Hello and welcome to the latest round of Ask Doug.
Today’s email comes from a viewer I’ve named Vernon, which is a name we just don’t give to enough children anymore, and it’s about trucks. Vernon writes:
Hi Doug,
Can you explain why truck companies use both 150, 250 and 350 (1500, 2500 and 3500) classifications and tonnage? Where did these classifications come from, do they still mean anything, and what is more applicable these days?
Thanks,
Vernon
Excellent question, Vernon, and I’m happy to field this one, as I’m an expert on trucks. You can tell I’m an expert on trucks because I recently made a video with a Ford F-250 Super Duty wherein I referred to it as a “Ford F-150,” and where I described the towing capacity in terms of pachyderms. This is something only true experts do, so other true experts can identify them. See the trucks for sale near you
Anyway, the answer to this question is a bit convoluted, so you’ll have to bear with me here.
In the beginning of pickup trucks, basically all trucks were classified by their automakers in terms of payload capacity, which is the sum of all cargo (and passengers) in the truck’s cabin and its bed. Most trucks offered three payload capacities: a half-ton (1,000 pounds), three-quarters of a ton (1,500 pounds) and one full ton (2,000 pounds). I believe it was Ford who initially numbered its trucks, very simply, F-1, F-2 and F-3, to delineate a half-ton truck, a three-quarter ton truck and a one-ton truck, respectively. This eventually changed to F-100 (for a 1,000-pound payload capacity), F-150 (for a 1,500-pound capacity) and F-250 (for a 2,500-pound capacity). In that case, you didn’t have to remember that “F-3” meant “2,000 pounds” — you just looked at the truck’s badge and you instantly had the payload capacity.
Obviously, Chrysler and General Motors did this, too: Chevy truck models, for instance, were offered as either the C- or K-10, 20 or 30, with “10” standing for a half-ton, “20” for a three-quarter ton and “30” for a one ton (later changed to C or K1500, 2500, etc.). By the way, here’s a fun fact that’s been mostly lost to time: With Chevy models that used the “C” and “K” designations, you can easily tell whether it’s 2- or 4-wheel drive with a quick glance at the badge. “C” models are 2-wheel drive, while “K” models have 4-wheel drive.
Anyway, what eventually happened is that payload capacities started increasing. The first to go was half-ton trucks: the “100” or “10” series pickups with a 1,000-pound payload capacity weren’t very popular, since two large adults inside the cab quickly stole half the payload capacity for the entire truck. But then payload capacities increased more, and the truck manufacturers did something interesting: They didn’t change the names to reflect the increased capacity.
Presumably, this decision was made because consumers were already familiar with the names truck manufacturers had been using for years; if the F-150 was now called the F-240 and the F-250 was now called the F-320, it would start to get pretty confusing. So even though payload capacities have evolved well beyond three-quarters of a ton and one full ton, the names have stuck — and that’s why you have the F-150, the RAM 1500 and the Chevy Silverado 1500 using names that suggest a 1,500-pound payload capacity, even though (using an example) the F-150’s payload capacity goes all the way up to 2,300 pounds. It’s the same with heavy-duty trucks: The Silverado 2500, for instance, has a maximum payload capacity of 3,600 pounds, despite its name.
In other words: These days, those numbers help you delineate “light-duty” (1500-level trucks) from “heavy-duty” (2500- and 3500-level trucks), but they offer no real insight into exactly how much weight any of these trucks can pull.
The funny thing, to me, is that car companies once used numbers to identify engine output — a BMW 318, for instance, was a 3 Series with a 1.8-liter engine, while a 525 was a 5 Series with a 2.5-liter engine. But as engines have gotten smaller with turbocharging, automakers have gone full speed ahead by increasing their numbers in an effort to make their vehicles seem more powerful than the competition. But despite this escalation in the car world, the truck world avoided it — and all pickups now carry basically the same numerical designation, even though the numbers they refer to haven’t been relevant in decades. Find a truck for sale
Doug DeMuro is an automotive journalist who has written for many online and magazine publications. He once owned a Nissan Cube and a Ferrari 360 Modena. At the same time.
That is not correct that the first number is the capacity in pounds. It is class 1,2,3. It goes on like class 4-8 medium trucks. Google truck clad ratings for more info.
This used to be taught in drivers education. Although none of the big 3’s half ton are class one any longer. That designation goes to the ranger/ colorado.
I would add, Doug, that BMW was actually comparing the power of its new line of turbocharged engines to its own naturally aspirated history. The 2012 328 I-4 turbo actually made more power (10hp) and definitely more torque (55hp) than the previous year’s I-6. It seems to me that it was an effort to keep the designations consistent with the power consumers were to expect when displacement became less relevant with the advent of forced induction, not really an effort to 1-Up the competition.
Some trivia. Older australian vehicles were rated in CWT which signified hundredweight in pounds.
C is the latin for hundred you see.It’s simple when it’s explained but no one explained it to me so i went a good chunk of my life before i realized ,lol
Doug, don’t forget that just like C (2WD) and K (4WD) was for GMC, Dodge had just as easy a way to tell 2WD or 4WD for their trucks. 2WD was R and 4WD was W.
A 1500 having the payload capacity of 2,300 lbs makes sense though. If you have four 200 lb people in the truck, you can still hold a half ton in the bed. It makes it easy to judge how much weight you can carry even at full passenger capacity.
Originally the increase of half tons to 1500 pounds was to avoid certain emission requirements. This explains how the F100 became the F150 but the F250 and 350 stayed the same. If I am correct this was in the late 70’s. Up until the mid 80’s the emission requirements were easier thereby cheaper to comply with for the manufacturers. Eventually, the EPA closed that loop hole and the new trucks are as jammed packed with electronic wizardry as the econo-boxes.
Then you have the Mazda B series, where the number actually referred to the engine size in CC’s. B2300 = 2.3 liter, B3000 = 3.0 liter, etc.
It is way better that the payload is not part of the model. It is so dependent on the options that it would be a nightmare. For example the payload of an F-350 could be anywhere from 3000ish to over 7000 depending on engine, cab, trim, etc…
Also, in the larger (250, 2500, 350 and 3500) trucks they are not payload limited by the abilities of the truck, but more the manufacturers desire to stay under specific GVWRs for licensing purposes.
I can see why a F-300ish would be problematic.
Good job, throwing in the jab at ze Germans, who pointlessly keep increasing the numbers on their cars. How the 335 became the 340, and the 328, the 330… I have no idea. It’s very silly to me. MB seems to be the biggest offender. The S class didn’t have to go up in number, yet we have the S560 because more number is more better.
To your last point, It is funny that the trucks could have kept using the numbers and just increased them and not had to worry about the fate that the cars came too with the engines getting smaller. The payload of the trucks would only increase.