Broken Frame on a RAM 3500

towpro wrote:
Just search internet on ram 3500 broken frames.






*Set width tag to 640 pixels

Just enough to be dangerous with the ole internet, eh?
I say “eh” cause you probably don’t know where aboots that pic was taken. But the clues are in my decidedly regional Canadian inflection….hahahaha
One thing is for sure, all the “broken frame” pics out there, save for the ones due to rust on the poor folks that live in the salt belt are due to pretty extreme or repeated misuse or overloading. And it’s not a Ram thing or a Ford thing. GMs and Yodas break too.
Not Nissans generally, but most people aren’t silly enough to try to do real work with a Nissan product ! Lol

towpro wrote:
Just search internet on ram 3500 broken frames.






*Set width tag to 640 pixels

That frame failure sure doesn't look like a stress failure due to the very straight edge/line

Groover wrote:

3 tons wrote:

towpro wrote:
Wonder if this is related to the Frame Flex (or lack of) shown in this video?

https://youtu.be/_f3CAnH7WIM

That clip demonstrates the uber strength of RAM’s hydro-formed frame, but if used improperly, ain’t nothing infallible…

3 tons

Too stiff can be bad as it lets you get into the material fatigue zone more quickly. That may be why chassis/cab trucks use less rigid C-channel frames with thicker steel. Better to flex than break.

Yeah….no.
Try cheaper, more versatile, and generally not subject to a great deal of torsion from off camber articulation. IE can’t take a 1 ton where a Jeep would go and and can’t take a tractor trailer where a 1 ton would go.

Groover wrote:

3 tons wrote:

towpro wrote:
Wonder if this is related to the Frame Flex (or lack of) shown in this video?

https://youtu.be/_f3CAnH7WIM

That clip demonstrates the uber strength of RAM’s hydro-formed frame, but if used improperly, ain’t nothing infallible…

3 tons

Too stiff can be bad as it lets you get into the material fatigue zone more quickly. That may be why chassis/cab trucks use less rigid C-channel frames with thicker steel. Better to flex than break.

True enough, that’s why widgets need to be used per their manufacturer’s stated ratings, though I’ll stop short of speculating on (e.g. as out side of my lane…) the purported merits of C-channel vs Hydro-formed frames - Fact is, none of us here are privy to whatever the ‘failure chain’ was that took place - most likely it was due to a multiplicity of issues…JMO

3 tons

3 tons wrote:

towpro wrote:
Wonder if this is related to the Frame Flex (or lack of) shown in this video?

https://youtu.be/_f3CAnH7WIM

That clip demonstrates the uber strength of RAM’s hydro-formed frame, but if used improperly, ain’t nothing infallible…

3 tons

Too stiff can be bad as it lets you get into the material fatigue zone more quickly. That may be why chassis/cab trucks use less rigid C-channel frames with thicker steel. Better to flex than break.

towpro wrote:
Wonder if this is related to the Frame Flex (or lack of) shown in this video?

https://youtu.be/_f3CAnH7WIM

I’m sure you understand that mode of flexing is normal and expected. Hence the reason truck have a bed that’s detached from the cab vs a car or suv which isn’t designed to carry as heavy of loads.
And actually that video is showing the (old) Ford frames which were still a c channel frame from the front x member back. Same basic frame design since the early Superdutys and a common basic design of all trucks (c channel) until the 2000s when fully boxed rear frames started on Dodges and GMs. Ford was late to that party by about 15 years.
Doesn’t mean they could haul less load, but they did flex more torsionally than the fully boxed frames.
Speculating whether the fully boxed stiffer frame was even a secondary cause of the Baja guys broken truck is a stretch and most very likely had nothing to do with it.
Simply by the numbers. NONE of the trucks in the last however many decades that I can think of have had an abnormally large or defective amount of frame failures. Just different designs and in this case the fully boxed frame is stronger and newer technology if you want to call it that.
Or in other words that video is not newsworthy and Ford switched to fully boxed HD trucks in 2017. If it was bad then would seem ALL mfgs wouldn’t have changed their designs and kept those similar changes for 5 to 20 years now.

towpro wrote:
Wonder if this is related to the Frame Flex (or lack of) shown in this video?

https://youtu.be/_f3CAnH7WIM

That clip demonstrates the uber strength of RAM’s hydro-formed frame, but if used improperly, ain’t nothing infallible…

3 tons

Wonder if this is related to the Frame Flex (or lack of) shown in this video?

https://youtu.be/_f3CAnH7WIM

jimh406 wrote:


You signature says you bought a Ford. What happened? :D

Seriously though, I don't think this thread is about what brand we would buy.

I used to purchase Dodge/Ram for the Cummins. Plus I used to get friends and family pricing through my employer until Ram cleaned up that list and took my company off.
I changed jobs last year and now I get Xplan from Ford.
Before I started buying Dodge/Rams, we owned several Rangers in the 80's and my Wife continued to drive Fords. I went with a F150 Lariat.

towpro wrote:
I would buy another Ram 3500 in a heart beat and load it with a truck camper up all the way to GVWR of the actual vehicle when camper is fully loaded. But I would not take it into serious off road with all that weight on it, let along over loaded.

You signature says you bought a Ford. What happened? :D

Seriously though, I don't think this thread is about what brand we would buy.