George, you did see the torsion rigidity comparison test right?
The new Ford aluminum frame twists like a mofo to the degree that you can't open the tailgate.
That's why, until they refine their build specs they still have a lot of challenges to meet with their new pickups. SUVs are easier to deal with in regards to aluminum since they offer more natural rigidity without the separation tween the cab and bed.
I commend Ford for taking this leap, but until they get stuff like torsion stregth figured out, if I used my pickup for heavy duty work or serious off roading I would steer clear of new their pickups. If it were just cause I like the look and the most extreme conditions are going to be a speed bump at the mall then I'd go for it. imo
Serge, stick with me because this may get a little long winded.
First, the frame still remains high strength steel. An aluminum frame was never considered. Body panels only.
Second, lets discuss the Ford twist test when the tailgate buckled.
Trucks are made to carry weight, not rock crawl. If one wants to rock crawl as the GM commercial is showing, buy a Jeep.
If you look at Kenworth, Mack, Peterbilt, et.al, all use a "C" channel frame like Ford. C channel will twist, because it's meant to twist in order to not break.
GM on the other hand uses a hydroformed boxed frame that is much more ridged as the twist test has shown..
Here is what GM isn't telling you, and why Ford doesn't bother to defend itself..
Boxing the frame makes it much more ridged, which also allows it to crack much easier while twisting under load. So, if a boxed frame was superior, why aren't over the road trucks using it? Because it would be junk after a couple of months under a heavy load while driving over uneven terrain.
C channel will never crack under a twist, but it will transfer the energy to the body parts. If you look at a Pete, you'll see a large tolerance gap between body parts to allow for twisting without buckling, and obviously there are no tailgates on a big truck where they twist the most, the rear portion..
I'll take a C channel any day of the week because I know after 100K, there will be no cracks. I have owned both GM and a Ford Superduty side by side since 1998. I've never had my tailgate or any other body part buckle on any of my Fords, and I haul some serious weight with my Ford in my business..
If you are buying a used boxed frame truck, you better look very close at what we never look at, and that's the frame.
---------- Post added at 04:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:45 PM ----------
And this is just nonsense ... not competing means they stop building the product. As long as they sell them and are redesigning a new gen then they are trying to compete. Have they given up on this gen Expedition/Navigator cause they got their lunch handed to them? Yes. Are they insulting their customer base by slapping a new nose and a few interior bits on a 10+ year vehicle and asking them to pay habdsomely for it? Yes as well. But saying that a boxer is not competing cause he's down for the count is disingenuous.
It's not nonsense to Ford. I don't think they believed in the market. At least until the past couple of years where they have now decided to re tool for the new Expo and Navvy.
They are still selling them as is, and they haven't (obviously) spent the millions it takes to redesign, and some people are still buying them.
Do I agree with their approach? Well, yes, I do.
Why invest multi millions into something that isn't your bread and butter?
They have rebuilt their car marketshare into one of the best selling car lines in the world. They OWN truck sales. SUV sales aren't a big part of any automakers bottom line. There aren't a lot of folks like us who can spend 80K on a vehicle for their wifes to trash..
So, they have invested in what sells..
Simple and smart business if you ask me.
And BTW, they didn't need to be bailed out by us after the crash, so they must be approaching the business side with more sense than what GM ever did.
Care to question the logic?
