Modding an F-350 up or an F-550 down for TC

[Just_Jeff]

Given that you can get the same engine in an F-350 and F-550, which do you think would be better - beefing up the suspension and brakes on an F-350 so you don't need a custom bed, or buying an F-550 and customizing the bed to accept a TC?

It seems that, because of the custom work needed to put a TC on a flatbed and make it look nice, there's still several thousand dollars of work needed...but you get one heck of a nice vehicle out of it. I'd probably look at doing the SRW conversion so I could take it off-road without worrying about rocks/sticks between the tires.

But F-350s are much more common, and you wouldn't have to do much of anything to the bed for it to accept a TC with the proper COG and such, so that could be a significant savings over the F-550. That savings could then go into beefing up the brakes and suspension in the F-350.

Which one would be cheaper and easier?

It'll be several years, but after the kids are gone we're looking at swapping to a nice TC (over 11', slides, etc) on a truck capable enough for Forest Service roads so we can get to some back country sites. I'm thinking of something like these examples, and I really like boblynch's setup.

Any thoughts?

[Just_Jeff]

Markowwes - Can you post some details on that truck bed? One of the issues with a 550 is that I'd buy it as a chassis-cab, and a normal pickup bed would be an additional expense...but I want extra storage anyway.

Your bed fits the camper better than almost all the pictures I've seen on the web.

Thanks!

[BoilerEE]

markowwes wrote:
Go the 550 route…..it may cost a little more, you will be more than happy with the outcome. We purchased ours out of Helena Montana, will never look back.



No worries about weights now!

Awesome rig! That's what I have in mind for some point in the future ...

[69_Avion]

Nice truck bed.

[markowwes]

Go the 550 route…..it may cost a little more, you will be more than happy with the outcome. We purchased ours out of Helena Montana, will never look back.



No worries about weights now!

[2Gordons]

mkirsch wrote:
An F350 dually will carry a dang big camper all by itself with no need for gadgets, doodads, widgets, wingdings, gadspackers, or mucktinkles.

I'd still keep the doodads and mucktinkles, even if they're not required... just my personal preference. 😉

Interesting discussion.

[BoilerEE]

mkirsch wrote:

Just Jeff wrote:

mkirsch wrote:
Why fixated on the brakes? I've never not once seen anyone mention "beefing up" the brakes for a TC.

Only "beef up" the suspension if you need it. An F350 dually will carry a dang big camper all by itself with no need for gadgets, doodads, widgets, wingdings, gadspackers, or mucktinkles.

Really? Look around - it's out there. Carrying heavy loads is harder on the brakes, so there's a reason heavier duty trucks come with heavier brakes. Not saying they're absolutely required, but it gives more control and the brakes don't wear out as fast b/c they're not being used near their max capacity.

There's a difference between a truck having heavier (i.e. "beefed up") brakes vs. the lighter-duty model, and actually swapping out brake parts on the truck.

I've been on this forum since 2004 and I have yet to read of anyone having taken the factory brakes off their F250, F350, or any other HD pickup and replacing them with "Brembo" or other performance brake parts.

Suspension, yeah. I don't agree with what a lot of people do because they go out and buy the truck then throw $$$thousands$$$ more at their BRAND NEW truck to upgrade it to handle the camper. But yeah, I'm well aware of the suspension mods.

Never seen anyone even consider BRAKES, however. Stock brakes on the F250 are apparently fine even if you've got a 4000lb camper and 19.5" wheels.

Really, if you think about it, the brakes should be at least adequate. The HD brakes on these trucks are designed to stop the truck loaded to GVWR, plus presumably another 3000lbs of trailer (3000lb is the limit in many states where trailer brakes become a requirement).

FWIW, I'm considering putting the SSBC "Tri-Power" calipers and some "big bite" rotors on my Sierra 3500HD ... not sure if it would be worth it, and I'd love to know if anyone's tried it and can attest to its worth (or worthlessness, as the case may be.)

I plan in the long run to go the Dodge 5500 route, but I've got a decent '07.5 GMC 3500HD that I plan to load up with one of the big triple-slides in the near future.

If I were starting from scratch though I wouldn't even consider getting a light duty truck and modding it - it's just that we already have the truck (plus it's our daily driver, which would get even more ridiculous with a 5500!)

[mike_mck]

wintersun wrote:
Comment about the frame is the stiffness and strength of the frame and not its "width". The fully boxed frame on the current GM 1-ton trucks are a great deal stiffer and reduce flexing with SRW and DRW configurations a great deal compared to the Ford trucks in this class. The new 2013 1-ton Ram trucks have a new beefier frame with additional cross members to handle the added CGWR of these trucks (frame upgrades not provided with the 3/4 ton Ram pickups). I have had trucks with cracked frames and broken leaf shackles (tore away from the frame). Not easy to repair a frame and it is not going to be "good as new" afterwards.

In your situation I would look at that as an opportunity to add a storage box in that space or an auxilary fuel tank. It would put the COG of the bed load further forward. COG is usually measured from the rear of the camper and rear of the truck box so that it by design the camper's COG is directly over the rear axle. I have been in vehicles where the weight on the rear axle tended to reduce the weight on the front wheels and it was far from safe and no fun either.

A CAT scale weighing of the truck alone and again with the camper in the bed will tell you whether or not there is any cause for concern. Until you do it is anybody's guess. I don't like to guess about such things.

Winter
Comment on frame width was just pointing out the difference from the F350 to F550 with no reference to stiffness or comparison to ford vs Chevy frames. Sorry for the confusion.

[wintersun]

Comment about the frame is the stiffness and strength of the frame and not its "width". The fully boxed frame on the current GM 1-ton trucks are a great deal stiffer and reduce flexing with SRW and DRW configurations a great deal compared to the Ford trucks in this class. The new 2013 1-ton Ram trucks have a new beefier frame with additional cross members to handle the added CGWR of these trucks (frame upgrades not provided with the 3/4 ton Ram pickups). I have had trucks with cracked frames and broken leaf shackles (tore away from the frame). Not easy to repair a frame and it is not going to be "good as new" afterwards.

In your situation I would look at that as an opportunity to add a storage box in that space or an auxilary fuel tank. It would put the COG of the bed load further forward. COG is usually measured from the rear of the camper and rear of the truck box so that it by design the camper's COG is directly over the rear axle. I have been in vehicles where the weight on the rear axle tended to reduce the weight on the front wheels and it was far from safe and no fun either.

A CAT scale weighing of the truck alone and again with the camper in the bed will tell you whether or not there is any cause for concern. Until you do it is anybody's guess. I don't like to guess about such things.

[gitpicker2009]

I just mounted my AF1150 on my new 4500 today and learned that the bed is a foot longer than my 3500. My camper cannot reach the rear wall where the bump stops would touch. It's about 6 inches away, so I'll be making some blocks to take up the space. No problem, but it does put the center of gravity about 6 inches behind the axle rather than right over it.
Does anyone think that going to be a problem??? I don't think it is, because the truck doesn't even seem to know the camper is there, and it IS 4 wheel drive, so the front end is already heavier than my old 2wd 3500.

Anyone have similar experiences/opinions?

[mike_mck]

wintersun wrote:
With trucks I have always found it cheaper and usually much cheaper to get any heavy duty upgrades from the factory as compared to waiting and doing it later with aftermarket parts and shop labor. And with a truck I have had enough experience with frame and frame attachments over the years to want to be sure the frame will handle the load both on and off road. It is why for our heavy duty truck I went with the GM fully boxed frame which in the 2500/3500 class trucks is the best available.

DRW adds leveraged stress to the frame and increases torsional twisting a great deal more than SRW axles. Going to a DRW I would be looking at a F-450 or better and check that the frame is truly beefier. I doubt that the F-450 is any better than the F-350 in terms of the frame and subcomponents in general and I would go the extra step up to the F-550 platform.

With the F-550 one opens up another can of worms in terms of whether to get a box conversion and have a standard camper setup with its lower centery of gravity or to have a flatbed setup which add more weight and be tippier but provide more storage options.

Going to a F-550 and a 11' camper I would be also checking out Class A and B+ motorhomes as well.

Frame width on a F350 is 37" on a F550 34". I just can't imagine mt 11 foot caribou ever feeling tippy on my 99 F550. I did get a little roll and sag on my 94 F350.

[Just_Jeff]

You got an off-road Class A in mind?

[wintersun]

With trucks I have always found it cheaper and usually much cheaper to get any heavy duty upgrades from the factory as compared to waiting and doing it later with aftermarket parts and shop labor. And with a truck I have had enough experience with frame and frame attachments over the years to want to be sure the frame will handle the load both on and off road. It is why for our heavy duty truck I went with the GM fully boxed frame which in the 2500/3500 class trucks is the best available.

DRW adds leveraged stress to the frame and increases torsional twisting a great deal more than SRW axles. Going to a DRW I would be looking at a F-450 or better and check that the frame is truly beefier. I doubt that the F-450 is any better than the F-350 in terms of the frame and subcomponents in general and I would go the extra step up to the F-550 platform.

With the F-550 one opens up another can of worms in terms of whether to get a box conversion and have a standard camper setup with its lower centery of gravity or to have a flatbed setup which add more weight and be tippier but provide more storage options.

Going to a F-550 and a 11' camper I would be also checking out Class A and B+ motorhomes as well.

[JIMNLIN]

KD4UPL wrote:
I never said the truck manufacturers made the law, only that they hopefully are aware of it. Just because your manual says that doesn't mean they all do. On page 4-88 of my Chevy manual it states: "If your trailer weighs more than 2,000 pounds loaded, then it needs it's own brakes - and they must be adequate"
This says to me that the brakes on the truck must be adequate for up to an additional 2,000 pounds over the truck's GVWR.

Thats 'cause brakes are the function the vehicles GAWRs not the trucks GVWR.

The F350 DRW may have a 6000 FAWR and a 9000 RAWR = 15k lbs of braking performance and a 13xxx GVWR.
The F550 with those big 7000 FAWR and up to 14700 RAWR = 21700 lb of braking performance on a 19500 GVWR.

Same with a tri axle trailer with 7k axles = 21k lbs of braking performance.

Thats why some state/provinces weight laws actually reads to use the sum of the vehicles axle ratings as its gross weight and can safely stop its rated loads for each axle system.

This from a former FMCSA homepage;

NHTSA says this about components of the GAWR:
"Gross Axle Weight Rating is the rated load-carrying capacity of an individual axle and wheel assembly. (It represents the load that may be steadily sustained by the components in the system; i.e., tires, rims, hubs, bearing, axles, brakes, suspension, sub frame, etc. with the GAWR limited by the components with the lowest working rating".

I'm not posting this to start a back and forth on any weight regulations but just to clarify what minimum functions the vehicle brakes are sized to.

[byrdseye]

For what it's worth, I'm on my 4th TC and have had multiple 2500's, 3500's and one F550 in the past. I'm currently building a Dodge 5500 with a custom flatbed. (slowly!) The difference in brakes and carrying prowess between a 3500 and a F550 is huge. As one poster has already said, the turning diameter (for 4x4's anyway) of the C&C's is worth the cost of admission by itself. My 5500 turns as good as my 1500 short bed grocery getter in a parking lot. Just my 2 cents.....

[Just_Jeff]

Great lookin' rig!