by "MasterMario - Keeper of the V8s" (mastermario)
Published 12/11/2017 at 09:43
by "MasterMario - Keeper of the V8s" (mastermario)
Published 12/11/2017 at 09:43
Tags: trucks
STARS: 0
I keep seeing arguments whether trucks are actually getting bigger or just look bigger. So I looked at some data and came up with the conclusion that trucks have definitely gotten bigger.
I compared the 1/2 ton 4x4 1998 models from each manufacturer to the 2017 equivalent. Each and every model has grown (dimensions shown in inches in the below table)
So? Who cares if a truck has a 5% larger frontal area? Well, you should if you pay for your gas. When at highway speeds the largest factor in fuel economy is drag which is calculated with the following equation.
Where C
d
is the coefficient of drag, is the density of air, V is velocity, and A is the frontal area. Designers and engineers can only control 2 of those things, the coefficient of drag (the shape of the vehicle) and the frontal area (the size of the vehicle). Now assuming there is not going to be some radical shift in truck design there isn’t much improvement that can be made today in the coefficient of drag so that leaves frontal area. Since drag is proportional to area that means a 5% increase in area equates to a 5% increase in drag.
So, if frontal area impacts fuel economy so much why are trucks getting bigger? Well, you’d have to ask the designers/engineers, but I have a couple theories.
1. More demanding crash performance requires beefier parts and larger crumple zones. Compare the width of a door from a 2017 model to one from a 1998 and you’ll see where the growth comes from, and designers probably didn’t want to intrude into the interior space, so trucks got wider.
But that only accounts for the width, what about the height?
2. That’s probably squarely on you, the buyer. People wanted bigger trucks (at least that’s what the designers thought), so an easy way to do that is make it taller. It’s also probably a perception thing, people tend to feel safer when they are in a taller vehicle, so vehicles got taller to give that feeling of safety. The larger and larger wheels also aren’t helping most likely.
So next time someone tells you trucks aren’t any bigger than they used to be feel free to call bullshit on them.
"diplodicus" (diplodicus)
12/11/2017 at 10:47, STARS: 1
I know a lot of the small details on new F150s are designed for lowering the Cd. There is the spoiler on the tailgate, they have a flush mount windshield. There’s a duct in the bumper that channels are from the front to the sides of the truck to push air away from the wheels reducing turbulence. And they angled the rear edge of the lamps and body so the air could break away.
"Nothing" (nothingatalluseful)
12/11/2017 at 11:00, STARS: 4
People like to pick on trucks for getting bigger. Cars have also gotten larger by at least an equal percentage.
"ITA97, now with more Jag @ opposite-lock.com" (ita97)
12/11/2017 at 11:05, STARS: 0
A couple of things to look at:. In terms of height, take a look at how tall the frame rails are on a modern 1/2, and them compare them to a 1/2 from the 2000's (or a 90's one ton of you really want to see the growth in capability). Wheel and tire packages have gotten a lot taller, too. This likely for both handling reasons and to fit over the massive brakes they fit in trucks today. For example, the front brakes on my 2017 F-150 are larger every dimension than the front brakes were on my 2001 GMC 3500 dually.
I suspect the frontal area also has something to do with the cooling requirements these days. My truck has the second least powerful of five engine options in the current F-150, and it puts out 325hp and 400ft/lbs of torque. You’ve got to dump that much heat through the radiators, feed a large intercooler, and also do so with up 12000 or so pounds of trailer going up the grade used to establish SAE tow ratings(and we’re just talking 1/2 ton tow ratings).
"MasterMario - Keeper of the V8s" (mastermario)
12/11/2017 at 11:09, STARS: 0
Yea, they are still improving the Cd, but it seems like making the whole truck a bit smaller would be an easy way to gain some ground
"Textured Soy Protein" (texturedsoyprotein)
12/11/2017 at 11:21, STARS: 1
The modern pickups are certainly bigger but they’re also more efficient.
"Alfalfa" (alfalfa-romeo)
12/11/2017 at 11:26, STARS: 1
The changes to overall dimensions are pretty small, but they look much bigger because they’re bigger in other areas. As many of us know crash safety standards have resulted in higher beltlines, which also moves the hood higher to match, resulting in an overall larger front facade. And that of course adds even more drag.
"MasterMario - Keeper of the V8s" (mastermario)
12/11/2017 at 11:30, STARS: 1
The frame heights and wheel packages I think are contributing to some of the height, but GM some how only made their trucks 1" taller over the last 2 decades. I think the amount of cooling needed on new trucks has probably negatively impacted Cd quite a bit though.
"MasterMario - Keeper of the V8s" (mastermario)
12/11/2017 at 11:32, STARS: 0
True...I wonder how much of that though is due to the CAFE standards where a larger footprint does not need to meet as tough of a standard. The higher belt lines are definitely from crash standards though.
"ITA97, now with more Jag @ opposite-lock.com" (ita97)
12/11/2017 at 11:39, STARS: 1
Curiously, my truck actually has electronic shutters on the grills to restrict airflow to only what is required for cooling demands. Prior to April of the this year, I would’ve never guessed that the first vehicle I would own with active aero would be a 1/2 ton truck. We are living in a glorious time of light-duty tow vehicle capability.
"Nothing" (nothingatalluseful)
12/11/2017 at 11:43, STARS: 1
Probably a mix of everything, CAFE, safety regs, people wanting more content.
Trucks have also seen a significant shift in the past 20 years from primarily work vehicles, to a significant portion being passenger vehicles.
Dimensionally, the 1st gen Tundra and 2nd gen really exaggerate the difference. The 1st gen wasn’t considered a full size, closer to a 7/8 scale full size. I bought a 2002 new and thought size wise, that truck was about perfect. As far as width, that’s stayed fairly flat on the rest of the full sizers. Rear view mirrors have a say in that overall width, too. Look at those dinky little things on the Dodge in the picture and compare those now with blind spot monitoring, turn signalling, etc mirrors.
"shop-teacher" (shop-teacher)
12/11/2017 at 11:46, STARS: 0
Do you have the 2.7 ecoboost?
"ITA97, now with more Jag @ opposite-lock.com" (ita97)
12/11/2017 at 11:46, STARS: 0
I do.
"MasterMario - Keeper of the V8s" (mastermario)
12/11/2017 at 12:04, STARS: 0
The widths in the table I made are including the body only...the gigantic mirrors on new trucks is only making things worse. I was surprised by how much wider the Chevy is too...I would have though the widths would have all been relatively the same with minimal growth.
"MasterMario - Keeper of the V8s" (mastermario)
12/11/2017 at 12:06, STARS: 0
Yea...air flow through the radiators and engine bay adds a lot of drag, so active aero was logical for the 95% of the time you aren’t towing. Curious about the shutters on the Ford...I assume they fail open if they fail. Any idea about that?
"shop-teacher" (shop-teacher)
12/11/2017 at 13:16, STARS: 0
How do you like it? The local Ford dealer has a couple of crew cabs with the 2.7 at a very tempting price.
"HammerheadFistpunch" (hammerheadfistpunch)
12/11/2017 at 13:54, STARS: 2
OH they are bigger, I think a lot of people have hit the nail on the head here though. Basically whats happening (for a variety of reasons) is that size classes are generally moving up across the board.
Compacts are the old midsize
Midsize are the old full size
Small trucks are now “midsized”
and “full size” are now borderline 3/4 ton.
Though you do have to admire that while they are getting bigger, they are also getting faster, safer, more capable (mostly) and more fuel efficient.
"MasterMario - Keeper of the V8s" (mastermario)
12/11/2017 at 14:22, STARS: 0
Which at face value seems dumb given the aero penalty a larger vehicle brings with it, but I bet that CAFE standards are a major driving factor for the growth across the board.
"ITA97, now with more Jag @ opposite-lock.com" (ita97)
12/11/2017 at 17:22, STARS: 0
I love that engine! Besides being technically interesting, I’ve not once missed having a V8 in my truck. If I were going to tow heavy all the time, I might go with the bigger ecoboost. For a daily driver and weekend tow vehicle, it is perfect for what I do. My truck is a regular cab, short bed 2WD, but I get 23-24mpg on the highway at 80mph. I’ve not driven enough in town ever to see what it gets, but I suspect 20-21mpg is possible if you keep your foot out of it. It got 18mpg towing my trailer empty at 80mph, and it looks to get around 15-16 mpg with the race car on it. I’ve been running UOA on it, and it has broken in beautifully after about 13k.
"ITA97, now with more Jag @ opposite-lock.com" (ita97)
12/11/2017 at 17:34, STARS: 0
That’s a good question. They default to full open when you shut off the truck, so maybe that is where they would fail to.
"shop-teacher" (shop-teacher)
12/11/2017 at 18:15, STARS: 0
Not too shabby!
"ranwhenparked" (ranwhenparked)
12/11/2017 at 19:11, STARS: 0
Except for full-size cars. Those have gotten smaller to the point where they’re hardly worth the price premium over a midsize, and then manufacturers wonder why its so hard to get customers to trade up from a midsize.
"Spanfeller is a twat" (theaspiringengineer)
12/17/2017 at 10:55, STARS: 0
Yeah, but then Chevy makes the Colorado and it don’t sell!
can the Colorado act as a 1/2?
"MasterMario - Keeper of the V8s" (mastermario)
12/17/2017 at 17:29, STARS: 0
Considering the class names mean nothing anymore, yes. The Colorado’s payload is greater than 1/2 ton... Which is where the class name came from in the first place
"Spanfeller is a twat" (theaspiringengineer)
12/17/2017 at 17:51, STARS: 0
Then we should all make an oppo brand that makes more sense