.

LX570 Augmenting for Load

I added a 10mm spacer to each spring at the rear axle. Intent is to add a bit more support to the AHC system, as I tow a heavy 27' Airstream travel trailer. This exact same mod could be done to an LC too, but will result in lifting ~1/2". While the LX570 never asked for it, this is a well...

forum.ih8mud.com

 

[OregonLC]

@OregonLC thanks for the comment. It allows me to further clarify.
I am referring to legal and civil liability as it relates to exceeding GVWR.
Let's say that I was driving and was at fault in an accident. Let's say that a claim was made that my being over GVWR was a primary factor. If I was in an LC, I could appeal to what is done in other countries, AU for example, to show that a simple suspension upgrade will suffice to raise a government approved GVWR. But I don't have an LC, I have an LX. I cannot just mimic what they do in AU and then use what is done and approved there as a defense.
Hopefully that makes more sense.

Yes, me too. As others have stated, if over-weight, over-height, over-armored vehicles were a liability risk I gotta believe we'd read about it. Consider this: I'd wager it is a rare overland Tacoma that dispatches under GVWR (1,175 payload is a laughable limit). That group alone would be the canary in the coal mine should over weight become a prime risk concern.

I don't think that you're in an LX makes any difference, over GVWR is over GVWR. That an owner attempted to mitigate the vehicle's capabilities (in the case of an LC) and that it is an engineered and certified comprehensive solution are two different things. Getting a jury to interpret a foreign government's take on road worthiness is a stretch let alone expecting them to determine that the mod sufficiently mitigated the overweight condition's contribution to an accident. Regardless, your insurance carrier is going to stand in front of that liability regardless of what you do (unless you do something like intentionally harm another driver). The 200 LX's AHC system is very robust and will allow all kinds of overlanding. Enjoy it.

I’ve done a lot of searching as well. While I surely don’t have the access or knowhow to search court records, I tend to be pretty good at tracking down ordinances and laws etc. While not saying anything about the legality one way or another, I’m having a lot of difficulty finding anything that would indicate that exceeding GVWR, especially under 10k lbs, non-commercial, is illegal.

Even commercially, as long as you're not exceeding highway axle weight limitations the limit has more to do with licensing (CDL) and registration fees than it does with what the true mechanical limits are. For example, we sticker our C5500s at 26K GCVW to limit the operating cost. Further, when asking GM what the maximum GVWR or GCVW is for the truck they won't state it and defer to the recommendations of the aftermarket bed supplier to tell us what we can carry and tow. My experience is that weigh station inspections are much more concerned with lights, brakes, reflective tape, and driver logs then they are with what the sticker says on the side of the vehicle. We've rolled scales with the truck (no trailer) north of 23k (well over what the chassis is designed for) without question. At the end of the day, the law expects the operator to know his vehicle's performance and the road conditions and operate accordingly. Same with us in our porky 200s.

It’s always been fascinating how Australia’s controls and regs on this are so stringent compared to US. Even here in regulation-crazy California, they don’t make a stink about it... so it’s curious.

Yet, drive down I-5 with an uncovered light bar and it's blue lights in the rear view. Lol.

 

[Markuson]

Yes, me too. As others have stated, if over-weight, over-height, over-armored vehicles were a liability risk I gotta believe we'd read about it. Consider this: I'd wager it is a rare overland Tacoma that dispatches under GVWR (1,175 payload is a laughable limit). That group alone would be the canary in the coal mine should over weight become a prime risk concern.

I don't think that you're in an LX makes any difference, over GVWR is over GVWR. That an owner attempted to mitigate the vehicle's capabilities (in the case of an LC) and that it is an engineered and certified comprehensive solution are two different things. Getting a jury to interpret a foreign government's take on road worthiness is a stretch let alone expecting them to determine that the mod sufficiently mitigated the overweight condition's contribution to an accident. Regardless, your insurance carrier is going to stand in front of that liability regardless of what you do (unless you do something like intentionally harm another driver). The 200 LX's AHC system is very robust and will allow all kinds of overlanding. Enjoy it.



Even commercially, as long as you're not exceeding highway axle weight limitations the limit has more to do with licensing (CDL) and registration fees than it does with what the true mechanical limits are. For example, we sticker our C5500s at 26K GCVW to limit the operating cost. Further, when asking GM what the maximum GVWR or GCVW is for the truck they won't state it and defer to the recommendations of the aftermarket bed supplier to tell us what we can carry and tow. My experience is that weigh station inspections are much more concerned with lights, brakes, reflective tape, and driver logs then they are with what the sticker says on the side of the vehicle. We've rolled scales with the truck (no trailer) north of 23k (well over what the chassis is designed for) without question. At the end of the day, the law expects the operator to know his vehicle's performance and the road conditions and operate accordingly. Same with us in our porky 200s.



Yet, drive down I-5 with an uncovered light bar and it's blue lights in the rear view. Lol.

Here in ‘merica...
All ya need are 7 fat adults in the seats and you’re already over the limit. Some tubby family would surely sue over their right to have a huge RTT and luggage just like skinny folk do...

 

[OregonLC]

Just to show how absolutely silly the Tacoma's ratings are:

Fuel: 126 lbs
Driver: 225 lbs
Passenger: 110 lbs (that's what your wife weighs, right?)
Fridge: 50 lbs
RTT: 160 lbs
Front Bumper: 100 lbs
Winch: 75 lbs
Tires: 100 lbs (20 lbs each over stock)
Canopy: 200 lbs.
Roof Rack: 50 lbs
=====
1,200 lbs payload

Over GVWR before you had a single piece of gear! Add a dog, fridge slide, drawers, recover gear, fuel cans, max trax, tools, OBA, food, beer, water, ammo, trail spares, kids, high-lift, aux battery, etc. and you're easily 1,000 lbs over GVWR. Fortunately, we have 1,655 lbs (7385 less 5730 curb) to work with (1,385 in the LX due to 6,000 lbs curb). But even at that, a rolling rugged home gets hefty! Unless the Taco was purpose-built for lightness there's really no conceivable way to keep it under GVWR, at least not in a 'well built' configuration.

Even going to a Tundra and you're still looking at a 1,530 lbs payload. Similar with a Ram 2500 (though that truck has a much heavier curb and is something I would trust carry significantly over weight). Our trucks are pretty darn good when it comes to placarded design capacity! Taking my 200 to 8,000 lbs (8% over) is much less concerning to me than taking a Tacoma to 6,600 lbs (18% over). For whatever that's worth. I doubt there are many people out there who would think that our Luxo SUV has more rated payload than the full size Toyota pickup.

Surprisingly, even higher in payload was my 2000 LC. That truck was fairly 'lean' from an Americanized LC standpoint. GVWR 6860 less 5115 Curb yields an impressive 1,745 lbs payload!

 

[Taco2Cruiser]

@Taco2Cruiser what are you running for brakes, in light of your weight?

Factory pads and disks. Stainless steel lines.

 

[Union]

Yes, me too. As others have stated, if over-weight, over-height, over-armored vehicles were a liability risk I gotta believe we'd read about it. Consider this: I'd wager it is a rare overland Tacoma that dispatches under GVWR (1,175 payload is a laughable limit). That group alone would be the canary in the coal mine should over weight become a prime risk concern.

I don't think that you're in an LX makes any difference, over GVWR is over GVWR. That an owner attempted to mitigate the vehicle's capabilities (in the case of an LC) and that it is an engineered and certified comprehensive solution are two different things. Getting a jury to interpret a foreign government's take on road worthiness is a stretch let alone expecting them to determine that the mod sufficiently mitigated the overweight condition's contribution to an accident. Regardless, your insurance carrier is going to stand in front of that liability regardless of what you do (unless you do something like intentionally harm another driver). The 200 LX's AHC system is very robust and will allow all kinds of overlanding. Enjoy it.



Even commercially, as long as you're not exceeding highway axle weight limitations the limit has more to do with licensing (CDL) and registration fees than it does with what the true mechanical limits are. For example, we sticker our C5500s at 26K GCVW to limit the operating cost. Further, when asking GM what the maximum GVWR or GCVW is for the truck they won't state it and defer to the recommendations of the aftermarket bed supplier to tell us what we can carry and tow. My experience is that weigh station inspections are much more concerned with lights, brakes, reflective tape, and driver logs then they are with what the sticker says on the side of the vehicle. We've rolled scales with the truck (no trailer) north of 23k (well over what the chassis is designed for) without question. At the end of the day, the law expects the operator to know his vehicle's performance and the road conditions and operate accordingly. Same with us in our porky 200s.



Yet, drive down I-5 with an uncovered light bar and it's blue lights in the rear view. Lol.

@screenflicker remember that time we got pulled over outside of Silverton on the dirt road lol...

 

[screenflicker]

@screenflicker remember that time we got pulled over outside of Silverton on the dirt road lol...

Good times. So much for making ourselves visible on very dusty roads lol

 

[CJ3Flyer]

Just to show how absolutely silly the Tacoma's ratings are:

Fuel: 126 lbs
Driver: 225 lbs
Passenger: 110 lbs (that's what your wife weighs, right?)
Fridge: 50 lbs

Bahahahahaha!

 

[Chrisleduc1]

Different county, different laws, I know...

 

[chiplee]

In Australia, there are companies that offer legal GVM (gross vehicle mass or Australian DOT for our GVWR) increase kits. These are tested, under government set conditions. Being an American, and proud of it! I still would trust the Australia DOT, if you don't, then this may not be a solution for you.

Lovells Springs is one of those companies, their kit includes just a heavier rate spring that will also lift the truck slightly, longer shocks to accommodate the tall springs, and legal decals stating the new legal GVM. That's it, basically just springs. I was never able to get the actually springs rate used, but Lovell did state they have between 10-50% spring rate increase. This moves the stock GVWR (GVM) to 8,377 lbs (3800kg), regardless of engine or equipment. The split is Front 3968 lbs (1,800kg) and Rear 4409 lbs (2,000 kg)

In the US LC200, stock spring rates are
Front: 500 lbs/in
Rear: 170 lbs/in

Under the most extreme case secanio, a 50% spring rate increase needs to be
Front: 750 lbs/in
Rear: 255 lbs/in

If using Old Man Emu springs, front springs 2701 and 2703 have a rate of 720 lbs/in. Not quite to the 750 mark, yet most weight is placed to the center and rear of the vehicle, while it wouldn't bother me, you need to determine if you are comfortable with that. If using a BP-51, that spring rate is 750 lbs/in, so that meets the mark, and more so as you can further increase preload.

For the rear spring, 2721 and 2722 have a spring rate of 270 and 275 respectively, and meets the mark. Obviously, 2723, 2724 and 2725 are even heavier at 340, 400, and 440 lbs/in respectively.

With variables still unknown, like what spring rate Lovells is actually using outside of knowing their springs are not heavier than 50% more of the stock spring.

Hate to dig up an old thread, but these numbers don't match the numbers reported in this post or later in this thread. Is there consensus on which spring rate Lovell's actually uses to get the full GVWR upgrade? Might be worth updating the first post for searchers like myself. I'm running TDs, which have 240lb springs in the back unless you opt for the constant load rate which is 280, neither of which match the 320 quoted here.

 

[linuxgod]

Hate to dig up an old thread, but these numbers don't match the numbers reported in this post or later in this thread. Is there consensus on which spring rate Lovell's actually uses to get the full GVWR upgrade? Might be worth updating the first post for searchers like myself. I'm running TDs, which have 240lb springs in the back unless you opt for the constant load rate which is 280, neither of which match the 320 quoted here.

The post of mine you reference is what Lovell’s emailed me when I asked. If you’re curious or have questiknsemail them, they were pretty quick to reply.

TD doesn’t offer a GVM upgrade. I don’t think OME does either. But a set of OME heavy 340# constant rears would be slightly stiffer and likely close. Note that without actual engineering tests everything in this thread is conjecture since we don’t know Lovell’s coil diameter, free spring length, etc.

FWIW my normal weight is close to GVWR, and my towing weight is about GVM for the cruiser and within 600# of GCWR. I have the TD standards and rear airbags and I’ve no complaints about towing with the setup after >20k miles, though the next time I need to do rear end work I’m going to swap in OME 2721 progressives for the extra support when towing. Ymmv of course.