Ford F554, the replacement for the H1 is here.

[Rot Box]

I'll bet the gear reduction hubs take a LOT of stress off of the axle shafts, ring/pinion and u-joints... That said the ball joint and wheel bearing strength would concern me. The wheel offset with the weight of the diesel, large tires and a big bumper/winch etc really add up compared to a factory issued pickup. Are they a weak point? I guess it depends on how hard you hammer on the thing--I'd LOVE to find out! Given the already impressive list of options I'm surprised they didn't opt for a D70 from a medium duty truck.

Cool truck looks like a real workhorse

 

[charlieaarons]

Given the already impressive list of options I'm surprised they didn't opt for a D70 from a medium duty truck.
:

It has a Dana 80 in the front. I think that is stronger than a Dana 70? Especially with the all-important planetary hubs.

Charlie

 

[dieselcruiserhead]

I had a '99 to '02 Ford diesel and it was one of the best vehicles I've ever owned and that completely converted my opinions of Ford. Also note that I usually prefer 4 and 6 cyl including Cummins, over 8 cylinder though that Ford does look good. My only criticism with the late model fords are mostly related to all of the annoying chimes and whistles for example if you have a short in your trailer wiring that affects almost nothing, it is relentless.

Good looking vehicle for sure. That price tag is a little surprising but there is no doubt that it would shine. My advice though would be to only utilize the vehicle for something that warranted that payload such as a camper. Otherwise I would gladly prefer a 250 or 350 with similar wheels and even at significant weight it would still be an advantage.

 

[RVR2RSQ]

Wonder what if any impact there is to the MPG on this rig. I have heard the new 6.7 engine is getting Earthroamers in the 12.3 MPG range. They are pretty much loaded to within a couple thousand of gross.

I always thought the Earthroamer could use CTIS as well, maybe this is an option, would still want the air suspension as well for convenience in glamping though.

Interesting....Dont have the money for either, but nice to put in the dream box.

Brian

 

[warrpath4x4]

*edit* sorry larry already covered what i was going to say if i would have kept reading

 

[Liventre]

I am the axle engineer for the project, so these are excellent questions and need to be addressed.

The weakest part of the front axle is the inner 35 spline shaft, its only 1.5" 1510 heat treated steel, from Ford. The outer stub shaft is 1 7/8" chrome moly double induction hardened shafts. I know for maintenance purposes the outer shaft should be smaller and weaker. For 2 reasons we made it bigger, first if the outer shaft breaks it may damage the gear sets and that is expensive, second the whole project was to keep as Many consumable Ford parts as possible so in Minot SD you can get consumable service parts. Can the inner axle shaft be upgraded to chrome moly? You can pick any of 5 companies if you think you need it. With the 2-1 reduction at the hubs you dont need to. All the torque and HP are absorbed at the hub resulting in 50% less stress on the other drive train. The only way to hurt the front axle is to run the Front hubs out of oil, then the bearings will cook in a few thousand miles. (Side note we pack the hubs with grease to help insure them) The factory rated weight capacity on the planetary hubs is 25,000 pounds per set. Mounted to a 12,000 pound rated front and a 15,000 pound rated rear axle, the hubs exceed the capacity of the truck. Which leaves the only concern to be weight bearing. The knuckles are cast steel not cast iron and the bottom ball joint is a ford item and the top ball joint is a custom Chrome moly unit. (which can be replaced by the stock ford ball joint in an emergency) These ball joints and knuckles survived the military test jumping 23,800 pounds over an 18" jump dozens of times with no problems. If we do find a customer that can exceed the capacity of the upper ball joint we already have room to machine the hole bigger for the bottom ball joint to be mounted in the top too... (Same size ball joint as the TAC 4 suspension from Oshkosh FYI)

The rear axle has no weak points, the hubs share oil with the differential, the rear axle shafts are 1 7/8" double induction hardened and straightened 4340 Chrome moly steel.

I'll bet the gear reduction hubs take a LOT of stress off of the axle shafts, ring/pinion and u-joints... That said the ball joint and wheel bearing strength would concern me. The wheel offset with the weight of the diesel, large tires and a big bumper/winch etc really add up compared to a factory issued pickup. Are they a weak point? I guess it depends on how hard you hammer on the thing--I'd LOVE to find out! Given the already impressive list of options I'm surprised they didn't opt for a D70 from a medium duty truck.

Cool truck looks like a real workhorse

 

[Liventre]

MPG: loaded to 23,800 pounds it got an average of 9 MPG over 5500 miles (Mostly off road) Currently the rear and front diff have 3:73 gears in them or IE a 7:46 ratio and the military test truck had 365 80 R 20 tires (44x14 inches wide). The good news: Dana Holdings is cutting us a 3:31 reverse gear set for the Dana 130, we can already get 3:31 for the Dana 80 off the shelf now. So now with 3:31 and 2 to 1 reduction we are at 6:62 ratio and with our standard 335 80 R 20 tire (41x12.5") the speedometer will not even need adjusted. It will match the 4:88 and 32" stock tires within 2 MPH at 100 MPH accuracy. This should also bring our gas mileage back to the 12-14 range (highway). Furthermore, by next spring our planetary hub manufacturer will offer a manual lockout for the front hubs, I firmly believe we will get back to the 14-16 range at that point. My 4 door Ford dually truck had straight 4 in exhaust, Edge power chip set to economy, and the biggest air filter I could find, and got 28 MPG highway (trying hard) and 22 MPG driving normally empty. So with power chips, exhaust and custom intake, who knows how much we will get then?

Wonder what if any impact there is to the MPG on this rig. I have heard the new 6.7 engine is getting Earthroamers in the 12.3 MPG range. They are pretty much loaded to within a couple thousand of gross.

I always thought the Earthroamer could use CTIS as well, maybe this is an option, would still want the air suspension as well for convenience in glamping though.

Interesting....Dont have the money for either, but nice to put in the dream box.

Brian

 

[Erik N]

Now for something like a oil exploration truck for fracking out in remote areas, I can see the market. But it'll be a small market.

Another market will be Texans who need to drive the most absolutely huge vehicle they can. Preferably with a Realtree camo wrap on it, and 800 pound bumpers.

 

[Liventre]

Houston Outdoor upfitters show, Next month

 

[Liventre]

Nice Call Erik N!

Custom Buckstops on the way...

Another market will be Texans who need to drive the most absolutely huge vehicle they can. Preferably with a Realtree camo wrap on it, and 800 pound bumpers.

 

[Clutch]

Why not just do a F650/750 with a 4WD conversion?

At least you get a Cummins, and manual transmission option.

Think would be identical in price, maybe a tad cheaper, and a heavier duty truck.

 

[762X39]

The problem with a 650/750 4X4 conversion is poor ground clearance compared to a portal axle conversion (as I see it). Also the lack of CTIS.

 

[Liventre]

F650trucks.com is sending a truck to be up fitted in August with these Axles and CTIS... Hopefully with No lift...

F650,s are too tall and big to just drive around town, Cost is higher for the 650 with 4x4 and super singles.

The focus on the project was not just higher weight rating, it was to get CTIS and Planetary reduction axles into the industrial/commercial/private market places.

 

[skysix]

no mention of re-gearing the axles to match the 44 inch tall tires

"planetary" hubs... why not portals?

 

[Clutch]

Actually Kermit,

The axles are the big "hoopla" here and would be GREAT under a F650 or F750. My guess is that "their" client was trying to make a scaled down version rig with a similar weight capacity as a class 6-7.

Sadly this is a concept that has been tried several times over the last couple of years. Mostly to try fill the gaps in DOD vehicle programs, and to date have failed miserably. Maybe this will be the "silver-bullet"? Seeing is how A LOT of "protection" is being jobbed-out to private contractors.:coffeedrink:

So instead of "black-opts", think of "blue oval opts"... But at a dealership level.

Ahhh...I see said the blind man...

Seems like a MXT would be better for the application then? Is it still in production?

F650trucks.com is sending a truck to be up fitted in August with these Axles and CTIS... Hopefully with No lift...

Cool!

F650,s are too tall and big to just drive around town, Cost is higher for the 650 with 4x4 and super singles.

Shoot, you better not let the flatbed F650 tow-truck drivers know that. :ylsmoke: We had a Chevy C65 dump, while not 4WD...it wasn't that hard to navigate around
town and that was back in PA. Where things get tight real quick.

Oh, at the price-point does it really matter(?)...mere chicken scratch.

The focus on the project was not just higher weight rating, it was to get CTIS and Planetary reduction axles into the industrial/commercial/private market places.

I see now, thanks.