- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 2017 Super Duty sneak peek
Posted on 9/24/15 at 9:51 am to MrCoachKlein
Posted on 9/24/15 at 9:51 am to MrCoachKlein
A simple front fender swap and you can turn any truck 2000-2016 into any style. These new fenders do not appear to be backward compatible.
0
Posted on 9/24/15 at 9:59 am to DownshiftAndFloorIt
I feel bad for, seriously. I wasn't making fun of your situation, at all.
Posted on 9/24/15 at 10:08 am to N2cars
I ain't worried about it. Some days you step in it and some days you don't. They'll either make right or loose a customer.
Is Ford making any changes to the engine/driveline with this model?
Posted on 9/24/15 at 10:11 am to Ice Cream Sammich
meh...
Not bad
Not bad
Posted on 9/24/15 at 10:14 am to DownshiftAndFloorIt
quote:
I just don't see any advantage to an aluminum body
lighter, more rust resistant, leads to better fuel economy... there are definitive advantages to aluminum bodies...
Posted on 9/24/15 at 10:20 am to DownshiftAndFloorIt
quote:
Is Ford making any changes to the engine/driveline with this model?
Doubtful, unless minor tweaks.
They spent a ton on developing that 6.7.
Posted on 9/24/15 at 10:21 am to DHS1997
quote:Yep, I'm still poor.
$72k price tag
Posted on 9/24/15 at 10:22 am to Chad504boy
I'm pretty sure they did it for CAFE reasons, too.
Posted on 9/24/15 at 10:23 am to Chad504boy
I've yet to see anything that proves the body is lighter, just that the curb weight of the new model truck is less than the old. They could have easily shaved weight elsewhere. It takes extra aluminum to match steel strength. You're basically looking at building a body out of plate aluminum to match the durability of sheet steel, which is already light to begin with.
Body rust has been a non-issue since the mid 90's on GM vehicles. Modern painting processes are very good.
It only leads to better fuel economy if it is actually lighter.
It sucks to work on. It scratches very easily. It requires special paint processes. It's expensive as hell. It is less impact resistant. It is more brittle. It's not a big fantastic revolutionary great thing. It's the answer to a question that was never asked.
Body rust has been a non-issue since the mid 90's on GM vehicles. Modern painting processes are very good.
It only leads to better fuel economy if it is actually lighter.
It sucks to work on. It scratches very easily. It requires special paint processes. It's expensive as hell. It is less impact resistant. It is more brittle. It's not a big fantastic revolutionary great thing. It's the answer to a question that was never asked.
Posted on 9/24/15 at 10:24 am to N2cars
What about the gasser? I know the diesel isn't going anywhere until they need to make 900+ ft-lbs to compete.
Posted on 9/24/15 at 10:33 am to DownshiftAndFloorIt
Haven't heard, but it seems like the F250 will continue w/ the big gas motor, unless they put the 3.5 twin turbo in it. Not sure if that motor makes enough low-rpm torque for a 3/4 ton, though.
Posted on 9/24/15 at 10:37 am to DownshiftAndFloorIt
quote:
I know the diesel isn't going anywhere until they need to make 900+ ft-lbs to compete.
Which is nuts, the current diesels offer far and above more power/torque than the everyday Joe needs and plenty of power to handle loads commercially. I really wish Ford would focus more on efficiency than the power pissing contest. They're so far behind the 6.7 Cummins it's not even funny. The 700lb difference won't make hardly any difference in milage.
Posted on 9/24/15 at 10:41 am to YOURADHERE
quote:
They're so far behind the 6.7 Cummins
Explain, please/
Power? economy? Noise level?
Posted on 9/24/15 at 10:45 am to YOURADHERE
The 6.7 cummins is a medium duty engine. The duramax and power stroke will never compete with it without major changes but they don't need to. The power race is dumb. You'll need a CDL to pull at rated capacity in a few years.
Posted on 9/24/15 at 10:45 am to DownshiftAndFloorIt
quote:
I've yet to see anything that proves
quote:
It takes extra aluminum to match steel strength. You're basically looking at building a body out of plate aluminum to match the durability of sheet steel, which is already light to begin with.
It sucks to work on. It scratches very easily. It requires special paint processes. It's expensive as hell. It is less impact resistant. It is more brittle. It's not a big fantastic revolutionary great thing. It's the answer to a question that was never asked.
Posted on 9/24/15 at 10:49 am to Chad504boy
That's science bro
Posted on 9/24/15 at 10:52 am to N2cars
I meant economy specifically. 20+mpg out of the Cummins is common, seems most Powerstrokes are in the mid-high teens, there's a few people who claim to get over 20 but the only time I ever seen it was driving under 60. I know alot factors in, gearing V8 vs I6, etc but Ford made a big stink about the 6.7's improved effiency prior to launch only to fall flat on expectations.
Posted on 9/24/15 at 10:53 am to YOURADHERE
quote:
Ford made a big stink about the 6.7's improved effiency prior to launch only to fall flat on expectations.
same thing can be said about the 3.5 Ecoboost. The real world numbers are not even close to what was advertised from day 1 of the campaign.
Posted on 9/24/15 at 10:54 am to DownshiftAndFloorIt
Where do you think the weight savings came from? Honestly. 700lbs.
Posted on 9/24/15 at 10:55 am to DownshiftAndFloorIt
quote:
That's science bro
so is lighter and fuel economy gains.
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News