• Welcome to the Contour Enthusiasts Group, the best resource for the Ford Contour and Mercury Mystique.

    You can register to join the community.

F-150 Frame vs. Tundra Frame

Go Ford! The weight they used was enough to prove a point, but it would have been nice to see that deflection test done with significantly more weight.

I did some load testing on frames (for articulating boom lifts) this week, fortunately it was on American made lifts and they were built without cheapening the design. Interestingly enough, China can now produce weldments for about 50 cents a pound which is incredibly cheap...too bad they can't make a good frame!
 
But every auto magazing busts a nut over anything Toyota so what does it matter.

There was a review in my newspaper today for the tundra, they of course loved it. No mention on the crankshaft failing though.... stupid media.
 
The car mags bust an even bigger "nut" over faux pickups with trunks too:rolleyes: I don't understand why the new GM pickups aren't selling better, especially when you consider the look, the improvements and the mileage and flexfuel capabilities:shrug:
 
That's the media for you...how could you even begin to trust someone who knows no better than what they are told to write? In some cases you will find someone who represents the company that the article is written about, but I still would be careful what you belive from them. In most cases, the engineers who know the most about the product are not entitled to publicly speak about it. Furthermore, test data can always be manipulated to catch the public's eye and it still can be considered accurate data.
 
Klasse Act said:
The car mags bust an even bigger "nut" over faux pickups with trunks too:rolleyes: I don't understand why the new GM pickups aren't selling better, especially when you consider the look, the improvements and the mileage and flexfuel capabilities:shrug:
Click to expand...

The flexfuel crap is a gimmick, Its the same story with hybrid cars, they try to make you believe its better for the environment and economy when really its doing equally as much harm. Flexfuel, which I believe comes from Corn, is a problem because we are taking a major food product and trying to manufacture it as a fuel, and because its not as efficient as traditional gasolene or Diesel for that matter, it would require more of the "flexfuel" to travel the same distance as convential fuel, so its not cheaper, it eventually ends up being more expensive.

Same thing along the lines of hybrids, yeah they are great city commuter cars due to very little fuel consumption at low speeds. But the batteries in those damn things are made of friggan lead, and have way more juice then conventional cars. Whats going to happen in 10-20 years time when these
hybrids start making their ways to car crushers? disposing of lead isn't that simple.

I think the fuel of the future is hydrogen, period. Its extremely efficient, we already posses the capability to widespread manufactures and sell it, there will be new jobs opened up due to a higher demand for the product, thus helping the economy in various regions, and its WAY better on the environment as the byproduct is water. If we really wanted to get serious, there could even be a catch install on these new hydrogen powered cars, where the water byproduct can be dispensed, much like on your home dehumidifier, and instead of just letting it come out of the exhaust pipes, take the left over water to a water treatment plant and have it be treated and used as drinking water.
 
AliasJerk said:
The flexfuel crap is a gimmick, Its the same story with hybrid cars, they try to make you believe its better for the environment and economy when really its doing equally as much harm.
Click to expand...

Flexfuel isn't a gimmick, its simply new, and not fully developed. Hybrids, well, you're not totally in left field here, but your night on the money either.

Flexfuel, which I believe comes from Corn, is a problem because we are taking a major food product and trying to manufacture it as a fuel,
Click to expand...

Flexfuel, also known as E85 (or some other proportional mix of gasoline and ethanol) does generally come from Corn. However, here in the US there are huge susidies to Corn growers from the government to keep things happy. The growing ethanol demand is likely to reverse that. However, the big problem lies in the fact that Corn grower simply won't be able to meet the demand for fuel at some point in the near future, and then we'll have a fuel shortage of another type.

and because its not as efficient as traditional gasolene or Diesel for that matter, it would require more of the "flexfuel" to travel the same distance as convential fuel, so its not cheaper, it eventually ends up being more expensive.
Click to expand...

Ethanol does have a lower stoichometric ratio than gasoline, which requires more mass of fuel to be delivered, however, this can be an advantage. More fuel mass means it will cool the combustion chamber more, couple that with the higher octane rating of ethanol, and it means you can make big power using ethanol based fuels. Ford's "Super Stallion" concept car from years ago demostrated that in a given engine, it was possible to make significant improvement in power output using E85 over regular pump gas. It's not all about being cheaper. Besides, the costs between gasoline and ethanol blends won't be on the same playing field until the distribution of ethanol grows significantly.

Same thing along the lines of hybrids, yeah they are great city commuter cars due to very little fuel consumption at low speeds. But the batteries in those damn things are made of friggan lead, and have way more juice then conventional cars. Whats going to happen in 10-20 years time when these
hybrids start making their ways to car crushers? disposing of lead isn't that simple.
Click to expand...

None of the current crop of hybrids use lead based batteries. Lead-acid, or any other lead based battery just plain doesn't have the power density to be feasible as a power supply. Most use Nickel-MetalHydride type batteries right now, with Lithium Ion likely to become more prevalent in the future. but, the simple fact of the matter is, batteries aren't going to end up in the crushers. They already don't stay in cars being disposed of, there is no reason to think that they will start leaving them in on hybrids.

I think the fuel of the future is hydrogen, period. Its extremely efficient, we already posses the capability to widespread manufactures and sell it, there will be new jobs opened up due to a higher demand for the product, thus helping the economy in various regions, and its WAY better on the environment as the byproduct is water. If we really wanted to get serious, there could even be a catch install on these new hydrogen powered cars, where the water byproduct can be dispensed, much like on your home dehumidifier, and instead of just letting it come out of the exhaust pipes, take the left over water to a water treatment plant and have it be treated and used as drinking water.
Click to expand...

ZOMG YOU HAVE SOLVED ALL TEH WORLDZ PROBLEMZ!!!!11!! YOU CAN HAZ A CHEEZBURGER!!!11!!!eleventyone!

Ever realize that it takes significantly more energy to manufacture hydrogen than you get from burning/reacting it? Ever stop to think about the dangers of storing large quantities of highly explosive and flammable gases? Ever stop to think that in order to store sufficient quantity of Hydrogen for a car fuel tank, it would require extremely high pressures? Also, where is this widespread Hydrogen production you speak of? Hydrogen production is extremely low in the US; it is SEVERAL orders of magnitude smaller than any motor vehicle fuel source currently in use. And for the record, you aren't going to get a successful IC engine running on Hydrogen, the only real way to use it is with Fuel cells, which generate electricity, which needs to be stored in batteries in order to turn electric motors. . . which brings is right back around to your inane Hybrid issues.

Hybrids, and Flexfuel vehicles certainly have thier issues to overcome, but you have COMPLETELY missed the mark, and also way overstated the practical potential of hydrogen as a common fuel.



Back on topic. I didn't check out the link, but one of the downsides of the ultra strong F-150 frame, is the high weight penalty, which affects a lot of other performance attributes :(
 
Rara said:
Ever stop to think about the dangers of storing large quantities of highly explosive and flammable gases?
Click to expand...

Ever stop to think about the dangers of storing large quantities of highly explosive and flammable liquids and vapors? Oh wait...

http://www.russiablog.org/LukOilGasStationPump.jpg

The "blow up" factor of hydrogen is really not significant, except in the eyes of the sensationalist media.

(I hate to nitpick, but that one argument just annoys me)

The problem with a "hydrogen economy" is that it can't really exist as a hydrogen economy, it needs to be a nuclear one. Basically, nuclear is the only way we have today of generating quantities of power far beyond what we need for standard electrical usage (without killing the environment, and out budget) This electrical surplus will be necessary for any main stream use of hydrogen as a long term fuel source. (We need to have enough cheap electricity to produce large quantities of hydrogen relatively cheaply)

Of course there is a paranoia surrounding nuclear plants these days, sadly.
 
catfish said:
The "blow up" factor of hydrogen is really not significant, except in the eyes of the sensationalist media.
Click to expand...

Completely wrong. Hydrogen has to be stored at extremely high pressure in order to get any sort of reasonable storage energy density. Even bottles of just compressed air at those pressures are very dangerous. We are talking as high as 10ksi in some scenarios for Hydrogen storage. Couple that with a higly flammable gas that burns with a colorless flame, and put these storage tanks in the back of every car on the road? A tank of gasoline liquid and vapor at roughly atmospheric pressure is nowhere near as dangerous. Calling the Hindenburg a reason to avoid hydrogen is sensationalist, citing the potential dangers of a flammable fluid at ultra-high pressure in milllions of cars, not so much.


That said, I 100% agree with your nuclear/hydrogen economy comments. The only way to have enough surplus energy to produce massive quantities of hydrogen is through significantly increased numbers of nuclear power generation facilities, which the public still isn't too keen on.
 
I'm no Speach Expert, but I started watching the video and in the first 10sec of the video I think that guy said "ah" like 5 times! So I stopped the video went and got a pen and paper and counted up 54 times the dude said "AH" in that speach! Like I said i'm not speach expert but wow, and to think they cut out half the video!:laugh:
 
Rara said:
Ever realize that it takes significantly more energy to manufacture hydrogen than you get from burning/reacting it?
Click to expand...

That is only a current problem though. Companies, researchers and scientists are working on perfecting the production of hydrogen to use less and less energy to produce it. Though they have not broken even as of yet they are getting closer. Although this is low energy production of hydrogen is far off and the mass production of which is even farther. It may eventually be possible to produce hydrogen with less energy then it will yield as a product.

Rara said:
Completely wrong. Hydrogen has to be stored at extremely high pressure in order to get any sort of reasonable storage energy density. Even bottles of just compressed air at those pressures are very dangerous. We are talking as high as 10ksi in some scenarios for Hydrogen storage. Couple that with a higly flammable gas that burns with a colorless flame, and put these storage tanks in the back of every car on the road? A tank of gasoline liquid and vapor at roughly atmospheric pressure is nowhere near as dangerous. Calling the Hindenburg a reason to avoid hydrogen is sensationalist, citing the potential dangers of a flammable fluid at ultra-high pressure in milllions of cars, not so much.


That said, I 100% agree with your nuclear/hydrogen economy comments. The only way to have enough surplus energy to produce massive quantities of hydrogen is through significantly increased numbers of nuclear power generation facilities, which the public still isn't too keen on.
Click to expand...

ummm... if i recall the Hindenburg was also painted with what we now know as jet fuel, but unknown to them at the time. so hydrogen wasn't the only reason.
 
Last edited:
devanmc said:
That is only a current problem though. Companies, researchers and scientists are working on perfecting the production of hydrogen to use less and less energy to produce it. Though they have not broken even as of yet they are getting closer. Although this is low energy production of hydrogen is far off and the mass production of which is even farther. It may eventually be possible to produce hydrogen with less energy then it will yield as a product.
Click to expand...

It is NOT possible, nor will it ever be possible. Ever hear of the 2nd law of thermodynamics? The only way to produce large quantities of hydrogen efficiently is to have a good source for tremendous amounts of electricity. The only present solution is nuclear power.

ummm... if i recall the Hindenburg was also painted with what we now know as jet fuel, but unknown to them at the time. so hydrogen wasn't the only reason.
Click to expand...

Wow, way to completely and totally miss the point of my comment. Like staggeringly bad. Now, go sit down or something, the adults are talking.
 
ok ok so im wrong and have been corrected thanks for turning it into a put down. which was not necessary.
 
I have to say the Tundra puts up a good fight against the Ford. Traction control and almost a hundred ft/lbs of torque over the f-150 when you get the 5.7 liter V8. It also has that insane stopping power with 4 piston calipers front and rear mounted to something like 16 inch rotors. The Tundra is close to being the number one 1/2 ton out there.
 
I just want to ad, I didn't post this to praise Ford and put down Toyota. I only posted it because it's something I stumbled upon and found it to be rather interesting.
 
Go Ford! They have always been well built and reliable trucks for reasons like that. They might not be the fastest, but are tough as nails. Now if the new V8 comes out next year, then Ford should be up with the competition in the HP department.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top