Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

'99 Silverado/Sierra vs. F-150



  • BrutusBrutus 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 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 Posts: 16
    Please define.........
  • dberrydberry 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 Posts: 114

    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 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 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 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 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 Posts: 56
    heat from weld weakens surrounding metal ;)
  • smcpherrsmcpherr Posts: 114

    True, heat can weaken the metal. But bolting requires drilling which creates microfractures around the hole, which can lead to failure. Most bolted metal structures I have encountered have a flat metal plate welded to one of the components, so there would be little advantage to bolting, would just create another reason for failure. Again, I am no expert on the subject, so I may still be wrong.


    I too am on my second late-model F-150. Wanna know why? I leased the first, and the lease was up this summer. I really wanted to keep it, but I also wanted 4wd, so I got the exact same truck, with 4wd. I was happy with the first, I am happy with this one. Is that a good reason to be on my second Ford? Also, scientific magazines within the automotive field do exist, and just like most truely scientific journals, you can't buy them at a magazine stand. I forget the names now, but I know they are out there. I haven't seen one devoted to trucks though. And I thought you did buy Fords for the last ?? years. Did they all suck, or was this just a "I got a lemon so now all will feel my wrath" thing?
  • BrutusBrutus Posts: 1,113
    It's ridiculous to say (or imply) that Ford's are poor tow vehicles. Obviously, you've never done any serious towing. I can assure you that my wimpy OHC has no problem cruising through mountain passes in Alaska with my heavy slide-in camper. It certainly isn't gutless in any part of the powerband, especially not in the 40-70 mph range when I need to pass quickly into oncoming traffic lanes on windy one way roads. I'm sure the 454 would do fine as well (and you will certainly argue, better), but to say that my Ford lacks power loaded to the max is just plain wrong.

    Put the 5.4 in the F-150 with a 3.73 axle ratio for towing, and you're going to have power to spare. Run it against the 5.3 in the Silverado with the 3.73 towing an equally heavy trailer and there aren't you're not going to see the Chevy running away from the Ford on extended tow runs through mountainous terrain. It just ain't going to happen.

    And don't start comparing the 6.0L to the 5.4L, because the 6.0 is a bigger, higher rated engine. I'm sure you'll bring up the test of the 6.0L vs the V-10 that you read in a magazine (that you say you don't read), but we've already had that discussion. Take a 3/4 ton Silverado and strap on the heaviest 5th wheel it is rated to carry. Strap on the exact same size 5th wheel to a similiarly equipped F-250 Superduty with the V-10 and the same axle ratios and run a few thousand miles together through the Rockies. You'll notice the torque advantage.

    It's also ridiculous to say that the current line of Ford trucks is crap. They are bigger, stronger, and faster with higher tow ratings, GVWRs, GCWRs and better mpg than the models they replace. The engines are more efficient and will last longer because of the better technology. There is nothing inferior about the new trucks compared to the previous lines of Ford trucks unless its a personal preference for the appearance.
  • I am trying to be fair about this and note the good points of the new chevies and you continue to be abrasive about this. I towed the 71 GMC I have with my new Ford 4.6 supercab on an auto transport for 600 miles. Total weight was 6500 pounds plus the normal 1000 pounds of crap I keep in the bed of my truck. I had no problems towing it, I wasn't even fatigued by the trip. I suspect a chevy would do just as well but do it differently. Torque is a big factor in towing and I do not want to rev an engine that high to get it like you do in a chevy. OHC has been proven in Japanese trucks for decades, OHC engines run virtually forever and produce torque lower in the rpm range. Going up steep hills towing in my truck requires only a gentle push on the accelerator, not a downshift to get in the powerband since my torque comes on at around 2500 rpms.

    GM is headed for a government bailout in the near future due to so many clone models and poor quality (check the Consumer Reports used cars to avoid list sometime, it seems like a reasonable list)

    I like GM trucks but I like Ford trucks better I have had Rangers and F-150s and they have all been good.

    So there!
  • bigsnagbigsnag Posts: 394
    A few posts back 2sly admitted that Fords had more power/torque yet he claimed that this aspect had very little (1/10th of a percent) value when choosing a new truck. Now he says Ford engines are anemic? What does that make Chevy, less than anemic? I guess when he capitalized "Scientific Journals" he thought that would make them sound important. "Scientific" in this case is just an adjective modifying the noun, "journals". Unless there is a publication "Scientific Journals", capitalization is not needed. Why do I even read his posts. I thought he was being a little more reasonable lately. I guess he got cut off a few days back or something. Geez.
  • epoeepoe Posts: 56
    How can auto manufacturers need government bailouts? They get them under a different name, municipal/state/federal fleet.. My neighbor drives a goverment car -- chevy monte carlo. If they had to buy their own car (which the use to and from work) they be driving an Accord like me, thus -- govt subsidised buyout! (don't get me started/man ;)
  • bigsnagbigsnag Posts: 394
    I guess you don't read the Dallas Morning News. They had an article about complaints/problems and lemons. Tied for 5th highest in complaint- to-sales ratio were the Chevrolet Blazer, Chevrolet C/K 1500 pickup and the GMC Sierra 1500 pickup. The Ford Explorer and Ford F-150 pickup tied for the fifth-lowest complaint- to-sales ratio. The F-150 was the lowest among trucks. All others ahead of it were cars. This report is of cars and trucks sold in 1998. I'll send anyone a copy of the article just email me
    It was published on the 9th of November page 1A. But I guess since this is not Scientific Journals then you probably doesn't read it because it is SO biased. The Dallas Morning News is probably more like a comic book, huh? Just for laughs.
  • bigsnagbigsnag Posts: 394
    The DMN article was just a report of a list published by the Texas Department of Transportation. I guess they don't know anything about cars or trucks either. Besides, it had nothing to do with what they know about what it takes to repair a car; it was a report of the most problematic cars under the Texas Lemon Law. It doesn't matter whether they know how to change their oil or not. All they do is listen and document people's complaints.

    FACT: Chevy had way more reported problems than Ford!!!

    TSB's are bulletins sent out to dealers based upon customer complaints. Basically, they are to let the mechanics know what people will come in complaining about and to let them know they should fix it, if it is reproducible. As for recalls, issuance is still based upon, to some degree, the manufacturer claiming responsibility for and willingness to correct problems. Neither of these has any bearing on how many problems occur. It only reflects the company's willingness to help a consumer who purchased a car that was defective. Chevy has a long track record of not owning up to mistakes. Do we need to mention side saddle gas tanks? It took many DEATHS and lawsuits before they actually did anything. At least Ford will help a guy out and fix minor problems.
  • smcpherrsmcpherr Posts: 114
    Wow, is this topic dissolving into a kindergarden playground quickly or what? Whats buggin' you 2sly? Everyone here (with the exception of you) pretty much admits that both Ford and Chevy make very good trucks. They are different, but heck, they are supposed to be different. I don't want to drive the same truck everyone else does, I want a truck I like. The only factor that makes one truck superior over the other is the personal preference of the one who is going to buy it. I prefer Ford. You prefer, well, you prefer to insult people who think differently than you. This site isn't about that, though, so if you want to insult someone, go do it somewhere else. Competitiveness can be a good thing, just keep it under control.
  • cdeancdean Posts: 1,110
    not a weld expert, but i am an mech. engineer.
    welded vs non welded frames

    welds are stronger, but the heat caused by welding causes transformation of the steel just outside of the weld. commonly called the "heat-affected" zone. this zone is heated and cooled very quickly creating "martensitic steel", a very stiff and brittle condition. can be cured by heat treatments, but usually isn't because after you weld it, its too big/complex/developed to stick in an autoclave. drilling holes in a frame does not cause microcracks, or weaken it, other than the fact it removed material.

    hydroforming, there is no welding, so there is no need to stamp out the material in a forging die. hydorforming uses ~30%(?) less raw material than forged frames because the process is more efficient. no welding also takes out alot of production time. In the end: cheaper production costs becuase it was done in a fraction of the time, and with less raw material. Stronger because there are no heat affected zones ,and there is continous material.

    The frame rails on my truck are straight. I don't know where any corners would be that seacrow mentioned.

    the fact about the crack stopping at the weld was correct, but had NOTHING to do with the strength of the weld. the weld was an interruption in the rupturing material. it was a physical block. just like if you tape the ends of 2 pieces of paper end to end, with single piece of tape running the length of the touching edges: tear one page toward the tape and slowly rip it all the way, you will be able to tear it up to the piece of tape. you cannot tear pass the tape. BUT, do it again, and instead of tearing it, just pull the papers in opposite directions, the tape turns loose long before the paper tears.
  • smcpherrsmcpherr Posts: 114

    I stand corrected. Thanks for the help.

  • BrutusBrutus Posts: 1,113
    Had to dig pretty far back to the 70s to come up with the Pinto as an example.

    I wonder if the fewer TSBs and recalls by Chevy compared to Ford are directly related to the significantly higher level of complaints by Chevy owners compared to Ford owners. Problem occurs, issue a TSB or recall.....or don't and get your customers complaining. The Dallas Morning News was the second source quoted in this forum that indicated Ford had higher customer satisfaction. In the J.D. Power & Associates Quality Study report, the Ford F-Series ranked #1, the Dodge Ram ranked #2 and the Superduty ranked #3. They only listed the top three. Although we can all find studies to support our views, I haven't heard a counter with anything recent concerning quality, customer satisfaction etc. in support of Chevy. You can only go on quoting 10 year studies for so long. How about a quality and/or consumer satisfaction survey in support of Chevy that covers the period since Ford introduced their new "wimpy" redesigned F-150 line in 1997? I'm sure the reports are out there. Dig a little.

    I challenge 2sly to provide a list of the top 20 bass fishermen in the US and the truck they drive.

    If you tow a 7,000 pound bass boat with a 5.3L Chevy Silverado 1/2 ton extended cab with a 3.73 axle ratio and auto transmission and you put the same size bass boat behind a 5.4L F-150 extended cab with a 3.73 axle ratio and auto transmission, you're not going to see any dramatic differences.

    As far as IQ, mine is somewhere over 300. Then again, in addition to being a Ford owner, I'm also Polish, so we use a different scale.

    And as I've said before, my handle is Brutus, not Bubba.....
  • BrutusBrutus Posts: 1,113
    I also forgot to mention that I lived in Dallas for all of 1998. So let's see, I'm a Ford owner, Polish, mid 30s, single, spent time in Texas......I can only imagine 2sly's opinion of me.
  • z71billz71bill Posts: 2,000
    I am a chevy owner and I agree that 2sly4u is a jerk. I looked at the Ford before buying the Sivlerado - no question the F-150 is a solid truck. The Chevy (in my opinion) rides & handles better and seemed to have more zip when you step on the gas. I also like the extra room in the cab and better MPG rating (so far I am getting 15.8 mpg with an average speed of 25mph) Not bad for a full size 4x4. I love the auto trac - it is great when the roads are wet. I live in Houston so it is hotter than hell and the A/C in the Chevy cools off quicker that the fords I drove.
  • with Bill about 2sly4u, but i think that the people who are responding to him are joining him in his childly games.

    This whole topic cracks me up.
    and i agree with brutus about comparing the bass bout of similiar origin, with the two truck(silverado, F-150) that there would be little difference.

    BTW i drive a '99 silverado Z-71

    I dont agree that ford builds better "packages" or whatever

    They are both very good trucks, they are neck and neck in comparison. I chose my chevy because the gas mileage, the back seat, but most of all because i have been chevy all my life and in my opinion chevy looks the best.

    Im not knocking the F-150, but thats my opinion.

    They are both damn good trucks

    Bill is that 25mph on the loop(610 during rush hour or just anyways??)
    I am in brenham, just down the road from you
  • It is nice to hear from you guys. I agree with both of you. I would buy a chevy truck and probably be happy with it. I like them very much and the new engines sound great. I also like the back seat, I really like the dashboard design, and I like the trans temp gage that is available on some models (correct me if I am wrong). There are pros and cons to both. I do think, however, that Ford offers more overall combinations/packages than Chevy does. I bought the Ford cause it felt better to me and the Chevies I drove were the very first 99's. I have also had Ford trucks for about 12 years now including Rangers and two current generation F-150s. They have all provided great trouble-free service so I had no reason to venture away. Actually the Rangers were some of the best overall vehicles I had ever driven, very impressive and even better than the first F-150 (98) I had.

    It is nice to hear from you guys. I am new to the board and was worried that 2bla bla 4 whatever was the cream of the crop, apparently not.

    I guess in general, I like trucks (the Tundra does not count) and I like debate.

    I still think OHC engines are the better way to go but I do not think that Chevy's new engines suck. I also hate most of GM's vehicles overall with all of the cloning and stuff, but the trucks are one of their better ideas in a while.
  • lvstanglvstang Posts: 150
    Turned in my leased F150 recently. That truck was nearly flawless. I've looked at all makes and models(big and small) to replace it. Even considered the Tundra for a bit. Just curious what you don't like about it. I will admit if it was a true full size with a higher tow rating it might have been my first choice. The problem was with the boat and all gear and occupants I'd be at its max tow rating (7200lbs) all the time in the Vegas heat. That's why I'm just about ready to order a Super Duty.
    See ya
  • smcpherrsmcpherr Posts: 114
    I found that reference to the three piece frame of the Silverado again, here in Edmunds road tests of the 99 Silverado.

    "The new three-section frame is engineered for maximum performance, allowing improvements in components that attach to it as well as exterior fit-and finish. The hydroformed front section is exceptionally rigid, eschewing rivets for welds to provide strong joints. The end result is tighter fitting front sheetmetal and a less-stressed frame. Hydroforming, a process that uses high-pressure fluid to mold steel into shape, also results in a lighter structure because fewer welds and pieces of steel are necessary to attain the requisite strength."

    I'll have to dig a bit more, but I am assuming this three-piece frame consists of front, middle and rear sections. I may be interpreting it wrong, but I would guess that the three sections are hydroformed, then welded together. Question: if one section is damaged past the point of repair, say the rear section in a rear end accident, and the other two sections are fine, do they (Chevy) replace the damaged section or scrap the whole frame?
  • jaijayjaijay Posts: 162

    The rear section of the truck is 'C' stamped steel. Chevy uses hydroformed cross members and close out plates to join the two rear sections.

    The middle section is made of roll-form high strength steel lipped into a "C" section and then shaped into the mid frame.

    The front section is all hydroformed. I hope this helps. I found this at the Chevrolet web site.
  • smcpherrsmcpherr Posts: 114
    Jaijay, thanks, that does help clear it up a bit. I still wonder what Chevy does with a badly damaged hydroformed section, such as the front. The main reason I ask is it would appear (and I am assuming) that another advantage of the hydroformed frame is the "crumple zone" location. For some reason I have it stuck in my head that the hydroformed sections are designed to deform readily in an accident, decreasing the amount of energy transferred to the passengers in an accident. If this is so, then I would imagine that Chevy would have a higher percentage of frames damaged past the point of repair than other vehicles experiencing the same environment. I am just curious whether or not having a hydroformed section allows Chevy to replace just the damaged section or if they have to scrap the frame. The only completely hydroformed section is the front end, so my revised question is... In a front end accident in which the front section (and the front section only) is damaged in a way which would prohibit repair, is Chevy able to separate the front section from the rest of the frame and replace only that section. I know this is a pretty picky question, but I am curious. If they can replace a damaged front section, then I would have to say that the Chevy engineers did a good job designing the frame. If not, I would say that the new hydroformed frame may be nice, until it gets bent. Most frames get bent eventually, if Chevy's are designed to bend more in an accident it leads me to believe that they would bend more in everyday travel. If sections can't be replaced individually, then the new frame could cost Chevy and/or their owners more money down the road. This may be a dumb question, but I am just trying to satisfy my curiosity.
  • BrutusBrutus Posts: 1,113
    Yeah, I think we all stooped, at least a little, when we were confronted with personal attacks and ridiculous claims. Ignoring him is the way to go. Then we just have to scroll past his occasional posts to get something substantive.

    Initially, the Tundra was going to be called the T-150, but I think there were some grumblings about a potential lawsuit from a competitor. Either that or they were concerned about being labeled a copy cat. A few topics up (Look out Ford, Dodge, Chevy, here comes the T-150), someone posted his opinions of a recent auto show where he got to scope out some of the recent offerings from the Ford, Dodge, Chevy and Toyota.
This discussion has been closed.