ShadowsPapa
Well-Known Member
- First Name
- Bill
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2019
- Threads
- 247
- Messages
- 40,442
- Reaction score
- 53,859
- Location
- Runnells, Iowa
- Vehicle(s)
- '25 JTMX, '23 JLU 4xe, '82 SX4, '73 Javelin
- Occupation
- Retired auto mechanic, frmr gov't ntwrk security admin
- Vehicle Showcase
- 3
Please read the dozen other threads on this that date back over a year. It's NOT axle rating or frame strength. There is much testing these go through. The manufacturers run their trucks through rigorous SAE testing and it's not about "how much will this frame handle or when will the axles snap"IIRC the payload does not include 150 lbs for the driver....
I've joked on this site before that my WRX has a higher payload capability than my gladiator. My door tag says 1021. The par that confuses me is the Gross axel weight rating add upo tpo far greater than the GVWR.
These have to pass certain performance tests (and I don't mean how fast they'll go) to get these ratings. Braking, steering, maneuvering in emergencies, wet road handling, sway, and other factors.
Anyone who believes they can stick tougher springs under these and increase payload is really not understanding how trucks are rated.
My wife's WK2 is a great example - the payload and towing rival my JT - why? It's LOWER, lower center of gravity and other factors give it a leg up on the JT as far as PERFORMANCE towing or handling a load in the back. The axles aren't any heavier under a Grand Cherokee and yet it's ratings are higher.
I simply suggest folks think outside of the old "bigger springs and axles and that number means nothing".
Sponsored