Global Pickup Trucks Bragging Rights

Shiner Box wrote:
And what you posted from Motor Trend above is not a PR spin? Where do you think MotorTrend got that info? The same place where these guys below got theirs and the SAE article I posted got theirs. From GM. It is funny that you will believe GM when it is for your argument, but you won't when it is against your argume

Of course they are all quoting the same press release, but applies to the "lifestyle version" of the Colorado. They are not comparing it the Global Colorado

Shiner Box wrote:
Look, I know you want so bad to "brag" that Austrailian trucks are better than US trucks, but that is just not the case. Many times the midsize trucks have the same mechanical capabilities as the trucks overthere and the only reason why they have different rated capabilities has more to do with each country's vehicles class regulations than what you are suggesting just so you can say "Australia's better". Let the facts change your beliefs, not your beliefs change the fa

They are not "Australian Trucks " they are Global. The capacities are part of what a manufacturer states, nothing to with where it comes from.or regulationsTry loading 3,000lb onto a basic F150, yes F150's have a major payload of 3,300lb, but not the basic Pickup Truck

RobertRyan wrote:

I find that very hard to believe about improving torsional and bending stiffness , sounds like very much PR spin. Normally reducing frame weight, is part of making the chassis better for a boulevards type ride, but reducing its work load performance . What they did do, was make it more compliant, to US tastes as a result, it has considerably reduced payload capacity AND towing
capacity
Try loading 3,000lbs onto a Chevrolet Colorado, the frame would bend or crack completely
I notice when they made that announcement, they keep refiering to the Silverado, as this was a 900lbs lighter version?, which is crazy. No all PR spin

And what you posted from Motor Trend above is not a PR spin? Where do you think MotorTrend got that info? The same place where these guys below got theirs and the SAE article I posted got theirs. From GM. It is funny that you will believe GM when it is for your argument, but you won't when it is against your argument.

Hmm, this sounds exactly like what that Motortrend article you posted said.

Equipment World wrote:

Plus, the North American Colorado’s frame is 40-percent lighter than the global version despite the fact that it uses high-strength steel and is much longer.

Chevrolet unveils the 2015 Colorado, says the midsize pickup will get a diesel option (GALLERY)


So does this....

Automotive News wrote:
The Colorado rides on GM's global mid-sized truck architecture, launched in 2011 with the Colorado pickup that GM sells in Thailand. The body-on-frame, rwd platform was upgraded for the United States -- it is 40 percent lighter than the global truck.

Chevy banks on mid-sized pickup comeback with 2015 Colorado


And so does this.....

Truck Trend wrote:
The Colorado's new frame, which is fully boxed and uses a lot of high-strength steel, is about 40 percent lighter than the global frame, and shares relatively few components with it. The American Colorado is significantly longer than the global truck.

2015 Chevrolet Colorado First Look


Look, I know you want so bad to "brag" that Austrailian trucks are better than US trucks, but that is just not the case. Many times the midsize trucks have the same mechanical capabilities as the trucks overthere and the only reason why they have different rated capabilities has more to do with each country's vehicles class regulations than what you are suggesting just so you can say "Australia's better". Let the facts change your beliefs, not your beliefs change the facts.

ShinerBock wrote:

RobertRyan wrote:

Yes, they have. The Global Colorado was rebuilt to give you the Chevrolet Colorado and the suspension and chassis was substantially changed
Current U.S. midsizers, do not have the hitch weight, to tow larger loads or structurally strengthened to take substantial loads.

Again, no. Just because the frame is lighter does mean it is weaker. Especially when it was upgraded with higher strength steel this is stronger than steel used in the cross members of the global Colorado.

SAE wrote:
Development of the North American truck was led by engineers in Warren, MI, with key input from GM Brazil engineers, Luke said. The centerpiece of the development program involved upgrading the ladder frame used on the global Colorado (originally co-engineered by GM Thailand and Holden) with high-strength-steel (HSS) cross members. The addition of HSS helped reduce the frame’s overall weight by 40% while improving torsional and bending stiffness, Luke noted.

2015 Chevrolet Colorado injects new technologies into midsize pickup segment

I find that very hard to believe about improving torsional and bending stiffness , sounds like very much PR spin. Normally reducing frame weight, is part of making the chassis better for a boulevards type ride, but reducing its work load performance . What they did do, was make it more compliant, to US tastes as a result, it has considerably reduced payload capacity AND towing
capacity
Try loading 3,000lbs onto a Chevrolet Colorado, the frame would bend or crack completely
I notice when they made that announcement, they keep refiering to the Silverado, as this was a 900lbs lighter version?, which is crazy. No all PR spin
Why would you be "improving torsional and bending stiffness" if you have less than half the payload, definitely lower towing numbers and worse fuel economy?

RobertRyan wrote:

Yes, they have. The Global Colorado was rebuilt to give you the Chevrolet Colorado and the suspension and chassis was substantially changed
Current U.S. midsizers, do not have the hitch weight, to tow larger loads or structurally strengthened to take substantial loads.

Again, no. Just because the frame is lighter does mean it is weaker. Especially when it was upgraded with higher strength steel this is stronger than steel used in the cross members of the global Colorado.

SAE wrote:
Development of the North American truck was led by engineers in Warren, MI, with key input from GM Brazil engineers, Luke said. The centerpiece of the development program involved upgrading the ladder frame used on the global Colorado (originally co-engineered by GM Thailand and Holden) with high-strength-steel (HSS) cross members. The addition of HSS helped reduce the frame’s overall weight by 40% while improving torsional and bending stiffness, Luke noted.

2015 Chevrolet Colorado injects new technologies into midsize pickup segment

ShinerBock wrote:

RobertRyan wrote:

You would be changing a fair bit actually to achieve the same payloads here,

Actually no.

Yes, they have. The Global Colorado was rebuilt to give you the Chevrolet Colorado and the suspension and chassis was substantially changed
Current U.S. midsizers, do not have the hitch weight, to tow larger loads or structurally strengthened to take substantial loads.

Instead of seeing this as a rehashed truck from another market, though, it's more accurate to look at it as a scaled-down Silverado, as few of the chassis components are shared with the global truck. The frame is about 40 percent lighter than the global Colorado's frame; the new unit is fully boxed and uses liberal amounts of high-strength steel. Comparing crew cab to crew cab, the Colorado is 900 pounds lighter, 5 inches narrower, 3 inches lower, and 16 inches shorter than the Silverado. The Colorado will use a coilover front and leaf-spring rear, and Duralife disc brakes with ABS. It will have EPS and an impressive 41-foot turning radius.

Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/trucks/1311_2015_chevrolet_colorado_first_look/#ixzz3ZDIvBzhH

RobertRyan wrote:

You would be changing a fair bit actually to achieve the same payloads here,

Actually no.

Now the Ford Ranger, company shots. You can get a 8ft Pickup bed as well as Utility bed

ShinerBrock wrote:
Without changing a thing, that very same Mitsubishi Triton would not have the same paylaod here as it does over there

You would be changing a fair bit actually to achieve the same payloads here, but I know what you mean by class limits.
The Chevrolet Colorado would need substantial beefing up to be similar to the Global Version. The Global version could run a lot softer springs ,shocks and lighter structural parts

double post

brulaz wrote:
Although I love the payload and don't generally like the smaller size of these trucks, there is one dimension that's a problem for me. The cab door height is usually quite a bit smaller.
.

The reason for these small trucks having more payload over there versus less over here has to do with the regulations of each country and weight each country's truck classes are limited at. Without changing a thing, that very same Mitsubishi Triton would not have the same payload here as it does over there.

The US vehicle class that the Mitsu Triton would be in is class 1 which has a max GVWR of 6,000 lbs. This means that no class one vehicle can exceed 6,000 lbs NO MATTER WHAT regardless if the vehicle can handle more weight or not. Since a vehicle's payload is determined by subtracting a vehicles curb weight from its GVWR, we can determine the payload of this truck here.

Take an Australian Mitsubishi Triton Exceed 4WD Double cab with a 2.4L diesel. It has a curb weight of 1,965 kg which is 4,332 lbs. We take that curb weight in pounds and subtract that from the highest allowable GVWR of class 1 vehicles(6,000 lbs) and you will end up with a payload of 1,668 lbs which is a lot less than what it is over in Australian.

The reason why this truck has a higher payload rating over in Australia is because the truck class that the Triton is in over there maxes out at 4.5 tonnes which is 9,920 lbs. This gives manufacturers over there a lot more room to for higher GVWR which in turn makes for much higher payloads. Over there, the Triton has a GVWR of 2,900 kg (6,393 lbs) which over here the highest it can go is 6,000 lbs GVWR by class regulation.