If they're set on doing it, they should only run partial production and see how they work out. My 98' F150 has the original Alum/composite hood and has no corrosion or peeling paint, that's covered in Northern MN road salt 6 months of the year. I think the lower A-arms are cast alum? Corrosion would be my initial worry in thin Alum. lower body panels.

 

__________________________________________________ ___________

All of the components you mention have a barrier between them...gaskets.

When two different metals are placed in contact with each other an immediate chemical reaction takes place. In essence, a battery has been created.

I don't see where adding another $1,500 to the price of an already expensive truck is the answer for Ford truck sales. Chances are the $1,500 quoted will turn into $2,000 to $2,500 by the time it goes into production. And I doubt the cost in savings with gas or diesel fuel mpg is worth it. As somebody else mentioned, insurance premiums for collision coverage would also probably increase. And if you live in a state that taxes vehicles as property, the tax will increase as well as the new truck is more expensive.

It's difficult for me to imagine why engineers cannot use gearing to acheive better fuel mileage? Or maybe a smaller cubic inch engine with a turbo/supercharger? This isn't a plug for the company, but I switched over to Royal Purple for all of the fluids in my 2008 150 Lariat and I average 1.4 miles of additionl mpg after the switch.

I just don't see a marketing advantage for Ford by switching to aluminum.

Regards,

Gordon

 

will need toss to see how it will affect the payload of the truck

 

I would love to see panel skins in aluminum with inner steel structures. Imagine being able to buy a Ford truck and not have rotted out cab corners, wheel wells, and door skins in than 10years, I would be on board for that.

Also the disimilar metal argument is easily fixed, one product comes to mind, Panel-Bond. You can glue the panels to the steel structure and voila, get a gasket or seperation of the 2 metals which in turn will help keep corrosion to a minimum. I want aluminum bed sides, door skins and cab skins on my F250 now. The thing looks like ***** after just 10 yrs. Both rear wheel wells rotted out, bottom of all the doors are rotting, both cab corners are junk. Even the crash bar across the front of the truck has rot holes through it.

 

I can tell you now that Ford is serious about the aluminum use in the body. I work for Alcoa and there is a $300 million investment in one of our plants for this just starting up and there is talk about the plant I work at doing some automotive sheet too. Of the $300 million, half Ford is putting up and half Alcoa. There are also other manufacturers getting ready to do it to their vehicles too. We are very hopeful to get this work at our plant since it would create many more jobs.

 

That's not a feeling. That's a fundamental lack of metallurgy understanding, causing what is purely a mental block on your part.

 

The heavier and more solid a vehicle is, the less protection you really have. Think about taking your truck and running head on into a concrete wall at 200mph. Then think about what happens to an Indy car doing the same. The Indy car will fly all to pieces because the crunching of the car absorbs the impact. When the vehicle can't crumple and blow to pieces the energy from that impact is transferred all the way through it and you catch way too much of it. The Indy car driver walks away most of the time.

 

If aluminum increases the performance (MPG, Towing, Hauling) then I am for it. If not, it's another gimmick.

Of course the Indy driver is in a titanium tub, so that might have something to do with him walking away.

 

It's not (necessarily) harder to repair. It just takes techniques/tools that are a little different. If you try to repair it using the same old methods used by low end body shops, then yes you'll have problems. Otherwise, not an issue.

I'm interested as well. Many auto manufacturers use aluminum extensively or even exclusively (mostly full size luxury sedans like Jag and Audi), but I don't leave in the north or northeast to know what it's like to deal with road salt. I have bare 6061-T6 aluminum skids on my rock crawler Jeep, and it's perfect: much lighter weight, no rust (or corrosion in my case), and at least as strong...

It is NOT the same. Rust is cancer. Corrosion is not, not a self-sustaining chain reaction, and is much easier to stop and fix.

That statement isn't meaningful and accurate. There is not such a thing as "steel" and "aluminum" alone. There are many varieties of aluminum and many varieties of steel. Some are suitable for one purpose, some for another. You wouldn't want to make a door out of 4150 steel...

 

The 03' Explorer with some aluminum panels is holding up great. Hopefully Ford will heat treat the aluminum panels to add hardness and rigidity as well as developing an effective anodizing to help prevent corrosion. Maybe even a proprietary alloy similar to marine grade 5052 or 5083. I say bring on the aluminum.....

 

Stress cracks? You're talking about body panels forming stress cracks? From what stress? They don't experience any of the temperature fluctuations of commercial aircraft, nor are the body panels structural. They're not talking about changing to aluminum frames, though that would be pretty cool...


No they don't, and no they won't. This is not a new problem. You may also want to investigate TIG and look into the many, many various alloys and heat treatments for aluminum, all of which have very different results for different applications.

It's not about that. It's about the massive weight savings.

Aluminum body panels will result in reduced weight and thus reduced torsion stress on the frame. Thus less of that behavior you're talking about. And is that second question for real?

 

Will a 700lb loss in mass actually lead to a high percentage of mileage increase?

I don't know much about the newer trucks, but my 96 F150 gets pretty much the same mpg whether it is empty or if I have 2000lbs in the bed. Of course 16-18 mpg is pretty bad no matter how you look at it. The biggest thing I have found that makes a difference in my mileage has been tire pressure. Let them get a little low and mine drops to more like 13-15mpg.

How much weight could they save if they just lowered the bedsides back down to what they were on my 96? I know I hate the new ones that are so tall I can't reach something laying in the bed without climbing on the tires.

 

It isn't the titanium tub that absorbs the impact. Why do you think modern cars are safer than 60's cars? It isn't just because of airbags.

 

Modern trucks are literally hundreds of percent stiffer than trucks of the past. The reason you might see the bed/cab jiggle now is because the imperfections of the road actually making it to the top of the extremely stiff cab structures.

Trucks of the 90s and earlier had hideously floppy cab and frame structures. The frame and cab structure would just bend and deflect so much that they would effectively absorb the vibrations.

The weight savings would show mostly in city driving, marginally on highway driving from the slightly diminished rolling resistance.

 

I would still be concerned with cost. New trucks are already priced out of reach of the average person. The additional cost of aluminum just might reduce truck sales enough to hurt an already poor economy.