Raptor vs Power Wagon

Buliwyf

Viking with a Hammer
Old cars crumple in high speed impacts just as much as new cars. You ever see the video of the 1959 impala vs the new one? After watching it, I have no desire to rely on old cars for safety.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joMK1WZjP7g&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Still, you get my point.

The Raptors frame bending is part of it's design. Without that, loss of control, or catastrophic failure of something even worse, like an axle or spring hanger would be next.

As long as you don't crash the F150 or go over GVWR's this frame bending won't be a problem.
 

EXP-T100

Adventurer
Ya i was not trying to stir things up with that link i posted it has enough drama in it and we dont need it here also. So i apologize if i rubbed anyone the wrong way, i did make a blanket statement that was left open for interpretation, that was my bad. From what i have seen and read Outlaw Raptor puts a lot of time in pre runs and plans the run and make the gps rout available for every one with all hazards,jumps,kickers marked and i believe what i read from raptorforumz is the guy who started that thread did not bother to use it which is not smart nor safe and dose show negligence on his part. So again i apologize if i rubbed anyone the wrong way. Now lets move on

Josh
 

BlitzleBlat

Observer
I have Carli King 2.5 Pin-top shocks, a Carli track bar, and a Bilstein 5100 steering damper on my 07 Power Wagon. And have no problems flying down unmaintained Mojave desert dirt roads comfortably at 45-50 mph, that same speed at which the Raptor frame bends.

Raptor Frame Bending Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eK-1Ld7sJY

*edited*

Both trucks are capable, one is just more capable at one thing then the other (and vice versa).

I wouldnt trade my raptor in for anything, its amazing on the street as a daily driver, its RIDICULOUS on a gravel road (reminds me of my old rally wrx), and STUPID in the desert at speed. I look forward to scratching it more in mud holes and on the local jeep trails.. (i have an '12 with the shiny new front diff, so it should be my own limits i hit while crawling for a good while)
 
Last edited:

BlitzleBlat

Observer
I think the frame bending issues are coming from the fact that people are airing out these Raptors off road and expecting no consequences. It is unfortunate because the Ford advertising suggests that this is what the truck was made for. It is just a 1/2ton with upgraded suspension and people think its a damn trophy truck. The Ford frame is plenty strong for duty as a regular truck however.

On the other hand the Power Wagon actually has a frame that started as an HD truck and then was strengthened further. I would have thought that Ford would have beefed up the Raptor frame above the stock F-150 level just like Dodge did with the PW frame above the normal HD level.

Shocking information for you guys...

There is 0 difference between a f150/f250/f350 frame. It comes down to mounting points for shocks and bed configurations. (i have been looking into this exact matter due to my desire to "over load" my raptor. So a "tweaked" suspension will be in order)
 

Saiyan66

Adventurer
So the frame thickness and cross sectional dimensions are the same for all three trucks? Where did you find this information? I can't imagine that a manufacturer would do this, so please enlighten us. I am very curious to research this myself.
 

Buliwyf

Viking with a Hammer
Shocking information for you guys...

There is 0 difference between a f150/f250/f350 frame. It comes down to mounting points for shocks and bed configurations. (i have been looking into this exact matter due to my desire to "over load" my raptor. So a "tweaked" suspension will be in order)

The F150 and light duty F250 (if it's even still available) have completely different frames than the Superduty F250 and F350. The Superduty frames are massive. It would be stupid to use a Superduty frame on a 1/2 ton. That's alot of excess weight. I haven't been under the latest F150's to verify this, but I seriously doubt they're the same. The frame shown in Fords Raptor explaination vid, looks nothing like my frame.

Deosn't the F150 and other half ton trucks, use a boxed frame? Boxed frames are a bit weaker. Other than offering a stiff car like ride, boxed frames are more marketing hype for 1/2 tons. That's it. They are lighter, stiffer, and cheap to hydroform. But they hold water dirt and grit, causing them to rust easier. They also do not give a safe place to mount brake lines and wiring the way C channel frames do. Also C frames are designed to flex. Boxed frames tend to rip welds and deform under load. Heavy dynamic loads require the use of C frames that can flex.

The Superduties use C shaped open frames. Boxed frames will not accept aftermarket utility bodies and aftermarket modifications well. 2008+ Superduties have some serious beef in the frame.

Here's a vid of the 2008+ F250/350 Superduty frame. You can see the differences at the rear of the frame quickly.
Superduty Frame:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8M7VHLaBcM&feature=player_embedded


F150 Rear Frame:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfzJiNDXRXs

I wouldn't overload your Raptor if I were you.
 
Last edited:

Saiyan66

Adventurer
Buliwyf, I can't say that I agree with your assessment of boxed frames. They are stiffer, both vertically and torsionally, so that does account for alot of the marketing hype surrounding them currently. But I am unsure how you would think they are weaker? Yes a typical boxed frame has thinner wall thickness than a C channel frame, but that is because less material is needed to have the same strength. The frame on my Ram 2500 is fully boxed, and they have been since 2003. I believe that Ford is the only one of the big three still using a C channel frame on their HD trucks. Not that this is a bad thing at all because all medium duty and up trucks use a C channel frame, so they are obviously strong. Also I would have thought that a C channel would be easier to form than a full box frame? Not trying to start stuff, just curious where your info is coming from as well. Thank you.
 

Buliwyf

Viking with a Hammer
Buliwyf, I can't say that I agree with your assessment of boxed frames. They are stiffer, both vertically and torsionally, so that does account for alot of the marketing hype surrounding them currently. But I am unsure how you would think they are weaker? Yes a typical boxed frame has thinner wall thickness than a C channel frame, but that is because less material is needed to have the same strength. The frame on my Ram 2500 is fully boxed, and they have been since 2003. I believe that Ford is the only one of the big three still using a C channel frame on their HD trucks. Not that this is a bad thing at all because all medium duty and up trucks use a C channel frame, so they are obviously strong. Also I would have thought that a C channel would be easier to form than a full box frame? Not trying to start stuff, just curious where your info is coming from as well. Thank you.

No problem. I do odd work for a few truck companies. Was in a Bush/Nascar garage two days ago. Amazing what you can learn on a simple factory tour.

The rigidity of it, is it's weak spot. Rather than flexing like a giant piece of spring steel, all the stress of flexing or load hits, will localize to the weakest spot. Usually a weld or bolt. The C frame has more flex across the frame giving more room to soak up shock loads. When frames start getting really big, the boxed frame advantages start to drop off quick. You need to make sure they are flexible enough to not fail, and thick enough in all the right spots.

Eventually the boxed frame ends up heavier than the C frame for the same level of strength. The line where the effieciency of a box frame meets the effieciency of the C frame is right around the size of a 1/2-3/4 ton truck. So it makes sense that Dodge is trying to make a boxed frame work. It still might.

The C frames are more expensive, on the Fords especially, becuase the front of them is shaped. It loops up, then down steeply. It takes one h&%$ of a stamping machine to punch that piece out. The box frames are a simple tube, they stick it in a mold, then pump it full of hydraulic oil, the oil forces the tube to take the form of it's mold. GM makes hydroformed frames for less than the cost of Home Depot dirt.

I tend to avoid them, my Toyota's and Jeeps were rotted out quickly by all the goo that gets inside the frame. The boxed frame is a huge advantage when C&D and Motor Trend are writing your reviews, it feels livlier, but when the truck has 300k miles, it's a different story.
 

coder

New member
The Raptor frame bend issue is not some much about the frame being "weak". As it is about how to handle the energy created when hitting bumps at high speed which uses up all 12" of travel and has no where to go.

No matter what the frame should not be the place absorb that energy. Either more travel, hydraulic bump stops, bigger shocks, or something else needs handle it.

In the above video Ford SVT's Chief Engineer Jamal Hameedi is discussing the problem. I don't think answers the question appropriately by stating the frame on a $45k truck is a "sacrificial part" that's absurd, but he does put the issue in perceptive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfzJiNDXRXs
 
Last edited:

Buliwyf

Viking with a Hammer
No matter what the frame should not be the place absorb that energy. Either more travel, hydraulic bump stops, bigger shocks, or something else needs handle it.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfzJiNDXRXs

The travel is allready good, the bump stops and shocks are allready acceptable. When you're out of travel, you're out of travel, something breaks every time. It's better that the frame fails than the axle. The truck is setup for aggressive driving with 12" of travel, but it's still just a showroom F150. You can't ********** a 14" bump shaped like a giant speedbump at 80mph.

A little more travel won't help much, the Raptor allready has plenty for the way it's supposed to be driven. Dumping more $$$ into it wouldn't make any sense. Better off just buying a dune buggy or building a trophy truck. There's an old saying: "If your car has a license plate, it ain't a fast car." There really is no way to put a F150 body on a trophy truck for $44,000. If someone wants to put $100,000 into a truck that'll still get it's doors blown off by a $30,000 buggy, so be it. But it seems like turning the Raptor into something it's not, is a bad idea.

Those kids hit that bump hard, penty of grassroots racing 4x4's would struggle with that.
 

Metcalf

Expedition Leader
Energy is Energy. It has to go somewhere. There is a reason you don't see trophy trucks running around with only a frame rail. Those vehicles are built with space-frame jungle gym type construction for a good reason.

It really doesn't matter if you install bigger shocks or bumps, at some point the energy that those devices would have to adsorb would be great enough to overwhelm there mounts and the frame they are connected too.
 

EXP-T100

Adventurer
There is an issue with the Raptors 12" of travel and that is people assume it 12" up and 12" down and its not it only has about 5" of up travel (not much same as my 3500) and 12" of TOTAL travel. I will say Ford (in my opinion) should have put a progressive leaf pack and hydraulic or air bump stops and maybe even shock shaft bumps (just about standard off road stuff these days), that would help absorb more of the abuse and not depend totally on the frame to do that. and yes more money but you are talking about $1500 in parts so tack on another 3k to the truck, i think it would have saved SVT some headache for sure. In the end its a truck with only 5" of up travel to absorb jumps and or a pot hole. you jump a cattle guard and hit a kicker right after you got nothing left so ford left it up to the frame to handle it as stated by Jamal Hameedi. (let me know if its more or less than 5" of up)

What about the Raptor vs Ram Runner. The ram runner is a 13k to 20k add but more of an apples to apples comparison no. Has anyone driven a ram runner? i dont know much about it. other than 14 inches of total travel both front and rear, linked rear suspension.

Josh
 

KaiserM715

Adventurer
This whole incident certainly has a life of its own. There are very, very few cases of this. We are talking a handful out of over 40,000 of these trucks on the road. What it boils down to is that there will always be critics (the Raptor certainly has garnered more than its fair share for some reason). Even if the Raptor was built as a $150,000 pre-runner, there will always be folks saying "well, Ford didn't install _______. It would have only cost $XX more".
 

plainjaneFJC

Deplorable
I wouldn't drive at the speeds shown in that video without a lot more safety gear than a stock truck has in it. They were one small slip up away from being dead!
 

Forum statistics

Threads
186,184
Messages
2,883,028
Members
225,985
Latest member
taunger
Top