Colorado ZR2 and Tacoma TRD Pro compared

[b9ev]

Just for reference, the 2017 Super Duty frame is not boxed the whole way through.

 

[Dalko43]

Just for reference, the 2017 Super Duty frame is not boxed the whole way through.

According to Ford and numerous car media sites, the new 2017 Ford Super Duty does have a fully boxed frame.

There are some chassis cab models that still come with only a partially boxed frame, which may be what the picture above is depicting. TruckTrend explains that breakdown:

1. Fully Boxed High-Strength Steel Frame
We know, General Motors has had a fully boxed frame in its HD trucks for some time now. That the previous-generation Super Duty was able to compete using a C-channel frame is impressive in its own right. However, Ford is bringing the frame fight to GM’s front door with the 2017 Super Duty’s boxed frame, comprised of 95 percent high-strength steel.

When launching the 2015 F-150, Ford was quick to point out that in addition to the aluminum bodywork, the light-duty pickup used more high-strength steel in its frame than any other 1/2-ton. We’d wager the same is true of the F-Series Super Duty. The frame is 24 times stronger than the previous-generation Super Duty’s, and Ford proved its mettle during the live launch yesterday, suspending eight F-150s and one gigantic Tonka truck from the F-Series Super Duty’s frame.

2017 Ford F Series Super Duty Frame 04
Photo 3/95 | 2017 Ford F Series Super Duty Frame 04
Toyota® C-HR - See Photos, Prices & MPG
For easier upfitting, lower repair costs, and increased flexibility, Ford will continue to offer the Super Duty chassis cab with a frame that’s fully boxed under the cabin before transitioning to a C-channel chassis (shown above).

http://www.trucktrend.com/news/1509-five-hard-working-features-of-the-2017-ford-f-series-super-duty/

 

[p nut]

Are we seriously back at this C-channel crap again?? Who cares? I'm so much more tolerant of various truck designs these days. All these nit-pick details some people quarrel about is funny and really, irrelevant for how most use their trucks. Buy a truck, use it within the spec'ed limits, and you'll be fine.

 

[DaveInDenver]

It's right on their marketing literature apparently.

 

[b9ev]

It makes sense that chassis cabs wouldn't be boxed where you will be bolting on different things. If I am reading correctly an F350 with a regular bed is fully boxed frame and a chassis cab F350 has c-channel. I am guessing that both have the same weight ratings? If so, the engineers probably feel they are equally strong?

 

[Sergio828]

Sure looks fully boxed in this brochure from Ford. Check out page 4.

http://www.ford.com/services/assets/Brochure?bodystyle=Truck&make=Ford&model=SuperDuty&year=2017

 

[toylandcruiser]

The Tundra/Tacoma are no where close to being in the same ballpark as something like the Unimog when it comes to frame and chassis design. Go read some articles about the Unimog; it's chassis, engine mounting, body mounts, ect. were all designed to accommodate massive frame flex. The Tacaom/Tundra were designed with a c-channel frame, and the engineers just accepted there was going to be a bit more flex inherent to that design.

As for stiff frames being a "fad," that setup has actually become the norm for modern vehicles. All of Toyota's global 4x4 platforms use boxed frames. Just about every BOF SUV or pickup in the North American market uses a boxed frame, including the new 2017 Ford Super Duty. The only North American pickup's/SUV's that I can think of which don't use a boxed frame are the Tacoma and the Tundra/Sequoia.

All frames flex, some to a lesser degree than others. But the general consensus is that you want the suspension to do most of the flexing and articulating while the frame remains mostly rigid. That's why most offroad-focused platforms, like the Land Cruiser, use boxed frames. The Unimog is the exception to that rule, but again it was designed to have a flexy frame/chassis, unlike most other 4x4 platforms.



Yep, they're still young, relatively speaking. But I don't think you even know what you're complaining about at this point. You brought up a lot of issues (turbo's, fuel pumps, injectors) that are potential pitfalls for any modern diesel (including the diesel used in your esteemed Hilux). Heck, turbo's are a potential pitfall for gasoline engines as well. The new gasoline engine in the Tacoma is largely unproven in a truck platform. You have to 'wait and see' with any new vehicle design.

But oddly enough, you only seem to vocalize your skepticism when it comes to diesel vehicles.

Yea I own a unimog, I know what I'm talking about when it comes to them. Toyota engineers have said they used the frame they did for flex. I would tend to believe them over you. It's designed to do what it does. The fad I'm talking about is with 1/2 ton and up. It didn't come about until the mid 2000s when everyone was trying to up the other manufacturers with frame stiffness. I don't understand how you can grasp that c channel works on some vehicles but not others. It boggles my mind.

 

[Clutch]

Yep, they're still young, relatively speaking. But I don't think you even know what you're complaining about at this point. You brought up a lot of issues (turbo's, fuel pumps, injectors) that are potential pitfalls for any modern diesel (including the diesel used in your esteemed Hilux). Heck, turbo's are a potential pitfall for gasoline engines as well. The new gasoline engine in the Tacoma is largely unproven in a truck platform. You have to 'wait and see' with any new vehicle design.

But oddly enough, you only seem to vocalize your skepticism when it comes to diesel vehicles.

It goes the same for diesel Toyotas for having more component failures over a naturally aspirated gas engines, never said otherwise. You like to put put words in my mouth. I trust a n/a gas engine more to have less failures over time and distance. I trust the 2.7 4 banger over the new(ish) 3.5 V6. Which still needs to be proven to me, even though they have been using it in their cars for awhile now.

If you're someone that is like me....as Dave in Denver said, we just want a gear hauler that we can run up to 300'000 miles without much fuss. I think worrying about expensive component failure on a diesel engine over the long term ownership is a valid concern. You may not, though.


I have looked at the 4 cylinder gas Colorado, as a direct competition to the SR Tacoma. If it came with a manual trans I may put my worries aside, and give it a try...but no manny is no deal for me.

 

[Dalko43]

Yea I own a unimog, I know what I'm talking about when it comes to them. Toyota engineers have said they used the frame they did for flex. I would tend to believe them over you. It's designed to do what it does. The fad I'm talking about is with 1/2 ton and up. It didn't come about until the mid 2000s when everyone was trying to up the other manufacturers with frame stiffness. I don't understand how you can grasp that c channel works on some vehicles but not others. It boggles my mind.

If you own a unimog and know it so well then why are you trying to compare its frame/chassis to that of a Tacoma?

The frame flex for Toyota's NA pickup's (Tacoma and tundra) was a copout explanation. Do you ever see ad's for jeeps, land cruisers or defenders highlighting their "built-in" frame flex?

Boxed frames aren't a fad, they're the norm. Pretty much all off-road-oriented trucks (key word being off-road) have them. Big rigs and hd military trucks are different vehicles with different uses and design parameters. The Ford super duty, which was the last holdout in the 3/4 ton segment just switched to that setup.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Clutch]

Are we seriously back at this C-channel crap again?? Who cares? I'm so much more tolerant of various truck designs these days. All these nit-pick details some people quarrel about is funny and really, irrelevant for how most use their trucks. Buy a truck, use it within the spec'ed limits, and you'll be fine.

Round tube is where it is at...

 

[toylandcruiser]

If you own a unimog and know it so well then why are you trying to compare its frame/chassis to that of a Tacoma?

The frame flex for Toyota's NA pickup's (Tacoma and tundra) was a copout explanation. Do you ever see ad's for jeeps, land cruisers or defenders highlighting their "built-in" frame flex?

Boxed frames aren't a fad, they're the norm. Pretty much all off-road-oriented trucks (key word being off-road) have them. Big rigs and hd military trucks are different vehicles with different uses and design parameters. The Ford super duty, which was the last holdout in the 3/4 ton segment just switched to that setup.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm giving examples.
Box frame are a fad. Up until the mid 2000s very few used boxed frames. All trucks from the lowly ranger/s10 to 1 ton trucks used c's. Hell the wrangler in 87 was the first to use a boxed frame. Up until then all jeeps used c channel. You're a damned fool if you can't see that. Once again, why is a c channel good for heavy *** duty trucks, and trucks the are designed for off-road But in a light duty 1/4 ton or 1/2 ton truck it's weak? With your stupid logic, the Colorado is a heavier duty truck than an f250 or f350.
Once again, land cruisers HAVE frame flex.
Stop being such a Knuckle head.

 

[p nut]

Round tube is where it is at...

But you forgot about honeycomb! How's that Tacoma? Guessing nothing's changed, knowing you. :elkgrin:

 

[Dalko43]

Box frame are a fad. Up until the mid 2000s very few used boxed frames. All trucks from the lowly ranger/s10 to 1 ton trucks used c's. Hell the wrangler in 87 was the first to use a boxed frame. Up until then all jeeps used c channel. You're a damned fool if you can't see that.

Pretty sure the early 2000's Ram 1500/2500 and Chevy 2500 and I think even the F150 used boxed frames back then. The main HD pickup that used c-channel then was the F250/350 (but that has now changed). Going back into the 70's, 80's, 90's c-channel frames were more common in domestic pickup's and they were noted for being very flexy, but the manufacturers moved away from that design....likely because the rest of the truck wasn't really designed to flex like that and it looked and drove like crap.

Once again, why is a c channel good for heavy *** duty trucks, and trucks the are designed for off-road But in a light duty 1/4 ton or 1/2 ton truck it's weak?

What HD trucks are you talking about? Big rig's? Military 7 tons? I wouldn't consider any of those vehicles 'offroad' worthy. Most of the trucks that I do consider 'offroad' worthy (F-150, Colorado, 4runner/lC Prado, LC 200, LC 70, Hilux, Ram 1500, Ram 2500/3500, Silverado 2500, and now the F250/350) use fully boxed frames....go figure.

With your stupid logic, the Colorado is a heavier duty truck than an f250 or f350.

The new F250/350, with the exception of the chassis cab models, now has a fully boxed frame. Go see the previous posts if you want further explanation on that. And regardless of which frame setup the F250 uses, I don't think that the Colorado is a more heavy duty truck...you're putting words in my mouth.

Once again, land cruisers HAVE frame flex.

All frames have flex, boxed or c-channel. The point is you want less flex in the frame and more of it in your suspension. I'm not saying anything groundbreaking here; go talk to an offroad shop mechanic about why they modify factory c-channel frames into boxed frames for certain offroad project vehicles. You never hear about the opposite happening.

 

[toylandcruiser]

Pretty sure the early 2000's Ram 1500/2500 and Chevy 2500 and I think even the F150 used boxed frames back then. The main HD pickup that used c-channel then was the F250/350 (but that has now changed). Going back into the 70's, 80's, 90's c-channel frames were more common in domestic pickup's and they were noted for being very flexy, but the manufacturers moved away from that design....likely because the rest of the truck wasn't really designed to flex like that and it looked and drove like crap.



What HD trucks are you talking about? Big rig's? Military 7 tons? I wouldn't consider any of those vehicles 'offroad' worthy. Most of the trucks that I do consider 'offroad' worthy (F-150, Colorado, 4runner/lC Prado, LC 200, LC 70, Hilux, Ram 1500, Ram 2500/3500, Silverado 2500, and now the F250/350) use fully boxed frames....go figure.



The new F250/350, with the exception of the chassis cab models, now has a fully boxed frame. Go see the previous posts if you want further explanation on that. And regardless of which frame setup the F250 uses, I don't think that the Colorado is a more heavy duty truck...you're putting words in my mouth.



All frames have flex, boxed or c-channel. The point is you want less flex in the frame and more of it in your suspension. I'm not saying anything groundbreaking here; go talk to an offroad shop mechanic about why they modify factory c-channel frames into boxed frames for certain offroad project vehicles. You never hear about the opposite happening.

Ok after this I'm done talking to you

Pretty sure the f150 wasn't boxed until the 2000 something.
dodge didn't use a boxed frame until 2003. Chevy after that.

Your ignorance of military trucks is very apparent. EVERY SINGLE MILITARY TRUCK with the exception of hmmwvs are c channel. The 2.5 ton, lmtv, and up. They can wheel. Maybe you should actually experience it before you comment on it.


I was just using your failed logic when I said that about the Colorado and f250. At least you see how stupid it is.

Funny you didn't consider the f250/f350 off-road worthy until it received a box frame. You are so blinded by your list for that style of frame you can't see how illogical you are.

Finally your last comment is dumb.

 

[Clutch]

But you forgot about honeycomb! How's that Tacoma? Guessing nothing's changed, knowing you. :elkgrin:

Dude! Floval!

It is refusing to die, and running like a champ!

Just had the carrier bearing replaced last week, must of been shot longer than I thought...running very smooth now, almost feels like a new truck again. Which got me thinking...betcha I can squeeze another 100K out of it.