2017 Super Duty

[RoyJ]

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

Seems as if old Fords have frame bending and bed twisting issues with the use of campers and articulation. Those are C-channel frames with your cool benefits you're throwing out there.

See how that works?

 

[RoyJ]

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

Weaker may have been too broad.

Weaker in pure bending is proven in numbers. Now, perhaps it's stronger in impact resistance? That I'll have to look deeper into.

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.

To be fair though, if it's ground impact (and it sounds like it, even bottoming out barely puts stress on a torsion bar mount), I doubt a Ford would've done better. Nothing short of a D11 dozer would!

Do you think it's the lack of ground clearance causing many of the GM failures?

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.

I am NOT one that falls easy to ads, and I take most with a grain of salt. Keep in mind, Ford is the one started the boxed frame ad back in 2005 when they introduced the first boxed frame on the F150. I too, brushed it off as marketing.

But over time, I looked at how most pickups are used, and realize the benefits out-weight the minuses on boxed frames. Other than better ride due to better suspension control, the main benefit I can see is less stess on body and bed mounts. Even more so if you have an expensive camper - if you have a $50k camper on the back, and starts articulating, would you rather do so on a GM/Dodge or Ford?

Flex is good, but as I said before, you always engineer flex into the suspension first and foremost. If, and only if that's not possible (35 ton missile truck), do you engineer it into the frame. But to do so, you must design around it: using ultra-high tensile steel, design precise flex points, and then bed / body mounts that collaborate with those specific flex points.

I believe a Unimog does all of the above, but not an F350.

So here's a question - what if the new F350 has greater suspension travel and allow the same axle flex while keeping a rigid frame? Would you not consider that a plus?

 

[Buliwyf]

As long as the suspension had more 3d movement somewhere else and the frame had enough give to avoid hot spots or tension. Sure. I'd like to float the cab and bed more as well.

While knocking off the torsion bar mount really isn't the trucks fault much, It's tough keeping that component off the ground. Ford has nothing there except the trailing arms. The trailing arms take some effort to drag. Hopefully Dodge will lengthen theirs as well.

And the torsional rigidity of the C channel shouldn't have come into play in that failed camper. C frame is still quite rigid vertically, just likes to twist more which I like. There's something going on there. Short of a plow or an idiot with a 15,000# winch, I haven't ever witnessed a catastrophic failure like that with any brand. Even the ripped shock mounts and front lower IFS mounts had an excuse.

 

[toylandcruiser]

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.

Well personal experience is far better than you having zero experience. You better go back and read what I wrote about the unimog there cool guy. I said they use flexy c channel for a purpose, not for up fitting. You better research that a bit . I have a unimog so I'm more knowledges than you are. I never said a land cruiser has as many implement. I never mentioned implements did I? That's a straw man argument. Unimogs have very soft suspension. They are not stiff sprung by any means. You better look that up as well. Lmtvs are not stiff sprung. But yet they use c channel.

 

[toylandcruiser]

Seems as if old Fords have frame bending and bed twisting issues with the use of campers and articulation. Those are C-channel frames with your cool benefits you're throwing out there.

See how that works?

Frame bending is the point of frame flex isn't it . You can't use a failure of a single design as a basis for an argument. Just because ford may not be able to design a strong flexy frame doesn't mean anyone else can't

Wanna see frame flex?
And it's designed like this on purpose




Maybe American engineers are lazy and fail to think and plan ahead. Who knows.

 

[2025 deleted member]

I know the trucks I own that are C-channel definitely have more sqeaks in the rubber seals on the doors. My 2011 chevy cab chassis was the worst, my 2006 f250 utility bed is not far behind. I do have some interest in a 2017 lariat f450. But I don't know if I can convince myself to spend 60k on a truck!

 

[toylandcruiser]

Seems as if old Fords have frame bending and bed twisting issues with the use of campers and articulation. Those are C-channel frames with your cool benefits you're throwing out there.

See how that works?

Seems as if gm 3500 boxed frames are cracking from snow plows. All those cool benefits you're throwing out there are not cool.

 

[toylandcruiser]

I know the trucks I own that are C-channel definitely have more sqeaks in the rubber seals on the doors. My 2011 chevy cab chassis was the worst, my 2006 f250 utility bed is not far behind. I do have some interest in a 2017 lariat f450. But I don't know if I can convince myself to spend 60k on a truck!

That's doesn't prove anything? That's the point of it.

 

[RoyJ]

Well personal experience is far better than you having zero experience. You better go back and read what I wrote about the unimog there cool guy. I said they use flexy c channel for a purpose, not for up fitting. You better research that a bit . I have a unimog so I'm more knowledges than you are. I never said a land cruiser has as many implement. I never mentioned implements did I? That's a straw man argument. Unimogs have very soft suspension. They are not stiff sprung by any means. You better look that up as well. Lmtvs are not stiff sprung. But yet they use c channel.

Personal experience without knowledge = personal opinion, which you seem to have lots.

A bear knows to hibernate when it's cold - he's got experience. I know more about the science behind it than he ever would.

Work on your reading comprehension - I've lost count how many times I've told you Unimog and heavy trucks are designed to flex. And sure, keep on denying a C-channel is primarily up-fit driven - I can easily design a boxed central pivoting frame, and it'll have zero buyers because no one can install a hydraulic dump bed without custom welded brackets.

You own straw man argument is somehow a Unimog's frame justify Ford's frame design.

If you think LMTVs and late models are "softly sprung", you need to look up the definition of spring rates as well as the equation of RTI, and then back calculate how much suspension travel is needed to produce meaningful "flex", and if that's possible without frame flex on an HD truck.

 

[RoyJ]

Frame bending is the point of frame flex isn't it . You can't use a failure of a single design as a basis for an argument. Just because ford may not be able to design a strong flexy frame doesn't mean anyone else can't

Wanna see frame flex?
And it's designed like this on purpose

Maybe American engineers are lazy and fail to think and plan ahead. Who knows.

You need to understand the difference between bending and torsion...

Torsion is good IF it's controlled (try to read my previous posts before blindly argue). Bending is bad. The current F350 is relatively poor in bending (by 25%) compared to GM.

 

[RoyJ]

Since we like pretty pictures, see if frame flex was needed to achieve this:

 

[Clutch]

How about that 2017 Super Duty....

...does Blue get better gas mileage than Red?

 

[RoyJ]

I like the new SD.

Yeah, I heard they added a boxed frame this year

I'll stop before this thread totally derails.

 

[2025 deleted member]

That's doesn't prove anything? That's the point of it.

Not sure I was trying to prove anything other than what I stated? C-channel frames will make the body flex more, resulting in door seal squeaking.

 

[RoyJ]

** Admin Edit: Snipped for Content **

K, you win.