New Expedition, Navigator greenlit

[akirby]

Other issues with leaf spring suspension are axle wrap and wheel hop, which are complaints I have read about with the current F150. Coil springs are also better at controlling suspension movement which means the tires stay on the road better helping handling and braking.

 

If you're getting axle wrap and wheel hop in a F150 then you should probably be driving a mustang GT instead.

[Anthony]

Unless you add other suspension components (such as air helper-springs) to accommodate for the shortcomings of coil springs. See 2013 RAM 1500...

 

The optional air suspension on the new Ram does not increase or decrease any towing or load ratings. It is simply an adjustable system for higher ride height when off-roading, lower ride height when in freeway driving (for higher FE) and for automatic load-leveling when using a trailer/load. None of which could accomplished without a similar system on a leaf-spring equipped vehicle.

 

Much of that poise can be attributed to the optional "Active Level" air-ride suspension fitted to all four corners of our tester. At $1,595, the system uses pressurized tanks to give the truck a full 8.7 inches of ground clearance on its default setting. Switch to Off Road 2, and the height jumps by another two inches, all the way up to 10.7 inches of clearance. Off Road 1 doles out 1.2 inches of extra height over default, while an aero mode lowers the vehicle by 1.1 inches to eke out the best possible fuel economy at predetermined speeds. That's fun and all, but the airbags have a more useful purpose for those of us who spend time with a trailer behind the truck. The kit will actually level-out the suspension to normal ride height with a load on the hitch. Very cool.

 

Additionally, the truck weighs less then a 2012.

 

http://www.autoblog....oblog (Autoblog)

Edited August 24, 2012 by Intrepidatious

[fordmantpw]

The optional air suspension on the new Ram does not increase or decrease any towing or load ratings. It is simply an adjustable system for higher ride height when off-roading, lower ride height when in freeway driving (for higher FE) and for automatic load-leveling when using a trailer/load. None of which could accomplished without a similar system on a leaf-spring equipped vehicle.

 

 

 

Additionally, the truck weighs less then a 2012.

 

http://www.autoblog....oblog (Autoblog)

 

But you can normally tune a leaf-spring suspension for less sag in the rear when carrying the same load.

[jpvbs]

If you're getting axle wrap and wheel hop in a F150 then you should probably be driving a mustang GT instead.

 

It also can happen when towing on uneven or loose surfaces.

[Edstock]

It reduces capacity more than it saves weight, and thus I expect Ford will give it a miss. Going with significant usage of aluminum & composites in the body panels saves weight without reducing capacity.

 

Yes indeed. I wonder, though, for "light duty" applications, if coils might give better NVH results.

 

But for heavy loads, NVH becomes secondary, and for the cost, leaf springs are the solution. There are heavy-duty coils, but they are expensive. Then there are extra-heavy-duty coils, properly known as volute springs, from railroad cars and subway car technology and tank suspensions from the 30's.

Edited August 24, 2012 by Edstock

[Anthony]

But you can normally tune a leaf-spring suspension for less sag in the rear when carrying the same load.

 

Sure you can make the leafs stiffer to reduce load sag, but at the expense of ride and handling. You can do that with coils too.

 

However, you cannot auto-load level with any form non-active system, which is what this system does. The air suspension was not designed to get higher tow or load ratings or be a "helper"...it was designed for increased height off-road and lower height while freeway driving as well as auto-load leveling. It's similar to the system in the Grand Cherokee, which has never used leaf springs or had owners complaining over limited tow or load ratings. Or the Expedition for that matter (which also offers an air suspension).

 

If you want automatic load leveling in an F-150, you would need a load leveling system. ....and I am willing to bet it will be available sooner rather then later.

Edited August 24, 2012 by Intrepidatious

[Anthony]

Yes indeed. I wonder, though, for "light duty" applications, if coils might give better NVH results.

 

But for heavy loads, NVH becomes secondary, and for the cost, leaf springs are the solution. There are heavy-duty coils, but they are expensive. Then there are extra-heavy-duty coils, properly known as volute springs, from railroad cars and subway car technology and tank suspensions from the 30's.

 

Which is exactly what Ram did. Coils on the light duty applications and leafs on HD trucks.

[fordmantpw]

You cannot auto-load level with any form non-active system, which is what this system does. The air suspension was not designed to get higher tow or load ratings or be a "helper"...it was designed for increased height off-road and lower height while freeway driving as well as auto-load leveling. It's similar to the system in the Grand Cherokee, which has never used leaf springs or had owners complaining over limited tow or load ratings. Or the Expedition for that matter (which also offers an air suspension).

 

I'm not debating that. What I'm saying is you typically get less "squat" with a leaf system, hence the less need for load leveling. And it IS a helper if it is used to bring the load level from a tail-squatting position (which is one feature of load-leveling). I've considered adding air helpers to my F250 to get rid of the squat when towing my fifth wheel. Let's not compare loading a JGC to loading a pickup, though, please.

 

If you want automatic load leveling in an F-150, you would need a load leveling system. ....and I am willing to bet it will be available sooner rather then later.

 

Agreed...what comes to one, will more than likely come to another. If nothing else, to lower ride height for that extra MPG gain.

Edited August 24, 2012 by fordmantpw

[akirby]

It also can happen when towing on uneven or loose surfaces.

 

Ok, I'll buy that.

[jpvbs]

Which is exactly what Ram did. Coils on the light duty applications and leafs on HD trucks.

 

This is my thinking.

 

Also, because Dodge had to reduce capability slightly when converting to coils during a mid-cycle refresh doesn't mean Ford can't figure out how to use them and still be a leader in capability when designing a new from the ground up platform.

[akirby]

This is my thinking.

 

Also, because Dodge had to reduce capability slightly when converting to coils during a mid-cycle refresh doesn't mean Ford can't figure out how to use them and still be a leader in capability when designing a new from the ground up platform.

 

Let me ask this again - what problem would switching to coil springs be solving on the new F150 exactly?

[Anthony]

Let me ask this again - what problem would switching to coil springs be solving on the new F150 exactly?

 

Bringing light-duty truck owners back to some semblance of reality (and improved ride and handling couldn't hurt). Every time you keep increasing load or towing capability, it will come at the expense of something. Whether it is ride, handling, weight, etc... Let GM have the stupid "I can carry more tons of something I'll never carry anyway" crown. Build a light-duty truck that 95% of the people would use, not 5%. That's what the heavier duty versions are for.

 

It may not happen with the next generation, but I'll put a fiver down that a light-duty version of the F series gets a coil spring rear axle by 2020.

[NLPRacing]

You can't replace the leaf with a coil and keep the same capacity. There's a reason why trucks kept leaf springs.

 

You can, but the coils would be so stiff there would be no advantage as the ride would probably be worse than leaf springs. Now if you were to use air bags instead of coils, you could retain capacity with a better ride than leafs, but at a higher cost.

 

The optional air suspension on the new Ram does not increase or decrease any towing or load ratings. It is simply an adjustable system for higher ride height when off-roading, lower ride height when in freeway driving (for higher FE) and for automatic load-leveling when using a trailer/load. None of which could accomplished without a similar system on a leaf-spring equipped vehicle.

 

 

 

Additionally, the truck weighs less then a 2012.

 

http://www.autoblog....oblog (Autoblog)

 

Didn't the Lincoln Mark VIII offer a similar lowering ability at highway speeds in the 90's?

 

The Expedition has had a rear load leveling option for years that works quite well. I don't see why it would go away when the Expedition and F150 merge back together and if not, why it couldn't become an option on the F150.

[RichardJensen]

You're not going to see automatic load leveling on the F150 because you are not going to see coils on the F150.

 

You are not going to see coils on the F150 because Ford has found no end of success letting GM offer the 'car like ride', while providing a thoroughly robust, over engineered and truckish truck.

 

You will not see Ford putting coils on the F150 in order to put an active suspension, in order to lower the vehicle at highway speeds in order to eke out a marginal fuel economy advantage. If they were going to do that, they would've hopped on the cylinder deactivation bandwagon--which is a similar bit of excess complexity that adds a minor advantage on a limited subset of conditions.

[NLPRacing]

You're not going to see automatic load leveling on the F150 because you are not going to see coils on the F150.

 

You are not going to see coils on the F150 because Ford has found no end of success letting GM offer the 'car like ride', while providing a thoroughly robust, over engineered and truckish truck.

 

You will not see Ford putting coils on the F150 in order to put an active suspension, in order to lower the vehicle at highway speeds in order to eke out a marginal fuel economy advantage. If they were going to do that, they would've hopped on the cylinder deactivation bandwagon--which is a similar bit of excess complexity that adds a minor advantage on a limited subset of conditions.

 

But what about an F100?

[fordmantpw]

Bringing light-duty truck owners back to some semblance of reality (and improved ride and handling couldn't hurt). Every time you keep increasing load or towing capability, it will come at the expense of something. Whether it is ride, handling, weight, etc... Let GM have the stupid "I can carry more tons of something I'll never carry anyway" crown. Build a light-duty truck that 95% of the people would use, not 5%. That's what the heavier duty versions are for.

 

I agree with you, but the sad thing is, the idea that "my truck is bigger than yours" sells trucks...LOTS of them!

 

Will it in the future? I'm not so sure. I think "my truck gets better fuel economy than yours" is going to sway a lot of buyers in the coming years, but if Ford can tout both, then they've got the best of both worlds!

Edited August 24, 2012 by fordmantpw

[RichardJensen]

But what about an F100?

Are there leads or coils under the T6?

[twintornados]

Are there leads or coils under the T6?

Not under T6, but definitely under Expedition / Navigator..... :poke:

[Anthony]

 

Not under T6, but definitely under Expedition / Navigator..... :poke:

 

I don't think you'll be seeing IRS under an F Series anytime soon.

[jpd80]

Watts Link can give most of the handling attributes of IRS but with the practicality of an SRA, it could be an economical solution to

the common rear suspension question depending upon whether or not an IRS is essential on either the Expedition or Navigator.....

Edited August 25, 2012 by jpd80

[Kris Kolman]

Are you actually arguing that #1 leader in the field with a history of constant improvement should copy the clear #3 product? And in return give up load carrying capability .

 

While a pickup is flexible enough to be a people carrier and other personal vehicle needs a pickup truck exists for one reason... That is to be able to put stuff in the open bed. And as such the more stuff you can put in does mean something.

[NLPRacing]

 

Are there leads or coils under the T6?

 

I'm not talking about a T6 based F100, I'm referring to an Expedition EL based F100.

[RichardJensen]

I'm not talking about a T6 based F100, I'm referring to an Expedition EL based F100.

Oh. The Avalanche.

[NLPRacing]

 

Oh. The Avalanche.

 

Nah, think separate cab & bed. Like Sport Trac.

[RichardJensen]

Nah, think separate cab & bed. Like Sport Trac.

Understanding that the Expy & the F150 are going to be basically the same to the B pillar, I don't see how you can do anything past that that makes a meaningful difference between a short box F150 crew and your proposed vehicle.