Will camper fit?

Your main issue with a Lance 910 is not weight or CG. A well maintained F250 can easily handle well over 3000lbs of payload in the bed without putting anyone or anything at risk. They generally weigh about 2800lbs empty and have a 6084lb rear axle weight rating with stock tires. Newer ones may actually have a higher weight rating.

Now someone will pipe up and say the axle is rated to 10,000. Well the AXLE is, but the SUSPENSION SYSTEM from the tires to the rims to the axle to the springs to the frame to all the rivets and fasteners holding it together is rated to 6084. If you put 5000lb each rated tires and rims on the axle, and jammed a section of well casing between the axle and frame, sure, you could probably run 10,000. Off the showroom floor, not so much.

Back to the point. Everything I'm finding on the lance 910 is showing that it is a long bed camper. Putting a long bed camper on a short bed truck leaves 18" of floor hanging off in open air that was designed to be supported by the truck bed. Maybe it will work okay. Maybe the camper isn't strong enough. You're not going to get anybody to give you a definitive answer one way or the other. Lance's official line will be "Long bed trucks only" because they are liable if they tell you to go ahead and the camper falls apart. From there you have to decide to listen to the Internet experts telling you to go ahead it will be fine, and decide if the risk is worth the reward.

The biggest problem loading a long bed camper into a short bed truck is center of gravity front to rear. If too much weight is taken off the front, you suffer handling issues. Yes, you can load up the front of the truck with a rack and additional water to help, but now you are making a heavy load even more so trying to teeter it forward. There are other issues, but those can be addressed more easily than CG.

mkirsch wrote:
Your main issue with a Lance 910 is not weight or CG. A well maintained F250 can easily handle well over 3000lbs of payload in the bed without putting anyone or anything at risk. They generally weigh about 2800lbs empty and have a 6084lb rear axle weight rating with stock tires. Newer ones may actually have a higher weight rating.

Now someone will pipe up and say the axle is rated to 10,000. Well the AXLE is, but the SUSPENSION SYSTEM from the tires to the rims to the axle to the springs to the frame to all the rivets and fasteners holding it together is rated to 6084. If you put 5000lb each rated tires and rims on the axle, and jammed a section of well casing between the axle and frame, sure, you could probably run 10,000. Off the showroom floor, not so much.

From there you have to decide to listen to the Internet experts telling you to go ahead it will be fine, and decide if the risk is worth the reward.

So, being one of the "internet experts", you're kinda all over the place here.
First you say it will handle well over 3000lbs payload. Which I agree with, albeit with some suspension help. Definition of "well over", lets say tire/rim capacity. Avg Superduty with 18s or 20s, since 17s are pretty much obsolete and s uck for weight capacity, is about 3600lbs/wheel. So that fits the "well over" 3000lbs payload.

But then you pretend that the "system" is designed to only 6084lbs rawr, which the only limitation there is maybe the springs, which are easily upgraded. F250s don't have smaller "rivets, fasteners and hangars". We all know that and we all know that the gvw "ratings" of 3/4 tons are largely regulatory, not capability. To the extent, that now, the mfgs seems to be rating 3/4 and 1 ton srw trucks considerably higher if you get the "right" gvw package, than the same truck that is rated lower, which is largely a different sticker on the door jamb.
Those who have no clue how a vehicle is built will pretend there is some magical "upgrade" and refute that one "can't be sure" that it will handle more than its rating. To you, believe what you want, no harm, no foul, until you start to profess your lack of knowledge to others.

Bedlam wrote:
The biggest problem loading a long bed camper into a short bed truck is center of gravity front to rear. If too much weight is taken off the front, you suffer handling issues. Yes, you can load up the front of the truck with a rack and additional water to help, but now you are making a heavy load even more so trying to teeter it forward. There are other issues, but those can be addressed more easily than CG.

True story, but in the context of this thread and particular camper and truck, if one looks at the models for that year and the difference between the camper OP asked about and the slightly smaller "short bed" model, the C of G of both are going to be similar, with ALOT of truck weight forward of the rear axle.

At 9.5" long and only 2.5' of the base forward of the axle, I expect quite a bit of front unloading if carried on a short bed truck. The CG on this camper when dry was about 5':

https://www.lancecamper.com/docs/99-brochure.pdf

Grit dog wrote:
But then you pretend that the "system" is designed to only 6084lbs rawr, which the only limitation there is maybe the springs, which are easily upgraded. F250s don't have smaller "rivets, fasteners and hangars". We all know that and we all know that the gvw "ratings" of 3/4 tons are largely regulatory, not capability. To the extent, that now, the mfgs seems to be rating 3/4 and 1 ton srw trucks considerably higher if you get the "right" gvw package, than the same truck that is rated lower, which is largely a different sticker on the door jamb.
Those who have no clue how a vehicle is built will pretend there is some magical "upgrade" and refute that one "can't be sure" that it will handle more than its rating. To you, believe what you want, no harm, no foul, until you start to profess your lack of knowledge to others.

Conversely you pretend that it isn't, that the difference is just a number on a sticker. The reality is neither of us actually knows. Have you done a part-by-part analysis? I haven't.

Yes I will "refute that one 'can't be sure'" because that is the truth.

The difference between us is that I use the number as a starting point, where you just ignore the numbers entirely and openly tell everyone else to do the same.

Load more if you want. I don't care. It's not my truck. You've got to get a lot jankier than a few hundred pounds overweight to be a menace on the road. All I want is for people to know where the starting point is.

Bedlam wrote:
At 9.5" long and only 2.5' of the base forward of the axle, I expect quite a bit of front unloading if carried on a short bed truck. The CG on this camper when dry was about 5':

https://www.lancecamper.com/docs/99-brochure.pdf

I was looking at the 820 vs the 910, with the 820 being a short bed camper, the 910 is 8" longer with the bath another 8" aft and the dinette a bit longer. The published dry weights are within 16lbs of each other (whether accurate or not, I'd expect the weights to be relative).
Like I said, it's on the bubble for being too long, but after carrying a similar length but heavier camper with about the same overhang (within a couple inches of how a 910 would fit on a Ford), I wouldn't worry about CoG too far aft unless the short bed model also has the same issue.
Plus, the effect of the load on the front axle, say 4000lbs centered 1' aft of the rear axle on a 12' long wheelbase is 333lbs off the front axle. Not even noticeable on a big heavy pickup. Less than the weight difference between a gas and diesel engine sitting over the front axle.

mkirsch wrote:

Grit dog wrote:
But then you pretend that the "system" is designed to only 6084lbs rawr, which the only limitation there is maybe the springs, which are easily upgraded. F250s don't have smaller "rivets, fasteners and hangars". We all know that and we all know that the gvw "ratings" of 3/4 tons are largely regulatory, not capability. To the extent, that now, the mfgs seems to be rating 3/4 and 1 ton srw trucks considerably higher if you get the "right" gvw package, than the same truck that is rated lower, which is largely a different sticker on the door jamb.
Those who have no clue how a vehicle is built will pretend there is some magical "upgrade" and refute that one "can't be sure" that it will handle more than its rating. To you, believe what you want, no harm, no foul, until you start to profess your lack of knowledge to others.

Conversely you pretend that it isn't, that the difference is just a number on a sticker. The reality is neither of us actually knows. Have you done a part-by-part analysis? I haven't.

Yes I will "refute that one 'can't be sure'" because that is the truth.

The difference between us is that I use the number as a starting point, where you just ignore the numbers entirely and openly tell everyone else to do the same.

Load more if you want. I don't care. It's not my truck. You've got to get a lot jankier than a few hundred pounds overweight to be a menace on the road. All I want is for people to know where the starting point is.

Fair enough, and I only ignore the numbers that don't mean anything meaningful, like a 6084 lb rear axle capacity on a newer 3/4 ton truck.

And it is a good starting point. And you know that I generally explain myself in pretty good detail to allow the reader to hopefully understand, rather than just make a blanket statement.
Unlike most that are strictly by the numbers and don't know why.
It's ok, I push the "easy button" with some things or decisions too. We all do.
And fwiw, I also believe I did the same in this thread, along with a word of caution.