If Kenworth, Peterbilt, etc. can make tough aluminum trucks, Ford can also succeed
I think this is an awesome idea.
Right now, my truck weighs 3900# Empty, and 6100# GVWR, for a 2200# payload (less operator, fuel, tools, etc). If you could have the same strength rolling chassis, but save 700# on the sheet metal…puts me at 2900# payload! Like going from a 1/2 to a 3/4 ton, BUT with improved FE to boot!
(Obv. trucks today are heavier, with all the safety equipment, but the same principle applies: a pound saved is an extra pound of payload!)
After re-reading the article it appears that it is just the body and bed but not the frame so that would be better.
@Bing
That is how the class 7 and 8 trucks are constructed
Extensive use of fiberglass and/or aluminum, but the frame is steel
Have you seen guys flip open the hood on one of those behemoths?
Undo the hood latches on either side
Prop one foot on the bumper
Grab hold of the hood ornament
Pull the hood toward you
I think it would be a lot more difficult if the hood was steel, considering the “hood” on those vehicles is essentially the hood, both fenders, and the headlights
Those aluminum Audis have been around for several years now, so I suspect the body shop community has good experience repairing and repainting aluminum panels by now
Working with aluminum also saves them money on tooling costs. A single drill bit can bore a lot more holes through aluminum as compared to steel before it has to be sharpened or discarded.
Stamping tools should hold up better also and the point could be made that electrical use will be less as it would take less power to stamp out an aluminum part vs the steel counterpart.
Really, Al beds are good enough for Mack coal trucks…it ought to be up to the task of typical 1/2 ton use!
The F-series is Ford’s meal ticket…I guarantee you they’ve tested the H-E-hockey sticks out of it!
Frankly, I’d be a bit more concerned about an ecoboost-equipped F150 than the aluminum skin.
I would also be a bit concerned about smaller displacement engines used for heavy duty use and in the boost quite a bit of the time.
Not long ago I attended a car show and in the Ford display they had an Ecoboost 1.3L display engine disassembled on the table. The entire engine was about the size of a Thanksgiving turkey and puts out 123 horsepower.
I was wondering just how deep the foot is going to have to be buried to take advantage of a lot of that power. It’s pretty fascinating they can squeeze that much out of something so tiny but durability would be a concern to me.
My Dodge Dakota 4wd weighs 5100# with myself(215)# and Mom probaly(140)# sitting in it,so a 700# weight reduction would be welcome,economy and performance would be enhanced,seriously thinking about lighting it up a bit(any suggestions)-Kevin
its too easy kev… 
If you think aluminum means a corrosion free body, think again. Galvanic corrosion between dissimilar metals where even a steel bolt that is in continuous contact with the metal can accelerate problems. If poorly engineered, and no auto manufacturer is immune in newer cars and trucks, the corrosion problem could be worse then steel alone vehicles, in the presence of any moisture, and not just salt. Ford, regardless of their attempts to “show” the public their efforts to minimize rust, failed to even put suitable drain holes in body cavities just a few years back which caused trucks less then ten years old to rust around doors and rockers and cab in the rust belt.
No, this is an attempt to lighten trucks for better mileage ratings (700lbs is huge) and rust prevention is an afterthought. IMHO, the truck will have a design life similar to what it was, no more no less, and will not be corrosion free indefinitely as one would hope without proper care in heavily salted areas…it may be even worse in areas that aren’t salted when exposed to moisture alone. Time will tell. It’s about the engineering and not the material alone.
Ford invested in moving the industry forward. I’m sure they’ll work to address any problems that arise. They and the rest of the industry will learn from it.
The result is that all of us will be driving lighter and more fuel efficient vehicles in the future.
Problems that arise from major changes are inevitable. It’s the number and severity of problems that need to be anticipated, not those fixed while using the consumer as a test bed. Ford and Toyota are taking different approaches for mileage in their fleets. Toyota has successfully dived into hybrid technology while Ford seems to addressing the problem on all fronts. This is a noble move but a wait and see attitude of a Toyota has better served in reliability terms mechanically. Body wise, American vehicles have always been equal to or better and I would expect no different here. Just don’t expect a vehicle without pitfalls along the way.
The automotive industry is trying all kinds of things to increase fuel economy: direct injection, diesel, hybrid, EV, natural gas, turbocharging, supercharging; and that’s just off the top of my head. As time progresses, we will see what works best from an efficiency and cost standpoint in different markets and market segments. The best ones will remain and be improved.
Direct injection is something I am keeping my eye on. It has worked in diesels for years but you need festidious fuel filter changes and ethanol and carbon build up can be problems in gas. It is a more expensive design and I am in the market but not if it has problems. Ford jumped in early while Toyota sits and waits, as usual, till everyone else works out the bugs. As yet, they still have fleet averages high enough with their plethora of hybrids and build trucks that are still up there with regular engines and steel bodies.