2017 Super Duty

[Buliwyf]

There's nothing wrong with the Superduty frame. Every time we need a bigger than normal utility truck in our fleet, we go straight to the Fords every time. They've had pretty consistent beef under them since 1998.

And any argument still doesn't change the fact that boxed frames are a PITA to mount equipment to, and are just going to fill up with salt.

 

[plainjaneFJC]

There's nothing wrong with the Superduty frame. Every time we need a bigger than normal utility truck in our fleet, we go straight to the Fords every time. They've had pretty consistent beef under them since 1998.

And any argument still doesn't change the fact that boxed frames are a PITA to mount equipment to, and are just going to fill up with salt.

When doors don't open there is something wrong. Its not a c channel vs. box debate, its a debate about whats best for a particular class of vehicle. The bigger trucks do a better job of isolating the cab from the body. In trucks class 5 and under the only advantage of c channel is mounting equipment.

 

[Buliwyf]

When doors don't open there is something wrong. Its not a c channel vs. box debate, its a debate about whats best for a particular class of vehicle. The bigger trucks do a better job of isolating the cab from the body. In trucks class 5 and under the only advantage of c channel is mounting equipment.

Oh, they open. They just won't close again. And having your spotter up against the side of the truck, holding the doors, while guiding it down off the rock, ain't exactly safe.

Our Dodges did the same thing. Don't keep your 4x4 wood in the back seat. The crew cabs have more length to flex the cab at lesser angles, and the doors don't index into each other, so no problems there. You can hear both truck cabs creek over obstacles plain as day. The body mounts are only good enough to soak up an inch of flex or so. All the suicide door trucks would get new latches every 5 years. Corrosion and flex would eat them up.

 

[RoyJ]

No no no. You got that backwards. Strictly for cost and ease of production. It's just another engineered means to an end.

Cost and ease of production? You may want to look up how much more it takes to hydroform a boxed frame...

It's silly when it's marketed, LATER, as high performance chassis nonsense. Snake oil. It ain't anything fancy, it's just a hydroformed tube frame. Whoop de do. I'll take C channel over it ever day. I guess that's what sales guys do, though. Take a cheap production method, and spin it as some kind of whiz bang new idea that's going to cure all of our ills.

So what you're claiming is two of the world's most capable military light trucks is using boxed frame, with through-through tube cross members, because a snake oil salesman fooled multiple govnt agencies around the world?

HMMWV:

G-Wagen:

Or perhaps you think they did it to save cost? Oh wait, they're both 6-figure trucks...

 

[RoyJ]

Have two of them to myself. 2008 and 2015. The one for work is on dirt, railroad, and pipeline roads all the time. Absolutely not weak. A little flex, just enough. Not really significant, the rubber body mounts soak it all up. I rate it higher than our Dodges and GM's. Just don't open the rear suicide doors when you're all flexed out, if you made the mistake of getting the X cab instead of the CC.

Section modulus?
PSI yield rating?

All BS out in the field. I'm either welding the spring hangers back onto a cracked weld, or I'm not. So far the Superduties have handled the most abuse for us. Followed by Dodge, then the GM 2500's, then the GM Vans, then the POS Ford vans. But frames are the least of our worries.

To call a Superduty frame weak, is a perfect Red Flag that someone doesn't have experience with the truck in the field. That frame is anything but weak. Especially if we're using little SUV's as examples. A Hilux? Yeah right. Toyota's are not the bullet proof rigs we hoped they were, even when used within their rating, we ate them up quick.

What year were the GMs and Dodges?

GM started using 60ksi steel in 2011, and Ram started with 50 ksi in 2013. If your fleet is older, the argument becomes a moot point. Ford is the only one stuck at 36ksi since late-90's.

Everything is relative, especially in an uncontrolled test environment (out in the field, with the good'ol blue collared boys...). Is the SD weak? Sure, compared to modern GMs they are. Section modulus x yield strength gives you "resistance bending moment" (RBM). This is how much stress it takes to break the frame:

F350 RBM: 313,200
GM 2500HD: 408,660

All BS in the field you say? Keep in mind who designed the rigs that work so well in the field for you guys - us engineers doing meticulous boring calculations and computer sims, day in day out.

How else do you think we do it? Dang it, get'er out in the field and let'er rip, if it ain't workin', put on more metal!

 

[Buliwyf]

You put a tube in the mold and fill it with oil. It's cake, I've seen it with my own two eyes. As long as you sell enough of them to pay for initial high cost of the machine. It's also lighter, less material to pay for.

Straight from the horses mouth at GM who perfected it, it's cheaper. Now you're just arguing for the sake of argument. Yes, those frames are cheaper to produce than a simple I or C beam chassis. It's odd, but that's why they exist. And I can be pretty sure, that's the only reason the front half of the '17 Ford is boxed. How much time do think it would take to mount a utility or ambulance body on a Hummer. More than a F550 I'm sure.

Kenworth:

 

[Buliwyf]

What year were the GMs and Dodges?

GM started using 60ksi steel in 2011, and Ram started with 50 ksi in 2013. If your fleet is older, the argument becomes a moot point. Ford is the only one stuck at 36ksi since late-90's.

Everything is relative, especially in an uncontrolled test environment (out in the field, with the good'ol blue collared boys...). Is the SD weak? Sure, compared to modern GMs they are. Section modulus x yield strength gives you "resistance bending moment" (RBM). This is how much stress it takes to break the frame:

F350 RBM: 313,200
GM 2500HD: 408,660

All BS in the field you say? Keep in mind who designed the rigs that work so well in the field for you guys - us engineers doing meticulous boring calculations and computer sims, day in day out.

How else do you think we do it? Dang it, get'er out in the field and let'er rip, if it ain't workin', put on more metal!

So you're saying that the weakest frame, BY FAR, is the strongest frame because you had to apply 408,660 psi to it to fatigue it to failure. What does that mean to the end user? Nothing.

So your saying, with all your vast engineering knowledge, is that you're certain that GM trucks are far less likely to fail on a logging road or pipe line access road than a Ford or Dodge?
An engineer that never listens to a more experienced field tech, never been there before. Ha.

Ya'll are just arguing for the sake of arguing. Hummer frames, and steel Ksi, have little or nothing to do with the 2017 Ford thread.

 

[RoyJ]

So you're saying that the weakest frame, BY FAR, is the strongest frame because you had to apply 408,660 psi to it to fatigue it to failure. What does that mean to the end user? Nothing.

So your saying, with all your vast engineering knowledge, is that you're certain that GM trucks are far less likely to fail on a logging road or pipe line access road than a Ford or Dodge?
An engineer that never listens to a more experienced field tech, never been there before. Ha.

Ya'll are just arguing for the sake of arguing. Hummer frames, and steel Ksi, have little or nothing to do with the 2017 Ford thread.

You still didn't answer my question - what model year GM failed at your job site? Was post-2011 with the boxed frames? If so, what was the failure? Fatigue (highly doubt a new truck would fatigue out so soon), corrosion, overload, shock load?

Was the GM frame weak at one time? Totally possible. But they're made massive improvements lately, something Ford hasn't done.

I listen to field techs ALL the time, where do you think we get our feedback and inputs from? But a good field tech knows his limit - he tells the engineer what works and what doesn't, and leave the how's and why's to the engineer.

When did I say the GM will perform better on a logging road? To answer that question I need a LOT more info. I simply said it takes a greater bending moment to break its frame. Now, are YOU certain that a post-2011 GM will fair worse than a Ford SD?

I've been backing up every claim with science and numbers, and all you've done is tell me what worked better in the past, and I'm the one arguing for the sake of arguing? I brought up Humvees and ksi ratings to illustrate a design aspect of the new 2017 SD, how else do you want me to do it?

 

[RoyJ]

You put a tube in the mold and fill it with oil. It's cake, I've seen it with my own two eyes. As long as you sell enough of them to pay for initial high cost of the machine. It's also lighter, less material to pay for.

Straight from the horses mouth at GM who perfected it, it's cheaper. Now you're just arguing for the sake of argument. Yes, those frames are cheaper to produce than a simple I or C beam chassis. It's odd, but that's why they exist. And I can be pretty sure, that's the only reason the front half of the '17 Ford is boxed. How much time do think it would take to mount a utility or ambulance body on a Hummer. More than a F550 I'm sure.

Kenworth:

For the 20th time - yes, C-channel frames are highly preferable in the heavy truck chassis world, because it's easier to upfit. For this reason, I predict they'll NEVER go boxed frame.

In my previous post, I showed just how strong a Class 8 frame is. So just because a Kenworth's C-channel frame is nearly un-breakable, doesn't mean it applies to a Class 3 Ford pickup.

If you want to simplify hydro-forming like that then fine, for a C-channel you stick sheet metal into a brake, twice, done. In reality, we both know the major cost is not the per-part production, but the R&D, machine and line acquisition and setup, and all the other line changes you have to make - i.e. welded cross-members instead of bolted.

The lower the production run, the more costly hydroforming becomes. Ford/GM/Ram sells 2 million+ combined, they can do it. If Kenworth hydroformed a T-800 frame they'll go broke.

 

[Buliwyf]

Oh it's never fatigue. Corrosion failed one frame back by the hitch. Possibly because of the hitch. One crossmember (shock). A torsion bar mount (shock). Front arms (unrelated). Crack behind the control arms (easy fix) On a '99 we ripped the entire upper front shock mounts right off of the frame. '07 snapped the frame clean in half by the control arms. '11 cracked frame by torsion bar mout crossmember (shock? 9000# winch?). .

Anything pre '11 with a plow or 15,000# winch would tear the front of the frame up. We're hard on trucks. But none are overloaded. Just worked hard. I have to, already, completely replace my Reading bodies rear door latch and bars with angle iron. Flopping around offroad already has flexed it to death, ripped it right off the door. And I have to repair some vinyl wrap on the drivers door.

Yeah, our GM's aren't for my specific area of work. They don't stand a chance. South in Cinci or Dayton, they're fine. Mid Ohio, or Wellsville, no way. It would help if could get some with working shocks. We call it the rocking chair effect for lack of a better description, not enough compression damping or spring rate when towing.

My branch dropped the GM's, except for the 2500 Express vans in 2014. The 2015 DEF tank was the last straw. That wouldn't last one week.

 

[toylandcruiser]

Cost and ease of production? You may want to look up how much more it takes to hydroform a boxed frame...



So what you're claiming is two of the world's most capable military light trucks is using boxed frame, with through-through tube cross members, because a snake oil salesman fooled multiple govnt agencies around the world?

HMMWV:

G-Wagen:

Or perhaps you think they did it to save cost? Oh wait, they're both 6-figure trucks...

The key word is light duty The hmmwv frame is extremely flexible. They are far from stiff. The worlds foremost off-road vehicle uses a c channel frame.

 

[RoyJ]

The key word is light duty The hmmwv frame is extremely flexible. They are far from stiff. The worlds foremost off-road vehicle uses a c channel frame.

Are we not talking about light trucks in this thread?

I made it clear from the beginning the benefits of C-channel in HD trucks, as well as the metallurgy it takes to make it happen.

You'll have to give a source before I believe a Humvee frame is flexible. From everything I've seen, photos, videos, real life, they're as stiff as granite.

The only off roaders using C-channels are heavy (2.5 ton plus) trucks that NEED stiff suspension for payload. They have no choice but to flex their frame.

 

[RoyJ]

Oh it's never fatigue. Corrosion failed one frame back by the hitch. Possibly because of the hitch. One crossmember (shock). A torsion bar mount (shock). Front arms (unrelated). Crack behind the control arms (easy fix) On a '99 we ripped the entire upper front shock mounts right off of the frame. '07 snapped the frame clean in half by the control arms. '11 cracked frame by torsion bar mout crossmember (shock? 9000# winch?).

Interesting cases for sure. Seems like GM has quality control issues (which I'm not surprised).

A cracked spring/torsion bar mount is usually not shock load, as a spring by nature cannot produce shock loads, they're very gentle, but repetitive, which seems like fatigue. A shock absorber, ironically, produces the highest shock load, at high shock speeds.

I'm really surprised you had a torsion bar mount failure on an 11', because this is the first year with available 6000 lbs front axle, meaning the mounts are beefed up to accept heavier bars. Did this have a plow in addition to a winch?

Did you have ANY F350 failures? I mean, if you are failing GMs left and right, that is some really harsh environment, so it's hard to imagine not even 1 failure...

Anything pre '11 with a plow or 15,000# winch would tear the front of the frame up. We're hard on trucks. But none are overloaded. Just worked hard. I have to, already, completely replace my Reading bodies rear door latch and bars with angle iron. Flopping around offroad already has flexed it to death, ripped it right off the door. And I have to repair some vinyl wrap on the drivers door.

Like I said, I was strictly referring to the post 2011 trucks. Pre 2011, I think any of the big 3 used similar metallurgy on their frames (all around 35000 psi). The only difference being RAM and GM fully boxed from the cab back.

The Ford has the heaviest frame by gauge, due to the requirement of a C-channel. So I wouldn't be surprised if it was stronger than a pre 2011 GM and pre 2013 Dodge. Whether this thickness is enough to overcome the high PSI steel of modern GM/Rams, for concentrated loads (winch, hitch, plow), only time will tell I guess.

I do stand by my original statement though, as of now, in terms of pure bending stress (and obviously torsional), the F350 frame is weaker than a GM. Whether or not this translate into superior field performance for the GM, I'd like to see more examples.

 

[RoyJ]

BTW, here's an example where frame bending strength is important (versus concentrated stress):

To my knowledge this has never happened to a late model Dodge or GM, though I'd love to see an example if it has. It did happen to many older GMs and Dodges, as well as numerous Toyotas. Not coincidentally, most of those were C-channels.

 

[toylandcruiser]

Are we not talking about light trucks in this thread?

I made it clear from the beginning the benefits of C-channel in HD trucks, as well as the metallurgy it takes to make it happen.

You'll have to give a source before I believe a Humvee frame is flexible. From everything I've seen, photos, videos, real life, they're as stiff as granite.

The only off roaders using C-channels are heavy (2.5 ton plus) trucks that NEED stiff suspension for payload. They have no choice but to flex their frame.

I'll look for a source. But for a summer I worked at NATC where the hwmmv was originally tested. I also spent quite a few years in the Army in a maintenance company working on hmmwvs. So my source is pretty good . The unimog uses a c channel. The 404 is lighter than a 2.5 ton truck. I think the point we are trying to make is, if it's good enough for heavy duty, a light duty truck will have no issue with a c channel. The stiff frame is the new cool thing that is being sold. That's all. Just like the ecoboost. There are lots of companies that makes engines that are exactly like ecoboost. But yet ford is going crazy calling anything they make with a turbo and direct injection an ecoboost. People just eat it up as a cool thing they gotta have. I'm trying to figure out why, if you agree with what we are saying, why are you still trying to debate the subject?