Honestly, that's what I like best about the Titan XD...the competition that it brings to the table.

 

Ford already make a 4.4l V8 turbo diesel in the same plant as the 6.7. The 4.4 was actually the basis for a lot of the engineering choices of the 6.7 (CGI block etc.)

It's only sold in the Range Rover though.
330hp and 516lbft.
They also make a 3.0l V6 variant of the same engine with up to 271 hp and 440 lbft in twin turbo form.

Both engines would be great in the F150, with the small V8 also being a great cheaper option in the F250.How many of those Super Duty replacements have been on 11+ trucks? (just curious).

Ford has increased the size of the bearings/ball joints to my knowledge for 2011+.
The majority of the bearing/ball joint issues on the superduty come from the crappy backspacing that was required on the 99-04 trucks. Newer trucks do have the issues too, but a lot less frequently. Larger tires and in particular aftermarket wheels with more offset really make the issue worse.

 

Not true they do less advertising than the other guys and they make better trucks which sell themselves. Remember the video Toyota published to launch the new heavy duty t100? Was a funny video cause all the trucks in the background that were doing the work setting up for the video were Fords.

 

toys are no competition except for super market runs.

 

You know, you're so right. You really opened my eyes with the logicality of the truck speaking for itself so well that Ford doesn't even need to market it. The dastardly competition sure does make some really silly videos, like the one where they hit golf ***** at a truck hung up vertically, or the one where they hung a bunch of frames from a crane to show how strong their silly little improvements were!

Oh....... wait. Those were BOTH Ford.

 

Apparently you didn't see the silly commercials that Toyota put out when they redesigned the Tundra around 2007?

 

I mentioned that earlier. Glad to see someone here remembers. At powerstroke.org they posted the video of a commercial that had other trucks in the background doing the work and they were all Fords!...everyone got lots of laughs out of that one cept toy. Did you see that one?

 

Yes I did, and stupid is as stupid does. Ford is a 100% marketing machine, not saying they don't have to be to keep up with the other mental midgets running auto companies, but it shows up in how all the brands hype up the smallest, most trivial things.

24X Stronger! That "24" is definitely a highly technical and carefully calculated number that has significant meaning to purchasers.

 

They were referring to the fact the new high tensile steel is 24 times stronger than mild steel used by others like toy. Dosent mean the frame is 24times stronger but it would be if it were the same thickness as the competitions frame. They used thinner steel to save weight and yet the frame will still be stronger than the competitions. Not a lie just a cold hard fact.

 

Folks, Ford did not say the frame is 24 times stronger. They said it is 24X stiffer. Stiffer does not equal stronger. It very well may be stronger, but i bet the cross section being bigger is the reason why.

 

Good point, the backspacing did change.

 

I think the most important question is: Does anyone got the measurements of the frame?

Old Frame in Mid-Sektion:

The old Ford HD-Opne-C-Channel Frame is 190x70x7mm (height x width x thickness)

The Ram's got a Box of 190x70x4mm

In this case the Dodge is definetly stiffer, but the Ford is at least of the same strenght, if not stronger.

But since 2011, there is the new Chevy boxed chassis with: 215x90x4.5mm

And this last one should be the strongest so far, especially if it is fully hydroformed.

There are many heavy military trucks using a boxed design, many cranes which have to use a very stiff chassis or the ycould not be handled safely.

It all depends on how strong you design it. So if ford beats or at least reaches the numbers from chevy above, and if they also use hydroforming, the same amount of crossmembers and good steele - it should be a really strong design.

Now on the IFS:

As someone state earlier: There are soo many heavy military vehicles using IS in really rough terrain. The soviet union used trucks with all IS to transport their atomic missiles and still does!

BUT. Most IFS in civil cars are only designed to guarantee a smoother ride and are inferiour to solid axles in the same weight class. Afain the IFS of the chevy was one of the very few that was worth anything. The big Toyota Land Cruiser J200 is another one.

So i am very sceptic here, i think if ford decides to just take something like the narrow dana super 60 for the front, it would be the most robust solution.

 

The Super 60 has been used underneath the front ends of Super Duties for years now.

 

The 2011-up GM HD IFS uses a narrowed 9.5" AAM axle as a center section, the equivalent of a Dana 60. It is much stronger than the old 'suitcase' split housing they did use. GM's new HD IFS is very robust and has good travel, but still gives up ground clearance to an SFA

 

Actually if you read the numbers, the GM has more clearance than Ford (currently) ~8.5" for Ford, ~9.6" for GM I believe

The good thing with the Chevy/IFS is it tucks the carrier up out of the way to give you greater static clearance (and protect the diff), but the bad thing is that it is variable with how much the suspension has compressed. The Ford's clearance is going to be fixed, no matter how much the suspension has compressed.

There are benefits and drawbacks to both systems, but unless you have air suspension (and I'd rather not on a front axle), I'd personally always prefer a solid axle on a load carrying vehicle for offroad use.