Thoughts on LC250 Remote Touring Capacities

[TWILLY]

I like this view, have you figured out why? I really like to know. Because everywhere else the explanation of how this works is per GVWR = Curb Weight + Load Capacity.

Payload = gvwr - curb weight

Door jamb sticker “load capacity” = Toyota lawyers + reefer? It's totally unclear.

 

[Jetboy]

A locked 5th Gen 4runner was mid 800s as well. Some lager ORPs show a high of 1165. Not sure where you're seeing 1500-1700

Also I'm fairly certain everything with the 2.4 hybrid is getting the 8.2. If you have a source to the contrary, I'd love to see it.View attachment 3616875View attachment 3616876View attachment 3616877

SR5 4x4 : 6300 - 4675 = 1625

trail was 6300 - 4805 = 1495

Max payload was the 2010 4x2:
6100 - 4295 = 1805.

Some years had lower payload for rear locker models, some don't.

Toyota payload isn't even consistently calculated by Toyota on the same vehicle. It just doesn't tell us anything useful. It's about as useful as Toyota saying blue ones tow more.

 

[MACFJ60]

SR5 4x4 : 6300 - 4675 = 1625

trail was 6300 - 4805 = 1495

Max payload was the 2010 4x2:
6100 - 4295 = 1805.

Some years had lower payload for rear locker models, some don't.

Toyota payload isn't even consistently calculated by Toyota on the same vehicle. It just doesn't tell us anything useful. It's about as useful as Toyota saying blue ones tow more.

Changing my spec to blue now…..

 

[TWILLY]

In the U.S., federal regulations at 49 CFR 567.4(g)(3) require GVWR be calculated assuming:

• 150 lbs per passenger seat, and
• manufacturer's rated cargo load, and
• unloaded vehicle weight (curb weight)

49 CFR 567.4(h) provides for multiple GVWRs (and GVARs) for different tire sizes and/or reduced speeds.

49 CFR 567.4

(g) The label shall contain the following statements, in the English language, lettered in block capitals and numerals not less than three thirty-seconds of an inch high, in the order shown:
...
(3) “Gross Vehicle Weight Rating” or “GVWR” followed by the appropriate value in pounds, which shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the number of the vehicle's designated seating positions. However, for school buses the minimum occupant weight allowance shall be 120 pounds per passenger and 150 pounds for the driver.

(h) Multiple GVWR-GAWR ratings.

(1) (For passenger cars only) In cases in which different tire sizes are offered as a customer option, a manufacturer may at its option list more than one set of values for GVWR and GAWR, to meet the requirements of paragraphs (g) (3) and (4) of this section. If the label shows more than one set of weight rating values, each value shall be followed by the phrase “with __tires,” inserting the proper tire size designations. A manufacturer may, at its option, list one or more tire sizes where only one set of weight ratings is provided.

(2) (For multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, and motorcycles) The manufacturer may, at its option, list more than one GVWR-GAWR-tire-rim combination on the label, as long as the listing contains the tire-rim combination installed as original equipment on the vehicle by the manufacturer and conforms in content and format to the requirements for tire-rim-inflation information set forth in Standard Nos. 110, 120, 129 and 139 (§§ 571.110, 571.120, 571.129 and 571.139 of this chapter).

(3) At the option of the manufacturer, additional GVWR-GAWR ratings for operation of the vehicle at reduced speeds may be listed at the bottom of the certification label following any information that is required to be listed.

 

[Jetboy]

In the U.S., federal regulations at 49 CFR 567.4(g)(3) require GVWR be calculated assuming:

• 150 lbs per passenger seat, and
• manufacturer's rated cargo load, and
• unloaded vehicle weight (curb weight)

49 CFR 567.4(h) provides for multiple GVWRs (and GVARs) for different tire sizes and/or reduced speeds.

49 CFR 567.4

(g) The label shall contain the following statements, in the English language, lettered in block capitals and numerals not less than three thirty-seconds of an inch high, in the order shown:
...
(3) “Gross Vehicle Weight Rating” or “GVWR” followed by the appropriate value in pounds, which shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the number of the vehicle's designated seating positions. However, for school buses the minimum occupant weight allowance shall be 120 pounds per passenger and 150 pounds for the driver.

(h) Multiple GVWR-GAWR ratings.

(1) (For passenger cars only) In cases in which different tire sizes are offered as a customer option, a manufacturer may at its option list more than one set of values for GVWR and GAWR, to meet the requirements of paragraphs (g) (3) and (4) of this section. If the label shows more than one set of weight rating values, each value shall be followed by the phrase “with __tires,” inserting the proper tire size designations. A manufacturer may, at its option, list one or more tire sizes where only one set of weight ratings is provided.

(2) (For multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, and motorcycles) The manufacturer may, at its option, list more than one GVWR-GAWR-tire-rim combination on the label, as long as the listing contains the tire-rim combination installed as original equipment on the vehicle by the manufacturer and conforms in content and format to the requirements for tire-rim-inflation information set forth in Standard Nos. 110, 120, 129 and 139 (§§ 571.110, 571.120, 571.129 and 571.139 of this chapter).

(3) At the option of the manufacturer, additional GVWR-GAWR ratings for operation of the vehicle at reduced speeds may be listed at the bottom of the certification label following any information that is required to be listed.

It's a strange rule because it still leaves manufacturers rated cargo to be anything they decide that means. Toyota could say that means 10 lb or 10 million pounds. Without any objective standard like the SAE tow rating - I don't know how you could ever know what it means.

 

[Fort9378]

I think we're all getting a bit lost in the sauce way more than is necessary. The important part is that the LC250 is right in the range of normal for comparable vehicles when comparing between all of Toyota's modern offerings. The GX is above normal.

The door stickers are all set by toyota, so should be fairly universal. Tacos and 4runners are 850-1100. LC250 is 1100. LC200 is 1250ish. GX550 is 1400ish.

If you are this concerned about the *actual* payload capacity, then find a way to get the actual curb weight and subtract from GVWR/GAWR.

 

[tacoshawn]

In the U.S., federal regulations at 49 CFR 567.4(g)(3) require GVWR be calculated assuming:

• 150 lbs per passenger seat, and
• manufacturer's rated cargo load, and
• unloaded vehicle weight (curb weight)

49 CFR 567.4(h) provides for multiple GVWRs (and GVARs) for different tire sizes and/or reduced speeds.

49 CFR 567.4

(g) The label shall contain the following statements, in the English language, lettered in block capitals and numerals not less than three thirty-seconds of an inch high, in the order shown:
...
(3) “Gross Vehicle Weight Rating” or “GVWR” followed by the appropriate value in pounds, which shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the number of the vehicle's designated seating positions. However, for school buses the minimum occupant weight allowance shall be 120 pounds per passenger and 150 pounds for the driver.

(h) Multiple GVWR-GAWR ratings.

(1) (For passenger cars only) In cases in which different tire sizes are offered as a customer option, a manufacturer may at its option list more than one set of values for GVWR and GAWR, to meet the requirements of paragraphs (g) (3) and (4) of this section. If the label shows more than one set of weight rating values, each value shall be followed by the phrase “with __tires,” inserting the proper tire size designations. A manufacturer may, at its option, list one or more tire sizes where only one set of weight ratings is provided.

(2) (For multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, and motorcycles) The manufacturer may, at its option, list more than one GVWR-GAWR-tire-rim combination on the label, as long as the listing contains the tire-rim combination installed as original equipment on the vehicle by the manufacturer and conforms in content and format to the requirements for tire-rim-inflation information set forth in Standard Nos. 110, 120, 129 and 139 (§§ 571.110, 571.120, 571.129 and 571.139 of this chapter).

(3) At the option of the manufacturer, additional GVWR-GAWR ratings for operation of the vehicle at reduced speeds may be listed at the bottom of the certification label following any information that is required to be listed.

I’ll offer a theory on the GX having an abnormally high payload for a Toyota. They actually are reflecting the combination of people and tongue load for towing and federal compliance.

9,000lb towing x 8% tongue load = 720lb.
5 pax x 150lb per = 750lb.

720lb + 750lb = 1,470lb.

This may give a rational for the OT being 5 passenger only.

Offering a theory, thx @TWILLY for the references.

Adding same calculation for an LC250 @ 6K tow rating.

6,000lb towing x 8% tongue load = 480lb.
5 pax x 150lb per = 750lb.

480lb + 750lb = 1,230lb. So not quite the same as 1,100lb.

Again, sharing a theory.

 

[TWILLY]

It's a strange rule because it still leaves manufacturers rated cargo to be anything they decide that means. Toyota could say that means 10 lb or 10 million pounds. Without any objective standard like the SAE tow rating - I don't know how you could ever know what it means.

I too assume that's true, but I haven't yet researched whether there is separate regulatory guidance for cargo ratings. That could be buried somewhere in definitions.

 

[TWILLY]

I think we're all getting a bit lost in the sauce way more than is necessary. The important part is that the LC250 is right in the range of normal for comparable vehicles when comparing between all of Toyota's modern offerings. The GX is above normal.

The door stickers are all set by toyota, so should be fairly universal. Tacos and 4runners are 850-1100. LC250 is 1100. LC200 is 1250ish. GX550 is 1400ish.

If you are this concerned about the *actual* payload capacity, then find a way to get the actual curb weight and subtract from GVWR/GAWR.

Insofar as it's useful to understand payload, which is gvwr less curb weight, it's also useful to understand how gvwr is calculated (and what it, and therefore also payload, actually mean).

 

[Jetboy]

The door stickers are all set by toyota, so should be fairly universal.

My problem is that isn't the case. Toyota varies the payload as much as 50% on the 4Runner within the same model generation with no changes. They also changed tow ratings without any changes mid generation. It's possible that Toyota will change the payload next week or next year.

Another example is that the Highlander is more than any of these. But I don't think that matches up well to real world capacity.

Edit: I'm definitely not in favor of overloading my vehicles. I'm a weight weenie - I try hard to keep my weight minimized for a lot of reasons. But I try to make a reasonable evaluation of what the vehicle can handle as best I can without a more clear guide from Toyota. It's not that I don't believe there's something behind the spec, but that I don't understand it. And in some cases I don't think it makes sense - like Corolla payload being similar to Tundra or lc250/4Runner. There's just no plausible way that they are comparable in real world load carrying. So, I'm just saying the number means something to someone, but I don't know what it means. It can't be the actual load carrying ability.

 

[OSS]

I never knew the payload capacity of my FJ60. It was never printed anywhere. But I soon found out that the stock suspension and tires were woefully inadequate for what I wanted to do and bolt to the vehicle.
So I upgraded the springs to heavy duty jobs and got bigger stronger tires, and it then took me everywhere- very overloaded- offroad for thousands and thousands of offroad miles in baja Mexico. Think doing the Baja 1000 five times.

So while a stock vehicle (LC250) may have a suspension that’s tuned for a comfortable ride when empty on the highway, the likelihood that it’s suspension will be inadequate for overloaded (or just loaded) offroad traveling is pretty much guaranteed. Like all stock vehicles.

But not to fret, we can be assured that there will soon be aftermarket suspension upgrades for the LC250 to allow the adventurous to pack as much gear as they want - and go wherever they want.
Patience- it’ll happen.

 

[M1911]

Of course, increased payload doesn't come for free -- it comes with a worse ride when unloaded.

 

[TWILLY]

I never knew the payload capacity of my FJ60. It was never printed anywhere. But I soon found out that the stock suspension and tires were woefully inadequate for what I wanted to do and bolt to the vehicle.
So I upgraded the springs to heavy duty jobs and got bigger stronger tires, and it then took me everywhere- very overloaded- offroad for thousands and thousands of offroad miles in baja Mexico. Think doing the Baja 1000 five times.

So while a stock vehicle (LC250) may have a suspension that’s tuned for a comfortable ride when empty on the highway, the likelihood that it’s suspension will be inadequate for overloaded (or just loaded) offroad traveling is pretty much guaranteed. Like all stock vehicles.

But not to fret, we can be assured that there will soon be aftermarket suspension upgrades for the LC250 to allow the adventurous to pack as much gear as they want - and go wherever they want.
Patience- it’ll happen.

We do not know whether the 250’s relatively low payload rating owes to suspension. I suspect, given the GX capacities, that it owes to the size of the rear differential, and perhaps differences in frame reinforcement.

Land Cruisers are certainly wonderful Baja vehicles.

 

[Fort9378]

We do not know whether the 250’s relatively low payload rating owes to suspension. I suspect, given the GX capacities, that it owes to the size of the rear differential, and perhaps differences in frame reinforcement.

Axle I can see. Why is there any reason to suspect the GX frame is somehow more rigid than the 250 frame? That goes against Toyota's whole design philosophy to have as many shared parts as possible.

 

[TWILLY]

Axle I can see. Why is there any reason to suspect the GX frame is somehow more rigid than the 250 frame? That goes against Toyota's whole design philosophy to have as many shared parts as possible.

My understanding is that the basic architecture is the same but that the frames can differ in how and where they’re strengthened. I seem to recall a video with one of the GX engineers in which he said there some differences in the frame reinforcement, but I could be wrong.

 

[Fort9378]

My understanding is that the basic architecture is the same but that the frames can differ in how and where they’re strengthened. I seem to recall a video with one of the GX engineers in which he said there some differences in the frame reinforcement, but I could be wrong.

Yeah that is the case. I just assume they would tune by platform (Tacoma vs Tundra etc) but the GX and 250 are essentially the same platform with different body panels. I'd be very surprised if they were making adjustments between the frames

 

[M1911]

Axle I can see. Why is there any reason to suspect the GX frame is somehow more rigid than the 250 frame? That goes against Toyota's whole design philosophy to have as many shared parts as possible.

Toyota has said that they adjust the TNGA-F frame for wheelbase, strength, and weight. They change strength and weight by changing the strength and thickness of the steel in different locations. It makes sense that the Tundra crew cab frame is longer, heavier, and stronger than the Tacoma access cab frame, even though both are built on the TNGA-F platform.

While I suspect that the 4Runner, 250, and GX 550 frames are identical (since they have the same exact wheelbase), that is only my suspicion and I don't have any evidence to support that suspicion. It is possible that the GX frame is stronger than the 250 frame. But we simply don't know one way or the other.

 

[2021 LC200]

Of course, increased payload doesn't come for free -- it comes with a worse ride when unloaded.

I would say except for Airbags in the rear coil springs, which can provide normal ride at min 5 psi and support any high load conditions overlanding loaded or when towing.

 

[4xfish]

here’s some other video Chief Engineer discussing the frame/shared platform:

-on TFL he’s says frames on GX vs LC are “fundamentally the same.”

starting around 6:15 mark




on Automotive Press shared frame discussion with Koji around 20 second mark.

 

[Jetboy]

It's not a great photo, but this is my tundra at 8020lbs. It only has a 1175 lb load capacity according to Toyota. The load is 2330lbs. That's over 1k lbs over Toyota payload. Seems to handle it without breaking a sweat. Can you tell it's heavy? Sure. Do I worry about breaking anything? No.

Try the same with a yaris that has the same payload and I think the results will be a lot different. That's why I don't think Toyota payload means what I think it means.