Noon-Air and BARRY,
That *is* what I wanted to know!
I have a welding rig set up on an '86 Toyota 1-ton Flatbed. It works, but that 22R certainly won't do any flips for me with all that load! I tip the scale at the scrap yard at 4700 lbs with nothing but my rig.
It's all good, but I wouldn't want to pull a trailer. I fear the truck is about at it's limits as it is.
How about this Tundra setup: 2WD, V6, manual transmissi>
I routinely run with the camper shell, all the tools, parts and equipment on board......normally around 1100 lbs in my '05 Tundra. Its rated for a gross payload of 2000lbs, and net payload of 1500lbs(3/4 ton). Its used as an HVAC service truck. Its almost 2 years old and has 60,000 miles on it, and has far exceded all of my expectations. What you describe, is what I am running right now(minus the suspension upgrade)
You just have to take your time. The current crop of product testers (at the car mags) has spent 20 years brainwashing people to think 250 hp is not enough for a family sedan, and 350 is not enough for a pickup. It's just stupid. Don't listen to 'em.
very true.... think about the big trucks... Peterbuilts are running 530 hp, pulling tractor/trailer rigs with an 80,000lb payload, while in my Tundra, I have *only* 245 hp to pull my tundra with a 2,000lb gross payload, and a trailer carrying up to a 5,000lb payload.
while I agree the public has been brain washed, your comparing apples to oranges. That big rig has over 1450 pound foot of torque. When I started driving we thought
250 HP was a huge engine, then the 300 hps came out, followed by Cummin's Big Cam 350, and we were pulling 80,000 gross back then as well, more if you were pulling over size over weight. When I was in the service we were pulling M88 tank recovery vehicles behind a diesel V-8 Mack powered M123 series. a whopping 200hp to pull a track vehicle that weighed 70 tons. When the A3 mod came out it got a 300 hp V-8 Cummins. One unit I was in actually had a reo gas powered one, a whopping 160hp. The common engine size in todays trucks is the 410-450 hp Detroit series 60, or same hp Cummins ISM. The big engines areseldomg found in company trucks, the owner ops with money to burn by the big engines. They are faster, but the fuel economy drops like a rock. The cummins and detroits at "tuned" to 435 hp get on average 6.8 mpg. Those 500 hp plus 1650 pound foot of torque engines drop to 6.4 mpg and then only if driven with a light foot. Doesnt sound like much of a difference till you start consider 150,000 miles a year, then it adds up fast.Whitelightning
I had an '85 with a 22R / 4 speed manual, and I agree. The current Tacoma is much bigger and more powerful. I have a closely geared 6 speed manual, which gets the load moving nicely and allows for proper combos at almost any speed and hill combo. The weight and length of my Access Cab help the overall handling compared to previous generations.
I've never driven a Tundra, so sorry I can't help with that.
When I've needed larger capacity on a daily basis, I've skipped right over full size pickups, and especially the incredibly lame Big-3 hi-cube vans, in favor of 14' Mitsubishi turbo diesel hi-cubes. They were reliable, efficient, and handled great. Sprinters are good, too, but I know you want an open bed.
Did you ever think of something like a 10-12' flatbed on a Mitsubishi cabover? I used to get very attractive deals, complete with a warranty, on 4 year olds from my local Ryder regional depot. Some are even available with 4WD!
When I started driving a family sedan could have 300 plus HP easily and there was no exhaust emissions and they ran.You could order a Pontiac family sedan with a 421 trpower which was arguably the most powerfully engine ever put in a stock street car. My cousin had one in a Catalinia with a 4 speed and 4.10 gears and that car was down right scarey at times and did not really hook up until 3 gear because the tires could not handle the torque applied to them in first and second. (people that did not drive then really do not know about some of the brutes that detriot made back then. Back then a 220 HP diesel OTR rig was considered kinda top end and there was still a lot of gas OTR rigs around too. Diesel OTR rigs overtook gas ones in HP in later
70's. When you play the torque number, all is not as it seems because 1400 ft lbs of torque at 1400 RPM does same work or makes same HP as 700 ft lbs at 2800 RPM or 350 ft lbs at 5600 RPM. It is all in how you gear it to the load. There was a time that a gas powered triaxle dump truck with a 427 was the truck to have for several years. I drove one for a while in college and they did a fine job. Without doubt a diesel in such a truck could get better MPG but they could not compete HP wise at that time.----------------- TheSnoMan.com
In the gasoline era, it would have been perfectly normal for a semi to have
100 hp. They managed to get where they needed to go. GMC made semi's with 4-71's in them. I'm not sure how much power that is, but it's not much.I have a measly Ford 302 automatic with 185 hp. The truck weighs 5000, the payload is about 1600 or so. The allowed trailer weight is a lot, like
7000. I only tow about 5000 with mine. It's extremely safe, because the truck is long and heavy, but it takes me a long time to get up to full crashing speed.I've looked long and hard at the Fuso line. Very nice! I've never owned a
100% commercial vehicle, though, so I'm worried that I'd be in for a lot of unpleasant surprises! Certainly, services are going to be more.What k> Did you ever think of something like a 10-12' flatbed on a Mitsubishi
I haven't had one for a few years, but the examples I had typically at least doubled the fuel mileage of the gas hi-cubes they replaced.
I'm sure the body choice would make a sizable difference in mileage, with a flat or open body doing much better than a comparable box.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required