Difference in Susp btw 2007 F250 & F350

rowekmr wrote:
It is indeed interesting how Ford specs out the capabilities of these trucks. I read in the manual that the DRW only has a 500# increase in the GCWR over the SRW and I can imaging the weight of the rims and tires take up much of that. Payload dust lol I like that term :)

Gear ratio also figures into the rating. My DRW Long bed with 4.30:1 has a rating of 13,500 (On the door jam) compared to my friends DRW 4.10:1 short bed with a 11,000 rating.

The engineered system is not necessarily the sum of its parts. I wasn't on the engineering design team and unless someone that was can answer then I will err on the side of what the manufacturer has certified to be the maximum that "should never be exceeded". BTW, all steel is not created equal, I'm done

It is indeed interesting how Ford specs out the capabilities of these trucks. I read in the manual that the DRW only has a 500# increase in the GCWR over the SRW and I can imaging the weight of the rims and tires take up much of that. Payload dust lol I like that term :)

rjstractor wrote:
The line between F250/F350 has always been pretty blurry, and it's almost impossible to determine the actual differences from year to year. In fact if you look in Ford's specs, a regular cab gas F250 and F350 have the same GVWR and payload rating in some configurations. My guess is that Ford adds extra "payload dust" in the steel they use to make the F350. ;)

From 2005-2007, the only differences between a F250 with the 10000 lb and snow plow packages and a F350 SRW is the rear blocks, the sticker on the door, and the badging. The F250 with the camper package adds the rear sway bar, it already has the extra rear leaf spring if it has the 10K package. Same axle, same frame, same brakes, same suspension as the F350 SRW. In those years, you cannot get the 10k package and get 20" wheels, those de-rate the GVWR. My 2005 F250 10K/snow plow package equipped came with 10 ply BF Goodrich tires on 17" steel wheels.

There are a lot of F250's out there that were not ordered with both the 10K package AND the snow plow package. The suspensions will be different on those trucks. So, you must know what flavor of F250 you're comparing against a F350.

fla-gypsy wrote:

rowekmr wrote:
Ok I think I understand now. You are saying that the engineering that goes into the truck is more relevant to tow ratings than the obvious parts because there may be some parts less obvious (connecting hardware) or spec differences (thickness of material).

fla-gypsy wrote:

rowekmr wrote:
While I do appreciate your response I do not understand where your referencing of "guessing" comes from. I asked my question to find out the difference between the suspensions of the F250 and F350 (if any) and ratings if applicable not the rating of the F250 vehicle.

fla-gypsy wrote:
Ratings of components can be affected by more than individual parts including connecting hardware. There is no need for guessing at what a vehicle can carry when the vehicle manufacturer has clearly indicated that through various ratings. My vehicle, as I am sure all others do, says it "Should never exceed xxxx lbs". You can accept that and be certain you are operating safely or ignore it and do anything you like as many here on this forum frequently extoll.

You are asking people who neither designed the system (it is an engineered system, not the sum of it's parts)or forged the parts it is constructed of, therefore the responses are based on their experience, part numbers, etc and anything except what can be supported by the engineering teams data that created it. In my estimation that leaves it a "guess" at best.

Yes that is correct. The reason I bring it up is there will always be a faction that says those things mean nothing but it is easy to see that they may be the critical link in a system. We just don't know exactly what the weak link in the system may be. I was not trying to be a SA but I have participated in these discussions before and know the opposing arguments.

Interesting use of terminology BUT a late model F250 with the Camper Package has all the same parts excluding a 4" block vs. 2" which is there only to level the truck. There is no difference in "connecting hardware" or "spec differences (thickness of material)".

This topic has been beaten to death on this forum.

fla-gypsy wrote:

rowekmr wrote:
Ok I think I understand now. You are saying that the engineering that goes into the truck is more relevant to tow ratings than the obvious parts because there may be some parts less obvious (connecting hardware) or spec differences (thickness of material).

fla-gypsy wrote:

rowekmr wrote:
While I do appreciate your response I do not understand where your referencing of "guessing" comes from. I asked my question to find out the difference between the suspensions of the F250 and F350 (if any) and ratings if applicable not the rating of the F250 vehicle.

fla-gypsy wrote:
Ratings of components can be affected by more than individual parts including connecting hardware. There is no need for guessing at what a vehicle can carry when the vehicle manufacturer has clearly indicated that through various ratings. My vehicle, as I am sure all others do, says it "Should never exceed xxxx lbs". You can accept that and be certain you are operating safely or ignore it and do anything you like as many here on this forum frequently extoll.

You are asking people who neither designed the system (it is an engineered system, not the sum of it's parts)or forged the parts it is constructed of, therefore the responses are based on their experience, part numbers, etc and anything except what can be supported by the engineering teams data that created it. In my estimation that leaves it a "guess" at best.

Yes that is correct. The reason I bring it up is there will always be a faction that says those things mean nothing but it is easy to see that they may be the critical link in a system. We just don't know exactly what the weak link in the system may be. I was not trying to be a SA but I have participated in these discussions before and know the opposing arguments.

Just remember that part specification differences require a different part number. Those part number differences between a F250 and F350 have been repeatedly asked for on this forum and so far have not been provided.

rowekmr wrote:
Ok I think I understand now. You are saying that the engineering that goes into the truck is more relevant to tow ratings than the obvious parts because there may be some parts less obvious (connecting hardware) or spec differences (thickness of material).

fla-gypsy wrote:

rowekmr wrote:
While I do appreciate your response I do not understand where your referencing of "guessing" comes from. I asked my question to find out the difference between the suspensions of the F250 and F350 (if any) and ratings if applicable not the rating of the F250 vehicle.

fla-gypsy wrote:
Ratings of components can be affected by more than individual parts including connecting hardware. There is no need for guessing at what a vehicle can carry when the vehicle manufacturer has clearly indicated that through various ratings. My vehicle, as I am sure all others do, says it "Should never exceed xxxx lbs". You can accept that and be certain you are operating safely or ignore it and do anything you like as many here on this forum frequently extoll.

You are asking people who neither designed the system (it is an engineered system, not the sum of it's parts)or forged the parts it is constructed of, therefore the responses are based on their experience, part numbers, etc and anything except what can be supported by the engineering teams data that created it. In my estimation that leaves it a "guess" at best.

Yes that is correct. The reason I bring it up is there will always be a faction that says those things mean nothing but it is easy to see that they may be the critical link in a system. We just don't know exactly what the weak link in the system may be. I was not trying to be a SA but I have participated in these discussions before and know the opposing arguments.

No expert here, but I have towed boats and such quite a bit. What may LOOK like the same parts (exact MFG numbering not included), can be quite different in material make up, thickness and strength. Bolts are marked on the head with a numerical system stating what they are rated to do and I am sure material differences in some parts will escape the naked eye. The ability of an axle to withstand more weight has to do with the strength of the internals in that axle and the thickness of those parts. The way things are engineered and put together can also be a factor.

That said, I saw a Mustang pulling a 30 ish foot Maxum boat that I would not have wanted strapped to the back of my truck. He swayed from side to side and bobbed up and down essentially being steered by the boat trailer. I stayed back for a bit and then rushed up to him and floored it past him. I did not want to be behind that mess when it finally caught up with him. I am sure there are TT examples, but hey, I am still a boat guy :)

Ok I think I understand now. You are saying that the engineering that goes into the truck is more relevant to tow ratings than the obvious parts because there may be some parts less obvious (connecting hardware) or spec differences (thickness of material).

fla-gypsy wrote:

rowekmr wrote:
While I do appreciate your response I do not understand where your referencing of "guessing" comes from. I asked my question to find out the difference between the suspensions of the F250 and F350 (if any) and ratings if applicable not the rating of the F250 vehicle.

fla-gypsy wrote:
Ratings of components can be affected by more than individual parts including connecting hardware. There is no need for guessing at what a vehicle can carry when the vehicle manufacturer has clearly indicated that through various ratings. My vehicle, as I am sure all others do, says it "Should never exceed xxxx lbs". You can accept that and be certain you are operating safely or ignore it and do anything you like as many here on this forum frequently extoll.

You are asking people who neither designed the system (it is an engineered system, not the sum of it's parts)or forged the parts it is constructed of, therefore the responses are based on their experience, part numbers, etc and anything except what can be supported by the engineering teams data that created it. In my estimation that leaves it a "guess" at best.

The line between F250/F350 has always been pretty blurry, and it's almost impossible to determine the actual differences from year to year. In fact if you look in Ford's specs, a regular cab gas F250 and F350 have the same GVWR and payload rating in some configurations. My guess is that Ford adds extra "payload dust" in the steel they use to make the F350. ;)