2017 Ford Super Duty Review: First Drive

I find the video pretty weak argument wise, seems more like an internet expert (like most people on all these boards, myself included). His example of using a cereal box, why don't you take the same cereal box, cut out 1 tall side and double its thickness. The box would deform more readily despite being twice as thick and with enough twist, it fails. Also, the guy's video ignores all the advantages of a rigid frame. Namely, when you make a rigid frame, the engineers have an easier time "Tuning" the suspension to absorb the impacts as desired and disperse energy appropriately. No truck maker boxes their frame and stops right there, they engineer the suspension and other bits to work in harmony on the entire chassis. A rigid frame grants a better, more predictable foundation to base all your suspension travel, cab flex, and bed flex models on. You also don't disperse undesired stress to the cab and body work. Again, his video is very narrow in point of view and uses the typical forum arguments you see versus the stuff you read in SAE and other engineering rags where they go into far more depth about engineering these systems in vehicles.

Everyone keeps bringing the "Class-8" truck argument. In the case of class 8 vehicles, there's nowhere near enough volume for any one manufacturer to own the market and sell vehicles with your own proprietary frame design. The industry basically centered around the C-channel spread at 36 or so inches so that all of them can appeal to all the potential customers out there for class 8 trucks. The class-8 truck isn't really all that proprietary. Only things typically unique are the Canbus system, cab, interior ergonomics, and maybe a few power train choices (like Volvo and Mack). But almost all of them offer the same engines (Detroit, Cummins, International), transmissions (Eaton, Allison, Voith, ZF, etc...), axles (MAN, Meritor, Rockwell, etc...) and suspensions (Typically same as axle make) available. Then there's the up-fit portion made by vendors outside of the truck OEM's, such as the dump beds, 5th wheel hitches, flat beds, and all that other stuff that needs a predictable frame to mount everything to. Heck, this is the same reason why "ALL" of the big 3's chassis cab trucks sport a 36" wide C-channel frame aft of the cab. Since nobody is really complaining about the frame design, and it would take a momentous act of the "ENTIRE" industry to move to a new frame standard, it probably will never happen. The closest thing I've seen was some concepts of using Carbon Fiber or even Aluminum for the actual frame itself. That's why when certain trucks need more rigidity, they just "Double Frame" the C-channel instead of boxing it, so they can still use all the up-fit and aftermarket stuff out there for class-8's.

Turtle n Peeps wrote:

Threebigfords wrote:
"As far as flex goes. You don't need any or want any. That's right, NONE. You want your suspension to work and not the frame."

That's fine if you have the suspension travel of a trophy truck. Stock trucks do not. Boxed frames are better for light duty trucks.

So your saying that all the C channel framed semi truck manufacturers are doing it all wrong? Watch a semi taking off with a load, frame twists due to the torque, and tires stay on the ground so you can steer and get traction. Good luck building a suspension that will carry that weight and travel enough to accommodate a ZERO flex frame.

#1. I don't jump my RV tow vehicle. So a ridged frame works better. If I did jump my TV or have a rock crawler I would want a ridged frame and have the suspension work and not the frame.

#2. No, I'm not saying semi's are doing it all wrong. They are just getting by with what they have to work with. They use C frames for many, many reasons. Cost, ease of adding stuff on the frame itself, weight and many, many, many more reasons. Are you saying Ford is going backwards with a more ridged frame? :R

#3. I have never lifted the tires off of the ground because of torque on my TV and hope I never do. And I never had problems steering problems with a ridged frame either.

#4. My suspension carries my load just fine with more than enough suspension travel without a flexie frame.


Ford saw the error of their ways and fixed the problem. Good for them because people were getting tired of the $2,000 radiator problems!

I think frame flex has its advantages as explained in this video. He states it better than I can type it.

Boxed Frame vs. C-Channel

"Has anyone seen payload info on the new SD? I read all the gross towing specs, however I haven't seen the payload info. We'll be on the market later this year, and we want to stick with a SRW. "



Your probably aware that on the Ford website most of the Payload numbers are listed as to be determined. I think the truck is supposed to be about 300 lbs lighter and have heavier axles and stronger frames so because my 2016 SRW diesel cc 4x4 has a payload of around 3400 lbs I am quite confident that the 2017 will be at least 3700 lbs. How much payload are you needing?

Threebigfords wrote:
"As far as flex goes. You don't need any or want any. That's right, NONE. You want your suspension to work and not the frame."

That's fine if you have the suspension travel of a trophy truck. Stock trucks do not. Boxed frames are better for light duty trucks.

So your saying that all the C channel framed semi truck manufacturers are doing it all wrong? Watch a semi taking off with a load, frame twists due to the torque, and tires stay on the ground so you can steer and get traction. Good luck building a suspension that will carry that weight and travel enough to accommodate a ZERO flex frame.

#1. I don't jump my RV tow vehicle. So a ridged frame works better. If I did jump my TV or have a rock crawler I would want a ridged frame and have the suspension work and not the frame.

#2. No, I'm not saying semi's are doing it all wrong. They are just getting by with what they have to work with. They use C frames for many, many reasons. Cost, ease of adding stuff on the frame itself, weight and many, many, many more reasons. Are you saying Ford is going backwards with a more ridged frame? :R

#3. I have never lifted the tires off of the ground because of torque on my TV and hope I never do. And I never had problems steering problems with a ridged frame either.

#4. My suspension carries my load just fine with more than enough suspension travel without a flexie frame.


Ford saw the error of their ways and fixed the problem. Good for them because people were getting tired of the $2,000 radiator problems!

Has anyone seen payload info on the new SD? I read all the gross towing specs, however I haven't seen the payload info. We'll be on the market later this year, and we want to stick with a SRW.

spoon059 wrote:

patriotgrunt wrote:
And by the 2nd post the Ram mafia showed up talk **** about Ford. It's amazing you point fingers because you're one of the worst brand bashers on this site. Why are you here to discuss Ford trucks when clearly you favor Ram and will always favor Ram? Are you adding to the discussion and simply trolling?

Okay... we'll take this point by point... Here is the 2nd post;

IdaD wrote:
It still has the CP4 issue in the diesels but other than that it's going to be an awesome truck overall. The chassis upgrade alone is huge. The 2016 and earlier Super Duty's felt incredibly dated from behind the wheel in terms of stiffness and the ride/handling balance because there was so much frame flex. It has amazing power numbers but none of the big diesels could be called deficient in that regard these days.

So IdaD points out that Ford still uses the CP4.2 pump that is a known weak spot. Then he says its going to be an "awesome" truck. He compliments the upgraded chassis then gives credit to the amazing power numbers. I guess making a truthful comment about a known troublesome fuel injector that Ford has not stood behind is considered to be "talking trash (more polite word than you used) about Ford"??? Seems to be a stretch.
Second point, I don't "favor" any truck over the other. You might want to take a look through my posts before you hurt yourself jumping to conclusions. I owned and loved a Ford F150. I owned and loved a Toyota Tundra. I currently own and love my Ram. Furthermore, did you even read my post? I am highly complimentary of this new truck and I think that Ford has greatly improved upon the already highest selling truck. Regardless of what truck I own, am I not allowed to read and comment in threads about other trucks? Again, I hope you don't hurt yourself, this time from falling off your high horse.
Final point... did you even read my post? I asked on-topic questions about the new truck, gave praise for what appears to be a great and innovative platform and said I couldn't wait to see them in person.

How is that negative, trolling or "favoring Ram"? I am far from a loyal brand truck owner. These things are pieces of metal that I use to move my camper from one campsite to the next. I have no emotional attachment and buy the best price I can afford in my pricepoint that meets my needs. Who knows, my next truck might very well be a Ford. I guess I should feel ashamed for reading and inquiring about them... Next time I will seriously consider requesting your permission.

By the way, did you ever wonder why very few Ford owners are willing to stand with Fish and his trolling nonsense? All of the accusations that you pointed at me are quite true about your buddy Fishie. Read some of my posts... read some of his posts... see if you don't agree with me.

I'd be willing to bet that you either don't even reply to my post or else you fail to address 99.9% of my points.

If you take a look at the posts, the Ram mafia and/or other brand owners are the first to start slinging mud. Take a look at the third post. Fish simply came on here and offered his perspective after the shooting war had begun. I honestly don't know your history or even care but don't act like the Ram mafia is the virgin Mary in here.

As for the CP4 issues, again this is very over blown. It's not a prevalent of an issue as many people on this site make it out to be. In fact the same crowd always starts this argument anytime someone talks about Chevy/GMC or Ford.

"As far as flex goes. You don't need any or want any. That's right, NONE. You want your suspension to work and not the frame."

That's fine if you have the suspension travel of a trophy truck. Stock trucks do not. Boxed frames are better for light duty trucks.

So your saying that all the C channel framed semi truck manufacturers are doing it all wrong? Watch a semi taking off with a load, frame twists due to the torque, and tires stay on the ground so you can steer and get traction. Good luck building a suspension that will carry that weight and travel enough to accommodate a ZERO flex frame.

That's what Ford is saying, "first new Super Duty in eighteen years"! About time. Good tranny, fair engine(better than the last two), big rear diff and lots of bells and whistles. Should sell well, as they could not run much of their base away with the past mis-steps.

Chris

I think Ford SD is going to be a lot better with a box frame.

As far as flex goes. You don't need any or want any. That's right, NONE. You want your suspension to work and not the frame.

Ford had to do something with all the power and torque they are putting out or this was going to keep happening.

If they do it correctly, I think Ford will kill off their radiator problems that have plagued these trucks for years.

Me Again wrote:

Threebigfords wrote:


Time will tell if the Box frame is a boon or a bust for Ford, I'm hoping it's a step forward, but I have my doubts.

Ever squeeze an aluminum beer can. They have to stiffen up the frame for the body to survive.

As the Ford guy himself said first all new F250+ series in 18 years

Chris

Ever look at the latest crash tests on the .5 tons Rams and Fords. The rams have some serious body distortion including the roof. There's no substitute for good engineering, but as you demonstrated some Rube Goldberg engineering on this site I'm sure you wouldn't understand.