Comparison shopping: Colorado, Gladiator, Tacoma

vintageracer

To Infinity and Beyond!
Maybe 5 to 10 trucks!

It is rare that an original owner new vehicle purchaser keeps their vehicle for a 100K miles in today's world. Ya I know all you guys say you will however that rarely if EVER happens!

With new vehicle leasing once again now making up almost 50% of the new vehicle sales the car industry continues to develop the culture of "Making Payments" is the only way to drive a new vehicle so that's what I am going to do!

IF I am going to make payments I am going to drive a nice new vehicle every couple of years.

By the way where the Hell is the charging port for this new electric vehicle I just leased. Just like my phone my vehicle is now runnin low on power do to all these Hands Free options!
 

LimaMikeMike

Observer
I looked into both of these issues for obvious reasons. The curtain airbags going off in less than rollover situations off road scenarios appears to have been a sensor threshold issue. Essentially, it's a predictive system versus a responsive one. With the regular air bags, deployment occurs when a sensor detects an impact. The curtain air bags deploy for that reason OR if it thinks the truck is about to roll. In that event, it must deploy prior to the roll or, I believe, it'll have a damage multiplying effect. For that reason, the sensors are looking for things like speed, steering angle, and most critically the lateral angle of the truck relative to the ground. I believe it was this latter threshold they needed to reduce, but I imagine the others got attention too. Explanation aside, it was an easy dealer flash sort of fix, and it's gone and done unless your truck is old enough to have been affected and hasn't been to a dealer (or you have a crappy dealer) since the patch was issued.

The frame thing... For all the talk of the ZR2 being Chevy's answer to the Raptor, I honestly expected to see more of this. Through another lens, it could easily be considered a good sign for the strength of the frame that we're not seeing more of it. Hell, the GM PR team was literally instructing automotive journalists to jump the thing! This particular instance was abuse, plain and simple. This is hearsay for lack of availability of direct knowledge by incident or design, so pass it through a filter, but from what I was able to gather the guy with the trailer did a dumb thing, then tried to make his own media blitz to get Chevy to fix it. His insurance didn't cover it either (no filter there, his own admission, but much less publicized). I have not verified this, but it comports with expectations, he seems to be quite a "bro", hanging out with a bunch of other bros, many of whom drive and were driving Raptors. He wanted to play too, tried too hard, and the result was very predictable. I could be wrong, but for everything I was able to find on the incident and the individual, that was the case. It's the only one I've seen, but it looks like there may be other cases I'm not aware of that could change my tune. I can always be swayed by evidence.

Regardless, from a frame perspective, I don't recall the construction or materials of the Gladiator frame off hand, but the Tacoma frame is plain steel C-channel with a few boxed sections (that seems to be having rust issues AGAIN in this generation). The Colorado is HSS and fully boxed from the factory. You won't see see Gladiators having this problem because they're meant to be driven slowly, and that's a different kind of stress on the frame. The Tacoma wont see issues like that because Toyota is too damn lazy to give us anything good worth doing anything exciting with (a fake snorkel and even more fake hood scoop do NOT qualify as good...). Chevy took a chance, and to be fair, Ford did it first. I've been saying for years that for all of Chrysler's quality issues, they're at least giving us exciting cars left right and center. Chevy has finally seen the light, and I'm stoked for it. As we near the end of the reign of the internal combustion engine, I suspect we'll see quite a few exciting options at this zenith.[/I][/I]
The owner of the now famous grey bent ZR2 is a member on pirate, in the attached thread he says his insurance will or has covered it to the tune of 13k


I’m not sure if it’s ok to link other forums so.... anyway if you read it there’s bad words n stuff, pretty mild for pirate though. There is also a link to the NHTSA investigation/claim in that thread.

There has been radio silence since the end of the above thread. You mention his insurance denied it, do you have link to where he said this?
 
Last edited:

spectre6000

Observer
It was on ColoradoFans.com IIRC. Mayhap a "yet" was lacking in my statement, and it was based on dated information. My mistake.
 

LimaMikeMike

Observer
B95304F7-6A4C-455A-9110-E91D5242C4E4.jpeg

Since it appears to be Ford month here on Expo😉:

The above pic is the approximate section of a 19 Ranger frame where the ZR2 bent, you can see where ford has reinforced the upper and lower sections of their frame with plates, the ranger also has a hole on the inside of the frame with rolled edges. This hole is in the approximate area where the ZR2 bent is in this pic:

43DC651D-9CB9-4571-A00F-18001FF59379.jpeg

The ZR2 holes (there are two) are smaller than the ranger one but the ranger of course has just the one and the reinforcements. Seems like a silly place to put a hole in the frame.

I poked around a 17 F150 supercab we have at work. It also has two holes in the frame in the same place just aft of a burly looking crossmember. From what I read they’re there to allow the truck when hit from behind to bend upwards and pull the top of the box away from the cab. This is to keep the box from “crimping” the back of the cab and not allowing the back doors to open. That’s the idea anyway, doesn’t always work. Here’s a pic of when it works:

16524D90-4825-4663-AF00-16FFA24C3466.jpeg

The Ranger T6 version overseas I don’t think has this hole (I can’t find a close pic) as the upper/lower frame reinforcements are not present. Does anyone have specific information as what’s was changed between the NA ranger and the T6? All I can find is that the frame rails are new and “fully boxed” because “payload”. T6 has similar payload and it’s also fully boxed.

Think these holes are part of Americanizing the Ranger and the GM twins. The Holden/Isuzu Dmax also don’t seem to have these holes.

Holden frame repair plates: no holes.

B2437080-931B-415C-AC68-1B5799AAA5D7.jpeg

And Ranger T6 frame repair plates: also no hole.

9A1CB3D0-2F17-444F-8281-B484524777C5.jpeg

I think Ford knew about the possibly of this happening because as I’ve been reading bending Australian truck chassis’ is common. Ford put the upper and lower reinforcement plates to retain some strength because NA crash standards required them to put a weak spot in what appears to be a critical spot on the frame.

Whether or not GM felt the frame was strong enough in that spot not to require reinforcements is a big question to me.

Anyway here’s a bent T6 ranger based truck. Yeah it’s a Mazda BT-50, I chose this one because it’s a video and the owner is very forthcoming as to what happened.

 

nickw

Adventurer
Good point. Hadn't considered leaving some gears out of a shift strategy. I've read that it's fairly smooth shifting, and assumed the valving was likely such it was just soft band engagement with the hope that people don't notice all the transmission activity. I'm pretty sure it's a conventional unit and not a double clutch, but that's an assumption. Continuing to look at it from an engineering perspective though, the whole point of all those ratios is to keep the engine in its most efficient band, which is narrow, and thus all the gears with tight ratio spreads. Do you think Ford (or really, the EPA) would allow a preference for skipping gears to avoid extra shifts if that's a major part of the MPG strategy (yet another assumption)?
The Ranger doesn't have a narrow powerband, it's quite broad with lots of low end torque....blend of a diesel and gas driving characteristics. It's obviously qualitative, but I've driven several trucks over the years and get on well with the Ranger, more than the others.

10 Spd trans works great, excellent low end "granny" gear and great OD. You can limit the numbers of gears you have. I have no idea when or how it skips gears, but that is the word on the street.

It's not a DCT.
 

MOguy

Explorer
Chevrolet electrical systems are junk. I have a first gen Colorado and have multiple electrical issues. The wiring they use is just too thin. The copper breaks from fatigue. If you plan to go 500K, get a Toyota,
I had an Acadia with multiple electric issues. While at the dealer (many times) I spoke with a tech and he said there are allot of electrical problems with the new Silverados. He didn't mention the Colorado but it wouldn't surprise me.
 

MOguy

Explorer
...
It is rare that an original owner new vehicle purchaser keeps their vehicle for a 100K miles in today's world. Ya I know all you guys say you will however that rarely if EVER happens!
With new vehicle leasing once again now making up almost 50% of the new vehicle sales the car industry continues to develop the culture of "Making Payments" is the only way to drive a new vehicle so that's what I am going to do!
IF I am going to make payments I am going to drive a nice new vehicle every couple of years.
...
I just became that guy. I have been buying cars since the 80s (even sold cars) I never had plans on leasing one. But I just did. After my last experience buying a nice newer car and suffer from all the repair bills and depreciation I don't want another ( I am still not ready to go electric, I would do hybrid if it were a good enough lease).

My 79 K30 has 82k on it (maybe 182K, 282K, 382K? it only has a 5 digit odometer), I have a Cavalier with about 230K on it. My kids S 10 has about 220K and I have an 01 Wrangler with about 130K. I had no issues or concerns fixing or getting a vehicle fixed until I had an Acadia. I can't even see half the motor let alone get wrench on what ever I might need to fix. It hit 100k and was spending more time in the shop, At least my extended warranty (Route 66) stepped up and covered almost everything.

At this point I can't imagine actually buying and owning a new car. I will borrow it for about 3 years and about 36K miles (probably will exceed that) but after that it has to go.
 
Last edited:

Buliwyf

Viking with a Hammer
I love owning cars. 5 years of payments, 5 years no payments, then 5 years of repairs that cost half as much as payments. At that point scrap and start over when repairs equal payment costs.

Leasing works for economy cars, but I haven't been able to get the numbers to work with trucks. Especially ones that I custom build.........
 

MOguy

Explorer
I love owning cars. 5 years of payments, 5 years no payments, then 5 years of repairs that cost half as much as payments. At that point scrap and start over when repairs equal payment costs.

Leasing works for economy cars, but I haven't been able to get the numbers to work with trucks. Especially ones that I custom build.........
I wouldn't lease anything that I planned on using for Off-roading / overlanding or working hard, I can't imagine any new vehicle I would use for that. I do like to have a new or newer wife / family car. Over the last decade or so it seems I was swapping them out about ever 3 years, so why buy a whole vehicle?

What new car would you plan on owning for 15 years?
 

DaveInDenver

Expedition Leader
I snipped several of your statements, which makes several salient points I think.
The above pic is the approximate section of a 19 Ranger frame where the ZR2 bent, you can see where ford has reinforced the upper and lower sections of their frame with plates, the ranger also has a hole on the inside of the frame with rolled edges.

The ZR2 holes (there are two) are smaller than the ranger one but the ranger of course has just the one and the reinforcements. Seems like a silly place to put a hole in the frame.

I poked around a 17 F150 supercab we have at work. It also has two holes in the frame in the same place just aft of a burly looking crossmember. From what I read they’re there to allow the truck when hit from behind to bend upwards and pull the top of the box away from the cab. This is to keep the box from “crimping” the back of the cab and not allowing the back doors to open. That’s the idea anyway, doesn’t always work. Here’s a pic of when it works:

The Ranger T6 version overseas I don’t think has this hole (I can’t find a close pic) as the upper/lower frame reinforcements are not present. Does anyone have specific information as what’s was changed between the NA ranger and the T6? All I can find is that the frame rails are new and “fully boxed” because “payload”. T6 has similar payload and it’s also fully boxed.
I think it's difficult to speculate when comparing trucks like this across several markets. There's accommodations that the manufacturer has to do in designing for purpose and regulations and factory capability. Maybe GM needed those holes for a jig or to deal with warp during welding or heat treating that is unique to the NA truck. Just too many variables.
Think these holes are part of Americanizing the Ranger and the GM twins. The Holden/Isuzu Dmax also don’t seem to have these holes.

I think Ford knew about the possibly of this happening because as I’ve been reading bending Australian truck chassis’ is common. Ford put the upper and lower reinforcement plates to retain some strength because NA crash standards required them to put a weak spot in what appears to be a critical spot on the frame.

Whether or not GM felt the frame was strong enough in that spot not to require reinforcements is a big question to me.
I think with Ford it's possible the "Americanization" might be running production improvements and the reinforced frame we got might even be early features that might be seen in the next global version.
 

toylandcruiser

Expedition Leader
The biggest problem with the portal lately is the fact that any discussion about any vehicle type brings 4 or 5 users into the discussion screaming "ford rules, ford rules"... and the immediate downplay of any and all brands other than ford, here you asked a question about 3 different trucks not including ford and the ford fanboys jump all over it screaming "ford rules ford rules", seems like pirate has invaded the portal and if you don't do as you're told by the fanboys then they just keep pushing "ford rules ford rules"..... gets old doesn't it?
Seems as though the mods turn a blind eye to the constant attempts at shoving ford down everyones throat and it keeps getting worse, might as well call this the ford portal anymore!
but if you ask him, hes not a fanboy. Only toyota owners are fanboys
 
Last edited:

spectre6000

Observer
LMM & DaveInDenver:

The frame hole conversation is interesting. I noticed the photos (great find, BTW) that the Ford also has a weld seam in the middle of that reinforcement. DiD mentions heat treating. That could easily be a way to avoid having to re-heat the whole frame to regain the temper of the HSS post-welding of those two sections. Just speculation, but I don't think I buy the reinforcement argument because...

...LMM's point about the holes being intentional to allow the frame to buckle up instead of down for safety reasons. That is precisely what happened in that one guy with the bent frame and the trailer off road (still singular to my knowledge, but again, I've seen vague references to the possibility of others). GM said they wouldn't cover anything due to a lack of trailer breaks. That hole is to allow the frame to do exactly what it did. He was hooning off road, and essentially got slapped in the butt by his trailer. I believe he said he was 100 lbs over the limit without trailer breaks, but as someone else pointed out, those limits are set under more conventional conditions (not jumping whoops). The dynamic loading and the loads themselves simply resulted in forces very similar to being rear ended, and the frame did what it was supposed to do. The way I look at it, GM is definitely within bounds of their lawyers' recommendations because the guy went beyond the limits specified by the manufacturer. I think they should have covered it (probably with some sort of NDA), eaten the cost of a frame rather than the cost of the bad publicity, and then added something to the manual about lower limits off road due to dynamic loading or some such (which all assumes that language isn't already there). They messed this up. From what I read on the Toyota Forums, they're just as bad and deny anything they've ever done has ever been less than perfect throughout all time and space, but that's just what big corporations do because they have lawyers on retainer. Ford probably does the same thing, but I honestly couldn't be bothered to read anything about any Ford (I'm no Chevy/Toyota fanboy, but I am a Ford whatever-the-opposite-of-a-fanboy-is)/

Internet being what it is, this story will probably float around for a while, and Toyota/Ford fanboys will give the Chevy fanboys **** about frame bending issues, Chevy/Ford fanboys will give the Toyota fanboys **** about frame rusting issues, and Toyota/Chevy fanboys will give Ford fanboys **** about some other thing I'm not thinking of because I don't care to follow all of these sorts of things unless they actually seem prevalent (ahem, Toyota).
 
Last edited:

LimaMikeMike

Observer
I snipped several of your statements, which makes several salient points I think.

I think it's difficult to speculate when comparing trucks like this across several markets. There's accommodations that the manufacturer has to do in designing for purpose and regulations and factory capability. Maybe GM needed those holes for a jig or to deal with warp during welding or heat treating that is unique to the NA truck. Just too many variables.

I think with Ford it's possible the "Americanization" might be running production improvements and the reinforced frame we got might even be early features that might be seen in the next global version.
I hadn’t thought of running changes in the chassis line. Would make sense with the forthcoming bronco being built on a ranger chassis. That first pic of the ranger frame also shows a vertical seam where it appears the aft section of the frame “slips” into the forward section, maybe suggests some modularity in construction?
 

LimaMikeMike

Observer
LMM & DaveInDenver:

The frame hole conversation is interesting. I noticed the photos (great find, BTW) that the Ford also has a weld seam in the middle of that reinforcement. DiD mentions heat treating. That could easily be a way to avoid having to re-heat the whole frame to regain the temper of the HSS post-welding of those two sections. Just speculation, but I don't think I buy the reinforcement argument because...

...LMM's point about the holes being intentional to allow the frame to buckle up instead of down for safety reasons. That is precisely what happened in that one guy with the bent frame and the trailer off road (still singular to my knowledge, but again, I've seen vague references to the possibility of others). GM said they wouldn't cover anything due to a lack of trailer breaks. That hole is to allow the frame to do exactly what it did. He was hooning off road, and essentially got slapped in the butt by his trailer. I believe he said he was 100 lbs over the limit without trailer breaks, but as someone else pointed out, those limits are set under more conventional conditions (not jumping whoops). The dynamic loading and the loads themselves simply resulted in forces very similar to being rear ended, and the frame did what it was supposed to do. The way I look at it, GM is definitely within bounds of their lawyers' recommendations because the guy went beyond the limits specified by the manufacturer. I think they should have covered it (probably with some sort of NDA), eaten the cost of a frame rather than the cost of the bad publicity, and then added something to the manual about lower limits off road due to dynamic loading or some such (which all assumes that language isn't already there). They messed this up. From what I read on the Toyota Forums, they're just as bad and deny anything they've ever done has ever been less than perfect throughout all time and space, but that's just what big corporations do because they have lawyers on retainer. Ford probably doesn't the same thing, but I honestly couldn't be bothered to read anything about any Ford (I'm no Chevy/Toyota fanboy, but I am a Ford whatever-the-opposite-of-a-fanboy-is)/

Internet being what it is, this story will probably float around for a while, and Toyota/Ford fanboys will give the Chevy fanboys **** about frame bending issues, Chevy/Ford fanboys will give the Toyota fanboys **** about frame rusting issues, and Toyota/Chevy fanboys will give Ford fanboys **** about some other thing I'm not thinking of because I don't care to follow all of these sorts of things unless they actually seem prevalent (ahem, Toyota).
I did a pile research in my spare time at work (dayshift is slow) on the frame bending issue. I found lots of examples of this happening with many brands. I have found the two ZR2 trucks bending in this type of situation, a black one which there is scant info because the thread was locked because of nastiness and of course the grey one.

The underlying theme in what I found is that when towing (even underweight by significant margin) on rough surface and a unexpected obstacle is encountered at even at a reasonable speed that causes the suspension to bottom with enough force that the excess force generated is transferred to the frame and it will find the weak spot (put there intentionally or not) usually couple inches fwd or aft of the bumpstops.

Here’s a LC100:


I put up the two examples I did (the LC and the ranger/BT50) not to shame owners but because the owners of those particular vehicles were honest about what happened and understood why it happened.

I myself didn’t know about this issue and suspected tomfoolery, I’m now not so sure and will adjust my driving accordingly as best I can.
 
Last edited:
Top