Ford Faces Production Challenges for 2015 F-150

IMG_8521 II

It's one thing to create an entirely new production process for a niche vehicle but quite another to devise a completely new build strategy for the most popular vehicle in a company's lineup. That's exactly what Ford is attempting with an entirely new F-150 rivet-and-glue process for its aluminum body panels.

According to Automotive News, Ford understands how important this new challenge is and what is at stake. The new build process could create some huge problems for Ford if everything doesn't go perfectly smoothly; but Joe Hinrichs, Ford's president of the Americas, seems to think the staggered F-150 plant remodels will go well, but, then again, what would you expect him to say?

The Kansas City, Mo., F-150 production facility is running at full speed now (about 60 trucks per hour) with 2014 models in order to make sure the half-ton truck pipeline stays full while the Dearborn, Mich., plant removes all of its spot-weld robots and replaces them with rivet machines and glue dispensers.

According to Jay Baron, president of the Center for Automotive Research (who's been studying the use of aluminum in automobiles for more than 20 years), the new body panel procedures and their special clean-room requirements could be a huge benefit for Ford. In fact, just regarding the issue of scrap metal use, Ford stands to make huge improvements over the previously inefficient model. By some estimates, scrap steel costs 8 to 10 cents per pound, while scrap aluminum can cost (or save) more than 10 times that amount. Additionally, where scrap stamped steal is usually recycled into lesser-quality products like rebar, high-quality aluminum can typically be recycled back into high-quality aluminum — for another potentially huge cost savings.

But getting all the new processes and line workers up to speed in just a few months (the amount of time that each of the two F-150 plants will be down while changes are made) is likely to create a few bumps along the way, possibly resulting in some sales volume drops as Ford makes those difficult machine transitions. Those volume losses will clearly cost Ford money late in 2014 and in early 2015. Once Ford is up to full capacity at both plants (likely some time before spring), getting back up to Ford's 60-trucks-per-hour rate, Hinrichs should be able to take a deep breath. Of course, if this goes smoothly for Ford, more change is likely.

Many reports have said the new Super Duty, due out as a 2016 model, will also likely use new aluminum body panels to help improve fuel economy. And some experts, like Baron, don't see any major issues with the use of aluminum on heavy-duty pickups; in fact, some of the technology that Baron and other members of the National Research Council have seen indicates that it may not be too much longer until we see even greater weight savings with aluminum ladder frames. Until then, Ford's experiment will be closely watched by competitors and the government. More to come.

Cars.com photos by Evan Sears

 

IMG_8523 II

 

Comments

@All1,So lets review. Ford has nothing to match Rams power & MPG. Ford has nothing to compare to Rams MPG. Ford is still chasing the rabbit. AKA RAM.

Hows that for ya?

@Big Al

"This aluminium F Series will cost Ford an immense amount of money."


So will a diesel, and by a much larger amount than the added $600 for aluminum.

@Hemi V8

Grow up....... mentally!

@All1, I am buying a 6.4 power wagon and 6.2 hellcat on premium. When i bought my 03 Ram it was the most powerful 1/2 ton. Does it look like MPG is a huge part of my buying decision?

Do i need to remind you why i dont drive a ford?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsX3XQjfgMU

And why are you playing this Ram versus Ford wins stupid BS? What, are you in kindergarten? I was just pointing out something that was false. Not trying to "win" anything on Ford's part.


Posted by: ALL1 | Sep 9, 2014 12:15:26 AM

I all ready know who wins my hard earned money. I am a former Ford owner. RAM is parked in my drive way.

@Hemi V8

Grow up....... mentally!

@ALL1 or Beebe;)
So, if Ford sell 10 million F-150s over the next 10 years that represents a cost of $1 000 per vehicle and that is only design and development.

How do you do your arithmetic?

The cost you speak of is only the actual material costs, not the additional production, design, development, re-tooling and on and on.

How much will the screw ups cost to fix. These generally cost billions as well.

Beebe I do think you should re-assess your figures as they are quite skewed.

You talk about zvirus and Hemi V8 distorting data and information. Boy, you really take the cake on this one. You are out by a huge amount.

Have a debate with the Mopar guys, you are just as bad and I thought you were relatively unbiased, or you claimed to be.

@All1, Take your own advise their bud. I dont have the patients tonight to list all your FALSE info you have posted Ford boy. Stick a fork in the 6.2L I made an honest mistake. Not trying to mislead like you and your boy friend Lou does.

Ford Kills Plans for a 6.2L V8 in the All-New F-150
Read more at http://www.thetorquereport.com/2008/06/ford_kills_plans_for_a_62l_v8.html#UE1qiTAlAKcegqiQ.99

My mistake i thought Ford already killed that Dinosaur.

@Big Al

Again, you are making your case because you think Ford should have went the diesel route instead of the aluminum route. This is up to each persons opinion on which way is the best way to go.

You say diesel which would have cost Ford money to develop a new engine as well. I don't think they would use the 3.2L because it is too under powered for the F150 and most American's preferences. It is also majorly under powered compared to the Ecodiesel so they would have to develop another diesel to compete.

There is also the consumer cost of a diesel as well which is a lot higher than any the added costs of aluminum so far. The Ram's Ecodiesel is an over $4,000 upgrade on lower trims. I know people say that you will get some of that back in resale, but most people that buy diesels say they will keep them until the wheels fall off so resale is a moot point. Also, you will never get all of that money back in resale.

Like I said, this just comes down to opinions. You think Ford should and have went with a small diesel, and others think otherwise. Time will tell on whose opinion was the better way to go. Although, a 4.0L or 5.0L diesel would have been nice. Any diesel smaller than a 3.5L or less than 300 hp belongs in a midsize due to their power output in my opinion.

@Hemi V8

Yes, and instead of owning up to that mistake, you went own your Ram vs. Ford rant along the with "Ram wins" posts. My initial post was not say Ford was better or that "Ford wins". It was to correct your false information you posted, and you took it like a little kindergartner instead of owning up to your mistake like a man.

"My mistake i thought Ford already killed that Dinosaur."


How can you say the 6.2L is a dinosaur? It was first introduced in 2010 in the F150. The Hemi is older so what does that make the Hemi if you call the 6.2L a dinosaur? The first celled amoeba?

"There is also the consumer cost of a diesel as well which is a lot higher than any the added costs of aluminum so far. The Ram's Ecodiesel is an over $4,000 upgrade on lower trims. I know people say that you will get some of that back in resale, but most people that buy diesels say they will keep them until the wheels fall off so resale is a moot point. Also, you will never get all of that money back in resale."

Posted by: ALL1 | Sep 9, 2014 1:01:19 AM

Diesel engine will out last a gas engine. So if no resale you will get your return later by having the truck longer.

@All1, go back and check the record. I owned up to my mistake on the next post. Dinosaur meaning piss poor MPG with no cylinder deactivation.

I asked you to be a man and you refused when you were dead wrong about the coil spring rear on Rams. So who is the kindergartner?

Ford is behind Ram in lots of area's.

" The Hemi is older so what does that make the Hemi if you call the 6.2L a dinosaur? "

@All1, Yes the six time wards best engine the Hemi might be older than Fords 6.2 but it has evolved along the way with modern technology.

@All1, My new 6.4 392 Hemi in my power wagon will have more power and better fuel economy than my 5.7 345 Hemi. It's a win win. ;-)

I asked you to be a man and you refused when you were dead wrong about the coil spring rear on Rams. So who is the kindergartner?

Ford is behind Ram in lots of area's.
Posted by: HEMI V8 | Sep 9, 2014 1:20:35 AM

I agree with you. All1 is asking everybody to grove up, or man up, but can't do that himself and admit he was wrong in many cases.
I admit I overload my truck on daily basis. My truck likes that.
He won't admit, that RAM multilink rear coil spring suspension is superior to ancient leaf one from ford.
He won't admit, that RAM 2500 HEMI 6.4 MDS will meet all his needs he asked for and asked me to men up and admit this truck is not for him, which I did again. So I am man up twice.

All1 it's your turn now, to make PUTC better place and admit, that you were wrong that RAM rear coil multilink suspension needs to be ditched for leaf spring one.
I am not asking Lou to do it, because he is wrong , or out of topic constantly .

Cutting weight offers the most dramatic change and is the mid term phase and is above and beyond what Ford is doing to powertrains now (2nd gen EB) and in the next phase (3rd gen EB, other engines, 10 speed, the works)...


Q

Why not a diesel engine instead of aluminum to achieve better fuel economy?

A

We’re concentrating on cutting weight as the midterm phase of our Blueprint for Sustainability because it has the MOST DRAMATIC benefit to customers. This is ABOVE and beyond the improvements we’re already making to powertrains as the first phase of our Blueprint. Also, our EcoBoost® engine is a better value for customers than some diesels right now. We expect to see many others follow our lead with regard to weight reduction.

http://www.ford.com/trucks/f150/2015/?fmccmp=lp-future-top-hp-f-150

First phase: new powertrains, cut weight.

Second phase: 10 speed, more powertrains, more technologies.

As always, Ford did what was right, not what was easy - slapping in an engine and calling it a day.

Nobody can explain to me WHY the new F-150 is switching to laminated glass instead of tempered glass.
Laminated glass is twice as heavy as tempered glass. If they want to save weight why are they switching to heavier glass?
The new F-150 has the side impact air bags inside the doors instead of in the back of the seats. Are they doing this for increased safety or cost savings?
Also the Super Cab rear doors swing out 180 degrees.
They are still producing 2014's at the Kansas City Plant, the Dearborn Plant is re-tooling.

one of the biggest F-150 problems is the rear shackles
they used the exact rear shackle they used in the 1970's
These rear shackles crack and rust out and are costly to replace, even F-150 models as new as 2007 are needed replaced.
Ask any Ford Service the first thing they check is the rear shackle for safety inspections.
The design flaw of the rear shackle is the way its curved like a bowl that dirt and water lays in there and rusts it out!
IF they would drill a hole the water would drain out and maybe it would last longer.
Funny how you F-150 Owners wash and wax your truck all the time but you neglect cleaning off the rear shackles cause you're just too dumb to know better!

@Charles,
Good response, reading the response I do think you actually work for Ford.

Your language indicates you are attempting to be mostly factual, but yet not revealing enough.

Fact;
1. Ford did do a study into turbo gas vs turbo diesel in 2004. The recommendation was the Ford should move towards turbo gas as this would allow for a cheaper intitial purchase price of a vehicle.

The finding also stated that diesel would of been the preferred option, hence the Eco Boost range of engines we now have.

2. Your comment that reducing weight would have the most dramatic effect is false. Aerodynamic changes would of had a bigger effect, but it also would of had an effect on sales.

Diesel would have offered a cheaper route in improving FE. But regulatory requriements make this almost prohibitive in the US vehicle market.

So, you are stuck with the gasoline engines, not that you have much choice. You can't produce a competitive diesel.

To maintain and build a full size truck within the framework laid out by your regulatory authorities is why you are moving toward aluminium, which is more expensive than what Ford is stating.

I do also know that the F-150 might have problems reaching it's target weight. The metallurgy required to create the aluminium required for forming is giving you some issues.

I have spoken to my metal guys and they stated the only way Ford can resolve the forming issue is to soften the aluminium to make it more malleable and ductile.

To achieve this and maintain structural integrity the metal will have to be thicker.

So, all isn't as it appears.

The 2.7 Eco Boost should be fine engine and mostly reliable.

A diesel will find it's way into the F-150.

But, as I stated the F-150 must cost more. More means the actual transaction prices must rise to offset the expense this vehicle is costing Ford.

This ain't one cheap vehicle. It's a bold move, but necessary and not as you attempted to put it, for the consumer.

It's all about Ford.

I love the "They did it first" crowd. Who cares who did it first. All that matters is who does it best. Let Ford do it first. Then then Ford buyers can be the guinea pigs.

@BAFO, You're trolling again. I don't work for Ford. I quoted the website and posted the link. Why did Ford go to aluminum and not diesel? The answer is out there, BAFO, and it's looking for you, and it will find you if you want it to. But it is clear that you don't want to hear the answer because you bailed on the USA and migrated to Australia and work for the Small Truck Diesel Euro Trash Alliance.

@all the detractors,

The more you push the more I will become resolute.

What I find intriguing is that you have labelled me a midsize zealot, when in fact I don't support anything.

I give midsize feedback because you guys don't have what we have.

You seem to talk about midsizers much more than I do, you must very interested in them.

Give it up, between all of you I don't think you are convincing.

It's all well and good to be loyal. But loyalty can only go so far.

When there is a plethora of facts and data supporting an argument it becomes rather boring. Sort of like re-inventing the wheel, if you have heard of that phrase.

Most of the time the impression I'm gaining is that I'm debating the same person, but with different names.

Post what you want, I have proven all of you are just ignorant and fearful of what you deem the unknown.

Our country went more or less what you are going through now. You have nothing to worry about. No matter what happens in your vehicle market there will always be some form of light commercial vehicle.

I don't support anything.

I give midsize feedback because you guys don't have what we have.

Give it up, between all of you I don't think you are convincing.

When there is a plethora of facts and data supporting an argument it becomes rather boring.

Most of the time the impression I'm gaining is that I'm debating the same person, but with different names.

Post what you want, I have proven all of you are just ignorant and fearful of what you deem the unknown.

The biggest challenges furd faces is that it has to start advertising to heterosexual males not just homosexuals and that its butt ugly.

@zviera

"He won't admit, that RAM multilink rear coil spring suspension is superior to ancient leaf one from ford. "

How is it more superior? The coil spring in the heavy duty challenge had more of a drop than both leaf spring suspensions and was almost for inches taller unloaded than the Ford and exactly two inches taller than the GM unloaded. You are so focused on hating Ford, but you forget that the GM has coil springs too. Where did the GM's leaf springs fail?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"He won't admit, that RAM 2500 HEMI 6.4 MDS will meet all his needs he asked for and asked me to men up and admit this truck is not for him, which I did again."

I told you I didn't want a 250/2500 because of the size and dismal fuel mileage in the gas engines that are available. Not only that, but the 6.4L is weak power wise while getting less fuel mileage that what I have now. I have 10 more hp and over 100 lb-ft more torque than the 6.4L, and I get an average of 2-3 mpg better than the 14.03 mpg that PUTC did in the got in the last challenge with 50/50 combined driving. So why would go to something that is not only less powerful, but also use up a lot more fuel? So it is and was true that it does not meet my requirements(not being a 250/2500 was one of my requirements remember) like I initially said.

Correction

"You are so focused on hating Ford, but you forget that the GM has coil springs too."

You are so focused on hating Ford, but you forget that the GM has leaf springs too.

@Charles
Well then, I was correct in my assumption that the comment was from Ford.

It wasn't from Charles or whomever.

I didn't deny the Ford response did I? I actually agreed with it.

So what is your problem?

You just don't like the reasons why Ford has moved in the direction they have, it that it?

You can be a fan, but an overly zealous fan is blind.

Kind of wish I had the money for a new truck come Christmas time. In all likelihood they will be practically giving away 2014 F150's.

@zviera

Also, if the coil springs are so superior then why did the payload ratings of the Ram 2500/3500 drop by 200 to 400 lbs going from 2013 leaf springs to 2014 coil springs? If it was as superior like you say then Ram would have increased capabilities and NOT decreased them.

This truck will revolutionize the auto industry. Every launch has its challenges but the team is finely tuned to overcome them. This truck will launch on time and at the highest quality levels. It will be a great improvement over steel/diesel trucks without the issues associated with diesels. As far as cost, the incremental cost of a diesel engine is in the same range as the cost of an aluminum body, without the associated noise and odor. Also, repair cost is primarily in the labor. Aluminum parts can be replaced and recycled keeping repair costs comparable as well.

@big al
Apparently you didn't even read all my post. 2BILLION. That is what ford said the development costs were for the aluminum f-150. Why would it be more? You think for some reason you are an expert on aluminum? Clearly not. I have a lot of experience in aluminum fabrication and welding. I've worked manufacturing aluminum truck accessories in college. I have also worked extensively in fabricating and repairing aluminum irrigation parts. No reason to believe development costs would skyrocket the way you say, especially when much has been learned by ford through the limited use of aluminum in previous vehicles and aluminum vehicles from other companies that ford used to own (jaguar). Not to mention ford is using a reputable company with years of experience in supplying aluminum to manufacturers (alcoa). You go on these long rants when the whole basis of your statement is usually skewed or flawed, making your whole rant pointless. I guess that's why I get bored by most of your posts.

If you really want a 6.2, get the next F250. It looks like it will have pretty much the same body as the next F150. Given that the F250 will likely weigh less than the current F150, this makes the most sense anyway, so you can use all the capability of that engine. Though if the next F150 3.5 gets the 380/460 tune, not sure why you would want a 6.2.

wah wah wah wah

"How is it more superior? The coil spring in the heavy duty challenge had more of a drop than both leaf spring suspensions and was almost for inches taller unloaded than the Ford and exactly two inches taller than the GM unloaded."

Posted by: ALL1 | Sep 9, 2014 7:52:03 AM

Third Place: 2015 Ford F-250 Super Duty
However, we found the most problems surrounding the truck were underneath in the form of the suspension's challenged ride quality, both when loaded or empty. None of the other trucks sagged as much as the F-250, which showed a pronounced droop in the rear end when loaded. Likewise, when loaded, the ride was floaty and wobbly — especially when taking corners.

Ram has a larger articulation range than its leaf-spring competitors, with less freeway hop.

The springs are canted and "bent" at the BPL position (BPL=Body Part Loaded- this means a loading of 2 each 150 lb passengers, full fluids, and 1/2 payload all combined to be the base point of design for the vehicle.

I'll give you an advise All1. If you like no any drop, install 2"x 6" square beams instead of any suspension. Problem solved for you. Maybe you can write an open letter to RAM or ford to make it factory option. Please let me know , how it goes and keep us posted about your offroad experience.

"I have 10 more hp and over 100 lb-ft more torque than the 6.4L, and I get an average of 2-3 mpg better than the 14.03 mpg that PUTC did in the got in the last challenge with 50/50 combined driving. "

Posted by: ALL1 | Sep 9, 2014 7:52:03 AM

Your engine is not stock ,you installed programmer and you didn't take this challenge together with PUTC, so your Mpg statement is false.

Maybe you can contact Ford engineers and stockholders , present your results and become one of them, making billions just buying and selling programmers to Ford. More power, less fuel consumption, just with programmer. No aluminum needed stupid ford.

I wanna know your squat , Mpg and acceleration, when 2400lbs strapped to your bed like in Ultimate 3/4 ton shout out.

Until then , keep lying to yourself. You are not gonna grow up and certainly not man up All1. We got it already.


@zviera, You sound like a real genius! I am sure that Ferrari engineers work on RAM trucks. LOL all the stuff you post is based on your point of view. Is no coincidence why Ford outsells RAM by hundreds of thousands!

@zviera, You sound like a real genius! I am sure that Ferrari engineers work on RAM trucks. LOL all the stuff you post is based on your point of view. Is no coincidence why Ford outsells RAM by hundreds of thousands!

@zviera, You sound like a real genius! I am sure that Ferrari engineers work on RAM trucks.

Where did I say that?

"Remember, RAM has access to engineers from Ferrari, Lancia, Fiat, VM Motori, Alfa Romeo, Maserati, IVECO."
I will add Magneti Marelli.

Is no coincidence why Ford outsells RAM by hundreds of thousands!
Posted by: 67f-100 | Sep 9, 2014 10:54:02 AM

McDonald outsells Montana Steak House. Your point is ?

"Until then, Ford's experiment will be closely watched by competitors and the government." That's ford for ya, experimenting on the consumer and letting the consumer do the R&D. Ridiculous. Oh ya, ford sucks.

@zviera

You hatred for all things Ford, which I think partially stems from your hatred towards Lou and I proving you wrong so many times, is blinding you to what you even stated. You are so fixated on the Ford in the challenge that you forgot about the GM in that challenge that had leaf springs just like the Ford. Remember, your initial statement is "outdated" leaf springs versus "advanced" coil springs. Not Ford versus Ram. Also all that Allpar marketing jargon that you regurgitating does not answer the question of if the coil springs are superior like you say then why did Ram's payload numbers drop when they replaced the leaf springs with coil springs.


On your remark about my trucks power numbers not being stock....What is your point? The 6.4L wasn't even available at the time I bought my truck or even when I tuned it. Only the 5.7L was. Since you are comparing Ram's 2500 current gas engine versus my 2011 truck then I will compare it just as it sits in my driveway. With all 420hp and 530lb-ft of torque. Don't like it? Well you know what to do.

A few folks make some valid points and some are likely off base. I know Ford said development costs were around $2 billion but of course we will never know the final exact amount as that is info Ford doesn't want the competition to have and rightly so. Like other folks have mentioned the biggest change Ford is making isn't in have the trucks be aluminum bodied, it is in the new manufacturing process itself.

This was no different 100 years ago. The model T was not a good vehicle at all but it didn't matter. The product wasn’t important it was the new technique of mass production of standardized components that was the real difference maker.

I am sure Fords new assembly robots have to be all new but there comes some increased efficiencies with that too compared to 25 year old machines. They would have had to be replaced anyway at some point and each new generation requires some degree of new tooling. The overall manufacturing differences are not likely to account for more than $300-500 per truck and Ford has increased the baseline costs to cover this. As BAFO pointed out there is the increased cost of materials that I bet Ford will eat a bit until they can gain some additional efficiencies that allow them to spread the costs over a wider range and incrementally increase prices.

Finally some food for thought.

“Caution actual math used below”

Vehicles by-in-large are no more expensive than they were 50 or even 100 years ago. Hear me out on this. Using a 3% inflation factor (the typical inflation for the last 20-30 years although the 100 year is more like 3.25%) the cost of a good doubles roughly every 24-26 years. Over say 100 years that is nearly 4 doubling periods or roughly 20 to 1 over the original price (using an actual calculator as opposed to the rule of 72). The cost of a Model T was around $850 and in today's dollars that would be an estimate of $17,000 using the 20:1 conversion ($22,000 using the 3.25% inflation).

I'd speculate that the Model T would be the equivalent of say the Fiesta or maybe the Focus if one were stretching a bit today. The entry price of a Fiesta is around $14k and the Focus around $17k. So basically in 100 years there has been effectively zero increase in the price of the basic vehicle but now they have a couple of orders of magnitude more capabilities. Cost free innovation?!

I suspect that over some modest time this new F150 will have nearly zero effect on the cost of producing a better vehicle since there have been at least equally challenging changes that have been made or forced onto automakers in the last 100 years. Enjoy the fruits of quality engineering and innovation because it isn't costing you a dime.

All1
Meeh, this is all you got?

Could you be more specific, which part of Allpar facts is "Allpar marketing jargon" ? Or you just trolling , when you have no answer as usually.

"McDonald outsells Montana Steak House. Your point is?"

Are you really comparing a $40,000 truck purchase to a $5 to $20 food purchase and saying they have the same purchasing paradigms? Wow...... No wonder you overload your truck on a normal basis. You choose your truck just like you choose your Happy Meal.

We have gone through this before. The McDonalds and hamburger analogy only works if you clarify that you're talking the top fast food chains, not sit down restaurants or fast-casual.

The Top Fast Food hamburger chains:
McDonalds = is the best overall and sells the most. Ford.
Burger King = they try hard but everything is a little off. Ram.
Wendys/Arbys = Needs no explanation. Chevy/GMC.
Dairy Queen = Needs work. Tundra.
Sonic = Fred Diaz says this is how you Sonic! Titan.

Wow...... No wonder you overload your truck on a normal basis.
Yes, I overload my truck, you overload your engine. What's the difference.


You choose your truck just like you choose your Happy Meal.
Posted by: ALL1 | Sep 9, 2014 12:10:00 PM

Yep, Montana Steak House is my Happy Meal.

I guess, you diverted discussion to your direction successfully again talking out of topic BS. Typical All1. Man up kido.

Have fun paying more initially for all that aluminum, denting it easily, and paying even more to fix it. Maybe after your front end deforms easily you can have it reshaped into something attractive, unless it looks better that way.

@zviera

"Could you be more specific, which part of Allpar facts is "Allpar marketing jargon" ? Or you just trolling , when you have no answer as usually."

I just skimmed through Allpar and found something in less than 5 minutes. Here is a prime example:

Best in class gas mileage (V6and V8): 20% better with either

http://www.allpar.com/model/ram/2013-ram.html

This is false. While Ram has a higher gas mileage in a V6, it does in a V8.

Also, why would you think that I or anyone else would take information taken from a Mopar only site and take their word for it? Would you take something I posted from a Ford only site as true? No, so why would you think I would think anything Allpar has to say is valid?


"I  guess, you diverted discussion to your direction successfully again talking out of topic BS. Typical All1. Man up kido."

No, I am just responding when I can since i am working or just feel like which might make me respond to something a few posts back. If you think I go off of your time then you are sorely mistaken.

You still haven't answered the question of if coil springs are sooooo superior then why did the Ram 2500/3500s payload drop when Ram converted to coil springs from leaf springs? So man up boy!

Mcdonalds is 100x's better than Burger King.

Burger King = Fiat-Ram.

Burger King is the worst of all the fast food burger chains. Their food is comparable to gas station food. Even as far as fast food goes, it's inferior to about anything else IMO.

"How is it more superior? The coil spring in the heavy duty challenge had more of a drop than both leaf spring suspensions and was almost for inches taller unloaded than the Ford and exactly two inches taller than the GM unloaded."

Posted by: ALL1 | Sep 9, 2014 7:52:03 AM

Third Place: 2015 Ford F-250 Super Duty
However, we found the most problems surrounding the truck were underneath in the form of the suspension's challenged ride quality, both when loaded or empty. None of the other trucks sagged as much as the F-250, which showed a pronounced droop in the rear end when loaded. Likewise, when loaded, the ride was floaty and wobbly — especially when taking corners.

Ram has a larger articulation range than its leaf-spring competitors, with less freeway hop.

The springs are canted and "bent" at the BPL position (BPL=Body Part Loaded- this means a loading of 2 each 150 lb passengers, full fluids, and 1/2 payload all combined to be the base point of design for the vehicle.

I'll give you an advise All1. If you like no any drop, install 2"x 6" square beams instead of any suspension. Problem solved for you. Maybe you can write an open letter to RAM or ford to make it factory option. Please let me know , how it goes and keep us posted about your offroad experience.

"I have 10 more hp and over 100 lb-ft more torque than the 6.4L, and I get an average of 2-3 mpg better than the 14.03 mpg that PUTC did in the got in the last challenge with 50/50 combined driving. "

Posted by: ALL1 | Sep 9, 2014 7:52:03 AM

Your engine is not stock ,you installed programmer and you didn't take this challenge together with PUTC, so your Mpg statement is false.

Maybe you can contact Ford engineers and stockholders , present your results and become one of them, making billions just buying and selling programmers to Ford. More power, less fuel consumption, just with programmer. No aluminum needed stupid ford.

I wanna know your squat , Mpg and acceleration, when 2400lbs strapped to your bed like in Ultimate 3/4 ton shout out.

Until then , keep lying to yourself. You are not gonna grow up and certainly not man up All1. We got it already.

Correction

This is false. While Ram has a higher gas mileage in a V6, it does NOT in a V8.



The comments to this entry are closed.