DaveInDenver
Middle Income Semi-Redneck
Toyota has a lot of corroded 'C' channel Tacoma frames in Southern California?
Colorado / Canyon bent frame
- Thread starter SixLug
- Start date
shade
Well-known member
I'm not sure being boxed had much to do with that. The most significant damage routinely seen was where the frame transitioned from C to box, but it was next to the catalytic converters, an excellent heat source that would increase the corrosion rate of poorly prepped/coated, laminated steel.
Last edited:
billiebob
Well-known member
ie the 1960s Ford Unibody pickup experiment.
One of the most beautiful pickups ever, but almost as useless as the 1960s Chevy half ton with coil springs.
Last edited:
Exactly right. They are designed as a weak point just for that reason. In a heavy, rear-end collision, you want the frame to buckle behind the cab so that the cab distorts as little as possible and lowers the risk of passengers being trapped in the cab by doors that won't open. It's the same as with a unibody vehicle where the car from the rear axle back is basically a crumple zone. I was rear-ended on the freeway in Florida several years ago in a Charger and while the rear end dropped enough that the C-pillars were highly distorted and the trunk lid was sitting about 4 inches higher than the quarter panels the doors all opened and closed fine still.
This seems to be what people are overlooking. Tow capacity is based on street use and changes considerably when put in an off-road situation. It would be almost impossible for a manufacturer to give an "off-road" tow rating because there are far too many variables and as stated by someone else in this thread the rating would have to be so conservative to account for those variables it would be offputting.
toylandcruiser
Expedition Leader
a simple search would reveal that all manufacturers have frame rust issues. Only toyota is being held to a standard.
shade
Well-known member
To be fair, I believe Toyota settled a class action suit and realized a government mandated recall was looming, so they undertook a service campaign to inspect, and coat or replace affected frames, and extend their warranties. It's to their credit that Toyota dealt with it as they did, but I don't think they're necessarily being held to a higher standard than other manufacturers.
Contrary to what @b dkw1 said, there wasn't a "design flaw" involved. The corrosion was determined to be the result of manufacturing defects; the frame design wasn't changed.
DaveInDenver
Middle Income Semi-Redneck
The first generation tended to rust in the tradtional location of Toyota trucks, in front of the rear leaf spring just forward fixed eye and along the frame rails underneath the bed. That was due just to exposure to road debris and not keeping the inside of the frame clean. Those frames were boxed either all the way in 79-95 trucks or just to over the axle on 95-04 Tacomas.
In the case of the 1st gen Toyota sued Dana for workmanship and not applying the corrosion protection. I don't think they ever lost a lawsuit. They did a service campaign to buy-back or replace depending on your year.
On 2nd gens I tend to think there is, at least a minor, design flaw. They opened the frame and made it double wall on sections to solve the muck building up issue. But now the area of primary concern on 2nd gens is, as you mention, the inside of the boxed section behind the front wheels, next to the downstream catalytic converters. If you look at the cab mount right there it's open underneath, of course to mount the body, but also behind that the frame is open.
So road spray and debris is given access to the inside of the frame. That coupled with the heat of the cats gives an ideal situation for rust - cooks the paint, wet location with rock chips, heat to accelerate the reaction.
Toyota actually lost a class action lawsuit over the 05-10 trucks even after they'd initiated a service campaign on the 05-08 trucks.
Last edited:
shade
Well-known member
Thanks, Dave. My truck isn't involved (yet), and I didn't feel like digging up all the particulars.
I agree with the aspect of the design passively lending itself to corrosion. I can't recall if anyone ever bothered to go to the extreme, but I suspect a trip to the galvanizing tank would do wonders for Toyota frame longevity. If I ever get around to it, I've considered adding some simple heat shields between the catalytic converters and frame to mitigate that part of the corrosion equation.
I agree with the aspect of the design passively lending itself to corrosion. I can't recall if anyone ever bothered to go to the extreme, but I suspect a trip to the galvanizing tank would do wonders for Toyota frame longevity. If I ever get around to it, I've considered adding some simple heat shields between the catalytic converters and frame to mitigate that part of the corrosion equation.
Last edited:
LimaMikeMike
Observer
I admit I’m a bit biased since I just bought a ZR2.
But something ain’t right.
The original posts never did show the trailer, those pics surfaced later showing what appears to be a bent axle and possibly a bent tongue. The OP didn’t even address that in passing, just say no it wasn’t bent it’s the pic angle and so on.
Was there an insurance claim put in? The adjuster will want to see the bump in question and copious photos will be taken. Accident investigation 101. Want us on your side? Show us what you hit.
GM looked at it 6 weeks later, we assume the trailer was loaded exactly the same as the day it happened, if I was out to influence someone I may leave a case of beer or two out of the trailer.
As for the investigators excuses, 100lbs over the trailer brake requirement is nothing as well as the 1” oversized tire, the investigator might have an idea what it takes to bend a Colorado at that spot and felt something didn’t add up, so searched for any old excuse to deny the claim. 5% over the trailer brake weight is not much, what type scale was used? Read this regarding scales:
Lighter the weight the less accurate the scale can be, some scales are in 50lb increments so +/- 50 lbs might put that trailer within limits.
GM could toss a frame at this thing and not bat an eye, something here isn’t adding up.
But something ain’t right.
The original posts never did show the trailer, those pics surfaced later showing what appears to be a bent axle and possibly a bent tongue. The OP didn’t even address that in passing, just say no it wasn’t bent it’s the pic angle and so on.
Was there an insurance claim put in? The adjuster will want to see the bump in question and copious photos will be taken. Accident investigation 101. Want us on your side? Show us what you hit.
GM looked at it 6 weeks later, we assume the trailer was loaded exactly the same as the day it happened, if I was out to influence someone I may leave a case of beer or two out of the trailer.
As for the investigators excuses, 100lbs over the trailer brake requirement is nothing as well as the 1” oversized tire, the investigator might have an idea what it takes to bend a Colorado at that spot and felt something didn’t add up, so searched for any old excuse to deny the claim. 5% over the trailer brake weight is not much, what type scale was used? Read this regarding scales:
Truck Scale Accuracy - Weighty Issue Revealed
Are commercial truck scales are less accurate for RVs - Learn the truth about scale accuracy
fifthwheelst.com
Lighter the weight the less accurate the scale can be, some scales are in 50lb increments so +/- 50 lbs might put that trailer within limits.
GM could toss a frame at this thing and not bat an eye, something here isn’t adding up.
The fellow over at pickup truck talk gave a good, and somewhat unbiased, overview of the issue:
He didn't really give an opinion one way or the other, but rather just laid out the story and GM's response, as much as possible.
I will say, even though I think the Colorado is a decent contribution to the midsized segment, I have some doubts/skepticism regarding GM's handling of the situation.
1) There is no proof that this guys was romping on the truck...conversely there is no proof that he was driving at a reasonable speed while towing that weight. But for all of the internet experts, and GM experts, to say that this whole thing was the result of owner abuse without presenting any supporting evidence is just a classic case of defensive/myopic posturing.
2) GM's official claims about 1" bigger tire size and 100lbs over tongue weight are a bit ridiculous. I don't see how slightly larger tires would play any role in this issue. 100lbs over tongue weight is over OEM recommendations, plain and simple, but if it only takes that much excess weight to cause a catastrophic failure of the frame, I question the OEM's design.
3) Speaking of OEM ratings, GM does not provide a max tongue weight rating. It does state that the tongue weight should be 10-15% of the loaded trailer weight. With this guy's trailer weight, that should be about 210-315lbs...seems excessively low no? As well, any trailer over over 2k lbs is supposed to be equipped with integrated brakes....again seems like an excessive restriction on GM's part. As well, the ZR2's GCWR is lower compared to the regular Colorado, by about 1.7k lbs. By comparison, the Tacoma (w/ tow package) has a max tongue weight of ~640lbs, has no restrictions regarding integrated trailer brakes and engineers its most offroad-worthy trim (TRD Pro) to have the same GCWR, GVWR as its base versions.
It kind of seems like either GM had to make deliberate durability compromises to the ZR2 in order to gain the offroad performance or that the Colorado design is inherently limited. Not explicitly stating a max tongue weight rating and requiring integrated trailer brakes for any trailer over 2k lbs just smells like corner-cutting to me....which is sad, because otherwise the ZR2 seems like an awesome truck. And using slightly bigger tires and slightly over-spec tongue weight as excuses to deny warranty is just foolish on GM's part...those sort of actions don't inspire confidence on the consumer's part.
He didn't really give an opinion one way or the other, but rather just laid out the story and GM's response, as much as possible.
I will say, even though I think the Colorado is a decent contribution to the midsized segment, I have some doubts/skepticism regarding GM's handling of the situation.
1) There is no proof that this guys was romping on the truck...conversely there is no proof that he was driving at a reasonable speed while towing that weight. But for all of the internet experts, and GM experts, to say that this whole thing was the result of owner abuse without presenting any supporting evidence is just a classic case of defensive/myopic posturing.
2) GM's official claims about 1" bigger tire size and 100lbs over tongue weight are a bit ridiculous. I don't see how slightly larger tires would play any role in this issue. 100lbs over tongue weight is over OEM recommendations, plain and simple, but if it only takes that much excess weight to cause a catastrophic failure of the frame, I question the OEM's design.
3) Speaking of OEM ratings, GM does not provide a max tongue weight rating. It does state that the tongue weight should be 10-15% of the loaded trailer weight. With this guy's trailer weight, that should be about 210-315lbs...seems excessively low no? As well, any trailer over over 2k lbs is supposed to be equipped with integrated brakes....again seems like an excessive restriction on GM's part. As well, the ZR2's GCWR is lower compared to the regular Colorado, by about 1.7k lbs. By comparison, the Tacoma (w/ tow package) has a max tongue weight of ~640lbs, has no restrictions regarding integrated trailer brakes and engineers its most offroad-worthy trim (TRD Pro) to have the same GCWR, GVWR as its base versions.
It kind of seems like either GM had to make deliberate durability compromises to the ZR2 in order to gain the offroad performance or that the Colorado design is inherently limited. Not explicitly stating a max tongue weight rating and requiring integrated trailer brakes for any trailer over 2k lbs just smells like corner-cutting to me....which is sad, because otherwise the ZR2 seems like an awesome truck. And using slightly bigger tires and slightly over-spec tongue weight as excuses to deny warranty is just foolish on GM's part...those sort of actions don't inspire confidence on the consumer's part.
Last edited:
crazysccrmd
Observer
Keep in mind that the ZR2 actually was designed for offroad use. Tacomas simply swap some basic parts out and change the badges on the sides and say they are designed for off-road use. The TRD Pro has no better offroad upgrades than the standard TRD Offroad, Toyota just swapped on a different set of shocks and badging.
shade
Well-known member
I think that sums it up nicely.
Unless they've seen all of the information, no one is in a position to make a definitive statement about what happened. Far too many unknown variables, or variables defined using internet logic. Without hard data, there's just no way of knowing.
Even the pro/con GM discussion is on thin ice, since no one that wasn't involved with the incident and investigation knows how it progressed. I'll throw one more scenario into the mix. OP does something that's right on the margins of what GM might cover, but during the investigation, he's caught misrepresenting the circumstances. GM decides they can legally defend a claim denial, and they don't find the owner credible, so they deny the claim.
Last edited:
I suppose there are two ways of looking at that:
1) Toyota didn't change much, if anything, w/ the Tacoma except for some suspension bits and badging when putting together the TRD Pro.
or
2) Toyota arguably engineers more offroad capabilities into the basic Tacoma (very good ground clearance, approach/departure angles) that outside of a slight lift, not much work is needed to make the TRD Pro. Whereas GM or Ford generally have to do significant reworks of their base platforms to produce the top-tier offroad variants of their trucks. Toyota also doesn't normally restrict the payload and towing ratings for the Pro lineup, which is a big difference from other OEM's.
Compare a stock Colorado to stock Tacoma; it's very obvious that GM was going for a truck that would appeal to car owners while Toyota was going for a truck that would appeal to truck owners.
All that aside, a mostly stock ZR2 got a bent frame from towing a +2klb trailer over a rough road....owner could be at fault for doing something stupid, but the way GM handled and explained the failure doesn't make sense in my view. And the arbitrary restrictions GM puts on towing and tongue weights might have some involvement in this scenario.
Last edited:
All of the above rings true. But I will point out that GM has a shaky history of honoring the warranty on their products, and that's putting it politely. When Colorado's started having air bags go off during mild offroading....a lot of GM fans said the issues were due to owner stupidity and GM was very slow to acknowledge there was a glitch with their programming. A lot of similar gremlins and bugs that have occurred on other GM products, and the company either refuses to acknowledge the issue or drags its feet offering a solution.
Perhaps this frame incident is purely the fault of the owner's...we truly don't know for sure. But even if it is, GM's response to the issue is not very professional or well-reasoned. Slightly bigger tires? Really, they're going to sit there and pretend that somehow played a role in this frame failure?