Bullnose / Bricknose chassis questions

[alfio]

Hello all,

Searching for a Bullnose or a Bricknose to swap an International DT360 into. I will be using my engine and transmission so the Ford drivetrain specifics are not that important but the chassis details are. Vehicle will be mainly built for towing.

I'd like to nail down my search but I'm stuck in DRW vs SRW-land. The F250 will handle the weight I want to tow but I have questions about differences between the two setups:

Frame: I've read that the frames on F250s and F350s are the same in newer gens. Is that true for Bullnose and Bricknose Fords?

Turning radius: I'm looking for turning radius info on these trucks but not seeing much. Are the SRW any better at making turns? I've seen a few references to 2wd trucks being better than 4wd when it comes to turning but still looking for specific numbers.

SRW vs DRW: for folks who've had both in this generation, and especially for people with experience towing equipment (not RVs which I understand are a different deal), am I fooling myself by leaning towards the simpler SRW setup?

Thanks all,
a.

 

[rreegg]

I don't know much but have read on here the Dana 60 has a better turning radius than the Dana 50 ttb [1]
Looks like the DT360 weighs about 500 lbs more than an IDI so a D60 might be better in that regard too.

Not sure about the SRW/DRW thing, I prefer SRW for simplicity but seems like a dually 350 might make sense for your use

[1] https://www.oilburners.net/threads/dana-60-turn-radius.91562/

 

[Bart F-350]

Hello A.
with a few things I can help you, maybe more if you give more specifics?
2wd-4wd steering, a 4wd needs to transfer the driving force through their front axes, therefore it cannot make as sharp turns as a 2wd, who doesn't need to 4wd front axle is much more complex as a 2wd.

srw-drw, depends what you are towing, for bumperpull srw is good. fifthwheels or goosenecks, drw might be better in order to be more stable, and a better powertransfer to the ground (less tirewear) and most of the time a higher allowable weight on the rearaxle compared to a srw.

But as I said, you can have these trucks in all colors and tastes, just depending on what you gonna do with it?

for example, only highway pulling; long frame, wide rear axle, while less agile (only straight roads).
but If you were to go pull somewhere where are a lot of small bendy roads, you might be better off with a short frame narrow (or normal) rear axle, so that's easier to handle.

 

[alfio]

I don't know much but have read on here the Dana 60 has a better turning radius than the Dana 50 ttb [1]
Looks like the DT360 weighs about 500 lbs more than an IDI so a D60 might be better in that regard too.

[1] https://www.oilburners.net/threads/dana-60-turn-radius.91562/

Thanks for that link, I'll keep that in mind.

A.

 

[alfio]

srw-drw, depends what you are towing, for bumperpull srw is good. fifthwheels or goosenecks, drw might be better in order to be more stable, and a better powertransfer to the ground (less tirewear) and most of the time a higher allowable weight on the rearaxle compared to a srw.

Agreed. Mostly pulling an equipment bumper pull trailer (trailer and machine about 9k). I've pulled the same trailer and machine with a 3/4 ton and had no issues but that was in ideal circumstances (dry, warm weather, etc) and not for long distance. Braking is one area that I'm wondering about in terms if DRW having an advantage. That's most important to me.

But as I said, you can have these trucks in all colors and tastes, just depending on what you gonna do with it?

for example, only highway pulling; long frame, wide rear axle, while less agile (only straight roads).
but If you were to go pull somewhere where are a lot of small bendy roads, you might be better off with a short frame narrow (or normal) rear axle, so that's easier to handle.

I'm definitely leaning towards shorter configuration. I'm coming from a 25 ft long F450 4x4 with a 75 ft turning radius. Not wanting to do that again. Extra cab Ford should be right at 20ft or so with an 8ft bed but I'm not sure of the turning radius yet (still digging).

A.

 

[IDIBRONCO]

I promise you that a 4X4 with a Dana 50 front end will not make turn anywhere close to that sharp. I may not need the whole 40 acres to turn mine around, but I like to have at least 39.5.

 

[Brian VT]

Extra cab Ford should be right at 20ft or so with an 8ft bed but I'm not sure of the turning radius yet (still digging).

Yup. Right @ 20ft. And the turning radius of a school bus. ;-)

 

[alfio]

Yup. Right @ 20ft. And the turning radius of a school bus. ;-)

Say it ain't so @Brian VT , say it ain't so! - no really, are they not 20ft?

A.

 

[Bart F-350]

Braking is one area that I'm wondering about in terms if DRW having an advantage. That's most important to me.
A.

well, you know, on a truck itself the main braking is done by the front axle, The rear axle also brakes, only slightly less, that's done so the rear brakes keep the ship on course,I.e. if the rear brakes start to block they make the rear of the truck do all kind of strange things, which you don't want.
certainly not if you have any kind of trailer attached! (does jackknifing ring a bell?)
And just for this reason it's very very important that the trailers brakes work well!, they should be able to brake hard (stop all the trailers weight in order not to "push" the truck all over the place.
And not too hard in order "to keep the ship on course", so jackknifing is out of order.)

Oh, and before I forget, Older trucks I.e. '77 and so they have a pre set amount of braking for the rear axle, which can be dangerous if you running with a empty bed and bad weather, (these have the tendency to blocking their brakes easy, and then slide and sliver all over the place.)

And then in about '89 Ford has the RABS, with which I have no experience, and later on I don't know what solution USA made trucks have for the rear axle, though I do know that in Europe all that time they made use of a proportional load sensing brake valve.
That is a valve connected to the rear axle, and the more you loaded the truck the deeper in the springs it came, and the valve was opened accordingly.
so: with the truck empty, the brake capacity was not so much, but still sufficient to make the truck not block the rear wheels when braking, and when fully laden the valve was opened, and the brakes had their full capacity.
If maintained well, a wonderfull system!

 

[KansasIDI]

My 86 has the load sensing rear brakes.

 

[Noiseydiesel]

My '86 standard cab has a decent tight turning radius.
The '87 extended cab is a joke.
The '94 CC Dually matches the Titanic for turning radius with a Dana 60

 

[u2slow]

The 250HD (8500+ gvwr) and 350 pickup frames are identical; srw or drw. The 350 C&C is stronger rearward from the cab. The F-Superduty is stronger throughout.

Be careful of the early 80's frames as many have large swiss cheese holes in them for weight savings.

Edit: turning radius is going to be affected to a degree by rear axle width, overall rear tire track width, and wheelbase. The dually pickup axle is 7-8" wider than the others...

 

[alfio]

The 250HD (8500+ gvwr) and 350 pickup frames are identical; srw or drw. The 350 C&C is stronger rearward from the cab. The F-Superduty is stronger throughout.

this is all for 1980-1991?

Be careful of the early 80's frames as many have large swiss cheese holes in them for weight savings.

Even F350s?

Edit: turning radius is going to be affected to a degree by rear axle width, overall rear tire track width, and wheelbase. The dually pickup axle is 7-8" wider than the others...

Right, I'm stuck between SRW and DRW because of this.

Thanks,
a.

 

[IDIBRONCO]

Right, I'm stuck between SRW and DRW because of this.

My opinion is that if you're going to be hauling a lot in the bed or if you're going to be towing heavy a lot, then go with a dually. Otherwise, it's more of a want than a need. You have two more tires that you have to worry about with a dually too. Of course if you come across a good deal on a dually, then I see no reason to not buy it.
My guess on the holes in the frame would be that maybe they're on F100s. There were half tons that were sold with a 3.8 V6 for a few years. Those may have them too. I don't know if they were F100s or F150s. Some, maybe the F100s, even had a smaller bolt pattern on the wheels than the standard 5x5.5 that the F150s had.

 

[KansasIDI]

My opinion is that if you're going to be hauling a lot in the bed or if you're going to be towing heavy a lot, then go with a dually. Otherwise, it's more of a want than a need. You have two more tires that you have to worry about with a dually too. Of course if you come across a good deal on a dually, then I see no reason to not buy it.
My guess on the holes in the frame would be that maybe they're on F100s. There were half tons that were sold with a 3.8 V6 for a few years. Those may have them too. I don't know if they were F100s or F150s. Some, maybe the F100s, even had a smaller bolt pattern on the wheels than the standard 5x5.5 that the F150s had.

No… 80 and pre 81.5 trucks, F100 through F350, have giant holes in the frame… beware… the frames on those trucks are subject to very easy damage, from bending and rust…