Ok, the truck I looked at the other day (4x4 reg. cab 8 ft bed) had the heavy payload package which possibly could account for some of it, but it also was equiped with the "plow package". It still had that "jacked" look.

I do a LOT of hauling so I don't really mind this, but I just wondered why they sit that way. Does Ford have a deal with Daystar?

Also, does anyone know how much, if any, higher the fron and rear of the payload package and plow package 4x4 sits compared to the regular suspension?

Sorry to be a pain in the **** asking all these questions, but I'd really like to know more about this truck from guys who know something rather than a Ford salesman.

Thanks

 

I would say the main reason is that when you have a load in the bed or hauling a trailer that it isn't nose up.

 

Yea, trucks are designed to be driven with a load. Once you load the truck it levels out. But the level look does look nicer.

 

Maybe just mabye it's so you don't kill the other driver if you get into wreck with a smaller car Just my .02 cent's

 

Personally I think Ford dosen't want their trucks running around town w/ the rears sagging while carrying a load ( dosen't give a good image)

 

Aerodynanics?

 

i think it has to do with crashtest data like when the excursions when they had to have that thing underthem so they wont go over and crush the compact hatchback that gets in the way.

 

Two reason's.. One is aerodynamics. The nose being down like creates a wedge going through the air and reduces air drag under the vehicle..

The second reason has to do with getting bumper down so it will hit those saki burning go karts instead of you running over them.. Insurance co's actually give better rates on 04-05 150's because of it..

 

I've noticed the new Lincoln truck, which is an f-150, sits level in all the pictures. I wonder what's different on the suspension that levels that truck out?

 

Good grief...

The first response in this thread was the correct one.

 

Ken-

we could have a pretty lively debate about that. Aerodynamics and bumper height regs are the correct answer.

 

Aerodynamics!?!?

When's the last time you saw a RACE truck with its *** up in the air??

Bumper Height!?!

That's reaching! It can be argued that having the back end up could cause small or pointy nosed cars to go underneath the truck in a rear end collision. Ever seen a large cube/delivery van with the angle brackets welded on to prevent that from happening?

Bottom line is: If you want to carry the rated load in the back of the truck you gotta have the springs to support it. The springs needed to support the weight raise the back of the truck.

 

Bumper height. And to keep airflow from going underneath the truck (up and over is cleaner). When's the last time you saw a racing truck carrying a few bales of hay? Sooo...the butt ends up for load carrying (you're right there), the front ends down for CAFE standards.

 

Monsta has nailed it. Frankly, I don't understand the debate. I have owned pickups built in 1949,1950,1956,1958,1960,1962,1963,1966,1967,1969, 1977 (that's all I can remember before coffee) made by the big three, and Jeep. They all sat up in the rear, unless you loaded them. My 56 3/4 ton Ford sat up like a stink bug until you dropped over 2000 pounds in it. Then it sat like my 2004. At 3500 lbs it was level. Even my almost trucks 1966 and 1977 El Caminos and 1969 Ranchero all stood up in the rear.
Before lowering became in fashion I never saw a truck that wasn't 'raked' to the front.
And trust me, nobody designed those older trucks for aerodynamics. Or safety.
Chris

 

Chris, I agree. All of my trucks dating back to my high school days in 1964 had the raked look. I have had all fords but two, and they all were the same, higher in the back. My 64 el camio had a way to air the shocks up in the back and I always had them all the way up.