 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Ford / Ford Trucks / June 200779 F350 No shocks in back
I recently bought an 1979 F350. Starting to fix it up a little and discovered while changing out the shocks that there are none in the rear. I see no evidence of there ever having been any either. I wondered if no rear shocks could have been from the factory. Anyone here that knows if any older F350 might have come with no shocks in rear purposely? On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 05:06:28 -0500, reader rearranged some electrons to form: > I recently bought an 1979 F350. Starting to fix it up a little and > discovered while changing out the shocks that there are none in the > rear. > > I see no evidence of there ever having been any either. I wondered if > no rear shocks could have been from the factory. Not likely.  SignatureDavid M (dmacchiarolo) http://home.triad.rr.com/redsled T/S 53 sled351 Linux 2.4.18-14 has been up 3 days 9:04 > On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 05:06:28 -0500, reader rearranged some electrons to > form: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Not likely. Is that a guess based on extensive experience with older F350s? It was my first take too but then after a close examination I can find no evidence of removal. I see holes in frame that probably held the upper bracket but I suspect the lower bracket would have been welded to axle housing. Is that correct or do they use some kind of bolt on lower bracket too. If welded to axle housing is the norm them I see nothing indicating removal. Not even a small bump left. >>> I see no evidence of there ever having been any either. I wondered if >>> no rear shocks could have been from the factory. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > If welded to axle housing is the norm them I see nothing indicating > removal. Not even a small bump left. After some heavy google/images searches I've found enough seeable images of ford rear ends to see that the lower bracket is not welded but appears to be held by a heavy u-bolt. So apparently some felt a need to remove the raer shocks. >After some heavy google/images searches I've found enough seeable >images of ford rear ends to see that the lower bracket is not welded >but appears to be held by a heavy u-bolt. > >So apparently some felt a need to remove the raer shocks. \ While I am not familair with that model, they all had shocks from factory as did every vehcile made and appproved for use on US roads. Some used brakes welded to axle, some have brakes attached to leaf spring plates and U bolts but again, they all had them. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com >>After some heavy google/images searches I've found enough seeable >>images of ford rear ends to see that the lower bracket is not welded [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > spring plates and U bolts but again, they all had them. > ----------------- Yeah, I see you are right. I've found a few pics on google and can see the lower bracket was bolt on job so apparently someone felt a need to remove the shocks and brackets long ago. >>>After some heavy google/images searches I've found enough seeable >>>images of ford rear ends to see that the lower bracket is not welded [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > see the lower bracket was bolt on job so apparently someone felt a > need to remove the shocks and brackets long ago. I can not see any logical explanation for removing the shocks and shock mounts. It is very (that's VERY) unsafe to drive a vehicle that is sprung and is not fitted with shocks. (There are some motorcycles that have no shocks, but they have no springs either.) > <rea...@newsguy.com> wrote in messagenews:87wsyeayt5.fsf@newsguy.com... > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > and is not fitted with shocks. (There are some motorcycles that have no > shocks, but they have no springs either.) I've actually seen an old Studebaker truck (I think a ton and a half) that was never fitted with shocks, ever. However, AFAIR it was mid- late 50s vintage, and the springs resembled solid pieces of steel more than anything with any actual resilience. In any case I doubt this is relevant to the OP; I'm sure that FMVSS required some sort of damper by the 70s. nate I'm not sure what "FMVSS" stands for, but the '73 to '79 F-350 cab chassis DID NOT come with shocks on the rear from the factory. Period. SignatureSteve Barker > In any case I doubt this is relevant to the OP; I'm sure that FMVSS > required some sort of damper by the 70s. > > nate Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard nate On Jun 15, 12:13 pm, "Steve Barker" <ichasetra...@some.yahoo.com> wrote: > I'm not sure what "FMVSS" stands for, but the '73 to '79 F-350 cab chassis > DID NOT come with shocks on the rear from the factory. Period. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > > nate I'll accept the idea that the cab chassis had no shocks because the shock rate would be dependent on the load that the company that finished the manufacturing process would put upon the truck. If a chassis was going to get an ambulance body, then the load would be one thing, but it was going to be fitted with a flat bed, the loading would be entirely different. The cab chassis is not something that a private citizen would be likely to get possession of until after the finished product was added on. For example, I once owned a Class C motorhome that began life as a rolling chassis designed around a stretched E350 Econoline van. Surely the shocks for my application would differ from the shocks of another application built around the same chassis. But, the chassis was not offered for sale on the open market, it had to be purchased by a company that intended to add significant value, and I presume they would also add the shocks to meet the federal motor vehicle satefy standards -- FMVSS, by the way. Having said that, it seems to me that at the very least, the lower shock mounts would be provided as an integral part of the spring perches or axle brackest or whatever the shocks mount to at the bottom. > I'm not sure what "FMVSS" stands for, but the '73 to '79 F-350 cab chassis > DID NOT come with shocks on the rear from the factory. Period. Anyone could (and still can) buy a cab chassis. It's not uncommon at all for landscape companies, and other such construction types to buy them. SignatureSteve Barker > I'll accept the idea that the cab chassis had no shocks because the shock > rate would be dependent on the load that the company that finished the [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >> I'm not sure what "FMVSS" stands for, but the '73 to '79 F-350 cab >> chassis DID NOT come with shocks on the rear from the factory. Period. I was not aware of that. I would expect a landscaper or other to buy a finished truck that had some sort of bed provided by a third party, not Ford, or Chevy, or Dodge, or whomever ... > Anyone could (and still can) buy a cab chassis. It's not uncommon at all > for landscape companies, and other such construction types to buy them. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >>> I'm not sure what "FMVSS" stands for, but the '73 to '79 F-350 cab >>> chassis DID NOT come with shocks on the rear from the factory. Period. >I was not aware of that. I would expect a landscaper or other to buy a >finished truck that had some sort of bed provided by a third party, not >Ford, or Chevy, or Dodge, or whomever ... They buy a cab chasis and then take it to a company that builds and installs the type of bed they want. They may buy the cab chasis to replace something in the fleet worn out and have the bed on that vehicle moved to the new one. That happens a lot with utilty box style beds, such as those manufactured by Reading. Whitelightning >>I was not aware of that. I would expect a landscaper or other to buy a >>finished truck that had some sort of bed provided by a third party, not [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > moved to the new one. That happens a lot with utilty box style beds, such > as those manufactured by Reading. I'm familiar with the boxes and beds you are talking about, but in my area these are generally sold new by the fleet sales department of the respective dealerships. Then the old stock goes off to auction or is sold through a private party transaction. The Mexicans might buy two trucks, one that runs but has the wrong kind of bed for they purpose they intend, and one that doesn't run but has the bed they want. Then, they get to work building Frankenstein. I can't think of ever seeing a new cab chassis with an old box on it, but I'd accept the argument that a guy might buy rolling stock and have the bed of his choice custom made. I hadn't thought of that practice, but I suppose it could happen. In any case, I did not get the impression from the OP that he had a truck that was constructed in that manner. >>>I was not aware of that. I would expect a landscaper or other to buy a >>>finished truck that had some sort of bed provided by a third party, not [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > that doesn't run but has the bed they want. Then, they get to work > building Frankenstein. When you have a perfectly serviceable $5000-$15000 steel dump flatbed, why not put it on your new truck? If I replaced my F-450 Cassis Cab today, I would likely keep my custom built aluminum bed for the new truck > I can't think of ever seeing a new cab chassis with an old box on it, but > I'd accept the argument that a guy might buy rolling stock and have the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > In any case, I did not get the impression from the OP that he had a truck > that was constructed in that manner. Happens all the time in our area. And the fleet owners change the beds over in their own shops. I don't remember the last time I saw a NEW bed on a new truck. We usually take the old bed off, trade in the cab chassis, in the mean time, the bed is being sandblasted and repainted , (by us) and then the new truck gets backed under the freshly refurbished bed/body and a few welds and you are done. SignatureSteve Barker >>>I was not aware of that. I would expect a landscaper or other to buy a >>>finished truck that had some sort of bed provided by a third party, not [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > In any case, I did not get the impression from the OP that he had a truck > that was constructed in that manner. > Happens all the time in our area. And the fleet owners change the beds > over in their own shops. I don't remember the last time I saw a NEW bed > on a new truck. We usually take the old bed off, trade in the cab > chassis, in the mean time, the bed is being sandblasted and repainted , > (by us) and then the new truck gets backed under the freshly refurbished > bed/body and a few welds and you are done. Yup for a nice tidy savings of about 7 to15K depending on the style of Utility Body. A Reading will usually out last about 3 trucks if it gets any kind of care. Whitelightning As OP let me say I came by the truck as 2/3 party buying it from a private person who had it on a lot for display near a county hi-way. I see now that it probably came from the factory without shocks, so now the question I have is if it really makes lots of difference. That is, do I need to rush out and buy all the necessary parts and install some to be sure I'm good to pull a (14,000 lb rated) fifth wheel utility trailer with a 20 ft shipping container strapped on it? The shipping container weighs in at 5000 lb empty and will have about another 3000 in it. I'm guessing the trailer will weigh around 2500/3000 lb, so we're talking a total towed weight of approx. 11,000 lb. It would be good to hear from someone with experience in this and not just comments that are based on caution and no experience. I'm guessing it could be fairly expensive to get all the required parts and a fairly big pain in the butt to install it all. > As OP let me say I came by the truck as 2/3 party buying it from a > private person who had it on a lot for display near a county hi-way. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > I'm guessing it could be fairly expensive to get all the required > parts and a fairly big pain in the butt to install it all. Drive it and see, I think you will be surprised how little difference the shocks actually make in your application. Shocks dampen the up and down movement between your unsprung weight (everything under the springs) and all the "sprung" weight (everything riding on the springs), In this application the springs are so stiff, that there is little or no up and down movement, hence little or no function for the shocks. The truck is a 1979, that's 28 years of towing and hauling without shocks, it seems to have managed OK so far, think about it. > It would be good to hear from someone with experience in this and not > just comments that are based on caution and no experience. > > I'm guessing it could be fairly expensive to get all the required > parts and a fairly big pain in the butt to install it all. My experience, I have over a million miles driven CDL Class A, started back when it was just called a Chauffeur's license, and before that Military license for just about every wheeled vehicle the Army had as well as about half the tracks they had and heavy equipment at that time Some of the early stuff I drove, like an old white day cab single screw didn't have shocks. Duece and a halfs and the 5 tonners didnt ether. Nor did the early Mack B-62's I drove. With a good load on they weren't bad.Light loaded or empty they skittered all over the place if you weren't careful. Contrary to what has been posted, a shock absorbers job is to dampen the springs natural tendency to oscillate. Originally shocks were called suspension dampeners, a name more in line with their job. By damening the oscilations the tire stays in contact with the road. As to adding them to your rig, not so hard. You say you can see where the upper mounts are ie that they are there. Hit the junk yards find a 350 pick up truck and pull the lower spring perch plates off, the lower shock mount is part of them, four nuts each side. You maybe able to use them off a 250. Whitelightning >> It would be good to hear from someone with experience in this and not >> just comments that are based on caution and no experience. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > all over the place if > you weren't careful. Correct, but that was due to the stiff springs not moving (not unlike a tractor with no springs at all) not because they were oscillating and there was no shock absorber to dampen it. Contrary to what has been posted, a shock absorbers > job is to dampen > the springs natural tendency to oscillate. Correct and if your spring is not oscillating, then a shock absorber (suspension dampener) is of no use. Originally shocks were called > suspension dampeners, a > name more in line with their job. By damening the oscilations the tire [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Whitelightning > As OP let me say I came by the truck as 2/3 party buying it from a > private person who had it on a lot for display near a county hi-way. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > I'm guessing it could be fairly expensive to get all the required > parts and a fairly big pain in the butt to install it all. I think your question is best directed to the state highway partol, or at least the local cop at the doughnut shop. I can't imagine it is even legal to have taht vehicle on the highway with vital safety equipment missing. I have to wonder if the seller could even sell the truck in the condition you bought it in. I can look up the vehicle code for my state to give a reference if anybody cares, but I can't shake the feeling that you have been sold a load of goods (that's a term that used to mean sack of sh.t when people spoke with discretion and dignity). I could be wrong, but it would surprise me. Good luck, and see the cops before you hit the highway. >> As OP let me say I came by the truck as 2/3 party buying it from a >> private person who had it on a lot for display near a county hi-way. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > least the local cop at the doughnut shop. I can't imagine it is even legal > to have taht vehicle on the highway with vital safety equipment missing. Shock absorbers ARE NOT SAFETY EQUIPMENT, anymore than a sway bar is. If you looked or asked yourself before offering your silly suggestion, you would know that the "cops" don't give a hoot if you have shock absorbers or not. > I have to wonder if the seller could even sell the truck in the condition > you bought it in. I can look up the vehicle code for my state to give a > reference if anybody cares, but I can't shake the feeling that you have > been sold a load of goods (that's a term that used to mean sack of sh.t > when people spoke with discretion and dignity). Please do, I can't wait to hear how you explain being so misguided on this issue. > I could be wrong, but it would surprise me. Good luck, and see the cops > before you hit the highway. You are, so provide some links to back up your position or give it a rest. Shocks are not safety equipment. And there are no legalities about having them. SignatureSteve Barker > I think your question is best directed to the state highway partol, or at > least the local cop at the doughnut shop. I can't imagine it is even legal [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I could be wrong, but it would surprise me. Good luck, and see the cops > before you hit the highway. > Shocks are not safety equipment. And there are no legalities about having > them. Thanks. I looked it up, and it turns out my gut instinct is indeed wrong. I can't imagine how shocks are not a vital piece of safety equipment. That runs counter to everything I know. Oh well ... It's gone nearly 30 years without them. You don't need them. SignatureSteve Barker > As OP let me say I came by the truck as 2/3 party buying it from a > private person who had it on a lot for display near a county hi-way. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > I'm guessing it could be fairly expensive to get all the required > parts and a fairly big pain in the butt to install it all. > Happens all the time in our area. And the fleet owners change the beds > over in their own shops. I don't remember the last time I saw a NEW bed > on a new truck. My experience is the exact opposite, I see new trucks with new beds all of the time, and I can't ever remember seeing a new truck with a used bed, or a used truck with a new bed. I have seen used trucks with a used bed that was a different color, an obvious kluge of parts. I've actually been looking for a used utility truck, but haven't hit on the mother lode yet. I don't have the cash flow to justify a new truck with the payments that go along with it, so I am looking for a used truck. I can make a camper and ladder rack get the job done, but the Hot Setup would be a utility bed and ladder rack ... We usually take the old bed off, trade in the cab chassis, in the > mean time, the bed is being sandblasted and repainted , (by us) and then > the new truck gets backed under the freshly refurbished bed/body and a few > welds and you are done. But, back to the OP's question, why would you take the shocks off, or not put them on? The OP reports buying a used F350, or whatever, and there are no shocks. It could not have gotten so far in life without shocks, so somebody put them on, then took them off when they sold the truck to the OP. Why go through that effort? It seems like it ought to be an illegal practice to remove parts as vital to the safety of the vehicle operation as shocks. > But, back to the OP's question, why would you take the shocks off, or not > put them on? Evidently you have not been following along, IT NEVER HAD ANY REAR SHOCKS TO START WITH, they were not taken off.. > The OP reports buying a used F350, or whatever, and there are no shocks. > It could not have gotten so far in life without shocks, so somebody put > them Again, the truck has towed and hauled for 28 years without ever having rear shock absorbers. > on, then took them off when they sold the truck to the OP. Why go through > that effort? It seems like it ought to be an illegal practice to remove > parts as vital to the safety of the vehicle operation as shocks. Shock absorbers are NOT safety equipment. > Shock absorbers are NOT safety equipment. It would depend on the application. If the springs are inherently stiff and tend to resist oscillation, I would agree. But softer springs would require external damping in order to maintain control of the vehicle. I wouldn't call shocks safety equipment in the sense that seat belts are safety equipment, but if you drive a vehicle that is designed to be equipped with shocks without them, it can be very unsafe. I once drove a Jeep Cherokee without rear shocks about 10 miles, it was difficult to keep control with the rear end bouncing excessively. I was changing the shocks and the upper shock mounts broke off so I took it to a shop to be repaired. Note: Do not try this yourself. It's difficult to control a Jeep regardless. SignatureSteve Barker >> Shock absorbers are NOT safety equipment. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > and the upper shock mounts broke off so I took it to a shop to be > repaired. Note: Do not try this yourself. > It's difficult to control a Jeep regardless. Maybe a CJ-5 or the older flat fenders, but a Wagoneer drove damn easy, especially the older ones. best riding 4x4 PU I ever owned was my J-20 Jeep, and it was due to the long wheel base it had. Down side it center hung easy. Then again it had the best angle of attack and departure of any full size 4x4 pick up or SUV, except maybe the Wagoneer which had the same angles. Whitelightning You're probably in an area where they don't really work the trucks. If they need one at all. For some people it's all about the show and nothing about function. SignatureSteve Barker > My experience is the exact opposite, I see new trucks with new beds all of > the time, and I can't ever remember seeing a new truck with a used bed, or > a used truck with a new bed. I have seen used trucks with a used bed that > was a different color, an obvious kluge of parts. > You're probably in an area where they don't really work the trucks. If > they need one at all. For some people it's all about the show and nothing > about function. Yeah, we have lots of "show and no go," but this doesn't usually apply to the commerical trucks that have utility beds/flat beds, and the like. You don't seem to understand the fact that this truck came from the factory WITHOUT shocks and HAS NEVER had any. They're totally optional in all applications. They are not necessary for operation of a vehicle. SignatureSteve Barker > But, back to the OP's question, why would you take the shocks off, or not > put them on? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > through that effort? It seems like it ought to be an illegal practice to > remove parts as vital to the safety of the vehicle operation as shocks. > You don't seem to understand the fact that this truck came from the > factory WITHOUT shocks and HAS NEVER had any. They're totally optional in > all applications. They are not necessary for operation of a vehicle. Not at all. I get that it came without shocks. What I missed was that it never had them. I assumed that it was delivered sans shocks, somebody installed the utility bed <or whatever> and shocks, and operated the vehicle for whatever time period they had it, then took the modifications off before selling the truck on the open market where the OP selected it out of a line-up. >> You don't seem to understand the fact that this truck came from the >> factory WITHOUT shocks and HAS NEVER had any. They're totally optional [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > off before selling the truck on the open market where the OP selected it > out of a line-up. So do you get it now? It came without shocks, and never had them. In that application shocks really don't make any difference. If the springs won't oscillate, shocks are of NO USE. Christ, what is so hard about that? Many cassis cab buyers simply buy an empty cassis cab and take the old bed off their old truck and stick it on the new one. >I was not aware of that. I would expect a landscaper or other to buy a >finished truck that had some sort of bed provided by a third party, not [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >>>> I'm not sure what "FMVSS" stands for, but the '73 to '79 F-350 cab >>>> chassis DID NOT come with shocks on the rear from the factory. Period. Oh, sorry, missed the last paragraph. the lower shock mounts were not included because the shocks were not. SignatureSteve Barker > I'll accept the idea that the cab chassis had no shocks because the shock > rate would be dependent on the load that the company that finished the [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >> I'm not sure what "FMVSS" stands for, but the '73 to '79 F-350 cab >> chassis DID NOT come with shocks on the rear from the factory. Period. > I'll accept the idea that the cab chassis had no shocks because the shock > rate would be dependent on the load that the company that finished the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > add significant value, and I presume they would also add the shocks to > meet the federal motor vehicle satefy standards -- FMVSS, by the way. That is just not true. Anyone could and still can purchase a chassis cab truck directly from Ford. As a matter of fact, I purchased and drove off the lot with empty frame rails, my 2005 F-450 Cassis cab. An empty cassis cab truck has always been available for purchase by the general public. > Having said that, it seems to me that at the very least, the lower shock > mounts would be provided as an integral part of the spring perches or axle > brackest or whatever the shocks mount to at the bottom. > >> I'm not sure what "FMVSS" stands for, but the '73 to '79 F-350 cab >> chassis DID NOT come with shocks on the rear from the factory. Period. Not the '79 F-350 cab chassis. Came from the factory without rear shocks. SignatureSteve Barker >>After some heavy google/images searches I've found enough seeable >>images of ford rear ends to see that the lower bracket is not welded [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > ----------------- > TheSnoMan.com Negative. They were built without them. SignatureSteve Barker >> After some heavy google/images searches I've found enough seeable > images of ford rear ends to see that the lower bracket is not welded > but appears to be held by a heavy u-bolt. > > So apparently some felt a need to remove the raer shocks. >I recently bought an 1979 F350. Starting to fix it up a little and >discovered while changing out the shocks that there are none in the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Anyone here that knows if any older F350 might have come with no >shocks in rear purposely? Trust me, it had shocks when it was built. Either you overlooked the mounting brackets or someone removed them or swapped out the rear axle. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com >>I recently bought an 1979 F350. Starting to fix it up a little and >>discovered while changing out the shocks that there are none in the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > mounting brackets or someone removed them or swapped out the rear > axle. Can you think of any reason someone wouuld remove them? It has a sort of homemade mount of a flat bed and fifthwheel ball on a very heavy plate that is mounted to the frame with eight 3/4 in ubolts welded together to make the span across the frame. The bed itself sits ontop of 2 4x4 boards cut to match the contour of the frame and again mounted with heavy ubolts. I'm guessing maybe those shocks were in the way of all that or something. >Can you think of any reason someone wouuld remove them? Articulation of axle in suspension on uneven ground. Shocks typically top out and limit downward axle travel in suspension on a truck. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com nope. wrong. SignatureSteve Barker > Trust me, it had shocks when it was built. Either you overlooked the > mounting brackets or someone removed them or swapped out the rear > axle. > ----------------- > TheSnoMan.com Way back when, I did work in the evenings for a lawn service company. he had a '79 F-350. No shocks on the rear. Upon investigation, I found out they were built that way from the factory. They don't really need them anyway. SignatureSteve Barker >I recently bought an 1979 F350. Starting to fix it up a little and > discovered while changing out the shocks that there are none in the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Anyone here that knows if any older F350 might have come with no > shocks in rear purposely? > Way back when, I did work in the evenings for a lawn service company. he > had a '79 F-350. No shocks on the rear. Upon investigation, I found out > they were built that way from the factory. They don't really need them > anyway. Hehe... and here I was buying the posters saying they would have had them. Thanks for clearing it up. I had noticed it was a hard riding old dog but just wrote it off to the heavy suspension. Going back to the lawn company for a moment. Back when you worked there was that F-350 relatively new? >Hehe... and here I was buying the posters saying they would have had >them. Some how I question this. I do not know how they could legally sell it in US that way as it could lead to control issues. Possible, maybe but still strange. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com Shocks have nothing to do with control. Especially on a one ton truck. Shock absorbers primary duty is to hold the tire on the ground in the case of an imbalance situation. SignatureSteve Barker for the spam bots: wolfiebear@coldreams.com >>Hehe... and here I was buying the posters saying they would have had >>them. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > ----------------- > TheSnoMan.com >>Hehe... and here I was buying the posters saying they would have had >>them. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > ----------------- > TheSnoMan.com Why? We are not talking a passenger car/ 1/2 ton suspension here. I've run two trucks for a short while without rear shocks, when the old ones no longer fit due to suspension changes. That is when I learned "replacing" rear shocks is highly over rated, On a truck with very stiff rear springs, the shock do absolutely nothing. I can put you in the same truck with and without rear shocks and you could NOT from the drivers seat tell with from without. Yeah as a matter of fact, the guy had the cab chassis (with no rear shocks) and he also had a F-350 pickup 4x4. The pickup he bought new, and the cab-chassis was purchased used in about '84. This was in about '82 to '92 that I did this type of work. (boy those were the days) I installed about 650 Meyers snow plows in that time period also. SignatureSteve Barker for the spam bots: wolfiebear@coldreams.com >> Way back when, I did work in the evenings for a lawn service company. he >> had a '79 F-350. No shocks on the rear. Upon investigation, I found out [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Going back to the lawn company for a moment. Back when you worked > there was that F-350 relatively new? > Yeah as a matter of fact, the guy had the cab chassis (with no rear shocks) > and he also had a F-350 pickup 4x4. The pickup he bought new, and the > cab-chassis was purchased used in about '84. This was in about '82 to '92 > that I did this type of work. (boy those were the days) I installed about > 650 Meyers snow plows in that time period also. I'm going to sort of pirate this thread and steer in a different direction in this post but first: Did the 4x4 also have no rear shocks? What year was it? =========== Since I've got your ear for a moment: You mentioned the snow plows, and that made me think you would probably have a fair bit of experience dealing with 3/4 and 1 ton vehicles. Maybe some experienced knowledge of hitches and towing capacities. Not just the specs but real life towing situations. I bought the old truck for a specific task. I'm currently moving from Indiana to Georgia. I own 2 of those shipping container boxes like you see on trucks and ships. Mine are the smaller 20 ft variety. I had a special 14,000 lb capacity trailer (16' flatbed dual axle with elect brakes on both axles and 4' dovetail) built for this task as well. An empty container box weighs in at 5,000 lb. I will have another approx. 3000 to 3500 more lbs in them so a total of about 8000 to 8500. I'm not really sure what the trailer weighs but it must be something like 2500 lb. So probably totally out around 11,000 - 12,000. Lets say no more than 13,000 for sure. The old truck is rigged up with a ball fifth wheel that sets just ahead of the rear axle. And the trailer of course was built to match with gooseneck connection. So getting to the point here, in your experience will the old 1 ton ford have any problem pulling that load? There are a small range of low mountains to cross (the Smokies) about 100 miles north of Atlanta. The part with the grades is only about 20-30 miles. Trailer brakes will be spanking new and the truck had a full brake job about 1 mnth ago. The truck has one of those auxillary brake controlers for the trailer brake, under the dash. The duals are all new rubber (8 ply load range D). The frontend has decent but not new rubber and is also 8 ply Load range d. The question is going to be engine and tranny. The suspension will handle it, the brakes if all new will handle it with in reason, meaning no Indy 500 style driving. If the tires have more than two years o them, replace them. Heat is the enemy. Hot shots back in the day were nothing but 1 ton trucks pulling 28' flat bed trailers on down sized suspension and tires, and we pulled some pretty hefty loads on them. What you have to keep in mind is if your total gross weight goes over 26,001 lbs, or the trailer grosses over 10,001 lbs, you have to have a class B CDL, and cross the scales, and abide by hours of service regs. Our rigs used a standard fifth wheel hitch though, and the bed extended over the truck frame, no goose neck, and we had the "pin" just in front of the rear axle, maybe 8 inches. Also your trailer is 16 ft, your load is 20 ft, your going to get hard looks by law enforcement with that 4 foot over hang, and may not be able to drive before dawn, or after dusk, much the same as a big rig pulling over size load and may require "permits". If it were me I would avoid going over the Smokies, the grades can be worse than you might expect, I love the area, vacation there when I cant get up to the Adirondacks. Coming south I-24 through Nashville to Chattanooga and grab I-75 to Atlanta and you get rolling hills, no mountain grades. That kind of load I would prefer Vacuum over hydraulic on the trailer, not electric if dealing with grades. Whitelightning Thanks for the detailed input and desciptions. > Coming south I-24 through Nashville to Chattanooga and grab I-75 to > Atlanta and you get rolling hills, no mountain grades. That kind of > load I would prefer Vacuum over hydraulic on the trailer, not > electric if dealing with grades. That sounds like the way I always go, picking up 75 a ways past Chattanooga. I always like lake Nick-o-jack. But unless I'm remembering wrong there are at least 2 fairly good grades on that route. About the overhang. I planned on using a set of addon lights mounted on the end of that overhang. Something serious looking. That is, not half rigged as afterthought. Although it is in fact an afterthought. I had the trailer built at 16 feet with other jobs it will do in mind. That was probably a mistake but my thinking didn't get jogged about it until it was built. I haven't actually even seen the trailer yet but the guy building it followed the specs I gave him of course and the job is now done. > I'm going to sort of pirate this thread and steer in a different > direction in this post but first: > > Did the 4x4 also have no rear shocks? What year was it? Yes, the '79 4x4 had rear shocks. > =========== > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > ford have any problem pulling that load? There are a small range of > low mountains to cross (the Smokies) about 100 miles north of Atlanta. Provided it is a fairly healthy 400 or better, you should have no problem PULLING. Make sure you have the biggest trans cooler HAYDEN makes installed in front of the AC condenser and plumbed correctly. (after the in-radiator cooler) I also don't remember you mentioning what transmission you have. > The part with the grades is only about 20-30 miles. > > Trailer brakes will be spanking new and the truck had a full brake job > about 1 mnth ago. The truck has one of those auxillary brake > controlers for the trailer brake, under the dash. This is the part you have to worry about. I'm glad you mentioned it. Make DAMN sure the electric brakes work and have a high quality controller. (I like the Prodigy a whole lot.) > The duals are all new rubber (8 ply load range D). The frontend has > decent but not new rubber and is also 8 ply Load range d. Make sure no tire is older than 5 years. You didn't mention the trailer tires unless I missed it. [...] >> So getting to the point here, in your experience will the old 1 ton >> ford have any problem pulling that load? There are a small range of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > in front of the AC condenser and plumbed correctly. (after the in-radiator > cooler) I also don't remember you mentioning what transmission you have. The engine is the 351m so yeah, its right at 400. I don't know for sure. I guess it is a C6? or is that only up to 3/4 ton? I know I once owned a 1975 E250 that had a C6 Seems to have a lower rearend than an 83 F-350 I once owned. [...] >> The duals are all new rubber (8 ply load range D). The frontend has >> decent but not new rubber and is also 8 ply Load range d. > > Make sure no tire is older than 5 years. You didn't mention the trailer > tires unless I missed it. The entire trailer is brand new... A guy building it for me just finished in the last few days. I haven't actually even seen it yet. The c-6 is a good trans even on a one ton and bigger. But you have to keep it cool. Also, never try to "rock" a c-6 out of the mud. They will break if you do that. As for the trailer tires, regardless of the fact that the trailer is new, check the serial numbers on the tires. The last 3 digits indicate the week and year of manufacture. Trailer builders don't necessarily use the best tire available in every case. SignatureSteve Barker for the spam bots: wolfiebear@coldreams.com > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > The entire trailer is brand new... A guy building it for me just > finished in the last few days. I haven't actually even seen it yet. I can not imagine there not being shocks on the rear axle. >I recently bought an 1979 F350. Starting to fix it up a little and > discovered while changing out the shocks that there are none in the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Anyone here that knows if any older F350 might have come with no > shocks in rear purposely? >I recently bought an 1979 F350. Starting to fix it up a little and > discovered while changing out the shocks that there are none in the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Anyone here that knows if any older F350 might have come with no > shocks in rear purposely? I say no. >I recently bought an 1979 F350. Starting to fix it up a little and >discovered while changing out the shocks that there are none in the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Anyone here that knows if any older F350 might have come with no >shocks in rear purposely? It is quite possible that it never had shocks if it was shipped as a cab-chassis in those days. Shocks on heavier trucks were viewed as a ride quality issue having nothing to do with the commercial value of the vehicle. Even things like school buses had the shocks listed as an option with several choices if you wanted to spend the extra money. Body manufacturers and installer would many time have to remove or relocate any shocks that were installed. It may be that the F350 pu as a primarily commercial duty vehicle at the time would have had them only as a frequently installed option. Many people forget that pu's were not common to so many households until the large passenger vehicles that people used to pull their boats and campers were regulated out of existance and replaced by limited capability minivans. Lugnut
|
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.