Ford F450 in 2.6 class

[Leadfoot]

In my opinion a half ton has been for years a F150, a 3/4 ton was a F250 and one ton was F350. If it is a F450 its bigger then a one ton end of story.

That's the way it's been, accepted, and practiced for MANY years. No need to reinvent the wheel.

If the motor, tranny, t-case, and chassis (frame) were the same as the 350 and all they do is heavier suspensions and axles, I would "think" it could/should be allowed if the axles were replaced with what came stock in a 350 (as most guys change or beef their suspension for pulling anyways).

If a 450 0r 550 is allowed, what about a Kodiac with swapped in axles? It comes with a duramax and allison.....

Guys used to swap K10, K20, K30 badges on their trucks back in the days because they put 1-ton gear (and/or suspension) in a 1/2 ton truck (or trying to be cool), but the frames never exceeded 1 ton. If the 450 frame differs from a 350 frame in any way, I think that would dictate it being non acceptable..... FWIW

If the only thing making it a 450 is badges and sheetmetal, it should be allowed, but I think frame and axles differences keep that from happening.

 

[lubeowner]

That's the way it's been, accepted, and practiced for MANY years. No need to reinvent the wheel.

If the motor, tranny, t-case, and chassis (frame) were the same as the 350 and all they do is heavier suspensions and axles, I would "think" it could/should be allowed if the axles were replaced with what came stock in a 350 (as most guys change or beef their suspension for pulling anyways).

If a 450 0r 550 is allowed, what about a Kodiac with swapped in axles? It comes with a duramax and allison.....

Guys used to swap K10, K20, K30 badges on their trucks back in the days because they put 1-ton gear (and/or suspension) in a 1/2 ton truck (or trying to be cool), but the frames never exceeded 1 ton. If the 450 frame differs from a 350 frame in any way, I think that would dictate it being non acceptable..... FWIW

If the only thing making it a 450 is badges and sheetmetal, it should be allowed, but I think frame and axles differences keep that from happening.

The frames are the same as the f-350. The only difference is the springs and rear axle. The front axle is still a Dana 60 but it has bigger steering knuckles. They also have a lot bigger bigger brakes.

 

[01smoker]

Based on what actual information? Or are you just saying 450 > 350 so "that's it"???

If the GVWR is the same as a 350, how is it "bigger"?

Why would ford even make a 450 if its not "bigger" than a 350? They probably underate them so people can get them insured for a decent price. This is a 1 1/4 ton truck so in my opinion its a no go.

 

[nwpadmax]

Why would ford even make a 450 if its not "bigger" than a 350? They probably underate them so people can get them insured for a decent price. This is a 1 1/4 ton truck so in my opinion its a no go.

I agree, I don't understand Ford's logic either, but you statement of being a "1.25 ton" truck is baseless in fact... and doesn't exist anywhere except people's opinions. (please show me documentation otherwise)

The GVWRs are the same.

 

[trailerpro]

I agree, I don't understand Ford's logic either, but you statement of being a "1.25 ton" truck is baseless in fact... and doesn't exist anywhere except people's opinions. (please show me documentation otherwise)

The GVWRs are the same.

IIRC the 08-10 450's were higher gvw's and "beefier". Then ford realized they were crazy heavy and got 8mpg so they "revised" them for 2011 to be a glorified 350 with the lower gvw.

 

[nwpadmax]

^^^^ kinda makes sense to me.

 

[Tad]

Like said its peoples opinion not a proven fact it isn't legal. By all the paper work I have read it makes it legal.

 

[goodstktbo]

A guy i know got 09 f-450 and had to get "commercial" insurance on it.

 

[ACFarmer]

A guy i know got 09 f-450 and had to get "commercial" insurance on it.

In ohio with a F-450 it has to either be tagged commercial or farm truck because the "number" is greater than a 350 so they wont take it as a 1 ton. Thats what our local license branch told me anyways.

 

[Leadfoot]

Like said its peoples opinion not a proven fact it isn't legal. By all the paper work I have read it makes it legal.

How so?

As far as I know (at least with National Pulling Associations), there has never been a GVWR limit that designated 1 ton or less (I'm sure people could correct me if this is wrong). Since GVWR's have been increasing over the years it would have been a bad idea to cap it at 1990 standards anyways so it was acceptable practice to equate "1 ton" with a K30, 3500HD, K35, 3500, F350, etc.

For that matter, if GM produced a K4500 Kodiak with only a 10K GVWR I would say it was a "No go" as well (same holds true for Chrysler), so it's not a brand bias or picking on one manufacturer.

I don't know if you have a dog in this fight or not, but it seems like you are pushing the issue (for whatever reason....), or maybe I'm just reading way to much into your posts.

For the betterment of the sport I think allowing it opens up WAY TOO MANY cans of worms (i.e. low GVW topkicks or specialty vehicles). Pulling has enough issues now without adding more.

And the sad part is, in most cases I would see it as a disadvantage. I would prefer to run an F150 frame vs an F450 as it's lighter (more weight to transfer up front), plus it's more flexible (which I believe is better for traction if you can figure out your suspension) assuming it wouldn't twist like a pretzel (some key reinforcements might be in order). I prefer the lightest possible frame with the most give that won't permanately distort (and even an occasional retweaking is acceptable as it means your hooked). So again it's not that I see the F450 frame as being an "advantage", it's that it does not go with the long standing acceptable measures of the sport.....and there's no need for it. Certain rules change because the times change, if the F450 was the most popular selling vehicle in suburban driveways, then a change would most likely follow, but that is not the case....

In an open driveline/chassis class, I say go for it (for the budget minded it's a hell of a lot cheaper than a tube chassis).

 

[nwpadmax]

How so?

The only thing you're basing your argument on, is the digit "4" on a plastic badge, and your opinion. It doesn't make for a very logical argument IMO.

The Kodiaks and TopKicks and whatnot are on a completely different frame that was never used in a pickup. That makes kicking them out a no-brainer.

I still have yet to see a reasonably thoughtful reason to keep the new 450s out. What I hear is "we don't want none of them there 4 trucks." Reminds me of the club around here that's doing their best to kill a class by writing ever more exclusive rules.

 

[Tad]

The reason I ask is I read rules and want to follow them and build the best I can build for where I plan on running.

Where I am the 2.6 says 1 ton or less. The F450 fits that rule now the larger rear end is legal the way i look at it. It may not be stronger stock than a built 80 but if I spend money on it like we do the 80 it should be allot stronger.

I never said I was going to use a F450 frame but if I did trust me it would be lightened extremely.

There is no head rule in the 2.6 class here so that makes the new Indy head legal in 2.6. When we are spending this much on a engine why limit a class to a rear end that we all know will break. If you can't get from point a to point b you are waisting your time and money.

If you do research and check the F4 series fords have always been a 1 ton since the 40's.

 

[DISTURBED]

The reason I ask is I read rules and want to follow them and build the best I can build for where I plan on running.

Where I am the 2.6 says 1 ton or less. The F450 fits that rule now the larger rear end is legal the way i look at it. It may not be stronger stock than a built 80 but if I spend money on it like we do the 80 it should be allot stronger.

I never said I was going to use a F450 frame but if I did trust me it would be lightened extremely.

There is no head rule in the 2.6 class here so that makes the new Indy head legal in 2.6. When we are spending this much on a engine why limit a class to a rear end that we all know will break. If you can't get from point a to point b you are waisting your time and money.

If you do research and check the F4 series fords have always been a 1 ton since the 40's.

:bang
Now thats just stupid. If your going to spend that kind of money then build a 3.0 open driveline truck. The problem is that there is always somebody trying to push the rules in their favor. What ever org has that rule needs to change it and it needs to be across the board that those heads be banned from all classes except mod

I say the 450 is out, if you go to your local ford dealer they do not label it a 1 ton, its a 1 1/4.

 

[Timebomb]

:bang
Now thats just stupid. If your going to spend that kind of money then build a 3.0 open driveline truck.

Agree... But if you just spent 10k on just a head you would want to secure a victory at every pull not just a couple....LOL

 

[zstroken]

:bang
Now thats just stupid. If your going to spend that kind of money then build a 3.0 open driveline truck. The problem is that there is always somebody trying to push the rules in their favor. What ever org has that rule needs to change it and it needs to be across the board that those heads be banned from all classes except mod

I say the 450 is out, if you go to your local ford dealer they do not label it a 1 ton, its a 1 1/4.

I think most of the wording is OEM engine isn't it? I imagine the tech will say that the aftermarket head makes it not an OEM engine. Or engine available in a 1 ton or less.

 

[Tad]

This is BOB engine rules

Engine:
The engine block must have been available as a factory option on a one ton or smaller pickup truck. Cubic Inch limit of 444 CI. Blocks must circulate coolant freely. No hard filled blocks.. Water pumps may be factory or electric powered. All factory belt driven accessories, excluding the air conditioning compressor, must be retained and powered via the crankshaft by a standard serpentine or “V” belt. Electric cooling fans are permitted.

As you can see there is no head rule so that leaves the door open. it isn't u[p to tech to say its not legal it isn't in the book so it is. Rules need to be changed and the grey area taken out so there isn't any confusion before someone shows up with something thats legal and nobody likes it.

 

[chvyrkr]

Uh, every rule book/sheet I've ever seen says final decision authority rests with the Tech officials.

That kinda keeps the various rule books from doubling as ballast.

 

[1-5-3-6-2-4]

The frames are the same as the f-350. The only difference is the springs and rear axle. The front axle is still a Dana 60 but it has bigger steering knuckles. They also have a lot bigger bigger brakes.

I didn't read this whole thread...... but I do know that a 2006 F450 frame is NOT the same as a 2006 F350 frame. I have both.

and the obvious difference in the diffs

 

[Leadfoot]

The only thing you're basing your argument on, is the digit "4" on a plastic badge, and your opinion. It doesn't make for a very logical argument IMO.

The Kodiaks and TopKicks and whatnot are on a completely different frame that was never used in a pickup. That makes kicking them out a no-brainer.

I still have yet to see a reasonably thoughtful reason to keep the new 450s out. What I hear is "we don't want none of them there 4 trucks." Reminds me of the club around here that's doing their best to kill a class by writing ever more exclusive rules.

Well in some cases there is a difference as noted by a previous post and by guys I have talked to and pulled with.

See the 3:50 mark of the following vid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulQpWs7mwnY

That particular vehicle pulled as an exhibition (gave the club money for being able to advertise their company and find any weak links which they did when the stock front driveshaft let go) and is based off an F550, but with talking with the gentlemen who run the company (and they have had special invites to Ford manufactering facilities as they base their armored vehicles off Ford chassis) there are F450 frames that are different from F350 frames depending on year/style, and most of their vehicles are now based off an F550 chassis whereas years ago they did use F450's for certain applications as they remove the stock suspension anyways (just use drivetrain and frames). So it's not arbitrary or a "we don't want none of them there big trucks pullin" deal, there is some science behind it. I guess I'ld rather not see another can of worms opened when we haven't even begun to close others....there are enough things to tech without trying to figure out if an F450 frame is the heavier version or if it's an F350 clone.....

If memory serves me 88-98 rings a bell for considerable differences....maybe newer trucks not so much.

Just because someone builds a truck or bolts on a particular widget that isn't specified or clear in the rules, doesn't mean it should "automatically" be legal. I'm sure there was no rules about NOS years ago, or suspension alteration limitations, etc. They were dealt with as the issues arose. Guys who ran NOS were told to remove it and were not compensated for their troubles, why should that change now....?

Perception is reality and there is enough BS without adding more (that's the basis for a clear cut ban on the "4"'s). I'm sorry for the guy(s) that spent the time thinking they would fit into a possible gray area, but they had to know they were taking a gamble (even if they don't want to admit it).

Edit: If we are not allowing F450 axles, why would we allow F450 frames.....
In the past we have allowed flatbed, utility bodies, chopped roofs, aftermarket hoods, unique "badging", and that was why I stated sheetmetal (within reason) and plastic badging should not be used as a deciding factor as to 1 ton or not, but engine, tranny, chassis, and axles should... Hopefully that's someone logical or scientific.

 

[nwpadmax]

Leadfoot, you're a quarter inch away from writing a rule that says "acceptable rear ends: Dana 80 and AAM 11.5".