to kick the tires on one.

This has a lot of folks talking.

Good luck, Ford Motor!

yup

F-150's, like other pickup trucks, have been marketed with hyper-macho swinging-dick ads for years and years. Going to aluminum on the F-150---regardless of the benefits---practically writes the ad campaigns of Ford's competitors: "Hey! Hey! HEY! Don't be a wuss and buy the new F-150! Our trucks are still made with by-Gawd STEEL!"

The hyper-macho-est, swinging-dick-est trucks on the road - Peterbilts - have aluminum cabs.

oxidation is the best thing that ever happened to the auto industry.

that aluminum is as strong as steel. I just think of aluminum cans. I know they are very thin....

the can tabs are aluminum because they have to be strong. Aluminum is expensive. That's why lots of charities collect donations of can tabs.

While the tab is a slightly different alloy, it isn't different enough for recyclers to bother separating it from the can body. Both just get shredded and melted down to form new aluminum cans and tabs.

This has resulted in a lot of headaches for charities that keep getting people turning in tabs, but tabs aren't worth much.
(http://www.snopes.com/business/redeem/pulltabs.asp)

Yet so many people believe the "tab" story that some very large charities that have big enough logistics systems do go ahead and collect the tabs. For example, Ronald McDonald House collects them. The tabs get sent to the recyclers for the same per-pound price as the rest of the can.

Steel cans can still be found, mostly for canned food as opposed to canned beverages. Basically, if you can bend the can, it's aluminum. If you can't, it's steel. You could also try a magnet - if the magnet sticks to the can, it's steel.

the can ends are made from a harder alloy. Casting aluminum for cans is a very delicate art - the smallest bit of grit that gets into several tons of molten aluminum ends up as a pinhole once the aluminum is rolled out into coil. Imagine the mess when a brewer has several leaking cans in a warehouse.

One huge advantage in using aluminum in cars is that it is a step to a circular economy - The leftovers from stamping plants go directly back to the aluminum company to be recast into new sheet stock and go back to the auto makers. Once the cars outlive their usefulness, the aluminum will go back to be recast into material for new cars. The goal of one company is to be casting new ingot from 80% recycled material by 2020 - 6 years from now.

Scrap running over $200 per ton.

The catch is that it is more expensive than steel because processing aluminum ore takes enormous amounts of energy. Iceland has a lot of aluminum plants because of their cheap geothermal.

When aluminum corrodes it turns into a nice white powder. I've seen plenty of it.

On the other hand Steel is more dense then Aluminum, thus a mass of Aluminum takes up three times the space as the same MASS of Steel;

http://www.simetric.co.uk/si_metals.htm

The problem is no one is using the same weight, just the same volume and by volume it isn't as strong.

It all depends if they are counting on people keeping the vehicles..

They have has problems with aluminum previously. Galvanic corrosion is the biggest problem. I've had a few problems myself on a vehicle I built where aluminum and steel meet.

http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/15/judge-allows-suit-over-aluminum-corrosion-in-fords-to-move-forward/?_r=0

if different types of steel are used. Given the opportunity, road salt, dissimilar metals attempt to make a battery. Thus oxidation.
Mid to late 70s Mopars could have this problem at the weld between the inner and outer trunk material.
It was not an easy fix.

Why start with a truck? If designed well aluminum can be as structurally strong, for the most part.
I'm thinking mostly of the box here. I can remember carting around bricks, firewood and other heavy objects that were hard on a steel bed. You don't gently place fire wood in the back of a 'pick-em-up', you toss it in. Smack,bang,ding,dent.
I know, it's just me but gosh the Ford Fusion would be just begging for the weight advantage.

Don't get me wrong. I like big pickups. I'm a large guy and sitting in one is always very comfy and that large bucket is so useful. But what I never understand about Americans is why petrol V8 engines? The best engine for a pick up is a diesel... assuming you use what the pick up was made for. I just looked at the line up and diesel is not even available! Yet Ford Asia, Europe and Australia have the Ranger (only slightly smaller) and it comes with a choice of a turbo diesel 2.2 I4 or turbo 3.0 I5 engines with 6-speed manual or auto transmissions. A I4 petrol is also available but hardly anyone purchases them. These are not weakling engines. They can easily burn rubber. Would really be nice if smaller turbo diesel engines were included with the larger petrol engines to give customers a wider choice.

As for Land Rovers... yeah they may have aluminum body panels that do not rust but not every part of the body is aluminum. The fire wall is not as well as the kick panels attached to it. Because of the contact between the aluminum and steel plus electrical current, you have this wonderful effect called galvanic corrosion which sees your steel literally eating away. Have two Land Rovers 110 in my workshop right now repairing the corrosion in the kick panels. Not nice!

That's pretty typical in the US. There isn't a lot of availability. I don't know if my mechanic deals diesel with engines, either, but I'm sure if he does he charges a premium to do so. If I'm not mistaken diesel is also hovering around $3.50 while gas is under $3/gallon.

There's a significant cultural skepticism about diesel for everyday people's vehicles in the US, because previous offerings from the big 3 have been spectacularly awful cars and imports tend to be very expensive to care for.

I'd say 4 out of 5 stations have diesel here.

And the poster who commented on our lack of diesel trucks is right... Gasoline trucks are stupid, diesel gets better fuel economy and lasts longer.

When you tow with a gasoline truck, it loses more than half its fuel economy, the diesel barely loses 10%.

When I tow a snowmobile trailer with a gasoline truck, it drops from 22mpg down to 10.5mpg. When I tow with a similar sized diesel truck, it drops from 28mpg, down to 22mpg.

Gasoline trucks never made sense.

Last edited Wed Nov 12, 2014, 01:24 AM - Edit history (1)

When I was in the National Guard (1980s) I had to drive a gasoline 2 1/2 ton truck (the data plate said their were build 1946-1949). That truck's engine was 10-15% smaller than the Diesel Engine in the Diesel powered 2 1/2 ton trucks (all of these trucks were M35 series) and was better off road then the Diesel Engine that replaced the Gasoline engine starting in the 1960s.

Please note the replacement involved replacing the engine, the transmission and the instruments, but not the wheels, the steering wheel, the parking brake (Through the starting mechanism was changed, the gasoline engine was started by a button under the clutch pedal, with the diesel you had a button on the dash). The Data Plate with the date of Manufacture was removed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M35_2%C2%BD-ton_cargo_truck

SInce 1996 the M35 are to be replaced by the M1078 of the Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV);

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_of_Medium_Tactical_Vehicles

http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m1078.htm

The FMTV are derived from the Austrian M92 Series, except the US Army wanted an Automatic Transmission and developed one with tax payers dollars (and that Automatic Transmission has become a standard transmission since the 1990s on Civilian Medium trucks in the US. Medium Trucks before the 1990s where overwhelmingly equipped with Standard Transmissions, Trucks in Europe are still overwhelming equipped with Standard Transmissions).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steyr_90_series#92

I saw the same problem with the M151 Series of Jeeps. These were all gasoline engines (with the start button under the Gas Pedal). Thus when the M151 was replaced by a diesel (The Humvee), it had to be a vehicle with a much larger engine to provide the needed power at low speeds. Thus the Army in Afghanistan had to adopt diesel vehicle that is NOT usable on highways (the gearing had to be set so low to provide the power that it was unusable on highways, unlike the M151 which was good at both off road and highway speeds (Notice I said "good" not great).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M151_Truck,_Utility,_l/4-Ton,_4x4

http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m151.htm

Please note after the Air Campaign against Serbia in the 1990s the US took on a Peace Keeping role in Macedonia, the Former Yugoslavia State, now independent, between Servia and Greece. The Roads were so narrow that the Peacekeepers sent to Macedonia had to bring out the M151 from mothballs, the Humvees that replaced the M151 were to wide for the roads.

Just a comment that the smaller the engine the more power you get from a gasoline engine. This is most noticeable at low speed (starting etc). Once you get to highway speeds, the diesel comes in to their own. Once above 10-20 mph Diesel wins hands down, but at lower speeds the gasoline engine provides more power. The Army went to Diesel to save fuel, but did so by going to larger diesel engines then the gasoline engines such diesels replaced).

http://www.off-road.com/diesel/feature/diesel-vs-gasoline-engines-for-offroad-use-9713.html

http://www.trucktrend.com/features/tech/163_0210_diesel_vs_gas/viewall.html

It was do to this low speed power that gasoline was popular with farmers for decades. The old three speed with a creeper low gear was really liked, such a truck could stay with a tractor in high gear. This combo started to be replaced but only in the late 1980s when people opted for five speed manual transmissions.

Just a comment on when it is good to have a gasoline engine in a truck. i.e. off road when Mud and loose dirt are a concern. On Dirt roads (When do to traffic the dirt is well packed) you rarely need the extra power at low speed a Gasoline Engine gives you, thus Diesel is sufficient, but cross country that is a different ball game and where the Gasoline engine comes into its own.

A good comparison of Gasoline vs Diesel can be seen in the Vietnam era M274 Mechanical Mule and the M-Gator adopted for use in Afghanistan. The Mechanical mule was 1/2 the weight, faster (except against the M-Gator A-3 version), could be towed (The M-Gator MUST go on the back of a truck NOT towed behind it as could be done with the M274, this is do to the Continuous Transmission used in the M-Gator the M274 used a manual transmission and thus could always be put into Neutral when hauled). The M274 even beats out the M-Gator in Ground clearance, but it is only 12 inches vs 11 inches, so not much of an advantage;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Military_M274_Truck,_Platform,_Utility_1/2_Ton,_4X4

http://olive-drab.com/idphoto/id_photos_m-gator.php

http://www.tactical-life.com/magazines/guns-and-weapons/john-deere-m-gator-a3/

Now, the main difference is the M274 was Army designed, the M-Gator is a converted Civilian machine. There are advantages when the Army is designing something, and disadvantages. The main advantage is the Army can require what they believe is needed in combat, even if it is NOT something civilians want (For example the M-274 could be driven while walking beside it, in case you wanted the driver to hit the ground quickly). On the other hand sometimes Military design can miss things that soldiers do like, like two seats instead on one and the bed with sides (Which the M-Gator has) not just a flat surface (What the M274 had). Please note in both models everything MUST be tied down, so no real advantage to having sides.

The M-Gator has a 25-hp, 854 cc, liquid cooled, diesel engine (In its A3 version)

The M274 Mechanical Mule had only a 13 hp engine. 42 Cubic Inch engine (688 cc) and could climb with a 1000 pound load, a 60% grade:

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/403875.pdf

http://www.military-today.com/trucks/m274_mechanical_mule.htm

http://www.deere.com/en_US/products/equipment/gator_utility_vehicles/military_utility_vehicles/m_gators/m_gator_a1/m_gator_a1.page?%3fcid=SEM_usa_mil&%253D%257bmobile%257d

I can NOT find the max grade of the M-Gator but something tells me it is NOT 60%. On the other hand it is NOT often you need to haul 1000 pounds of equipment up a 60% Grade (60 feet up for every 100 feet in length, thus the max is 90% which means an staight up and down cliff). Interstate highways are all under 4% grade for example. Rails to trails under 2%.

Yes, in many ways what the Army needed was the M274 with an automatic transmission (or maybe just train their soldiers to operate a manual transmission). On the other hand the Army could get the M-Gator when they needed it, not a couple of years afterward.

The start button on the M151 is under the clutch pedal. That's the Army's version of the neutral safety switch - they wanted to make sure you pushed the clutch in so you didn't unnecessarily run over any lieutenants (running over the ones who needed it was another issue) so they put the starter button in a place you couldn't reach without pushing in the clutch.

Last edited Wed Nov 12, 2014, 08:32 PM - Edit history (1)

I mostly drove M35s, Gas and Diesel jobs. Mostly diesels for the Gas Jobs were only 40 years old when I drove them. The Gas M35s were significantly lighter then the Diesel jobs and another reason they were better off road but given they age less reliable otherwise. I NEVER had a problem with the Gas M35 off road, but they did break down when we drove them on the PA Turnpike. I suspect it was do to those drives being the first one driven by such trucks in some time.

I liked your comment about where the Start Button was for the M151, but the thing I remember about the M151 was its start button was under a different peddle then the Gasoline M35 2 1/2 ton trucks. Since I mostly drove M35s, I had to look for the Gas Peddle on the M151 when I had a chance to drive one.

Because every station I go to here has diesel available (and not truck pumps). Even a smaller one I stop at has diesel available.

No offense, but I think the availability thing is a non-issue now. It may have been when the big 3 wrecked diesel for the US in the late 70's and early 80's.

You can only turn a barrel of oil into about 80% diesel, or 80% gasoline. The remaining 20% is other, much less valuable stuff. However, you can turn a barrel of oil into about 50% diesel and 50% gasoline. (Or at least this was the case at one time - more on that later).

Essentially, to get the highest refining efficiency, you need about half the world to drive gas vehicles, and half the world to drive diesel. So the vast majority of passenger vehicles in the US are gas, leaving diesel to the very large trucks, train engines and such.

This makes it really hard for a consumer to find diesel fuel in the consumer-level gas stations. The vast majority only have gasoline.

That leads to a chicken-and-egg problem: consumers avoid diesel vehicles because diesel is hard to find, so there's less demand from consumers for diesel. Which causes consumer-level gas stations to not bother carrying diesel, perpetuating the problem.

Now the actual technical specs of Diesel, Kerosene and Home Heating Oil are different, but if you look at the actual specs with their acceptable level of variation, they all overlap each other. JP8 is the latest standard Jet Fuel for the Military but all it is Kerosene/Diesel/Home Heating oil made to a set spec (With from what I gather increase concentration on lubrication then other versions of Kerosene/Diesel/Home Heating oil).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JP-8

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerosene

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_fuel

There's lighter stuff that ends up in gasoline. So at one time, the split in diesel and gasoline was to use up all of a barrel of oil.

That created the problem where consumers had a hard time buying diesel, which then lead to the chicken-and-egg problem I mentioned.

Some of the products are lighter then the crude it comes from and thus takes up more volume. On the other hand no one refines one barrel at a time, thus 42 gallons of gasoline or 42 gallons of diesel is close enough for most purooses.

For example, if you try to get all gasoline, you'll end up with a lot of heavy gunk that isn't even usable as fuel oil.

Or again, you used to - there's been a lot of changes in refining since I had a clue about the chemistry involved.

To get the most out of the barrel of oil, you need to refine it into a mix of light and heavy fuels. All light or all heavy yields are lower than some light, some heavy.

Thus overall, you do get 44 gallons of gasoline or Diesel out of 42 gallons of crude. It may be 1000 barrels of Gasoline, 1000 barrels of Diesel, and 1000 barrels of other products (including #4 and #6 oil and lubrication oil), but on a per barrel it will be 44 barrels of Diesel, Gasoline or other refined oil.

Now, they are ways to produce more gasoline then Diesel/Kerosene/Jet fuel and this switch occurs every spring and fall. In Spring the refineries switch to make more gasoline, in the fall more home heating oil. This is do to increase demand for gasoline in the Summer and home heating oil in the winter.

Now, you get Gasoline produced even as you concentrate on Diesel/Home heating oil. A few years ago, gasoline prices DROPPED in the winter and early spring, do to excessive cold temperatures in Europe. Those cold temperatures forces more then normal production of home heating oil in Europe and thus an excess of gasoline, much of which was shipped to the US. Such Gasoline could have been refined to be used as Oil.

The First Generation M35s with Diesel Engines (M35A1s) where actually 'Multi-Fuel' engines. i.e. Diesels that could use gasoline mixed with lubrication oil. The M35A1s were known for their unreliability (M35s Gasoline engine 2 1/2 tons trucks were kept over the M35A1s with those Multi-fuel Engines) but most OLDER diesels, pre 1980, can handle gasoline mixed with oil.

PLEASE NOTE COMMON RAIL DIESELS AND MOST MODERN DIESELS CAN NOT HANDLE GASOLINE AT ALL. Thus the old 'Trick' of mixing gasoline with diesel is NOT good for such engines and can lead to an explosion. The old M35A1 multi-fuel could handle gasoline mixed with oil, but the modern diesel engines can NOT.

http://www.aftermarketsuppliers.org/Councils/Filter-Manufacturers-Council/TSBs-2/English/91-1R3.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_oil

Now, what happened in Europe was excessive production of Gasoline and it was cheaper to ship it to the US then to further refine it into Diesel. Such remaking gasoline into diesel (or Diesel into Gasoline) can be done, but it costs money and avoided for that reason alone.

On the other hand, if the price is right, conversion of gasoline to diesel is possible (but the more cost effective way is just sell gasoline at a huge discount, which is what Standard oil did in the late 1800s when its main product was kerosene used for lighting).

Thus in winter, you are better off using Diesel #1, which is close to but is NOT gasoline. Modern Diesels can handle #1 Diesel, through it is usually mixed with #2.

US Recommendation for winter Diesels (Please note all temperatures are in Celsius, remember -40 Celsius is equal to -40 Fahrenheit, 0 degrees Celsius is equal to 32 Degree Fahrenheit. 0 degree Fahrenheit equals -18 degrees Celsius).

http://www3.me.iastate.edu/biodiesel/Pages/biodiesel16.html

Most notably California and New England do not allow new diesel cars to be sold. I believe that classification includes up thru the half ton pickup truck. At 3/4 ton and above you find the diesel being available both for efficiency and for torque.

The strength to weight ratio of aluminum is much lower than steel. The problem with steel is that you can't roll it thin enough and protect it from corrosion at the same time.
Chrysler started using aluminum back in the 70's for some body parts but it didn't work out well. As far as collision damage goes, you'll have to take it to the airport to get it fixed.

What the real problem in the US auto industries is that they just can't think small in order to increase the gas mileage in their vehicles.
Whatever happened to the medium sized pick up truck that could haul a 4X8 piece of plywood in the bed without it sticking out the back end?
Now all we see are huge 4x4 quad cabs with 4X6 beds, which are worthless for actually carrying stuff, and get really bad gas mileage. Don't believe that sticker on the window.
A free market economy is not one in which your choices should be limited to what they can sell you and nothing else.

you needed to buy a "longbed" truck. Standard bed length for both medium and full-size trucks has been 6' for quite a while. Quad cabs result in even shorter beds.

I have no use for short bed trucks. I dont get it either. "air haulers"

Most of the smaller vehicles I see being made these days are made with mostly plastic. Beats me how I keep paying more for vehicles that are made of less expensive materials.

Having said that, it's not that the U.S. auto industries can't think small, it's that for the longest time Americans wanted vehicles that are quick off the line and damn the fuel economy. Case in point, I had a 1993 Dodge 3/4 ton with a Cummins Turbo diesel engine in it. That son of a bitch got 26 miles per gallon!!! No matter if it was empty, or filled with firewood (in the 8 foot bed!) it got 26 freaking miles per gallon. You go to the dealer today, and all the diesels are competing with the ten cylinder gas engines for shitty fuel economy, you're lucky if you get 7.

Let that truck slip through my fingers, and I still can't believe it.

Just be sure to keep any Mercury away from that baby.

How long before we see some lowbrow "Rolling Coal" in this... Oh, the irony.

Told the guys here in our shop that in 10 years I could start looking for a 2015 ford F150.