View Single Post
Old 04-12-2019, 12:02 PM   #7
CarolinaHD
Moderator
 
CarolinaHD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Cabarrus
Posts: 405
Re: Suburban frames 1500 vs 2500

They are certainly not the same. 3/4 Ton frames are thicker and I'm sure theres other differences as well.

https://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/chev...-strength.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by MAXPF
The difference isn't huge (the "V" designates 4wd OBS, while the "R" is 2wd OBS, so the V1500 and V2500 are 1/2 and 3/4 ton 4wd respectively) - the 1/2 ton has a .177" frame thickness while the 3/4 ton is .192". For comparison, Blazers (which were all 4wd in 1991 AFAIK) used the thinner .154" material. A couple years back my roommate was at another friends property up north. This friend has lots of Chevy trucks in various states of parted-outedness, and they decided one day to start measuring the thickness of the different frames. Here's what they came up with: 1988 1/2 ton 2wd suburban -- .162 1981 4wd Blazer ------------- .164 1987 3/4 ton 4wd suburban --- .190 1988 3/4 ton 4wd suburban --- .203 1970's unknown longbed frame- .196 1977 2wd 3/4 ton suburban --- .208 1986 3/4 4wd DIESEL longbed- .231 1979 1 ton reg cab & chasis -- .236 1984 2wd 1ton crewcab dually- .224 1982 3/4 ton reg cab longbed-- .230 The general consensus was that, within tolerances of measurement and supplied material thicknesses (which accounts for a +/- .010" variation or thereabouts) GM used at least 4 different thicknesses of material for it's light truck frames, depending on configuration and GVWR. 1 tons and some 3/4 tons used the thickest material, around .230"-.240" - nearly 1/4" thick. Most 3/4 tons .190"-.200". Some 1/2 tons, such as the 4wd Burbs and perhaps certain 4wd P/U configurations apparently used the .177" material listed in the GM manual above, while most 1/2 tons and all Blazers seemed to use the .154"-.160" material.
Attached Images
 
__________________
Alex
1967 C50 292ci Lumber truck
1967 C50 292ci Dump truck
1967 c60 366ci Fire truck
CarolinaHD is offline   Reply With Quote