Must Have Been A Beer or 12 Involved

Reddog1 wrote:
I do not think we have agreed as to what is overloading a "3/4-ton". I do think there is a difference in "overloading a truck is safe based on engineering principles" than marketing strategies and actual load capacities are. I base my belief on my real life experiences and of those I RV'ed with. I am so convinced with these experiences, that unless you can counter my experiences, all we have left is arguments. No value in that. As I stated, our personal experiences are very different. I can't see that you and I can agree what is or is not a floating axle. I am not referring to what sales/marketing calls a floating axle.

Whether an axle is a full floating axle (that is, the weight is supported by the axle tubes) and a semi-floating axle (weight is supported by the axle SHAFTS themselves) is not a matter of marketing. It is an empirical fact that is not subject to dispute; the two designs are different that there is no argument that one is the other. Red is not blue.

I do not think we have agreed as to what is overloading a "3/4-ton". I do think there is a difference in "overloading a truck is safe based on engineering principles" than marketing strategies and actual load capacities are. I base my belief on my real life experiences and of those I RV'ed with. I am so convinced with these experiences, that unless you can counter my experiences, all we have left is arguments. No value in that. As I stated, our personal experiences are very different. I can't see that you and I can agree what is or is not a floating axle. I am not referring to what sales/marketing calls a floating axle.

Farmerjon wrote:

JSSEC wrote:


In 1999 Ford made a F250 that had a F150 body with suspension enhancements but badged it as F250 to meet new CAFA Standards.

Is that 7 lugnuts ? or just hubcaps with 7 lugnuts ?

I believe those trucks did have 7 lugnuts but I've never owned one.

Reddog1 wrote:

twodownzero wrote:
3/4 ton trucks from that era often had semi floating rear axles, just like 1/2 tons. They had bigger axle shafts, tubes, and wheel bearings, but they were nothing but glorified 1/2 tons.

I do not think this is true. What do you base it on? I have personally worked on both axles, and will say your experience is very different than mine.

In 1981 or 1982, GM introduced the 9.5" 14 bolt semi floating rear axle. 3/4 ton trucks were equipped with it. 4wd 3/4 tons were not available with big block V8s. Some 2wd 3/4 tons with big blocks MIGHT have still had a 14 bolt, 10.5" ring gear, full floating rear axle. No 4x4 3/4 ton would have, though. All of them had the same 10 bolt GM front axle with slightly larger 8 lug rotors and maybe a bigger caliper piston, but other than the 16" wheels and slight brake modifications, the front axle was the same as a 1/2 ton. The 9.5" 14 bolt does have larger axle bearings and 33 spline axle shafts vs. the 1/2 ton, 8.5" 10 bolt's 28 or 30 spline axles and smaller bearings, but when compared to a full floating rear axle, there is no comparison--the 9.5" 14 bolt is much more like a 1/2 ton rear axle than a full floater. In fact, the 9.5" 14 bolt has found its way, with 6 lug axleshafts, into the heavier duty 1/2 ton Chevy trucks. Ford's 8.8 and the larger ~9.25" or so Ford rear has similar specs and features.

3/4 ton Suburbans also use the 14 bolt semi-floater unless they are equipped with a big block V8 (which was not available until the body style change in 1992).

twodownzero wrote:


Respectfully, there is very little in the above post I agree with. As we go through life, things are not always what we think they are. It is important to keep an open mind.

Respectfully, you also disagreed with a factual issue--that 3/4 ton, 1980s-era GM trucks and their semi-floating rear axles. While everyone is entitled to their own opinion about the actual capacity vs. the rated capacity of their vehicles, if your opinion is that overloading a 3/4 ton is okay because 3/4 tons have 1 ton rear axles, your opinion is based on a false premise and therefore whether the conclusion is reasonable is still in question. In that respect, I agree with you--things are not always what we think they are. Keeping an open mind also means that it is worth reexamining your opinion when you realize that it is or may be erroneous. I include myself in that statement, but I have not ever seen any evidence to suggest that overloading a truck is safe based on engineering principles. I am also not an engineer so even if I did, I would probably have to defer to their judgment because while I have common sense, I don't have the relevant technical knowledge to evaluate a rigorous engineering claim.

JSSEC wrote:


In 1999 Ford made a F250 that had a F150 body with suspension enhancements but badged it as F250 to meet new CAFA Standards.

Is that 7 lugnuts ? or just hubcaps with 7 lugnuts ?

Also looks like a 1/2 ton truck to me, not even a 3/4 ton.

Yep, it's a half ton

Just add a tag axle.

There was a truck camper built
in the 60-70's that had a tag axle
just for that reason.

In '87 their were two flavors of F250. There was the Heavy Duty and the Light Duty. The Heavy Duty was an older design, while the Light Duty was the newly designed F150 with a higher weight rating. Don't know about the axle, all I know is the frame wasn't dump truck proof.

twodown0...I have to say that your statemenet about engineering is mostly correct...but lawyers have loads to say...when they knew there was an enineering issue...they decided to just pay the claims as it was cheaper than a fix...that was LAWYERS! Was that Ford or GM...maybe both!

Farmerjon wrote:
In 86 or 87 I was in a Ford show room and saw an F250 with a semi-floating axle. I was shocked. It was not available with a diesel or 460 and they kept it around for about 10 years. I thought it confused things since I felt semi floating rear ends belonged on cars and 1/2 tons, not on the heavier trucks.
I feel that semi or full floating is a dividing line between 1/2 ton and 3/4 ton.

In 1999 Ford made a F250 that had a F150 body with suspension enhancements but badged it as F250 to meet new CAFA Standards.

Reddog1 wrote:

The primary issue (simplified version) was the fact a 1/2-ton axle bearing failure could possibly cause axle failure resulting in an axle braking and the wheel/axle stub would fall off. The full floating axles were and are a totally different design. The axles and bearings did not depend on each othe ton trucks over 1/2 tonr. You could damage one with no effect on the other. You can break an axle on a full floating axle, and the wheel/bearings will still be intact allwanted 3/4 owing the vehicle to stay on all four (or 6) wheels. There are other considerations, but this was the most obvious to most of us.

Yes. That is why I have always preferred 3/4 ton trucks over 1/2 tons and why I was surprised to see a truck with an F250 badge on it with a semi-floating axle.
Here is a part # for an axle for some F250's

OEM Part Number: E6TZ4234C
REAR AXLE SHAFT (LEFT) F-200/250 (3/4 TON) 86-96 W/SEMI-FLOATING REAR AXL W/ 10.25 DIAMETER RING GEAR