When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
As established above, the 500 pounds WC rating is not a limit of the receiver itself but the truck. And to be perfectly clear, it's not actually a physical limitation of the truck, but instead a legal limitation based on how the truck was tested and rated. A manufacturer doesn't have to test and rate a vehicle to the physical limit where it will still pass the SAE standard. For example, Ford is comfortable with the 500WC rating on a short bed regular cab 2wd with the lightest available component. Ford uses the same rating with a long wheel base HDPP. Physically, the limitation of these to vehicles are not the same. Ford chooses to rate them the same. 3/4 and 1-ton trucks of years past all had the 500WC rating as well. The physical limitations off all these trucks are not the same.
It is what it is. And only Ford knows why.
I do agree that there will be variations based on cab config and wheel base but not as large as you might think. In one particular test in j2807 the TV is to be loaded to its GCWR, GRAWR, and GVWR simultaneously. For the weight carrying test you never reach GCWR so GRAWR and GVWR becomes the priority. This is where adding weight into the TV vs adding weight 4 feet behind the rear axle really shows it’s effects. This one test is the reason the HDPP has a lower TWR vs Max Tow, it’s high GVWR becomes a handicap under the test guidelines.
Then there is this F150 commercial. I don't claim to know what that old tow truck weighs but not a chance the entire rig is even approaching the 500/5000 limit without weight distribution. Guess this shows that Ford knows the limit is BS too.
That screen grab is F'n perfect! Note, both heavy weights "not shown" yet they show a Screw short box towing a substantially heavy load. That has to be at least 7K behind that truck if not more.
That screen grab is F'n perfect! Note, both heavy weights "not shown" yet they show a Screw short box towing a substantially heavy load. That has to be at least 7K behind that truck if not more.
I'm not sure what you can tell from that picture. The trailer is probably ~2,000 pounds or less. The truck looks like a 1950s F100 which has a curb weight of around ~3,200 pounds. Heck, it might not even have an engine or tranny.
I'm not sure what you can tell from that picture. The trailer is probably ~2,000 pounds or less. The truck looks like a 1950s F100 which has a curb weight of around ~3,200 pounds. Heck, it might not even have an engine or tranny.
Plot twist, the entire thing could be CGI and there may not even be a trailer hooked up to the truck.
I always assumed Ford installed air bags or the stiffest suspension possible on trucks used in advertisements. Don't want the back end squatting when you are advertising the truck as being "Ford Tough"
I do agree that there will be variations based on cab config and wheel base but not as large as you might think. In one particular test in j2807 the TV is to be loaded to its GCWR, GRAWR, and GVWR simultaneously. For the weight carrying test you never reach GCWR so GRAWR and GVWR becomes the priority. This is where adding weight into the TV vs adding weight 4 feet behind the rear axle really shows it’s effects. This one test is the reason the HDPP has a lower TWR vs Max Tow, it’s high GVWR becomes a handicap under the test guidelines.
I'm struggling to make sense of this statement. You start out talking about the weight carrying test and then conclude that this test is the reason for a discrepancy in WDH ratings between Max tow and HDPP Max tow. What is the logic to bridge between the two and are you speculating or do you have the test results from Ford?
Plot twist, the entire thing could be CGI and there may not even be a trailer hooked up to the truck.
I always assumed Ford installed air bags or the stiffest suspension possible on trucks used in advertisements. Don't want the back end squatting when you are advertising the truck as being "Ford Tough"
I would expect that anything on the truck would have to be a factory option, otherwise it would need to be specified in the fine print (not that my eyesight is good enough to read that, so maybe it is). That said, pick your photo and road angles right and you should manage to avoid any particularly unsightly squatting.
I'm struggling to make sense of this statement. You start out talking about the weight carrying test and then conclude that this test is the reason for a discrepancy in WDH ratings between Max tow and HDPP Max tow. What is the logic to bridge between the two and are you speculating or do you have the test results from Ford?
Both weight carrying and with a WDH tests are done exactly the same way, loading to GCWR, GRAWR, and/or GVWR.
“If the addition of hitch load (trailer weight = TWR) does not meet or exceed rear GAWR (RGAWR), add ballast or shift ballast from the trailer to tow vehicle to simultaneously achieve GCWR, RGAWR, and GVWR (before applying weight distribution). If a weight-distributing hitch is used, RGAWR can be exceeded only before weight-distributing torque is applied. The weight distributing hitch shall be adjusted to provide FALR levels within ±10% of target FALR (e.g., from 40% to 60% for a 50% FALR target) as specified in 4.4.1. Refer to Appendices B and C for procedure. There may be tow-vehicles that cannot attain GCWR, GVWR and Rear GAWR simultaneously with tongue weight at 10% (conventional trailer) or kingpin weight at 15% (fifth wheel or gooseneck trailer) of loaded test trailer weight; in this case, priority in meeting these values should be: 1) GCWR, 2) RGAWR and 3) GVWR.
