Structural Adhesive used in New F150

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:
I don't think any insurance company will eat the 26% cost increase to fix your 2015 F150. As far as fuel cost goes. Gas and diesel are within 15 cents of each other. With diesel and gas flipping week to week. There is the added cost of DEF with the new diesels to add in but I ran just over 9200 miles on my first tank and am sitting at half a tank with at 4800 miles so far on my second tank.

Not sure way you think Mich defuncted my "truths" but everyone I have talked to with a EB says they love everything about it but the fuel mileage.

Don

What you think doesn't appear to be correct. As previous poster stated, the 2015 F-150 is cheaper to insure than the Ram (at least for now).

If a vehicle is a complete loss, it doesn't matter if it's an aluminum F-150 or a steel Ram, it's gonna cost big money, much bigger than a body shop bill. I appreciate the fact you are super concerned about panel repair time, but the reality is no two wrecks are the same, so until insurance companies have enough empirical data to audit this claimed 26% higher repair costs associated with the F-150, insurance rates are unlikely to change.

When I had the aluminum hood and fender repaired on my 2002 explorer, I didn't notice nationwide insurance rates jump because it was 26% more expensive than a previous generation steel hooded Explorer. And considering my truck is 12 years old, I think we would have heard by now.

Gas vs. Diesel prices are in a constant state of flux. Around me, historically the average is Diesel being 50 cents to 1.00 more expensive per gal. Trying to accurately calculate future fuel expenses is like trying to nail jello to a wall, absolutely useless.

Glued joints are here to stay and growing...as it is 'cheaper' than most other
methods of fastening

My issue is that since I keep my vehicle for decades...longevity much more important
to me than those who replace in a few years

It 'should' be okay...even for me...as the test methodology I've been boning up
shows how they accelerate aging (make no doubt about it...adhesives do age faster
than traditional interface fastening methods) all use cycling through their
attackers...heat (ultimate in both directions and general ambient), UV, O3 and chems

Did not find anything on rate of change for the temp cycles...that should be
an issue, but no data for now.

Chem's also did not have much on the temps involved, as the aggressiveness of chems
does change with temp...so wondering why...did they miss (not likely)
or did they purposely omit???

Adhesives do have more compliance than spot welds/etc, so they should allow
the joints to not be subjected to the stresses that a spot weld or interference
fasteners place on the panels

Mentioned above that windshields are now a stressed member is
indicative of that. Glass does NOT do well with shock loads. Gasket
in the past and now glued...as similar compliance to the old gasket
method, but with enough mating surface to transfer
loading...including shock loads

As for aluminum vs steel...production science has come a long ways, but alu will
always take more effort than steel. Think the adhesives will mitigate this
somewhat, as the joints do need to be clean, but not down past the oxides that
welding would require of alu

My backyard welding setups (gas, stick, MIG) will NOT allow me to work with
alu well...maybe a new MIG might, but not going to spend that kind of money...
TIG would be so nice, but can not justify that cost over a better MIG setup

Alu work hardens VERY QUICKLY, so wonder if they will anneal or just cut out and
replace for body work???....then wonder about frame sections????

NOTE that annealing is most likely out of the question, as the "Military
Grade" (just like most any building/TV/etc) uses 6061 TX or somewhere
close in alloy. That TX is temper and to anneal, would lose that temper...

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:
I don't think any insurance company will eat the 26% cost increase to fix your 2015 F150.

Don

Repair costs are typically only a small factor in overall loss rates. Personal Injury costs are typically much higher, but the biggest factor is the probability of a loss happening in the first place. F150s for now are cheaper to insure because they have the lowest total lose rates.

I don't think any insurance company will eat the 26% cost increase to fix your 2015 F150. As far as fuel cost goes. Gas and diesel are within 15 cents of each other. With diesel and gas flipping week to week. There is the added cost of DEF with the new diesels to add in but I ran just over 9200 miles on my first tank and am sitting at half a tank with at 4800 miles so far on my second tank.

Not sure way you think Mich defuncted my "truths" but everyone I have talked to with a EB says they love everything about it but the fuel mileage.

Don

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:

Fordlover wrote:

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:
...fact is the F-150 is going to cost you more all around, upfront, fuel and insurance...

Don

Don, you are confusing your opinion with real facts, which aren't the same thing. More than what? not buying one and just walking?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.autonews.com/article/20150730/RETAIL05/150729842/ford-f-150-aluminum-repairs-cost-more-than-steel-iihs-says&ved=0CC0QFjAAahUKEwimsaXMv-fHAhVH0oAKHYirAmY&usg=AFQjCNEQzt0N2Xt6mxS4Hkjqq6li4dROXg&sig2=Hk9M8cf0SrEa47YSanGZzw

Tests by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that repairing body damage on the aluminum-bodied 2015 Ford F-150 took longer and cost 26 percent more than on the 2014 F-150 made of steel.

Last I knew 30 MPG (ED EPA rating) will cost you less in fuel then 23 mpg (the EB EPA rating).

If the total cost only went up by 400 over the steel body it's because Ford is eating the cost difference. That won't last for long.

Don

Repairing aluminum vs. steel is more costly, for now. But the blanket statement that a 2015 F-150 will always be more expensive to repair after an accident ignores facts like many current vehicles on the market have (and have had for years!) aluminum hoods, fenders, etc. All other things being the same, a moderate hit on the front of a 2014 F-150 and a 2015 F-150 is likely to cost the same in repair. (airbags, grille, bumper, hood, etc.)

Also keep in mind that insurance rates are determined by MANY factors, only one of which is repair costs. Theft rates, personal injury, the list goes on and on.

So at least in one real life situation, the F-150 is cheaper to insure than the Ram:

p220sigman wrote:


While I don't have a dog in this fight, out of curiosity from reading this this thread, I got quotes from our insurance on a comparably equipped F150 and Ram 1500. I went to some dealer websites and got actual VINs for the comparison. For us, the actual 6 month premium for the F150 would be $393.65 and for the Ram 1500 would be 406.51. This was for trucks that stickered at about 57K and seemed to have the same or similar equipment. Of course this can vary widely from company to company and from person to person, but in our case, the F150 would be cheaper. Of course, as the insurance companies get more crash/repair data, that could change.

The rest of your "truth's" were debunked by Mich800.

Thanks for the discussion/feedback everyone. I guess the only thing to do now is drive a F150 and give it the ole seat of the pants test.

Thanks!

Jeremiah

Wow... so much bickering about something that hasn't even really happened yet. Without innovation we would all still be driving black 4 cylinder trucks with about 13 hp from Ford.

Was there this much complaining and b-tching on RV.net a couple years ago when Ram started putting factory exhaust brakes in trucks? Now it is a pretty standard feature and we argue about who makes the best exhaust brake.

How about air bags and how much that would drive up cost. Fuel injection versus carb. Power windows and locks. The list goes on and on.

I hope that this is a successful endeavor for Ford. I hope that fuel mileage goes up and vehicle and insurance cost stays even. Some people are so scared of change (or scared of a brand of truck different from what they own) that they hate anything that they don't own.

Let it go.

If Ford is making such a catastrophic error you can come back and point your finger in a year at the horrible decision. If Ford is being a pioneer and making an amazing product that blows the competition out of the water you can come back in a year and laugh at the idiots that bought a product from the competition.

Oops... not the OP... jasonlisan, sharp looking truck. I hope you love it and it works great for you. Put some miles on before camping season ends!

CWSWine wrote:

Tom/Barb wrote:
Grumman American Aircraft were bonded with epoxy, they are still flying after 40 years. When done properly the glue is better than bolts, nuts, and spot welds.

Not True.. I have worked on and around aircraft since 1967 and hold an A&P.. This is a current quote and what is being taught to new students..

You best do your home work on the Grumman American Yankee.

I'm also a A&P-IA and a DER

Read the features :Features

Quote
All models of the AA-1 accommodate two people in side-by-side seating under a sliding canopy and are noted for their exceptionally light handling. The Yankee and its four-seater siblings, the AA-5 series, feature a unique bonded aluminum honeycomb fuselage and bonded wings that eliminate the need for rivets without sacrificing strength.

FishOnOne wrote:
Wow... That King Ranch looks like a jewel.

Nice truck...

Thank you!

All modern big-rigs have cabs that are all aluminum, and are now all bonded and riveted.

Youtube: Peterbilt 579