Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncements
Discussion Groups
By Brand
BMWChevroletDodgeFordGMHondaLexusMercedes-BenzNissanPeugeotToyotaVolkswagenOther Brands
By Topic
4x4 CarsRVsDrivingMaintenance & RepairCar AudioCollectible Cars
Country Specific
Australian ForumsUK Forums
ArticlesAuto InsuranceBuyingCars & TechnologyMaintenanceMiscellaneousSafety
DMV Resources
Related Topics
MotorcyclesBoatsMore Topics ...

Car Forum / Ford / Ford Trucks / August 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Why the thinner frame steel?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
JohnR66 - 09 Aug 2007 16:51 GMT
I was looking at used full sized trucks (F150, Chev 1500). Something with a
8 foot bed. I was surprized that they use the same ~1/8" thick steel U
channel frame that is used in the S10/Ranger. I was expecting something
beefier in a full size. Why do this?

I see they use a boxed frame in the newer trucks but it is not as tall. For
a deeper bed I'd guess.
SnoMan - 09 Aug 2007 18:33 GMT
>I was looking at used full sized trucks (F150, Chev 1500). Something with a
>8 foot bed. I was surprized that they use the same ~1/8" thick steel U
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>I see they use a boxed frame in the newer trucks but it is not as tall. For
>a deeper bed I'd guess.

I commend you for looking under the hood and noticing. They are all
using thinnner metal to cut costs and weight a bit and they use a
stronger grade of metal to try to make up for less metal
cross-sectional area. The proble with this while it looks good on
paper for advertisements (like boxed frame) it alos causes a few
problems of its own. First the thinner metal is more weakend by rust
than older metal because 40 or 50 thousandths from 1/8 inch is a
bigger deal than same from 3/16 inch thick metal. (also with fame
inclosed it cannot wash out well and can be more prone to rust inside
weakening it unseen) Second, box frames are not forgiving when they
exceed their load limit and can buckle suddenly without warning while
the classic old C channel is very forgivening in this regard. (this is
the reason when you still see C channel on very serious dump trucks
and semi's)
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com
JohnR66 - 10 Aug 2007 03:42 GMT
>>I was looking at used full sized trucks (F150, Chev 1500). Something with
>>a
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> -----------------
> TheSnoMan.com

You bought up good points about the box frame. I notice that they paint them
(for good reason).

Saving weight on the vehicle's very foundation seems dumb to me. Take a 18
foot long piece a steel that is 12" wide (unfolded C channel) and 1/8"
thick)
216" x 12" x 1/8" x .27 = 87.48  punds (.27 is the density of steel
pounds/cu in). Adding an extra 1/32" increases strength quite a bit yet adds
only about 21 pounds or 42" total for both frame rails.
John
Joe - 10 Aug 2007 03:55 GMT
>>>I was looking at used full sized trucks (F150, Chev 1500). Something with
>>>a
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
> adds only about 21 pounds or 42" total for both frame rails.
> John

That's true, and steel is very very cheap.  42 pounds of steel would only
cost a few dollars.  Too bad.  I would bet they're not worried about the
cost, but they are worried about shaving weight.
SnoMan - 10 Aug 2007 15:22 GMT
> I would bet they're not worried about the
>cost, but they are worried about shaving weight.

I think they are worried about both.  Every new design or change seems
to also focus on it being cheaper to make too be it from less labor,
less materials or both.
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com
SC Tom - 10 Aug 2007 21:09 GMT
>>>I was looking at used full sized trucks (F150, Chev 1500). Something with
>>>a
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
> adds only about 21 pounds or 42" total for both frame rails.
> John

Using on-line prices and weights, I found this info for boxed steel (not C
channel):

4x2x.120x216= $111.78   85.5 pounds.
4x2x.188x216= $186.30  123.7 pounds.

The extra $75 would probably be somewhat of a concern for thousands of
vehicles (granted, the bulk prices would probably be considerably less), and
the extra pounds might cut a half mile per gallon from their CAFE ratings,
so I would think that the manufacturers would be concerned with both the
price and the weight somewhat equally. Gotta do what you can to save money
and increase gas mileage or they'll get some other fool to be their CEO.
Never mind that the vehicle bodies won't last near as long as they used to.
The sooner they break, the sooner the sucker. . .er. . . customer will buy
another one.

SC Tom
Mike H - 13 Aug 2007 15:34 GMT
> I was looking at used full sized trucks (F150, Chev 1500). Something with a
> 8 foot bed. I was surprized that they use the same ~1/8" thick steel U
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> I see they use a boxed frame in the newer trucks but it is not as tall. For
> a deeper bed I'd guess.

At a family get together this weekend a couple construction guys were
commenting on the new Chevy and Ford long box trucks.  A guy had one
at a shop and they used a bumper jack to pick it up.  Bent the frame
on the unloaded truck just picking it up by the rear bumper.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.