i loaded 1800 pounds in the back and it still wasnt level. how much weight do they want us to carry around in these things. maybe the HD trucks should be like that but why does my butt have to be so high.

 

If you look at the pics of the older trucks in original condition, they weren't raked. That started happening in the 80's as gas mileage became a consideration.

History of the Pickup Note the pics of the '81-'87 Chev Pickups vs. the earlier models.

 

First you said Safety, now you talk about CAFE! What do they have to do with each other?? They are two TOTALLY different standards.

Your logic about the front end being "down" for bumper height "regs" would mean that a 4x4 should be the same height as a 2x4. Both trucks have to meet the same safety and CAFE standards. Why aren't they the same?

 

I was told by a fse that it is for better crash test results.

 

The crash thing is why the bumpers are so low. Not related to rake.

Check out the 74 MGB, to meet the height requirements they putt baby buggy bumpers on it.

Polarbear, you may be confused about things in the before time.
The trucks I had were stock as a rock. Well, I jacked up the 66 elco, and put a small block in the 50 Ford f100, but I certainly didn't raise the others.
I date back to those anciant times.

I had one truck that didn't sit up in the back, 1963 Dodge half-ton, Y-block, three speed that I restored in 1978, fixed it up quite nice, better than new, but I had to have the rear springs re-arc ed (sp). Then it sat up in the back. The shop that did it bragged that they had restored it to exact factory specs.
Check the ride height specs, don't go by pictures in magazines.


The reason our trucks are so heavy duty in the rear is to pull 9k+, so Ford can use that in it's advertising.

Not complaining, I like something heavy duty, or I would have bought an import truck. They don't stick up much, they don't carry much.
The only way to make a heavy duty rear is to overspring it. At least to make one the public can buy.
You could go with airbag suspension, but it's a tad pricey. I have it in my Class A, but to replace the suspension would cost about half what I paid for my little F-150.
Chris

 

Hey Polarbear, great site you linked to, trip down memory lane for me, looking at the pictures. I notice that many of the trucks are moded, and fiddled with. That's OK, hard to find good pictures from the dark ages.

Do look at Segment Six: 1955-1959 Early V8 Pickups
go down to the 3804 and check it out as they put drums in the back. Note the heigth. Way down, with a lot less than legal max weight.

Chevy always had very light suspension in their half tons. My 1960 had torsion bars, aluminum anchor no less. I turned to short, snapped an anchor on a curb. My first lesson in front ends.

Ford has always made the heaviest light trucks. I have carried two or three times the legal payload in many Fords. The legal amount has crushed the suspension in two of my Chevys.
This isn't about brands by the way. Chevy decided somewhere around 1954 to make a 'gentleman's pickup. See the Cameo, etc. They built their halftons for comfort and city. They built their 3/4 tons as trucks for working. Ford did the same thing when they split off the Superduty from the 'sport' truck. Look at how small the (very good, very pretty) 97-2003 style is.

The problem came up that the imports had their eye on the 'gentleman's' truck market. Ford took a shot at spliting the differance. Not a true brute work truck, but a 'heavy half' model to out perform the imports and yet be nice enough to drive to church on Sunday. Or cruise the strip without feeling like you belonged at a tractor pull.
Dodge was also threating them with the large half tons they make. Time to build something new to keep that huge market share.

To me, they hit a darn fine compromise. I would have been happy with the light duty Heritage, but then, I don't tow with the pickup. If you carry a couple kids, and tow a small camper/boat/toy trailer, the F-150 is bang on.
Chris

 

I am never confused.

Monsta- two things going on, and while they're not related, they provide for a similiar solution. Aerodynamics- CAFE. Bumper height- safety regs. one impacts the 1/2T, the other the over 8600 GVW group. Unfortunately, same solution to both issues.

ChrisAdams- good coments about the early Chev's. Forty and fifty years later, Chevy's still dealing with the "not a truck" perception. Yes, some of the older trucks were up a little higher in the rear, but nothing so pronounced as today. It was pretty striking seeing my son's buddies '77 F150 parked next to a new Lariat.

 

Race trucks?? Yes them and the car are built within 2" of the ground..then spoilers the rest of the way. Why...to keep the air out from under them at 170mph. Raking the new trucks works well enough at 70. Contrary to popular belief pickup's are not road machines designed to corner at 120, they are design to roll straight down the highway.. Lifting the rear on any vehicle reduces it's handling..

Where you guy's been with the bummer height thing? It's been going for a long time. Mostly with SUV's being much higher than most passenger cars..

Chris, it's a new truck world. They are living with the EPA and 20 other self important orgs telling them whats best. You can't compare trucks from 40-50 years ago to the new standards. Fuel was 24 cent a gal and nobody gave a crap about mileage.. Now we have the goverment doing that for us..

I've been trying to remember where I read about these two anwsers all afternoon, I'll figure it out and post it when I do.. I keep thinking it was on the Ford.com web site?? I was from an industry involved source, I'm sure..

 

OK WE ALL AGREE THAT THE TRUCKS ARE RAKING TOWARDS THE FRONT....mine is a full three inch difference from front to rear...so my question is how do we level out our trucks without spending an arm and a leg....my truck is a FX4 2004 w/towing package....

 

I still have a question-- Does anyone know how much higher (if any) the 4x4 with heavy payload package and plow package sits than the plain 4x4 without either package?

 

My '05 is a base model V6 with the towing work truck package. Its **** is way up in da air! Dosn't really look that good if you take a moment and really look at the back tire. Looks small with all that space in the wheel well.

 

personally I love the way the truck's back end is way up in the air for two reasons. 1. I think it looks cool. and 2. when I'm towing a trailer, or have a load in the back, the rear-end doesn't drag--so it still looks cool.

 

Hey Dunk, Ever find that site? Just curious.

You know, even tho I'm a fossil, I do kinda want to keep updated.

I spent too many years explaining to customers about why things like the 'mini-Caddys' were built. Try to explain an Opel being passed as a Caddy sometime... worse than the Cimmeron.

CAFE is a place to get a piece of pie to most folks...

Still, trucks were late to the party, don't recall when CAFE was first extended to trucks, Clinton era, I guess. I had parted ways with the automotive field and was more into computers. Now that those are too simple to be wasting time on I am back to playing with four wheel toys, and owe it to myself to stay current.

I do know that when the 1988 98 Chevy trucks were developed, they had no Fleet economy requiremnts, ditto the pre 97 Fords. And these new ones don't get any better mileage. Perhaps someone dropped the ball. (I'm thinking medicine ball).
Chris