Jeep just released a JL with a payload increase of 500lbs

Dan Grec

Expedition Leader
I have been doing a little digging and looking into this as well.
It really must come down to suspension settings from the factory?
Wow, great investigation!

I'm no expert, but I think it's a combination of many factors, including brakes, frame stiffness, suspension stiffness (nobody wants a harsh ride when it's empty), things like sway and track bar stiffness and (maybe the biggest limiting factor) cooling.
I like how your analysis basically proves it's not the tires or axles limiting it right now.
When it comes to brakes we know they put bigger ones on the 392 Wrangler, and they stiffened the frame as well.

There's this great article from a former FCA engineer about how much work went into the cooling when designing the Gladiator, and how that is really the limiting factor of all combustion engines for towing.

I think that article does a really good job of illustrating just how complicated the design of a vehicle is, and how many factors go into things like payload and tow rating.
As much as we just want to say "The axles and tires are good for it", it's way more complicated and more of a juggling act.

At the end of it all, however, I still think the 4xe has a 500lbs payload higher than a stock Wrangler, which leads me to believe Jeep could make a "max payload" version from the factory if they wanted to.
They could just use whatever suspension/brakes/frame etc. from the 4xe but don't put in the electric stuff, and there it would be!
I think the trick would be convincing bean counters there will be enough sales to justify it.

  • Like
Reactions: MCX


I think the trick would be convincing bean counters there will be enough sales to justify it.

For sure I think the real reason the Wranglers payload is where it is, is so that if falls under the 6000 lb payload cutoff for EPA ratings on SUV's. This might be a benefit for CAFE fees. I am not to sure how that works or if it is true. So we would have to really convince them (the bean counters) that people would pay a premium. Look at the new Landrover Defender for example, I believe they saw the value in making an "overland"able product for marketing and therefore gave it a decent payload, around 1800 lbs.



On light trucks, difference between GVWR and sum of GAWRs is always wishy washy. Appears to be highly arbitrary based mostly on marketing and emissions needs. Remember, GAWR factors in all suspension, braking, and tire loading.

I understand the COG / frame / vehicle dynamics argument, but consider this: on commercial trucks (Kenworth, etc.), GVWR is almost always sum of GAWRs.

Think about how much COG varies - you won't know if the chassis has a dump bed, flat deck, box van, cement mixer, tanker, or wrecker body mounted. COG and load dynamics can vary hugely for a given Freightliner chassis cab depending on up-fitting.

Yet, engineers are confident enough to assign a GVWR = sum of GAWRs. Why does a Ram 6.4 have higher GVWR than 5.7? Makes zero sense as engine does not limit payload. Same frame, axle, powertrain, COG, etc. Only difference being spring rates.

Recommended books for Overlanding


New member
Does anyone know if the brakes are the same on the 4xe. Brakes are oftentimes limiting factors in overall GVWR ratings.