Would you consider payload a valid reason to purchase a 350 SRW over a 250 Super Duty? I put heavy landscape materials in the truck bed - pallets of grass, dirt, river rock, chopped stone, flagstone, mulch. The extra few hundred pounds of payload offered by the 350 has me considering the SRW option.

What do you say Ford SD owners: Would the payload equation be enough to choose the 350 SRW? Any maintenance issues specific to the 350? I've been told that its the mechanical twin of the 250 with beefed up real axle and overload springs.

Thanks for your input.

 

My camper package with factory overloads has all the same part numbers for the suspension as a F350. I have a 2900 payload and 10000 lbs GVWR. I think it all boils down to registration cost.

 

Most of the SRW F350's have a GVWR of 11,400-11,500. That's certainly more than a few hundred pounds over the 10K of the F250. The trucks are the same, other than the overload as you pointed out. Which you can get on an F250 with the camper package but the GVWR is still 10k. Get the F350 and don't worry about it. Keep in mind a loaded 6.7 SRW 350 only has a "real" payload of around 3000-3300 lbs.


The payload on every door sticker is almost always wrong. The poster above with 2900 payload on an F250 needs to go see a scale. The 6.2 isn't that much lighter than a 6.7.

 

I've read this same thing. Sounds a like 350 SRW instead of 250 + Camper Package is the way to go.

Any reason to believe that the 350 SRW ride quality will be any stiffer than a 250? All the extra components for increased GVWR are happening in the back, correct? Hoping someone with a 350 SRW can chime in on ride quality. I won't need any snow plow packaging, just want the peace of mind for filling the bed with heavy stuff.

 

If you are using your vehicle for business purposes you will be held to what the factory label states. (Not the payload label but the GVWR). I have yet to hear of any of my friends who use their pickups for business be weighed in a stop though.

Provided that the 250/350 trucks used to be identical in construction (is this still true?) besides the 250/350 badge you could save a few dollars on registration costs to have the same truck. If you are a business though you are held to the label on the truck.

But again, I have yet to hear of pickups being weighed to check if they're overloaded. If just personal use the you can do whatever I guess.

 

I upgraded from the 250 to 350 for the increase in usable weight, there are no service differance between the 250 and 350 srw.

 

The only physical difference between my 250 and a 350 is found in the spacer blocks. The 250 comes with 2 inch spacers under the springs while the 350 comes with 4 inch spacers. What does this mean? Essentially it means squat - literally. My 250 with the smaller spacer blocks will squat under a light load, where the 350 will not. As has often been stated, the capacity difference is a paperwork issue, but exists nonetheless.
The ride can be considered harsh, but quite frankly I don't mind. I had a 150 with 'E' rated tires, that thing was so light that the whole truck would skip across rough road surfaces because of the lack of give in the tire sidewalls. The heavier construction of the 250/350 helps to overcome the stiffness of the suspension and tires. So I think it's all a matter of degree.
Given a choice between a 350 and 250 that are otherwise identical, I would certainly go with the 350. It leaves a lot more options open for future use.

 

I did scale it. 240 pound driver, full load of fuel, and a bunch of tools.

yes the gas engine is significantly lighter than the diesel. According to the Ford website, 650 pounds lighter.

 

Good input. Not sure I like hearing the word "harsh" associated with a trucks driving experience, but I think (hope) you mean a "truck-like" feel. When you hit bumps, you feel it a little. Rough road, you feel it a little. Not tossing you and the truck around, but by all means - its a truck and a big one at that. There is some translation of surface irregularities to the driver. And I'm ok with that.

How does ford get away with the 350 SRW having a bigger block in the back, but not a bigger rake from front to back? Do the front ends of the 350 sit higher?

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that starting in 2015 - 4x4 F-250's all had the 4 inch block as well (or is that just with the Camper Package?).

 

People make declarative statements like that, but it depends on the configuration of the truck. Some trucks will have a rake, while others will not, depending on the rest of the configuration, such as 4x4 or not.

The only consistent difference between the current F250 and F350, other than paperwork/badging, is that the F250's brakes a vacuum boosted (more traditional brake pedal travel and feel), while the F350 is hydroboosted (high hard pedal with little feel).

If you are really looking at payload, you may want to wait until the new generation is available to order. The switch to aluminum shaves off a lot of weight, and while they take advantage of the lighter starting weight to beef other stuff up, payload (even at the same 10k marker for example) will still end up being several hundred pounds higher. Plus, you know, beefier underpinnings. Plus, hey, be the cool kid on the block to be one of the first with the new style truck

 

Going back several years the Ford also gave the F-350 a longer wheelbase than the F-250. During the late '70s the 1 tons were 137" and the 3/4 was 133". This allowed more weight to be shifted to the front axle for a better distribution. I wish it was still the same. Plus the F-250 axles were dana 44/60 Front/Rear and F-350 dana 60/70. Trucks today are truly "Super" but in the past more attention was paid to separating the weight capabilities. The older Dana 60 for instance on the steering axle had tapered roller bearings instead of the problematic ball joints. Take-em apart and lube if ever needed and re-install to the correct torq. No need for presses and new parts. Now we have a choice, a hard tedious job or pay the bucks.

 

The hardest part of the decision for the new one on the block is the wait for the order banks to open, and then the little kid at Christmas syndrome "is it here yet?"

 

Harsh as compared to my Lincoln MKS.

It was this difference in block sizes that led to TSB 13-3-8 - 4x4 Rear of Vehicle Sits Lower Than Expected Under Light Loads
When unloaded the bed was supported at the proper height, but under a light load the springs weren't really "working". It created sort of a "suspension gap" if you will. The corrective action was to install the larger blocks, change shocks, get a new drive shaft, and a host of other parts. Or install airbags, which is what I did.

You are probably correct. The TSB I referenced says it covers MY 2011-2013, a fact I really hadn't noted until now. So, my entire post concerning the differences between the 250 and 350 only apply if you are looking at used in the 2011 to 2013 years. Apparently there isn't even that much difference after 2014.

 

I can't even get the dealer to truly define the "camper package." Spring configuration on the camper package is somewhat hazy with Ford's statements that some features of the package will not be included depending on other configuration and options. And if you wait for the build sheet from the factory any change will put your order to the back of the line again. And then I am not sure if it would tell you the height of the riser blocks. I have used my F-250 with supplemental air bags for years for my slide in camper and have always wished that it had the helper springs on top and a higher riser in the rear. That would have probably eliminated the need for the air bags. But ordering a better prepared vehicle this time for the camper (F-350 w/ camper pkg) I am still prepared to install the air bags if necessary. Too strong a spring package means a terrible ride when empty or partially loaded. The problem I see with the air bags is once the vehicle is brought back to level the air bags are actually doing most of the work and the spring pak absorbing only a small portion of the load. And I really detest the appearance and headlight aiming of a sagging rear end. Any constructive advice from others is certainly welcome regarding this dilemma.