Towing escape 5.0 with Toyota tundra

[Honair]

Originally Posted by MacMan

I have the Anderson 3220 (https://www.walmart.com/ip/Andersen-...&wl13=&veh=sem). Yes, I have the gooseneck ball.
Obviously I don't drive with the tailgate down. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. Sorry about that.

MacMan: Thank you for the great information! As to the tailgate....I am not clear on a lot of this stuff. My bad.

Concerning the Tundra's payload.... have you done anything to increase your Tundra's payload? Larger load tires, springs, airbags, .... anything? I seem to be at or over the payload.

[MacMan]

I have not done anything to my Tundra to 'enhance' it. The dry weight of the 5.0 TA is 3,700 pounds and the Tundra pulls it just fine when loaded with our 'stuff'. We really don't take much along on the trip and keep the water/black/grey tanks empty. Since we got the 5.0 TA three years ago we have traveled some 22,000 miles without difficulty. I hope my luck holds out!

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by Honair

Concerning the Tundra's payload.... have you done anything to increase your Tundra's payload? Larger load tires, springs, airbags, .... anything? I seem to be at or over the payload.

Although those modifications may improve the handling or ride of the truck, and how well it handles a trailer, none of them will increase the payload. I added air bags in the rear springs of our van, which worked well to maintain ride height and control suspension motion... but that didn't change the rear axle gross axle weight rating, or the gross vehicle weight rating, or the payload. You don't know what the limiting factor of the truck's payload might be, so you have no way to know if you have changed it.

The difference between trucks of the same model with very different payloads, due to the addition of a optional payload package, can be as simple as the springs. Someone at Toyota knows if it would be that simple for the Tundra, but they're very unlikely to tell us!

[LatLongJohn]

Hi - We pull our 2017 Escape 5.0TA with a 2013 Tundra Double Cab (5.7L). We decided on a Curt A16 standard 5th wheel hitch. We did add a Timbren Suspension Enhancement System which gives us a great ride while towing. The Tundra/Escape 5.0 is a great combo for us and pulls great. We get about 12.5 mpg over uneven terrain/mountains/wind. On a non-windy day on the interstate, we get over 15 mpg.
All said, I just couldn't give up my Toyota Truck. Hope this helps.
John
P.S. We also replaced the factory tailgate with a 5th wheel type tailgate (etrailer.com) which makes hooking and unhooking a breeze.

[steve dunham]

I understand the academic guestion "Can I tow trailer X with vehicle Y" . In this case I am trying to understand the other part of the equation / question
" Why would anyone want to ? "

Many things are seemingly possible but yet in reality are totally impractical.

[escape artist]

Originally Posted by steve dunham

I understand the academic guestion "Can I tow trailer X with vehicle Y" . In this case I am trying to understand the other part of the equation / question
" Why would anyone want to ? "

Many things are seemingly possible but yet in reality are totally impractical.

Hi: steve dunham... Bumble bees, in theory, can't possibly fly. No one was around at the time to tell them!!! Alf
escape artist N.S. of Lake Erie

[Honair]

Originally Posted by Brian B-P

The difference between trucks of the same model with very different payloads, due to the addition of a optional payload package, can be as simple as the springs. Someone at Toyota knows if it would be that simple for the Tundra, but they're very unlikely to tell us!

Yes..... talked with Toyota.... they can increase the breaks and that is all they offer.

For springs they recommend an after market shop.

I like the weakest link look at payload.

Fix the weakest link and therefore increase your payload. But what is the weakest link? and if you find it... how much payload did you increase if that area is improved?

As I read up on the Tundra we have..... the axles are way strong and the breaks are also great now. So.....frame, springs, and tires... change to increase payload?

Interesting that the payload as seen on the sticker on the truck when opening driver door.... is on the tire size sticker.

Maybe Toyota can put a different set of tires on the truck and just place a different sticker with a different payload?

Leads me to think that if I get tires with a larger load level..... I just increased my payload.

Anyone know about this concept.

The tires on the truck are passenger.... load level 111. That load level is 2403 lbs per tire.

If I move up to load level tires 117's.... each tire gets 2833 lbs of load per tire. Thats over 400 lbs per tire increase.

Seemingly if the tires are the weak link in payload, then one can increase the payload with a change in tires?

[oilhead]

I have basically the same setup as LatLongJohn, a Curt 16A fifth wheel, Timbren suspension option (really helps ride) and a Stromberg tailgate. I did add a slide option to the Curt 16A but have never used the slide. I plan to remove the slide and go with the standard non slide attachment to save weight. I did weigh the truck with trailer when loaded and was was under the GVW. I then scaled the truck with the loaded trailer but kept the trailer wheels off the scale and was still under the GVW, but I was close (after adding in wife and granddaughter's weight). That is why I plan to switch to a non sliding fifth wheel setup to save the weight of the slider. As a side note I ran into a guy this summer who had ordered a Tundra crew cab with a long bed (8') towing a 28 ft fifth wheel trailer. He said he had no issues and plenty of room behind the cab to turn. I did not know Toyota would build that truck configuration. Dan

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by Honair

Interesting that the payload as seen on the sticker on the truck when opening driver door.... is on the tire size sticker.

The payload is on the sticker with the tire specs because they are related information that is displayed together - that doesn't mean that the tires determine the payload.

Originally Posted by Honair

Maybe Toyota can put a different set of tires on the truck and just place a different sticker with a different payload?

Although a manufacturer can potentially re-assess the GAWRs and GVWR with different components, I wouldn't expect any manufacturer to do this on a non-commercial vehicle, or for any single vehicle.

Originally Posted by Honair

Leads me to think that if I get tires with a larger load level..... I just increased my payload.

Anyone know about this concept.

The tires on the truck are passenger.... load level 111. That load level is 2403 lbs per tire.

If I move up to load level tires 117's.... each tire gets 2833 lbs of load per tire. Thats over 400 lbs per tire increase.

Seemingly if the tires are the weak link in payload, then one can increase the payload with a change in tires?

The standard term is load "index", rather than "level".

If the tire designation starts with "P" (the Tire and Rim Association's indication of standards for tires generally suited to passenger vehicle use), then the value from the load index table (2403 pounds or 2833 pounds) must be divided by a derating factor of 1.1 to determine the rated capacity for use on a truck (or van, or commercial vehicle, or trailer). Toyota has already considered that (and various other factors) in their choice of tire and determination of axle rating.

Also, the tire load capacity depends on inflation pressure. A modern "P" tire of standard load type with a maximum inflation pressure of 44 psi normally reaches its full capacity at 35 psi, so if the specified inflation pressure is any lower than that, they are not even trying to use the full capacity of the tire (higher means they want to reduce rolling drag and/or improve cornering response).

It is really easy to confirm that tires are not the weak link: compare them to the Gross Axle Weight Rating (GAWR). If the GAWR is less that the total capacity of the two tires on that axle, then the tires are more than sufficient and the limitation is elsewhere. If the GAWR is equal to the total capacity of the two tires on that axle, then you still have no idea if the tires are the only limitation for that axle, or there are other limitations at that amount and the tires are just matched to it.

Since tire choice is determined by many factors, and a major one is appearance (non-commercial buyers like the look of large tires), the tires are unlikely to be the weak link. Pickups routinely come with a range of tire choices of different capacities with more than one of the choices being more than adequate for the GAWR. My van does have tires just matched to the GAWR... but fashions in vans and fashions in pickup trucks are (or were in 2004) different.

Payload is determined by Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) and vehicle weight. If the GVWR is less than the total of the two GAWR, then neither of the axles (or any of the tires) are the weak link. "Axle" in this case includes the suspension. Typically in a pickup the rear GAWR is higher than the front (because the trucks are rear-heavy when the box is loaded up), and the total of front and rear is greater than the GVWR, allowing some flexibility in loading (how far forward or rearward the load is located).


I completely "get" the idea of wanting to understand the factors which determine the capacity of the vehicle. I support the idea of tweaking the vehicle to make it better suit the owner. I just don't believe that it is practical to override the manufacturer's design to increase that capacity.

[Honair]

Originally Posted by Brian B-P

The payload is on the sticker with the tire specs because they are related information that is displayed together - that doesn't mean that the tires determine the payload.


Although a manufacturer can potentially re-assess the GAWRs and GVWR with different components, I wouldn't expect any manufacturer to do this on a non-commercial vehicle, or for any single vehicle.


The standard term is load "index", rather than "level".

If the tire designation starts with "P" (the Tire and Rim Association's indication of standards for tires generally suited to passenger vehicle use), then the value from the load index table (2403 pounds or 2833 pounds) must be divided by a derating factor of 1.1 to determine the rated capacity for use on a truck (or van, or commercial vehicle, or trailer). Toyota has already considered that (and various other factors) in their choice of tire and determination of axle rating.

Also, the tire load capacity depends on inflation pressure. A modern "P" tire of standard load type with a maximum inflation pressure of 44 psi normally reaches its full capacity at 35 psi, so if the specified inflation pressure is any lower than that, they are not even trying to use the full capacity of the tire (higher means they want to reduce rolling drag and/or improve cornering response).

It is really easy to confirm that tires are not the weak link: compare them to the Gross Axle Weight Rating (GAWR). If the GAWR is less that the total capacity of the two tires on that axle, then the tires are more than sufficient and the limitation is elsewhere. If the GAWR is equal to the total capacity of the two tires on that axle, then you still have no idea if the tires are the only limitation for that axle, or there are other limitations at that amount and the tires are just matched to it.

Since tire choice is determined by many factors, and a major one is appearance (non-commercial buyers like the look of large tires), the tires are unlikely to be the weak link. Pickups routinely come with a range of tire choices of different capacities with more than one of the choices being more than adequate for the GAWR. My van does have tires just matched to the GAWR... but fashions in vans and fashions in pickup trucks are (or were in 2004) different.

Payload is determined by Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) and vehicle weight. If the GVWR is less than the total of the two GAWR, then neither of the axles (or any of the tires) are the weak link. "Axle" in this case includes the suspension. Typically in a pickup the rear GAWR is higher than the front (because the trucks are rear-heavy when the box is loaded up), and the total of front and rear is greater than the GVWR, allowing some flexibility in loading (how far forward or rearward the load is located).


I completely "get" the idea of wanting to understand the factors which determine the capacity of the vehicle. I support the idea of tweaking the vehicle to make it better suit the owner. I just don't believe that it is practical to override the manufacturer's design to increase that capacity.

Thank you. Great job.

I have GVWR less than the two axles and the axles are less than tires (on that axle). So, if I understand what you have said.... its not the tires or the axles (including suspension). Its the GVWR.... that is the limiting number.

What is left? Breaks and/or frame and/or the general configuration of all above..... or maybe its lawsuit avoidance.

So,,seemingly,,, to add weight I can put in/on the pickup, I need to get rid of weight.

Maybe lighter wheels, take the rear seats out and/or have my wife not bring her purse!

Clearly, and for our 5.0TA, if possible we will choose the Anderson hitch set up with the rails (3200) and not the gooseneck ball in that the gooseneck ball (under bed) and the Anderson 3220 is 120 lbs total. Yet the Anderson with rails is 40 lbs. (The fifth wheel choice with slider are hundreds of lbs.)

Saves money, too!

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by Honair

I have GVWR less than the two axles and the axles are less than tires (on that axle). So, if I understand what you have said.... its not the tires or the axles (including suspension). Its the GVWR.... that is the limiting number.

Right.

Originally Posted by Honair

So,,seemingly,,, to add weight I can put in/on the pickup, I need to get rid of weight.

Maybe lighter wheels, take the rear seats out and/or have my wife not bring her purse!

Lighter wheels would reduce weight, but that weight isn't actually carried by the frame, so although it would help the "payload = GVWR - curb weight" calculation, it wouldn't actually reduce the loads on the frame usefully... although the frame might not be the weak link.

The rear seats are a good example of the stuff that these trucks (of any brand) carry around which reduce their payload. When a manufacturer brags about the highest available payload, they are usually talking about the standard cab and stripped-down version.

Originally Posted by Honair

Clearly, and for our 5.0TA, if possible we will choose the Anderson hitch set up with the rails (3200) and not the gooseneck ball in that the gooseneck ball (under bed) and the Anderson 3220 is 120 lbs total. Yet the Anderson with rails is 40 lbs. (The fifth wheel choice with slider are hundreds of lbs.)

The 40 pound weight for the aluminum rail-mount Andersen Ultimate (#3200) is without the rails and the brackets which support the rails from the frame. While the combination might still be lighter than the ball-anchored version (#3220) with the bed-mounted ball, the difference is not that large. I think convenience and what is left in the bed when the hitch is out would be more important than the weight difference, but that's an individual choice.

[gbaglo]

My recollection of reading my RAV4 manual is the version with third-row seating had larger payload. Never made sense to me that adding weight would increase payload.

Found it. 525 kg with third row seat ( see *7 )

[Honair]

Originally Posted by Brian B-P

Right.


The 40 pound weight for the aluminum rail-mount Andersen Ultimate (#3200) is without the rails and the brackets which support the rails from the frame. While the combination might still be lighter than the ball-anchored version (#3220) with the bed-mounted ball, the difference is not that large. I think con %?venience and what is left in the bed when the hitch is out would be more important than the weight difference, but that's an individual choice.

Thank you for your thoughts, great feedback.... I would love to have a flat bed when not towing. Yet at the same time I would like to be as little over payload as possible. I have three close friends that say just drive it over payload... but it concerns me.

Is it ok to drive over payload and if so by what %?

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by gbaglo

My recollection of reading my RAV4 manual is the version with third-row seating had larger payload. Never made sense to me that adding weight would increase payload.

The cause and effect are the wrong way around. The third seat adds weight, and the vehicle needs to handle that plus more people, so Toyota uses stiffer rear springs (and possibly other changes) to increase the rear axle capacity and gross vehicle weight rating. It is built to have more payload so that it can handle more weight.

[gbaglo]

So, I should have ordered the third row seat and then removed it. Makes me wonder why I couldn't order it with the increased payload, but not pay for seats I don't need.
Guess that's the way of the world. Want not, waste.

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by gbaglo

So, I should have ordered the third row seat and then removed it.

I believe that some people have done that. With a similar situation in the Sienna (7-seater versus 8-seaters), some people have decided that the springs are the only difference, or the only part they need, and just installed the stiffer springs in vehicles which came with the softer ones.

Originally Posted by gbaglo

Makes me wonder why I couldn't order it with the increased payload, but not pay for seats I don't need.

There are lots of combinations of equipment which are not available, because it is not practical to offer combinations which very few customers would buy. You've probably noticed that we get fewer trim levels and equipment combinations than buyers in the U.S. of the same vehicles, built in the same factory - the Canadian market is just not big enough to economically offer the less popular variants.

It could be worse: you could faced with buying tens of thousands of dollars of luxury and convenience items to get the trim level at which you are allowed to pay thousands more for a diesel engine in an SUV.

[TheWanderers]

Picked up my "new to me" new truck last night. This thing is a brute. It's some kind of crazy red color that I can never remember but my wife has already named it "Clifford."

Going back to the dealer this afternoon for a car wash and to arrange for a second key as well as the remote clicker.

Next, we are working on a visit to a forum member to view their 2016 5.0TA and decide if a fiver is right for us.

[TheWanderers]

Just added new tires to my new-to-me Tundra. We have a date this Saturday to see a 5.0TA in person. Can't wait!!!

[TheWanderers]

Exchanged emails with ETI yesterday to ensure that my Tundra was suitable for pulling a 5.0TA and they assured me, based on the weight ratings, that I could pull 1620#s of payload and that would put me in the range for safe towing.

[LatLongJohn]

To anyone interested in pulling a 5.0 with a Tundra, here's my experience so far: We purchased a used 2013 Tundra Double Cab to pull our new 2017 Escape 5.0 TA. I installed a Timbren Suspension Enhancement System, towing mirrors, Truxedo Lo Pro Tonneau cover, a Curt 16A 5th wheel hitch and a 5th wheel style tailgate (all from etrailer.com). After several long trips and nearly 10,000 miles over all types of terrain (we're from Colorado), I must say that the Tundra/5.0 combination has been great! The ride with the Timbren system is excellent and the Tundra has lots of power to fly up just about any mountain pass. It's super stable and pulls the trailer with ease and a great ride to boot. I'm very satisfied with my setup. The single downside with a Tundra is gas mileage. I do all my fuel planning for 12 mpg when pulling the trailer. Hopefully, this might be helpful to those considering the Tundra to match up with their 5.0.