Jump to content

Frame differences between a 3500 Pickup and Chassis Cap

Hendrickson360
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hendrickson360 Enthusiast

Hendrickson360

Posted
Posted

Hello!

 

since i cannot find info on this like its possible with Dodge and Ford, maybe someone here can help.

 

So with the older model lines, there was a big difference between the Pickup Frame and the Chassis cap frame.

 

The Pickups was fully boxed from 2011 on and hat a profile of around 8.4x3.4x0.18“ made out of 60k PSI steele, which was far ahead oft he competition at the time.

Did this change in any way?

 

The Chassis Cap apparently had a gigantic profile of 11x2.5x0.5!!! Now this one was obviously an open C, however i dont know if the entire frame was open c, like it is with the modern day 4-6500, or it was a mix of boxed front from the pickup version with an open C rear end, like Ford und Dodge are doing on their chassis caps. I also dont know i fit was a layered frame, but i’m pretty sure it was. PSI rating was only 36k.

 

Did this change in any way?

 

Kind regards

 

Marcus

64BAwagon Senior Enthusiast

64BAwagon

Posted
Posted

Youre question is probably beyond the depth of what anyone other than a GM employee with access to the system can provide. Youre getting deep into engineering questions. Unless you pursued it through an upfitter program manual but even then there have been some rolling changes through the years. 

All I can say is that the chassis cab frames do vary quite a bit from the pickups, especially in length and crossmember configurations (fuel tank(s) )

redwngr Senior Enthusiast

redwngr

Posted
Posted (edited)

First, they are chassis cab, not chassis cap. (as in cab and chassis)

 

GM has all new HD pickup frames for 2020 model year onward.

Previous HD frame change was the 2011 model year. 

 

GM makes frame information available for upfitters that buy both pickup and chassis cabs (of varying frame length).

Not sure if the upfitter info is what you are looking for, but there are many pages to wade thru. 

There should be load rating information there.

 

 

 

Edited by redwngr
newdude Senior Enthusiast

newdude

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Hendrickson360 said:

Hello!

 

since i cannot find info on this like its possible with Dodge and Ford, maybe someone here can help.

 

So with the older model lines, there was a big difference between the Pickup Frame and the Chassis cap frame.

 

The Pickups was fully boxed from 2011 on and hat a profile of around 8.4x3.4x0.18“ made out of 60k PSI steele, which was far ahead oft he competition at the time.

Did this change in any way?

 

The Chassis Cap apparently had a gigantic profile of 11x2.5x0.5!!! Now this one was obviously an open C, however i dont know if the entire frame was open c, like it is with the modern day 4-6500, or it was a mix of boxed front from the pickup version with an open C rear end, like Ford und Dodge are doing on their chassis caps. I also dont know i fit was a layered frame, but i’m pretty sure it was. PSI rating was only 36k.

 

Did this change in any way?

 

Kind regards

 

Marcus

 

 

A pickup frame is different from the Chassis Cab frame, yes.  

 

If you went in and ordered a WT or LT Dually with a box delete, its going to have the regular boxed frame that they use.

 

If you ordered a WT or LT Chassis Cab, its going to have the c channel big rails from about the cab back to past the rear axle.  The straight "upfitter" style frame with   Front end to about under the driver's seat is boxed frame from the pickup frame.  

 

Here is the specs for the 3500 pickups - https://www.gmfleetorderguide.com/NASApp/domestic/printbook?pdftype=option&lang=1&vehicle=22467&rpoid=36178

 

Can't find the chassis cab one but its going to be different past the cab for sure.  I think the frame also has the industry standard NTEA 34 inches rail to rail spacing.  

Hendrickson360 Enthusiast

Hendrickson360

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Hello,

 

thank you very much for this document (and thx to the rest to for the info!)

 

So interestingly enough, both the dimensions and steel quality did not change since 2022, but well, it was best in class since then. The 2017+ Ford Frame has even more height (or depth by those documents) but "only" 50k PSI steel, so similiar nowadays.

 

What i wonder: Since the C-channel frame of the Chassis cab is so much larger (or used to be) how are they put together? And are they still of diffeent steel quality? Seems kinda weird. Ford upped they steel with the Cchassis Caps to 50.000k too, but the dimensions are much smaller.

 

Or maybe the boxed front end of the GM is also different from the first half of a pickup frame in the first place...

newdude Senior Enthusiast

newdude

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Hendrickson360 said:

Hello,

 

Since there is no data for the 3500 chassis caps, maybe there is something for the 4500 one? I guess the frame would be the same for 4-6500?

 

Kind regards

 

Marcus

 

 

4500-6500 Silverado are a completely different truck/frame.  They are joint venture built and designed with International Navistar.  I/N builds the frames and does all the chassis work, GM supplies the cabs which are old K2XX cabs and interiors, the headlights (from 14-15 1500 Silverado) and they did the design work for the hood.  GM/DMAX does the L5D Duramax for it, Allison supplies transmissions.  Built a lot like the old 03-09 Topkick/Kodiak trucks.  

 

Here's a snapshot of the 4500-6500 frame specs from the GM Upfitter body builder chassis manual: CV_BB.book (gmupfitter.com)

 

 

rbm.thumb.png.656a5d2304424a027f23f40947101976.png

 

 

 

 

Hendrickson360 Enthusiast

Hendrickson360

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Hello and thank you again! What is really weird: I checked an old Terrastar-Doc of mine and apparently the frame was pretty much the same, but they did for some reason a downgrade in terms of PSI rating!

 

Now of course i would be really curious about that chassis cap frame, if it kinda sits between them and how the boxed front end and open c rear are connectet...

 

 

Navistar-frame.jpg

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Forum Statistics

    250.5k
    Total Topics
    2.7m
    Total Posts

  • Member Statistics

    342,947
    Total Members
    8,960
    Most Online
    Sothpaw27
    Newest Member
    Sothpaw27
    Joined

  • Who's Online   2 Members, 0 Anonymous, 486 Guests (See full list)

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Grumpy Bear
      Some Assembly is Required

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      www.enginelabs.com/news/what-i-learned-today-bearing-clearances-vs-oil-viscosities/     www.enginelabs.com/news/oil-viscosity-can-the-numbers-be-misleading/ The Big Lie… Coming full circle to the reason Lake discusses the Porsche engines in particular. Based on the 2000 samples in the SPEEDiagnostix database, increasing the oil viscosity in these engines, even those run on the track, showed no significant difference in results.   The smoking gun was in the oil chemistry. That is where the data shows higher instances of more wear. Molybdenum was the key; the higher the amount, the less the wear. Speed postulates that higher viscosity oils have more thickeners to artificially inflate their viscosity numbers. These thickeners lose viscosity under shear, and the result is that not all oils of the same viscosity have the same shear stability.   Having enough viscosity is the most important characteristic, but according to Speed, once that required viscosity level is reached, additive chemistry matters more than additional viscosity. Speed also states, oil pressure problems on the racetrack aren’t a viscosity problem; it’s an oiling system problem. Running a thicker oil is just a band-aid for an underlying oiling system problem.
    • Grumpy Bear
      Some Assembly is Required

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      Can it still be Assembled II?   Viscosity on the decline by various means. Heat on the rise making that worse. Engine RPM in the tank. Smaller motors with more boost trying to emulate an electric motor. Full torque, zero rpm. Then we will triple the OCI. Argh.    But wait....there is more. LSPI has pushed a shift from Ca to Mg and as that cost more PLUS the run to lower sulfur compounds the TBN is moving in the wrong direction for the increased OCI's demanded.    That not being enough to placate a demand for a parameter they can't measure the other sulfur bearing compounds are also under attack. That would be zinc and phosphorus sulfonate compounds. To some degree those are being replaced with boron esters and others, i.e. titanium ect. All of which have shorter service lives. And there there is the "Secrete Sauce" marketing for AW adds that 'Can't be detected by UOA's" but trust me because I (the blenders) never ever lie.    Spoiler alert; ALL additives are sacrificial! Smaller amounts of the old blended with less robust versions of the new do not equal longer service lives. So what are the blenders recommending? Wait for it.......   MOVING THE GOAL POSTS! OMG      Let's declare the long standing TAN/TBN crossover irrelevant and tell people that soot is a great 'graphite' based lubricant which can aid tribo films. Wait, what? Let's declare that the standards used for oxidation and nitration were to conservative and can be expanded. Let's tell them that because GDI fuel dilution, although being a VISCOSITY KILLER and an acid generator is actually okay because we have better base oils that limit viscosity failure limits. (Said knowing this is measured in fractions of a centipoise and in bases not commonly used in shelf oils)   Lying from the heart is not just the new normal but we have a public, a very young public, that is so ignorant of the facts and so sure of their "RESEARCH" into AI driven models base in regurgitated  instead of scientific research based unvarnished, peer reviewed FACTS that the incoming guard is loosing their grip on reality and the OEM's are tickled pink while the blends bend the knee.    You have an ever limited set of tools to work with. And sooner or later those will be taken from you as the API and the EPA strangle the last remaining fluids from the system. What you have left is your wits. If you care to use them.    At some point in the very near future it will not longer be possible to do "What is best for the machine", and be replaced with "The best you have access too". You WILL be rewarded with half the life and twice the cost. That isn't that hard to predict.         
    • Chuck FB
      Software Update

      By Chuck FB · Posted

      I trust you saw the other comment where he knew what he was talking about !. Yes, these darned newer vehicles with all their so smart they are stupid technology, goes and drains the battery down. As you might see my other comment, I installed a Noco 5 battery tender under the hood and at this point still have the cord routed so I have to lift the hood and then plug it in but am typically parked in a garage or a shed so its not risking the engine hood in the wind. That way I am assured or hopefully so of not finding I have a battery drawn down and can't even start the truck and that also damages the battery to draw it down too far. 
    • Chuck FB
      Software Update

      By Chuck FB · Posted

      I guess no surprise my guesses were wrong !, at least now I know if I ever happen to see it grayed out in my own truck as to what is going on.    I never happened to catch my truck with it grayed out, it seemed every time I would test to see if there was an update it never found anything and yet more than once I would check to see if there was an update and there was nothing, then a day later or even that same morning I would drive to town and after more than one engine shut down in town as I did my errands it would pop up that there is an update now ready to install and the only place I have a connection to the internet is at home by wifi so its not as if it grabbed the download while driving. I don't trust these new vehicles due to all the crap they can decide to do while sitting for some days not running and run the battery down so most of the time if I know the truck will sit for a few days I plug in the battery tender I have mounted under the hood and so the only time the truck must have downloaded software was when it was sitting in the garage where the signal is awful but I have that tender plugged in and somehow it managed to download it. I honestly detest all this crap, way to easy to leave a person stranded.    Since I don't trust any of it I don't do the install of the already downloaded software until I get home and sometimes have even sat in the truck to watch what its doing as its going through the process to its conclusion as its not like it is set up that it will tell you the next time you fire up the engine that the update that was initialed actually installed or installed properly. Yes I can go into the updates and see the list. After I go through the install where I feel its safe to do so in case it breaks down as a result, I will plug in the battery tender after the fact to recharge as I don't know how much power its taking just to do the install and that can take a while for it to install. 
    • nfisherman
      Software Update

      By nfisherman · Posted

      Thanks for the reply. All settings were correct and the engine was off, as it was supposed to be. It turned out to be something simple. I took a drive for about an hour. I must have had a low battery without knowing it. The voltage gauge on the display looked ok. At the end of my drive, I shut off the engine and the update prompt came up and it updated normally. It’s ironic because one of the features of the update is a reduction of battery drain. 

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...