heavy load
Thread Starter
|
Senior User
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
From: KC
heavy load
Went to get some gravel today and was excited to see how much my truck weighed unloaded and then with the gravel. 3880 lbs unloaded and 6900 lbs loaded, thats 1.5 tons in the bed. Second time this week Ive had a big load in the uni. I should make it clear that thats the last time I put that much weight in as it was a little squirrely on the when I got up a little speed, disk brake upgrade preformed nicely though.
On a related note later in the day a fella at the auto parts store took it upon himself to inform me that my doors would not upon if I "put any kind of weight in that thing" to which I replied after 43 years the doors work just fine.
Proud of my uni,
Nick
On a related note later in the day a fella at the auto parts store took it upon himself to inform me that my doors would not upon if I "put any kind of weight in that thing" to which I replied after 43 years the doors work just fine.
Proud of my uni,
Nick
More Turbo
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
From: Orange, CT
You must have felt SO superior when that yocal told you not to load the truck up. I had heard that old yarn, but I thought it applied to only the 4x4 models if you torqued the frame off-road.
I see from your profile that yours is an F100; I was shocked when you mentioned 6900 lbs loaded, as that is WAAAYY over the GVWR for that truck. But then I saw that you installed discs, which must've helped.
What motor and tranny is in that rascal? Is it the 223 six!!! I always wondered how that motor did hauling load, were you able to get out of your own way?
I have hauled that exact load twice in my '66 F250, and both times my brakes were the only concern, they were downright dangerous, but only because they weren't up to stock snuff to begin with.
I see from your profile that yours is an F100; I was shocked when you mentioned 6900 lbs loaded, as that is WAAAYY over the GVWR for that truck. But then I saw that you installed discs, which must've helped.
What motor and tranny is in that rascal? Is it the 223 six!!! I always wondered how that motor did hauling load, were you able to get out of your own way?
I have hauled that exact load twice in my '66 F250, and both times my brakes were the only concern, they were downright dangerous, but only because they weren't up to stock snuff to begin with.
Thread Starter
|
Senior User
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
From: KC
yeah its got the 223 in it. I have a t98 or t18 always get those confused, anyway i didnt even use the granny gear. The brakes were fine but youre right it was way too much weight- not to mention he didnt load it all that even. I should mention that I have some helper springs in the back that the PO put on there.
More Turbo
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
From: Orange, CT
Were there any small hills to climb with that load? Did that 223 seem to move the truck without much trouble? I am always amazed that they used a 223 even in the F250 model, with GVWR's up to 7,000 lb. Just seems like an underpowered motor, but I guess not!
Posting Guru
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,354
Likes: 0
From: Jackassville
I can't stand those arrogant jerks at the large corporate parts stores,they think they know more about your truck then you do. Couple days ago one tried to lecture me on the bearing assy setup on my 66 F100, when I told him he was wrong he started screaming and throwing a fit, at this this point I called off the sale and went to his competetior.
I will never give advance auto another nickel of bussiness.
Yes the F100's are impressive machines, however, you may want to use the granny gear next time, although you can move a load without using it, it is there to keep from frying your clutch.
Also, next time an auto parts jerk trys to tell you something about your truck, ignore him. They DO NOT know what their talking about.
I will never give advance auto another nickel of bussiness.
Yes the F100's are impressive machines, however, you may want to use the granny gear next time, although you can move a load without using it, it is there to keep from frying your clutch.
Also, next time an auto parts jerk trys to tell you something about your truck, ignore him. They DO NOT know what their talking about.
Posting Guru
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,793
Likes: 2
From: San Diego CA
These trucks will haul a load I had mine cross the scales at 7200# once. I was doing some demolition work and had stacked stucco wall slabs a foot over the bed rails. My tires were all I worried about on that trip.
Thread Starter
|
Senior User
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
From: KC
If you want my opinion the 223 is underpowered for heavy trucks and big loads, but that doesnt mean it can t do it. Gas mileage and acceleration are definitely effected by the weight. I used to carry about 450 lbs in my truck in tool boxes (1/8 inch steel) and a vice and some other tools that were in there, when I pulled all that out I think I gained about 3-4 mpg and a noticeable difference in performance.
BTW in my neighborhood advance is not too bad, Its oreilly that appearantly only hire know it all ******. Just try and tell them that IS a stock wheel cylinder for a 63 F100!
BTW in my neighborhood advance is not too bad, Its oreilly that appearantly only hire know it all ******. Just try and tell them that IS a stock wheel cylinder for a 63 F100!
Trending Topics
Laughing Gas
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,218
Likes: 2
From: Parkville, MO (KC)
What we are missing is the rear end ratio and tire size. A 223 can handle plenty if its rear gears are right and you are willing to sacrifice top end.
Nowadays, we want to cruise at 70 mph WITH a load, and not have the engine sound like its going into orbit.
In 63 it was assumed that you were not going to do this sort of thing, or if you did, you knew full well that the fuel consumption was going to go up and the engine was going to be reving at the very top of its range.
Nowadays, we want to cruise at 70 mph WITH a load, and not have the engine sound like its going into orbit.
In 63 it was assumed that you were not going to do this sort of thing, or if you did, you knew full well that the fuel consumption was going to go up and the engine was going to be reving at the very top of its range.
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
AEV FXL Super Duty - the Super Duty Raptor Ford Doesn't Make
Brett Foote
Lobo Vs Lobo: Proof the F-150 Lobo Should Be Even Lower!
Michael S. Palmer
Ford's 2001 Explorer Sportsman Concept Looks For a New Home
Verdad Gallardo
10 Best Ford Truck Engines We Miss the Most!
Joe Kucinski
2026 Shelby F-150 Off-Road: Better Than a Raptor R?
Brett Foote
2027 Super Duty Carhartt Package First Look: 12 Things You NEED to Know!
Michael S. Palmer
10 Most Surprising 2026 Ford Truck Features!
Joe Kucinski
Top 10 Ford Trucks Coming to Mecum Indy 2026
Brett Foote
5 Best / 5 Worst Ford Truck Wheels of All Time
Joe Kucinski
Posting Guru
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,111
Likes: 0
From: Turlock CA
CD is right and gas was under .50 a gallon and who realy cared about how much it used.
I always enjoy going into these parts stores and telling them that their books are wrong and they did put a 352 in a 65 f100. I have walked out of Aoutozone because the manager there told me it was modified somewhere along the line. Even after telling him that the truck has always been in the family and I sat in it new he still insisted that someone changed it when I wasn't looking. I don't shop there anymore thanks to him.
Jon
I always enjoy going into these parts stores and telling them that their books are wrong and they did put a 352 in a 65 f100. I have walked out of Aoutozone because the manager there told me it was modified somewhere along the line. Even after telling him that the truck has always been in the family and I sat in it new he still insisted that someone changed it when I wasn't looking. I don't shop there anymore thanks to him.
Jon