Houston we have a problem! (the bent frame thread)

[Bad company]

I'm still speculating that the middle-to-rear welded joints on the stock F150 frames can't handle the Raptors' expected performance. There was a Raptor SCab parked for service at the dealer this morning. It had the same F250ish spacer block shelf as my SCrew ... wtf? Somebody at SVT should be reassigned.

Maybe Dodge marketing would be interested in buying your Raptor.

Debate, I don't understand your logic.

There are 10 Raptors with bent frames, of the 100s that get jumped for youtube videos, none of those have complained of bent frames. The conditions that bent those ten Raptor frames would DESTROY ANY FRAME, including the F250's.

The only way to prevent this failure mode would be to DRIVE SLOWER or get 9 inches or so of remaining suspension travel when the suspension is preloaded. We currrently only have 6". Find a bigger bump though, and you will bend the frame anyway. Impacts are NASTY!

Period. This treatment is not "expected performance". You can not do whatever you want to a vehicle, and when it breaks, say that it isn't up to par. This has zippo to do with anything but physics. Nobody needs reassignment.

The Raptor vehicle has limits. Because it has limits does not mean anything is flawed, or that anyone didn't do their job.

 

[Phyguy]

Debate, I don't understand your logic.

There are 10 Raptors with bent frames, of the 100s that get jumped for youtube videos, none of those have complained of bent frames. The conditions that bent those ten Raptor frames would DESTROY ANY FRAME, including the F250's.

The only way to prevent this failure mode would be to DRIVE SLOWER or get 9 inches or so of remaining suspension travel when the suspension is preloaded. We currrently only have 6". Find a bigger bump though, and you will bend the frame anyway. Impacts are NASTY!

Period. This treatment is not "expected performance". You can not do whatever you want to a vehicle, and when it breaks, say that it isn't up to par. This has zippo to do with anything but physics. Nobody needs reassignment.

The Raptor vehicle has limits. Because it has limits does not mean anything is flawed, or that anyone didn't do their job.

I think I agree. Ford did a helluva job IMHO in designing and building an awesome truck that is street legal that I can afford. Of course, they could have tried to sell the Baja competition truck (which I'm sure has spacers that one would approve of), but who could afford it and why would you drive it on the streets?

Replace the stock springs and spacers and get heavy duty bump stops/frame box/suspension. It's the owners' prerogative.

 

[debate]

who let the dogs out?

Nobody needs reassignment.

The Raptor vehicle has limits. Because it has limits does not mean anything is flawed, or that anyone didn't do their job.

I disagree, strongly. The person(s) who incorporated an F250+ spacer block into the F150 Raptor should be out mowing the lawn.

 

[Bad company]

I disagree, strongly. The person(s) who incorporated an F250+ spacer block into the F150 Raptor should be out mowing the lawn.

Ok Debate,

According to you, the SVT Raptor program is a failure, and the design team should be reassigned.

You are great at throwing rocks without anything of substance to back it up. Your lines of thought all seem to be guesswork and knee-jerk reactions. Do you own a Raptor? Do you like it? When are you selling it?

I am almost upset with myself for responding to your posts. But I think the Raptor owners deserve to know the truth. FORD has a parts bin; I'm sure they used the F250 spacer block (which is probably more expensive than the F150 spacer block) for a good reason.

What is wrong with the F250 spacer block? How is the Raptor suspension defective? Yes, the frame is welded in sections, yes the frame bent during the Raptor Run, but you cannot ignore that the conditions that caused that failure are EXTREME. Bent frame does not automatically equal bad design.

The other thing you seem to ignore is that no production truck OF ANY MAKE would survive those conditions. I backed up that statement with hard PHYSICS BASED numbers. Find any fault with those numbers and you have an argument.

 

[Raptorguy21]

The Raptor program is a huge success and does things other production trucks only wish they could do. People pushing the truck past it's limit is a fail.

Best post so far.......

 

[pirate air]

Owners (myself included) have complained about the lack of time, or effort, it appears SVT/Ford put into the rear spring and 3" block combo on the Raptor for well over a year. The problem is, the leafs tuning (or lack of tuning) cause the back of the truck to buck around while the front stays stable over rough terrain. The blocks cause severe wheel hop in sand or high traction situations by aiding leverage to the climbing pinion gear. Add the two together and its easy to criticize the rear suspension.

I understand there will always be limitations. But why go through all the trouble building an awesome truck with countless specialized parts (including the entire front suspension, steering rack ratio, steering linkage, motor mounts, complete rear and front axle assembly, engine cooling module, shock mounts, skid plates, heat guards, body work, wheels/tires, lights, electronics, interior, gages, and so on) just to let the rear spring and block suspension design fall short? A suspension that the whole concept was supposed to shine around...

With that said, I love the Raptor and think overall Ford did an awesome job. But I believe Ford should have put more effort into areas like the rear suspension and traction control system.

 

[BlueSVT]

I have a bent frame, but don't hold anything against Ford personally. I do feel they could have done a MUCH better job designing the rear suspension. Particularly, you should expect to see "other" components fail LONG before you bend your frame. You should see broken bump stops, broken shock mounts, etc... For the frame to be the weakest link in the equation seems like a poor design TO ME.

Now, knowing I can't take the truck out and cruise off road trails at 50-60MPH without worry of serious frame damage just upsets me. This is afterall "The first high-speed off-road performance truck" that has ever been in mass production. "High Speed" and "Off Road" are supposed to go hand-in-hand...

It just sucks because I love EVERY SINGLE ASPECT of this truck, top to bottom... best vehicle I've ever owned by a long shot! Now, to have this happen when I was NOT abusing the truck, only doing what they claim it's intended purpose is for, I feel let down. I've always been one to buy the best factory model I can, and leave it stock to retain reliability and a warranty! I wouldn't buy a WRX, throw $5000 in engine mods on, then get mad when it doesn't hold up like an STI... no, I buy an STI and leave it stock!

Regardless, it just needs to be addressed or at least mentioned to the owners so they know what the limits of the truck are. By limits, I mean "High-speed Off-road" use, as they claim it's designed for.

 

[Highroller]

Owners (myself included) have complained about the lack of time, or effort, it appears SVT/Ford put into the rear spring and 3" block combo on the Raptor for well over a year. The problem is, the leafs tuning (or lack of tuning) cause the back of the truck to buck around while the front stays stable over rough terrain. The blocks cause severe wheel hop in sand or high traction situations by aiding leverage to the climbing pinion gear. Add the two together and its easy to criticize the rear suspension.

I understand there will always be limitations. But why go through all the trouble building an awesome truck with countless specialized parts (including the entire front suspension, steering rack ratio, steering linkage, motor mounts, complete rear and front axle assembly, engine cooling module, shock mounts, skid plates, heat guards, body work, wheels/tires, lights, electronics, interior, gages, and so on) just to let the rear spring and block suspension design fall short? A suspension that the whole concept was supposed to shine around...

With that said, I love the Raptor and think overall Ford did an awesome job. But I believe Ford should have put more effort into areas like the rear suspension and traction control system.

They ran out of money "OR" they spent thier budget and didn't have anything left for the rear suspension. So they had to throw it together to get it into production. If you look at what they have done with a stock F-150, a lot of money was spent on the front suspension, shock tuneing, body design and computer programming. They also had a price point to meet! Who knows what the real answer was, but I'll bet I'm close!

 

[Bad company]

Good posts guys.

It does appear that the rear end is not nearly as planted as it could be. Ford could surely have done a better job tuning the rear suspension. Wheel hop and lightness in corners over rough surfaces are present in this design. I'm guessing the 97 pound wheel plus tire at each end of the axle doesn't help much.

For me, the Raptor was a $4k premium over a more or less equivalently optioned FX4 (no rebates available at the time and I got my Raptor for $4k below sticker). For that cost differential, you can not expect specialized components for everything. For that $4k I think I got a hell of a lot of porformance increase. Car manufacturers spend millions of dollars on development; I think I got a hell of a bargan.

Regarding off road high speed use. What are your criteria, BlueSTI? I am sympathetic to your situation, but every design has its limits. The Raptor can hit a 9" solid ridge at pretty much any speed and not break anything. That same ridge would destroy any other production truck's suspension at 60MPH. You found a taller ridge at 60MPH. What would be acceptable? If you said a 12" ridge, there is a 15" ridge out there with your name on it.

There are guys getting 6-7 feet of air and landing with at worst scrubbed fender wells. I took my Raptor out to a quarry and did things in it that would have rolled my Wrangler numerous times. There are tons of guys on this site that beat the snot out of their Raptors with no frame or significant structural member damage.

You found pretty much one of the worst conditions to put your truck through. It's unfortunate that it isn't very intuitive at first, and the group run probably made you think "hey everyone is hitting that ridge at 60".

That Ford is working with you is a testiment to their concern about their name, not a sign that there is a design issue. Good luck with the repairs man!

 

[Truck Wolf]

I'm seeing the merit in both sides of this argument, but I sympathize with the guys who bent their frames - I don't think they would have intentionally gone out and damaged their trucks.
I'd love to see Ford recognize this as a potential issue and at the very least offer some kind of factory-approved, bolt on fix to address it. Maybe I'm dreaming?