I think Fords problem here is being restricted by the GVWRs they have selected. By keeping the 450 Class 3, they need to make sure the other trucks don't come too close. Well, the 350 DRW comes very close...time to move the 450 to Class IV?

I'm pleased to see so far from all the images and videos, the new trucks do not seem to sag much.

 

On payload, the f350 drw exceeds the f450 already. Both are 14k gvwr and the f450 weighs over 500# more = 500# less payload.

 

Right, but max F-350 DRW payload is going to be a 2WD regular cab gas engine. F-450 is obviously much heavier as solely a crew cab 4x4 diesel.

 

So great a truck will tow 20000+ but what good is that number if it can't take the payload. Seems to me ford would have thought of this.

 

I think Ford has thought this through but I think they are hesitant to push the F450 into Medium Duty Truck classification -- which is 1 more pound (14001).

Like everything else this MY -- only time will tell.

bigdon68

 

I wasn't referring to that, rather the other differences between the 6.7 crew cab 4x4 models. Configuring the F350 and F450 as closely as you can, the F450 is still ~500# heavier, thus has 500# less payload. The lightest F350 DRW will have well over 1000# more payload than the F450.


Naturally, this limitation in payload is primarily on paper due to the 14K class 3 restriction, but not totally. If I recall correctly, you can get 10,300# springs on the F350 but are limited to 9900# springs on the F450 for 2017. There was a similar difference on the 2016 and before as well.

 

This makes it obvious that the 450 axle has a long way to go since it has a larger axle shaft and 1" larger brakes plus a heavier, sturdier wheel set.

 

Yeah, it seems the 450 is really "restricted" in light of the heavy-duty hardware. I think the beefy 350 DRW numbers are to shut RAM up. But really, would anyone care if Ford moved the 450 to Class IV? People would still buy them right up, and then the numbers could get even crazier.

 

It may be that the EPA would care. Those weight charts are not easy to compare model to model but all are restricted to 14,000 lbs as I see it.

Plus this:
Warning: The Accessory Reserve Capacity weight information addresses FMVSS and CMVSS Nos. 204, 208, 212, 219, 301 and 303
compliance only. For all lightduty
trucks with a GVW rating under 8500 lbs., federally certified trucks with a GVW rating of 8500 to
10,000 lbs. that are optionally emission certified to lightduty
standards and all California complete vehicles with a GVW rating of
14,000 lbs. or less, if more than 500 lbs. is added to the vehicle’s “maximum vehicle weight,” the modifier may be responsible for
recertification to the applicable EPA or CARB emissions standards.
(1) Important: “Maximum vehicle weight” is calculated in accordance with the definition provided in an EPA guidance letter dated July 13, 1979,
from C.N. Freed of the EPA to M.H. McBride, legal counsel of the Recreation Vehicle Industry Association. The preceding conditions are based on
that letter and on EPA Advisory Circular No. 64 — a March 7, 1977, publication that provides guidance on the need for separate certification of
vehicles modified after original manufacture, but prior to sale and delivery to the ultimate purchaser. Additional guidance or questions concerning
EPA’s policies with respect to alterers of completed vehicles should be directed to legal counsel or the Environmental Protection Agency.

 

I think you misunderstand what I meant about the insurance. You will lose your coverage. Not on that particular claim, but after. Yes, they will pay your 50/100K or 100/300k limits, but that won't touch the actual damages - likely not even the life flight. And then you will be sued for the excess $1mm plus.

And I think you misunderstand how that lawsuit will go down. You won't be sued by some ambulance chaser, but by an attorney in a big, fancy office billing at $500+/hr when he hears what a slam-dunk case he has. You think he can't prove negligence? All he needs to prove are the elements of duty, breach of duty, causation and damages. Your duty is to act reasonably and follow weight limits (no brainer). You breached your duty (he shows this by simply looking at the truck and trailer stickers). The plaintiff was damaged - injured/killed (easy enough to show). The only challenge is causation. But I think that he can convince a jury of your peers that overloading must have had some cause (maybe a tire blew, of course because it was overloaded, right?). The practical reality is that your attorney, which you will have to hire at $500+/hr, will be begging the other side to settle. And when they don't, he will be pulling every rabbit out of his hat to get scientific evidence to show that the overload couldn't have contributed, which no member of the jury will believe.

I'm not saying how you should live your life. Feel free to overload and drive. People do it everyday. 999 of 1000 times nothing happens. Just like people drink and drive everyday because they are the exception, they drive just fine over .08 or whatever limit. And maybe they are right too. But when that .1% happens ….

As for me, I won't take that risk for myself, for my family who depend on me, or for the anonymous passerby to whom I owe a duty of reasonable care. Anyone else can do what they will. If anyone is going to overload, however, maybe consider putting a sign on top of your truck so if I ever cross you path I can slow down and take extra care for you.

 

That's some finer points of law, highjumper. I think there are a few more murky areas to clear up before it becomes a "slam dunk" case.

For example, at what point does being "overloaded" create a risk? What if your rig is 5lbs overweight? 100lbs? 500lbs? 1,000lbs? Did the manufacturer inform you, as the consumer, clearly enough that you couldn't put that much weight in, on, or behind? What was the operator's intent?

I don't trust insurance companies for one minute and I'm certain you'd lose coverage...but beyond that, I think it could be murky.

 

That's the biggest load of hypothetical horse crap I've read in a long time. Maybe that scenario would have played out well on Perry Mason but it's a long way from demonstrating cause and effect in a crash. Simply stating that "because you overloaded your vehicle, I suffered injury" doesn't make it so. Negligence because you're 100 lbs overweight? What about negligence because someone didn't have both hands on the steering wheel? Or negligence because they were distracted by taking a hands-free phone call (which is legal in most states). Or what about negligence because you're traveling 5 mph over the speed limit? Oh the chaos, the calamity! Anyone can say anything in today's world and make a case of it if they want to. Weight limits do not guarantee safety as I've seen plenty of unsafe drivers towing loads well within the ratings.

And when it comes to putting a red light on top of the vehicle so other vehicles can be careful, wouldn't it be nice. But let's make sure every drunk or medicated driver does the same. Let's hook up that red light to a person's cell phone so we can all be careful when the other guy is messing with their phone. How about another red light for people who go through life looking to be offended or harmed by every little thing so we can give them a wide berth?

Rant over.

 

I think I understood the lawsuit portion just fine. And to me the fancy attorney in a Hickey Freeman Suite on the 11th floor is an ambulance chaser looking for his next yacht. And I think that I well explained the liability an individual accepts by knowingly using the limits of a vehicle whether sanctioned by manufacturer's documents or not. I believe we are saying the same thing basically but I am not one to be held hostage by the threat of lawsuit if I violate a suggestion by the manufacturer because they have to dumb down the figures so far in order to protect their liability because of the relentless lawsuits by those wishing to get rich for getting a scratch on their knee and the spouse who had to do without servicing for a while. Fancy suits or no suits, the lawyers have advantaged the jurys to the point that anyone injured thinks they have hit the lottery regardless of culpability. And those lawyers are no better than the ambulance chasers. And because of that I will continue to perform responsibly but I will not jump in the first self driving Prius and declare myself safe from harm by either environment or overzealous lawsuit. Nice talking with you about a hated subject!

 

I will consider this if everyone who cuts me off, everyone who turns right on red without stopping and without regard for cross traffic and everyone who jumps on the expressway and pulls out to pass the car in front who is still on the acceleration lane etc etc all put signs on their cars "screw you." Oh wait, I just described 75% of today's drivers. I guess they are exempt from signs. It is not in the owners manual.

 

Risk and intent aren't going to be part of that lawsuit. Merely that you owed a duty of care, breached the duty, and caused damages. (Intent would go to criminal charges or some willful misconduct charge). If the attorney can show that the duty was to follow established and researched weight limits as published by the auto manufacturer in connection with federal law, then any amount over would breach that duty.


As for notice, I could see it being argued, though I have little doubt that the manner in which auto manufacturers publish their ratings is, and has been, deemed sufficient to inform consumers. At this point, a reasonable consumer "should" know, even if they don't. I wouldn't want my defense attorney having to rely on the old "my client just didn't know any better and it is his fault he didn't know" defense. It doesn't play well to juries when families of the injured/dead are crying in the courtroom.


All that said, maybe it isn't an Aaron Gordon slam dunk, but a little more difficult Steph Curry slam dunk.


On second thought, maybe I stand corrected. Given that many people on here have purchased their trucks with a whole chart of "TBD" ratings might just blow the whole case! LOL