Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

'99 Silverado/Sierra vs. F-150

1456810

Comments

  • swobigswobig Member Posts: 634
    couldn't a said it better myself...
  • murizarmurizar Member Posts: 33
    I am not sure but it goes something like this. Back when the new SILVERADO body came out 60 brand new SILVERADOS were taken to the railroad station where they were loaded according to the specs of the old C/K models. Several chains in the wrong places at the wrong tensions bent the frames. Then again just how much tension does it take to keep an over 4k lbs truck on a railcar. These trucks were later sold at the dealers "AS IS " at 2-3k under invoice. No big deal except I wonder who bought the trucks?

    I am happy with my SILVERADO.
  • bigsnagbigsnag Member Posts: 394
    Thank you for answering my question. I wasn't referring to it as though they couldn't engineer a correct speedo. I was stating that in my experience they just weren't right on. I have owned two, and driven 5 others quite a bit (at various jobs) and all were off on the speedo. 10% sounds like a lot, but if you are going 50 mph your speedo will register 55, a difference of only 5 mph. That's not a whole lot. However over long trips, the odometer did not add up with how far I drove. Theses are just my personal experiences. Are ALL chevy's like this? Maybe not. Does this make Chevy a bad truck, certainly not. Accuracy of a speedometer figures in about 1/10th of a percent of a truck's value to me, which is the same priority ZBad places on torque. I simply wanted to raise awareness about this possibility. Thanks again.
  • leathal02leathal02 Member Posts: 114
    I dont see how the speedometers could be off now, well they could, but that would mean that the whole computer system in the chevys would be screwy, so i would think that the newer ones would be pretty reliable seeing that they are of a more computerize origin

    i could see an older one being off seeing that it was not digital, but the digital ones are probably pretty precise
  • bigsnagbigsnag Member Posts: 394
    I had a '88 Merkur (Ford product) with a speedo off by, right at 12%, fast. It was all totally computerized. The speedo reading, the odometer, the fuel used, range to empty, current mpg, evrything. Just because the speedo might be set to show 5 mph faster than you are actually traveling, doesn't mean anything else is screwed up at all, except for things that use current speed in a calculation, such as instantaneous mpg, which I don't think any new trucks have this as a feature.
  • leathal02leathal02 Member Posts: 114
    i didnt think that anyone had digital stuff way back then

    didnt even know that they had computers in vehicles then, except i know that the cadillac was extremely advanced for its time
  • fordtough1fordtough1 Member Posts: 14
    Just for the record my 5.4 extended cab 4x4 averages between 17 and 18 mpg. When I take it easy I get better.
  • bigsnagbigsnag Member Posts: 394
    leathal02,
    Yep, it was all electronic. I found it out when my ground wire came off of my output shaft speed sensor on the back of the tranny and my speedo went dead.

    fordtough1,
    I appreciate you coming in and telling everyone what's up. Like Chevy's not putting out what they are supposed to, and the speedo's being off. About the Cobra's, I actually brought that up in an effort to be objective and point out that numbers quoted by companies are sometimes inflated (however, at least Ford is currently fixing the Cobra problem). It's what happens on the dyno at the rear wheels that counts. I might also warn you that some people active in this thread are quite sensitive yet also volatile when you say anything about their beloved Chevy's. Remember, I got your back.
  • RoclesRocles Member Posts: 982
    ZBAD,
    Remember the sales figures that you claim didn't exist?? Post 137 in toic 863. Do the math. Ford outsells GM combined and ask kcram--I think it's the third straight year. I know.....it was awile ago....but I feel vindicated.
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    My brother and I went for a testdrive in an Excursion this past week. The computer readout said we were getting 6.6 and 6.8 mpg!! While it may be heavier than a F-250 or F-350, I still would not want to see the numbers - 8 or 9 mpg??
    Maybe 10 cruising with the wind?
  • swobigswobig Member Posts: 634
    I guess that's the price you pay for such a tank. Why not just buy a military 5 ton with the diesel. Probably gets a little better mileage and is even bigger still. Just kidding - I would expect 8-9 also, but that's a lot of truck. Take care...
  • BrutusBrutus Member Posts: 1,113
    The mpg of the Excursion will be pretty close to the Superduty. It might even do a little better since it will be more aerodynamic, similar to a pickup with a shell. A reading on the trip computer over a few mile test drive won't give you an accurate indication.

    With that said, the Excursion is not going to get awesome gas mileage. The Excursion with the V-10 is like a Suburban with the 454. The Excursion with the V-10 and 3.73 axle ratio will probably get 10-11 in around town and 14 on the hwy. Yoiu can probably expect 8-10 towing. Trailer Life Magazine did a pre-release test run with the Excursion towing a decent size trailer.
  • z71billz71bill Member Posts: 1,986
    I do not think The Excursion will get 10-11 in town and 14 mpg on hiway. That is what my next door neighbor gets with his Expedition. I would expect the Expedition would do better than the Excursion. I have seen several Excursions on the road in Houston and they are butt ugly. The real slam on the excursion is the 3/4 ton suburban out tows them. What is the point of this vehicle?
  • RoclesRocles Member Posts: 982
    I guess the point of this vehicle is bragging rights for yuppie Ford owners over their yuppie GM counterparts. Soon, Ford will offer an inboard/outboard motor for the excursion so it can appeal to the Navy. Pop some harpoon missles on this boat and it could singlehandly blow Panama away.
    Now I know why the Navy isn't building any more FFGs!!
  • BrutusBrutus Member Posts: 1,113
    The Excursion can carry up to nine people and tow a trailer. One of the groups that will use a truck like this will be outdoor tour companies, such as those who transport skiers, backpackers, rafters, etc. They often tow a trailer with gear or boats and transport lots of people. Of course, there will be a lot of people who buy one just to have one. As for the "ugly" comment, that's obviously a Chevy fan who also thinks the Superduty is unattractive.

    I'd be interested to see the tow ratings. I don't have the Excursion figures in front of me, but I'd guess it is the standard 10,000 conventional tow rating for Ford 3/4 and 1 ton trucks. I'll verify that tow rating for the Excursion when I get home and look up that Trailer Life article. They usually post that info, although there the article was a prerelease article, so it may not be in there.

    Looking at my 1999 Tow Rating book, it says the max tow rating for the Suburban is 10,000 pounds with the 7.4L V-8 and 4.10 axle ratio. If you use the 6.5L diesel or one of the other V-8s that tow rating drops to 8,000 pounds and lower. If you have other tow ratings for the Suburban or have better info on the Excursion tow ratings, please post them so I don't mislead anyone.

    As for mpg, I think the Trailer Life article quoted some of those as well. I'll look them up. I still can't imagine them being much different than the Superduty. The Superduty also has a diesel option.
  • BrutusBrutus Member Posts: 1,113
    One other comment about tow ratings. With the pickups, Ford and Dodge both have trucks rated to tow more than 14,000 pounds. However, both also have a max conventional towing limit of 10,000 pounds. The amounts over 10,000 pounds are for 5th wheel towing.

    I can't say for sure, but I suspect Chevy has a footnote by any of their tow ratings over 10,000 that say the same thing. Of course, Chevy has very few tow ratings in excess of 10,000 pounds. As discussed in previous posts, their max tow ratings are thousands below Ford and Dodge in most cases, and never higher. The new Chevy heavy duty line might address this deficiency.
  • leathal02leathal02 Member Posts: 114
    i saw somewhere for the new surburban equipped with the 6.0l and i guess the 4.10 rear axle could tow 10,500 lbs of course in the 3/4 ton model

    i wonder what the tow rating would be when they put the new gas and the new diesel in it??
  • z71billz71bill Member Posts: 1,986
    Motor Trend November 99 issue does a comparison of the Excursion and the GMC Yukon XL (Subrban twin in 2000 model) The GMC kicks butt on the Ford. Some information from the article.

    Tow rating 10,100 GMC 10,000 Ford
    Braking from 60 mph 142 feet GMC 167 feet Ford
    0-60 mph 9.1 seconds GMC 10.1 Ford
    1/4 mile 16.8 seconds @ 82 mph GMC 17.5 @ 77.7 Fd
    The GMC also has better handling, ride, A/C and it even fits in a standard garage.

    I do like the looks of the F-250 super duty, but it is way more truck than I need. It is the rear end of the Excursion that makes me look the other way. It looks like a large mini van - almost as bad as the Lincoln Navigator. That is also one ugly truck.. Of course looks are subjective - one mans dog is anothers dream. I guess when you compare the Excursion to the Navigator or to the F-150 Tauras it is not really that bad.
  • BrutusBrutus Member Posts: 1,113
    Excursion vs Yukon? That's a typical magazine comparison. Why not compare a Taurus to a Silverado? The Yukon is smaller and lighter weight. It should be faster and brake quicker. It does have other limitations, such as passenger and cargo carrying ability.

    A 1/2 ton Silverado with a V-8 will be faster than my Ford 1 ton dually with a V-10 or the diesel, but it's not going to do everything my truck will do. Apples to apples is the Suburban with the 454 and the 4.10 axle ratio and the Excursion with the V-10 and 4.10 axle ratio. I'm sure the Suburban would fare just fine. Regardless of which vehicle won, it would be close. Yukon vs Excursion is not apples to apples.

    Like I said, 10,000 pounds is pretty much the max conventional tow rating. It's not that you can't go higher, but I know Ford and Dodge don't recommend it. Ford won't classify a truck higher than 10,000 for conventional towing. It's just not that safe towing that much weight on a hitch. A fifth wheel hitch has a lot more stability, which is why the rating is higher. Most (if not all) conventional tow trailers are under 10,000 pounds. The 3/4 ton Superduty with the V-10 is rated to tow over 14,000 pounds, depending on what setup you get. However, Ford will not rate it to tow more than 10,000 with a conventional trailer. Since the Excursion can't tow a fifth wheel, 10,000 is going to be the max Ford will rate it.

    As you said, vehicle appearance is a matter of preference. I like the rear doors on the Excursion. Chevy is supposedly building another big SUV that will be bigger than the Excursion. For both manufacturers, it's a macho thing. The Excursion was a natural progression since they had the new Superduty frame and they didn't have a SUV as big as the Suburban.
  • RoclesRocles Member Posts: 982
    Z71Bill,
    Kind of like the S-10 and it's bigger twin: Silverado??
  • cdeancdean Member Posts: 1,110
    Brutus

    the magazine compared the Yukon XL, not the Yukon. GMC is keeping the Yukon name, but is dropping the suburban name. The new GMC "suburban" is called the Yukon XL, for extra long, i guess.

    It is still a half ton offering. but i am surprised that this half ton GMC has higher tow rating than the EXcursion. might check on those numbers.

    the test was of the 1/2 ton Yukon XL, but you can currently order the 3/4 version with the 6.0 v8. THe 1/2 ton has coil link rear suspension, was a big reason why the GMC fared so much better off road AND on road. the 3/4 GM 'suburbans' are getting the normal leaf spring package, which would make them a little rougher riding.
  • BrutusBrutus Member Posts: 1,113
    I know Ford won't rate the Excursion higher than 10,000 pounds since it's for conventional towing, so if the Yukon is rated at 10,500, it is rated higher.

    The 1999 Tow Rating book I have doesn't show any Chevy 1/2 ton truck with a tow rating in excess of 8,200 pounds. The C1500 Suburban is rated at 6,500 pounds with the 5.7L V-8 and 8,000 pounds with the diesel. The C2500 Suburban with the 7.4L V-8 is rated at 10,000. The tow rating book I have is already outdated since it came out at the beginning of the year. It's also not all inclusive. For example, there are no listings for the 6.0L. They may not have been available when the book went to print.
  • z71billz71bill Member Posts: 1,986
    You are correct about the tow rating being the 3/4 ton with the 6.0L. This would be a better comparison anyway. I do not think the 6.0 would hurt the performance. The GM would still put the Excursion to shame. The real joke about the Excursion is all the bad press it has been getting. It has become the poster child of the "WE hate SUV's" club.- For the record I do not belong to this group- Not the reaction Ford expected. I am sure someone in marketing thought - we have to build one bigger than the Suburban - even if it tows less, rides like crap, sucks (gas) and is ugly -the public will love us, but then GM has made its share of public relations blunders too..

    S-10 is the Silverado's little brother so what is the problem with a slight family resemblance?

    Even I must give Ford some credit for the F-150 - It sells more than any other..
  • BrutusBrutus Member Posts: 1,113
    Ford is not having any trouble selling the Excursion. They can't build them fast enough, same as the Superduty. Say what you will, but the sales figures will speak for themselves. My Superduty dually drives awesome, in my bias opinion. I'm sure the Excursion will drive smoother, if for the single rear wheel aspect alone and it certainly won't be any thirstier. Since I'm completely satisfied with the truck and performance, I suspect there will not be many complaints.

    The environmentalist gave Ford a marketing coup by announcing the Excursion as enemy #1. Free publicity. Tree huggers aren't the market.

    I parked my truck next to a new black dually GMC Sierra 3500 4x4 at lunch today. Both trucks were the equivalent offering from Ford and Chevy. There was no comparison. The GMC looked like a Tonka truck next to mine. And we've already discussed the tow ratings, so we know the performance followed the same line as the appearance.
  • cdeancdean Member Posts: 1,110
    I think the curb weight of the Expedition is at least 1000lbs heavier than the Superduty, so i believe the Excursion will get a few mpg less than the truck version. thats why they put a 45 gallon fuel tank in the dern thing.

    ford targeted about 50,000 in sales. i think the suburbans sold around 80K last year. those were mostly to the soccer moms. i can't see the mall and soccer moms wanting something bigger, thats why the expedition and tahoe are selling well, they are a more manageable and parkable size. Unless they really are a lot of people out there who need a diesel SUV to go get groceries...

    yeah, there are outfitters and such that could justify this vehicle, but i've seen lots of suburbans tried before, and usually a truck ends up being more "useful" than the SUV does.
  • BrutusBrutus Member Posts: 1,113
    The 2000 V-10 has 35 more hp (310) and 25 ft-lb more torque (425) than the 1999. I've got one of those wimpy 99s you've been so critical of. Like I've said, I've never been short for power or acceleration. That's not to say that I won't eventually consider some modifications. With the heavy camper, I'm a firm believer that you can never have too much power as long as the rest of the truck can keep up.

    I'm still trying to get some more feedback from people who have the Gale Banks modifications to see if it's worth the investment. I figure if I opt to do the Banks mods, next May would be a prime time. I'm planning a road trip to Southern CA, which is where Banks is located. I figure by the time I pull out of here in May, the truck will have over 30,000 miles on it. The trip down there will add another 3,500, so my warranty will almost be expired. Then again, I could buy a snowmobile (another thing on my wish list for next year) for the cost of the Banks mods and the vacation to CA. Maybe Ed McMahon will call.....
  • swobigswobig Member Posts: 634
    Ed's coming to my house!!
  • BrutusBrutus Member Posts: 1,113
    I could be wrong, but I think the purpose of this site is to waste our time debating trucks.....
  • akjbmwakjbmw Member Posts: 231
    If the manufacturer of an engine got the “most available power” out of an engine the first year it was introduced, there wouldn’t be that incentive or excitement to be the “first one on your block” when the next model year is introduced. We wouldn’t be having all these “when will we get” discussions about the next improved version of an engine.

    I, too, would go for the best price for a given package. No absolute brand loyalty. Even for BMW. However, I admit that no matter how logically I approach this truck-buying thing (I am a computer field type), there would be emotional preferences that would affect the choice of one truck over the other. How many dollars this preference means is yet to be determined.

    What I really want… is a truck that was not made on Monday morning or Friday afternoon. I want it to not fail unnecessarily or prematurely. I just want to have fun (like a teenager?).
    You know: 3/4 ton, extended cab, extra door on drivers side, all comfort options, tow package, 4x4. Daily commuter in medium elevation (snow four or five times a year with morning after ice). Towing a 4-5000 pound trailer two or three times a year.

    I lurk amongst these postings to be able to look at and make an educated choice from the trucks on the lot when I shop. After discarding all the “my trucks better than your truck (‘cause I couldn’t bear to admit that I screwed up)” epistles, it is actually very educational.

    Thank you all. Adrian.
  • seacrowseacrow Member Posts: 22
    First of all, I was not calling you guys rednecks. At least I did not mean to if you perceived it as such. Perhaps in hindsight I may have been a bit abrupt after reading the previous few hundred posts as a new visitor. And perhaps the last statement I made was a bit hypocritcal. So, I am sorry.

    I will say though that my 99 F-150 4.6 Auto with 3.55 LS did a great job of towing a 2100 lb. auto transport with a 4400lb. 71 GMC pickup on it. Add on the regular 1500lbs. of crap I keep in the back and that is a good load. I towed it 600 miles with OD off at 65mph and got 12.0 mpg. I am very pleased with my truck. It performed flawlessly. I had my doubts at first with the small eight. I love this truck. It is the epitome of trucks in this class.

    I also rode in a Suburban today and it was nice as well but it was not built as well as any Ford (truck) I have been riden in or driven.

    I am a true Ford fan.
  • RoclesRocles Member Posts: 982
    seacrow,

    See how easy it becomes? Soon you'll be spouting as many opinions as us!! Thanks for the clarification, I understand.

    Roc
  • lwittorflwittorf Member Posts: 96
    I have been reading the posts in this cat. and I am going to say I looked at Dodge, Ford & Chev. I did not like the Dodge because of the shift lever for 4/4 & the box on center console. I liked the ford handleing and ride but I wanted the 40-20-40 seats with power and you can't get it only 60-40. So I got Chev. don't care for some of the wind noise but ride is good power is good fuel milage is 16-17 not real good. end comment is all have good & bad points get what fits you.
  • BrutusBrutus Member Posts: 1,113
    I guess it depends on how you define redneck, but I suspect most people might think I resemble that remark.....at least as much a white collar worker can. Is redneck a derogatory comment?
  • RoclesRocles Member Posts: 982
    Not to me. Then again, roofers tan more than the necks.......
  • 1rak1rak Member Posts: 1
    I just talked to the local Cheverolet dealer in town here, and they thought maybe late November, early December GM would make its move on the price and if it was to be an option or standard on the Silverado, anyone heard anything else?
  • BrutusBrutus Member Posts: 1,113
    The J.D. Power and Associates '99 Initial Quality Study 2 Report is out. The magazine I found it in was called Sport Truck. The article said:

    "The '99 Initial Quality Study 2 is based on 41,004 owners of '99 model-year vehicles and monitors the number of problems new-vehicle owners face during the the first three months of onwership. The study is the industry benchmark of initial vehicle quality standards and is measured in terms of problems per 100 vehicles and covers 135 specific problem areas across nine problem categories."

    The magazine listed the top 3 vehicles in six categories of vehicles (Compact pickup, fullsize pickup, mini sport/utility, compact sport/utility, fullsize sport/utility, luxury sport/utility). The top three for fullsize pickups, in order were: 1)Ford F-Series light-duty; 2) Dodge Ram; 3) Ford F-250 super-duty. The top three for compact were: 1) Dodge Dakota; 2) Mazda B-Series; 3) Ford Ranger. No '99 Silverados or other Chevys in the bunch.

    The only Chevy that ranked in the top 3 in any category was a the Chevy Tahoe, which ranked 2nd in fullsize sport/utility, just behind the Toyota Landcruiser and just ahead of the 3rd place Expedition (the Explorer finished 3rd in the compact SUV category).

    I'm not sure if the discussion of the new Excursion showed up here or not, but I did read some interesting "green" info about it in the Sport Truck mag and a couple of other mags. It will be classifed as a LEV (Low Emissions Vehicle). It will have 45% less emissions than required. It's also made from 20% recycled parts and 85% of it's parts can be recycled. In their test on flat hwy, it got 18.1 mpg with the diesel engine. The 2000 F-Series will also be classifed as LEV.
  • BrutusBrutus Member Posts: 1,113
    The Ford Superduty was a new model year vehicle also and it finished third. I've never put much faith in stats or reports but, since I read it, I figured I'd post it.

    The best resale figure is one stat that has no significance for me. But, if I'm not mistaken, the fine print says that Chevy got the resale info from J.D. Power and Associates, which is the same reporting agency that you don't agree with on the Quality report. The resale figures are skewed by the fact that Ford has a good chunk of sales to fleets and RVers who use and abuse their trucks more.

    Another factor that may play into it is the purchase price. I've heard that it's pretty hard to get a current model year Chevy for close to dealer invoice. I've only heard that as a rumor, so I'm definitely not stating it as fact. I do know that you can get a Ford for within $1,000 of dealer invoice, and often closer to $500 over invoice, if you do a little shopping. If someone can get a new Ford for $3,000-$4,000 below MSRP, it will drive down the price people are willing to pay for a used Ford. For example, if the window sticker of a new Ford is $30,000 and all of the dealers charged that much for the truck, someone would have a lot better luck selling their used Ford with 10,000 miles on it for more than if the dealers were all selling the trucks for $26,000.

    By the way, if you have the resale info, it's be informative if you could post it. I've always been interested to know exactly how much higher the resale value is and what period the figures represent. I believe it's a 10 year period, but I'm not sure when that period supposedly started and when it ended. It would also be interesting to see how it is calculated. Is the resale value based on the ratio between actual resale price and MSRP or is it between actual resale price and actual purchase price? The latter would be a better indicator, but personally, I think an even better indicator would be average resale divided by average purchase price.
  • lvstanglvstang Member Posts: 149
    OK. Speaking of hiding. You never responded to Roc's sales figures. Maybe it was one of the times you were kicked off the site?
  • leathal02leathal02 Member Posts: 114
    around 29K for my chevy Z-71 sticker was like 31K
  • BrutusBrutus Member Posts: 1,113
    zbad, you can't disagree with me about how they calculate resale value, because I don't know how they do it. My posts was a request for someone who did know how it was calculated to post that information.

    With that said, any manufacturer can find a figure or a study or a poll to support their position. That's why I don't put too much stock in the claims of any of the Big 3 when it comes to quoting those things. Hard data like sales figures are fact and not subjective, although I guess someone could argue that the purchasers of the leader in the market are all brain-deficient, but that would be a real stretch.

    I'd say it's out for debate whether or not recalls or TSBs are good indicators of quality. Recalls and TSBs are almost always voluntary. It seems to me that recently one of the Big 3 lost a major lawsuit because there was undeniable evidence that they knew a defect could cause a fire during an accident, but didn't issue a recall because it wasn't cost effective compared to paying off the number of wrongful death lawsuits. If I'm not mistaken, they actually had a dollar figure per death precalculated.

    I guess I don't have a problem with a manufacturer admitting (post-release) that they have found a better/safer thing they could have done to a vehicle, and then telling the public to bring it on and they'll fix it for free. TSBs are the same thing. It alerts mechanics to potential problems, so that when someone brings their vehicle in with a similar complaint, the mechanic can look immediately to that area, rather than starting from scratch and spending much longer trying to figure out the problem (and possibly not finding the right thing).

    Since most decisions to issue a recall or TSB is usually voluntary, the willingness to issue either can hinge on company philosophy. Some recalls are forced by regulators (even some of the voluntary ones that are done under pressure of impending mandatory one by regulators), but those are a small minority of the recalls.
  • BrutusBrutus Member Posts: 1,113
    zbad, reread my last post. It was based on your boast about GM having fewer recalls (which I take that figure at your word, since I haven't looked it up). Fewer recalls and TSBs doesn't mean fewer problems. They may actually mean an unwillingness to admit a problem and fix it under warranty. I'm not saying that is the case with GM, but the number of recalls and TSBs is often a matter of corporate policy.
  • BrutusBrutus Member Posts: 1,113
    It's all a matter of opinion:

    Service bulletin: courtesy info provided by manufacturer's engineers to dealers, so mechanics can address maintenance issues quickly for the consumer.

    Recall: Manufacturer's engineers have identified problems that might represent potential safety hazards, so the manufacturer will agree to fix something for free.

    Like I've said before, what is wrong with a manufacturer volunteering to fix something for free? One of my recalls was because there was a very remote possiblility that an object of a very specific size, flying off the ground at a very specific angle might manage to slice a brake line. Ford issued a voluntary recall for something that had very little potential liability for them. Although I do my routine oil changes at the local lube-n-tune, I take it into the dealer about every 10,000 miles for the routine servicing and tell them to take care of any recall items.

    Where did you get the most loyal customer stat from? Maybe a J.D. Power & Associates study? Those guys that you said had no credibility? How do you pick and choose which study to believe? "This one says nice things about Chevy, so it's good. This one says Chevys aren't as good, so it's bad." Take a look at my post about the J.D. Power & Associates study. I quoted where I found it and how they tabulated their info. That doesn't mean you shouldn't quote a study that you've heard about but haven't actually seen. You should however qualify the statement by saying something like, "I've heard that Chevy has the highest customer loyalty".....and then admit you heard it on the Chevy commercial.

    Ford's shifty history goes back farther than GM? See paragraph above.

    I've never said that Chevy is an inferior truck. I will say that Chevy doesn't currently make a truck that can do what I need my truck to do as effectively or efficiently as my truck can do it. But remember, I have a 1 ton dually 4x4 in snow country with a 4000+ pound slide-in camper. The Ford and Dodge duallys far out number the Chevy duallys up here, and there is a reason for it.
  • riccirriccir Member Posts: 16
    Please define.........
  • dberrydberry Member Posts: 22
    I think you better do some research on what GM means by Hydroformed. It's a process that could permit them to reduce the weight of steel to accomplish the same task, saving them money. they don't have to add additional factors of safety into their process to allow for loss of steel from the traditional process used by Ford & Dodge. Oh, yes, Ford is using 2 different Steel strength, high strength steel for the 150/250 light duty and regular steel for the Super Duty. Does any of you know why?
  • smcpherrsmcpherr Member Posts: 114
    2sly,

    Not sure about the welding comment. It is my (unprofessional, of course) experience that welded components are stronger than formed materials. I had a material strength course in college that covered this, using the Northridge earthquake as a case point. In several instances of structure failure, (bridges in general, but included several other structures) metal components that were welded together failed within the component, not at the weld. I saw several examples where 1/2" steel sheared the length of a component, only to be stopped by a weld. Not once did I see an example (several in-class, a few on-site, and about a hundred slides) and I do not recall ever once seeing a weld fail. Feel free to correct me, I am just reporting what I remember, I am not a professional welder.

    Also, a while ago it was mentioned that Chevy's frames are hardly ever totaled, mainly repaired. I remember reading somewhere that Chevy's new frame is a hydroformed three piece segment. It is not designed to provide front to back strength, rather it is designed to deflect and buckle in an impact, reducing the amount of energy transmitted into the passenger cabin. I have also heard that while it works well in high speed impacts, it also will deform in low speed impacts. This might mean that noticible deflection in the frame might be noticeable in a 10 mph accident, requiring frame straightening. Due to the three-piece section, if you are rear-ended by another truck going 45 mph faster than you, the rear section will deform and buckle. You, the driver, will not feel the effects of a 45 mph impact, but perhaps a 20 mph impact, much less, saving you from more significant injury. (As a note, just because you don't drive a new Chevy doesn't mean you are in significant risk in an accident. All frames will deflect/buckle/reduce the energy in an accident. The Chevy will just likely deflect/buckle/reduce more. How much more? I don't know. And I am not about to do the math, I don't have an extra month or so to waste. So don't ask.)

    The good news with Chevy's new frame? It will reduce the amount of energy in an accident. The bad news? You will have to have your frame straightened/replaced more often than someone who doesn't have a hydroformed three piece frame. The good news? You may only have to repair/replace a third of the frame, not the whole thing, saving you and Chevy time and money.

    Gas mileage report: 5.4L V8 auto, ext cab 4x4 off road, 3.73 gears. In town averaging 16 mpg. Freeways averaging 20, not including one 560 mile trip from Lincoln, NE to Milwaukee, WI with a completely full load in cab, completely full load under tarp in bed, and a completely full 6' x 12' Uhaul towing behind. Several boxes of books, a large oak desk, large oak cabinet and a heavier-than-it-looks oak table included with the normal I'm-moving-to-a-new-house stuff. I have no guess as to the weight, but it was heavier than heck. I kept it out of OD, it never shifted out of third, even on some rather long uphill climbs. Averaged 17 mpg.

    One more thought before I go. The front and back bumpers on Chevy appear to be lower than my Ford F-150. This does affect the outcome in an accident somewhat. If this is true, when a Chevy truck gets rear-ended, the "crumple zones" of the hydroformed three piece will come in handy. If a Ford gets hit, the non-deflecting frame with a higher bumper may force the energy down and under the truck. I have heard of a truck getting rear ended by a Corvette going about 60 mph faster than the truck. Got caught fiddling with the stereo coming up to a stop light, I guess. Vette hit, got pushed under the truck. Shaved the top of the vette off. Damage to the vette was total, including the driver. Damage to the truck: some small dimples in the bumper, two blown tires, minor frame misalignment and some underbody damage. Driver was fine. Just thought I'd share.

    Sorry about the long post.
  • smcpherrsmcpherr Member Posts: 114
    2 sly,

    No, your deductions are not common sense, and I don't think a reasonable comparison can be made between Ford F-150 frame and the Chevy Silverado frame by an engineer who hasn't done the calculations, let alone a non-engineer. Hydroforming is a much different process than welding, so even though you are comparing two similar looking frames, manufacturing methods used to make the two are not the same, so the two cannot be compared by the standard "this one uses newer technology so it must be better" approach. Honestly comparing the two frames would require an in-depth material strength calculation which would likely cause headaches for the most skilled engineers with all the latest relevant computer software. Sure, any non-engineer can deduct logical reasoning through observation, but that doesn't mean its right. Common sense doesn't lead one to think the hydroformed frame is stronger. In any complex structure, the highest load concentrations will most likely exist in the corners, where one section meets another. In a welded frame, these connections are welded together, and you get back to the statement that welded joints can be stronger than the rest of the structure. With a hydroformed frame, which I am going to have to make the assumption that material thickness is constant throughout the structure, there is no reinforcing of the corners, and there is constant material strength through the entire structure. In the corners, where load concentration is high, the constant material strength creates a weak spot. If this is how Chevy engineers designed it, I would expect to see frame failure originating from corners. Maybe the engineers at Chevy made the frame thicker in these areas. I don't know. I don't work for Chevy (although I would consider it if they offered) and I don't know any who does. I am not about to waste the next few months crawling around various pickups with calipers and a notepad to prove you wrong. But I also don't think anyone can definitively say I am wrong unless they have either done the calculations themselves or have true scientific proof.

    I may be wrong about the Chevy frame being a 3 piece, but I honestly believe I read it somewhere. I will try to find out where, but no promises. And for the record, my Ford has never been to the shop, doesn't need to go, tows better than I will ever honestly need it to, and has more than enough power to satisfy me.
  • smcpherrsmcpherr Member Posts: 114
    One more thing 2 sly,

    When you break a bone, the calcium that builds up in the break does not come from the bone, rather from the blood, therefore the rest of the bone does not become weaker, it retains the same strength level. You are correct that the point where the bone broke will become stronger than the rest of the bone. The bone is therefore no more likely to break than before, but more likely to break in a different place than before.
  • BrutusBrutus Member Posts: 1,113
    I found where 2sly gets his reading material. I was browsing the mags at the local grocery store and found one called Chevy Truck. On the front cover, it referenced "Why Fords Suck". So, I checked out that two page article. One part talked about the power advantage of the modified vette engine in the Chevy truck, and even said (with pride) that many Chevy truck owners are hot rodders. A second part tried to draw a correlation between the significantly higher number of after-market parts for the Chevy and how that meant that the Chevy truck was better. A third section talked about the failure of the Edsel and how, if it had not failed, we have Edsel Explorers and pickups instead. The article sounded very similar to the rationale often used in his posts.

    Off-Road had a much more informative comparison of the Silverado and the F-150. They rated seven factors and assigned points. The highest score by either truck in any component was an 8, so I'm guessing the scale was 1-8 or that neither truck warranted a 10 in any category.

    There was one rating area that the magazine said wasn't going to reflect accurately because the F-150 design in this area was changed from their test model. The topic area was "Ease of changing into 4wd". The F-150 they tested had a floor mounted shifter. The current F-150 has the knob on the dash. As tested, the Ford ranked a 4 because of the floor shifter compared to a 7 for the Silverado.

    Ignoring that ranking area, the test was a dead heat. The trucks were within one point of each other in all areas except for two areas. The Chevy scored a 8 in mpg compared to a 6 for the Ford. The highest mpg they could get from the Ford was slightly over 16. The highest they got with the Chevy was around 19. I'm not sure which rear end either truck had. The Ford outscored the Chevy in handling with an 8 compared to a 6 for the Chevy.

    All in all, total the points up and it's even, which is realistically how close the Silverado and F-150 are once we put our personal bias aside (obviously, me included).
  • epoeepoe Member Posts: 56
    Welds are conveinent to join similar metals; however the head in the process typically weakens joints. Bolt are the thang! Bolt it up! Stronger!
  • epoeepoe Member Posts: 56
    heat from weld weakens surrounding metal ;)
This discussion has been closed.