These 1/2 ton truck " look what I saw " threads are a hoot especially when a F150 is involved.
F150 GVWR run from 6xxx gvwr up to 8200 gvwr.
And 3xxx rawr on up to 4800 rawr.
And gvwr based payloads into the low 3xxx lb range.
We need a special forum for "look what I saw" threads that offers no weight numbers other than "must be" or a "good size" or its gotta' be overloaded just because.....with Marty as the mod.
Bad enough getting threads like this every few months, or multiple a month.......but to have ONE thread! heaven help me!
Oh for you RV.NET weight police! The REAL weight police in typically white pickups or vans, and in weigh stations on the interstate. DO NOT give one flying rats asset about the manufactures warranty weight rating inside you door! ALL they care about is you are under the engineer designed weight limits of the ROAD BED/BRIDGE DECK itself. That is the lessor of 500 lbs per inch width of tire or 20K per single axel, or 34K per tandem.
Using this example, MOST SW pickups have 4 10" tires, or 5000 lbs per tire or a total of 20K lbs they can put on the road before you are damaging the road bed.....THAT is ALL that a real weight cop worries about. Also as long as your paid for license is above what you weigh! Even if you are under the load limits, be above paid for limit, depending upon how much over. The LEO may just give you a 10day up your registered license weight by 2000 lbs as has happened to me a few times! That was 150% of my manufactures gvwr, and 130% of axel totals!
With that in mind. Ask yourself this......is the OPs example truly overweight per an LEO/CVEO? Oh and a ticket for being over weight is a no moving ticket, does not follow your driving record etc. Its an additional TAX to cover the damage you are doing to the road bed!
Now if the OPs example were to get field tested on its braking ability, and it fails....NOW THAT is a moving violation, follows the drivers record, and will get the vehicle red tagged, and OFF the road until the brakes are fixed! In this case, said F150 will probably not get fixed enough to make the grade. So the owner will have to show up with a better equiped tow rig!
More than one way to skin a cat at this game!
If one was in Wa St, either the 450 or 350 would have a licensed wieght of at least 14, if not 16K lbs gvwr. As OUR DMV takes tare wt times 1.5, to the next higher ton, and that is what you are licensed at, and LEGAL too!
Reality is, take the truck in this case, with the tighter turning radius, heaver springs, axels etc, license it for what you need, and start enjoying the rig.
I've had multiple rigs, licensed OVER the manufacture gvwr, even the axle wt ratings, been pulled over, wieghed, NEVER have I had an overweight ticket! as MY PAID for license was over what I weighed in at. Only once when I weighed just over 27K with my navistar, licensed at 26K, did I run into problems, and even at that, no issues IMHO. I was given a 10 day pay for a 28K tab, and sent on my way! as I was under the 19200 graw and 9600 front axel weights they enforce too.
Either of the two trucks will get the full max 20K on rear axel, and probably 9500-12K on the front. So technically, here any way, they could go down the road at 30K gvw and still be legal. I would prefer the 450 personally at this wt than the 350!
GCWR wise, that is not a legal term per ANY SP in ANY of the 50 states, so that is also not a factor. It is more do you have enough payload to handle the load per your limiting factors!
Speed wise, both rigs will pull hills about the same, same max grade in first gear starting at, assuming the same motor HP/torque specs, axel and trans gearings, tire diam etc. Braking will be less on the 350 vs 450 for the truck load itself.
Thanks everyone for the valuable advice. I found it extremely helpful and really appreciate it especially about the safety concerns.
After reading all the comment I went out and bought a Ford F-150 5.4L V8 which should be enough to pull a Travel Lite Falcon F20 with a dry weight of 2,480 lbs.
Once again thanks everyone for the advice.
good choice, that gives you some room to upgrade in the future.
Not sure this is totally correct. Depending upon how many family members, how heavy etc. One might be at gvwr of ANY of the vehicles mentioned, before hooking up a trailer. In this case, the person has NO trailer tow capacity....says the father of 4, when kids were adult sized teens, we weighed in over 1200 lbs between the 6 of us! We needed a rig with over 2000 lbs of payload just to tote a 6500 lb 24' long travel trailer!
Then also way back in the day, I saw a poster in an RV place. Rigs with the Ford 4.0 V6 had a max trailer capacity of 5000 lbs. "IF" the rig had less than 60 sq ft of frontal area. if 6.01-70 sq ft, you had to low the amount to 4000 lbs, 7.01-80 sq ft, you were down to 3000 lbs. OVER 80 sq ft it was not recomended you tow said trailer etc.
I usually need starting fluid to get my 7.3 to start if it has not been run for a bit. Then again, mine is a 92 IDI7.3! I do have glo plugs. Not sure all are working. In my case, lift pump or injection pump may be weak. Along with compression may be less than the stock 22 or so to one.....Once going, it starts the rest of the day just fine. My case, seems to be lack of fuel initially.
Assuming a T444E frod version, not sure what to say on this......
That is pretty much what has happened today. One break too many by bama that UW did not get. Like 4th qtr punt going out at the 2 yd line. 2 plays holding them, almost a touchback, then they get it out, and keep going, the 68 yd run was the killer play. UW could not make any BIG plays.
hand it to Bama.
Even IF you decide to take a trip to higher country ie over 6000' to 10,000 elevation....for a single trip, take what you got. You will be slower due to 30% loss of HP due to elevation....BUT, you will get there and back safely. especially when as noted previously, you have a 2500 chassis vs the same engine in a 1500 chassis.
My opinion due to 500K miles of towing various and sundry trailers from RV's to utility to equipment trailers, better to have a slightly underpowered rig, with correct gearing in the trans and axels, enough payload, than an overpower HP wise with under chassi'd rig.
Bedlams comments on ordering have occurred to me too. In 88 when the new body style GM came out, I could not find an 8 lug ext cab. Dealer ordered it for me, in process, going from a cheyanne to a scottsdale pkg cost me $75 or some such number, but got a $600 rebate. So the higer trim was a better deal.
Then when I traded in in 96 for a crew cab. I went with a base silverado as I added just enough options that it too was cheaper than a scottsdale, but I could not get the carper delete due to the diesel. The 350/454 options would have gotten me vinyl seats. But the carpet was mandatory as it had better noise insulation. I was probably the ONLY 5 sp manual silverado crew cab around for many years!
For a lot of us that are contractors/owners, we like some of the basic nicety stuff, like cruise, tilt wheels, AC etc. BUT we do not want all the other bells and whistles that do not hold up as well, or get destroyed but us sitting in seats with mud etc on us. Or if you have 4 kids like I do.....to say bubble gum, spilled drinks etc will not get on the floors or seats.....that is a far fetched thought! Happens when you least expect it.
As long as truck does not have carpets and vinyl or leather seats, I'm happy!!!
Sitting.and vinyl or leather on a cold or hot day.is not fun. Nor do they do well wearing wet rubber rain gear on them. Carpets do not like it if you.get in truck with.mud on boots.
If one uses a truck.for work.vs play, they.would still have interiors on par with.the.70's and before.
Now, many buy to pull trailers worth more than first home I bought, so finding true.work trucks is harder today.than in the past.
It all depends on what YOU want to get out of the bed size you pick. Either one should pull that trailer just fine.
Personal preference really...everyone else can tell you their preference, but you have to drive it and live with it every day. What do YOU want?
I just ordered 3 new Chevy 1500 crew cabs for work. Got the 6' bed, not the 5'. Current one has the 5' bed. Not much room after you put a tool box in it.
I doubt I could get my lawn mower in a 6' bed with a tool box. Barely fits in an 8' bed with TB! Then again, it is a 16HP twin cylinder hydro walk behind that weighs 350 lbs or so.......
Put a bike or two in the bed, some other stuff, and one would be out of room with the smaller beds.
Again, as noted, comes down to what you need to put in the bed!
I always thought a std bed was 8', long bed 10+', anything shorter than 8' is a short bed! Did not know double nickles in age is an old timer!
I would go with a std 8' bed! nothing shorter, longer is better!
Anyone that believes that a truck with 6 lugs, and a semifloating rear axle is as capable as a truck with 8 lugs and a full floating rear axle cannot be taken seriously.
Always like comments like this......
My navistar has 6 lugs, FA is 8000 lbs, RA 16,500 lbs.....Front is stronger than a typical 8 lug 25/35 series twuck.....so does that make said 25/35 series truck incapable too?
Lug quantity or full vs semi floating axel are useless terms if not used with in the same statistic or equal comparison.
I remember some 1500 GM's with full floaters behind the original 6.2L diesels when they came out, even has TH400/4l80E transmisions!
As noted tho, these two trucks should not be compared to ea other per say, nor should they be compared to my Navistar!
As mentioned, need to let it go to higher RPM and it will tow upwards of 7-8000 lbs. My sone with his reg can 4.8 and 3.42 gears pulled my C2500 home from snoqualmie pass after a fuel pump went out. IT was on an 1800-2000 lbs trailer, truck is around 5500 lbs. We never dipped below 55 on all but the steepest grades in direct, once or twice on the steeper ones, ie 3-4% we were in 2nd. He and I will admit, a trailer that weight with the frontal area of a travel trailer will be harder to tow than my pickup and the car hauler......
BUT, you should be able to get from point A to B with a 6-7000 lbs trailer, not over load the truck/van, and it would handle the trailer fine from a chassis standpoint. You will potentially be one of the slower rigs on a steeper grade. Not the slowest mind you. You still have over 250 almost 300 ponies to work with, assuming you let the engine rev up. If not, you will not be too happy.
The problem with these formulas is you don't know what numbers to plug into it.
Here is a real example of what little change can make a big change in the numbers.
Back in the day I used to work on airplanes. I guy came into my buddies shop and wanted to change all the button head rivets on his plane to flush mount rivets. It was a big job but my buddy did it. The plane picked up 7 or 8 MPH. I would never have believed such a little change could make such a big difference in drag.
My point is, you can plug in any numbers you want on the front end and the program will spit out any numbers you want on the other end. Cool to play with but of no real use unless you have a wind tunnel at your disposal.
This kind of thing is not uncommon. For people that own sailboats that race real competitively, they will use 3-4' long hand sanders to make sure the bottom is really smooth. Along with remove the typical thru hull fitting which is a mushroom with 1/4-1/2" off the hull to a flush thru hull. Take and figure out the shape of the keel, again fair it to the correct shape with molds....gain can be upwards of .2-.5 knots of boat speed. When you figure some boats have a max speed of 5-6 knots, that is a 5-10% gain on a competitor. Enough to put you from middle to the front of a pack!Or back to middle, then with a few more improvements, you are at the front.
I have some charts that show HP needed to move a given load, but, notes say, the HP needed can vary by plus minus 30% based on many factors. Some include tire type, design, rubber of tires, road type, aerodynamics of the rig itself. The info these charts come from, have a formula that has upwards of 15 variables to add or subtract HP needed from a given rig or load.
At the end of the day, these things can be fun to play with, and for one to realize, you can get better mpg with an 18K load, vs a 15K load, as it is pulling my bobcat trailer vs my old TT. The bobcat trailer weighs 3K lbs more, but due to a lower aerodynamic, it got better mpg being pulled than the travel trailer. Many have commented that going from a TT to a 5w that weighs more, gained mpg too, do to a better aerodynamics of the setup.
If a dually is barely enough truck, maybe you should look t a tandem rear truck.....if one can not have too much truck any how!
Ryder and Penske have MDT's. BUT, issue with many of these, they are speced HP wise from a enough power to move the truck at gvw only. Rarely do they have powerplants for true towing power. Chassis wise they are fine. But usually with a 250-300 hp motor, possibly in the 200-225 relm too vs wanting a 350-400hp motor for true towing at the gcw that the chassis is capable of running at.
An interesting test to me would be which one of the big 3 could do it repeatedly before a mechanical problem of some sort. Time doesn't mean shoot to me! Notice the tractor trailers they pass on every test video just chugging along doing their thing day in and day out. Not a single one of em has a Powerstroke or Duramax under the hood either I'll bet. Wonder what kind of engine most of em do have doing all that work every day logging millions of miles??? Hmmm???
Id also be willing to bet a lot of those OTR trucks do not have a Cummins in them either! Especially the 6.7 that is in a pickup!
The 6.7 has last I looked some 15 different HP/Torque versions, depending upon the application. Not saying it is a bad motor mind you. It does have more varied uses. Pretty sure it lowest HP setup around 160-180 hp would not be the fastest up the hill!
Yes, it would be interesting to see the other trucks times etc. As not only will HP make up a difference, but axel and trans ratio gearing as to which is able to ultimately put the MOST HP to the rear wheels.
At the end of the day, a 4.8L super/turbo charged motor would probably work for a lot of us in a HD DOT Class 2 rig, ie 8401-10,000 lbs gvwr. This would pull upwards of 10K at speeds many of us would be happy with. There is always those that if you can not go 80 mph on a 5% grade you do not have enough hp....but if one is going 45-50-55 in a 60 mph mtn pass region, we are happy!
Fit this with a 6-8 sp tranny, you have more than enough gearing to keep the motor in a decent rpm range. Decent fuel mileage when empty. For those in construction "JUST" moving the truck around with 1.5-2 tons of tools or equal in the bed. PLENTY of power. In fact many of the non inducted larger V6 motors have plenty of power with 250-275 hp and 300-350 lb ft of torque if geared properly between the trans and rear axel.
For those of you pulling 15-20K lbs. Engine will be too small, low in power. I'm quite happy with my vortec 350 that is 255/330 in hp torque specs. In fact, the 81 GMC I had with a 105HP 292 I6 for the most part, was ample for what that trucks purpose was.
Lets get off the high horse of one needs 350-400+ hp in a >8600 gvwr rig. Who cares of forced inducted vs non. BOTH styles of motors have a place in peoples lives that used this style truck.