2017 Super Duty

[toylandcruiser]

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.

This is pretty funny

http://youtu.be/3t3sV5eL-3o

As far as that picture, there is probably more to the story.

 

[OCD Overland]

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?

To an extent, I think you are correct - the same stiffness can be had with most any profile, it's just a question of how beefy you make it. Unimogs, etc. have the advantage of not having to worry too much about how big or heavy their frames are. Light trucks don't have that advantage. I think the reason we're seeing boxed frames now is simply because there able to hydroform a boxed frame that's more stiff and almost as light as the frames they're replacing.

 

[Buliwyf]

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...



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.

Weaker might not be the right word. More flexible, I'd agree with.

Yeah we've killed Fords. Ripped a steering box right off the frame. You'd think every spindly tie rod would snap first, but not that time. Wasted rear springs in only 40,000 miles. Even on the 2008+ with the insanely long wide springs. Think Ford was supplied a bad batch. After market springs solved that.....for $1700. Bent a track bar, ironically a huge track bar. And we have to replace the track bar bushings often.

The '11 GM Torsion bar break may have been ground contact. His 500 gallon diesel fuel trailer was laying on it's side with a 14" hole on top. Never found the fuel pump. We actually think he got the trailers fuel pump rig caught on a vine judging by the freshly ripped down tree.

The Gm add:

Only GM would think that this is a bad thing. But that extra flex is normal. Older trucks had even more. Well over 2" There's nothing wrong with it. As long as your tailgate doesn't pop like the video, something we've not been able to duplicate even with a tow motor, but that's more of a mounting issue than anything worth blaming on the frame. Don't open the tailgate on the GM or Dodge while flexed like the vid either. I'd rather have more flex on my truck, and less in my car.

Now I'm a little worried that Ford may have stiffened the chassis on the 2017's.

Another good Dodge vid:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_f3CAnH7WIM
They obviously show more flex on the Ford. But you can also note that the Ford is keeping all 4 wheels down better. That's key for us.

While this is another promo, it does show the kind of trouble I get into every week:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ppr3K0thUyI
That's were our Fords shine, and our other fleet trucks suffer.

 

[phillyd2]

So, what do you guys honestly think - buy a 2016 or wait for the 2017?

 

[Buliwyf]

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.

That's a good example. But you know how RV people are. Pretty safe bet that's over loaded. And that lengthened trailer tongue looks fishy. That's a ton of leverage. A new record for sure. I'll bet on airbags set too far apart, set too long. Leading to a progressive spring feel because it takes too much pressure to level the truck with the bags stretched out too far, and then you hit lots of bumps and they get rock hard under compression. Very little lift, that gets too stiff as the suspension cycles. Did that mistake myself once (no damage though).

Seen many a damaged Ford frame by incorrectly installed air bags. People welding and drilling where they shouldn't be, all in one thread:
https://www.rv.net/forum/index.cfm/fuseaction/thread/tid/28402132/print/true.cfm

 

[Clutch]

So, what do you guys honestly think - buy a 2016 or wait for the 2017?

Looks like the '17 has some great features, but since the engines are the same...probably get a great deal on 15&16's, unless you absolutely need more payload/towing.

Who knows Ford might throw a zinger with the engines.

 

[Buliwyf]

As long as you're not in the snow belt.

Having a truck that can out last rust will be a nice change.

 

[toylandcruiser]

To an extent, I think you are correct - the same stiffness can be had with most any profile, it's just a question of how beefy you make it. Unimogs, etc. have the advantage of not having to worry too much about how big or heavy their frames are. Light trucks don't have that advantage. I think the reason we're seeing boxed frames now is simply because there able to hydroform a boxed frame that's more stiff and almost as light as the frames they're replacing.

That's a good explanation

 

[locrwln]

This is pretty funny

http://youtu.be/3t3sV5eL-3o

As far as that picture, there is probably more to the story.

And that video is not of a 2500HD frame bending. That looks like a '99 or '00 1500 ( At least the wheels matched my '99 GMC 1500, which incidentally has a c channel frame behind the cab).

Also, Buliwyf, you need to look at the video again on the 2017 Ford. Only the f450/550 is getting the c channel from the cab back for the very reasons you have listed, upfitting. The 250/350 is fully boxed, just like GM and RAM has been doing. And Ford is "marketing/BSing" the same line that both GM and Ram have been for why they went to a fully boxed frame. "Stronger and lighter and better chassis dynamics."

Jack

 

[RoyJ]

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?

First of all, the 404 was built in an era where nearly all frames were C-channel. Second, the Unimog was, and is, designed to be an implement platform. And I've said a million times now, when it comes to up-fiting, a C-channel is necessary.

No, I do not agree with what you're saying, because for me to agree I need real numbers, calculations, and stats. Something I've been using to backup my claims all along.

I didn't jump on a boxed frame bandwagon - I've been providing numbers to backup the benefits of BOTH types in different situations. You are the one claiming a C-channel is superior in ALL situations; I'm only willing believe it, if you provide scientific stats.

 

[RoyJ]

This is pretty funny

http://youtu.be/3t3sV5eL-3o

As far as that picture, there is probably more to the story.

And guess what's common between that bent GM and bent Ford?

Open C-channel frames with low RBM!

I can also find old Dodges doing the same thing. But I have not seen a modern fully boxed 50+ ksi frame do that, yet...

 

[toylandcruiser]

First of all, the 404 was built in an era where nearly all frames were C-channel. Second, the Unimog was, and is, designed to be an implement platform. And I've said a million times now, when it comes to up-fiting, a C-channel is necessary.

No, I do not agree with what you're saying, because for me to agree I need real numbers, calculations, and stats. Something I've been using to backup my claims all along.

I didn't jump on a boxed frame bandwagon - I've been providing numbers to backup the benefits of BOTH types in different situations. You are the one claiming a C-channel is superior in ALL situations; I'm only willing believe it, if you provide scientific stats.

You're not really making a point then guy. Throwing psi numbers out there is not backing up your claim. I'm not a c channel above all. I just get tired of seeing everyone cry because a manufacturer is still using them while this one is using a boxed frame and here's a video to prove its amazing because it's stiffer. Which is not proof of anything but being stiff. And FYI all unimogs, even mogs made today have a c channel frame and it's NOT for up fitting purposes. It's for off road
purposes. Mercedes wants and designs the flex into the truck on purpose. And up fitting is a false argument. As Toyota, Nissan and land rovers unfit all kinds of bodies on their vehicles with boxed frames.

 

[toylandcruiser]

And guess what's common between that bent GM and bent Ford?

Open C-channel frames with low RBM!

I can also find old Dodges doing the same thing. But I have not seen a modern fully boxed 50+ ksi frame do that, yet...

Seems as if new gms are having frame cracking issues with the use of snow plows. Those are boxed frames with your cool numbers your throwing out there

 

[RoyJ]

That's a good example. But you know how RV people are. Pretty safe bet that's over loaded. And that lengthened trailer tongue looks fishy. That's a ton of leverage. A new record for sure. I'll bet on airbags set too far apart, set too long. Leading to a progressive spring feel because it takes too much pressure to level the truck with the bags stretched out too far, and then you hit lots of bumps and they get rock hard under compression. Very little lift, that gets too stiff as the suspension cycles. Did that mistake myself once (no damage though).

Seen many a damaged Ford frame by incorrectly installed air bags. People welding and drilling where they shouldn't be, all in one thread:
https://www.rv.net/forum/index.cfm/fuseaction/thread/tid/28402132/print/true.cfm

It very well could've been overload, especially Okanagan campers with rear biases COG. This, plus a long tongue, creates a negative moment.

My point wasn't to defend the owner of the truck, I was simply showing an application where a frame's resistance to bending moments is very important. This is in contrast to the service environments you've shown, where resistance to impact is more important.

In the HD truck world (Class 8), a frame's design is highly dependent on application. A tractor experiences a lot of torsion, relatively few impacts, and a lot of cyclic fatigue. Whereas a vocation truck experiences more bending moment, and potentially impacts.

But unfortunately with pickups, we don't have the luxury of frame selection based on application, or even wheel base (chassis cabs spec frame section modulus based on wheelbase and cab configuration).

 

[RoyJ]

You're not really making a point then guy. Throwing psi numbers out there is not backing up your claim. I'm not a c channel above all. I just get tired of seeing everyone cry because a manufacturer is still using them while this one is using a boxed frame and here's a video to prove its amazing because it's stiffer. Which is not proof of anything but being stiff. And FYI all unimogs, even mogs made today have a c channel frame and it's NOT for up fitting purposes. It's for off road
purposes. Mercedes wants and designs the flex into the truck on purpose. And up fitting is a false argument. As Toyota, Nissan and land rovers unfit all kinds of bodies on their vehicles with boxed frames.

No, I am not making A point, I'm making well balanced pointS. I never said boxed is always better, but I provide proof where it is.

Throwing numbers out there is much better than blank statements: I've seen, I've heard, I've worked at and saw, I've witnessed...

Because I can turn every single one of those around and give you a counter example, neutralizing both points. But if I show you one frame with 25% greater bending resistance, one has to be real thick headed to deny its benefits.

A Unimog not for up-fitting? You do realize the very name of Unimog implies universal motor implement platform right? There're more bodies available to a Unimog than literally all other chassis cabs in existence. Show me a Toyota with half the implements available as a Mog.

Are they also designed to flex? Very much so, and I've never denied that. But it's important to distinguish something designed to flex, and does so controlled vs uncontrolled: look at photos of U1300 and U500s frames, and note how many welded tube cross-members placed where they DON'T want to flex. Compare that to a 2015 SD frame - do you see the same control points? Which one do you think is flexing randomly?

Unimogs also use very heavy gauge frames that are also strong - something you can't afford on a pickup, weight and money wise.

Not just Unimogs, as I said from the start, every heavy offroad truck is designed the same way, because they can't afford to use soft suspensions. But, big but, they compensate with strong frames (re-read my post about the ksi ratings from LD, to MD, to HD). If Ford used 120,000 psi heat treated steel on the current F350, I wouldn't have this debate to begin with.