Topic: Weird F-150 Aluminum Body Comparison Test

[DFraser]

I think by now we've all heard the debate surrounding the F-150's aluminum body. But what I can't believe is all the comparison tests that are out there, like the one I can across this morning on blog.partsengine.ca titled:

"How Ford Demonstrates Once And For All That Aluminum Trumps Steel"

I'm not sure if I'm a believer yet or not. A buddy of mine is waiting to get his in just a couple of weeks, so I guess we'll see.

Has anyone seen this? I have to say, after watching it, it DOES look promising doesn't it??

[Great_Big_Abyss]

this thread is worthless without a link.

And, sigh, I love how the actual materials science and engineering takes a back seat to the 'marketing' with the big crane standing the crane on edge.  Aluminum and steel are both different materials with different properties.  These materials can be manipulated in certain ways to gain the desired results.  Varying the composition and grade of the material, (steel alone is an alloy that has hundreds if not thousands of different recipes), and physical attributes (thickness) as well as the shape the material is in (ribbed, folded, corrugated) will determine how well a material holds up to a given task. 

I hate this whole "we use aluminum now and aluminum is superior to steel" tone of this video commercial.  Any material can be engineered to be impact resistant, or light, or both.  I'm not saying Steel is superior to Aluminum, nor am I saying the opposite.  The only reason the aluminum 'seemed' to fare better in these tests is because as a whole, the bed of the truck deflected more therefore the immediate area dented less.  The steel bed as a whole resisted the impact better, but the immediate area took more damage.

BTW, Aluminum is significantly less ductile then steel and will fatigue more and break easier.  This is why they don't make the truck frames out of aluminum.  Again, not saying aluminum is inferior, just different.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

http://blog.partsengine.ca/news/how-ford-demonstrates-once-and-for-all-that-aluminum-trumps-steel/

[DFraser]

Thank you Sir Osis of Liver for posting the link AND for having a delightful user name. And Great_Big_Abyss, I have to say, very well put.

[rrocket]

Here, Edmunds just whacked the schitz outta the rear 1/4 on a brand new F150.  Guess we'll see how this turns out.
http://youtu.be/oDQZu8K51ZY

I think you should do the same on your F150 so we can compare!   

[Fobroader]

Here, Edmunds just whacked the schitz outta the rear 1/4 on a brand new F150.  Guess we'll see how this turns out.
http://youtu.be/oDQZu8K51ZY

I think you should do the same on your F150 so we can compare!   

I concur....in the name science.

Sent from my Galaxy S3

[SaskSpecV]

Hmmmm - taillight was cracked too.  No biggie, right?  One side effect that edmunds.com has discovered during this process...

"What's more, we got our F-150 in the Lariat trim level. That means it's equipped with (amongst other things) a blind-spot monitoring system. The sensors for that system are housed in the taillight and as you might expect, this all led to a higher price for the taillight assembly than previously expected. Much higher.
The price jumped from $106.28 to $887.25. For a taillight."

This has nothing to do with an aluminum truck (AFAIK), but damn those driving aids aren't cheap to replace.  TPMS sensor are still exensive, as is this blind spot monitoring sensor.  I can't imagine the lane departure warning or adaptive cruise control sensors are any cheaper either...  Or maybe the moral of the story is "don't hit your new F150 with a sledgehammer!!"

Back to the aluminum repair: I was really excited about the potential weight loss with the new aluminum F150.  But considering that the 2015 F150 is now only fractionally lighter than the comparable GM trucks, and the fuel economy benefit appears to be negligible (C&D's recent comparison highlights both measures), I'm not sure the increased purchase & repair cost from using aluminum is worth it (See today's edmunds.com article - as expected, the aluminum repair is significantly more expensive than a comparable steel repair). Other takes on it?

[jonl]

Almost any serious collision these days seem to result in the insurance adjuster totaling the vehicle.  Once a bunch of airbags go off, the repair cost is automatically huge. 

I am curious to see how this alum. body works out.  I bought a '14 so I hope I'll have quite a few years to see whether alum. truck body is an improvement.

[Fobroader]

$900 for a bloody tailight....you must be out yo damn mind Ford!!!!!

[aquadorhj]

$900 for a bloody tailight....you must be out yo damn mind Ford!!!!!

EXACTLY!

i am 99.9999% sure that teaching people how to drive properly is CHEAPER in the long run than fitting all these gadgets on cars to make it safer..

[Fobroader]

$900 for a bloody tailight....you must be out yo damn mind Ford!!!!!

EXACTLY!

i am 99.9999% sure that teaching people how to drive properly is CHEAPER in the long run than fitting all these gadgets on cars to make it safer..

Naaaahhhhh....that would take initiative and proper training.....just easier to add expensive to fix, stop gap measures than actually fix the core problem.

[X-Traction]

Hmmmm - taillight was cracked too.  No biggie, right?  One side effect that edmunds.com has discovered during this process...

"What's more, we got our F-150 in the Lariat trim level. That means it's equipped with (amongst other things) a blind-spot monitoring system. The sensors for that system are housed in the taillight and as you might expect, this all led to a higher price for the taillight assembly than previously expected. Much higher.
The price jumped from $106.28 to $887.25. For a taillight."

This has nothing to do with an aluminum truck (AFAIK), but damn those driving aids aren't cheap to replace.  TPMS sensor are still exensive, as is this blind spot monitoring sensor.  I can't imagine the lane departure warning or adaptive cruise control sensors are any cheaper either..

Consumers have only themselves to blame for buying cars with proprietary parts such as headlights when vastly cheaper common parts were still on other cars.  In the long run this costs us severely either for insurance or directly buying the parts.  Maybe some legislation is needed to make certain things standard.  For instance, whose quality of life depends on an endless variety of taillights?  What a stupid waste of resources and capital.

Obviously the technology on these replacement parts is grossly overpriced.  You can buy a kids toy truck, or even a whole decent bicycle for less than a taillight assembly.  You can buy a smart phone for a fraction of what any simple vehicle computer process control module costs.  Or an led flashlight for peanuts.

Gross overpricing creates a market for aftermarket parts.  For instance there are headlight assemblies made for lots of vehicles.  You can get aftermarket TPMS sensors for $20 each, or a little more for sensors that can have desired codes (such as already on your car) loaded into them.

[rrocket]

For instance, whose quality of life depends on an endless variety of taillights?  What a stupid waste of resources and capital.

Consumers have only themselves to blame for buying cars with proprietary parts

This is one of those active safety nanny taillights...something you're a tremendous advocate for.  So can we blame people like you?   

[johngenx]

Blind spot monitoring is so unnecessary - if people understood how to adjust their mirrors properly.  When you leave my central rear-view you enter one of the side mirrors.  When you leave the side mirrors, you enter my field of vision.  Boom - no $900 per sensor gadgets needed.  I've never run into anyone, never been honked at, no close calls at all - know where everyone is easily.

Drive a Lambo or similar?  Use you 500hp plus to "move forward" into openings and try to drive in light traffic which is way more fun anyway.

[mmret]

Blind spot monitoring is so unnecessary - if people understood how to adjust their mirrors properly.  When you leave my central rear-view you enter one of the side mirrors.  When you leave the side mirrors, you enter my field of vision.  Boom - no $900 per sensor gadgets needed.  I've never run into anyone, never been honked at, no close calls at all - know where everyone is easily.

Drive a Lambo or similar?  Use you 500hp plus to "move forward" into openings and try to drive in light traffic which is way more fun anyway.

Better solution, aspherical mirrors.

When I had them on the CLK, coupled with the lack of a B-pillar and the rear headrests folded down, there was literally zero blindspot. You could hardly even deliberately create one with badly adjusted mirrors. I could see two lanes over in each side mirror and most days didn't have to shoulder check. I could also simultaneously see a long way rearward in the adjacent lane too. Incredible stuff really.


Also had them on the Z4. That car has absolutely visibility with the top up so the mirrors turned it from abysmal to decent. Still felt like there was a nasty blind spot on the right side though, from two lanes over and slightly behind you. Just a fact of life with that thing.

[tpl]

Blind spot monitoring is so unnecessary - if people understood how to adjust their mirrors properly.  When you leave my central rear-view you enter one of the side mirrors.  When you leave the side mirrors, you enter my field of vision.  Boom - no $900 per sensor gadgets needed.  I've never run into anyone, never been honked at, no close calls at all - know where everyone is easily.

Drive a Lambo or similar?  Use you 500hp plus to "move forward" into openings and try to drive in light traffic which is way more fun anyway.

Better solution, aspherical mirrors.

When I had them on the CLK, coupled with the lack of a B-pillar and the rear headrests folded down, there was literally zero blindspot. You could hardly even deliberately create one with badly adjusted mirrors. I could see two lanes over in each side mirror and most days didn't have to shoulder check. I could also simultaneously see a long way rearward in the adjacent lane too. Incredible stuff really.


Also had them on the Z4. That car has absolutely visibility with the top up so the mirrors turned it from abysmal to decent. Still felt like there was a nasty blind spot on the right side though, from two lanes over and slightly behind you. Just a fact of life with that thing.

I have aspherical mirrors as well as the "Jim McKenzie" mirror placement which is what John's mirror placement is/was called in Ont.  So I get very nearly 180 degrees of vision.

[tpl]

$900 for a bloody tailight....you must be out yo damn mind Ford!!!!!

EXACTLY!

i am 99.9999% sure that teaching people how to drive properly is CHEAPER in the long run than fitting all these gadgets on cars to make it safer..

Naaaahhhhh....that would take initiative and proper training.....just easier to add expensive to fix, stop gap measures than actually fix the core problem.

That would take political bravery and the act being called a tax grab...can't have that.

[Northernridge]

Blind spot monitoring is so unnecessary - if people understood how to adjust their mirrors properly.  When you leave my central rear-view you enter one of the side mirrors.  When you leave the side mirrors, you enter my field of vision.  Boom - no $900 per sensor gadgets needed.  I've never run into anyone, never been honked at, no close calls at all - know where everyone is easily.

Drive a Lambo or similar?  Use you 500hp plus to "move forward" into openings and try to drive in light traffic which is way more fun anyway.

Better solution, aspherical mirrors.

When I had them on the CLK, coupled with the lack of a B-pillar and the rear headrests folded down, there was literally zero blindspot. You could hardly even deliberately create one with badly adjusted mirrors. I could see two lanes over in each side mirror and most days didn't have to shoulder check. I could also simultaneously see a long way rearward in the adjacent lane too. Incredible stuff really.


Also had them on the Z4. That car has absolutely visibility with the top up so the mirrors turned it from abysmal to decent. Still felt like there was a nasty blind spot on the right side though, from two lanes over and slightly behind you. Just a fact of life with that thing.

I have aspherical mirrors as well as the "Jim McKenzie" mirror placement which is what John's mirror placement is/was called in Ont.  So I get very nearly 10 degrees of vision.

I've switched to the Jim McKenzie/johngenx method since joining the forum (probably becasue John and RR were blathering on about it somewhere  ) and it is the answer. The Berlin taxi has a decently functional, but unnecessary blind spot warning system and I never use it and it never goes off anyhow.

McKenzie said it well – the side view mirrors are for looking at the sides.

[Fobroader]

For instance, whose quality of life depends on an endless variety of taillights?  What a stupid waste of resources and capital.

Consumers have only themselves to blame for buying cars with proprietary parts

This is one of those active safety nanny taillights...something you're a tremendous advocate for.  So can we blame people like you?   

[tpl]

Blind spot monitoring is so unnecessary - if people understood how to adjust their mirrors properly.  When you leave my central rear-view you enter one of the side mirrors.  When you leave the side mirrors, you enter my field of vision.  Boom - no $900 per sensor gadgets needed.  I've never run into anyone, never been honked at, no close calls at all - know where everyone is easily.

Drive a Lambo or similar?  Use you 500hp plus to "move forward" into openings and try to drive in light traffic which is way more fun anyway.

Better solution, aspherical mirrors.

When I had them on the CLK, coupled with the lack of a B-pillar and the rear headrests folded down, there was literally zero blindspot. You could hardly even deliberately create one with badly adjusted mirrors. I could see two lanes over in each side mirror and most days didn't have to shoulder check. I could also simultaneously see a long way rearward in the adjacent lane too. Incredible stuff really.


Also had them on the Z4. That car has absolutely visibility with the top up so the mirrors turned it from abysmal to decent. Still felt like there was a nasty blind spot on the right side though, from two lanes over and slightly behind you. Just a fact of life with that thing.

I have aspherical mirrors as well as the "Jim McKenzie" mirror placement which is what John's mirror placement is/was called in Ont.  So I get very nearly 10 degrees of vision.

I've switched to the Jim McKenzie/johngenx method since joining the forum (probably becasue John and RR were blathering on about it somewhere  ) and it is the answer. The Berlin taxi has a decently functional, but unnecessary blind spot warning system and I never use it and it never goes off anyhow.

McKenzie said it well – the side view mirrors are for looking at the sides.

I thought he said it a bit differently.
The side view mirrors are for looking  out to the sides, not at the sides (of your car).