Colorado / Canyon bent frame

[DaveInDenver]

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.

There's two facets to this, marketing and engineering. Marketing will slap whatever the biggest number they can get away with and not get sued for false advertising or when someone breaks their truck down the road.

OTOH engineering, testing and manufacturing have improved so much that the numbers are realistic maximums where not even a decade ago, forget the 1970s or 1980s, when things had to be overbuilt because there was so much variance and tolerance. To guarantee a 2,000 lbs payload would be remotely close they'd have to build something that now would be called a F450 with modern FMEA capability.

But the flip side is there is no margin and owners have to get used to this. I'm no different. I had a 1991 Toyota pickup that was way stronger than a compact truck had to be so I got used to being able to overload it. The Tacoma now, when they say 5,350 lbs GVWR they don't mean somewhere within 1,000 lbs of GVWR like it used to be.

 

[vtsoundman]

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

Understood - but Look how long that drawbar is...extension or not, that ball is long way from the hitch. Doesn't matter, the net effect is the ball/weight piint is much farther away from the hitch than normal. Looks like a locknroll or whatever hitch - it doesn't matter if it is that style or a ball - a long pivot poubt increase leverage on the hitch/frame etc lowering the overall effective capacity (tongue weight).

 

[b dkw1]

Understood - but Look how long that drawbar is...extension or not, that ball is long way from the hitch. Doesn't matter, the net effect is the ball/weight piint is much farther away from the hitch than normal. Looks like a locknroll or whatever hitch - it doesn't matter if it is that style or a ball - a long pivot poubt increase leverage on the hitch/frame etc lowering the overall effective capacity (tongue weight).

Looks like a standard off the shelf unit to me, same length as all the ones I have and looks shorter than my drop down.

 

[billiebob]

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

100% on your side. All the idiots being idiots trying to say you screwed up miss the big point. Even if one of the idiotic suggestions were true, if the frame bent, many other things should have been damaged too........ AND you are not an isolated case. For a week I googled bent ZR2 frames......... AND found 4 more. This is a GM design flaw. It might rake a few years like every other Ford/Chev/Dodge/Toyota recall but this is a design flaw.

 

[billiebob]

Modern truck frames are stronger than those of decades ago

Best sarcasm ever. You cannot be serious. But in case someone thinks this is true......

Decades ago trucks were rough riding, uncomfortable vehicles for work. Today a "light truck" ie half ton or less is the family sedan. AND it sells because it rides better than an LTD or Taurus. The modern half ton is designed for comfort empty. Unlike the half ton decades ago which could haul a ton. There is zero strength in todays light truck frames.

 

[toylandcruiser]

But boxed frames are stronger.

 

[Buliwyf]

Maybe obsolete Tundra frames or GM garbage.

But at least one of the light trucks is trying.
https://www.repairerdrivennews.com/...ength-steel-frames-on-body-on-frame-vehicles/

You can pretty much expect future midsize trucks to go unibody. It's only going to get worse.

 

[toylandcruiser]

Maybe obsolete Tundra frames or GM garbage.

But at least one of the light trucks is trying.
https://www.repairerdrivennews.com/...ength-steel-frames-on-body-on-frame-vehicles/

You can pretty much expect future midsize trucks to go unibody. It's only going to get worse.

I was being sarcastic. It’s not stronger

 

[shade]

Best sarcasm ever. You cannot be serious. But in case someone thinks this is true......

Decades ago trucks were rough riding, uncomfortable vehicles for work. Today a "light truck" ie half ton or less is the family sedan. AND it sells because it rides better than an LTD or Taurus. The modern half ton is designed for comfort empty. Unlike the half ton decades ago which could haul a ton. There is zero strength in todays light truck frames.

I wrote quite a bit more than what you quoted, and more than that one post about what I was getting at. If you'd bothered to read it, I think you'd see I'm more in agreement with you than you appear to believe.

 

[Dalko43]

Maybe obsolete Tundra frames or GM garbage.

Why are Toyota's frames obsolete?
Also, didn't Ford use C-channels for their Super Duty's for the longest time?
F-150's frame is boxed and perhaps is has more high-strength steel compared to previous generations, but it's also no longer hydro-formed...not that the lack of that construction method is good or bad, rather just interesting that Ford no longer does that for the F-150's.

You can pretty much expect future midsize trucks to go unibody. It's only going to get worse.

"Experts" have been saying that for years...still hasn't happened.
Ford, Nissan, FCA and others have move away from BOF construction for many midsized 4x4's (the crossover), but Jeep Wranglers, 4runners and BOF midsized pickups still sell like hotcakes. So long as the demand exists, OEM's will keep selling them. I think the hype around BOF dying largely spawns from disillusioned OEM's who pull out of the midsized SUV and pickup market every so often....cough...Ford.

 

[shade]

It's easier to design a unibody SUV than a pickup. The advantages of a unibody begin to fade when addressing the weakness found at the point between the cab and bed.

 

[toylandcruiser]

Stronger or more rigid ? Its not the same thing.

I agree

 

[mikeyb1976]

Yes, because a crew cab is the only wheelbase option for every pickup. Shortbed is a very broad definition.


Extended cab 6.5 bed or extended cab 5.5 bed?
Gasp!

A regular cab truck? What unwashed heathen drives those?



Back to the car and driver archives for you!

It's an apples to apples comparison. The Colorado isn't available in a regular cab. Going with the shortest configuration for each model, the Silverado is only 7" shorter than an extended cab shortbox Colorado.

The fact remains that with basic information, the Colorado is absolutely not smaller than your Silverado.

You have to go back to the early 80s to approach similar dimensions with today's Colorado, and even then, the Colorado is smaller in nearly every external dimension.

 

[nickw]

I agree

+1, only gotta look at those hot riveted FJ4X frames floating around 3rd world countries for the last 40+ yrs

 

[b dkw1]

You want design flaw, you should see the semi loads of Toyota frames going through here to replace all the rusted out ones. Box frames hold way more water than C channel frames. Mix that with a little road salt and you're boned.