# All IFS Chevy guys should read this thread



## 2COR517

Whether you drive an 88 or an 08. I discovered cracks in my frame today on my 97 2500. I wouldn't have known to look for them if I hadn't read this thead a while ago. Check your truck, it doesn't take long. You don't even have to remove the tires.

http://www.plowsite.com/showthread.php?t=48956&highlight=frame+gussets


----------



## CAT 245ME

I checked mine on my 98 2500 and the frame is solid but I will have the gussets put on before next winter. No need to neglect an area that could become a major problem down the road.


----------



## aeronutt

I just checked my '06 D-max truck and it's all good. No sense in tempting fate though when the gussets are so easy to fab up and I've got that nice MIG just sitting there collecting dust. I'll be making that little improvement this spring at the same time I tear down my plow pumps & hydraulic manifolds for a good cleaning/inspection/overhaul/etc...

So far, I have not heard of anybody getting a crack in the frame after installing the gussets so hopefully that's the end of it. If anybody knows different, please post it.


----------



## MarioGMC

Nobody has replied to this thread since 04-04-2009, 07:52 PM, I was thinking about putting the gussets in my truck and now seeing that no one has replied to this thread with problems to the frames after putting the gussets in............Well i think its a no brain-er......

But if someone can prove me wrong, please let us know


----------



## vegaman04

Cheap Insurance imo.


----------



## B&B

To date I've yet to find one broken at the top with the gussets installed and this includes trucks that have had 1000 lb plows and V-boxes on them for over 7 years now. 

Best and cheapest preventative insurance money can buy.


----------



## 2COR517

Good time of year to bring this thread to the top.


----------



## RBRONKEMA GHTFD

B&B, what will a set of gussets run me if I buy them from you? Better than me making a template, and trying get the bend slightly in them also. You've made tons of these from the sounds of it.


----------



## Stik208

RBRONKEMA GHTFD;1101483 said:


> B&B, what will a set of gussets run me if I buy them from you? Better than me making a template, and trying get the bend slightly in them also. You've made tons of these from the sounds of it.


X2, would this be something to look into for the Colorado?


----------



## JpLawn

We have a 99 3500 dump that has cracked and broke from the bottom up. Its also rotted on the inside of the frame by the motor. Its going in this week to have both sides fixed this week. This is nothing new with chevy's.


----------



## South Seneca

WOW guys! Thanks for bringing this thread to the top. Lots of us are new to the plowing business and would never have known to check for these cracks. 
I'm putting new snow tires on my GMC 2500 Monday morning. I'll take a good look at it while we have it up on the lift with the wheels off.
Then I'll fab up a set of gussets and weld them in. I think I'll work up a set of braces back to the tranny crossmember too. I'll let you all know if I come up with anything worth passing along.


----------



## B&B

JpLawn;1101590 said:


> We have a 99 3500 dump that has cracked and broke from the bottom up. Its also rotted on the inside of the frame by the motor. Its going in this week to have both sides fixed this week. This is nothing new with chevy's.


The 88-98's are known to break from the bottom up, both behind or in front of the control arm mounts and it's due to rough stacking and/or excessive plow bounce on a chain lifted unit. It pays to gusset them right out of the gate too to prevent issues.


----------



## B&B

RBRONKEMA GHTFD;1101483 said:


> B&B, what will a set of gussets run me if I buy them from you? Better than me making a template, and trying get the bend slightly in them also. You've made tons of these from the sounds of it.


Yes I keep a pre-made stack of them on the shelf as I include them in on a plow install on any truck that's getting a heavy plow that isn't already equipped with them. Be happy to ship a set out to you, just shoot me a PM.


----------



## snocrete

I have read about these issues before, but forgot until this was brought back up. Just walked outside and looked at my 07 3500, and its fine. Should probably get some installed and keep it that way. Thanks for bringing this back up.



P.S. PM being sent B&B.


----------



## milwaukeevtwin

B&B;1101717 said:


> Yes I keep a pre-made stack of them on the shelf as I include them in on a plow install on any truck that's getting a heavy plow that isn't already equipped with them. Be happy to ship a set out to you, just shoot me a PM.


 I could use four sets. 2 for 1989 chevy 2500 1 for 1991 2500 and i for 2001 1500. Please give me a price shipped to 61080. Thanks, Ron


----------



## B&B

milwaukeevtwin;1102117 said:


> I could use four sets. 2 for 1989 chevy 2500 1 for 1991 2500 and i for 2001 1500. Please give me a price shipped to 61080. Thanks, Ron


Shoot me a PM for more info Ron. The 88-98's are a different animal that require reinforcement in more than just a single location. In fact they require three gussets per side.


----------



## MarkEagleUSA

B&B;1102194 said:


> The 88-98's are a different animal that require reinforcement in more than just a single location. In fact they require three gussets per side.


Any pictures of these gussets installed?


----------



## Motorman 007

Click on the link in the first post......


----------



## RichG53

The Pics need to be Bigger so some can see them.....


----------



## Motorman 007

http://www.plowsite.com/showpost.php?p=422857&postcount=9


----------



## jb1390

B&B;1102194 said:


> Shoot me a PM for more info Ron. The 88-98's are a different animal that require reinforcement in more than just a single location. In fact they require three gussets per side.


I've only seen the pictures of one gusset per side. This is the first time I've heard of multiple gussets. Any pictures of all three gussets needed? The only I know of is behind the rear upper control arm linkage.


----------



## RichG53

I think they would like to see the Three gussets ....Used on the older trucks...


----------



## MarkEagleUSA

RichG53;1102542 said:


> I think they would like to see the Three gussets ....Used on the older trucks...


Bingo! That's what I was asking for.


----------



## B&B

Sorry don't have any installed pics for the 88-98's. Those take two gussets on top and one below to cover as many of the weak spots as possible. They should have a fourth one up front but there's no practical way to add anything without major surgery. But as long as you don't stack every event like you're piloting a 600 Komatsu that location isn't as common of a problem.


----------



## MarkEagleUSA

B&B;1102744 said:


> Sorry don't have any installed pics for the 88-98's. Those take two gussets on top and one below to cover as many of the weak spots as possible.


So that means a gusset on the front and rear of the control arm bracket? Where does the one below go?


----------



## B&B

At the lower rear, thus triangulating the bump stop structure to the frame rail. Doing so keeps it from breaking from the bottom up at that location.


----------



## ed39

i mean this can all be avoided very easily if you dont beat the sh** out of your truck....plain and simple. ive never had a problem on any of my chevys and i have had 5 of them and plowed with them all...


----------



## 2COR517

It's not about beating on the truck. The gussets simply strengthen the weakest part of the frame. Heavy plows and lots of counterweight cause an arching effect on the frame. The sharp bend in the frame creates a stress riser which can crack.


----------



## RichG53

Grand Pa walks slow ..and even he dose fall....

Beating has nothing to do with it...


----------



## SServices

Just added some to my 05 last weekend, only took an hour. Heck of a lot easier than fixing it when its broke. I baby my truck, I don't want to take the chance.


----------



## Raconteur

I hope the 2011 frame addressed this issue .


----------



## South Seneca

For what they cost, the whole truck should be bullet proof!
I can't understand why they don't paint truck frames when they build them.
The other puzzling thing is why GM insists on putting a hole in the frame where the front tires can throw road salt into the frame rail.


----------



## Raconteur

South Seneca;1113053 said:


> For what they cost, the whole truck should be bullet proof!
> I can't understand why they don't paint truck frames when they build them.
> The other puzzling thing is why GM insists on putting a hole in the frame where the front tires can throw road salt into the frame rail.


Have to ask Max and Al .
www.maxandal.com


----------



## Motorman 007

*me too...*



SServices;1111562 said:


> Just added some to my 05 last weekend, only took an hour. Heck of a lot easier than fixing it when its broke. I baby my truck, I don't want to take the chance.


Just did my '04 2500 HD this morning with the gussets I purchased from B&B. It doesn't get any easier. Took me an hour or so as well. I can't imagine trying to weld the frame after it cracks. Anyone who is a serious plower should do this as cheap insurance. Sorry, the cell phone pics really suck and aren't worth posting...


----------



## got-h2o

I know this topic has been beat to death and the thread is old at this point, but it's obviously an ongoing issue. Let me say that I've owned countless GM plow trucks (probably 15 or so) and never had this issue. Many were diesels with v plows, etc. Some 250k Dmaxes that plowed since new. Not to say that there weren.t stress cracked somewhere and I just didn't notice it b/c that could very well be the case. BUT I think the thread title should be "All plow truck owners should read this thread". So many people hate on GM's for this not that terribly common of a problem (IMO), but crawl under my 04 F350's and take a peak. The almighty SFA trucks do it too.


----------



## 2COR517

The thread title certainly wasn't a diss on GM trucks. I drive em and love em.

I've heard of the Fords cracking and the GM SFA trucks of course should be reinforced at the steering box.


----------



## got-h2o

2COR517;1129837 said:


> The thread title certainly wasn't a diss on GM trucks. I drive em and love em.
> 
> I've heard of the Fords cracking and the GM SFA trucks of course should be reinforced at the steering box.


Oh I know that.........I just meant all over the web in general. It's just that it's a big argument with Ford owners, as if they are inferior b/c their frames are stronger.......which they arent 

You know me.......I'm GM for life, but am also open minded (as are you). And I'll buy whatever's cheap hahahahahaha :laughing:


----------



## 2COR517

I'm open minded, as long as its a GM with spark plugs


----------



## got-h2o

Lmao.............


----------



## JeffNY

Is this also a problem on the '10's? It looks a little different, like theres not as much of a bend in the frame in that area.


----------



## mossman381

Looks to me that this thread should have been called "if you have a truck with a V-plow you should read this". Anybody see this happen to a truck with a straight blade????


----------



## B&B

mossman381;1131032 said:


> Anybody see this happen to a truck with a straight blade????


 Absolutely. Not a lightweight, but yes.


----------



## watatrp

Me and a buddy installed the gusset plates from B&B today.


----------



## MarkEagleUSA

watatrp;1138598 said:


> Me and a buddy installed the gusset plates from B&B today.


Is that the 3 gusset fix for the 88-98 models?


----------



## watatrp

Yes, 96 Tahoe, 2 dr.


----------



## MarkEagleUSA

watatrp;1138932 said:


> Yes, 96 Tahoe, 2 dr.


Thanks. And thanks for the great pic too! That really helps to understand what needs to be done.


----------



## brianbrich1

Do you just gusset the top or the bottom to?


----------



## RichG53

If you look you can see all three...Two in front...One in back..
That is what needs to be done...


----------



## 09dieselguy

RichG53;1158060 said:


> If you look you can see all three...Two in front...One in back..
> That is what needs to be done...


other way around but you get the idea.


----------



## PetalsandPines

*Just discovered major crack 2007 3500 dur/allison Blizzard 810*

Just discovered 2 huge cracks on both sides of the truck on my 07 dump....as i stated in another post....with the plow in the air you can get 2 fingers in the gap......and now we have this megastorm coming


----------



## mossman381

PetalsandPines;1223403 said:


> Just discovered 2 huge cracks on both sides of the truck on my 07 dump....as i stated in another post....with the plow in the air you can get 2 fingers in the gap......and now we have this megastorm coming


You got pics?????


----------



## newhere

i just dont understand how those support the frame? 

it seems like they would prevent side to side movement of the frame but do nothing for up and down movement. 

Im confused

Is this covered under warranty on a new truck like the 07 dump?


----------



## RBRONKEMA GHTFD

mossman381;1223535 said:


> You got pics?????


I would like to see some pics too.


----------



## cwby_ram

Good reading here. Slowly preparing a '95 Chevy 2500 for next year and I'm aiming to have a Boss V on it. Looks like these gussets just climbed way up on the to do list. watatrp, those pictures are very helpful, and B&B, I'll probably PM ya, might be better for me to do some premade gussets rather than try to cut and bend myself. For now that'll all have to wait til after this storm, gotta head out in a few here.


----------



## damian

weve seen alot of cracking behind upper control arm rear mount along side the weld traveling down.just did a 3500 with a duramax both sides,and have a 2500 duramax just starting.


----------



## Joe D

The other option is to run a brace from the plow mount to the trans cross member under the truck.


----------



## mule585

I haven't had this problem with my 98 1500 but I did rip both frame horns where my western mount bolts up last year ill try to find the pics on that


----------



## PetalsandPines

*Picture of crack 2007 3500 Chevy Frame*

Here is one side of frame ....the other frame is the same.......when the plow is lifted the crack opens up wide enough for two fingers and you can see right through to engine....took it to Basil Chevrolet in Lancaster NY and service manager...typical......says chevy frames dont crack!!!! he takes me to body shop and this manager took pictures and sent to regional gm rep.....asked for his honest opinion and he says frame swap...we'll see if gm covers this! 58,000 miles!!! ive had my blizzard plow for 7 years, this plow has been on an 04 chevy 3500 and now this 07 chevy and if they say i beat my truck I'll just say listen...all my paint is still on this blizzard plow after 7 years...enough said!!


----------



## sixty4

B&B PM sent....


----------



## South Seneca

Wow! I would have thought the 3500 frame was strong enough not to do that.


----------



## NBI Lawn

That is how my brothers 95's frame looked. He picked it up DIRT cheap from the mechanic shop it had been sitting at for two years. Made some gussets and welded it up...no issues 3 years later. 

I would be sure they don't pull some BS about the plow being over the front axle weight. Just tell them you run a 760 Blizzard


----------



## mossman381

How in the heck does a fully boxed frame crack like that? The frame is beefy right there.


----------



## PetalsandPines

*NO help from GM*

The regional rep for GM will not replace the frame.....so it is now going to become a legal matter.....I was brushed off by the sales manager to service manager to manager of body shop....Body shop manager was the liason between me and gm rep..... Basil Chevrolet will be forced into court now.


----------



## watatrp

If this type of crack hadn't happened before it might be a fluke type of thing. I'm sure GM has plenty of documentation about these breaks. Read all the threads regarding this issue. There were some changes that GM made where they actually added the gussets from the factory because of problems with cracking frames. Makes it look like they knew about the problem. Can't say that we don't.


----------



## RichG53

Book'em Dano !!!


----------



## Tedd

I checked my 02 2500hd d/a ex/sb and it appears to have factory gusetts at top/rear. Why would they put them on some and not others? You would think the 3500 would get them for sure.


----------



## vegaman04

Early NBS has them. Cost cutting measures.


----------



## tuney443

Tedd;1230185 said:


> I checked my 02 2500hd d/a ex/sb and it appears to have factory gusetts at top/rear. Why would they put them on some and not others? You would think the 3500 would get them for sure.


Dollars,that's why.Same reason we lost the bucket seats that fold down all the way,under hood light,foot well lighting,and carpeted door panels.A 3500 only has 1 more leaf spring,wider wheels,and 1 size larger tires than a 2500,that's it.9200GVW vs. 9900GVW


----------



## South Seneca

I think you should call GM yourself. 

If the truck is financed I would also talk to the finance company and give them to GM contact info. Ask them to make a call or write a letter for you. It's crap that they won't stand by this truck.

It might be different if it had the crap beat out of it for 10 years, but even then a 3500 should not have this problem.


----------



## Joe D

I would contact your insurance company about it. Let them pay to fix it and offer all the info you can find about the frames breaking and they will go after GM. They have many lawyers to fight for their money vs you having to pay for one.


----------



## PetalsandPines

*Thank you!*

Thanks for your help getting the ball rolling on this...its disgusting that we as taxpayers brought this company out of bankruptcy...they had millions and millions to spend promoting cars, commercials...tv shows etc...yet cant stand behind a problem that could be deadly!


----------



## cwby_ram

Good luck with this, I hope it all works out in your favor. That would be so frustrating. Keep us posted!


----------



## vegaman04

PetalsandPines;1228675 said:


> The regional rep for GM will not replace the frame.....so it is now going to become a legal matter.....I was brushed off by the sales manager to service manager to manager of body shop....Body shop manager was the liason between me and gm rep..... Basil Chevrolet will be forced into court now.


How high do you stack snow? What is in the bed while plowing?


----------



## 2COR517

Stacking doesn't cause this problem.


----------



## PetalsandPines

How high do i stack snow???? Well here in Buffalo we get some snow once in a while......err every freakin day...what kind of dumb question is this?? I got piles around here that are 10 feet tall and 25 feet deep on residential driveways for god sake.....How high??? As high as i can without tunneling through the crap or driving on top of it like some stupid jeep cherokee commercial....Are these questions for real.......lets get back to the point its a $42,000 truck with an 810 blizzard plow.....not an s10 chevy......this truck is meant to be worked.....thats why we choose to buy them...if i wanted a puddle popper i'd buy 1500 with a home depot plow that i can manually turn the plow and pop some pins in it to angle it.....We ARE FREAKIN AMERICANS people???? Why must we make excuses for the CRAP we are making??


----------



## PetalsandPines

oh and to answer whats in the bed??? umm its a rugby dump body. It also has 900 lbs of ballast in it so the damn front end doesnt fall into the crater size state of ny potholes.......Remember the Flintstones??? In the intro the waitress put the rack of ribs on the car and the car flipped on its side?? thats how i feel when i put the blizzard on the front and have an empty dump bed with no ballast


----------



## jomama45

Have you ever actually weighed the front axle independently to verify that you're under the GAWR listed on the door? If you're over (you are) and you would kill someone on the road, why/how would this be GM's fault? I know you don't want to hear it, but there's 3 Fords on another site some of us frequent that have Blizzards with broken frames this year as well.


----------



## vegaman04

2COR517;1233097 said:


> Stacking doesn't cause this problem.


Then what does?


----------



## vegaman04

PetalsandPines;1233195 said:


> How high do i stack snow???? Well here in Buffalo we get some snow once in a while......err every freakin day...what kind of dumb question is this?? I got piles around here that are 10 feet tall and 25 feet deep on residential driveways for god sake.....How high??? As high as i can without tunneling through the crap or driving on top of it like some stupid jeep cherokee commercial....Are these questions for real.......lets get back to the point its a $42,000 truck with an 810 blizzard plow.....not an s10 chevy......this truck is meant to be worked.....thats why we choose to buy them...if i wanted a puddle popper i'd buy 1500 with a home depot plow that i can manually turn the plow and pop some pins in it to angle it.....We ARE FREAKIN AMERICANS people???? Why must we make excuses for the CRAP we are making??


Don't flip you lid dude, save that energy for GM, all i did was asked a simple question. Doesn't matter if its 42k or 70k, stuff breaks. I know it sucks but it all happens to everyone.


----------



## tuney443

vegaman04;1233591 said:


> Then what does?


Very simple--it's the pendulum effect.The truck is constantly flexing during plowing,the frame is obviously it's backbone,if there's a weak spot along it's spine,something will give.That weak spot is by the upper control arm as we all know.So to be proactive you need to weld in the gussets.


----------



## vegaman04

tuney443;1233606 said:


> Very simple--it's the pendulum effect.The truck is constantly flexing during plowing,the frame is obviously it's backbone,if there's a weak spot along it's spine,something will give.That weak spot is by the upper control arm as we all know.So to be proactive you need to weld in the gussets.


My thought was if you run a significant load in the bed, and are stacking, right behind the a arms are going to be the weakest point due to the fulcrum that is being created.

Do your rigs have the gussets welded in?


----------



## NBI Lawn

Did you tell them what plow you run? If so you may have dug your own grave. If you are over front axle weight and they know it they have a reason to not warranty it. They have a case that you put too much weight up front and that was the cause for the failure. In reality they do have a good case. The plow does weigh more than the truck is rated for doesn't it?
I would just bring it to a welding or frame shop and have them fix it up. Don't waste your time on something you can't win. I have read articles about this in the past and I don't believe GM has replaced one frame yet...not the ones I have seen anyways. If you want to go after anyone go after the shop that put the plow on. They sold you a plow that was too heavy for your application.



EDIT: A 810 weighs 924lbs+mount and I am sure you are over 1000lbs. What is the FAWR on this truck? It doesn't really matter what Blizzard says will fit your truck, it's what GM said.


----------



## PetalsandPines

The front is rated 4800lbs. An independent western dealer questioned the weight but as they punched it in the computer it says its not a problem. And this is a VERY reputable dealer i was talking to.


----------



## plowguy43

Not to add fuel to the fire, but a body shop owner I work with just had the frame horns of his truck completely rot away. Its an 89 Reg Cab Long Bed 3500 w/454 V8. Mind you he did a frame off restoration on this truck just 2 years ago. Yes he sandblasted the frame, welded the spots by the control arms since they were cracking already, and redid the entire body as well. He has a 8'6" Fisher Extreme V (stainless) that he only plows his driveway and shop lot with. He was having it serviced when they found that both frame horns were rotting away and about to snap at the back of the Fisher Mounts. 

I hope you get this taken care of as its crazy that a 2007 with low mileage would have this happen.


----------



## NBI Lawn

PetalsandPines;1233680 said:


> The front is rated 4800lbs. An independent western dealer questioned the weight but as they punched it in the computer it says its not a problem. And this is a VERY reputable dealer i was talking to.


Doesn't really matter what a reputable dealer says. At 4800lb FAWR and 1000lbs of plow, you are 300+lbs over the manufacturers FAWR. Sorry but case closed. I am not a mechanic but thats how I figured it.


----------



## dlcs

Dumb question but when you go welding on a frame, doesn't that create a change in the molecular structure of the steel used in the frame? What I'm getting at is does this weaken the frame behind the welds? I know the welds will not break but what about around the welds. This is what i would be scared of.


----------



## NICHOLS LANDSCA

If welded correctly you shouldn't have a problem


----------



## dlcs

So whats the general configurations of the trucks that breaking/cracking frames? I run a 2007 NBS standard cab, with a 6.0 gasser, 8' Meyer CP8 with wings, and a Buyers tailgate spreader and yes loaded with a pallet of salt. Are most of the frame problems on duramaxs, with larger plows and v boxes? Does have a cc or extended cab make a difference? Just curious if i'm a candidate for this problem. I check my frame regularly but thats just a visual fro peaking inside the front wheel wells.


----------



## dlcs

NICHOLS LANDSCA;1233906 said:


> If welded correctly you shouldn't have a problem


Have you had a problem with any of your Chevy's? I know of no one locally that has had a frame crack like this, on a newer Chevy.


----------



## PetalsandPines

Boy was i stupid to think that the dealers sold good vehicles, and the blizzard dealers know what they are doing...


----------



## affekonig

If the front is overweight, it isn't a warranty issue. Period. There's an unapproved aftermarket product attached to and overloading the frame. Why should that be covered? 

Don't get me worng, I wouldn't be happy if that happened to me, but I can't see holding GM responsible when the weight ratings are posted right there in the door. I wonder what the weight on the front end is with a full load of snow being pushed into a pile. 1000lb plow + snow +++


----------



## 2COR517

2COR517;1233097 said:


> Stacking doesn't cause this problem.





vegaman04;1233591 said:


> Then what does?





tuney443;1233606 said:


> Very simple--it's the pendulum effect.The truck is constantly flexing during plowing,the frame is obviously it's backbone,if there's a weak spot along it's spine,something will give.That weak spot is by the upper control arm as we all know.So to be proactive you need to weld in the gussets.


To elaborate on Tuney's comments further...

When you lift the blade, you cause the frame to arch. The front control arms are the pivot point, and the sharp bend in the frame creates a stress riser. And that's where the cracks start. And because the plow is pulling the front of the frame down, the control arms are the pivot point, that's why the crack opens when you lift the plow. And when guys run heavy counterweight well aft of the rear axle, the arching effect is amplified. There are cases where the frame has cracked/broken right behind the cab from the arching effect.

Fortunately, the flaw in the GM frame at the control arm brackets is well documented and easily remedied.


----------



## topdj

looks like they fixed on the 2011 but time will tell


----------



## tuney443

vegaman04;1233645 said:


> My thought was if you run a significant load in the bed, and are stacking, right behind the a arms are going to be the weakest point due to the fulcrum that is being created.
> 
> Do your rigs have the gussets welded in?


I just have 1 truck with a plow ,my 2006 3500 and yes it has the gussets.Years ago though I had a '94 and a '97 2500 with plows,without gussets and never had a problem.


----------



## NICHOLS LANDSCA

dlcs;1233937 said:


> Have you had a problem with any of your Chevy's? I know of no one locally that has had a frame crack like this, on a newer Chevy.


Knock on wood, no. I bought the 96 with a broken frame though


----------



## NBI Lawn

PetalsandPines;1234071 said:


> Boy was i stupid to think that the dealers sold good vehicles, and the blizzard dealers know what they are doing...


I know it is easy to want to blame someone else but in reality you are the one at fault. GM told you not to hang that heavy of a plow on it...you did and it broke. The Blizzard dealer will sell you damn near anything you want...thats their job. It is all of our responsiblility as consumers to do a little research on these products before we purchase them. You must have known that the 810 was technically to heavy for your truck.


----------



## plowguy43

NBI Lawn;1234997 said:


> I know it is easy to want to blame someone else but in reality you are the one at fault. GM told you not to hang that heavy of a plow on it...you did and it broke. The Blizzard dealer will sell you damn near anything you want...thats their job, It is all of our responsiblilities as consumers to do a little research on these products before we purchase them. You must have known that the 810 was technically to heavy for your truck.


Well said.


----------



## brianbrich1

http://www.plowsite.com/showthread.php?t=118727 In this thread I raise the question of warranty and new vehicles and plow weight would like some additional posting as well as any real case scenerios in here ....


----------



## PetalsandPines

Do you realize that between this thread and the thread that I asked people for help about the cracked frame has generated so many views that if combined would be in the top ten subjects on the chevy forum here......but hey....i guess im the only one here with this dilemna


----------



## jklawn&Plow

PetalsandPines;1236048 said:


> Do you realize that between this thread and the thread that I asked people for help about the cracked frame has generated so many views that if combined would be in the top ten subjects on the chevy forum here......but hey....i guess im the only one here with this dilemna


Were all just praying it doesn't happen to us.


----------



## PowersTree

Raise enough stink, and GM will warranty it. They just replaced the frame on a truck at my old place of employment.

His truck is a 07 running a 8ft Ultra mount, and V-box. Im sure his is from overloading, as Ive seen that truck roll out with 3 yards of salt in the v-box.


----------



## BigLou80

NBI Lawn;1234997 said:


> I know it is easy to want to blame someone else but in reality you are the one at fault. GM told you not to hang that heavy of a plow on it...you did and it broke. The Blizzard dealer will sell you damn near anything you want...thats their job. It is all of our responsiblility as consumers to do a little research on these products before we purchase them. You must have known that the 810 was technically to heavy for your truck.


I would almost buy that except for two problems

ONE
The front end is rated GAWF Gross Axle Weight Front, Axle weight, not plow weight not frame stress, not aching effect gross front axle weight rating. By adding ballast behind the rear wheels ( which also act as a fulcrum) your actively reducing the loading on the front axle.

Im not sure of the engineering definition difference between gross and net axle loading but with enough ballast far enough back, I suspect you could get the front tires to scale in under 4800LBs with the 810 lifted

TWO
no one else can sell a product, designed to be installed on a given vehicle, advertised for a given vehicle and installed by their ( manufactures) authorized sales agent that will voild the warranty or otherwise cause the vehicle harm, against the vehicle manufacturers recommendations. They are the "professionals" there is a certain implied onus on them to do some of your homework for you.

If install a product any product on somebody's home in a manner inconsistent with the manufactures labeling its my ass if the product fails and the house is damaged. Im the professional here home owners are not expected to know whats best or whats code approved. That's my job.

can drug companies sell drugs that don't work and say " well the consumer should have educated them selves" ???


----------



## PetalsandPines

Well in 9 hours i get the verdict....all documentation is in hand, all constructive comments in this forum have been printed...Chevy Reps and GM Reps have been notified of my intentions, All three...gm, chevy and the insurance companies have been pointed to Plowsite.com to read the legitimate uproar and i'm prepared to push this further if need be....My insurance co. has better lawyers than i do and thats why I pay $7,000 a year. I dont know why people are so afraid of their insurance co. ....I have Commercial snowplowing insurance, liability insurance, building, structure and contents insurance. Why should I be afraid of them? It wont take a rocket scientist to figure out GM has acknowledged the problem by selectively covering frames...I hope I win this one for all of us.


----------



## cwby_ram

Good luck, I hope you win too! We'll be waiting to see how it turns out!


----------



## dlcs

PetalsandPines;1236155 said:


> Well in 9 hours i get the verdict....all documentation is in hand, all constructive comments in this forum have been printed...Chevy Reps and GM Reps have been notified of my intentions, All three...gm, chevy and the insurance companies have been pointed to Plowsite.com to read the legitimate uproar and i'm prepared to push this further if need be....My insurance co. has better lawyers than i do and thats why I pay $7,000 a year. I dont know why people are so afraid of their insurance co. ....I have Commercial snowplowing insurance, liability insurance, building, structure and contents insurance. Why should I be afraid of them? It wont take a rocket scientist to figure out GM has acknowledged the problem by selectively covering frames...I hope I win this one for all of us.


Good luck!!!!


----------



## NBI Lawn

BigLou80;1236132 said:


> I would almost buy that except for two problems
> 
> ONE
> The front end is rated GAWF Gross Axle Weight Front, Axle weight, not plow weight not frame stress, not aching effect gross front axle weight rating. By adding ballast behind the rear wheels ( which also act as a fulcrum) your actively reducing the loading on the front axle.
> 
> Im not sure of the engineering definition difference between gross and net axle loading but with enough ballast far enough back, I suspect you could get the front tires to scale in under 4800LBs with the 810 lifted
> 
> TWO
> no one else can sell a product, designed to be installed on a given vehicle, advertised for a given vehicle and installed by their ( manufactures) authorized sales agent that will voild the warranty or otherwise cause the vehicle harm, against the vehicle manufacturers recommendations. They are the "professionals" there is a certain implied onus on them to do some of your homework for you.
> 
> If install a product any product on somebody's home in a manner inconsistent with the manufactures labeling its my ass if the product fails and the house is damaged. Im the professional here home owners are not expected to know whats best or whats code approved. That's my job.
> 
> can drug companies sell drugs that don't work and say " well the consumer should have educated them selves" ???


One
He has already admitted he doesn't run any ballast weight. With enough weight far enough back you could probably get the front tires off the ground, He has already had it on the scales and it is overweight.

Two
A plow dealer can and will sell/install what a customer wants. Around here you have to sign a waiver saying you area aware of the issue. What do you mean they can't install something that will void the warranty? If I buy a new Corvette I can bring it to any performance shop and do a full motor build and supercharge it...how much warranty do I have left? If the supercharger manufacturer said I can make 9PSI with it and I run it to 14PSI and something fails who is to blame?

Drug companies sell products that work with a limitation written on the back, i.e "Do not exceed 6 pills in a 24 hour period". If you ignore that and take 20 and there is a side affect...


----------



## PetalsandPines

NBI Lawn;1236201 said:


> One
> He has already admitted he doesn't run any ballast weight. With enough weight far enough back you could probably get the front tires off the ground, He has already had it on the scales and it is overweight.
> 
> Two
> A plow dealer can and will sell/install what a customer wants. Around here you have to sign a waiver saying you area aware of the issue. What do you mean they can't install something that will void the warranty? If I buy a new Corvette I can bring it to any performance shop and do a full motor build and supercharge it...how much warranty do I have left? If the supercharger manufacturer said I can make 9PSI with it and I run it to 14PSI and something fails who is to blame?
> 
> Drug companies sell products that work with a limitation written on the back, i.e "Do not exceed 6 pills in a 24 hour period". If you ignore that and take 20 and there is a side affect...


are you a union goon for GM or something??? i never said i dont run ballast in my truck....i had it weighed with no ballast......this is an absolute waste of my time responding to these stupid little details....BUILD A GOD DAMN TRUCK FOR AMERICANS THAT WORK . I dont need an asterisk next to every damn thing about these trucks...pathetic .....just stop responding to my posts and go read your owners manual and preach to someone else.


----------



## PetalsandPines

looks like you drive a grocery getter anyways.....


----------



## brianbrich1

I dont know who you deal with but here CPW will sell you what ever you want, but if it is going to be over on weight they WILL NOT install it and inform you it is to heavy..... I myself have older chevies with the frame issue that has not cracked but gussed them after reading the ifs thread and recentely got a new 11 as it is to be fixed...interested to see how this turns out...good luck


----------



## PetalsandPines

insurance guy just came....took pictures...was basically flabergasted at how cheap of a design it is and told me that this is basically how the big toyota tundra frame recall started.


----------



## NBI Lawn

PetalsandPines;1236217 said:


> are you a union goon for GM or something??? i never said i dont run ballast in my truck....i had it weighed with no ballast......this is an absolute waste of my time responding to these stupid little details....BUILD A GOD DAMN TRUCK FOR AMERICANS THAT WORK . I dont need an asterisk next to every damn thing about these trucks...pathetic .....just stop responding to my posts and *go read your owners manual and preach to someone else*.


Had you taken your own advice you would not be in this situation now would you .


----------



## NBI Lawn

PetalsandPines;1236348 said:


> insurance guy just came....took pictures...was basically flabergasted at how cheap of a design it is and told me that this is basically how the big toyota tundra frame recall started.


I doubt they are going to recall 21 years worth of frames. They had overloading issues with the old 1tons too. Like I said we have a 95 with a broken frame...welded and back to work now.


----------



## PetalsandPines

*civility prevails*

You know...as i crawled under this truck to inspect the cracks....the driver side one is really ugly...i wanna get a close up of this and see what you welders think...the way the frame is in that spot it has a depression in it and a factory cutout and its just a monster spidered crack in and out all of the factory's welds....only thing holding the rail together is gravity, the powertrain, cab & the torsion bars...its cracked clear through like someone took a sawzall to it..I'll post pics soon


----------



## PetalsandPines

NBI Lawn;1236707 said:


> I doubt they are going to recall 21 years worth of frames. They had overloading issues with the old 1tons too. Like I said we have a 95 with a broken frame...welded and back to work now.


How does the bankruptcy work in a huge recall? Say for instance they did recall 21 years worth of frames (not that that will ever happen) i just think gm is going to cover the loudest chirpers IMO


----------



## mossman381

I am interested in those close up pics.


----------



## PetalsandPines

I posted those close up pics in the "Cracked Frame" post that is near the top of the Chevy Truck forum...there is about 12 pictures.


----------



## lilweeds

PetalsandPines;1236348 said:


> insurance guy just came....took pictures...was basically flabergasted at how cheap of a design it is and told me that this is basically how the big toyota tundra frame recall started.


The Tundra/Tacoma issue is because of rust, not cracks. Funny they are made by UAW/DANA employees.... Imagine that.

I do hope you get it fixed, but we're all just letting you know the odds are not in your favor.


----------



## EGLC

nbi you have got to be the biggest ****** bag on here...wow

petal I hope you win in court and get a brand new 2011 out of the deal, that is pathetic, you could easily have killed someone driving down the road.


----------



## wizardsr

EGLC;1239180 said:


> nbi you have got to be the biggest ****** bag on here...wow
> 
> petal I hope you win in court and get a brand new 2011 out of the deal, that is pathetic, you could easily have killed someone driving down the road.


You should talk...


----------



## NBI Lawn

EGLC;1239180 said:


> nbi you have got to be the biggest ****** bag on here...wow
> 
> petal I hope you win in court and get a brand new 2011 out of the deal, that is pathetic, you could easily have killed someone driving down the road.


Really? Because someone is trying to get something for nothing I am a ****** bag? I have yet to call anyone a name and am simply stating facts. Nothing has been made up, altered, twisted or otherwise.
Way to judge off of one thread Thumbs Up.

Whats pathetic is he is knowing still driving the truck with it broken. Good job encouraging that!


----------



## M & MD Lawn

B&B;1102922 said:


> At the lower rear, thus triangulating the bump stop structure to the frame rail. Doing so keeps it from breaking from the bottom up at that location.


guess i'm bringing this thread back, but B&B how much would a set run me for my 97 2500, I just put a 7'6 V on it and i believe this is the last thing and he will be ready to go. I was reading there is now 3 needed instead of two. I don't know how to weld so my fab guy would be doing it, need to know what to tell him

thanks!!


----------



## cwby_ram

M & MD Lawn;1296635 said:


> guess i'm bringing this thread back, but B&B how much would a set run me for my 97 2500, I just put a 7'6 V on it and i believe this is the last thing and he will be ready to go. I was reading there is now 3 needed instead of two. I don't know how to weld so my fab guy would be doing it, need to know what to tell him
> 
> thanks!!


Could use this info too. Looks like my '95 will be stepping up to duty this year.


----------



## cubanb343

lilweeds;1238555 said:


> The Tundra/Tacoma issue is because of rust, not cracks. Funny they are made by UAW/DANA employees.... Imagine that.
> 
> I do hope you get it fixed, but we're all just letting you know the odds are not in your favor.


IMAGINE WHAT? Toyota trucks having rusty frames? And what exactly does that have to do with the UAW. So I imagine the toyota cars with faulty gas pedals aren't the UAW's fault... 

On the topic at hand, I've never heard a good reason why GM stopped gusseting the frames in the first place.


----------



## NickT

Subscribed


----------



## mossman381

My 02 that I just got has the factory gusset. Just one on the rear mount for the upper A-arm.


----------



## vegaman04

mossman381;1316277 said:


> My 02 that I just got has the factory gusset. Just one on the rear mount for the upper A-arm.


Pic please for future users.


----------



## NWanner

I'm looking to pick up a set from B&B as well for a '97 GMC, but I can't message him yet. If you read this can you please send me a PM? Thanks, -Nick


----------



## B&B

I don't stock the 88-98 gussets anymore as there's just not too many guys setting up 10-20 year old trucks for heavy plow/commercial use these days so I seldom need them. Sorry.


----------



## NWanner

B&B;1319379 said:


> I don't stock the 88-98 gussets anymore as there's just not too many guys setting up 10-20 year old trucks for heavy plow/commercial use these days so I seldom need them. Sorry.


**** happens, thanks anyways. Any idea where I can find a template if I'm going to have to make them on my own?


----------



## M & MD Lawn

Yea what ^^ said


----------



## B&B

Shoot me a PM and I'd be happy to send a few template pics with some details.


----------



## NWanner

B&B;1319509 said:


> Shoot me a PM and I'd be happy to send a few template pics with some details.


I have to make a few more posts or something, but I will as soon as I can. Thanks!


----------



## B&B

NWanner;1319574 said:


> I have to make a few more posts or something, but I will as soon as I can. Thanks!


You have enough posts you just haven't been a member long enough. Need to be signed up for ten days.


----------



## NWanner

B&B;1319657 said:


> You have enough posts you just haven't been a member long enough. Need to be signed up for ten days.


Interesting, I'll PM you in a few days then.


----------



## M & MD Lawn

PM sent!.........


----------



## larboc

FYI, my 2001 k2500LD has gussets from the factory.


----------



## B&B

Virtually all 01-02 had them. Can't recall the last one I've seen that didn't. The widespread omission of them didn't begin until the 03 model year.


----------



## lilweeds

B&B you don't have any pics of where they go on a 99 do you?


----------



## vegaman04

lilweeds;1320660 said:


> B&B you don't have any pics of where they go on a 99 do you?


99 1500 or 2500? 2 different frames.

This is a OBS 88-98 1500 or 88-2000 2500 / 3500









This a 04 2500HD


----------



## lilweeds

OBS 99 2500 Thanks for the help.


----------



## larboc

B&B;1320583 said:


> Virtually all 01-02 had them. Can't recall the last one I've seen that didn't. The widespread omission of them didn't begin until the 03 model year.


Why did they stop installing them?


----------



## B&B

It's my understanding they felt they weren't needed (but obviously were) so they were omitted to trim a little cost, no matter how little.


----------



## great white

Trying to PM B&B for the offer of diagrams and picts for an 88-98, but I don't have a high enough post count yet....


----------



## Chrisxl64

Whats your email? I can send them to you.


----------



## great white

Chrisxl64;1347819 said:


> Whats your email? I can send them to you.


I've got a gmail account that I use for posting in open forums so my real email doesn"t get spammed to high heaven. You can send it to (don't laugh):

[email protected]

thanks if you do send them along....

Cheers


----------



## Chrisxl64

Sent it....


----------



## great white

Chrisxl64;1347868 said:


> Sent it....


Thanks!

Thumbs Up


----------



## articstorm

Checked my main truck last night and it has them already. It appears they were welded right from the factory based on some rusting and coating matching orginal frame. Even has a hole in the middle. I was not the orginal owner of the truck but have the window sticker and this truck came with the plow package. This truck is an '02, Silverado 2500 HD ext cab short box, with 8.1 and Allison Trans. It was a relife to see it and I have no idea why it wouldn't be on every HD.


----------



## ceptorman

New to this forum. 
Great thread, I will check my truck asap....thanksThumbs Up


----------



## centralmtconst

I also cant pm B & B because of post count. How do I get a couple sets of these? Thanks Jon


----------



## tuney443

Simply bring your truck to a welding shop,show him the pics of the gussets and they will fabricate them in no time at all and weld them in place for you. Very simple procedure.


----------



## skostur79

here some pics of a frame swap i did ,


----------



## bizzo15

I've got a set of the '88-'98 gussets from B&B that I was going to add to my '91 reg cab but I had a kid and needed to buy a newer extended cab. I can't remember what I paid for them but I can find out. All I want is what I paid plus the shipping. Brand new in box.


----------



## 2006Sierra1500

skostur79;1506273 said:


> here some pics of a frame swap i did ,


Frame swap on a 2010?!?!?


----------



## plowguy43

Well its the same frame from 88-2010 (minor differences)


----------



## skostur79

it was a 2009


----------



## mossman381

plowguy43;1506440 said:


> Well its the same frame from 88-2010 (minor differences)


The frames where the same from 88-98 and then they changed in 99-2010.


----------



## brad96z28

Did the new frame have the gusstes?


----------



## jmac5058

If by new you mean 99-2011 , no . The new ones 2011 and up have a totaly new frame that is much stronger and needs no gussetts.


----------



## skostur79

brad96z28;1506663 said:


> Did the new frame have the gusstes?


no the replacement frame did not have them

but a kit from gm was welded on at the shop


----------



## DieselSlug

I should prolly do this on my 94, would make me sleep better at night. Has had a 7.5 foot Fisher since new and luckily no cracks there yet. I do have a small rot hole on the inside of the frame that will get patched in a few weeks.


----------



## bizzo15

I have a set of the '88-98 gussets from B&B that I don't need anymore. $55 shipped to anyone who wants them.


----------



## Tinstar

B&B, I am very new to posting, replying etc on this site. I have read and learned a bunch and appreciate it very much. Apparently I am unable to PM. Im looking into the specifics of the PM thing but until then, is there another way to contact you about getting the gussets?

Thanks!


----------



## B&B

Tinstar;1507335 said:


> B&B, I am very new to posting, replying etc on this site. I have read and learned a bunch and appreciate it very much. Apparently I am unable to PM. Im looking into the specifics of the PM thing but until then, is there another way to contact you about getting the gussets?
> 
> Thanks!


You've been a member plenty long enough but you also need ten posts to enable the PM functions. So you just need a few more. :waving:


----------



## South Seneca

Let's bump this one back up for those who missed it.


----------



## CAT 245ME

I'm gonna have the welder at work put in gussets on my 03 2500HD this week. I was wondering if I just need to have the one gusset behind the upper A arm or would it be wise to add the three (per side) like what was done in the pics of the 88-98 frame a couple pages back.


----------



## Alaskaforby4

After reading a gusset thread I thought I would get a jump on it before I put the truck into commercial plowing. And low and behold it was already starting to crack! These frame areas are designed as crush zones if you were to get in a wreck this is where the frame would give. Well plowing is like simulating a small crash every push! Not a very good design for a plow truck. But the gusset was simple enough...shoulda bought a ford


----------



## SNAKEBIT

So it looks like I need to add this to my list,
plow goin on 2008 Chev 1500


----------



## DieselSlug

I got my gussets from bizzo last week. Need to save some cash to pay a welder to install on my 94.


----------



## South Seneca

These truck frames are built to fold up to absorb energy in a crash. Unfortunately plowing often finds those built in weak areas. These gussets are a must have.


----------



## 2COR517

Alaskaforby4;1509724 said:


> ...shoulda bought a ford


I hope you don't think they dont have issues. Including cracking frames.....


----------



## Alaskaforby4

2COR517;1516144 said:


> I hope you don't think they dont have issues. Including cracking frames.....


Fords dont have have any issues! haha, no whenever you turn a pickup into a dozer you are bound to have some repercussions. My ford just seems to be built a litte more heavy duty. I recently just had my 4x4 go out on my chevy and learned all about that heat actuated front actuator thingy. and I thought jeeps vacuum actuators were bad.....


----------



## DieselSlug

Alaskaforby4;1516435 said:


> Fords dont have have any issues! haha, no whenever you turn a pickup into a dozer you are bound to have some repercussions. My ford just seems to be built a litte more heavy duty. I recently just had my 4x4 go out on my chevy and learned all about that heat actuated front actuator thingy. and I thought jeeps vacuum actuators were bad.....


My thermo-actuator is slow, i picked up an electronic actuator from the junkyard and now i have to buy the harness for plug and play..


----------



## tuney443

Alaskaforby4;1516435 said:


> Fords dont have have any issues! haha, no whenever you turn a pickup into a dozer you are bound to have some repercussions. My ford just seems to be built a litte more heavy duty. I recently just had my 4x4 go out on my chevy and learned all about that heat actuated front actuator thingy. and I thought jeeps vacuum actuators were bad.....


Obviously,you got one of those special Fords that don't eat up ball joints every 40K miles,or having to replace a rotted out oil pan to the tune of $2K,or one of those that can serve as a double duty[NOT related to Super doody] flame thrower,or one of those that eats up brake pads often,or one that has constant turbo issues,etc,etc.

We all know the score here so please stop.ALL trucks have their issues,just that Ford actually circles the problem:
http://www.smartautosavings.com/images/logos/Ford.gif?1352931384


----------



## Alaskaforby4

Yup, got the special one. I dont know why anyone would buy the kind you are talking about!


----------



## 2COR517

Alaskaforby4;1516435 said:


> Fords dont have have any issues! haha, no whenever you turn a pickup into a dozer you are bound to have some repercussions. My ford just seems to be built a litte more heavy duty. I recently just had my 4x4 go out on my chevy and learned all about that heat actuated front actuator thingy. and I thought jeeps vacuum actuators were bad.....





DieselSlug;1516447 said:


> My thermo-actuator is slow, i picked up an electronic actuator from the junkyard and now i have to buy the harness for plug and play..


Remove the actuator from the axle housing, stuff a 3/8 drive socket or old lug nut in there, and reinstall the actuator but do not connect the wiring.

INSTANT 4wd when you push the button or pull the lever.


----------



## Alaskaforby4

2COR517;1516613 said:


> Remove the actuator from the axle housing, stuff a 3/8 drive socket or old lug nut in there, and reinstall the actuator but do not connect the wiring.
> 
> INSTANT 4wd when you push the button or pull the lever.


Yeah, I did that method for awhile but I travel on the roads at high speeds at times. When I flushed my diff oil for maintenance this year I found 5 or 6 small 1/2 a match head size metal chunks. So I decided to go back to the actuator method to get every last bit of possible life out of her.


----------



## jasonv

Alaskaforby4;1509724 said:


> But the gusset was simple enough...shoulda bought a ford


Ford: They bend UP in the middle:









GM: They bend DOWN in the middle:









Don't know about you guys, but this frame just doesn't look adequate for a full size truck;








(That's a ford 150 BTW)


----------



## 2COR517

Alaskaforby4;1516783 said:


> Yeah, I did that method for awhile but I travel on the roads at high speeds at times. When I flushed my diff oil for maintenance this year I found 5 or 6 small 1/2 a match head size metal chunks. So I decided to go back to the actuator method to get every last bit of possible life out of her.


Even with the actuator out the side gears and spider gears are still spinning....


----------



## jasonv

For any vehicle where it is a POSSIBLE upgrade, I highly recommend manual unlocking hubs. Summer driving / DD, there is no need for 4wd, so you might as well stop as much junk from spinning as you can. Save a bit of gas while reducing wear and extending fluid change interval.


----------



## DieselSlug

Stuck with autos. But so far so good at 243k.


----------



## Alaskaforby4

Yes, hubs would be nice, another nice benefit more common on fords! haha, ok but seriously, The actuator was cheap enough and if it ever malfunctions it is an east fix. I realize the axle shafts are still spinning, but the actuator/ clutch fork being disengaged means my differential should be unlocked and pinion should not be engaged either. Making for less moving parts less wear and better mileage.


----------



## mossman381

jasonv;1517946 said:


> Don't know about you guys, but this frame just doesn't look adequate for a full size truck;


You should see the frame of the 73-87 1500 :laughing:


----------



## tuney443

Alaskaforby4;1516477 said:


> Yup, got the special one. I dont know why anyone would buy the kind you are talking about!


UMMM,maybe because they don't have a choice.


----------



## jasonv

mossman381;1518314 said:


> You should see the frame of the 73-87 1500 :laughing:


I take that as laughing at the modern pretend-frame when comparing it to the solid frames of yesteryear.

'80 1500:









What's hard to see in that picture is that the frame rail is THICK, not tinfoil like new car frames. The side face of the rail is also all on a single plane in the old ones, which makes them FAR FAR stronger than the spagetti-noodle routing you get now.

I have to admit, though, that the above pic is really sad. That frame needs REAL maintenance, not a layer of tar. Should have gone at it with a needle gun, rust inhibiting primer, and topcoat before the tar. That clown seems to be TRYING to rust it out.


----------



## mossman381

jasonv;1519942 said:


> I take that as laughing at the modern pretend-frame when comparing it to the solid frames of yesteryear.
> 
> What's hard to see in that picture is that the frame rail is THICK, not tinfoil like new car frames. The side face of the rail is also all on a single plane in the old ones, which makes them FAR FAR stronger than the spagetti-noodle routing you get now.
> 
> I have to admit, though, that the above pic is really sad. That frame needs REAL maintenance, not a layer of tar. Should have gone at it with a needle gun, rust inhibiting primer, and topcoat before the tar. That clown seems to be TRYING to rust it out.


The frame on those older 1500's are not thick. They are flimsy. I did a frame off resto on a 79. When I was moving it around to paint it, the frame twisted very easy. The frames of todays trucks are far superior to the older frames. The metal on the new stuff is thinner but that also saves weight. If you need a real truck you need to step up to a 2500-3500.


----------



## mpriester

mossman381;1519953 said:


> The frame on those older 1500's are not thick. They are flimsy. I did a frame off resto on a 79. When I was moving it around to paint it, the frame twisted very easy. The frames of todays trucks are far superior to the older frames. The metal on the new stuff is thinner but that also saves weight. If you need a real truck you need to step up to a 2500-3500.


and lets not forget the metalergy involved in the making of the steel today as compared to the frames 20 years ago. Granted the new frames have their flaws but they are much stronger.


----------



## Holland

mossman381;1519953 said:


> The frame on those older 1500's are not thick. They are flimsy. I did a frame off resto on a 79. When I was moving it around to paint it, the frame twisted very easy. The frames of todays trucks are far superior to the older frames. The metal on the new stuff is thinner but that also saves weight. If you need a real truck you need to step up to a 2500-3500.


/\/\/\ I'll second that! Thumbs Up


----------



## RichG53

They might be thinner...But engineered better..


----------



## theholycow

Yup, improved metallurgy and geometry are definitely involved...but I'm not sure my 2002 1500's frame is any thinner than that 1980 photo above anyway. I got intimate with it this summer with the bed dismounted as I wirebrushed and undercoated it. Not only does the thickness look similar but it's *boxed* and reinforced in sections (whereas that 1980 is *not* boxed and reinforced anywhere), and the 3 of the crossmembers are big thick tube material rather than C-channel. Plus, the 8' bed model (for an appropriate comparison) might have _more_ crossmembers.

You might have to go back further than 1980 to find thicker metal. 1980 was right after two gas crises when they were frantically cutting weight from everything.

This is what my 2002 looks like after removing half its weight in rust (put on plenty of salty winter miles, never washed it for a lot of years, and parked it on grass for 3 seasons for the past 5 years; a little more reasonable care or at least being driven in the summer rain might have helped avoid some of that rust).


----------



## SNAKEBIT

what about the new body style 1500 2007+
I looked at mine and the brake hose and ABS wire is routed right behind the upper mount


----------



## jasonv

The modern over-rigid paper-thin frames are junk. This thread is evidence of that fact. The problem that they have is cracking. Older frames are thicker, and have some "give". This allows them to flex a bit where needed rather than cracking in half.

Speaking from an engineering perspective, "rigidity" is the enemy of longevity. With something that is excessively rigid, when it has to give in a bit, instead it CRACKS. A frame with properly built-in flexibility will withstand all the instances that would crack a rigid frame and keep going completely unaffected.

Now granted, I haven't measured the thickness of any "1500", of any year. The closest I've looked at is a C20 frame, one of my resto-projects is a '76 C20. The frame on it is vastly superior (simple, thick, and with physics that actually make sense) than any "new" truck in approximately the same category.


Now whoever says that modern frame metallurgy is better than from the 70's, you couldn't be more wrong. I've seen MANY MANY modern frames rust through in just a few years (like 5), and every frame from the 70's I see has taken Ontario winters (salt) for ~40 years and just have surface rust. The metals used in older vehicles is FAR superior to modern. Back a few decades, they didn't have the ability to plan the vehicle's lifespan as well as now, so that the whole thing self destructs ***just*** after the warranty expires.

In the 1970's, American cars were still GENUINELY AMERICAN. Overbuilt bricks, like trucks are supposed to be.


----------



## mossman381

jasonv;1521701 said:


> The modern over-rigid paper-thin frames are junk. This thread is evidence of that fact. The problem that they have is cracking. Older frames are thicker, and have some "give". This allows them to flex a bit where needed rather than cracking in half.
> 
> Speaking from an engineering perspective, "rigidity" is the enemy of longevity. With something that is excessively rigid, when it has to give in a bit, instead it CRACKS. A frame with properly built-in flexibility will withstand all the instances that would crack a rigid frame and keep going completely unaffected.
> 
> Now granted, I haven't measured the thickness of any "1500", of any year. The closest I've looked at is a C20 frame, one of my resto-projects is a '76 C20. The frame on it is vastly superior (simple, thick, and with physics that actually make sense) than any "new" truck in approximately the same category.
> 
> Now whoever says that modern frame metallurgy is better than from the 70's, you couldn't be more wrong. I've seen MANY MANY modern frames rust through in just a few years (like 5), and every frame from the 70's I see has taken Ontario winters (salt) for ~40 years and just have surface rust. The metals used in older vehicles is FAR superior to modern. Back a few decades, they didn't have the ability to plan the vehicle's lifespan as well as now, so that the whole thing self destructs ***just*** after the warranty expires.
> 
> In the 1970's, American cars were still GENUINELY AMERICAN. Overbuilt bricks, like trucks are supposed to be.


It is obvious that nobody is going to change your mind. Just because you think something doesn't make it so. The frames in this thread are cracking because the trucks are carrying huge plows and probably going over the gcwr of the front axle on most of them. And I would guess that the people driving them are pushing them pretty hard. The 73-87 frames had cracking issues near the steering box. Most people know about this. So your theory of a flexing frame doesn't really hold up knowing this.


----------



## Holland

jasonv;1521701 said:


> The modern over-rigid paper-thin frames are junk. This thread is evidence of that fact. The problem that they have is cracking. Older frames are thicker, and have some "give". This allows them to flex a bit where needed rather than cracking in half.
> 
> Speaking from an engineering perspective, "rigidity" is the enemy of longevity. With something that is excessively rigid, when it has to give in a bit, instead it CRACKS. A frame with properly built-in flexibility will withstand all the instances that would crack a rigid frame and keep going completely unaffected.
> 
> Now granted, I haven't measured the thickness of any "1500", of any year. The closest I've looked at is a C20 frame, one of my resto-projects is a '76 C20. The frame on it is vastly superior (simple, thick, and with physics that actually make sense) than any "new" truck in approximately the same category.
> 
> Now whoever says that modern frame metallurgy is better than from the 70's, you couldn't be more wrong. I've seen MANY MANY modern frames rust through in just a few years (like 5), and every frame from the 70's I see has taken Ontario winters (salt) for ~40 years and just have surface rust. The metals used in older vehicles is FAR superior to modern. Back a few decades, they didn't have the ability to plan the vehicle's lifespan as well as now, so that the whole thing self destructs ***just*** after the warranty expires.
> 
> In the 1970's, American cars were still GENUINELY AMERICAN. Overbuilt bricks, like trucks are supposed to be.


Just because its "simple" and you understand it does not mean its superior. You probably think a carburator is better too.



mossman381;1521720 said:


> It is obvious that nobody is going to change your mind. Just because you think something doesn't make it so. The frames in this thread are cracking because the trucks are carrying huge plows and probably going over the gcwr of the front axle on most of them. And I would guess that the people driving them are pushing them pretty hard. The 73-87 frames had cracking issues near the steering box. Most people know about this. So your theory of a flexing frame doesn't really hold up knowing this.


Some people are just stuck in their ways. Nothing wrong with the old stuff, but to say it performs better isnt correct. Any old 87 chevy out there with 200k on it will be on its 2nd or 3rd motor and at least its 2nd trans. An 03 chevy with the same miles will be running its original drivetrain and still have some life left in it!

Same goes for todays frames. The engineering behind them has come a long way! Rigidity in a frame gives it the abilty to perform well. Vehilces ride better because of it too. The new fully boxed frames are amazing to drive. Todays trucks will pull 12k+ and still handle like a car!


----------



## mossman381

Holland;1521731 said:


> Just because its "simple" and you understand it does not mean its superior. You probably think a carburator is better too.
> 
> Some people are just stuck in their ways. Nothing wrong with the old stuff, but to say it performs better isnt correct. Any old 87 chevy out there with 200k on it will be on its 2nd or 3rd motor and at least its 2nd trans. An 03 chevy with the same miles will be running its original drivetrain and still have some life left in it!
> 
> Same goes for todays frames. The engineering behind them has come a long way! Rigidity in a frame gives it the abilty to perform well. Vehilces ride better because of it too. The new fully boxed frames are amazing to drive. Todays trucks will pull 12k+ and still handle like a car!


Totally agree with you. There is nothing wrong with older trucks. They are very easy to work on. If plowsite was around in the 70's and 80's there would have been a cracked frame thread then too.


----------



## theholycow

Holland;1521731 said:


> An 03 chevy with the same miles will be running its original drivetrain and still have some life left in it!


My 2002 has 211,000 miles on the original drivetrain and still has some life left. I've done plenty of work with it, hauling (sometimes technically overloaded but always handled and braked well), towing at max GCWR up mountains, etc.

My only drivetrain issues:
- Front differential has what I think is a failing carrier bearing or something, works fine and my mechanic assures me that it will fail safely so I can just drive it slightly noisy until it fails...been that way for years and hasn't failed.
- Engine has piston slap, mere harmless noise, when cold.
- I suspect I won't get the normal longevity from my engine due to neglect in its younger days...had a gasket leak, didn't believe "low oil" message and too lazy to check, I drove it dry of oil for weeks until I could get it in for warranty repair. Wish I hadn't done that but here it is all these miles later still running strong. Don't know how much longer I can expect.



> Same goes for todays frames. The engineering behind them has come a long way! Rigidity in a frame gives it the abilty to perform well. Vehilces ride better because of it too. The new fully boxed frames are amazing to drive. Todays trucks will pull 12k+ and still handle like a car!


Well said! Also, rigidity doesn't cause cracking, *flex* causes fatigue cracking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatigue_(material)
Rigidity prevents cracking until you overload it beyond where the old flexible frame would have pretzeled. Then instead of needing a frame straightening rack it just needs a stick welder...


----------



## jasonv

mossman381;1521720 said:


> It is obvious that nobody is going to change your mind. Just because you think something doesn't make it so. The frames in this thread are cracking because the trucks are carrying huge plows and probably going over the gcwr of the front axle on most of them. And I would guess that the people driving them are pushing them pretty hard. The 73-87 frames had cracking issues near the steering box. Most people know about this. So your theory of a flexing frame doesn't really hold up knowing this.


Just because you eat whatever horse-shi.t they pour down your throat doesn't make it steak. They are cracking because the frame in that location has a complex curve made out of paper-thin sheet metal. The physics ARE BAD. This isn't a question of understanding, it is a question of being poorly designed. In order to be strong in that location, the frame needs to be straight, so that forces are applied directly along the frame, rather than in a twisting/shearing motion.

As for frame needing to flex, it isn't a theory, its PHYSICS. Guess you must have flunked out. Too bad for you.


----------



## Holland

jasonv;1521758 said:


> Just because you eat whatever horse-shi.t they pour down your throat doesn't make it steak. They are cracking because the frame in that location has a complex curve made out of paper-thin sheet metal. The physics ARE BAD. This isn't a question of understanding, it is a question of being poorly designed. In order to be strong in that location, the frame needs to be straight, so that forces are applied directly along the frame, rather than in a twisting/shearing motion.
> 
> As for frame needing to flex, it isn't a theory, its PHYSICS. Guess you must have flunked out. Too bad for you.


Complex curves build structure into a frame without sacrificing safety. A new frame is nice a sturdy untill that drunk crosses the center line at 1am when your out on the road checking your accounts. Then this "lighter" frame will crumple down where it is designed to and save your life. That old flexible frame of the 70's will stay stiff the one time you dont want it too.

I've ran a shop for 6 years now, you get more miles out of newer vehilces. I ran a tow truck for years on the side as well, new vehicles save lives!

Theres a comprimise to be made. Sure they can design a 3/4inch thick steel frame that would never rot out or break, but it would be a death trap! I think manufactureres have done a great job putting a vehicle on the road that can haul 12k+, handle like a car, and withstand a head on crash without killing the occupant.

Heres proof, about a month ago a friend of mine was pulling a stock trailer home with his 05 F250. It was late at night and he swerved to miss a deer. He left the road at 55 mph and struck a tree head on. The trucks frame absorbed the impact but held together. It bent behind and in front of the cab. The gooseneck on the trailer bent straight back and somehow did not break loose from the rest of the trailer. It layed right down on the back of the truck and wrapped the bumper right aroundthe frame. Smashed the box down. He walked away without a scratch on him. Heck the doors even open fine! I would have to say todays engineers are doing a great job designing todays trucks.

Heres the truck.










I'll put up with having to put a couple little gussets on my frame...


----------



## mossman381

jasonv;1521758 said:


> Just because you eat whatever horse-shi.t they pour down your throat doesn't make it steak. They are cracking because the frame in that location has a complex curve made out of paper-thin sheet metal. The physics ARE BAD. This isn't a question of understanding, it is a question of being poorly designed. In order to be strong in that location, the frame needs to be straight, so that forces are applied directly along the frame, rather than in a twisting/shearing motion.
> 
> As for frame needing to flex, it isn't a theory, its PHYSICS. Guess you must have flunked out. Too bad for you.


You are just making yourself look bad man. If you like the old stuff than run it. Just don't say it is better engineered than the new stuff.


----------



## Holland

mossman381;1521799 said:


> You are just making yourself look bad man. If you like the old stuff than run it. Just don't say it is better engineered than the new stuff.


Exactly. I'm not saying to stay away from the old stuff either. I own plenty of older equiptment. And dont get me wrong, it performs well! But they have done a great deal of improvements over the years! Thumbs Up


----------



## plowguy43

jasonv;1521701 said:


> Now whoever says that modern frame metallurgy is better than from the 70's, you couldn't be more wrong. I've seen MANY MANY modern frames rust through in just a few years (like 5), and every frame from the 70's I see has taken Ontario winters (salt) for ~40 years and just have surface rust. The metals used in older vehicles is FAR superior to modern. Back a few decades, they didn't have the ability to plan the vehicle's lifespan as well as now, so that the whole thing self destructs ***just*** after the warranty expires.
> 
> In the 1970's, American cars were still GENUINELY AMERICAN. Overbuilt bricks, like trucks are supposed to be.


First, thats BS about the older trucks unless they've been treated with a newer paint/corrosion protectant that isn't 40 years old. Sorry not going to happen with today's newer chemicals that are used to treat roads which answers your own argument. Today's treatments eat any metal, todays metals are coated much better and treated way better than 40 years ago (some places weren't even primed).



jasonv;1521758 said:


> Just because you eat whatever horse-shi.t they pour down your throat doesn't make it steak. *They are cracking because the frame in that location has a complex curve made out of paper-thin sheet metal.* The physics ARE BAD. This isn't a question of understanding, it is a question of being poorly designed. In order to be strong in that location, the frame needs to be straight, so that forces are applied directly along the frame, rather than in a twisting/shearing motion.
> 
> As for frame needing to flex, it isn't a theory, its PHYSICS. Guess you must have flunked out. Too bad for you.


Here's a FACT- that space on the frame is designed for impacts, to protect the occupants of the vehicle. GM put a lower front end weight rating on those trucks for a reason. Guys who put large plows on them, exceeding that rating is what causes them to crack. It wasn't designed for the weight, simple.

Its really not worth arguing with you since you spout off that your Tacoma 4cyl is getting 27mpg a number that most 4 door 4 cylinder sedans barely see in mixed driving.


----------



## theholycow

Holland;1521774 said:


> Heres proof, about a month ago a friend of mine was pulling a stock trailer home with his 05 F250. It was late at night and he swerved to miss a deer. He left the road at 55 mph and struck a tree head on. The trucks frame absorbed the impact but held together. It bent behind and in front of the cab. The gooseneck on the trailer bent straight back and somehow did not break loose from the rest of the trailer. It layed right down on the back of the truck and wrapped the bumper right aroundthe frame. Smashed the box down. He walked away without a scratch on him. Heck the doors even open fine! I would have to say todays engineers are doing a great job designing todays trucks.
> 
> Heres the truck.
> 
> http://i944.photobucket.com/albums/ad282/tvh460/576281_10152196292160441_1646366498_n.jpg[IMG][/QUOTE]
> 
> Would have been better to just hit the deer.
> 
> I've seen too many severe crashes that happened while trying too hard to avoid a minor crash. Saw a person die after swerving around an empty rubbermaid trash barrel, was a spectacular movie-like crash, and totally senseless...that rubber barrel would have done almost no damage to the car, let alone hurt anyone.
> 
> I don't swerve anymore, though I might if a pedestrian is in front of me. I change lanes gently or if it's too late I just hit whatever's in the road. Been doing that for hundreds of thousands of miles now and never regretted it, my vehicles have received nary a scratch, just running over stuff instead...and I'm alive.


----------



## Holland

theholycow;1521810 said:


> Would have been better to just hit the deer.
> 
> I've seen too many severe crashes that happened while trying too hard to avoid a minor crash. Saw a person die after swerving around an empty rubbermaid trash barrel, was a spectacular movie-like crash, and totally senseless...that rubber barrel would have done almost no damage to the car, let alone hurt anyone.
> 
> I don't swerve anymore, though I might if a pedestrian is in front of me. I change lanes gently or if it's too late I just hit whatever's in the road. Been doing that for hundreds of thousands of miles now and never regretted it, my vehicles have received nary a scratch, just running over stuff instead...and I'm alive.


O i agree completely. And i'm sure he agrees too. I'm sure it was just a reaction and the trailer probably had a bit to do with his lack of control once he swerved. Its just instinct sometimes to react that way. I've been guilty of swerving to miss a deer with a trailer on. Luckily i held onto it and didnt do any damage. And immediately afterwards i'm yelling at myself "why did you swerve?!" haha


----------



## DieselSlug

1994 Silverado on its second engine and transmission at 245k, the engine was due to rot. This truck hasnt had any major frame repairs yet. I did buy gussets though that will get put on when i can afford to. I do believe the newer stuff is built better, and is stronger while being safer. Cant have it all. To me a boxed in frame seems stronger than a c-channel frame..


----------



## jasonv

Holland;1521774 said:


> Complex curves build structure into a frame without sacrificing safety. A new frame is nice a sturdy untill that drunk crosses the center line at 1am when your out on the road checking your accounts. Then this "lighter" frame will crumple down where it is designed to and save your life. That old flexible frame of the 70's will stay stiff the one time you dont want it too.
> 
> I've ran a shop for 6 years now, you get more miles out of newer vehilces. I ran a tow truck for years on the side as well, new vehicles save lives!


You're basically supporting my position by saying, effectively, that you want it to self-destruct. OK, I GET THAT. You're also failing to think through ALL of the motivations of the manufacturer. True that they probably don't want all of their customers to die, but false if you think that compromising the vehicle's structure (frame) is the only way to accomplish this. Simply put, the BODY is the only part that needs to collapse in a collision. Leave the frame stiff and have the body collapse towards the front of the frame, it will protect the occupants equally and allow the frame to be a solid piece of steel.



> Theres a comprimise to be made. Sure they can design a 3/4inch thick steel frame that would never rot out or break, but it would be a death trap! I think manufactureres have done a great job putting a vehicle on the road that can haul 12k+, handle like a car, and withstand a head on crash without killing the occupant.


Actually, if you made a vehicle with a 3/4 inch frame, it wouldn't be a death trap, it would be a bringer of death, because it would be so heavy that whatever honda happens to get run over would take ALL of the crumple. There would be enough inertia that the occupants of such vehicle would hardly feel crunching over a honda.

I agree that there is a compromise, but the one that the manufacturer's choose is the one that best lines their pockets. Not the one that is best for their customers. Take a couple of nice 3/8" thick 6-inch I-beams, build a body on it attached to a slide rail on top of the frame, designed to slide forward over the frame and crumple. First, the frame would be very solid. Second, it would protect the vehicle's occupants. Third, the impact absorbed by the opposing vehicle would be just the frame itself plus the crumpling body, hence even the other vehicle's occupants would be protected.



> Heres proof, about a month ago a friend of mine was pulling a stock trailer home with his 05 F250. It was late at night and he swerved to miss a deer. He left the road at 55 mph and struck a tree head on. The trucks frame absorbed the impact but held together. It bent behind and in front of the cab. The gooseneck on the trailer bent straight back and somehow did not break loose from the rest of the trailer. It layed right down on the back of the truck and wrapped the bumper right aroundthe frame. Smashed the box down. He walked away without a scratch on him. Heck the doors even open fine! I would have to say todays engineers are doing a great job designing todays trucks.
> 
> Heres the truck.
> 
> I'll put up with having to put a couple little gussets on my frame...


That's nice, but not relevant, and doesn't even begin to address what kind of difference would have happened if the truck had a solid frame. This thread simply is not about making passenger cars safe in a crash, its about a truck frame being made to stand up to hard work. These may not be compatible objectives in a conventional design, nor is there need to be. That truck you showed the pic of sure looks messed up, but let me ask you this; what would have happened if the trailer was 1000 pounds heavier and the frame gave out completely so that the trailer flattened not just the box, but the cab as well?

The other thing to point out is that he swerved to hit a deer. You think maybe it would have been better to just run the animal down? Hit a mushy deer at 55 or hit a tree at 55. You think that maybe the thought of totalling the toy truck on a little deer hit him in the back of the mind to swerve to protect the truck? Maybe if he had a little more faith in the truck, he would have just mushed it down and made it the rest of the way without destroying everything.


----------



## jasonv

mossman381;1521799 said:


> You are just making yourself look bad man. If you like the old stuff than run it. Just don't say it is better engineered than the new stuff.


Oh, its way better engineered now... better engineered to rake in the money when the frames crumple from hitting a feather on the highway. Better built RIGHT ONTO that fine line between sufficiently solid and ready to collapse under its own weight.


----------



## jasonv

theholycow;1521749 said:


> Well said! Also, rigidity doesn't cause cracking, *flex* causes fatigue cracking.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatigue_(material)
> Rigidity prevents cracking until you overload it beyond where the old flexible frame would have pretzeled. Then instead of needing a frame straightening rack it just needs a stick welder...


I can't believe you people, making up nonsense to support your incorrect point of view. Older frames aren't going boingy-boingy constantly down the road. They flex when they're subject to OVER STRESS conditions. The difference is that when they ARE overstressed, the older frames will BOUNCE BACK rather than fold in half.


----------



## jasonv

plowguy43;1521804 said:


> First, thats BS about the older trucks unless they've been treated with a newer paint/corrosion protectant that isn't 40 years old. Sorry not going to happen with today's newer chemicals that are used to treat roads which answers your own argument. Today's treatments eat any metal, todays metals are coated much better and treated way better than 40 years ago (some places weren't even primed).


Rust takes time. Quality materials slow it down. Make it paper thin and paint it with fancy modern paint, it'll look pretty for 3-4 years, then rust through the 5th. Thick NEW steel used in much older vehicles holds up a hell of a lot longer than modern tinfoil.



> Here's a FACT- that space on the frame is designed for impacts, to protect the occupants of the vehicle. GM put a lower front end weight rating on those trucks for a reason. Guys who put large plows on them, exceeding that rating is what causes them to crack. It wasn't designed for the weight, simple.


Its a truck, it SHOULD be designed for HARD WORK. If you can't WORK the damned thing, you might as well buy a unibody car that is sure to crumple.

But again, this is definitely not the topic, because you aren't discussing the fact that it is too weak to be useful, you are trying to excuse the fact that it is too weak to be useful.



> Its really not worth arguing with you since you spout off that your Tacoma 4cyl is getting 27mpg a number that most 4 door 4 cylinder sedans barely see in mixed driving.


You're obviously one of types in denial that anybody can get better mileage than your american v8.

http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_04_23.html
Have a look down under "new vehicle fuel efficiency". Passenger cars average MID 30's. Light trucks average MID 20's. Interesting how "light trucks" actually DROPPED from 2010 to 2011. Maybe something to do with how ford and dodge dropped their compacts.


----------



## plowguy43

jasonv;1521899 said:


> Rust takes time. Quality materials slow it down. Make it paper thin and paint it with fancy modern paint, it'll look pretty for 3-4 years, then rust through the 5th. Thick NEW steel used in much older vehicles holds up a hell of a lot longer than modern tinfoil.


You failed to answer my response regarding chemicals. Simply put, todays chemicals that are applied to public roads will eat old cars alive. I have a 68 mustang that has a rusted cowl vent - Ford left this as bare metal at the factory as did other manufacturers. It was common to not treat parts of the vehicles and the paints used back then were much worse at protection than todays.



jasonv said:


> Its a truck, it SHOULD be designed for HARD WORK. If you can't WORK the damned thing, you might as well buy a unibody car that is sure to crumple.
> 
> But again, this is definitely not the topic, because you aren't discussing the fact that it is too weak to be useful, you are trying to excuse the fact that it is too weak to be useful.


How is it not useful? You can still hang a plow off the front, just not a very large plow. At the time (along with today) I'm willing to bet money that most truck sales will never see a plow. Its a very small percentage compared to total truck sales. That is why GM cared less to modify a long running frame. They cared more about meeting crash standards then a few people hanging plows off the front.



jasonv said:


> You're obviously one of types in denial that anybody can get better mileage than your american v8.
> 
> http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_04_23.html
> Have a look down under "new vehicle fuel efficiency". Passenger cars average MID 30's. Light trucks average MID 20's. Interesting how "light trucks" actually DROPPED from 2010 to 2011. Maybe something to do with how ford and dodge dropped their compacts.


Did I mention a V8? I have a V10 that gets crap for mileage. I've had plenty of V8's and cars, and maintain a fleet that has plenty. I've driven plenty of small trucks for 100's of miles and am simply stating that most sedans to be in the 30mpg range need to be driven mostly on highway. If it is a 50/50 mix or anything leaning more towards city driving, then its in the mid to high 20's. Somehow, your 4000lb Tacoma 4cyl can achieve the same mpg's as those cars. Which is BS.


----------



## 2COR517

I'll admit maybe I've derailed a thread or two but this was a very specific topic thread with 200 posts all on topic. 

Can we debate crashworthiness, fuel economy, and corrosion protection elsewhere?


----------



## jasonv

plowguy43;1521913 said:


> You failed to answer my response regarding chemicals. Simply put, todays chemicals that are applied to public roads will eat old cars alive. I have a 68 mustang that has a rusted cowl vent - Ford left this as bare metal at the factory as did other manufacturers. It was common to not treat parts of the vehicles and the paints used back then were much worse at protection than todays.


You think that the road chemicals care how new the car happens to be? Once the surface paint is compromised, the thing is going to rust. At this point, the only thing stopping it from rusting right through is HOW THICK IT IS. The thicker the metal, the longer it takes to rust through. If it takes 5 years to rust through 1/16", then it takes 50 years to rust through 3/8" (it isn't linear, because the outer layers of rust do actually protect the inside metal to some extent).



> How is it not useful?


Because the crappy thing BREAKS when you actually work it.



> You can still hang a plow off the front, just not a very large plow.


Doesn't seem to matter how "large" of a plow.



> At the time (along with today) I'm willing to bet money that most truck sales will never see a plow. Its a very small percentage compared to total truck sales. That is why GM cared less to modify a long running frame. They cared more about meeting crash standards then a few people hanging plows off the front.


Most trucks on the road aren't used to carry anything heavier than a few bags of groceries. Guess that's the maximum work load that they should be designing them to handle.



> Did I mention a V8? I have a V10 that gets crap for mileage. I've had plenty of V8's and cars, and maintain a fleet that has plenty.


How does that relate to me?



> I've driven plenty of small trucks for 100's of miles and am simply stating that most sedans to be in the 30mpg range need to be driven mostly on highway. If it is a 50/50 mix or anything leaning more towards city driving, then its in the mid to high 20's.


Those numbers are AVERAGE. That includes 6 and 8 cylinder (and more) gas hogs. If we limited ourselves to 4 cylinders and less, those "passenger" cars would be getting average OVER 40 mpg.



> Somehow, your 4000lb Tacoma 4cyl can achieve the same mpg's as those cars. Which is BS.


Similarly to cars, those "light trucks" INCLUDE your V10 gas hog. If we limit our view to 4-cyl, the average would be mid 30's.

Its really time for you to take your blindfold off.


----------



## jasonv

2COR517;1521973 said:


> I'll admit maybe I've derailed a thread or two but this was a very specific topic thread with 200 posts all on topic.
> 
> Can we debate crashworthiness, fuel economy, and corrosion protection elsewhere?


Thumbs Up

Not sure quite why, but these guys seem to believe that its OK for the frame to break, because they might be 0.0001% less likely to die in a crash.

To put an end to this crash discussion... I believe that it is more likely to die in a crash that happens than in one that doesn't. Having your frame break in half can definitely cause a crash.

Point of course, is that these frames are underbuilt and need to be reinforced and monitored as needed.


----------



## 2006Sierra1500

Jeezzz.....anyways.

None of my trucks have cracks and I'm running Fisher 7'6'' HDs on half tons...

And...jasonv is saying that most passenger cars have V6 and V8s? How come the Camry has a 4 cylinder? The Corolla? The Avenger? Dart? Fusion? Focus? I could go on and on and on


----------



## tuney443

Is this PS or As The Frame Turns?????Way too much drama.


----------



## jasonv

2006Sierra1500;1522030 said:


> Jeezzz.....anyways.
> 
> None of my trucks have cracks and I'm running Fisher 7'6'' HDs on half tons...
> 
> And...jasonv is saying that most passenger cars have V6 and V8s? How come the Camry has a 4 cylinder? The Corolla? The Avenger? Dart? Fusion? Focus? I could go on and on and on


Would you mind taking 10 seconds and actually READ before your foot gets so far down your throat that your balls are rubbing against your chin?

I NEVER SAID THAT ALL PASSENGER CARS WERE 6 or 8 CYL. I SAID THAT THE MILEAGE FIGURES *INCLUDED* ALL OF THE CARS *THAT ARE* 6 and 8 CYL. *IN ADDITION* to 4 CYL.

Or are you DENYING that there are cars with more than 4 cylinders?

BTW: Camry has two engine options... one a 4 cyl, the other *SIX*.


----------



## Holland

jasonv;1522657 said:


> Would you mind taking 10 seconds and actually READ before your foot gets so far down your throat that your balls are rubbing against your chin?
> 
> I NEVER SAID THAT ALL PASSENGER CARS WERE 6 or 8 CYL. I SAID THAT THE MILEAGE FIGURES *INCLUDED* ALL OF THE CARS *THAT ARE* 6 and 8 CYL. *IN ADDITION* to 4 CYL.
> 
> Or are you DENYING that there are cars with more than 4 cylinders?
> 
> BTW: Camry has two engine options... one a 4 cyl, the other *SIX*.


Dude you need to relax, everytime you post its an arguement. Half the threads you post in become derailed.


----------



## Mark13

Holland;1522700 said:


> Dude you need to relax, everytime you post its an arguement. Half the threads you post in become derailed.


Glad I'm not the only one to notice that he seems to like confrontation.


----------



## jb1390

Would it be possible to delete the last few pages of posts and get this thread back on topic? I fear for the IQ of future people who read through these posts.


----------



## Squires

@ Jason
Are you an engineer? If so i pray to god that you never get to dabble in vehicle design.
You can go to the metal yard and get some school bus rated C channel and start building your death trap cab slider BS you were spouting off about.
But before you go around bashing into stuff because your frame is so tough and the cab slides on rails of rainbows and lolly pops, think about the large mass in front of the cab. The thing that gets your 15,000lb truck going, in your ideal configuration it would be a 4 Banger, but would likely be a wee bit larger so you can carry around more than a torn sack of feathers causing all these vehicle rite off's.
Is the engine on sheer pins? because if not, it wants to stay with the frame as the cab passes over it, acting like a can opener tearing the cab apart as well as the occupants.



What is the purpose of a weight rating if it should be able to be ignored and overloaded?

The vast majority of the issues, as stated by others, were with overloaded plow configurations plain and simple, whine and complain as you will but in the end you got to face fact, you operated the truck outside the parameters of it's intended use. Plowing is not everything, this colossal **** up as you see it does not hamper the truck users that bought them for carrying a load in the bed or towing a large trailer.

If you don't like it don't buy into the new technology, but again the basis of your ramblings is just that, mindless banter based on tunnel vision based in the 80's.


----------



## M & MD Lawn

Well I finally got my gussets on my truck, put them on about two weeks ago, just hadn't got the pics up... Big thanks to B&B!


----------



## plowguy43

Those are some nice welds.


----------



## M & MD Lawn

yea my Mechanic for my mowers and also my fabricator is a great welder


----------



## vegaman04

What did he use, mig?


----------



## M & MD Lawn

yes I believe so...he always tells me he uses Tig for more delicate metals


----------



## mn-bob

Great Job ! Thanks for the pictures


----------



## PTTP08

Wow seen this thread and I own 2 chevys and guess what is on the to do list... Welding some gussets


----------



## PTTP08

I have 2 trucks 92 and 98 been plowing with these two trucks for 5 years and no problems I run western unimounts these seem like light plows seems like boss and fishers have breaking frames. Any body crack or break a frame with the western unimounts on? Still ganna do the gusset thing asap


----------



## SMiller

My '00 with snow plow prep has the gussets from the factory and the 11+ HD's have a fully boxed frame that does not break!


----------



## milkie62

B&B;1101717 said:


> Yes I keep a pre-made stack of them on the shelf as I include them in on a plow install on any truck that's getting a heavy plow that isn't already equipped with them. Be happy to ship a set out to you, just shoot me a PM.


I have a 2013 2500.Won't this void my warranty ? Nice sqeaky clean frame ,would be a no-brainer to do it now.


----------



## wizardsr

milkie62;1658919 said:


> I have a 2013 2500.Won't this void my warranty ? Nice sqeaky clean frame ,would be a no-brainer to do it now.


Why would adding a gusset void the warranty?  Read the magnusson moss act, it will be worth your time, and will dispel any fears instilled by myths and dealer scare tactics. Dealers can't just arbitrarily "void your warranty", they have to prove that a warranty claim was caused by something you did or added that directly caused that particular part to fail before they can deny a warranty claim (and that's still not "voiding the whole warranty"). If you add a gusset, and the frame fails in that area, they would have to prove that your gusset caused the frame to fail in order to deny a warranty claim. But if you install a gusset, and a power window quits working, they can't tell you to go pound sand and deny a warranty claim for the window just because you added the gusset.


----------



## mossman381

wizardsr;1661051 said:


> Why would adding a gusset void the warranty?  Read the magnusson moss act, it will be worth your time, and will dispel any fears instilled by myths and dealer scare tactics. Dealers can't just arbitrarily "void your warranty", they have to prove that a warranty claim was caused by something you did or added that directly caused that particular part to fail before they can deny a warranty claim (and that's still not "voiding the whole warranty"). If you add a gusset, and the frame fails in that area, they would have to prove that your gusset caused the frame to fail in order to deny a warranty claim. But if you install a gusset, and a power window quits working, they can't tell you to go pound sand and deny a warranty claim for the window just because you added the gusset.


Pretty hard for one guy to fight a giant like GM. You are at their mercy when you go in for warranty work. A 2013 does not need any gussets because I have heard they have a beefier frame from 2011-up.


----------



## wizardsr

mossman381;1661059 said:


> Pretty hard for one guy to fight a giant like GM. You are at their mercy when you go in for warranty work. A 2013 does not need any gussets because I have heard they have a beefier frame from 2011-up.


I actually got them to pay for 75% of a transfer case on a 2500HD that went out at only 44k miles.

Oh, and my 05 F350 was supposed to have a stronger frame too, yet it cracked where none of my 99-04 fords have ever.

My point was that so many people are scared of doing the littlest things to their rigs for fear of the big bad wolf voiding their whole warranty which simply never happens. It's a dealer scare tactic, nothing more, nothing less. I've even had them tell my my warranty is going to be void if I change my own oil, give me a break.


----------



## mossman381

wizardsr;1661065 said:


> I actually got them to pay for 75% of a transfer case on a 2500HD that went out at only 44k miles.
> 
> Oh, and my 05 F350 was supposed to have a stronger frame too, yet it cracked where none of my 99-04 fords have ever.
> 
> My point was that so many people are scared of doing the littlest things to their rigs for fear of the big bad wolf voiding their whole warranty which simply never happens. It's a dealer scare tactic, nothing more, nothing less. I've even had them tell my my warranty is going to be void if I change my own oil, give me a break.


The 2011 chevy frame was totally redesigned and the front axle weight ratings went up. I really don't think it needs any reinforcement. But if he welds something on the frame, I am positive he will void any warranty work on the frame.


----------



## milkie62

Its too bad that you cannot buy a 3/4 ton truck and use it as intended.Way back when 1/2 tons and Jeeps ran around for years with plows hanging off of them.Other than the weak steering box point on the older Chevys which they have a bracket for.
Maybe one of the big 3 should come up with an actual 3/4 ton contractor special that is properly engineered and is serviceable.Just seems like they are all in cahoots.I do remember though way back when Ford had a limited slip available for the front axle on the option list.


----------



## mossman381

milkie62;1661324 said:


> Its too bad that you cannot buy a 3/4 ton truck and use it as intended.Way back when 1/2 tons and Jeeps ran around for years with plows hanging off of them.Other than the weak steering box point on the older Chevys which they have a bracket for.
> Maybe one of the big 3 should come up with an actual 3/4 ton contractor special that is properly engineered and is serviceable.Just seems like they are all in cahoots.I do remember though way back when Ford had a limited slip available for the front axle on the option list.


The new trucks can handle any plow you want to hang on them. I really think most of the cracked frame problems are from abuse.


----------



## The Viking

Can anyone recommend a fabricator up here in Toronto. I want to get the gussets put on the control arm mounts on my '05 2500HD. Also looking to have someone rig up a swing type backdrag blade on my Arctic. I checked with a metal fabricator in my end of the city, and they wanted $400+ just for the 2 gussets!!! After that I didnt even ask about the blade!


----------



## jasonv

The Viking;1668445 said:


> Can anyone recommend a fabricator up here in Toronto. I want to get the gussets put on the control arm mounts on my '05 2500HD. Also looking to have someone rig up a swing type backdrag blade on my Arctic. I checked with a metal fabricator in my end of the city, and they wanted $400+ just for the 2 gussets!!! After that I didnt even ask about the blade!


The problem with dealing with people doing specialized work, like fabrication, is that they need to eat. If they didn't need to eat, and didn't need a place to live, then things would be a whole lot less expensive.

If you set yourself up to do your own fabrication, you'll save money in the long run. $600-$700 gets you a pretty decent MIG welder, also need a grinder, sawzall, vise, clamps, vise-grips, etc. Recycled steel is pretty cheap. I usually go to http://www.donmillssteel.ca/


----------



## 2COR517

The Viking;1668445 said:


> Can anyone recommend a fabricator up here in Toronto. I want to get the gussets put on the control arm mounts on my '05 2500HD. Also looking to have someone rig up a swing type backdrag blade on my Arctic. I checked with a metal fabricator in my end of the city, and they wanted $400+ just for the 2 gussets!!! After that I didnt even ask about the blade!


I'm guessing that price isn't ridiculous if the guy knows what he's doing and does a nice job-grinds things down clean, paints when he's done, etc. Did he know exactly what you were talking about when you spoke with him?



jasonv;1668460 said:


> The problem with dealing with people doing specialized work, like fabrication, is that they need to eat. If they didn't need to eat, and didn't need a place to live, then things would be a whole lot less expensive.
> 
> If you set yourself up to do your own fabrication, you'll save money in the long run. $600-$700 gets you a pretty decent MIG welder, also need a grinder, sawzall, vise, clamps, vise-grips, etc. Recycled steel is pretty cheap. I usually go to http://www.donmillssteel.ca/


I don't entirely disagree with you, but a relatively thin truck frame in a high stress location isn't the place to learn welding.


----------



## The Viking

2COR517;1668666 said:


> I'm guessing that price isn't ridiculous if the guy knows what he's doing and does a nice job-grinds things down clean, paints when he's done, etc. Did he know exactly what you were talking about when you spoke with him?
> 
> I don't entirely disagree with you, but a relatively thin truck frame in a high stress location isn't the place to learn welding.


I have never had anything custom fabricated before, I really didnt think 2 small brackets would be so costly. (I was guessing $200 tops). He doesnt seem to work on automotive, so im hesitant there too. I showed him some pics from plowsite and he said he could do it for $400.
Ideally I would prefer to have someone do this who has done this before. Anyone in the GTA???

I should definitely learn some welding now that I know the costs involved, but like it was mentioned, I dont want to learn on my trucks frame. The idea is to reduce my sense of impending doom, not heighten it.


----------



## jmac5058

There are transmition lines that go by rite where the gussets go its not a place for rookies . You think $400 is alot of money for a pro work on your truck ? Sounds cheap to me for pease of mind.


----------

