What I look at, is how the collision damage is isolated to the FRONT of the truck, the 2001 f150 is an utter failure in that regard, the damage continues to progress into the cab. The 1978 does absorb damage starting from the forward most location of the structure and slowly progress back to the cab, but the cab and box do NOT deflect permanently as the crash takes place, just like the newer 2004 f150.
When they built a house we did the vinyl decking and railings for them. I also know the intersection that the collision took place. The 1979 F150 was traveling in an 80 KPH speed zone (nobody goes the limit) which is about 49 MPH, and the driver of the ford walked away with some soft tissue injuries. Although I can't find the photo of the truck, it looked identical to the utube video after it came to a stop (story made front page).
What would you rather be in? The nissan with its engineered crush zone and airbags or the old ford with with its stronger mild steel structure? I submit that drivers do not get killed at lower speeds like 35 MPH nearly as often as they do at higher speeds, so what good is a crush zone that is calibrated for 35 MPH in a 50 MPH collision?
__________________
1986 F250HD Ex cab Fresh built up 6.9L diesel Lariat AC leather seats power everything w/full cluster, sterling rear 3.08LS gears, E4OD trans, ram intake ATS 088 turbo
1986 F150 Ex cab Lariat rollercam 5.0L on LPG AOD trans 3.55 gears 390 000Ks
Do that test on a C-channel F-250......heck, try to open the tailgate on my 250 if it's parked off camber.
What exactly does it prove??
It proves that my tailgate ALWAYS opens.....thats a prime example of why flex is bad...what do you think the flex does to the body welds of your truck?
I'll keep my boxed frame.
__________________
2007 Lariat screw - tri coat met - chrome package - Black leather captains chairs - sunroof - audiophile
I agree. The crumple zones provide a slower deceleration resulting in a fewer crashes. You can argue about older vehicles being better than newer in many ways but safety is not one. Vehicles are getting safer and safer every year. Our lawsuit happy culture demands it!!
Crumple zones have a role to play, but the examples I have seen of motor vehicle fatalities are the result of excessive structural failure from higher speed impacts, that all I was trying to say. I have seen plenty of lower speed collisions too, and partially because of modern vehicle design, most walk away. But if a crush zone is consumed by a 35 MPH crash, than what protection is there left for higher speeds?
As for the 78 f150, I don't know if it was designed to have a crumple zone, but so far I have seen 3 examples of 70s ford trucks (my dad had a 75 camper special once) that were in collisions that contained the damage to the front of the vehicle, without collapsing around the occupants, that seems like a crumple zone to me. If I had to choose between the 78 or the 2001, I would pick the 78, but the 2004 is better than both of the older ones.
I will admit that a great deal of progress has been made in structural integrity improvements in the last 5 years, even the ford fiesta does well now. Most of the improvenemts seem to be in stonger perimiter structure of the passenger compartment, such as A pillar, rocker panel, and side roofline.
__________________
1986 F250HD Ex cab Fresh built up 6.9L diesel Lariat AC leather seats power everything w/full cluster, sterling rear 3.08LS gears, E4OD trans, ram intake ATS 088 turbo
1986 F150 Ex cab Lariat rollercam 5.0L on LPG AOD trans 3.55 gears 390 000Ks
It proves that my tailgate ALWAYS opens.....thats a prime example of why flex is bad...what do you think the flex does to the body welds of your truck?
I'll keep my boxed frame.
Missing the point............ALL manufacturers still have open C-channel frames under their "heavier duty" trucks; they all flex.
The reason the bed is separate from the cab.
What does the flex do to welds of the tens of MILLIONS of C-channel frames that every Ford, GM, Dodge used before the miracle of boxed frames introduced in 'o4 by Nissan/Ford???
(FYI, all small Toyota trucks used boxed frames years ago.....Ranger/S10 fans were saying how much better their open frames were back then......what comes around, goes around)
"what do you think the flex does to the body welds of your truck? "
Nothing, since the body is isolated by the mounts. I've cut up and scrapped MANY vehicles over the years working in and around salvage yards. The welds aren't prone to failure.
"what do you think the flex does to the body welds of your truck? "
Nothing, since the body is isolated by the mounts. I've cut up and scrapped MANY vehicles over the years working in and around salvage yards. The welds aren't prone to failure.
what about the screws used on the tundra frame? :P
have they found a type of screw that doesn't come unscrewed with thousands of pounds worth of tension on it every day (for the 1 million miles that each toyota is rumored to last if you listen to the nutswingers?)
__________________
2000 Excursion Limited 4x4 V10 - soon to not be stock anymore.
2004 F150 XLT screw 4x4 5.4 - 2.5 leveling kit, 34.5" BFGs - Gone
2004 mach1 mustang, holding the garage floor in place.
It proves that my tailgate ALWAYS opens.....thats a prime example of why flex is bad...what do you think the flex does to the body welds of your truck?
I'll keep my boxed frame.
One more thing......... all the guys with their super crash worthy uber 70's and 80's trucks have the flexy c-channel.
The conclusion I make from these examples, is that newer trucks are not automatically stronger or safer, if we were to compare the 2001 to the 1978. I have seen other collisions between 1970s fords and newer vehicles, and the the other vehicles rarely fare well.....I will still admit that the 04 is better than the 1978 though.
The newer trucks and cars are stronger where they need to be and softer where they need to be. I worked Insurance claims for well over 30 years starting in 1971. The old vehicles from the 60s and 70s frequently held up better in accidents than todays vehicles but occupants incurred more and more serious injuries or death than the occupants of modern vehicles.
Modern cars sustain far more damage than old cars because they are designed to absorb the impact but there are far fewer and less severe injuries or death.
The passenger compartment is very secure today and it wasn't many years ago. The compartment stays intact today and many years ago, the roof was flat against the seat back on rollovers and the engine intruded into the passenger compartment in front collisions.
I choose today's vehicles and don't even let my family ride around with me in my 62 Fairlane 500.
__________________
2004 XLT Regular Cab, Short Bed, 4X4 with 5.4 and 3.73.
Although its only part of the problem, I am not sold on the fully boxed frame. If I remember correctly the F250 and 350 don't have fully boxed frames. They don't seem to have any trouble with towing...
Ya and there frame is around 8mm thick and weigh more than a boxed frame.
__________________
-Josh
04 F150 4.6l Gryphon Powered 2wd reg cab XL 3:55 LS SISO Flowmaster S40 NCD Customs 2.5" Leveling Kit Burner High Power Fog Lights
I just wonder what real advantage we get from a fully boxed frame. If it was so much better wouldn't everyone have gone that way. Didn't toyota use one on its trucks and now is not?
I just wonder what real advantage we get from a fully boxed frame. If it was so much better wouldn't everyone have gone that way. Didn't toyota use one on its trucks and now is not?
You can spin it either way if structure is what matters. If you were to take the same amount of material from a C channel frame and make a closed box frame out of it, even with the thinner structure wall (keep the overall cross section the same), the boxed frame would in theory have the same ability to handle the same load as the C channel. torsional resistance will be MUCH higher though, and this can play a big role in trucks like the F150, because the A arm suspension puts a lot of torque on the front of the frame rails. This is a big reason why ford opted for the famous (or infamous) twin I beam suspension for 1980, because it offerers the same handling performance, without the added stress on the frame.
Also, when using A arm suspension, the frame width usually changes near the front at the moving parts, this again means the potential for torsional stress, and a boxed frame is better suited to controlling any metal flex or even fatigue that may occur. So if we use the same AMOUNT of material, the frame is stronger than an equal weight C channel frame, although much more complex.
The ability to use A arms, and the higher stiffness means a truck with a boxed frame would also handle much better on hard, dry pavement.
Now for the disadvantages. The big one for me is corrosion resistance, since we know that the steel thickness is smaller (if we assume the same weight), we know it will rust away more quickly, and since the frame is boxed, salty road sand is more prone to collecting in the frame, so corrosion can spread that much more quickly. What is even worse about this situation, is that if the rust starts inside the box of the frame, the damage may not be immediately known until its too late.
Boxed frames also allow a unique opportunity for builders. Where in the past, a C channel had to be made out of one piece of thick steel, boxed frames can be made of thinner, shorter sections of thinner steel, this makes the stiffer frames easier to make and modify as the vehicle evolves into newer versions, retooling is also cheaper. The problem is, the wields in the frame are not subject to the normal scrutiny of say, a home built vehicle. As a home mechanic, and a wielder by trade, I have seen some wields on fords, chevs and imports that are all well below the standard that I could ever get away with as a wielder.
The overlapping sections of the frame sections make it strong enough for a crash test or normal use, but there is no real telling how these frames will hold up after 10 or 20 years of abuse. The front end of the 1988 chevy is heavily boxed and prone to cracking in many places around the suspension components and engine mounts (steel is very thin in places), this is one of many reasons why nothing but ford superduties are used in the logging industry where I live, and even they break often.
The flexible frames, believe it or not, actually help ground contact for uneven terrain, where even a slight difference in weight from one wheel to the next cam mean the difference between getting stuck or making it through. I have twisted my F150 about 12" easily without any problems, but this does make for more pops and groans.
It comes down to a matter of preference, both types can be designed to hold up just fine, and both types can fall apart if not. sorry for the long post.
__________________
1986 F250HD Ex cab Fresh built up 6.9L diesel Lariat AC leather seats power everything w/full cluster, sterling rear 3.08LS gears, E4OD trans, ram intake ATS 088 turbo
1986 F150 Ex cab Lariat rollercam 5.0L on LPG AOD trans 3.55 gears 390 000Ks
Join Our Site - Its free, quick and easy!
Lariat AC leather seats power everything w/full cluster, sterling rear 3.08LS gears, E4OD trans, ram intake ATS 088 turbo
If I had to choose between the 78 or the 2001, I would pick the 78, but the 2004 is better than both of the older ones.
