In reply to Bobzilla:
You say "rusted away completely" I say "falling apart". Semantics.
On a related note, I find your comment kind of funny, since in the thread below you stated a couple times that the rust on my truck was unusual, and you and your Dad had trucks like that with minimal rust...
http://grassrootsmotorsports.com/forum/grm/what-pickup-rusts-the-least/85370/page1/
In reply to kreb:
The aluminium panels are three times thicker than the steel they're replacing......things will be fine.
In reply to Tom Spangler:
While the Ford could be scary insurance wise, the upcoming chebby is a fully welded AIV. My god that will be an uninsurable one.
In reply to bravenrace:
He was being sarcastic(I know, hard to tell with him until you get used to it) 
Trans_Maro wrote: In reply to kreb: I'm sure Ford has the development $$$ to come up with a correct alloy or use an existing one. Airplanes are aluminum. Airplanes that don't flex fall out of the sky.
I don't mean to cast doubt on the product. Ford has engineers far smarter than I. I have no doubt in their ability to pull this off, and applaud them for their efforts to combat the overall trend towards 4 wheel tanks.
I do have to note that airplanes are a suspect analogy. Each FAA certified craft is under far more scrutiny than a non-race pickup truck will ever get.
I expect that most of the concerns voiced here are not worth worrying about.
I think bravenrace is being very charitable and polite here.
As a person who has DD'd aluminum-bodied vehicles for the past 4-5 years, I can tell you that they certainly look no worse for wear than my pile of steel-bodied vehicles!
The joke is that i live in a place where my other cars don't rust either. 
The new 2.7 looks pretty exciting. Hopefully i'll get to drive one reasonably soon. The 3.5 ecoboost, after driving it and seeing the mpg numbers people get, kind of seems like training wheels in the sense that it seems sized to compete with existing v8 options in power/torque and just slightly exceed them in economy in order to convince people that yes, its ok to have a 'small' turbo v6 in a truck. If people hadnt needed any convincing of that, the massive overlap in capability between the 3.5 and the v8s would have been a 'waste' of a smaller motor. I think the 2.7 is the main event as far as actually pushing the gas-engine half-ton ball forward.
This is the same reason i dont understand the ~4.5-5L diesel engines that were schemed up for half-tons. They aren't smaller enough to be anything but half-measures. This is why i mourn the 2.8 cummins Titan, am happy about the 3.0 Ram, and don't care about the 5.0 Titan or dead 4.5L gm half-tons. Half-measures!
The guys familiar with old Land Rovers are thinking of galvanic corrosion. It comes from dissimilar metals in contact, especially when there's salt water around to help with the electrical conduction. I would think it would be well understood and easy enough to design around these days, but it's certainly a feature on the classic Rovers. And "classic" also means "Defender".
^^ the Brits have never been known for their ability to prevent any kind of rust or corrosion on any vehicles, ever. British Leyland stuff used to be rusty when it got off the boat before it had even been bought, lol.
stuart in mn wrote:Tom_Spangler wrote: Either you are exaggerating, or MN is much worse than MI from a corrosion standpoint, which I seriously doubt. 5-7 year old trucks around here might have a bit of surface rust, but there's no way they are "needing" cab corners or rockers in that amount of time. 10 years, maybe, but even that's a stretch. The P221 F-150s have been out since 2004 and I've NEVER seen one with the kind of rust you're describing.I'm in Minneapolis, and one of the kids living in the duplex next door has a late model F-150 with some pretty serious rust perforation in the cab corners and rocker panels. I'm not sure of the model year but it's less than 10 years old. I will say this particular truck seems to be an exception to the rule. Cars and trucks still rust out here, but not nearly as bad as they used to.
drive 40 miles to the west where i am, out where farmers use them and gravel roads are the norm... i see new body style ('07ish and up) GM trucks on a daily basis with holy cab corners and bubbling paint around the rear wheelwells.. i don't really know the year breaks on the Ford body styles, but there are a few newer ones that are also in need of some rust repair, and i don't see enough newer Dodges or Toyotas or whatever to know what they do..
how does aluminum fair against stuff like cow or pig crap compared to steel?
In reply to kreb:
Yes, planes are subject to greater scrutiny and panels are repaired / replaced as they fatigue but..
Wing spars are aluminum and subject to thousands of cycles and don't end up getting changed regularly.
I think it just comes down to how long your average consumer is going to keep a truck. Mine are 18 and 24 years old but I'm the anomoly around here.
Most folks will change up for a new vehicle before ten years are up. That's probably well out of any body warranty whether it's aluminum or steel.
Auto makers have proven that you can build a car that will hold together until it's just barely out of warranty and people will still buy it. The new Ford only needs to last until the warranty is up.
Our '96 Ford has no rust and my 1990 has a bit in the door bottoms but it's really minor, they don't use salt on the roads here.
I'd bet an aluminum body would be showing issues in the same length of time that a steel one would.
Heck, I might be able to buy a nice used aluminum truck when this one kicks the bucket :)
My 04 Silverado was a MN truck and it has already rusted through its second set of rocker panels. I'll be installing #3 to get it ready to sell.
You'll need to log in to post.
