Subframe lift.

laknox wrote:

routemaster wrote:
What size is the wall thickness of the hollow box section welded to the frame?

Here's the OP's response to me on 6-1 at 3:01 PM:

"I thought about it, but figured this is much stronger than stock as it is. .250 wall on the sides with additional .120 walled cross members. Additional welding on the joints. .250 thick hangers vs 3/16. Thicker shackles."

Lyle

Thanks very much.
Den.

routemaster wrote:
What size is the wall thickness of the hollow box section welded to the frame?

Here's the OP's response to me on 6-1 at 3:01 PM:

"I thought about it, but figured this is much stronger than stock as it is. .250 wall on the sides with additional .120 walled cross members. Additional welding on the joints. .250 thick hangers vs 3/16. Thicker shackles."

Lyle

What size is the wall thickness of the hollow box section welded to the frame?

garysol wrote:
I am still at a bit of a loss as to why a late model 5th wheel needs a lift when being towed by a stock height late model 1 ton truck. Seems to me that I would be PISSED at either Jayco or Ram. I see a lot of late model Dodges towing 5th wheels (me included) so it sure seems like Jayco is dropping the ball by not allowing for more pinbox adjustment or by building there trailers to low or something.......

I agree...and it's not because it's "half ton" towable. I compared my box/bed height to some new half ton 4x4s and I'm within 2", so even the half tons would be towing quite unlevel as the 5" didn't even get it there. With larger tires it should be real close.

I am still at a bit of a loss as to why a late model 5th wheel needs a lift when being towed by a stock height late model 1 ton truck. Seems to me that I would be PISSED at either Jayco or Ram. I see a lot of late model Dodges towing 5th wheels (me included) so it sure seems like Jayco is dropping the ball by not allowing for more pinbox adjustment or by building there trailers to low or something.......

laknox wrote:

rrwantr wrote:

laknox wrote:
Looks very nice. Personally, though, I think I might've carried the sub-frame out another 6-12" on each end to add some more support, but that's just me.

Lyle

I thought about it, but figured this is much stronger than stock as it is. .250 wall on the sides with additional .120 walled cross members. Additional welding on the joints. .250 thick hangers vs 3/16. Thicker shackles.

I was thinking more about stiffening the main frame...

Personally, an Eagle HT is on my short list. Shouldn't need a lift if I stay with my '02 D'max, though.

Still, a very clean job.

Lyle

Thanks! Understood. The 2 added 2x6 .120 walled crossmembers should help with stiffening the frame some. Agree more would help, but then eventually I'd have a whole new frame and be 2x as heavy. :)

rrwantr wrote:

laknox wrote:
Looks very nice. Personally, though, I think I might've carried the sub-frame out another 6-12" on each end to add some more support, but that's just me.

Lyle

I thought about it, but figured this is much stronger than stock as it is. .250 wall on the sides with additional .120 walled cross members. Additional welding on the joints. .250 thick hangers vs 3/16. Thicker shackles.

I was thinking more about stiffening the main frame...

Personally, an Eagle HT is on my short list. Shouldn't need a lift if I stay with my '02 D'max, though.

Still, a very clean job.

Lyle

laknox wrote:
Looks very nice. Personally, though, I think I might've carried the sub-frame out another 6-12" on each end to add some more support, but that's just me.

Lyle

I thought about it, but figured this is much stronger than stock as it is. .250 wall on the sides with additional .120 walled cross members. Additional welding on the joints. .250 thick hangers vs 3/16. Thicker shackles.

Outstanding!

Nice work, looks great!