New weight rating for 2011 Sienna XLE (recall)

[brian_bp]

And YES... I have looked at Honda Odyssey and it had the weight rating of 1380lbs just like my old sticker. Have you looked at any other VAN placards? If not, then I'm ahead of you.

No, I had not looked at other stickers; I didn't say they weren't the same, only that it would be surprising.

A fascinating coincidence. It would help to say "Honda Odyssey" instead of "other vans" when you know nothing about the ratings for the others vans, and only specifically about one specific version of the Odyssey.

[brian_bp]

Others have already explained the loading issues well, so I'll avoid restating anything and just add a few more comments...

Yes, the total of front and rear axle capacities seems like more than enough even without tire changes, but the government loading procedure puts weight for passengers in seats, likely loads the van with enough rear bias that the rear tire limits are violated before the front tire limits are, cutting off the payload capacity before using up the capacity of all four tires.

Directly answering the question about whether one can exceed 3000 lb on the rear axle... yes, since the cargo space is generally in the rear and the trailer hitch is 40% of the wheelbase rear of the rear axle, it's easy to overload the rear axle (or at least the standard tires on the rear axle) before hitting the front axle limit. When carrying lots of cargo and towing our 3000 lb travel trailer (with our 2004, but the situation is similar to the 2011+) I deliberately put heavy van cargo forward, and have ended up with both axles at nearly their (or their tires') limits.

I think it makes sense to go back to basics: load your stuff in, drive over a scale, and make sure your axle loads are within the Gross Axle Weight Ratings - if they are your tires (assuming even left/right distribution) are within their limits and it doesn't matter what some government agency predicted your tire loads might be... they are okay in your specific case. If you max out those limits, you're carrying a lot of stuff! If you go over the rear axle limit but not the total of the two axles, then swap the locations of some stuff around to shift heavier stuff forward and get it balanced properly. Aircraft pilots (and loadmasters) do this every day.

I do use XL tires, but mostly because the tires I want for other reasons (such as winter performance) happen to be XL. If you want to increase capacity by using higher-capacity tires, keep in mind that there may be other limiting factors in the chassis, so exercise caution in taking advantage of that extra tire capacity.


Just to put this whole thing in perspective, the common term "half-ton truck" meant that such a pickup truck had a payload of half a ton, or 1000 lb. They carry a lot more now, but still... our minivans are more than half-ton trucks. That's a pile of people and stuff! I'm not suggesting that we ditch any people, but do we really need all that stuff?

[brian_bp]

I have to make one more comment...

Guys, don't worry about one irate and generally ungrateful member making wild accusations, and telling you to read the documents when he has not done so (or at least not understood them) himself. It has been an interesting exploration of the vehicle's limits and bizarre world of government regulation, and the complaining member is unlikely to ever post again, anyway.

[froggy]

I have to make one more comment...

Guys, don't worry about one irate and generally ungrateful member making wild accusations, and telling you to read the documents when he has not done so (or at least not understood them) himself. It has been an interesting exploration of the vehicle's limits and bizarre world of government regulation, and the complaining member is unlikely to ever post again, anyway.

WRONG... I'm back....

I'm not looking for a lawsuit. You obviously don't care about the situation. I have read the documents. I'm the one that posted them. ALL you have done is shot from the Hip.

For the sake of ARGUMENT... show me one thing I've said that's wrong? One thing. It shouldn't be hard for you. Do you know how to use the "quote" feature?

[froggy]

Thanks!! I had a great laugh this afternoon over being called a liar and a Toyota stooge. No, I don't work for them. But I am a development engineer in a major R&D lab, and reasonably good with automotive issues & mechanical stuff. Perhaps my only error here was to continue to play to your game. Narboza, Brian and I honestly tried to keep this technical, while conceding that Toyota made some poor choices along the way. Apparently that just isn't enough.

35 years of technical problem solving has taught me that unfortunately some people aren't really interested in learning or accepting the truth. It's more the smell of easy money that brought them to the table. Enjoy your lawsuit.

I wish you well.

Did I use the word "liar"? Did I mention a lawsuit? Please show where I used the word "liar" or mentioned a "lawsuit". Just use the quote feature... its simple to use. 35 years for engineering experience should get you half way to understanding a simple "forum" feature.

I'll take your word that you don't work for Toyota. I will say... that you have no "skin in the game" because you don't own the vehicle that on recall. Is that a fair analysis?

[froggy]

No, I had not looked at other stickers; I didn't say they weren't the same, only that it would be surprising.

A fascinating coincidence. It would help to say "Honda Odyssey" instead of "other vans" when you know nothing about the ratings for the others vans, and only specifically about one specific version of the Odyssey.

I have looked at multiple Honda Odyssey vans. I have also looked at multiple Toyota vans. The information is not publsihed online that I can find. I wish it was. Do you want me to take a picture next time and post it. I can....

are you "SURPRISED" now that you know differently?

[froggy]

I guess "support" wasn't the best word to use but rather "recognize." Since some owners installed the CURT hitch after taking delivery, will Toyota consider that as part of the original vehicle spec (weight). Should these owners still have selected they have a hitch accessory? If Toyota does care about the CURT hitch as an after an aftermarket part and issues a new label (or whatever fix) with it, they just made it like an OEM part.

If there was no recall on this load issue and owners purchased the CURT hitch, effectively there is a change in the load max anyways but I don't think it has crossed their minds. Nor do I think CURT or any aftermarket hitch manufacturers informs buyers on the effect it has on the max load.

I don't know what kind of games these guys are trying to play... but there are 210,000 vans that are part of this recall. There have to be several thousand that had a factory "hitch". If Toyota is not smart enough to consider such a accessory as affecting total load capacity.... after manufacturing 210,000 vans.... then God knows.... someone needs help...

I am a life long Republican and a supporter of smaller government... but this is one time of many that the NTSA has held a manufacture to stand behind their products.

What do you think would have happened if they hadn't?

And all I get out this is a new "placard"?

Pardon me if I feel insulted.

[Narboza]

[Froggy], this

Just use the quote feature... its simple to use. 35 years for engineering experience should get you half way to understanding a simple "forum" feature.

and this

Do you know how to use the "quote" feature?

really are uncalled for. Yes, we know how to quote. The people who replied to you have been on this board for much longer than you, and are very competent. Some of us liked the forum so much, we even donated money to keep it running before it was sold to a website publisher. We have not been a rude newbie who is insulting. People will ignore logic and accurate analysis when treated like that. Writing a post with quote after quote to make sure you lose no individual point is bombast, since we do not egage in games of one-upmanship here.

You obviously don't care about the situation. I have read the documents. I'm the one that posted them. ALL you have done is shot from the Hip.

Wrong and wrong. I read about this recall when it was first published almost 2-1/2 months ago and posted about it in the Supporters section when it was still an interim recall. I updated the post with the final documents. You are neither the first nor unique. As I said, I saw this with my 2006 Sienna and even with a 1986 Corvette, if I am remembering my vehicles correctly. It is an extraordinarily minor issue, but clearly a violation of the Federal law -- hence the recall. Being minor, I did not read and parse the inner meaning of every word. Hey, professional engineers do that when they understand what is happening.

I have seen no one around here claim inside knowledge of either NHTSA or Toyota decisions or processes. That has not stopped us from speculating. I have access to the Toyota technical info system only because I paid for it for another reason.

I don't know what kind of games these guys are trying to play... but there are 210,000 vans that are part of this recall. There have to be several thousand that had a factory "hitch". If Toyota is not smart enough to consider such a accessory as affecting total load capacity.... after manufacturing 210,000 vans.... then God knows.... someone needs help...

... and it is likely NHTSA along with Toyota. Having worked in various places of the Federal government for 30 years as an engineer, I can even surmise how they "simulated" the vehicle loading test you have gotten so upset over. The tool I think they used is Excel. You can create a spreadsheet to build the "simulation" yourself. While the Government one likely was filled in by a low level NHTSA employee, the cell formulas were likely made by someone who unstood the requirements of the FMVSS. When the conditional formatting turned red, the person plugging in the numbers knew to contact their supervisor. The supervisor directed a letter be written. The letter went to Toyota who initiated the voluntary recall. That is how the process works. The NHTSA barely has money to do crash tests with all the tire testing they are doing, so weight compliance is done on a time available basis by junior workers. That is why it went for so long before getting flagged.

Federal law covers the vehicle condition and data when it is sold and not thereafter. What you add to it is your responsibility, which is why the law has the manufacturer get the data at time of sale correct.

I would not expect a mechanical resolution, but a custom sticker for your vehicle.

p.s. I could pull more of your quotes to respond to, but I think you should be able to get my point.

[brian_bp]

WRONG... I'm back....

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant that after ranting about this one issue and abusing the members who are attempting to help, I expect that froggy will then leave the forum without making a constructive contribution. We have seen it before, and I hope that my prediction will turn out to be incorrect.

For the sake of ARGUMENT... show me one thing I've said that's wrong? One thing. It shouldn't be hard for you. Do you know how to use the "quote" feature?

Q.E.D.

I also used the quote feature in five of my previous eight posts, selecting only the applicable fragment of the post to which I was responding, in order to provide context for my comments.

I am not interested in argument - and especially not ARGUMENT - just sharing of information and promotion of understanding. A little debate's always fun, but it's all supposed to be friendly here.

I'm not looking for a lawsuit. You obviously don't care about the situation. I have read the documents. I'm the one that posted them. ALL you have done is shot from the Hip.

Please don't try to tell me what I care about.

Rather than just "shoot from the hip", I have asked clarifying questions, provided explanations, and offered constructive approaches to understanding the situation (by weighing the actual vehicle) and resolving the potential issue (by increasing tire capacity).

Thank you, froggy, for re-posting these documents (which I have briefly examined before); I did indeed read them, although only in sufficient detail to understand the situation. Bureaucrats don't write really riveting stuff. If you took the time to get to know your fellow forum members a bit before attacking them, you might be aware that I'm more likely than most to dig up relevant documentation - whether in Toyota manuals or legal regulations - and provide it in answer to questions from others.

[brian_bp]

I have check other manufacturers load rating and they are 1380 pounds just like the 2011 sienna use to be.

I questioned this statement originally because it seemed unlikely that there was some common standard value for even two variants of the same model, let alone for every vehicle of this type. Froggy then clarified this original statement, saying that he found the same number (1380) on a Honda Odyssey.

While running errands today I visited three dealerships conveniently located in the same area, and looked at the placards on only the one van in each showroom (it's cold here in February, sales staff are not keen to tour people around the lot with keys to find some trivia, and I had other things to do). This is what I found:
Honda Odyssey 1340 lbs
Toyota Sienna XLE 1145 lbs
Nissan Quest 1160 lbs

These are Canadian-market vehicles, but none are different other than option packaging from the U.S. equivalents (welcome to the North American free trade market). I note that no two are the same, and that none are exactly 1380 lbs. I didn't record the Honda's tire size, but their web site says it is either P235/65R17 (load index 103) or P235/60R18 (load index 102). These have taller sidewalls and greater overall diameter and thus have higher capacity than the Sienna sizes. The Quest was wearing P225/65R16 tires which have a load index of 99, making them as restrictive as the Sienna's lower-profile options.

The exact values are not important, but they do illustrate that there are variations in this value, and underline the importance of recognizing that precise payload calculation result is relatively unimportant; verifying that the actual tire loads in the actual loaded condition are within the tires' limits is the important part.

[brian_bp]

My XLE has the best tires on the road. They are Michelin P235/60R17 tires.

I'm sure that a few other tire manufacturers would challenge that statement about the "best tires", but more importantly, every Standard Load P235/60R17 tire will have the same load capacity (100 load index, 1764/1.1 lbs)... even the worst Chinese-built junk. Euro-spec 235/60R17 Standard Load tires will have a 102 load index (1874 lb capacity).

At the risk of being accused of various sins, I will again use that word: I was surprised that a 2011 Sienna XLE would be factory-equipped with P235/60R17 tires, since I thought that the XLE got a size upgrade. It seems that although in the second-generation the CE and LE got the base tire size and the XLE and Limited (plus all levels of AWD) got the "plus one" size, in the third generation only the Limited (plus all levels of AWD) get the "plus one" 18-inch size, and the SE gets the "plus two" 19-inch combination. This may explain some earlier confusion.

If - after a visit to a scale and calm and rational examination of the situation - it is determined that tire capacity (presumably at the rear) is the limitation, a simple change to 235/60R17 might be sufficient to resolve the situation. Of course, given that this Sienna already has the highest-capacity size (although not a high-capacity type), perhaps there is no problem at all.