GM Tire Load infoFollowing last week's mild uproar after it was discovered that Ford and General Motors were removing some optional parts from their pickups to lower the curb weight and consequently increase the maximum payload, GM has come out and committed to a base curb weight for its upcoming Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon compact trucks (although it has yet to publish them) and its current Silverado and Sierra. The company will do the same for its heavy duty offerings, although those numbers have not been finalized yet.

"This will make our curb weight and payload specs more consistent with those of most other truck makers, making it easier for customers to compare vehicles," GM spokesman Tom Wilkinson told Autoblog in an emailed statement.

As GM notes – and as every manufacturer has noted since this story broke – customers still shouldn't take max payload ratings as gospel. Instead, they should refer to their truck's Tire and Load Label, like the one shown at the inset, which will offer detailed information on max payload, specific to their truck.

Automotive News, meanwhile, reports that Ford has not made any changes to the way it figures out max payload ratings, despite the GM announcement. The company was at the center of last week's news, when it was revealed that it removed items like the spare tire, jack, radio and even the center console, to determine the curb weight for the F-Series Super Duty.


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 32 Comments
      rsholland
      • 4 Months Ago

      They should require the actual payload to be listed on the window MSRP sticker. Each vehicle will have a different payload rating depending on cab configuration and options.

        XT6Wagon
        • 4 Months Ago *Edited*
        @rsholland

        While I agree in theory, the millions of possible option combinations on just a F-150 alone says that this is impossible. 

        Its also easy enough for you to do on your own. Put in your full tank of gas, hit some certified truck scales (preferably with individual axle scales), and get your current wieght. Bamn, you can no calculate how much payload capacity you have with your specific truck with you in it. Can also see how much you can put where if you have the axle weights.  For example my F-150 is almost impossible to load to max GVWR as the rear axle hits its max early with the front axle having plenty of load left.  

        Course if you like living on the wild side you can do what 99% of people in america do and just ignore the math and load it till the tires cry. 

      dfkd
      • 4 Months Ago

      Here's a little help with that headline...

      "GM fesses up about exaggerating towing limits. Promises it will no longer lie about it."

      Karfreek
      • 4 Months Ago

      Translation:  GM lied. Got caught. Vows never to do it again.

        jj360
        • 4 Months Ago
        @Karfreek

        You mean GM lied again. Got caught again. Vows never to do it again, again. 

      Ryan Voll
      • 4 Months Ago
      Ford did the same thing. Yet people criticize GM only. Gotta love bias.
        Bobby D
        • 4 Months Ago
        @Ryan Voll

        Maybe if you read the entire article "Following last week's mild uproar after it was discovered that Ford and General Motors were removing some optional parts from their pickups to lower the curb weight and consequently increase the maximum payload, " You'd have seen that FORD was also in the hot seat.

        lokestreachery
        • 4 Months Ago
        @Ryan Voll

        Dude, there's no bias, Ford hasn't fessed up yet. If they ever get in line, there will be an article about them. This story is about GM and admitting to (one of) their shady practices, so simmer.

          XT6Wagon
          • 4 Months Ago
          @lokestreachery

          Carpinions, The F-450 *IS* a class 3 truck. It exactly meets the limits of a Class 3 truck, and meets all required regulations and laws for said class. This is a definition set by the US Federal Government and not merely marketing BS. 

          Ford and GM while being somewhat deceptive with the removal of equipment, you could in fact order a truck equipped exactly like the one used to set the paper payload ratings. You will also find lots and lots of disclamers all over the payload charts saying you must calculate the exact payload for your truck and the charts are merely a rough guide. 

          Carpinions
          • 4 Months Ago
          @lokestreachery

          Pff, like Ford's position is any better. They are trying to push push the F-450 as the Ram 3500's competitor, and to say the F-450 is now towing king while occupying a different class. The only way to get the F-450 into the Ram 3500's weight class *is* to remove parts from it to make it lighter. AT THE SAME TIME Ford is lauding the F-450 as being the first ever 40k GVWR light truck. Ford's even threatening a lawsuit over Ram's continued claims.


          They're taking it much further than GM. Ford's on the record even if they haven't openly said they're doing it. Do you think anyone openly admits to lying when caught in the act? Of course not. GM fessed up, Ford remains silent. Both used the same grey areas in the regs to market their trucks. GM openly admitted it when caught; Ford so far is whistling while looking at the sky. Do I think Ford is worse for doing it? Eh, sort of not really. Again it's something that doesn't affect anyone's lives when driving either maker's trucks. It's just shady in the sense that buyers may  only be getting 98% of what they paid for, instead of 100%, as a result.

          Carpinions
          • 4 Months Ago
          @lokestreachery

          @XT6Wagon


          No, no it is NOT a Class 3 truck. 


          For starter's, Ford's own F-X50 naming system has the first number denoting the class of truck. Just like Dodge/Ram, just like GM. Second, Ford has been going to great marketing lengths to bolster their medium duty business, in part by adding customers at the F-450 and F-550 level. Is the F-550 not a Class 5 truck? Does Ford just skip Class 4 altogether? Of course not. Look at the capacity info on the Ford website. The truck Class rating system is all based around vehicle weight plus max payload. The website info clearly shows that the maxed out F-450 that can tow 31,200 lbs is the one that meets Class 4 weight status, hence why Ram is 100% correct in saying it does not compete with the Ram 3500. Ford can try to claim the F-450 is Class 3 because the base F-450 has a just low enough payload to be 14k lbs or less, but it's ultimately not-very-veiled sleight of marketing hand because why? Because Ford A) would of course not market the fact that they don't have a Class 4 truck, B) just because they make a Class 4 truck that a version of barely skates into the Class 3 regs doesn't mean the truck is then Class 3 across the board, C) they want to try to claim the Ram 3500 cannot tow more than the F-3/450 DRW in max config, thus giving them top billing in Classes 3 and 4, and D) have their cake and eat it too by trying to make it look like "Hey! our Super Duties are also lighter than the competition while having more capability!" (not 100% accurate) while they're revving up the full court press on the 2015 F-150. In short, Ford is doing exactly what the press says they are: making a convenient argument to try and appear to be #1.


          The F-450 in maximum towing and payload config is easily in the Class 4  category; full stop, end of story. The F-450 that skirts into Class 3 does not tow 31,200. If they wanted to do some strong Class 4 marketing, they could point out how the Ram 4500 actually tows about the same as a maxed Silverado 3500, whereas the F-450 tows several tons more. But that market is considerably smaller than the ones for the F-150 through 350, which is where the everyday buyer is more likely to be.

      Car Guy
      • 4 Months Ago

      Is some Senator going to demand a $1 billion fine and the death penalty for this too?

      Larry Litmanen
      • 4 Months Ago

      They lied to the public yet again and got caught again. If GM was a real person they person would be in one of those dumb criminals videos.

        white_blur47
        • 4 Months Ago
        @Larry Litmanen

        Oh come on, according to citizens united, corporations are people too.

          Larry Litmanen
          • 4 Months Ago
          @white_blur47

          In that case i guess this guy is GM


          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fKM6UyFecE

        Alfonso T. Alvarez
        • 4 Months Ago
        @Larry Litmanen

        If you were a real person you'd get a life instead of settling for being a lowly (and not very good) internet troll ...

          Larry Litmanen
          • 4 Months Ago
          @Alfonso T. Alvarez

          Troll? Because i said that GM is a bad company. You really could not figure that one out based on all the recalls?

          Instead of leaving meanspirited comments here why don't you go and buy a GM product for your wife and kids...................bet you would never do that.

          Carpinions
          • 4 Months Ago
          @Alfonso T. Alvarez

          @Larry Litmanen

          And do you have any idea why they're doing all the recalls? Clearing the decks mean anything to you? If you were leading a company and were in charge of overseeing the resolution of a coverup right after you took the highest leadership position there, don't you think it would be a good idea to bite the bullet and flush the system so that they don't continually get sued over years of time for such things? The ignition switch was the biggest issue; everything else is A) so they don't get sued for something else, B) to flush the system and fight through the pain of correcting intentional (the ignition switch and unintentional (everything else) problems, and C) to try and put their past behind them.

          To your question, yes, I would purchase a GM vehicle knowing what I know now. Just as people continued to buy Ford Explorers during and immediately after the Firestone debacle 15 years ago. The majority of problems with GM cars affect vehicles that were on sale or designed prior to the bail out.
          Alfonso T. Alvarez
          • 4 Months Ago
          @Alfonso T. Alvarez

          @ lying Larry -

          You never comment on anything other than a GM post, you never understand what the post means, and you continually make grammatical and spelling errors in your pathetic comments - then log in with your other personnas to downvote anyone who calls you out for your pathetic and repeated attempts to seem like you have a clue - which you clearly don't - yep, that's the classic definition of a troll ...

        Carpinions
        • 4 Months Ago
        @Larry Litmanen

        They got caught "lying" about something that doesn't affect anyone's safety. Chalking this up as some kind of massive moral failing is like calling out that racer from the 60s (I want to say it was Yenko) who would swiss-cheese the frames of his race cars to drop weight. He did it, nobody caught onto it right away, and he won races as a result. GM doing this is much more marketing shenanigans, and a lot lower on the immorality scale than skimping on a part that ultimately causes hundreds of thousands of vehicles to shut off mid-use.


        Get off the high horse.

        XT6Wagon
        • 4 Months Ago
        @Larry Litmanen

        They didn't lie, you can order the exact truck they used for the marketing BS. You as the consumer should be aware that all marketing BS is in fact BS.  If 200lbs of random junk is going to make or break your usage of the truck, you should be doing LOTS of actual research into the actual truck you are going to buy, not relying on some marketing department which might have never seen the truck in real life. 

      Bernie Kressner
      • 4 Months Ago

      Actually, the only two (known) manufacturers who are "clean" in all this are Ram and Toyota. 
      Don't know about Nissan yet: anybody know?
      Guess I'll just have to buy another Ram based on ethics AND its being the only one which offers a manual transmission in one of its full-sized models. Go, Sergio!

      Too bad, Ford. You are done.
      Sorry Chevy, your repentance (do I hear an apology?) is a little late and a little weak. Makes me wonder what else you're deceiving people about...

      ---------------------------

      Lawrance
      • 4 Months Ago

      I'm not surprised. It seems like the American car companies have played these games for decades. My money goes to Toyota. Sadly, the Japanese companies seem to have more integrity. 

        John Lucas
        • 4 Months Ago
        @Lawrance

        Toyota is the most dishonest company there is. You must live in a cave.

        Rick Hamilton
        • 4 Months Ago
        @Lawrance

        Really, did you forget about the sudden acceleration issue? Toyota got fined big time for that.

      b.rn
      • 4 Months Ago

      I don't understand the issue.  They removed optional parts when calculating the curb weight.  How is this misleading?  Add stuff to a truck and it adds weight.

        Card13
        • 4 Months Ago
        @b.rn

        You misunderstood. The parts they removed are not optional, it is "optional to remove" those parts. So you could technically ask for them to remove the bumper if you were going to do something different to the truck, but that is, in fact, standard equipment. 

      John Lucas
      • 4 Months Ago

      Chevy has done this for a short period of time and now, they've come to their sense. They won't remove items like Ford does.

      Wake up Ford, you are the only ones doing this and you've been doing this for a long time. We know you'll do anything to fool the people like your Ecoboost which is nothing more than an engine with a turbo/direct injection. Everyone has that tech, so quite bragging.  In fact you were late in the game to get this. You only gave it a name to fool the customers.

      btc909
      • 4 Months Ago

      Sleazy bastards.

    • Load More Comments