Colorado / Canyon bent frame

[Buliwyf]

Chet, the pics you posted are apples and oranges. Those two trucks are different generations and of course those frames are going to look different. I've never seen a frame under a cab only fleet vehicle that differed from its equal duty pickup bed equipped version.

Ford has used a different frame and rear springs on chassis cab trucks since at least 2017. IIRC, Dodge as well.

Modern boxed frames suck for 350 and heavier service trucks, with service bodies or flatbeds.

 

[Buddha.]

Maybe since truck manufacturers are leaning toward off road specific models they also need to list capacities for both on road and off road. IIRC U.S. military lists their specs for off road, payload and tow capacity.

 

[billiebob]

Chet, the pics you posted are apples and oranges. Those two trucks are different generations and of course those frames are going to look different. I've never seen a frame under a cab only fleet vehicle that differed from its equal duty pickup bed equipped version.

actually, dual cab & chassis is completely different from Dually pickup. Has been since Chevy introduced the "Dually Pickup" in 1973? The big difference, Dual C&C, the frame rails are parrellel. Dually pickup the frame rails flare out giving a wider track. Same as the non dually pickup.

 

[billiebob]

Check out about 2.17 about the differences in the frame.

Excellant video !!

I have never liked the wide track dully pickup.
I've always preferred the narrow track cab & chassis format.
But I've never noticed the rear spring differences, I assumed I could get a variety of capacities on a C&C.

 

[rho]

Unlikely a manufacturer will do it. That would open a door to major headache land.
With off chance they did, Azzcovering would be in order. They would publish offroad ‘specs at crazy low values which would only turn off sales.

People already complain a lot about offroad specific models having less towing/payload rating, so I wouldn't be surprised to see that happen.

 

[Lucky j]

That reminds me when the first ford Raptor came out, and frames where bending when people would jump tyem like prerunners.

 

[mikeyb1976]

New Colorados are the same size as my 06 Silverado, just 1' taller.

Riiiiiight.

2006 Silverado 1500 4x4 Crew Cab SB

• FRONT HEAD ROOM:40.7 "
• FRONT LEG ROOM:41.3 "
• OVERALL HEIGHT:75.0 "
• OVERALL LENGTH:230.2 "
• OVERALL WIDTH:78.5 "
• REAR HEAD ROOM:40.2 "
• REAR LEG ROOM:39.1 "
• WHEELBASE:143.5 "

2019 Colorado Z71 4x4 Crew Cab SB

• FRONT HEAD ROOM:41.4 "
• FRONT LEG ROOM:45.0 "
• OVERALL HEIGHT:70.6 "
• OVERALL LENGTH:212.7 "
• OVERALL WIDTH:74.3 "
• REAR HEAD ROOM:38.3 "
• REAR LEG ROOM:35.8 "
• WHEELBASE:128.3 "

 

[cowboy4x4]

This guy isn't being truthful. .. he was hauling ******** down a road and hit a big whoop the pics that first hit the web failed to show the damage on his trailer, he bent the axle on his trailer he hit the whoop so hard. Just trying to get money for his own screw up.

 

[shade]

This guy isn't being truthful. .. he was hauling ******** down a road and hit a big whoop the pics that first hit the web failed to show the damage on his trailer, he bent the axle on his trailer he hit the whoop so hard. Just trying to get money for his own screw up.View attachment 524774

Good point about trailer damage. I haven't seen any definitive photos of damage to it, but they would be telling.

 

[vtsoundman]

There is another photo that shows a long draw bar or extension. I did some math in another thread and it increased the torque on that hitch damn near 50%...

Using a normal bar and 375# of ball weight, he should of had something around 300lbft on that hitch assembly. I guesstimated an 18" extension...it was close to 600lb ft of torque on that hitch assembly (more than 500# / 420lb-ft with a normal bar).

I feel for the guy, but that tongue was too long and I'll bet that tongue was far more than 375# when it happened (especially since it was weight at the dealer).

We can see 2 jerry cans (80#), a rotopax (40#) a propane bottle (30#), a metal box (40#) and I likely one or two batteries in that tongue box (100#)...plus whatever is in that trailer. Some of that weight is divided between trailer and tongue, but I'll bet he was close to 500# of ball weight.

That may be a weak point in the frame, but he was too fast and to heavy for the conditions. Let's not forget chevy reduced the towing capacity by almost 2000# for the ZR2 ... Citing offroas (softer) suspension.

 

[vtsoundman]

The old trucks had stronger frames than today's trucks? Don't think so...not by a mile. About the only thing better about old trucks it their simplicity - and even then I can't fathom messing around with a carburetor again.

The one ton (3500, f350, etc) from yesteryear can't hold a candle to the trucks of today. 25000# or more is the towing capacity for today's f350 trucks...a half ton of today can easily manage 7000# while hauling a*" up a grade. May not be comfortable, but it wouldn't be a death trap like it would have been for an F150 from the 70s.

Hydroforming, complex bends, etc are far far stronger. Try doing what that guy did in a s10 or ranger - it would be dragging ass.

Have to laugh when people attempt to compare old vehicle strength vs today - old cars fold like pretzels when wrecked. The old truck frames flexed more than the damn suspension. There was so much twist the doors would jam and the tailgates wouldn't open if the suspension was in too much of a twist. The K series Chevies and F series Ford's from the 80s had like 1-2" of front suspension travel before they were into the stops (not bounce bumpers - those are part of the suspension). Depending on what I did during the weekend, the gap between the front clip and my bumper in my 80s suburban would change.

Try hauling 3500# behind a half ton pickup headed up to Tahoe with an early 90s or 80s truck...35mph on a good day. That little Colorado - no problem.

 

[b dkw1]

I saw a Canyon in downtown Dallas that was being used as a delivery truck. It had a lift gate on the back of it. The gap between the bed and the cab looked a little big. Looked like one more good load and it would look like this truck.

 

[vtsoundman]

This is a good article on bent “utes” while off road with a trailer. Apparently it affects many brands, even the holy grail of down under trucks: Toyota.

What causes a bent chassis and how to prevent it

What causes a ute chassis to bend? Ron Moon slips under the bodywork to discover the cause of chassis failure.

www.whichcar.com.au

This should be mandatory reading for anyone that off-roads with a trailer.

 

[b dkw1]

There is no hitch extension. Here is a before shot.

 

[shade]

The old trucks had stronger frames than today's trucks? Don't think so...not by a mile. About the only thing better about old trucks it their simplicity - and even then I can't fathom messing around with a carburetor again.

The one ton (3500, f350, etc) from yesteryear can't hold a candle to the trucks of today. 25000# or more is the towing capacity for today's f350 trucks...a half ton of today can easily manage 7000# while hauling a*" up a grade. May not be comfortable, but it wouldn't be a death trap like it would have been for an F150 from the 70s.

Hydroforming, complex bends, etc are far far stronger. Try doing what that guy did in a s10 or ranger - it would be dragging ass.

Have to laugh when people attempt to compare old vehicle strength vs today - old cars fold like pretzels when wrecked. The old truck frames flexed more than the damn suspension. There was so much twist the doors would jam and the tailgates wouldn't open if the suspension was in too much of a twist. The K series Chevies and F series Ford's from the 80s had like 1-2" of front suspension travel before they were into the stops (not bounce bumpers - those are part of the suspension). Depending on what I did during the weekend, the gap between the front clip and my bumper in my 80s suburban would change.

Try hauling 3500# behind a half ton pickup headed up to Tahoe with an early 90s or 80s truck...35mph on a good day. That little Colorado - no problem.

That wasn't my point, either.

Modern truck frames are stronger than those of decades ago; no argument there. What I question is the maximum ratings being used today, and the factor of safety applied to today's frames when compared to older ones when it comes to towing and cargo loads. In the past, I think it may have been possible to approach or exceed the OEM limits without dire consequences. Today, OEMs are able to wring more strength out of designs of less weight, but those new designs may be less forgiving when pushed to - or beyond - the rated limit.

Btw, your Tahoe towing example illustrates how easy it is for someone to get into trouble pushing the limits. Accelerating in the mountains should be far less of a concern than stopping. Simply considering top speed up a grade is only part of the story, otherwise bolting a modern crate engine into a 1983 pickup would make it equal to or better than that little Colorado.