Bill_The_PA

partially true. GVWR- is the maximum allowable weight of the vehicle and the loaded trailer, including all cargo and passengers, that the vehicle can handle without risking damage. (Important: The towing vehicle’s braking system is rated for operation at Gross Vehicle Weight Rating, not at Gross Combined Weight Rating.) Separate functional brakes should be used for safe control of towed vehicles and for trailers where the Gross Combined Weight of the towing vehicle plus the trailer exceed the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of the towing vehicle.

Bill_The_PA

here are my old and new numbers just to make things more complicated than they already are. You can pick the fruit. I'm not picking a fight I'd just like someone to explain based on these real numbers how the weakest link as once explained to me was the key to payload and towing is concerned. The axel (weaker link) allows me to carry less payload but tow more Wt with 3.55axel ratio.

Ideas anyone. Again I'm feeling stupid with my math.

2012 Ecoscrew 5.5' lariat. 4X4 3.73
GVWR 7650#
Payload 1703#
GCWR 17000#
Max Tow 11200#
Front GAWR 3750#
Rear GAWR 4050#

2016 Ecoscrew 5.5' lariat. 4X4 3.55
GVWR 7000#. (650# less)
Payload 1609#. (94# less)
GCWR 16900#. (100# less)
Max Tow 11500#. (300# more)
Front GAWR 3450# (300# less)
Rear GAWR 3800#. (200 # less)

Velosprout

The difference has to be in comparing a 3.55 to the 3.73. The 3.73 transfers more torque to wheels with less engine effort, so Ford reduced the GCWR to reflect the lower efficiency in getting a load moving and overcoming wind resistance. When you compare your 2012 with a 2016 F150 3.5 EcoBoost 6.5 Lariat (which requires HD Payload Package) you are more closely matched:


GVWR 7850#.
Payload 2650#. (minus weight of factory accessories)
GCWR 17100#
Max Tow 11400#
Front GAWR 4800#
Rear GAWR 4800#

smokeywren

No, that's GCWR (gross combined weight rating).


GVWR (gross vehicle weight rating) is the maximum weight on the truck axles, including hitch weight of a trailer (tongue weight of a TT or pin weight of a 5er) - but not including the gross weight of the trailer.


Basically true. The truck brakes are designed to stop the GVWR of the truck, not the GCWR. The trailer should have brakes strong enough to stop the weight on the trailer axles of the wet and loaded trailer without any help from the truck brakes.


Trailer hitch weight is carried on the truck axles. Trailer axle weight is carried by the trailer axles.


So you don't care about the GVWR of the trailer except when estimating the max trailer weight you can haul with the tow vehicle. When you stop on the road at a CAT scale, the scale won't give you GVW of the trailer. The CAT scale will tell you the weight on the truck axles and on the trailer axles. Total weight on the truck axles should not exceed the GVWR of the truck, But total weight on the trailer axles should not exceed the combined GAWR of the trailer axles. So you don't know (and don't care) what is the GVW of the trailer.

Bill_The_PA

but my max tow increased by 300 and my GCWR only decreased by 100. In older posts I was lead to believe that the axels were the weak link. Clearly in my situation there not effecting thing greatly. Thoughts

Velosprout

There is no single weak link for the GCVW. It is a combination of all the factors; truck weight, axle ratio, payload capacity, engine torque, transmission gearing, and axle ratios.


Imagine you are pulling a little red wagon filled with groceries up a hill behind a 10-speed bicycle. You can tow a larger load of groceries with a lower gear than you could pull if you were in the 10th gear. And, you can only pull that load if you have stronger tires, more and stronger wheel spokes, stronger axles, and stronger legs. An overweight person has a more difficult time in pulling the load than an athletic person. (Hence the advantage of the aluminum body). Since the 15/16 trucks are completely different vehicles than the 2012, naturally the ratings will differ.

Bill_The_PA

again not saying your completely wrong but I Quoted from the Owners manual WRT payload towing ant the like. Besides as per my previous post. I really don't care what GCWR GAWG GVWR all say and mean by them selves. Ford seems to be using advertising to sell MPG ratings not what a vehicle can and can't tow. That's why I feel they put the previously exceptable 3.73 in the HD payload. I do appreciate all your help and comments and do value you opinion as always.

Velosprout

Ford is the best about being forthcoming about the capacities of their trucks. Try to find out all the same data about the competitors...you will be in for a very difficult and confusing task. Perhaps because the payload and tow ratings for competitor's 1/2 ton trucks are not attractive when compared with Ford's.
Using a truck wisely requires being within or close to the rated parameters on gross combined weight rating, gross vehicle weight rating, axle rating, and trailer frontage area ratings. Since each towing demand is unique, it falls upon the owner to make his or her own determinations. This makes it difficult for a manufacturer to give specific recommendations.
Many, if not most, 1/2 ton trucks towing campers are payload or axle overloaded. My first sighting of a 2015 F150 was towing a 30-some foot travel trailer with a spring-sagging full bed-load of firewood, chairs, coolers, and fishing tackle; a 300-mile round trip made twice a month. The owner was very pleased with the new truck. These things are truly tough and resilient vehicles.
There is a glaring "gap" between the capacities of 1/2 ton and 3/4 ton trucks. Ford is the only manufacturer filling this gap with the Heavy Duty Payload package, and it hasn't been built in any quantity. Chevrolet, GMC, Ram, Tundra, and Titan XD are all limited by a low payload rating. Their sales staff will instruct the buyers to immediately take the new truck to get overload springs or airbags.
Lastly, modifications such as lifts, levels, bigger tires and wheels, toppers, bull bars, winches, skid plates, all reduce payload, mileage, and towing capacity. Manufacturer specifications are for a stock vehicle.

Bill_The_PA

agreed however this little Caribou wagon is indeed 650#lighter but that doesn't give any advantage as you have implied it should with its 15/16 aluminum. All things being equal or damm close in my comparisons my wagon should be able to handle the 650# as long as I don't exceed the GAWR. Ford lowered the GAWR for now other reason then to protect its MPG ratings of the flagship EB engine. Very clever as they are also steering the trailer folks toward F250 as most don't want to wait for the Lariat HD payload or buy a HD payload fleet XL. Just my thoughts. Thanks for the comments. I seem to be the only one who feels this what. So at the risk of sounding like a Paranoid schizophrenic I'll leave it at that ant get a small 6000# ultra light and praise the MPG.

smokeywren

Conspiracy theory. Internet social media nonsense. You won't find any chassis engineers that agree with you.


The Ford engineers reduced the GAWR on the 2015 because the lighter weight aluminum body didn't require as much GAWR to accomplish similar weight capacities for hauling weight as the previous F-150 steel bodies required.

One of the reasons for converting to the aluminum body was to save weight, which results in improved MPG. So yeah, a 2015 should get a bit better MPG than a comparably-equipped 2014, but that's not because of any conspiracy theory.


GAWR is not just the weight capacity of the axle shafts, but the entire package of components required to carry the weight on that end of the truck. Axle shafts, but also bearings, differential, suspension, tires, wheels, etc. Some of those components can be made lighter weight if the weight of the body is reduced 700 pounds.