The world of tow vehicles would be a better place if

[4x4ord]

If Ford would offer the option of a 3.31 rear axle ratio in their F450.
If F350/3500 SWR trucks were labeled F250/2500 and the 2500 series trucks were discontinued. A 3500 series truck should have duals.
Or how about if you could get a Powerstroke under the hood of your Ram;).
Or if...

[JRscooby]

valhalla360 wrote:

The oil embargo was 40-45yrs ago...not particularly relevant to today.

Yes, the oil embargo was 45 years ago. As far as how it relates to the discussion, What would make Tow Vehicles Better, I think in a prefect world, or even one better than we have, somebody could buy a pickup powered by a used engine, as long as the technology of the engine was not to outdated. I mentioned the embargo as something that force a major change in diesel engine technology. (At the time I was driving a '67 Pete with 12V71 2-stroke. I had a driver in a '70 KW, with 1693 Cat. Both would run about 4 MPG. My '95 Pete, 3406E Cat would beat 6 unless I was doing doing something stupid.
When you think that everything you buy, except the ground it sets on rode on a truck to get to you it is hard to believe anybody can think the oil embargo is not relevant. And the fact that much of the population does not want to loosen the oil companies' grip on the collective sack is evidence we are slow learners, or fast forgetters

[blt2ski]

I'd take a 20" wide single on the back of ALL three DW rigs I've owned I've duals. Assuming BOTH setups have the same overall width.
Supers are lighter in wieght, better mpg's, just as stable. Every test I've seen show better faster stopping, the majority of the time better traction. More carrying capacity due too the overall light tire/rim combo. About a ton more on a typical 5 axle truck trailer.
Only reason duals seem to stay around is the operators brain says 4 -10" tires per axle is better.
I'm personally seeing more tractors and trailers with supers than I did 20 years ago.
As noted, there are in reality, none available in sizes smaller than 22-24" rim diam.
Marty

[rhagfo]

spoon059 wrote:

rhagfo wrote:

time2roll wrote:
I want super singles tucked under the SRW fenders instead of a dually. Going to be a bit narrower between the wheel wells and that is fine by me.

I doubt manufactures would produce a truck with less than 4’ between the wheel wells.

Yea, I've thought of that as well, but I agree.
I haven't looked at a dually in a while, but I have to wonder if the inner wheels could be tucked closer to the body, thus bringing the outer wheels closer in as well. That would reduce the overall width by a couple inches, possibly making it more desireable.

Or simply offer a super single (17" wide) instead of dual rear wheels (23" wide). That would reduce your width by a foot! Of course, I'm not aware of a super single with a wheel size small enough to fit on a pickup...

Well part of the stability of a DRW comes from the wide stance and eight sidewalls instead of four. The reasons people have all kinds of reasons for not wanting to drive a DRW. Most are not valid. We full time and our crew cab long bed DRW is our only vehicle. No, it isn’t a smart car, but I can drive and park just about anywhere I want. We are 8’ wide at the hips, standard road lane is 10’ so a foot on each side.
I see people in compact cars, hugging the center line when crossing a bridge because the rail is too close. You learn the size and it isn’t an issue, DD also has a DRW for hauling her four horse trailer she doesn’t have any issues driving such a BIG truck.

[valhalla360]

JRscooby wrote:

valhalla360 wrote:

As mentioned HDT are a different world and not relevant to your 3/4 & 1 ton pickups. I would expect your average trucking company has qualified mechanics performing work. Your average guy with a 20yr old truck that he's stringing along likely cuts a lot of corners...so your assumption that the engine transfer would be done professionally is sketchy at best.

I'm sure individuals mostly could care less about the engine technology but that doesn't mean it must meet current regulations and that it must mate with the new technology on your new chassie.

As far as keeping a truck going for 40yrs...if you dump $40-50k into the chassie, you can do a major overhaul making it like new at 20yrs (probably a good bit cheaper if you don't live in rust belt states)...giving you an additional 20yrs. If it's really that the engine will last 40yrs, you can keep the chassie going and it's much more straight forward.

Back in the days before oil embargo...........

The oil embargo was 40-45yrs ago...not particularly relevant to today.

[spoon059]

rhagfo wrote:

time2roll wrote:
I want super singles tucked under the SRW fenders instead of a dually. Going to be a bit narrower between the wheel wells and that is fine by me.

I doubt manufactures would produce a truck with less than 4’ between the wheel wells.

Yea, I've thought of that as well, but I agree.
I haven't looked at a dually in a while, but I have to wonder if the inner wheels could be tucked closer to the body, thus bringing the outer wheels closer in as well. That would reduce the overall width by a couple inches, possibly making it more desireable.

Or simply offer a super single (17" wide) instead of dual rear wheels (23" wide). That would reduce your width by a foot! Of course, I'm not aware of a super single with a wheel size small enough to fit on a pickup...

[Grit_dog]

Ahhh, your wishes and dreams…..

[JRscooby]

valhalla360 wrote:

As mentioned HDT are a different world and not relevant to your 3/4 & 1 ton pickups. I would expect your average trucking company has qualified mechanics performing work. Your average guy with a 20yr old truck that he's stringing along likely cuts a lot of corners...so your assumption that the engine transfer would be done professionally is sketchy at best.

I'm sure individuals mostly could care less about the engine technology but that doesn't mean it must meet current regulations and that it must mate with the new technology on your new chassie.

As far as keeping a truck going for 40yrs...if you dump $40-50k into the chassie, you can do a major overhaul making it like new at 20yrs (probably a good bit cheaper if you don't live in rust belt states)...giving you an additional 20yrs. If it's really that the engine will last 40yrs, you can keep the chassie going and it's much more straight forward.

Back in the days before oil embargo/big changes in engines, the Pete dealer had a kit being built in shop most of time. Anther dealer sold mostly assembled kits.
I think you and I have a different view about who would be the market for class 2 and 3 trucks set up for older model engines. Most people I know that use old vehicles are more likely to replace a wore out engine with a newer 1. Sure, we can replace all the parts, repair rust, and drive forever. (For years I made sure we had a spare car incase I did not get DWs fixed in time)
Many people, including a large percentage of RVers, buy new to be "sure" they don't need to deal with minor repairs and can have new model with all the bells and whistles. Then another group "I won't take that big hit when I leave the lot" buys what first group trades in. The third owners, that buy what 2nd group trades in are looking for cheap work trucks. If power seat doesn't work, drive it from where the seat is at.
Now, if a dealer had the option to offer first group that wants a new truck, but "I don't know about that redesigned, want buy after we know it is good" he could dismantle something that he would send to auction, price it little lower than new. Might even sell to the 2nd group.
Then think about good engines in wrecked trucks.

[valhalla360]

How about if manufacturers set up a simple fill in the blank style towing website rather than a big booklet of tables with multiple footnotes?

You input the numbers from the trailer and it leads you to acceptably optioned trucks or if you have the truck, it can reverse and spit out the trailer you can tow.

It could even come with warnings...example: if a trailer will leave you with less than 600lb of payload, a warning could pop up that you only have X payload left with this trailer, so passenger, cargo and bolt on accessories must be limited to X lbs to stay within payload ratings.

Again, this isn't 30-40yrs ago when getting this info required you to go down to the dealer who would look it up in a paper book.

[time2roll]

dodge guy wrote:

time2roll wrote:
I want super singles tucked under the SRW fenders instead of a dually. Going to be a bit narrower between the wheel wells and that is fine by me.

Until you ever have to drive in snow and all they do is float.

I have chains for the snow.

Float is good in the sand. No rocks between the duals is good for the desert roads. No bulging fenders for narrow places.

As for the 4' width maybe a mid sized super would give the space and carrying capacity of the dual. Don't need a full commercial 10,000# super from a tanker truck.

[Grit_dog]

Michelle.S wrote:
Biggest problem with the F450 besides the rear-end is the fact it generally has a lower cargo capacity than an equally equipped F350 since the overall Truck is heavier.

Ummm ok. You’re not really showing any real knowledge of the chassis’s and their components. Or any knowledge of why a f450 pickup has less “capacity “.
I’ll give you a hint. It’s the weight class that the 450 p/u is lumped into. Not the truck.

[blt2ski]

Cummins12V98 wrote:

time2roll wrote:
I want super singles tucked under the SRW fenders instead of a dually. Going to be a bit narrower between the wheel wells and that is fine by me.

What would that do for you over a 3500 SRW with 18's that have a lot of carrying capacity ?

Super singles you could get tires in the 5000+ lbs relm. But reality is, not a big deal unless you have a 10-20k RA capacity. The other SS do, is give you more tire width, for a higher capacity DOT load. As you need 20" of tire(s) per corner to get your max 20k per axle. With the typical 10" tire width of a SW truck, you only have 10k of wieght you can put in that axle. Even if the sum of the parts are over 10k lbs per DOT FBL specs.
The lr e 18's I have on my truck are good to 4000-4500 lbs per. On par or greater than some of the 35 DW rigs I've owned. Per FBL specs, I get 5500 or 11000 lbs on the RA. Not that I'm going to recommend this mind you.
I would prefer SS on my Navistar vs the 4 225-70-19.5 tires I have.

Marty

[Cummins12V98]

time2roll wrote:
I want super singles tucked under the SRW fenders instead of a dually. Going to be a bit narrower between the wheel wells and that is fine by me.

What would that do for you over a 3500 SRW with 18's that have a lot of carrying capacity ?

[dodge_guy]

time2roll wrote:
I want super singles tucked under the SRW fenders instead of a dually. Going to be a bit narrower between the wheel wells and that is fine by me.

Until you ever have to drive in snow and all they do is float.

[4x4ord]

Michelle.S wrote:
Biggest problem with the F450 besides the rear-end is the fact it generally has a lower cargo capacity than an equally equipped F350 since the overall Truck is heavier.

That’s a whole other discussion. Technically a F-450 can carry about 450 lbs less than a similar equipped f350 but if I had a 5000 lb camper and could get 3.55 gears in a F-450, I’d sooner overload the F-450 than be “legal” on a f350.

The same goes for towing ….. technically a 4x4 crew cab F-450 (with its 4.30 gears) is rated to tow a 32,600 lb gooseneck. The similar equipped F350 with 3.55 gears is rated to tow 31,300 lbs and a 4.10 equipped f350 is king with a tow rating of 34,700 lbs. Again if I had a 35,000 lb gooseneck I think I’d be pulling it with an F-450.

The thing is how many people are towing 35,000 lbs? Offer 3.31 gears in a F-450 for those who tow 18,000 - 24,000 lbs.

[rhagfo]

time2roll wrote:
I want super singles tucked under the SRW fenders instead of a dually. Going to be a bit narrower between the wheel wells and that is fine by me.

I doubt manufactures would produce a truck with less than 4’ between the wheel wells.