mich800 wrote:transamz9 wrote:mich800 wrote:Hannibal wrote:
I remember going from my '01.5 Cummins Ram to my '03 Cummins Ram for the common rail Cummins. The ride with the new cheaper hydroformed chassis was jittery compared to the C-channel chassis of the previous Rams. I've never had the need or desire to drive my F250 loaded to capacity up a set of offset ramps to the point of hanging tires so I still prefer the C-channel chassis. But, Ford is finally following suit on stepping down to the "cheaper" manufactured hydroformed chassis. Good that they're not going with the spindly little aluminum control arm/dried up ball joint assemblies. :B
That "test" was a huge farce. Other than the fact the odds of putting a vehicle designed to tow and haul in that scenario is slim, they intentionally loaded the Ford to have all the weight on the two cross tires where the Ram was balanced on three wheels. But made for good infotainment.
I do believe all three trucks they did in the test were loaded the same. Where do you get your info from?
Watch the video closely. When they pull down on the rear wheel of the Ram it hardly rocks because it is not directly pivoting on the left rear and right front but has weight on all three wheels. When they pull down of the Ford you can see they have it more so all the weight in on those two wheels. It pulled down easy. I am not saying the frame does not flex but this was a staged marketing commercial just like the other manufactures do. So all they accomplished was show what happens to the Ford with two wheels off the ground and what happens to the Ram with one tire off the ground.
transamz9 wrote:mich800 wrote:Hannibal wrote:
I remember going from my '01.5 Cummins Ram to my '03 Cummins Ram for the common rail Cummins. The ride with the new cheaper hydroformed chassis was jittery compared to the C-channel chassis of the previous Rams. I've never had the need or desire to drive my F250 loaded to capacity up a set of offset ramps to the point of hanging tires so I still prefer the C-channel chassis. But, Ford is finally following suit on stepping down to the "cheaper" manufactured hydroformed chassis. Good that they're not going with the spindly little aluminum control arm/dried up ball joint assemblies. :B
That "test" was a huge farce. Other than the fact the odds of putting a vehicle designed to tow and haul in that scenario is slim, they intentionally loaded the Ford to have all the weight on the two cross tires where the Ram was balanced on three wheels. But made for good infotainment.
I do believe all three trucks they did in the test were loaded the same. Where do you get your info from?
mich800 wrote:Hannibal wrote:
I remember going from my '01.5 Cummins Ram to my '03 Cummins Ram for the common rail Cummins. The ride with the new cheaper hydroformed chassis was jittery compared to the C-channel chassis of the previous Rams. I've never had the need or desire to drive my F250 loaded to capacity up a set of offset ramps to the point of hanging tires so I still prefer the C-channel chassis. But, Ford is finally following suit on stepping down to the "cheaper" manufactured hydroformed chassis. Good that they're not going with the spindly little aluminum control arm/dried up ball joint assemblies. :B
That "test" was a huge farce. Other than the fact the odds of putting a vehicle designed to tow and haul in that scenario is slim, they intentionally loaded the Ford to have all the weight on the two cross tires where the Ram was balanced on three wheels. But made for good infotainment.
Hannibal wrote:
I remember going from my '01.5 Cummins Ram to my '03 Cummins Ram for the common rail Cummins. The ride with the new cheaper hydroformed chassis was jittery compared to the C-channel chassis of the previous Rams. I've never had the need or desire to drive my F250 loaded to capacity up a set of offset ramps to the point of hanging tires so I still prefer the C-channel chassis. But, Ford is finally following suit on stepping down to the "cheaper" manufactured hydroformed chassis. Good that they're not going with the spindly little aluminum control arm/dried up ball joint assemblies. :B
Hannibal wrote:
I remember going from my '01.5 Cummins Ram to my '03 Cummins Ram for the common rail Cummins. The ride with the new cheaper hydroformed chassis was jittery compared to the C-channel chassis of the previous Rams. I've never had the need or desire to drive my F250 loaded to capacity up a set of offset ramps to the point of hanging tires so I still prefer the C-channel chassis. But, Ford is finally following suit on stepping down to the "cheaper" manufactured hydroformed chassis. Good that they're not going with the spindly little aluminum control arm/dried up ball joint assemblies. :B
STEVEO496 wrote:
A little frame twist never hurt anyone! I think the whole frame twist debate is way overblown. There are advantages to C channel. For one the whole rail is coated inside and out, whereas tubing may not be. I had a car trailer one time that was made out of box tubing and it rusted from the inside out. Also, there's the bend don't break school of thought. Skyscrapers, bridges and ships are designed to flex because if they were too stiff they would break. A good buddy of mine formally (up until December of last year) worked for Metalsa Frame Div., they build truck frames for Ford and others. He told me that Ford and GM have been having trouble with these new super stiff frames cracking. Their "fix" is to put some extra welds in the area where the cracks are known to occur. I understand the thought behind having a stiff frame, better suspension dynamics, less NVH, better handling. Same reason race cars use ultra stiff chassis, but then again race car chassis' are junk after just a few races. I think this is all just marketing hype, JMHO.
