Fails to perform as advertised.

Anything off-topic

Moderators: Eric@PPE, James B., flyingpolarbear, Dev

saturnstyl
Posts: 3213
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 1998 8:12 pm
Location: In a pineapple under the sea.

Fails to perform as advertised.

Post by saturnstyl »


Speeder
Posts: 10776
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 1999 9:12 pm
Location: 2015 Tahoe 2WD 5.3L 6L80E, 2008 Colorado work beater, 2003 Dodge Dakota pro-touring project

Post by Speeder »

Wow... that's just... wow...

z71gmc06
Posts: 1016
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 12:45 pm
Location: Michigan

Post by z71gmc06 »

And there's still the guy on the last page saying so what if my truck is bent in half it's still the best truck around.

Man that's loyalty. :lol: :lol:

battmain
Posts: 509
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 7:10 pm

Post by battmain »

Maybe I'm missing something...12 inches at 55mph? :o Ouch! No wonder the truck is puckering. :evil:

Whipped383
Posts: 2104
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 9:12 pm
Location: Salt Lake, 97K1500,ECSB, 383,Whipple,0411,Marine, 03K2500,CCSB,8.1&Allison, Whipple in progress

Post by Whipped383 »

Wow what was the ford slogan BOLD MOVES? I like the old chev comercials LIKE A ROCK they do perform as advertised unless you have the 3rd door Iv had it pop off the latch when offroading

Pro
Posts: 5748
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 1996 8:12 pm
Location: because of natural gas leaks

Re: Fails to perform as advertised.

Post by Pro »


ThunderTT
Posts: 2845
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 10:27 pm
Location: 97 ECSB 2WD 98 CCLB 2WD 00 Escalade 4x4

Post by ThunderTT »

For
Off
Road
Damage

97k15004wd
Posts: 1167
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:32 pm
Location: Waikikamukau

Post by 97k15004wd »

ThunderTT wrote:For
Off
Road
Damage
:lol: :lol:

SikSilverado
Posts: 1858
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 12:52 pm
Location: DMX LBZ / Stg4 Trans / WaterInj / PPE

Post by SikSilverado »

holy moly.. I'd be pissed.


to think.. Ive jumped my heavy ass chevy and flown her at 90mph.. haha strait bed!

97k15004wd
Posts: 1167
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:32 pm
Location: Waikikamukau

Post by 97k15004wd »

That to me is why the big 3 have trouble with niche products; they get sold as something other than what people think they are. By and large, I would think that most people would be happy with the product, but there is the subset of users who think they bought a Baja racer when in reality it's really a street truck with mods for "reasonable" off roading. All products are designed to a limit of percentiles (height, fingernail length, weight, etc....) and really only work within those design constraints. I joke all the time that my kids could break a piece of steel; it's just a matter of what they do with it.

Marty
Posts: 910
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 3:40 pm
Location: So. Cal. .... '04 Tahoe / '03 MBZ S55 / '07 Charger

Post by Marty »

Remember back when the Chevy's were cracking the bed supports behind the cab ??

Remember the H2 owners who kept pretzel-ing their steering when they went rock-crawling ??

Apples & Oranges ?? Maybe & maybe not.

IMHO, Ford needs to step and identify the problem and a fix. In identifying the problem, Ford needs to duplicate the conditions - something I know they can do, if they haven't done so already on the proving grounds. Then the company and the owners can decide on who is going to foot the bill for a repair kit.

Hog
Posts: 5037
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: 1997 Chev ECSB L31 350 1997 GMC Sierra SLE RCSB, Ontario

Post by Hog »

Marty wrote:Remember back when the Chevy's were cracking the bed supports behind the cab ??

Remember the H2 owners who kept pretzel-ing their steering when they went rock-crawling ??

Apples & Oranges ?? Maybe & maybe not.

IMHO, Ford needs to step and identify the problem and a fix. In identifying the problem, Ford needs to duplicate the conditions - something I know they can do, if they haven't done so already on the proving grounds. Then the company and the owners can decide on who is going to foot the bill for a repair kit.
I remember the frame issues with GMT800. The frames were bending due to being tied down on the car-carriers. Many GMT800's saw the crushers because of this. Practically new takeout engines and transmissions were plentiful. Those were the days when the new 3 pice hydroformed frames were new. I recall Dad speaking lots about the issue as he is in the collision/frame straightening business.

Not sure how GM fixed that, but transport laoders were told to NOT crank the trucks down too hard.

peace
Hog

Speeder
Posts: 10776
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 1999 9:12 pm
Location: 2015 Tahoe 2WD 5.3L 6L80E, 2008 Colorado work beater, 2003 Dodge Dakota pro-touring project

Post by Speeder »

The frame cranking issue was a transport issue, not a frame issue. While you'd think the frame should be able to take it, they aren't designed for that sort of stress. They fixed that issue by simply not cranking the trucks down as tight. As I understood it some of those trucks were being cranked down until the tiedowns couldn't be turned anymore. Add to that the bouncing of the delivery truck, that's a lot of stress in specific areas.

On the other hand, I saw the ads for those Ford trucks, and they show them being run on Baja trails, jumped, ect. What Ford did was try to sell an appearance package by showing the truck doing what it appeared to be capable of. Unfortunately, Ford also bought into the whole idea that people are only buying these trucks for looks, not because someone might actually try trail running. Ford made an engineering mistake, and it resulted in the trucks being damaged when used as advertised. If Ford didn't want to risk paying for frames damaged by people jumping their trucks, they shouldn't have advertised them as being capable of jumping their trucks.

97k15004wd
Posts: 1167
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:32 pm
Location: Waikikamukau

Post by 97k15004wd »

Speeder wrote:On the other hand, I saw the ads for those Ford trucks, and they show them being run on Baja trails, jumped, ect. What Ford did was try to sell an appearance package by showing the truck doing what it appeared to be capable of. Unfortunately, Ford also bought into the whole idea that people are only buying these trucks for looks, not because someone might actually try trail running. Ford made an engineering mistake, and it resulted in the trucks being damaged when used as advertised. If Ford didn't want to risk paying for frames damaged by people jumping their trucks, they shouldn't have advertised them as being capable of jumping their trucks.
Yep. But, only lawsuits will settle this.....

ThunderTT
Posts: 2845
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 10:27 pm
Location: 97 ECSB 2WD 98 CCLB 2WD 00 Escalade 4x4

Post by ThunderTT »

yeah, with the ratchet tiedowns, its easy to rip a J hook out or bend a frame...if i could break a 3/8 chain, a frame aint nothing......

Hog
Posts: 5037
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: 1997 Chev ECSB L31 350 1997 GMC Sierra SLE RCSB, Ontario

Post by Hog »

ThunderTT wrote:yeah, with the ratchet tiedowns, its easy to rip a J hook out or bend a frame...if i could break a 3/8 chain, a frame aint nothing......
I agree, makes you think of the strength comparison between GMT 400 and GMT 800 frames doesn't it?

It freaks me out when chains/tiedowns/ropes are under tension. We just did some stump pulling and I was forever telling guys to get away from the ropes/chains were were using. They would stand right beside the tensioned line or chain. We did break a couple chains. If they were standing right there, they would have had shrapnel in them.
I wouldnt pull until they moved.


Almost sounds like the SVT bumpstops that are installed are violently stopping the suspension travel thus indicing some serious shock loading.

peace
Hog

ThunderTT
Posts: 2845
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 10:27 pm
Location: 97 ECSB 2WD 98 CCLB 2WD 00 Escalade 4x4

Post by ThunderTT »

Hog wrote: Almost sounds like the SVT bumpstops that are installed are violently stopping the suspension travel thus indicing some serious shock loading.

peace
Hog
i think the issue is in both the design of the frame (a blind nut with bolt on bump stop would have worked better allowing for a fully boxed section) as well as a suspension design flaw (the springs are too weak and/or shocks too weak)

if travel is what they were after - being a Baja style truck - they should have done a Baja style rear setup which would have been trailing arms....

they claim 14 inches of travel with leaf springs....thats just dumb, you have to compromise something there to get that kind of travel......

a trailing arm you could easily get 15 inches, have more adjustability, good off road manners, and still be good on the street (why they did not go this route can only point to bean counters)

i would bet dollars to pesos that i could build a truck with trailing arm suspension and hit those whoops and bumps at 110+ and not worry about frame damage - why cant a major manufacturer do it?

and not only that, why is it during R&d and testing was this never encountered? this problem happened to 10 trucks on a single trip doing EXACTLY what the truck was "built for" - how is it the years of development never found it?

its not just a gripe against Ford - they are all guilty of doing the same crap - when a genuine design flaw is found by the average Joe - its simply cheaper to brush it off and sweep it under the rug - unless its a major safety issue....

having said that.....would it not be a major safety issue if someone has compromised the frame in such a way (and has not noticed it right away) and then gets rear ended, having no crumple zone back there - the rear ending vehicle would plow right into the cabin area.....

lets paint the picture......

the bent frame is pointing at the ground about 2 inches more than designed and the affected area is bent, fatigued, and IS indeed compromised......
the truck is sitting at a stop light....
another truck is not paying attention and rear ends it going - lets say 30mph (very practical)

upon impact the truck in back hits the bumper, pushing the rear of the frame to the ground (quite easily since it is already weak above the axle)
at that point the truck is now pushing through the bed and riding on top of the frame.....

even at 30mph the kinetic energy will push it into the cab - maybe not through it - but if anybody is sitting in back, they will be crushed.

this is not only possible - but happens all the time as it is to perfect frames.....

i just cant believe the big wigs, and the powers that be, think it is not that big of a deal......



remember the pinto?

and here i thought the F-bomb was getting their shit together.......

Speeder
Posts: 10776
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 1999 9:12 pm
Location: 2015 Tahoe 2WD 5.3L 6L80E, 2008 Colorado work beater, 2003 Dodge Dakota pro-touring project

Post by Speeder »

It's the bean counter mentality. They assign a dollar value to a life, estimate how many lives will be lost, then figure which is cheaper to pay for. If they can save a nickel letting the people die, they will. This is why we need some serious changes in our business schools.

James B.
Moderator
Posts: 2823
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 1997 4:00 pm
Location: '98GMT400, '98GMT410, '99GMT420, '00GMT420

Post by James B. »

It's just a half-ton chassis. They're not strong enough to survive outside the scope of "reasonable-use". GM trucks are no exception. In all fairness, Ford has earned a terrible reputation in frame and suspension design. I-beam front suspension (still used on vans which is why their wheels look collapsed and track 4" wider BOTH sides from rear) and F-250/350 frames of the previous generation that were so flimsy that you can see the gap between bed and cab changing by an inch going down the highway.

I think this video was posted here before:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqCy7ZxVdgI

The owner of the Company I work for drives a hideous previous-gen F-250 4-door long bed 2WD. This truck has always been a total buckboard on any surface due to its under-engineered frame. He has one kid that can't even ride in the back because vomit will be induced. Women passengers have to wear sports bras. And, yes, it has Ford's pathetic I-beam marvel under the front.
One time he was towing his fifth wheel trailer and got it stuck in sand in a wash. Had to be pulled out, trailer and all. It destroyed the frame but he still drives it and seemingly doesn't care. The thing looks like it's been wrecked. This truck has been back to the dealer at least 8 times for engine problems (6L Powerjoke), has left him and his family stranded 2 times, and him twice by himself. Folks... don't by one of these wretched things. It might be "best-selling" but consumers are morons and cheap.

Image

Hog
Posts: 5037
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: 1997 Chev ECSB L31 350 1997 GMC Sierra SLE RCSB, Ontario

Post by Hog »

Wow, who builds a tow truck out of a 1/2 ton? That was interesting seeing the frame bend.

peace
Hog

Post Reply