[Alarm]

The 200 lbs for the AWD is most likely unsprung weight and if so, it would not affect the load capacity.

 

[firetruck41]

Usually springs are different on models with different weight, so I checked and the 2wd and 4wd share the same front springs, but the rear springs are a different part number.

I don't believe it is unsprung weight, on an independent suspension about the only unsprung weight is the wheels/tires/brakes, I believe a solid axle would be unsprung weight though.

 

[embeddedmatt]

Thanks for the info. Your reply makes sense. I feel a little more relaxed now. :wink:

You shouldn't feel relaxed. The 675 lb. limit is outrageous for a SUV. Even my Subaru Legacy wagon is rated for 900 lbs.

Honda, I ask you, what is the point of the cavernous interior when you can't safely fill it?

 

[aristoBrat]

It'd be nice to know what Honda's limitations are for coming up with "675".

Until someone posts a bad experience with exceeding the load limit, I don't think too many folks are going to lose any sleep over it.

 

[embeddedmatt]

Until someone posts a bad experience with exceeding the load limit, I don't think too many folks are going to lose any sleep over it.

You're right about that. Almost everyone will just ignore it. And you'll get it away with it 99.9% of the time. But how sure are you about the emergency handling of your Element at 75 MPH overloaded by 200 lbs? As a father of a toddler, you bet I'd lose sleep over that.

Unlike most people I take the safety recommendations seriously and the payload limit is the primary reason why I will probably get an Odyssey instead of an Element. And this is from a guy who used to read the Element brochure to his son like it was a bed time story.

I hope Honda fixes this with the next generation Element because otherwise I really like it.

 

[aristoBrat]

It's amazing that anyone born in the 60's, 70's, or 80's ever made it thru childhood with the (judged from todays standards) unsafe cars our parents hauled us around in.

I agree with your point about how it handles in emergencies while overloaded. AFAIK, nobody knows. Plenty of stories on how it handles regularly while overloaded, but no emergency stories. (Thank god) I really wish Honda would disclose the rational behind how they came up with the 675 limit!

 

[Ed]

I don't know how to check the front spring part mumbers vs the CRV, but the flat load floor and decent handling have a price: it is payload in the rear half of the vehicle.

In other words, I don't think honda can make it better using technology normal to todays production vehicles.

I could be wrong.

Ed

 

[Simon]

The VW Beatle or Bug has a greater rating in this area.

It is kind of ridiculous. A cavernous interior and it can't hold 4 good size adults.

 

[HappyCamper]

I think I found Honda's reasoning behind the 675 pound load capacity.

I looked in the Owner's Manual, and it states the total vehicle weight and the maximum load capacity rating of the tires, the difference being 675 pounds. After the Firestone/Ford fiasco, I think I would stick to that formula, and upgrade the tires to a higher rating if I wanted to increase the load limit....

 

[brendan]

I looked in the Owner's Manual, and it states the total vehicle weight and the maximum load capacity rating of the tires, the difference being 675 pounds. After the Firestone/Ford fiasco, I think I would stick to that formula, and upgrade the tires to a higher rating if I wanted to increase the load limit....

Hmm, according the owner's manual (is it the same for all?), they are P215/70R16 99S. At this site: http://www.discounttire.com/dtc/brochure/info/helpDeskLoadIndex.jsp

...it seems to indicate the total load capacity for 99 is 6936lbs. (4x1709), which is almost double the curb weight of the element. So, I don't think the math works out as you indicated... Did I miss something?

-brendan

 

[HappyCamper]

Sorry about that Brendan ..... my mistake. I apparently had jumped to a conclusion when I was scanning the manual. Back to being confused :shock:

 

[brendan]

Sorry about that Brendan ..... my mistake. I apparently had jumped to a conclusion when I was scanning the manual. Back to being confused :shock:

Me too.

In addition, the manual says on page 192: Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) = 4,450lbs.

So, that would leave:

Model         Curb     Cargo
DX/2WD/MT     3330     1120
DX/4WD/MT     3460     990
EX/2WD/MT     3389     1061
EX/4WD/MT     3526     924

DX/2WD/AT     3387     1063
DX/4WD/AT     3518     932
EX/2WD/AT     3439     1011
EX/4WD/AT     3577     873

I don't know if GVWR includes a full or empty tank of gas so perhaps the weight of 15.9 gallons of gas should be subtracted from the cargo number.

There'a also the Gross Axle Weight Rating as well on that page, which indicates the rear wheels(2250lb) should take about 95 lbs. less off the weight the front wheels (2300lb) can take. Perhaps the 675lb value mentioned elsehwere is based on an engineering equation using the above minimum value of 873 combined with likely cargo/people placement and current weight distribution of the vehicle?

 

[brendan]

I don't know if GVWR includes a full or empty tank of gas so perhaps the weight of 15.9 gallons of gas should be subtracted from the cargo number.

Cars.com indicates that curb-weight *includes* all fluids topped off and a full tank of gas. Good thing too, since 15.9 gallons is...ouch, really heavy! If not included in curb-weight, that would have subtracted ~100lbs from the carrying capacities I computed.

EDITED - replaced GVWR references with curb-weight references above.

 

[MikeQBF]

Some of you might have seen my response (in "Shopping") to the guy wanting to carry half a ton of canoe gear... and on rough roads. We already know that's not going to happen.

Recalling some structural engineering classes from a zillion years ago, his question got me to thinking that the weight capacity issue with the E may simply be one of too much unsupported structure. That extra-wide pillarless door opening leaves a lot of area in the vertical plane without visible means of support. Too much weight, and I'll bet that you will experience measurable distortion in the body structure, especially diagonally across the side door frames.

:shock:

This sent my head spinning about the reported problems with 1) the windshield cracks and 2) the back side doors not latching, or rattling and clunking, or other problems indicating adjustment or alignment problems.

In other words, I think people are "bending" their E's, with linear flexing in the vertical plane on each side, plus torsional flexing. It's the torsional flex that's going to crack windshields, and the linear flex is going to mess with the doors. Neither should be happening, but in my non-professional engineering opinion, both would be no surprise at all... at least not to me.

I'd be interested in what Honda has to say about this. There might just be some added under-body bracing in my future E's future.

 

[routeinfo]

This was my concern. I did not know that the capacity was 675lbs but I had thought the frame looked very flexable.

Really a 1000lb capacity is not unreasonable. 675lbs is. That's less than most mid sized cars.

Pat

P.S. I am a raft rower, not a kayak or canoe paddler. That means I carry all the beer.

 

[OneEyeJack]

675 lb total for cargo and passengers is just rediculous. I love the look and idea of this vehicle, but I'm not going to buy a car that I can't even tote around me and 3 friends my size.

I'm sad, but happy I found that number before I owned it.

Good luck everyone. I'm already missing a vehicle I never owned.

 

[BigFoot]

Remove the two back seats which weight 42.5 pounds each, giving a 85 pound increase, or a 12.6% increase. Total new capacity = 760.

Now go eat your donuts again.

 

[brendan]

Mmm, donuts.

-brendan

 

[Kayakin' Dan]

I increased the weight limit easier than that...I just keep putting more and more sh!t in it.

 

[TopDog]

I will remove all three passenger seats, and the spare tire. :lol: