HaroldUp

The 1010 Ford pickup uses leaf springs to get an advantage in ride quality over it's competitors. You must be confusing "overload" springs with leaf main springs. The main (longest) leaf in a leaf spring gives a much softer ride which a coil cannot match, not being a variable rate spring. For years, GM, Packard, Hudson, FOMOCO and Chrysler as well as many European autos used leaf springs at the rear of their vehicles to get a more controlled and softer ride. If you unhook the shock absorbers on the rear of a car with coil springs and give it a good bounce, it will continue bouncing up and down a dozen times or more. If you unhook the shocks on the rear of a car with leaf springs and give it a good bounce it will stop after about two bounces. The leaf spring is a true "variable rate spring" where the long main leaf gives a soft ride and the additional shorter springs add increased resistance when brought into play. Proof of this is the constant effort to develop a shock absorber that will give the coil spring the same ride quality as a leaf spring, which cannot be done. The self adjusting shock such as the Monroe Sensi-Track is an example but fails to do the job. Cadillac has spent a fortune on it's new magnetic suspension, but it falls short because the coil is not a variable rate spring. The air suspension apes the coil spring in that it is not a true variable rate spring, just a "load leveler!" As I have mentioned before, the multi-link rear suspensions found on most late model cars with IRS are exercises in futility because the trend is toward over damped suspensions that do not allow free wheel movement. The IRS is subject to damage that will not harm a solid axel and leaf springs. If you get a chance to drive a restored Lincoln Continental from the early forties that had solid axels and leaf springs at both ends, you will experience a ride quality unatainable in a car with coil springs! I've driven them and know what I am talking about. The Lincoln Zephyrs of that period were the finest riding of all, anywhere, although they were not designed to fly around corners at break neck speeds, but to give unparalled isolation from the road, no matter how bad. They were not floaters!

An IRS rear suspension is only effective if it is compliant enough to allow each wheel to move freely over bumps, the idea being that the rear wheels will absorb the bump and keep the vehicle level. However, many late model cars have such stiff, almost rigid IRS suspensions that the wheels are not able to move freely, resulting in the vehicle moving up instead and often bouncing and pitching. In such cases, which are far too prevelant today, a solid real axel with semi-eliptical leaf springs would be just as good and much stonger. The move towards ever larger diameter wheels and tires serve no useful purpose, other than a cosmetic appeal. The larger the wheel diameters, the more prohibitive the tire prices. I understand that the 2010 Mustang GT has a solid rear axel which rivals all others in cornering capabilities and is much stronger than IRS. After years of scorning the Mustang GT for it's old fashioned rear axel, the tide has turned. The Lincoln Continentals of the early forties had buggy springs (leafs) and solid axels front and rear and were extremely good at cornering. They were heavy machines with an extremely low center of gravity and were some of the finest riding cars ever produced, anywhere! The famous Hudson Hornet had a solid rear axel and leaf springs and was one of the finest cornering cars ever made! The leaf spring is a true variable rate spring which the coil is not. The 2010 Ford 150 Pickup has long rear "leaf" springs to enhance riding quality. In fact, the frame was lengthened to increase the length of the leaf spring to soften the ride further. The primary leaf, the longest, gives a soft, flexible ride over smaller road irregularities and when larger bumps are encounter, additional shorter and stiffer leaves come into play. The shock absorbers were true double action lever types that gave smooth, equal and controlled rebound. Shocks nowadays adjust automatically to control the non-variable rate coil, which is a poor compromise for ride quality. Leaf springs do most of the work, coils hold the car up and not much more and depend on shock absorbers to control the riding quality.

I purchased a FFH the end of June this year and am getting great mileage, which improves with miles driven. I have an all time average of 41.9 mpg (2000 total miles) which is mostly road miles at maximum legal speeds. I easly get 50 plus mpg when I drive in town at legal speeds and no jack rabbit starts. I was amazed a few days ago while driving late at night to a city about thirty miles distance. On the return leg, I glanced at the average mpg which indicated an even 50! However, it quickly dropped back to 48 mpg plus. I do not consider this mileage a fluke as the 2010 FFH set a record for it's class with a whopping 1420 miles on a 17.5 gallon tank full of gas. Of course, this was done by professional drivers and I imagine cars following the record breaking FFH was cussing it for holding up the flow of traffic. The FFH has been given a bum rap on it's acceleration. I have consistently run away from most gas rigs from a stop in town. My throttle response with the electric engine's great instant torque is a wonder to behold. The 0-60 figures found in most test articles must be for FFH's will very low mileage. Acceleration from forty and fifty miles per is outstanding and I love to hear the gas engine when it cuts in...reminds me of the growl of the old ford flathead that put the GM straight sixes to shame back in the forties. I would prefer leaf springs at the rear end for a softer, more controlled ride (leaf springs are true variable rate springs and far surperior to coils, and this opinion comes from driving many great cars like the Hudson Hornet that ruled the racing circuit for three years back in the early '50s. Coil springs are not variable rate and other than hold the car up, do little for ride control, leaving most of the work to shock absorbers. I drove a 1947 Lincoln Continental with leaf springs front and rear that would hold it's own will most cars anywhere near it's size and weight. It's shocks were true double action lever type with the name Houdile. Note: the 2010 Ford pickup has leaf rear springs for increased ride comfort and even lengthened the wheel base to increase the length of the leaf springs. The longer the springs, the softer the ride. A questions that always occurs to me is, is style taking precedent over substance. Testers derided the GT Mustangs for years because it had a solid rear axel, but the latest GT still has a solid axel but corners with the best of them. With the rear suspensionw as stiff as most are today, what does it matter whether the rear is independantly sprung or not? My 2010 FFH rear suspension is as solid as a rock with absolutely no give whatsoever but independantly sprung, big deal!