class V hitch on 2006 F350 SRW
#1
#2
#4
#6
I just looked on Etrailer you can get a 2 1/2 for about 60 bucks. If you use the adapter be careful of the tongue weight. One I saw only had a 500# tounge weight. Kinda defeats the purpose of the class v hitch.
#7
I also tow a large dump trailer. I had the V5 factory receiver on my 08 dually but wanted more tongue capacity. I think that Ford receiver is rated for 800lbs tongue. At least mine was. I purchased a Reese Titan that was around $270 I think. It's rated for 18,000lbs trailer and 2,000lbs tongue (2500lbs WD). It has extra attachment plates that add another point of attachment to the side of the frame vs just the bottom on the frame. And the hitch itself is a beast. Dump trailers can get VERY tongue heavy which was my reason for the purchase. The matching ball mount is a massive piece of solid steel. Not a tube. Yea it was much more than a $60-$90 Craigslist take off but it gives me some piece of mind with a fully loaded 12-14k trailer.
Trending Topics
#8
Reese made that hitch specifically to match the capacities of the F-450 pickup. But since the F-450 pickup shares many of the same frame dimensions as the F-250 and F-350 pickups, the same Reese Titan hitch bolts up to all the pickup Super Duties.
Obviously, there are a lot more factors than merely a receiver hitch that determine any given truck's towing capacity, which doesn't change even with the changing of the hitch... but it is nice to have a sturdier hitch platform that leaves one less thing to have to worry about failing.
Those little side plates that tie the hitch brackets to the vertical web of the frame, rather than just the lower flange, really make a big difference in how the hitch loads are transferred to the frame. Rather than the loads prying up and down solely on the horizontal frame flange, the are distributed to the web, which increases vertical stability.
I bolted up my Titan hitch in the same two axis manner, but this was long before Reese supplied the tie plates, so I made a pair.
Obviously, there are a lot more factors than merely a receiver hitch that determine any given truck's towing capacity, which doesn't change even with the changing of the hitch... but it is nice to have a sturdier hitch platform that leaves one less thing to have to worry about failing.
Those little side plates that tie the hitch brackets to the vertical web of the frame, rather than just the lower flange, really make a big difference in how the hitch loads are transferred to the frame. Rather than the loads prying up and down solely on the horizontal frame flange, the are distributed to the web, which increases vertical stability.
I bolted up my Titan hitch in the same two axis manner, but this was long before Reese supplied the tie plates, so I made a pair.
#10
Reese made that hitch specifically to match the capacities of the F-450 pickup. But since the F-450 pickup shares many of the same frame dimensions as the F-250 and F-350 pickups, the same Reese Titan hitch bolts up to all the pickup Super Duties.
Obviously, there are a lot more factors than merely a receiver hitch that determine any given truck's towing capacity, which doesn't change even with the changing of the hitch... but it is nice to have a sturdier hitch platform that leaves one less thing to have to worry about failing.
Those little side plates that tie the hitch brackets to the vertical web of the frame, rather than just the lower flange, really make a big difference in how the hitch loads are transferred to the frame. Rather than the loads prying up and down solely on the horizontal frame flange, the are distributed to the web, which increases vertical stability.
I bolted up my Titan hitch in the same two axis manner, but this was long before Reese supplied the tie plates, so I made a pair.
Obviously, there are a lot more factors than merely a receiver hitch that determine any given truck's towing capacity, which doesn't change even with the changing of the hitch... but it is nice to have a sturdier hitch platform that leaves one less thing to have to worry about failing.
Those little side plates that tie the hitch brackets to the vertical web of the frame, rather than just the lower flange, really make a big difference in how the hitch loads are transferred to the frame. Rather than the loads prying up and down solely on the horizontal frame flange, the are distributed to the web, which increases vertical stability.
I bolted up my Titan hitch in the same two axis manner, but this was long before Reese supplied the tie plates, so I made a pair.
I would've gone gooseneck but that eliminates the use of my truck bed and I need every sqft I can get.
I see for 2016 th hitch is rated at 850/8500WC. I though I read somewhere that Chevy's can be had with a 13,000 WC hitch. How so?
#11
I don't know what is available today, but 15 years ago, I could not find any 2" ball mounts rated for tongue weights exceeding 1,200 lbs or trailer weights exceeding 12,000 lbs. The only ball mount that I could find rated for 1,700 lb tongue and 17,000 lb trailer (with WD) was 2.5". This meant that a 2.5" receiver was required to fit that ball mount.
I already had the 2" ball mount, so after buying the 2.5" ball mount, I compared them side to side. Both had the same shape and design, both were solid cast (or forged, forgot which) steel H beam shanks, and both were made by Reese in the USA. But the 2.5" ball mount absolutely DWARFED the 2" ball mount in size and sturdiness.
My point is, at least back then, it was the ball mount (aka stinger) that was a limiting factor of higher hitch ratings for Reese. Apparently, Reese believed the ball mount needed to have a larger shank cross section in order for Reese to rate it higher. Since the ball mount is the critical component that communicates the load from the trailer tongue to the hitch receiver, it was hard to argue with Reese... especially after physically comparing the two sizes of ball mounts side by side.
Therefore, my choice to install a 2.5" receiver was actually driven by needing a larger receiver hole to fit the higher rated ball mount. The inconvenience of an adapter sleeve was irrelevant, because it wasn't needed. The use of the sleeve would defeat whole idea behind the larger receiver opening.
I already had the 2" ball mount, so after buying the 2.5" ball mount, I compared them side to side. Both had the same shape and design, both were solid cast (or forged, forgot which) steel H beam shanks, and both were made by Reese in the USA. But the 2.5" ball mount absolutely DWARFED the 2" ball mount in size and sturdiness.
My point is, at least back then, it was the ball mount (aka stinger) that was a limiting factor of higher hitch ratings for Reese. Apparently, Reese believed the ball mount needed to have a larger shank cross section in order for Reese to rate it higher. Since the ball mount is the critical component that communicates the load from the trailer tongue to the hitch receiver, it was hard to argue with Reese... especially after physically comparing the two sizes of ball mounts side by side.
Therefore, my choice to install a 2.5" receiver was actually driven by needing a larger receiver hole to fit the higher rated ball mount. The inconvenience of an adapter sleeve was irrelevant, because it wasn't needed. The use of the sleeve would defeat whole idea behind the larger receiver opening.
#13
Just wanted to throw in my 2 cents'. I ended up going to a Curt Mfg receiver with 2"opening. My observation was that you can now buy 2" ball mounts rated well beyond the capabilities of my '99 F350, and cheaper than 2.5"mounts. Here's the link to the post where I wrote about the swap and a couple pics comparing the factory hitch to the new curt.
https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/1396226-hitch-upgrade.html
https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/1396226-hitch-upgrade.html
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Yahiko
Other; Brakes, Electrical, Hitches, Weight Distribution & CDL Discussion
15
03-11-2016 04:59 AM
Yahiko
1999 to 2016 Super Duty
10
10-03-2015 07:30 PM
72Blazerod
Other; Brakes, Electrical, Hitches, Weight Distribution & CDL Discussion
9
12-16-2007 07:21 PM