http://www.autoblog.com/2007/10/30/sema-2007-dropping-by-the-deberti-ford-super-duty/
http://dallassmithcorp.com/productsvans.html
Intresting, innovative, unique and useful.
(http://www.procivic.com/images/articles_news/horsepower_torque/civic_burnout.jpg)
Front wheel drive diesel pickup? FWD burnouts are lame. :rolleyes: :lol:
It's a lot easier to buy some ramps for your motorcycle... :rolleyes:
The front CV joints on that truck are not going to be enjoying 100% of that engine's torque for very long...
Seriously, I think this would make a lot more sense on something less heavy duty, like a Ranger, Colorado, or Sprinter.
You don't need a fuckin' Powerstroke to haul a motorcycle, and with this conversion, you can't do any heavy duty jobs because of a lack of ground clearance.
LAME.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on October 31, 2007, 09:21:42 PM
Seriously, I think this would make a lot more sense on something less heavy duty, like a Ranger, Colorado, or Sprinter.
You don't need a fuckin' Powerstroke to haul a motorcycle, and with this conversion, you can't do any heavy duty jobs because of a lack of ground clearance.
Ground clearance has nothing to do with hauling capacity.
This truck for instance, has less than four inches of ground clearance
(http://www.phoenixmachinerymovers.com/truck2.jpg)
Is that a 70 wheeler truck? :confused:
That is a kick-ass trailer setup. I want to drive that thing! :rockon:
Quote from: Raghavan on October 31, 2007, 09:52:26 PM
Is that a 70 wheeler truck? :confused:
68. The front drive axle only has two wheels on it.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on October 31, 2007, 09:58:39 PM
68. The front drive axle only has two wheels on it.
I count 35 for each side.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on October 31, 2007, 09:31:57 PM
Ground clearance has nothing to do with hauling capacity.
This truck for instance, has less than four inches of ground clearance
(http://www.phoenixmachinerymovers.com/truck2.jpg)
Okay...I guess you just need a really big upside down drop hitch!
Do you really think the drivetrain and frame are going to be able to cope with towing with these modifications?
Quote from: NACar on October 31, 2007, 09:54:03 PM
That is a kick-ass trailer setup. I want to drive that thing! :rockon:
From what I've been told, once you get going it's not much different to drive than a normal rig.
It would still be great for bragging purposes though.
"What's the heaviest vehicle you've ever driven?"
"600 tons."
Quote from: Soup DeVille on October 31, 2007, 10:01:48 PM
From what I've been told, once you get going it's not much different to drive than a normal rig.
It would still be great for bragging purposes though.
"What's the heaviest vehicle you've ever driven?"
"600 tons."
It's like driving a train, but not on tracks. Awesome. :lol:
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on October 31, 2007, 10:01:34 PM
Okay...I guess you just need a really big upside down drop hitch!
Do you really think the drivetrain and frame are going to be able to cope with towing with these modifications?
Yes.
Front wheel drive specialty trucks are nothing new, they've been around for years.
Well then why the hell are we talking about them? :lol:
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on October 31, 2007, 10:08:56 PM
Well then why the hell are we talking about them? :lol:
Because the OP wasn't aware of that? BTW, this is one of my favorite FWD trucks of all time:
(http://www.gmcws.org/karasek/MVC-003F.JPG)
And yes, they can also tow quite well.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on October 31, 2007, 09:21:42 PM
Seriously, I think this would make a lot more sense on something less heavy duty, like a Ranger, Colorado, or Sprinter.
You don't need a fuckin' Powerstroke to haul a motorcycle, and with this conversion, you can't do any heavy duty jobs because of a lack of ground clearance.
It's strictly for show :rolleyes:
FWD pickups make no sense no matter what size the truck is. You put a load in the bed and the weight transfers off the drive wheels.
Quote from: HEMI666 on November 01, 2007, 08:52:10 AM
It's strictly for show :rolleyes:
FWD pickups make no sense no matter what size the truck is. You put a load in the bed and the weight transfers off the drive wheels.
Yes, but the Benefits of it, make a lot of sense.
Quote from: 2o6 on November 01, 2007, 02:49:55 PM
Yes, but the Benefits of it, make a lot of sense.
The Cons outweigh the Pros.
Quote from: HEMI666 on November 01, 2007, 08:52:10 AM
It's strictly for show :rolleyes:
FWD pickups make no sense no matter what size the truck is. You put a load in the bed and the weight transfers off the drive wheels.
True, I've driven half ton's so loaded down that the front wheels can't keep the truck from going snakey, let alone try and also provide drive.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on October 31, 2007, 09:31:57 PM
Ground clearance has nothing to do with hauling capacity.
This truck for instance, has less than four inches of ground clearance
(http://www.phoenixmachinerymovers.com/truck2.jpg)
I saw behind one of those recently, and I couldn't believe it could make the turn it did. It was surrounded by police cruisers and going like 2mph.
What kind of transmission did they use to handle all that torque to the front wheels?
Quote from: 2o6 on November 01, 2007, 03:51:32 PM
Not really.
If you ever put anything heavy in the bed, the con's far outweigh the pro's.... and If I was spending money on a super duty, I would be putting heavy things in the bed.
Quote from: Ron From Regina on November 01, 2007, 04:00:33 PM
If you ever put anything heavy in the bed, the con's far outweigh the pro's.... and If I was spending money on a super duty, I would be putting heavy things in the bed.
It's not really for civillian use......I'm thinking the Applications of Small Buses, Ambulances.....moving trucks....
Quote from: HEMI666 on November 01, 2007, 08:52:10 AM
It's strictly for show :rolleyes:
FWD pickups make no sense no matter what size the truck is. You put a load in the bed and the weight transfers off the drive wheels.
Only if you put a load behind the rear axles, when if you're properly loading your truck, it will put weight on the fronts as well.
Even on a RWD truck you don't want to take weight off the front axle- that one actually does the steering you know.
Quote from: HEMI666 on November 01, 2007, 02:50:45 PM
The Cons outweigh the Pros.
It's made for specific jobs where either load floor height or overall storage height is a concern.
Say for instance, you need to deliver an object 13 and a half feet tall? Can you put it on a truck with a load floor 30 inches above ground?
Only if there are no wires or bridges between here and your destination.
Trucks like this can also be fitted with airbags and drop completely to the ground so a load can be rolled on or off with a simple pallet jack.
Quote from: the Teuton on November 01, 2007, 03:59:13 PM
What kind of transmission did they use to handle all that torque to the front wheels?
Most likely either a GM TH425 or the original transmission with a modified transfer case.
Quote from: Ron From Regina on November 01, 2007, 02:54:23 PM
True, I've driven half ton's so loaded down that the front wheels can't keep the truck from going snakey, let alone try and also provide drive.
Then it ws loaded wrong, not loaded down.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on November 01, 2007, 04:27:19 PM
Then it ws loaded wrong, not loaded down.
How else would you load a lift of 14' 2X10's into a truck? Yes, it was way over wight for what the was supposed to handle, but short of strapping the load to the hood, there aren't a lot of options.
Quote from: Ron From Regina on November 01, 2007, 04:35:38 PM
How else would you load a lift of 14' 2X10's into a truck? Yes, it was way over wight for what the was supposed to handle, but short of strapping the load to the hood, there aren't a lot of options.
Uhh....then it was loaded wrong. Too much weight.
Quote from: Ron From Regina on November 01, 2007, 04:35:38 PM
How else would you load a lift of 14' 2X10's into a truck? Yes, it was way over wight for what the was supposed to handle, but short of strapping the load to the hood, there aren't a lot of options.
Then it was loaded wrong and overloaded; becauase it was the wrong tool for the job; and that's all a truck really is.
In this case, this thread is about a specialty tool. Why don't so many self-proclaimed "truck guys" seem to understand that. I wouldn't choose one of these for general duty anymore than I would choose a crow's foot socket as the only wrench in my bag, but when I need one, I need one.
Thats not the point. I bet every truck owner in this forum has overloaded their truck atleast once, and because trucks are RWD, it hasn't really been a huge deal.
Quote from: Ron From Regina on November 01, 2007, 04:41:53 PM
Thats not the point. I bet every truck owner in this forum has overloaded their truck atleast once, and because trucks are RWD, it hasn't really been a huge deal.
RWD/FWD has little to do with it.
And think about it for a second or two: which is more important from a safety perspective: accelerating or steering and braking?
Would you rather drive a FWD or RWD truck with little weight over its front wheels (ie, loaded with a lift of lumber) though the snow? I think in this case the drive wheels have a lot to do with how succesful you are hauling the load.
I am aware this truck is a tool for a specific application. However, hemi's original post was that the pros for a FWD truck (being able to lower the bed, etc) are outweighted by the cons. He was speaking in general terms, and not of the truck in the above example.
Edit:
We're not talking about being safe, we're talking about being functional. If safety was a concern, obviously one should get themselves a bigger (read proper) truck for the job.
Quote from: Ron From Regina on November 01, 2007, 04:50:59 PM
Would you rather drive a FWD or RWD truck with little weight over its front wheels (ie, loaded with a lift of lumber) though the snow? I think in this case the drive wheels have a lot to do with how succesful you are hauling the load.
I am aware this truck is a tool for a specific application. However, hemi's original post was that the pros for a FWD truck (being able to lower the bed, etc) are outweighted by the cons. He was speaking in general terms, and not of the truck in the above example.
Edit:
We're not talking about being safe, we're talking about being functional. If safety was a concern, obviously one should get themselves a bigger (read proper) truck for the job.
Yeah it would be great in snow, that way you're steering would be even more dangerously unloaded.
And I am talking about being functional: and I can see absolutely no difference in functionality under reasonably normal circumstances.
I agree that under reasonably normal circumstances, it would make little difference. Hell, unloaded (which is prob the majority of a trucks life), a fwd truck would likely be better to drive in the winter.
My point is, is that if full size pickups were offered in either FWD or RWD, I would purchase a RWD to have the capability to push those limites on rare occasions.
There's a reason that there are no full size fwd trucks on the market. Hell, even the Ridgeline isn't available in FWD only.
Quote from: Ron From Regina on November 01, 2007, 05:07:48 PM
I agree that under reasonably normal circumstances, it would make little difference. Hell, unloaded (which is prob the majority of a trucks life), a fwd truck would likely be better to drive in the winter.
My point is, is that if full size pickups were offered in either FWD or RWD, I would purchase a RWD to have the capability to push those limites on rare occasions.
There's a reason that there are no full size fwd trucks on the market. Hell, even the Ridgeline isn't available in FWD only.
That's not good.....
Besides, the Rating for these trucks are pretty respectible.
Quote from: Ron From Regina on November 01, 2007, 05:07:48 PM
There's a reason that there are no full size fwd trucks on the market. Hell, even the Ridgeline isn't available in FWD only.
Yes there are. The OP showed you one, I showed you anothe (but that's no longer made so I guess it doesn't count), and here's another one:
(http://www.concretepumpbroker.com/curr_inv/cross%204.jpg)
The rear driveshaft is used only to turn the agitating screw, those are trailer axles at the back because the the concrete reservoir is in the way of where a normal drive axle would be.
Can someone answer this?
By FWD, do they mean foreward-cab, or Front-wheel-drive?
Also, are these Fireengines FWD?
(http://www.oldtimetrucks.org/OTT_Mag/JunJul06_Cover.jpg)
Quote from: 2o6 on November 01, 2007, 07:36:50 PM
Can someone answer this?
By FWD, do they mean foreward-cab, or Front-wheel-drive?
Also, are these Fireengines FWD?
(http://www.oldtimetrucks.org/OTT_Mag/JunJul06_Cover.jpg)
FWD was actually a truck company that existed until the mid' -'70s. The company's name meant "four wheel drive," but they actually produced trucks in all sorts of different drivetrain layouts.
I assume the pic got re-linked or something. I don't know much about firetrucks.
No, I just posted the wrong pic.
Ah, so 2o6, been stealing a lot of stuff from here for MCAD?
So 206 has been arguing that FWD is perfectly fine and yet he didn't even know the definition of the acronym.
Soup, I have lived with and owned trucks my entire life carrying heavy loads up to 5000 lbs in the box of several different makes and manufacturers and when your loads are getting that heavy there is no way to load a pickup without taking weight off the front wheels. In case you haven't noticed the box sits over the REAR tires and when you load several thousand pounds of weight over those wheels the front of your truck actually starts to lift off the front tires. This concept truck is an F-450 which is capable of hauling 6000 lbs in the box and FWD would completely suck with 6000 lbs in the box and I don't care how you load it. It also has a 24,500 lbs tow rating. I would like to see a FWD pickup tow that.
Quote from: HEMI666 on November 02, 2007, 09:10:37 AM
So 206 has been arguing that FWD is perfectly fine and yet he didn't even know the definition of the acronym.
Yeah, and he's been stealing all the pics and things you guys have posted and putting them on another forum. :heated: :rage:
Quote from: CMan on November 02, 2007, 10:20:36 AM
Yeah, and he's been stealing all the pics and things you guys have posted and putting them on another forum. :heated: :rage:
Which forum?
Quote from: Ron From Regina on November 01, 2007, 04:35:38 PM
How else would you load a lift of 14' 2X10's into a truck? Yes, it was way over wight for what the was supposed to handle, but short of strapping the load to the hood, there aren't a lot of options.
So assuming an 8' bed you had 6" of 2X10 hanging out behind the load bed. As someone else observed, it was loaded wrong, and probably illegally.
Quote from: etypeJohn on November 02, 2007, 10:59:10 AM
So assuming an 8' bed you had 6" of 2X10 hanging out behind the load bed. As someone else observed, it was loaded wrong, and probably illegally.
There's nothing wrong or illegal with it being loaded that way. :rolleyes:
Quote from: HEMI666 on November 02, 2007, 09:10:37 AM
So 206 has been arguing that FWD is perfectly fine and yet he didn't even know the definition of the acronym.
Soup, I have lived with and owned trucks my entire life carrying heavy loads up to 5000 lbs in the box of several different makes and manufacturers and when your loads are getting that heavy there is no way to load a pickup without taking weight off the front wheels. In case you haven't noticed the box sits over the REAR tires and when you load several thousand pounds of weight over those wheels the front of your truck actually starts to lift off the front tires. This concept truck is an F-450 which is capable of hauling 6000 lbs in the box and FWD would completely suck with 6000 lbs in the box and I don't care how you load it. It also has a 24,500 lbs tow rating. I would like to see a FWD pickup tow that.
Take an F150. Move the rear wheels back as far as possible. Install front wheel drive train. Any load in the bed is mainly between the axles and a portion of the load's weight goes to the front end, which is heavier anyway becasue all the drave train and the cab is closer to the front axle. Needless to say, driving dynamics would be greatly affected.
Quote from: HEMI666 on November 02, 2007, 10:22:54 AM
Which forum?
Mine.
I'm not kidding, I run my own forum. But he's been STEALING FROM T3H 'SPIN, and that is inexcusable. :lockedup:
Quote from: etypeJohn on November 02, 2007, 10:59:10 AM
So assuming an 8' bed you had 6" of 2X10 hanging out behind the load bed. As someone else observed, it was loaded wrong, and probably illegally.
How would you suggest loading it? I worked in a lumber yard for 5 years while in highschool and university and I could have used your expertise.
Maybe you should pass your expertise on to all the lumberyards out there that are still loading lumber in the back of trucks that is sticking out a little bit.
Quote from: HEMI666 on November 02, 2007, 11:02:04 AM
There's nothing wrong or illegal with it being loaded that way. :rolleyes:
I would argue its wrong because the center of gravity of the load is behind the rear axle. That makes for dangerous handling.
Illegal? It is in Texas and probably most other states.
The law reads: "No vehicle may carry a load extending more than three feet beyond the front nor four feet beyond the rear, unless a special permit is obtained." Its probably only enforced if the load looks particularly dangerous or causes an accident.
IIRC, it is also unlawful to carry a load that extends more than 6" beyond the driver's side and 18" beyond the passenger side of the vehicle.
Quote from: Ron From Regina on November 02, 2007, 11:16:21 AM
How would you suggest loading it? I worked in a lumber yard for 5 years while in highschool and university and I could have used your expertise.
Maybe you should pass your expertise on to all the lumberyards out there that are still loading lumber in the back of trucks that is sticking out a little bit.
Why sure Ron, happy to. Have the load delivered or rent a trailer. :praise:
Most lumber yards could give a shit as long as the laod doesn't fall off on their property. I do suspect that in this day and age though that the lumber yard could be held liable if they improperly load a customer's truck and that load caused an accident. These days anybody can sue anybody for anything. :(
And yes, I've loaded a pickup to the point the bed was on the bump stops. :nono:
Quote from: etypeJohn on November 02, 2007, 11:22:32 AM
The law reads: "No vehicle may carry a load extending more than three feet beyond the front nor four feet beyond the rear, unless a special permit is obtained."
4' beyond the rear? How do you figure a 10' 2x4 in an 8' bed hangs 4' past the rear bumper?
If everyone followed your logic of loading everything between the axles then nobody would use their trucks for hauling anything. Besides, my truck has 30" of bed behind the axle that would never be used.
Quote from: HEMI666 on November 02, 2007, 11:32:53 AM
4' beyond the rear? How do you figure a 10' 2x4 in an 8' bed hangs 4' past the rear bumper?
If everyone followed your logic of loading everything between the axles then nobody would use their trucks for hauling anything. Besides, my truck has 30" of bed behind the axle that would never be used.
I don't, he was talking about 14' 2X10s.
And where did you get the idea that I said everybody should place their load between the axles?
Quote from: etypeJohn on November 02, 2007, 11:26:47 AM
Why sure Ron, happy to. Have the load delivered or rent a trailer. :praise:
Most lumber yards could give a shit as long as the laod doesn't fall off on their porperty. I do suspect that in this day and age though that the lumber yard could be held liable if they improperly load a customer's truck and that load caused an accident. These days anybody can sue anybody for anything. :(
And yes, I've loaded a pickup to the point the bed was on the bump stops. :nono:
Sure, that would be ideal. However, in the real world, that just isn't practical. If I had to deliver every time a customer wanted to buy lumber longer than 8 feet, you would need a fleet of drivers working around the clock.
The point is, its common for people to push the limits of their trucks. I'm not arguing it safe, or even a good idea, but it is common. I don't know what the law around here reads now, but 15 years ago when I was working there, we could haul anything up to 16' in the back of truck with an 8ft bed (+ 2 feet of the end gate being down) so long as a red flag was attatched to the load, and the load was "secure".
The heaviest thing I ever seen loaded into the back of a standard half ton was a full pallet of cement. It was on the bump stops, and the front of the truck was sitting so high we didn't think the owner would be able to steer it, but he insisted on taking it that way, and from what I heard, was successfull in getting the load home.
Quote from: etypeJohn on November 02, 2007, 11:37:59 AM
I don't, he was talking about 14' 2X10s.
:mask:
QuoteAnd where did you get the idea that I said everybody should place their load between the axles?
You're saying that anything loaded behind the rear wheels is loading the truck wrong because it takes weight off the front wheels.
There's limits to everything though...
http://www.swapmeetdave.com/Humor/Workshop/Overload.htm
2o6 didn't know what FWD is? :wtf:
Quote from: etypeJohn on November 02, 2007, 11:22:32 AM
IIRC, it is also unlawful to carry a load that extends more than 6" beyond the driver's side and 18" beyond the passenger side of the vehicle.
I wish I still had this picture on my phone: I was on the 101 in pheonix helping a friend move early one morning and we saw a man in a 70's sedan driving around with a foot-wide wooden plank sticking at least 6 feet out his driver's-side rear window. He was in the far right lane of the freeway, and he was occupying the entire lane next to him. R_E_D_I_C_U_L_O_U_S! :lol:
Quote from: HEMI666 on November 02, 2007, 11:46:08 AM
:mask:
You're saying that anything loaded behind the rear wheels is loading the truck wrong because it takes weight off the front wheels.
Can you find where I said that?
Quote from: etypeJohn on November 02, 2007, 12:58:35 PM
Can you find where I said that?
It's what you are indirectly saying.
Quote from: Ron From Regina on November 02, 2007, 11:45:28 AM
The heaviest thing I ever seen loaded into the back of a standard half ton was a full pallet of cement. It was on the bump stops, and the front of the truck was sitting so high we didn't think the owner would be able to steer it, but he insisted on taking it that way, and from what I heard, was successfull in getting the load home.
When I was fresh out of high school I worked for a trucking company, first as an order writer in the repair shop then as a dispatcher.
We had tanker trailers too damaged to be repaired way out in the yard. One day the boss got the bright idea of cutting them up and selling them for scrap. It would earn money and clear out some parking space.
By the time we hired a guy with a sniffer to make sure the truck wouldn't blow up when we started cutting it up, paid for the O2 and acetylene, and the time of the mechanics I doubt that we came close to breaking even.
Add to the loses the pickup truck I used to carry the scrap to the salvage yard. A 68 Chevy half ton, about 1 year old at the time. One load weighed over 4300 pounds. We damn near destroyed the truck hauling that cut up tanker. But hey, the boss was happy.
Quote from: HEMI666 on November 02, 2007, 01:03:26 PM
It's what you are indirectly saying.
No, its not what i'm saying directly or indirectly at all. I am saying that if you load a truck, at or near the load limit with the CG of the load significantly aft of the axle you are loading the truck improperly.
Just like too much tongue weight on a trailer. Sure you can tow it, but it isn't the proper way to do it.
Quote from: etypeJohn on November 02, 2007, 01:08:41 PM
No, its not what i'm saying directly or indirectly at all. I am saying that if you load a truck, at or near the load limit with the CG of the load significantly aft of the axle you are loading the truck improperly.
Just like too much tongue weight on a trailer. Sure you can tow it, but it isn't the proper way to do it.
I've loaded trucks with the CG right over the rear axle and even in front of it and it still pulls the front end up. It's the nature of having the load bed over the rear axle.
Quote from: HEMI666 on November 02, 2007, 01:15:13 PM
I've loaded trucks with the CG right over the rear axle and even in front of it and it still pulls the front end up. It's the nature of having the load bed over the rear axle.
OK, but probably not dangerously so. Now imagine the load CG practically at the tailgate hinge; its even worse. Sure you can do it and people do all the time but its not the right way to haul a load.
Quote from: etypeJohn on November 02, 2007, 01:26:40 PM
OK, but probably not dangerously so. Now imagine the load CG practically at the tailgate hinge; its even worse. Sure you can do it and people do all the time but its not the right way to haul a load.
I don't recall anyone in this thread saying that's where they put the majority of the weight. I certainly didn't, and I never have loaded a truck in that manner, but that doesn't stop the weight being pulled off the front tires.
Quote from: HEMI666 on November 02, 2007, 01:15:13 PM
I've loaded trucks with the CG right over the rear axle and even in front of it and it still pulls the front end up. It's the nature of having the load bed over the rear axle.
Of course, it's not like a pickup handles perfectly under no load.
I took this picture of my truck. The load is placed, if anywhere, in front of the rear axle and the wheel well gap in the front is substantially larger then it is without a load. Now, imagine if this truck was FWD.
(http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c342/hemi666/June034.jpg)
Quote from: HEMI666 on November 02, 2007, 01:34:21 PM
I took this picture of my truck. The load is placed, if anywhere, in front of the rear axle and the wheel well gap in the front is substantially larger then it is without a load. Now, imagine if this truck was FWD.
(http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c342/hemi666/June034.jpg)
Looks very familiar.
I'm not arguing a front wheel drive truck is better or equal to a rear wheel drive. All I said was it would probably work if you moved the rear axel as far back as you could - to the very rear of the bed.
Quote from: HEMI666 on November 02, 2007, 01:34:21 PM
I took this picture of my truck. The load is placed, if anywhere, in front of the rear axle and the wheel well gap in the front is substantially larger then it is without a load. Now, imagine if this truck was FWD.
(http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c342/hemi666/June034.jpg)
Hmm. seems like it wouldn't be too different from driving a heavy, RWD truck under
no load, excepting steering.
In any event, that's not the intended application for the FWD truck. I don't think anyone is suggesting FWD as a pure substitute for normal trucks. All anyone is saying is they have their purpose.
Quote from: HEMI666 on November 02, 2007, 01:31:11 PM
I don't recall anyone in this thread saying that's where they put the majority of the weight. I certainly didn't, and I never have loaded a truck in that manner, but that doesn't stop the weight being pulled off the front tires.
No, I was referring to Ron who said he hauled 14" 2X10s. That would have put the laod CG about 1 foot in front of the tailgate, assuming an 8' bed.
Quote from: Tave on November 02, 2007, 01:39:52 PM
Hmm. seems like it wouldn't be too different from driving a heavy, RWD truck under no load, excepting steering.
Actually it isn't. Despite the rear end of a truck being lighter then the front end of the truck, the rear end is still heavy. The day I hauled that load home, the truck was hesitant to turn until I had turned the wheel a great deal further then under normal conditions.
QuoteIn any event, that's not the intended application for the FWD truck. I don't think anyone is suggesting FWD as a pure substitute for normal trucks. All anyone is saying is they have their purpose.
FWD pickups do not have a purpose which is why no manufacturer builds them.
Quote from: etypeJohn on November 02, 2007, 01:40:47 PM
No, I was referring to Ron who said he hauled 14" 2X10s. That would have put the laod CG about 1 foot in front of the tailgate, assuming an 8' bed.
Right, and I was citing an extreme example of why FWD has no practical application in pickup trucks. I wasn't arguing on how to properly load a truck, or would I advocate hauling loads like that. I am simply pointing out that it happens, and from my experience at the lumber yard, is fairly common.
However, Hemi has provided a more practical example of truck use. Even with the load inside the rear axel, his truck still shows signifigant lift on the front tires, which is why FWD is a poor candidate for regular use pickups, which is what the original argument was all about.
I had the opportunity to attend this year's SEMA show with my boss, and had come across this truck. And I, along with a lot of you on here was in complete disbelief as to the actual concept of the vehicle. After speaking with someone there at the ford booth, they had shed some light on some of the specifics, and what I wasnt able to learn there, I found on dalas smith corp's website (www.dallassmithcorp.com). It turns out that the suspension is an all wheel air-ride independent suspension, that can lower/raise itself. And its GVWR is something like 19,500 (which I believe my f450 is 18,000). The only downfall I remember hearing, is that it can only tow light to medium duty trailers/boats. But other than that, the vehicle was definitely Ford's biggest hit...may have even won best of show...and with the tail gate able to drop like that, i can see why!
Quote from: HEMI666 on November 02, 2007, 01:43:24 PM
Actually it isn't. Despite the rear end of a truck being lighter then the front end of the truck, the rear end is still heavy. The day I hauled that load home, the truck was hesitant to turn until I had turned the wheel a great deal further then under normal conditions.
My point was a RWD breaks loose in the rear and a FWD pickup breaks loose in the front. You can pick your poison, but it's not like either one is perfect.
But I think you're missing the point. This abstract, FWD truck we're talking about probably isn't meant for the kind of duty your picture captured.
QuoteFWD pickups do not have a purpose which is why no manufacturer builds them.
Huh? We've seen several commercial applications of the technology, as well as this concept. It might a niche purpose, but it exists.
Quote from: HEMI666 on November 02, 2007, 09:10:37 AM
So 206 has been arguing that FWD is perfectly fine and yet he didn't even know the definition of the acronym.
Soup, I have lived with and owned trucks my entire life carrying heavy loads up to 5000 lbs in the box of several different makes and manufacturers and when your loads are getting that heavy there is no way to load a pickup without taking weight off the front wheels. In case you haven't noticed the box sits over the REAR tires and when you load several thousand pounds of weight over those wheels the front of your truck actually starts to lift off the front tires. This concept truck is an F-450 which is capable of hauling 6000 lbs in the box and FWD would completely suck with 6000 lbs in the box and I don't care how you load it. It also has a 24,500 lbs tow rating. I would like to see a FWD pickup tow that.
This is not a concept truck. This seems to be causing you much confusion. It is a current, produced and used specialty truck designed to solve a particular problem. Why is that so hard to understand?
Oh, and on your loading example: look at a pick up again. A pickup with an 8-foot bed will generally have the axle right in the middle: as long as the weight of your load is centered or in front of center, you will be adding weight to the front end.
My father owned, and still owns a rigging company. I grew up working in his shop. I worked as a heavy rigger for a number of years. I drove steel haulers for a couple of years as well. I know trucks.
Oh, and 206 was confused because he kept seeing the letter "FWD" on rear wheel drive trucks, and didn't know about the existence of a relatively obscure specialty truck manufacturer named the "Four Wheel Drive Auto company."
Quote from: CMan on November 02, 2007, 10:20:36 AM
Yeah, and he's been stealing all the pics and things you guys have posted and putting them on another forum. :heated: :rage:
There's really no expectation of privacy or intellectual property rights when posting ideas under a pseudonym on an open forum.
Quote from: CMan on November 01, 2007, 10:28:01 PM
Ah, so 2o6, been stealing a lot of stuff from here for MCAD?
Duh. Mostly to fight Sean.
Quote from: Raghavan on November 02, 2007, 12:06:57 PM
2o6 didn't know what FWD is? :wtf:
What?
For the Semi, I wasn't sure if they meant Front-wheel-drive, or Foreward-Cab.
Quote from: 2o6 on November 02, 2007, 05:14:18 PM
What?
For the Semi, I wasn't sure if they meant Front-wheel-drive, or Foreward-Cab.
There are many common terms in trucking that most people here wouldn't understand right away either. (Can anyone tell me what a camelback is?)
Quote from: HEMI666 on November 02, 2007, 01:43:24 PM
FWD pickups do not have a purpose which is why no manufacturer builds them.
Uhh, Dallas Smith Corp? I'm not saying for it to replace regular pickups, but that FWD pickups DO have a purpose.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on November 02, 2007, 05:20:25 PM
There are many common terms in trucking that most people here wouldn't understand right away either. (Can anyone tell me what a camelback is?)
A backpack with a hose on it so you can drink water easily from a bladder stored in the backpack.
Quote from: garloosh on November 02, 2007, 02:55:02 PM
I had the opportunity to attend this year's SEMA show with my boss, and had come across this truck. And I, along with a lot of you on here was in complete disbelief as to the actual concept of the vehicle. After speaking with someone there at the ford booth, they had shed some light on some of the specifics, and what I wasnt able to learn there, I found on dalas smith corp's website (www.dallassmithcorp.com). It turns out that the suspension is an all wheel air-ride independent suspension, that can lower/raise itself. And its GVWR is something like 19,500 (which I believe my f450 is 18,000). The only downfall I remember hearing, is that it can only tow light to medium duty trailers/boats. But other than that, the vehicle was definitely Ford's biggest hit...may have even won best of show...and with the tail gate able to drop like that, i can see why!
Welcome to the forum. :rockon:
Quote from: Soup DeVille on November 02, 2007, 04:38:50 PM
Oh, and on your loading example: look at a pick up again. A pickup with an 8-foot bed will generally have the axle right in the middle: as long as the weight of your load is centered or in front of center, you will be adding weight to the front end.
Actually I think it's you that needs to look at a pickup again. The only long box pickup I have ever seen with the axle in the middle of the bed is the old Toyota T100.
(http://blogs.cars.com/photos/uncategorized/tundra1.jpg)
(http://randsco.com/_img/blog/0708/f250_4x4a.jpg)
(http://www.trustmymechanic.com/auto-repair/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/2007chevroletsilveradoclassic3500extendedcab4wdpicturesideview.jpg)
(http://www.autotoyparts.com/includes/images/Toyota_Parts/ToyT100.jpg)
Those all look pretty close to the middle to me: if anything some of them are slightly further to the rear, which would only bolster my case.
As the former owner of a Dodge Rampage, I never got stuck in snow in that thing despite low ground clearance.
As to the unsuitabilty of "wrong wheel drive" under load, I didn't have any handling problems helping people move, transporting balled/burlapped trees, etc.
My only real problem with the Rampage was that the box floor was galvanized and the cab floor wasn't. If I could have controlled the cab-floor rust, I'd still have a vehicle that was lots better on snow and ice than my Ranger.
Further, I've owned 3 Chrysler-built minivans, a 1978 captive-import-version Ford Fiesta, The Rampage, several FWD GM sedans, my presentFWD Aztek; and had only one CV joint failure ( the Fiesta) among them.
You people who think these joints are so fragile must drive like total idiots.