Cylinder Plating?

[the Ferret]

Everyone assumes that our bikes will go 100,000+ miles, but how many of us every actually own and ride a bike that long?
If none of us are riding them that much or long, what's the point building them to last?

Chris I can tell you over on the ST 1300 forum they give out a 100,000 mile award for putting that mileage on a single bike. There have been a lot of them handed out. There are also riders who have gone 200,00 and 300,000.

I imagine it's much the same over on the GL forums.

There is a girl called FZ-1girl who has put 200,000 + miles on her 2001 Yamaha FZ-1 with only normal maintenance

200,000 Mile FZ1 – fz1grl

True most of us never rack up this kind of mileage on a motorcycle because truthfully we don't keep the same bike and ride it long enough. I have a saying " most motorcycles aren't worn out, they're neglected to death"

 

[rboe]

Honda has made some "blunders" with oiling with its' engines over the years. The original V4's, V45 and V65 needed extra external oil lines to keep the cams happy. You guys may know of more examples. So I would not discount that they make design errors from time to time and simply cheapen the product.

 

[the Ferret]

Honda has made some "blunders" with oiling with its' engines over the years. The original V4's, V45 and V65 needed extra external oil lines to keep the cams happy. You guys may know of more examples. So I would not discount that they make design errors from time to time and simply cheapen the product.

All the examples you are citing though are 30 years old V4s.

BTW Here's my 85 V 65 Sabre




Honda tested the sohc motors and the gold wing motors for hundreds of thousands of miles with no problems I am aware of. One story related by a couple journalists stated they test rode prototype 750s from some part of California to another (hundreds of miles) under the express conditions that they were not allowed to drop them below redline. Then both bikes were torn down and were perfect inside.

 

[rboe]

I got out of biking in '84, got back into it about five years ago.......there are some gaps in the knowledge pool.

I was hoping you all could add to the data set and not point out that I was dredging up the long lost past. :angel:

That V65 was a beast!
This may explain a bit why I bought the CB1100.

 

[the Ferret]

Yes it was.. Too tall and heavy for me. I have dropped 3 bikes in my life. All 3 times my wife was on the back. One was the V65. I tried making too tight of a turn running too slow in a parking lot and over we went. No damage other than to my pride. My wife stepped off as I had taught her to do. The guy I sold the V65 to was thrilled and couldn't believe it had 30,000 miles on it. He rode away a happy man.

Honda did have some cam bearing issues with their 350/360 twins that was alleviated by extra oil lines, but I'm not sure if it was an oiling issue or a cheap bearing issue. it wouldn't show up for years and thousands of miles, but eventually did present itself if you put enough miles on one.

 

[Red Mist_imp]

I got out of biking in '84, got back into it about five years ago.......there are some gaps in the knowledge pool.

I was hoping you all could add to the data set and not point out that I was dredging up the long lost past. :angel:

That V65 was a beast!
This may explain a bit why I bought the CB1100.

So you of course remember the Freddie Spencer commercial...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGfJ9IqXc...B6&index=5

 

[the Ferret]

Hijack! Hate to but this vid is so cool

My favorite Freddie Spencer vid

http://youtube.com/watch?v=OAMm0GMghN8&d...AMm0GMghN8

 

[calamarichris_imp]

No sighs, dude. In all likelihood, the CB11 is built to last. And I'm not asserting that it isn't, just that Honda is no longer the paragon of longevity that it once was IMO.
It may simply be a matter of Honda very correctly reading the market: scant few sport bikes will ever see more than 50,000 miles, so it's foolish to build them to last to 100K. And there's every likelihood that they are only doing that with their sportbikes, and not with the retro/cruisers like the CB.

I guess we'll find out at some point. And I might have learned more by then.

And that is why we embark on life. And on motorcycling.
As disgusted as I am by Honda's VTR1000F Superhawk, it will always hold a special place in my heart. I learned more from that POS than I've learned from any other motorcycle. Even my first bike, a little Harley 883 Sportster, (which went 20,000 miles farther than my first Honda without wearing out.)
(Though I learned even more from my college girlfriend Janet, seen here aboard that 1940's-era-Soviet-tractor-technology bike

Honda has made some "blunders" with oiling with its' engines over the years. The original V4's, V45 and V65 needed extra external oil lines to keep the cams happy. You guys may know of more examples. So I would not discount that they make design errors from time to time and simply cheapen the product.

All the examples you are citing though are 30 years old V4s.

BTW Here's my 85 V 65 Sabre




Honda tested the sohc motors and the gold wing motors for hundreds of thousands of miles with no problems I am aware of. One story related by a couple journalists stated they test rode prototype 750s from some part of California to another (hundreds of miles) under the express conditions that they were not allowed to drop them below redline. Then both bikes were torn down and were perfect inside.

All the examples you are citing though are 30 years old V4s.

BTW Here's my 85 V 65 Sabre

[url=http://smg.photobucket.com/user/theferret111/media/Honda_Sabre-1.jpg.html]
Honda tested the sohc motors and the gold wing motors for hundreds of thousands of miles with no problems I am aware of. One story related by a couple journalists stated they test rode prototype 750s from some part of California to another (hundreds of miles) under the express conditions that they were not allowed to drop them below redline. Then both bikes were torn down and were perfect inside.
Fascinating. Any links or text?
It's not just Honda resorting to such cheap marketing chicanery, it all of the manufacturers. About the same time they were learning how to make a motor last forever, they were also learning that it was foolish to do so; that marketing (and unsubstantiated anecdotal myth) was more important than engineering.
All of us Japbike consumers (and approximately all of the Harley riders) expect our motors to last "at least 100K", but none of us ride 'em that much. Why would any company squander the money & effort on the designs & materials when it's never asked to go that kind of distance? Sounds like a quick way to go broke.

 

[the Ferret]

The following is from Motorcyclist magazine, some of us got to hear
Bob tell this story in person at the AMA's Vintage Motorcycle Days in
2009:

In 1967, Bob Hansen was American Honda's national service manager. He
recalls the first time he heard about the CB750 while on a trip to the
home office in Japan to discuss products for the American market.

The CB750, which was just chosen as “The Motorcycle of the Century” by
Motorcyclist Magazine, was known around Honda as “Project 300”. Hansen
was taking a tour of the research and development department where he
was going to meet Soichiro Honda for lunch.

There was one section of the facility that was closed off to his
group. When Hansen inquired about the forbidden area, the guide told
him, “I can’t take you over there. We’re testing a new engine for a
big motorcycle.”

Hansen was intrigued. He guessed that Honda was adapting the 598 cc
twin-cylinder engine from the N600 automobile for use in a motorcycle.
That made sense since it was then the largest engine Honda built.

While seated to the right of Mr. Honda at lunch, Honda leaned over and
said, “Mr. Hansen, we are hard at work on a new motorcycle, a big
motorcycle, the King of Motorcycles.”

Hansen said, “Great—I just hope it’s not a twin!”

This went through the translator, then Mr. Honda looked worried. ‘Why
would you say that?’

Hansen explained that twins were seen as outdated and even the Triumph
was currently working on a triple. Hansen recommended a four-cylinder.

“We have experience racing four-cylinders,” Mr. Honda said.

Hansen replied, “Exactly.”

Hanging on Hansen's wall today is a framed letter from Honda. It
reads: Because it was your idea to Mr. Honda to build the four
cylinder CB750, we are sending you the very first pictures of the
production version.

In the fall of 1968, three CB750s were sent to the Nevada desert for
testing along with a van full of tools and Japanese engineers. Hansen
hand-picked two of his staff, Bob Jameson and Bob Young, to
participate in the testing.

The team ran from Boulder city to Searchlight 50 miles each way for
nearly 5000 miles in 5 days. Their only directive was to never leave
the red zone on the tach. They tried to see what would break first on
the new motorcycles.

Nothing broke.

Jameson was blown away. “It was a total breakthrough in motorcycling.
At that time I’d ridden just about everything. These first CB750s were
like going straight from the Stone Age into the Computer Age. And they
were so fast!”

Bob died in his sleep last night. He was 93.
Sorry took me a while to find it online. Read the original article on it years ago. ...and it appears it was in Nevada and not California.

the Honda S600 sports car btw was chain driven, not sure about the N600 would have to do some research.

 

[rboe]

Many Goldwing riders take their Wings to over 100,000 miles and I've used to see SOME 750's with very high miles; only one above 100,000. While I agree that most riders trade off or crash their bikes before 100,000 there are enough guys doing it (right now I'm more familiar with Guzzi riders taking their machines into stupid high mileage numbers) that I tend to think they are built to put the miles on. Mistakes can be made, but it appears to me the intention is to build a high quality machine that can go the distance.

 

[Dakota_imp]

Hi Dakota.
Electroplated cylinders bored into the top half of the crankcase, as opposed to a distinct cylinder block, which is then bolted to the top half of the crankcase. Honda was the first of the Big-4 who started doing this, and they touted "lighter weight", "reduced gasket interfaces", "17% stiffer", etc.
Honda now does this to nearly all of their sportbike lineup, but it's not a good idea IMO, and here's why: when you wear out a cylinder block, you can replace it--just bolt a new one on, replace the piston rings and a few other parts. But when you wear out the cylinders bored into the top half of a crankcase, you must replace that entire crankcase, the crankbearings, and many other non-transferrable parts--essentially the entire engine.
Crankcases are drilled and finished as sets, so you cannot simply replace the top half.

[/QUOTE]

OK. I am on the same page now. It may be semantics, but the crankcase is the structure surrounding the crankshaft. The cylinder barrel is what houses the piston. The engine block is the combination of the two.

Many aftermarket companies offer sleeves for motorcycles. I don't understand why you couldn't have bored the original engine and installed one? Even my lowly B&S push mower has an iron sleeve. Only the cheapest garbage mowers have parent bore engines with no sleeve. This is not a dig against your bike; I am sure that they designer used something to increase wear life. But, it seems to me that iron would be the best...

If a sportbike has a high piston speed, it will wear out faster than similar motorcycles with lower piston speeds.

Honda has made some "blunders" with oiling with its' engines over the years. The original V4's, V45 and V65 needed extra external oil lines to keep the cams happy. You guys may know of more examples. So I would not discount that they make design errors from time to time and simply cheapen the product.

What really bothers me is that there is NO excuse for this. I am a degreed engineer, have owned GM vehicles my entire life, and have models spanning from '47 to '06. I have an interest in engine development history and read SAE journals for fun at night to clear my head. Much of what is good engineering practice was known for a long time but GM never seems to learn their lessons and has always lagged far behind state of the art engineering practices. And, they do it because they can. People will continue to buy garbage because the outside is shiny and the inside smells new.

GM and Ford can't seem to build reliable ignition switches and we are going to trust them with drive by wire steering???????

 

[dave]

23 years ago I asked the BMW factory tech what wears out on my K75RT. He said the rider wears out! 24 years latter he was correct! The bike still has lots of life, more than I have.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

BMW is not motorraadfabriek it once was. I wouldn't trade your K75 for three of the new F800STs.

There's a guy over on the Nighthawk site with over 250K miles on his CB750. The engine has never been apart.

And Honda is not the quality-control powerhouse that it once was either. I predict that CB750 will outlast more than a few CB1100s.

I have seen plenty of Honda car engines apart with well over 150k miles on them and you can still see honing marks in the good old fashion iron sleeves they use in there cars.

The people and processes that produced Honda automobiles in the 1970's are not necessarily the same people & processes that are currently producing Honda motorcycles.

Judging from past Honda inline 4 air cooled motors, Im guessing 100,000 miles or more.

If I had a nickel for every misguided squid who said that about his crotch-rocket disposabike with electroplated cylinders bored into the top half of his crankcase...

BMW is not motorraadfabriek it once was. I wouldn't trade your K75 for three of the new F800STs.

There's a guy over on the Nighthawk site with over 250K miles on his CB750. The engine has never been apart.

And Honda is not the quality-control powerhouse that it once was either. I predict that CB750 will outlast more than a few CB1100s.

I have seen plenty of Honda car engines apart with well over 150k miles on them and you can still see honing marks in the good old fashion iron sleeves they use in there cars.

The people and processes that produced Honda automobiles in the 1970's are not necessarily the same people & processes that are currently producing Honda motorcycles.

Judging from past Honda inline 4 air cooled motors, Im guessing 100,000 miles or more.

If I had a nickel for every misguided squid who said that about his crotch-rocket disposabike with electroplated cylinders bored into the top half of his crankcase...
I don't really understand what you are trying to say here... "electroplated cylinders bored into the top half of his crankcase" As opposed to the bottom half of the crankcase? "Bored" cylinders as opposed to broached? Do you understand what is required for long life piston/ cylinder life?

Hi Dakota.
Electroplated cylinders bored into the top half of the crankcase, as opposed to a distinct cylinder block, which is then bolted to the top half of the crankcase. Honda was the first of the Big-4 who started doing this, and they touted "lighter weight", "reduced gasket interfaces", "17% stiffer", etc.
Honda now does this to nearly all of their sportbike lineup, but it's not a good idea IMO, and here's why: when you wear out a cylinder block, you can replace it--just bolt a new one on, replace the piston rings and a few other parts. But when you wear out the cylinders bored into the top half of a crankcase, you must replace that entire crankcase, the crankbearings, and many other non-transferrable parts--essentially the entire engine.
Crankcases are drilled and finished as sets, so you cannot simply replace the top half.

I found myself in this unfortunate situation with a '98 Honda Superhawk after only 50,000 miles, the cylinders had worn egg-shaped. I always used Honda synthetic oil, was meticulous in maintenance, and rode it conservatively.



Fortunately the CB11 appears to have a distinct cylinder block, but I'd like to know if those cylinders are electroplated, sintered, sleeved...? Honda has every incentive to go the cheap route (electroplating), like they did with my Superhawk: what's the point of building an engine that will last 100,000 miles if no one is riding them that much? It therefore makes more sense to reduce production costs, let the marketing guys accentuate the positive aspects of the new cost-saving (to them) features, and a few years from now, when a small minority of your customers have worn out their cost-saving design, they can be easily dismissed as anecdotal/abberations, because that was years ago and people are easily distracted by shiny magazine pictures of the next big thing.
Everyone assumes that our bikes will go 100,000+ miles, but how many of us every actually own and ride a bike that long?
If none of us are riding them that much or long, what's the point building them to last?

Hi Dakota.
Electroplated cylinders bored into the top half of the crankcase, as opposed to a distinct cylinder block, which is then bolted to the top half of the crankcase. Honda was the first of the Big-4 who started doing this, and they touted "lighter weight", "reduced gasket interfaces", "17% stiffer", etc.
Honda now does this to nearly all of their sportbike lineup, but it's not a good idea IMO, and here's why: when you wear out a cylinder block, you can replace it--just bolt a new one on, replace the piston rings and a few other parts. But when you wear out the cylinders bored into the top half of a crankcase, you must replace that entire crankcase, the crankbearings, and many other non-transferrable parts--essentially the entire engine.
Crankcases are drilled and finished as sets, so you cannot simply replace the top half.

I found myself in this unfortunate situation with a '98 Honda Superhawk after only 50,000 miles, the cylinders had worn egg-shaped. I always used Honda synthetic oil, was meticulous in maintenance, and rode it conservatively.



Fortunately the CB11 appears to have a distinct cylinder block, but I'd like to know if those cylinders are electroplated, sintered, sleeved...? Honda has every incentive to go the cheap route (electroplating), like they did with my Superhawk: what's the point of building an engine that will last 100,000 miles if no one is riding them that much? It therefore makes more sense to reduce production costs, let the marketing guys accentuate the positive aspects of the new cost-saving (to them) features, and a few years from now, when a small minority of your customers have worn out their cost-saving design, they can be easily dismissed as anecdotal/abberations, because that was years ago and people are easily distracted by shiny magazine pictures of the next big thing.
Everyone assumes that our bikes will go 100,000+ miles, but how many of us every actually own and ride a bike that long?
If none of us are riding them that much or long, what's the point building them to last? My 1998 VFR800 has 92,000 miles on it and it runs great. I check the valves at regular intervals and they have only needed adjustment three times so far. The engine still seems tight, and doesn't burn a drop of oil. Now if I could only say the same thing about the charging system (replaced regulator/rectifier 3X, alternator 1X) and the electronic speedometer sending unit (replaced 4X).

 

[calamarichris_imp]

Heh--regulator/rectifryer.
Does the VFR have a primary chain between the main crank and the tranny? Most V-twins do. The V-four is not as unbalanced as a V-twin, and do you know if the VFR has electroplated cylinders bored into the top half of the VFR's crankcase?
Your VFR is not burning any oil at all?
The wear was the leading and trailing (front back edges) of my VTR's cylinders. They were more than TWO millimeters out of round--pretty much zero compression.

 

[Red Mist_imp]

Hi Dakota.
Electroplated cylinders bored into the top half of the crankcase, as opposed to a distinct cylinder block, which is then bolted to the top half of the crankcase. Honda was the first of the Big-4 who started doing this, and they touted "lighter weight", "reduced gasket interfaces", "17% stiffer", etc.
Honda now does this to nearly all of their sportbike lineup, but it's not a good idea IMO, and here's why: when you wear out a cylinder block, you can replace it--just bolt a new one on, replace the piston rings and a few other parts. But when you wear out the cylinders bored into the top half of a crankcase, you must replace that entire crankcase, the crankbearings, and many other non-transferrable parts--essentially the entire engine.
Crankcases are drilled and finished as sets, so you cannot simply replace the top half.

OK. I am on the same page now. It may be semantics, but the crankcase is the structure surrounding the crankshaft. The cylinder barrel is what houses the piston. The engine block is the combination of the two.

Many aftermarket companies offer sleeves for motorcycles. I don't understand why you couldn't have bored the original engine and installed one? Even my lowly B&S push mower has an iron sleeve. Only the cheapest garbage mowers have parent bore engines with no sleeve. This is not a dig against your bike; I am sure that they designer used something to increase wear life. But, it seems to me that iron would be the best...

If a sportbike has a high piston speed, it will wear out faster than similar motorcycles with lower piston speeds.

Honda has made some "blunders" with oiling with its' engines over the years. The original V4's, V45 and V65 needed extra external oil lines to keep the cams happy. You guys may know of more examples. So I would not discount that they make design errors from time to time and simply cheapen the product.

What really bothers me is that there is NO excuse for this. I am a degreed engineer, have owned GM vehicles my entire life, and have models spanning from '47 to '06. I have an interest in engine development history and read SAE journals for fun at night to clear my head. Much of what is good engineering practice was known for a long time but GM never seems to learn their lessons and has always lagged far behind state of the art engineering practices. And, they do it because they can. People will continue to buy garbage because the outside is shiny and the inside smells new.

GM and Ford can't seem to build reliable ignition switches and we are going to trust them with drive by wire steering???????
[/QUOTE] Have a couple of new 2013 drive by wire (electric steering) Chevys in the family: A Sonic and Equinox. Also have a Toyota Venza with electric steering.

The Chevys have got it down. They work very well. Toyota is good too, but tends to hunt a little more. Has a little more of a mind of its own.

Now the new Tahoe also has electric steering. It's the future. No hydraulic leaks and you don't have to back off at the limit to prevent it from howling.

 

[Dakota_imp]

Hi Dakota.
Electroplated cylinders bored into the top half of the crankcase, as opposed to a distinct cylinder block, which is then bolted to the top half of the crankcase. Honda was the first of the Big-4 who started doing this, and they touted "lighter weight", "reduced gasket interfaces", "17% stiffer", etc.
Honda now does this to nearly all of their sportbike lineup, but it's not a good idea IMO, and here's why: when you wear out a cylinder block, you can replace it--just bolt a new one on, replace the piston rings and a few other parts. But when you wear out the cylinders bored into the top half of a crankcase, you must replace that entire crankcase, the crankbearings, and many other non-transferrable parts--essentially the entire engine.
Crankcases are drilled and finished as sets, so you cannot simply replace the top half.

OK. I am on the same page now. It may be semantics, but the crankcase is the structure surrounding the crankshaft. The cylinder barrel is what houses the piston. The engine block is the combination of the two.

Many aftermarket companies offer sleeves for motorcycles. I don't understand why you couldn't have bored the original engine and installed one? Even my lowly B&S push mower has an iron sleeve. Only the cheapest garbage mowers have parent bore engines with no sleeve. This is not a dig against your bike; I am sure that they designer used something to increase wear life. But, it seems to me that iron would be the best...

If a sportbike has a high piston speed, it will wear out faster than similar motorcycles with lower piston speeds.

Honda has made some "blunders" with oiling with its' engines over the years. The original V4's, V45 and V65 needed extra external oil lines to keep the cams happy. You guys may know of more examples. So I would not discount that they make design errors from time to time and simply cheapen the product.

What really bothers me is that there is NO excuse for this. I am a degreed engineer, have owned GM vehicles my entire life, and have models spanning from '47 to '06. I have an interest in engine development history and read SAE journals for fun at night to clear my head. Much of what is good engineering practice was known for a long time but GM never seems to learn their lessons and has always lagged far behind state of the art engineering practices. And, they do it because they can. People will continue to buy garbage because the outside is shiny and the inside smells new.

GM and Ford can't seem to build reliable ignition switches and we are going to trust them with drive by wire steering???????

Have a couple of new 2013 drive by wire (electric steering) Chevys in the family: A Sonic and Equinox. Also have a Toyota Venza with electric steering.

The Chevys have got it down. They work very well. Toyota is good too, but tends to hunt a little more. Has a little more of a mind of its own.

Now the new Tahoe also has electric steering. It's the future. No hydraulic leaks and you don't have to back off at the limit to prevent it from howling.
[/QUOTE] Have a couple of new 2013 drive by wire (electric steering) Chevys in the family: A Sonic and Equinox. Also have a Toyota Venza with electric steering.

The Chevys have got it down. They work very well. Toyota is good too, but tends to hunt a little more. Has a little more of a mind of its own.

Now the new Tahoe also has electric steering. It's the future. No hydraulic leaks and you don't have to back off at the limit to prevent it from howling.
I guess that I've had a bit less than good luck with my vehicles and my confidence is low. I have NO idea what to purchase when it is time to replace in a couple of years.

 

[the Ferret]

Cars are like motorcycles and no one can say what is right for you. We all have our preferences. Hard to go wrong with the top rated brands Honda, Toyota or Lexus . I hear Mazdas and Subarus are good as well..unless you prefer American then I think you have 3 choices.

I love Hondas. My wife and I have had 7 Accords and Civics, a CRV, an Odyssey and a Ridgeline. All of ours have been like Honda motorcycles .... quiet, smooth, efficient and reliable. My wife is saving for her retirement vehicle now. She has 3 more years to go. She wants another Accord. My ex boss and his family only drives Toyotas. My brother and his wife loves Chryslers. Like motorcycles..to each his own.

 

[shdwghst457_imp]

Honda fan here too; my wife has had 3 or 4 regular Accords, 2 2005 Accord Hybrids and a Rebel; I have an Acura RL, formerly a Shadow and of course my CB, as well as my poorly maintained yet still reliable Honda lawnmower (non-rider with three speed transmission, the 'Lawndamatic'). I do miss my Tundra though, and Honda won't make a real truck (Pilots with a fiberglass bed don't count, but that dual action tailgate is impressive)

 

[dave]

Heh--regulator/rectifryer.
Does the VFR have a primary chain between the main crank and the tranny? Most V-twins do. The V-four is not as unbalanced as a V-twin, and do you know if the VFR has electroplated cylinders bored into the top half of the VFR's crankcase?
Your VFR is not burning any oil at all?
The wear was the leading and trailing (front back edges) of my VTR's cylinders. They were more than TWO millimeters out of round--pretty much zero compression.

My VFR does not use a primary drive chain between the crankshaft and the transmission. The cylinders are integral with the upper crankcase, but they are not electro-plated - I know this because I just checked, and Honda sells over-sized pistons for it. From the view in my service manual it appears that the cylinder liners are pressed into the upper crankcase, and I assume that they are probably cast iron. I change the motor oil every 3,000 miles and the level have never gone down between oil changes.

 

[Red Mist_imp]

Honda fan here too; my wife has had 3 or 4 regular Accords, 2 2005 Accord Hybrids and a Rebel; I have an Acura RL, formerly a Shadow and of course my CB, as well as my poorly maintained yet still reliable Honda lawnmower (non-rider with three speed transmission, the 'Lawndamatic'). I do miss my Tundra though, and Honda won't make a real truck (Pilots with a fiberglass bed don't count, but that dual action tailgate is impressive)

I don't miss my Tundra at all, and it, too, is not a real truck. A real truck has a separate ladder frame upon which the body is attached. The Tundra still uses a unit-body construction.

I had two Tundras, a 2005 which was an abomination, had the worst brakes imaginable that would hardly slow the truck down even when unloaded (which it always was). Drum rear brakes? WTH? This was the four-dour "Limited" with the 4.7 V8. After two years I got the new version, 381 HP 5.7 with much better brakes, and kept it five years.

I had written off American cars a long time ago but wanted a "real" truck and so GM, Ford, or Dodge were the only way to go. That narrowed it down to Chevy, since I didn't like the looks of the Ford or Dodge full-size SUV's. I will admit I was shocked at how good the vehicle was during the test drive, and more than a year later I could not be happier with it.

I thought the 2007 Tundra was pretty good, but it just never grew on me. I never really liked driving it and when I got the Tahoe, I realized that there is no comparison. In every way it is smoother, more responsive, quieter, and more refined. Day and night. The main reason is the real-truck, ladder frame. No contest, the Tahoe drives far, far better.

The Toyota has the overhead cam 32-valve engine, very noisy. Gas mileage was awful, but yes, it would haul ass up the grade with my toy hauler behind.

That old-fashioned 16-valve engine in the Tahoe is simple, smooth, and reliable. Also has a six-speed transmission and cuts out four cylinders as needed. Hard to believe but this vehicle gets in the low to mid-20's on the freeway; I've seen 26 mpg many times.

Had it for a year, not one single thing has gone wrong with it and I have zero issues, other than that I replaced the low-end radio with an aftermarket unit.

It was the quality of the Tahoe that led us to purchase the other two Chevrolets and the story is the same with them.

My family have been loyal Toyota owners for almost 20 years, but that's over now. GM has really gotten its act together in my personal experience.

The new Tahoe has an uprated aluminum engine with even more power and a bunch of other upgrades but as with the new CB1100 I certainly am not going to trade in my 2013 on it.:clap:

 

[Dakota_imp]

Popular literature says that the big three have gotten better; the engineering forums say that the imports have gotten worse.

I have a 2002 Dodge ram 2500 with the 5.9 Cummins purchased new. Having previously owned a Chrysler car which was a POS, I only purchased the dodge ram because dodge had nothing to do with the drivetrain. The Cummins has a great reputation as a durable engine. Looked at objectively, it is an economy diesel engine. I am currently at ~82k miles. I had to replace the injection pump and lift pump at 60k miles. Not typical, but unheard of. I have kept up with antifreeze replacement and used long life, diesel antifreeze; the heater core is leaking. I have to put in refrigerant every spring to get cold AC. I had to put in all new brake shoes and rotors last year. The original pads swelled up, disintegrated and wore out the rotors. Seems like a lot of repairs for less than 100k miles. I very rarely tow with the truck but when I do it sucks down fuel with impunity.

My GM vehicles are all far worse. Lots of leaks. GM's wonderful combination of dexcool and plastic lower intake manifold gaskets. Worn out tie rod ends. Poor brakes. Radio digital encoders that quit working. Heater motor resistors. Etc.