Hi Glyphguy,

Your math looks good to me. You have discovered the "hole" when you want to tow up to max rated towing capacity, but also your van will not be completely empty. There are actually a couple of other factors that could be "stoppers" which would be rear axle weight rating and front axle weight rating (probably can't get a good feel for those until you have the van).

I ran into this exact same thing with both of my previous E-Series (a 250 and a 350).

I also have the same situation with the Transit. If I order a T-350, I'll have around 12,600# gross combined. BUT, I want to make a campervan. Many people are up around 9,000 GVWR once they camperize (so around 500# under GVWR). But then say they wanted to tow 6,000# (within the supposed tow rating). Well 9,000# + 6,000# is 15,000#. Not really going to work with a 12,600# GCWR. So for me, if I get a T-350 and camperize it, I will have to be VERY careful to keep it under around 8,000# or so (depending on my tow load).

There is one thing I'm interested in for the 2023. I see they have a new body code, which is a SRW "heavy duty" T-350. Previously, the "heavy duty" was only DRW (which I'm not interested in). The catch is they have not published the 2023 tow specs yet, so we don't know if that only increases GVWR, or if it increases GCWR (and if so by how much). IIRC, the current HD DRW's gain around 500# GCWR.

Might be of interest to you too? The only place I've found the GCWR is in the left-hand column of the Ford Towing Guide, Transit section. But I haven't seen the 2023 Towing Guide out yet. And of course the "heavy duty" SRW does not exist until 2023. (They are body codes F5X and F6X for the HR; other F codes for other roof heights. (9,950# GVWR but no info yet that I have found on the GCWR)

Good on you for doing the math in advance

 

I saw that (HD SRW) in the order guide but it didn't register. I also have no interest in a DRW setup. But you are correct, perhaps this does "bump up" the GCWV rating, which would be awesome. I don't need much (for my use) but even a 500# increase would be huge, and it might allow a little more of a "build" in the interior. (GREAT find, btw!). I will query the sales guy I am working with on this, and report back.

 

GCWR is listed in the owners manual. The owners manual (for 2022 at least) states the 11k GVWR can also gets the 15k GCWR like the cutaways. I did look up P/N and the 11k variants have a different transmission cooler than the lower GVWR variants.

 

GCWR is listed in the owners manual.

Have you seen the owners manual for the 2023's? I'm super curious if that added weight in the GVWR of the new SRW HD is going to carry into the GCWR (otherwise it's not of much use to me since I can't even get anywhere near the existing GVWR and still tow due to the darned GCWR).

The owners manual (for 2022 at least) states the 11k GVWR can also gets the 15k GCWR like the cutaways. I did look up P/N and the 11k variants have a different transmission cooler than the lower GVWR variants.

I don't see where any "normal van body" vans go over 13,000# GVWR (see chart from 2022 Transit Towing Guide below). Where are you finding that?

I sure wish we could get over 13,000 GCWR on the "normal bodied" vans vs. only the cutaway or chassis cab, darnit! (And even then the 13,000# GCWR is only on DRW.)

I doubt the new HD GCWR would be more than 13,000# though. Still curious to see though and even getting 13,000# GCRW on a SRW would be an improvement.

 

Looks good to me.

If I was buying my 350 transit again, I would definitely order the higher gvwr srw 350 Ford offers for 2023.

 

I'm with you, @Glyphguy No interest in DRW, but would love to see the SRW GCWR pumped up. As you say, even 500# or so would be nice. For now just hoping that "tracks" with the added GVWR but I don't see any way to know until the 2023 Towing Guide comes out (for 2022 that came out before the Owner's Manuals, IIRC).

Since I've never paid close attention to the Transit DRW (knowing I wouldn't order one), I don't know what if any "heavy duty" parts it got (over and above the DRW itself) that might get applied to the new HD SRW "van body" van.

Sure would be nice to get something like a larger transmission cooler, larger brakes, or other goodies.

 

Rear SRW GAWR is probably more of a concern for any van with a camper buildout that’s towing. As are the tire’s load capacity. That 6,000lb limit isn’t too hard to reach. I think I’m going to be very close to it on my camper build, without towing anything.

Ultimately it depends on if you want to follow the printed GVWR and GCWR. If you don’t care about it, so long as your measured front and rear axle weights are lower than the GAWR and tire load ratings, functionally you’re likely fine, whether you have a 250/350/350HD SRW. (AND if you beef up the rear suspension with extra leaf springs and/or airbags or sumos).

Also looking at that chart, it’s possible you could get a functional GCWR boost of 1,000 lbs + if you upgrade an ecoboost from 3.73 gears to 4.10 gears.

Worth noting that running 245/75r16 tires with a 3.73 gearing Would essentially drop your gearing to 3.31, and lower your GCWR/towing capacity by 1,400 lbs.Yikes. I don’t ever really tow, but if I did I’d seriously considering changing my rear gearing.

As a disclaimer, this is my opinion, and not legal advice, do so at your own risk.

 

Rear SRW GAWR is probably more of a concern for any van with a camper buildout that’s towing. As are the tire’s load capacity. That 6,000lb limit isn’t too hard to reach. I think I’m going to be very close to it on my camper build, without towing anything.

So 6,000# is the GAWR-R for the SRW AWD 148" wheelbase van? Am I right in assuming you got the T-350? If so, thanks for that as I hadn't seen that spec anywhere. Do you know what your "empty" rear-axle weight was when the van was new?

You saying you are very close to it on just your build makes me a little nervous. Although since you have an EL van you have more "leverage" back there inside your van with quite a bit more internal volume aft of the axle. I would get a 148" non-extended.

As an interesting comparison, I looked up my old E-250 SRW campervan (17-foot van so not much van behind the axle) and that had a 5,100# rear-axle weight rating on a 13,000# GCWR. Converted and loaded for bear the van alone weighed about 7,500#. The camper van buid was done commercially with 3/4" sheet goods so was not particularly light. Interesting to compare though looking back now. Rear-axle weight limited me to about 350# -400# of trailer tongue weight but that was with full-build/full load (scale weights). So maybe with a non-EL Transit I'd be okay. Dang, sounds close though. Of course it depends on what the empty van rear-axle weight is on the T-350.

(My E-350 is a dually, so not really comparable. The stopper is still the rear-axle weight though. Although the GCWR is the opposite and is so huge I could never get anywhere near it without going over the rear-axle weight rating by quite a bit.)

 

FWIW... if you search, "towing," there are multiple people reporting towing 6,000 and 7,000 pounds - but not posting the total weight between the two. Seems to me like what @ArgonautVans suggests above: depends how you feel about the printed limits.

Probably want to beef up the rear suspension a bit, add a sway bar, and keep an eye on the axle loads if you go that route. Oh... and possibly a transmission cooler.

 

Probably want to ... and possibly a transmission cooler.

I wish I could figure out the transmission cooler thing on the Transit Ecoboost. On my E-350 with V-10, it was the easiest thing in the world to replace the relatively small stock cooler with a ginormous Tru-Cool that keep my transmission cool as a cucumber even when towing up mountains in over 100ºF. I actually like looking over at the Scangauge now.

But so I read 2-3 threads on cooling the transmission on the Transit/Ecoboost (pages), and I still don't feel like I understand what to do (or even why it's so complicated). That's making me much more nervous than the weight ratings.

@ArgonautVans GAWR-R is the very first limit I hit on both my E-350 and E-250. Luckily I can stay under it with a full build + 5,000# trailer on both of them. I had figured I'd need to keep a build more minimal on the Transit to stay under GCWR (yes, I try to stick to those). But from what you are saying even then I might hit the GAWR-R first? Geez, no wonder they are still selling the Chevy van with the million year old design.

@Glyphguy Obviously a new Rubicon is needed for safe towing 😈

 

As an anecdotal report, I did tow a twin axle U-Haul trailer across the country last summer. I’m guessing I had about 4,000 lbs trailer weight, and another 3,500 lbs of cargo, people, and dogs in the van? Would put me right about 13,000 lbs. guesstimates at least since we never weight the rig, could have closer to 12,600lbs, which is the GCWR for my HR SRW AWD EL Ecoboost van. Completed the trip beautifully, and we were going 65-70 the whole way. I did have a VC lift, with upgraded falcon rear shocks, red front springs, and an extra mini leaf spring back added to the rear.

When my build is done I’m guessing it’ll be close to 9,500lbs wet. I probably won’t ever tow more than 3,000 lbs unless it’s for very short distances (I.e. a boat from campsite or rental place to the boat ramp and back). Guess I need to buy a jet-ski

 

Not to sidetrack my own thread, but one of my problems is my Jeep is ungodly heavy. Winch (100 pounds), hard core bolted to the frame rock rails (150 pounds), 35's, full armor, steel security enclosure in the back, 2 side-saddle fender racks for gas cans, etc. Plus all of the crap I carry--tools, a CO2 tank, recovery boards, recovery gear, Hi-Lift jack, small field hospital, etc.

Meaning I could buy a new Rubicon, put a few very select mods on it, and save lotsa weight.

 

@Vanaroo--unfortunately, the 392 is HEAVY...

Just chatted with my sales guy. He doesn't have any access to anyone at Ford to ask about the possible GCVW rating on the new SRW HD van--his thinking is that the number won't be available until Ford publishes the 2023 tow guide. I wonder if @CrewVanMan has any ability to do that?

 

@Vanaroo--unfortunately, the 392 is HEAVY...

What is the 392? (Sorry if I'm missing something obvious.)

It's weird how the GCWR seems to only be in the Towing Guide (or the Owner's Manual which comes even later).

 

(fully clothed)

Good call. I do enjoy the fresh air, however, I'm tired of getting arrested at the gas station.

 

From the 2023 Fleet Preview Guide:

350HD SRW - New derivative on Van and CC/CA

• 9,950 lbs GVWR (9,900 lbs for Canada) with 6300 lbs rear GAWR

Note... No mention of available GCWR for that variant.

 

Well, this gives us the new rear-axle weight rating anyway. Thanks! Up 300# going by figures up-thread that give the current T-350 as 6,000#

It's somewhat hard to imagine the GCWR won't go up a little, but then it's also hard to imagine that they only publish it in documents that come out later on when you can order now ..... yet that's seemingly true (Towing Guide and Owner's Manual).

Sounds like a no-brainer for someone like me though, were I to order a 2023.

I think you need to also include the tongue weight as part of the load on the van.

Since there is no mention of a trailer, I think he's going to be towing the Jeep four-down. In that case there basically is no tongue weight (the Jeep rides on its own four wheels and you just have a tow bar to the van). Then the focus really becomes GCWR. (I tow a car sometimes; regular trailers at other times.)

 

My wife and I weigh a total of 360 (fully clothed) so that gives me 960 pound to play with and be under the GCWV max (as I am with capacity on towing and van cargo).

Is my thinking correct? (And thanks.)

I think you need to also include the tongue weight as part of the load on the van.

 

I’ll be very curious what exactly changes with the 350 HD SRW. Just beefed up suspension? Or different axle/hubs and other things

 

Me too! If it's only suspension (not that that's nothing), it would tell us something about the strength of the other components in the existing T-350's. OTOH, I would be thrilled if it were more comprehensive: Brakes, and other goodies. OTOOH, if it were that much more comprehensive, you'd expect more than a 300# rear-axle/450# GVWR change, wouldn't you (?)

 

Aha, so what you are saying is that now - whether or not there be other limiting components - Ford is rating the rear axle right up to the max load rating of the tires. Makes sense (also then obvious why that rating can be upped on a dually).

This might still not matter purely for GCWR, where someone like the OP or me is not up against GVWR or RAWR; but is instead hitting the limit quite a bit sooner on the GCWR. Of course we don't know yet if that will be upped or not...

 

Aha, so what you are saying is that now - whether or not there be other limiting components - Ford is rating the rear axle right up to the max load rating of the tires. Makes sense (also then obvious why that rating can be upped on a dually).

Unless Ford are introducing a new tire size not communicated (revealed) yet.

Recall that 235/65R16C was all new tire with Transit.

 

I am not an expert on towing, but have spent quite a bit of time looking at the ratings and a trailer that I wanted to pull. (for both sprinter and transit)

There is a hint to all of this in the way that the crew version is configured - basically as soon as you go to a crew extended HR, it is always DRW, IIRC.

This is an indication that keeping it all SRW is a delicate balance.

The reason that the cab only version can do more, even with the 159 WB is that it is built more like a pickup truck with a real frame vs unibody. An Ford engineer that I know (a little) told me that they have seen customers overload the tow rating of unibody based SUVs and literally stretch them longer than originally built.

The drive train might be capable, but the body isn't necessarily capable, so I kind of doubt that this tow rating upgrade is going to happen unless Ford does something to reinforce the frame.

_

I have been kicking around ideas for reducing the build weight and moving things from the vehicle to the trailer, for example:

• No water system - use cases of large water bottles like the 3 - 4 liter size. This way it can be moved back and forth from trailer to vehicle as needed.
• Sleep in a tent vs a having all of the beds inside
• Minimize the number of fuel types
• 8020 framed items with a skin vs wood framed
• Use the tow vehicle for carrying items when possible
• As few windows as possible
• Possibly dual axle trailer vs single axle to deal with tongue weight - still looking at this aspect
• Aluminum frame trailer
• Holding off on purchasing water until closer to the destination

 

An Ford engineer that I know (a little) told me that they have seen customers overload the tow rating of unibody based SUVs and literally stretch them longer than originally built.

Cool. I could use a few more inches in the length of my van and have some height to spare. Just would not want to reduce the width any and would prefer to have the extra length between the wheels. I suppose the devil is in the details.

 

I gave the Ford Customer Relations line a call to see if I could find any more info on the GCWR for the new 2023 HD SRW. The fellow put me on hold and went to check (and he did seem to understand exactly what I was after so that was nice). Unfortunately, he said there was no way to get that information prior to the 2023 Towing Guide or 2023 Owner's Manual being released. I did give the feedback that I think that's not really acceptable when you can already be ordering one of these vans (or might, if you knew what the ratings would be!). Does Ford really not know this until the last minute? Maybe so.

@harryn
Very good point on the cutaways and chassis cabs still being body on frame. That "little" detail had slipped right past me! That's a huge difference to the van-body vans being unibody.

That probably explains why, above, @carringb was able to find much higher GCRW's on the CC/Cutaway than I could find in the Ford Towing Guide for any of the van-body vans.

Although the DRW unibody "van-body van" does have a slightly higher GCWR (I guess due to tires); it's only around 500# more, and nowhere near the GCWR for the chassis cab/cutaways.

 

^^ to that point, besides the bigger wheel wells, is anything really different in the unibody design of the DRW vs SRW vans? Or how the shocks mount to the body for either? As far as I know not really…

If not, then that promotes the idea that the SRW GVWR and GCWR ratings have wiggle room to increase to the limits up to the DRW GVWR, with the limiting factors being again, the tires and suspension setup/springs. The Transit towing guide indicates that a T-350 DRW and SRW both have a GCWR of 13,000 lbs? And then chassis cab bumps that up to 15,000lbs, with the same engine and gearing. So the GCWR is likely limited by the unibody strength on non-cutaway vans, so it probably won’t change.

@CrewVanManInfo any possibility you can look through your channels to see if you can get a 2023 towing guide?

 

The Transit towing guide indicates that a T-350 DRW and SRW both have a GCWR of 13,000 lbs? And then chassis cab bumps that up to 15,000lbs, with the same engine and gearing. So the GCWR is likely limited by the unibody strength on non-cutaway vans, so it probably won’t change.

I agree with your basic premise, so this is just a detail mention, but right now (2022 Towing Guide) the T-350 SRW only gets to a GCWR of 12,600# maximum, whereas the DRW gets a 13,000# GCWR.

Seems like that's likely related to tire ratings on the DRW vs. the SRW. Like you I wonder what else there might be, but then again, 400# is not that much.

Really looking forward to seeing that 2023 Towing Guide with the SRW HD's GCWR...

 

Oop I don’t know how I missed that in the towing guide, you’re right. 400lbs isn’t much though, guess we’ll see. Maybe it will bump up to 13k even with the SRW HD

 

Just thinking some more about the "unibody would stretch or be negatively affected so that's why the GCWR is low" concept (which I'm not knocking, after all the limits have to come from somewhere).

That still doesn't totally explain the lower GCWR. Because the tow rating is between 6,300#-6,500# for the best rated SRW van-body van. So that seems to say you can tow that much without "stretching" the unibody. OK, fair enough. Your van would be basically empty (say 6,000#) and your trailer would be around 6,500#, and you'd be right at the GCWR. No unibodies would be stretching (you would assume).

BUT, if you have the van loaded to, say, 8,500# GVW (well under the 9,500# GVWR), you can only tow about 4,100# before you bump into the GCWR. I don't see that the weight inside the van is likely to "stretch" it at 1,000# UNDER the GVWR, and yet you are still only able to tow a load that is still 2,400# BELOW the max tow rating.

Now I do understand that towing weight is always related to what you are carrying in the van. So there is always some "adding and subtracting" and I wouldn't expect to be able to tow up to full tow rating with a fully loaded van. No way. But the point about the unibody being the weak point (and I'm not saying it isn't), doesn't exactly follow -- in my mind -- with the scenario I listed above. It still seems the GCWR is overly penalized compared to the other ratings.

It's funny because in my previous Ford vans, the GCWR was huge, and there was basically no way you could reach it without bumping into some other rating first (unless your van was completely bare and empty). But that kind of made sense because you would bump up against some actual mechanical rating first (rear axle, etc.) Bumping up against the GCWR first just seems so random.

 

Again - I am not an expert on towing and all of the interesting challenges that can come up, but it is fun and useful to think about.

On an extended 148 WB, there is quite a lever from the hitch to the rear axle. As the trailer weight increases, the tongue weight also goes up - so at least in theory, the weight on the front wheels decreases. On an EXT, this would happen even more. Not sure if this is a factor, but it might be.

The pickup side of the equation has some quirks as well. When I looked at some of the 3500s vs 4500s (or similar), one was more optimized for towing and the other for carrying weight in the bed. Sometimes the difference in physical configuration was not completely obvious.

Life would be easier if the DOT limitations would kick in at 15 - 20,000 lbs instead of 10K lbs. It really limits what is possible and more or less puts a big kink in the entire use case of the electric pick up truck.

 

Up through at least 2020 Ford use different axle ratings for SRW and DRW.

SRW axle was rated up to 6,000 pounds, and DRW at 7,275 pounds. Obviously DRW axle is also narrower.

Rear GAWR are different between SRW cargo van and Cutaway also.

In any case, it appears 6,300 pounds with SRW will require new heavier-duty axle, or perhaps re-rating axle from 6,000 to 6,300 pounds. I’d expect new or upgraded rear axle.

 

The Transit Cutaway / Cab-chassis isn't quite body-on-frame.

The foundation for Transit cutaway and chassis cab variants is an innovative uni-ladder structure that combines the cab with a durable girder frame. The fully welded platform underpins 100 percent of the cab area, with frame rails reaching from the front to the rear bumper mounts.
Extensive use of high-strength steel in the frame, delivering up to 50,700 psi of rigidity, helps shoulder heavy loads while high-strength boron steel in the cab structure helps improve safety.

All-New Ford Transit Chassis Cab and Cutaway Versions Join Widest Range of Commercial Chassis Offerings | Automotive World

 

This has been a fantastic discussion, and I am learning a lot. It will indeed be interesting to see what the SRW GCVW rating is.

 

I believe it may affect safety and emissions requirements as well.

 

The only thing with that is (and I'm not saying I doubt it), why does the GCWR have to be so "oddly" low then? I mean, you could have a 9,999# GVWR and a 14,000# GCWR with no penalty as far as I know (?). That would seem more balanced to me.

You can already "pull" ~6,500# according to ratings, so we know it's not about stretching out the unibody.

But the way it stands now, with the seemingly relatively low GCWR, you can have the van well below GVWR, and the rear axle sitting well below its weight rating -- and still not be able to tow anywhere near the tow rating because you hit the GCWR.

With my other Ford vans, when towing you would definitely hit ratings, but they would be more even. Or you would hit something clearly obvious first, like the rear axle weight rating (I say obvious because it applies to a distinct mechanical unit). The GCWR is more an aggregation as opposed to applying to a distinct unit, and I just haven't seen that hit so soon in other vehicles (when the other ratings are so far below their limits).

Maybe there is a penalty for having a GCWR over 12,600# with SRW?

 

Great questions, of course. Isn't there someone on here who's posted that they're towing a big Airstream or something like that? IOW - safety and reliability aside - it's being done?

 

The more I think about it, the more I think maybe it's about the cooling system and transmission heat management just can't take more than pulling about 12,600#.

There are a couple things that slightly contradict this though: One is that the DRW gets a GCWR of 13,000#. Two is that the chassis cab and cutaway get even higher GCWR. Now maybe those do have bigger cooling systems (and if so, I want to know how to add those to my future van-body van!)

But OTOH, the 150 and 250 with the same engine/axle combo DO get the same GCWR as the 350. So that makes me think cooling again.

If it's not cooling then I'm back to not quite understanding why the GCWR is so limited compared to GVWR and RAWR.

 

The more I think about it, the more I think maybe it's about the cooling system and transmission heat management just can't take more than pulling about 12,600#.
...

I suspect you may be right. Leads back to asking how to improve the cooling on both the engine and trans... gotta be a way. And it's gotta be better for the trans even without towing. 🤔

I've always purchased upgraded trans cooling - usually available on order with towing package - but I don't think that was an option on the Transit, IIRC. 🤔

 

The low GCWR is because of cooling. The Wagon have an even lower GCWR because the rear A/C adds more heat load to the system. Cargo vans with rear A/C don't have to be tested with the option as long as the option doesn't have "higher than 33 percent penetration".

The 11k vans/cutaways/cab-chassis have a completely different (style and size) transmission cooler, and this appears to be the only poweretrain component that isn't identical to the lower GVWR variants.

J2807 compliance means the tow vehicle must accelerate to 30 mph in under 12 s, and accelerate to 60 mph in under 30 s. Roll-on acceleration 40 to 60 mph on a level surface must be accomplished in under 18 s. Vehicles with dual rear wheels are permitted extra time to complete this test. For the climb test that replicates Davis Dam, tow vehicles must sustain a minimum 40 mph with their A/C on its highest setting. “Duallies” again have a lesser (35 mph) minimum-speed bogie.
The J2807 launch test replicates a 12% grade, and requires the tow vehicle to move 16 ft (4.9 m) uphill, from a standstill, five times within five minutes in both forward and reverse.

I suspect Ford may have also certified the 11k GVWR using optional dually test metrics which they didn't appear to use for the other dually Transits.. Those metrics on their own will result in a higher rating.

Since the Sprinter has been mentioned... it's important to note that the Sprinter is not SAE J2807 certified. With only 188 hp, I suspect it might struggle to meet the Davis Dam tests even without a trailer.

 

The low GCWR is because of cooling.

Thank you! We suspected but it's good to have confirmaton.

The 11k vans/cutaways/cab-chassis have a completely different (style and size) transmission cooler, and this appears to be the only poweretrain component that isn't identical to the lower GVWR variants.

Okay, NOW you have my attention 200%. Do you think there is any way to add those parts to a SRW T-350 Ecoboost cargo van? Or maybe to put it another way, do you see any reason one couldn't?

Do you know how they accomplish this?

Edited to add: I'm not necessarily trying to "beat" the GCWR; but I'm concerned with heat even at that weight because I tow in hot weather.

By the way, it was on your recommendation years ago that I added a big ol' Tru Cool transmission cooler to my E-350, and that has worked a treat. Towing up a mountain pass in 100º heat? Transmission cool as a cucumber. Ahhh. But I have been struggling trying to understand how to add transmission (or engine) cooling capacity to the Transit. All I have figured out for sure at this point (after reading numerous long threads) is that for some reason it's not straighforward. I don't even understand why, much less know how to upgrade it.

If there were a Ford solution already.... that would be sweet. (Or any other one really.)

Thanks @carringb