Extreme4x4 Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 I wish my SD had a deeper bed. You already can't easily get into the bed, so deeper bed sides would make no difference. However, there have been many occasions where a deeper bed would be great. We haul a lot of stuff back there for camping, and all kinds of things, and have a tonneau cover, so we would be able to have the cover down when camping. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 (edited) I think it was one of those, "Hey, the bed is taller...now what??" and the geniuses down in marketing came up with "class leading load depth"...so important in a light duty truck than NO ONE cares about it...not even Fords' own Superduty.... No. If this were done simply to put 'big truck styling' on the F150, it would be a million times cheaper (I exaggerate, of course), to *lower* the mirrors than to raise the bed height. They increased the depth of the bed and adjusted the windows accordingly. Edited November 15, 2013 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark B. Morrow Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 Then you should be taller! Yeah, those extra couple inches wouldn't make much difference for a tall load. Now, I did use the chrome bed rails that I put on my F150 to tie things down. That extra couple inches of height gave me a taller tie-off point, making things a bit less wobbly. But hey, I can haul an extra 375 ping pong balls due to the extra height! I hate having to go back for more ping pong balls! 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 Then you should be taller! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 I hate having to go back for more ping pong balls! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NLPRacing Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 Then you should be taller! I'll just buy thicker shoes and wear vertical stripes. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 (edited) But hey, I can haul an extra 375 ping pong balls due to the extra height! Be careful, ping pong balls can be dangerous. This is what happens when 2,538 of 'em go up in flames. Imagine what a high-side pickup-bed load would look like going up in flames? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sj0GTJnR_HI With liquid nitrogen: Nuked: Edited November 15, 2013 by Edstock 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted November 16, 2013 Share Posted November 16, 2013 Be careful, ping pong balls can be dangerous. This is what happens when 2,538 of 'em go up in flames. Imagine what a high-side pickup-bed load would look like going up in flames? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sj0GTJnR_HI With liquid nitrogen: Nuked: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7Mary3 Posted November 19, 2013 Share Posted November 19, 2013 (edited) Back to the topic, though I liked the dropped front window sill/beltline and rounded fender openings for many years after those styling ques were introduced, I am starting to think they have run their course. Don't get me wrong, I don't think Ford ought to adopt the square fender opening of the new GM twins, but something with a bit of shape might be nice for a change. I personally would like to see a style somewhat reminiscent of the '73-'79 'Dentside' F Series. I have a 2013 F-250 Super Duty in the shop in front of me right now, and it's really not the best looking truck Ford ever built. That's just my opinion. BTW- I was told the chief stylist for the 2011 Super Duty is no longer with Ford, he is now designed washing machines for Maytag......... Edited November 19, 2013 by 7Mary3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted November 19, 2013 Share Posted November 19, 2013 Dentside?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted November 19, 2013 Share Posted November 19, 2013 Because of the groove in the side that looks like it was scooped out with a spoon: 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT90SC Posted November 19, 2013 Share Posted November 19, 2013 Why do people insist on putting the '79 grille on every Dent? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted November 19, 2013 Author Share Posted November 19, 2013 BTW- I was told the chief stylist for the 2011 Super Duty is no longer with Ford, he is now designed washing machines for Maytag......... Well given the fact that the 2011 SD was most likely designed mid 2000's...anything is possible. I know someone on another DG that helped design the Super Chief concept a few years back, but I haven't been that active on that message board for a while.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted November 19, 2013 Share Posted November 19, 2013 (edited) I have a 2013 F-250 Super Duty in the shop in front of me right now, and it's really not the best looking truck Ford ever built. Yeah, they sure uglied up a good looking truck. And I still don't know why they went with GM's running lights over headlights arrangement--Fords, for as long as I can remember, have had the running lights under the headlights... Edited November 19, 2013 by SoonerLS 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted November 19, 2013 Share Posted November 19, 2013 No. If this were done simply to put 'big truck styling' on the F150, it would be a million times cheaper (I exaggerate, of course), to *lower* the mirrors than to raise the bed height. They increased the depth of the bed and adjusted the windows accordingly. I don't believe it went down that way....since it would be far cheaper to raise the rear of the window sill to achieve the desired "Superduty look" as opposed to lowering the sill at the front and have to change mounting points for the mirrors, moving the window internal supports and related mechanisms downward to provide the room for the "cut" and other expensive design alterations, moving the rear of the window sill up two inches was a logical "no brainer"...nothing internal to the door had to be changed, it is the equivalent to tack welding some sheet metal on. Then to keep the body line matching, the box top rail was moved up (no mechanical changes there) and the top of the tail gate was raised...notice how the tail gate handle appears lower on the current generation as opposed to the pre-2004 generation? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted November 19, 2013 Author Share Posted November 19, 2013 Yeah, they sure uglied up a good looking truck. And I still don't know why they went with GM's running lights over headlights arrangement--Fords, for as long as I can remember, have had the running lights under the headlights... IIRC it was something to advoid blinding drivers in cars with a higher headlight design. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted November 19, 2013 Share Posted November 19, 2013 Yeah, they sure uglied up a good looking truck. And I still don't know why they went with GM's running lights over headlights arrangement--Fords, for as long as I can remember, have had the running lights under the headlights... They actually did this for the 2008 model year. IMHO, the '08-'10 model actually looks better than the '11+ model. IIRC it was something to advoid blinding drivers in cars with a higher headlight design. ^^^^^ This. Ford was also anticipating regulations on headlight height IIRC, so they attempted to beat it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted November 19, 2013 Share Posted November 19, 2013 ^^^^^ This. Ford was also anticipating regulations on headlight height IIRC, so they attempted to beat it. That explains lowering the headlights, but not putting the running lights above them... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted November 19, 2013 Share Posted November 19, 2013 That explains lowering the headlights, but not putting the running lights above them... Where would you put them? The headlights are right above the bumper. What would you do with all of that empty space above the headlights? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted November 19, 2013 Share Posted November 19, 2013 That explains lowering the headlights, but not putting the running lights above them... Well where else would you put them? You'd rather have nothing above the lowered headlight? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted November 19, 2013 Share Posted November 19, 2013 (edited) I don't believe it went down that way....since it would be far cheaper to raise the rear of the window sill to achieve the desired "Superduty look" as opposed to lowering the sill at the front and have to change mounting points for the mirrors, moving the window internal supports and related mechanisms downward to provide the room for the "cut" and other expensive design alterations, moving the rear of the window sill up two inches was a logical "no brainer"...nothing internal to the door had to be changed, it is the equivalent to tack welding some sheet metal on. Then to keep the body line matching, the box top rail was moved up (no mechanical changes there) and the top of the tail gate was raised...notice how the tail gate handle appears lower on the current generation as opposed to the pre-2004 generation? Stop and think about that for a moment: The 2004 F150 was all new. Given that the whole dang door was changed from 2003 to 2004, do you think that there was any money to be saved by retaining the mirror mount point? Now consider the cost of adding an extra 2" of metal to the entire truck bed? That's cost that can't be amortized. It's not a one-time expenditure on tooling, it's extra metal that has to be purchased for every single vehicle. Do you think that Ford took on significant *ongoing costs* in order to save money on a *one-time* expenditure? I can give you about a 99.9999999999999% guarantee that your theory is wrong. Edited November 19, 2013 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted November 19, 2013 Share Posted November 19, 2013 Stop and think about that for a moment: The 2004 F150 was all new. Given that the whole dang door was changed from 2003 to 2004, do you think that there was any money to be saved by retaining the mirror mount point? Now consider the cost of adding an extra 2" of metal to the entire truck bed? That's cost that can't be amortized. It's not a one-time expenditure on tooling, it's extra metal that has to be purchased for every single vehicle. Do you think that Ford took on significant *ongoing costs* in order to save money on a *one-time* expenditure? I can give you about a 99.9999999999999% guarantee that your theory is wrong. But since you are not 100% correct...and you don't actually work at FoMoCo in the truck design department, I stand by my 0.0000000000001% reasoning based on my observations into styling trends and my trusty tape ruler that shows the front of the window opening is the same size as that of Expedition that does not have the "haunched up" look on the side glass.... Can we therefore agree to disagree on this one Richard? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted November 19, 2013 Share Posted November 19, 2013 Well where else would you put them? You'd rather have nothing above the lowered headlight? We've gotta quit typing the same thing at the same time! But since you are not 100% correct...and you don't actually work at FoMoCo in the truck design department, I stand by my 0.0000000000001% reasoning based on my observations into styling trends and my trusty tape ruler that shows the front of the window opening is the same size as that of Expedition that does not have the "haunched up" look on the side glass.... Can we therefore agree to disagree on this one Richard? I'm pretty sure (judging by his comments) that he was referring to your assertion of it being a cost-savings measure to raise the back vs. lowering the front. I'm with him thinking that is not the case. I don't think he was saying you are wrong on actually raising the back part of the glass, only saying your reasoning for doing it was wrong. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted November 19, 2013 Share Posted November 19, 2013 (edited) I even think that Richard may be correct...the top rail of the bed was raised to give "class leading load depth" in the ever escalating war on "who's truck is the best" (of course Fords are) but I still think it was trying to emulate Superduty looks wise that made them raise the rear of the window sill and not the front portion...they could have just gone with a straight line on the window sill for a more "gun slit" style look as well similar to Chrysler 300...hiking up the entire window sill line to give it a more robust, tough image...either way, my opinion is it looks great on Superduty, but on F-150...it looks dumb. Add on: But despite what MY opinion of the look is...they sure do sell a crap load of 'em....which is good for this shareholder... Edited November 19, 2013 by twintornados 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted November 19, 2013 Share Posted November 19, 2013 Plus, it gives us something to argue about! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.