Last post on Dec 05, 1999 at 11:51 PM
You are in the Pickups - Archived Discussions
#1 of 474 Toyota T150 Coming To America
May 09, 1998 (6:39 am)
Toyota is aiming directly at the Ford F150 market
with its new T150 which will be a V-8 driven
I don't know how soon the details will be
available on this, but I just saw a picture of it
in an auto mag, and it looks pretty nice. No price
was given, but look for it to hit the shores for
the 1999 model year. I'll pass along more details
as I come across them... if anyone else has an info
source, please feel free to share them with us.
#2 of 474 cdean
May 09, 1998 (4:50 pm)
I've seen pictures of this at car shows and magazines. this truck looks a lot like the F150, i think a little better. I believe the base engine was a 4.7 Liter v8. whatever the engine in the Landcruiser is, that is what's going in this trucks. I have a feeling this truck is going to be a serious player in the half ton market. interesting design on the four door extended cab with door handles on the outside of the back suicide doors.
#3 of 474 Brutus
May 09, 1998 (6:48 pm)
Lack of choices might be a weak point if they are only offering one engine, one rear end, etc. I'm thinking that this new truck might bring more consumers into the 1/2 ton market who might previously have considered a small or midsize truck. I just don't see a significant number of current 1/2 ton drivers jumping ship from the Big Three, unless Toyota expands their selection.
#4 of 474 kcram
by kcram HOST
May 09, 1998 (10:24 pm)
Toyota is trying again, after their miserable failure with the T100, but the Japanese trucks still have one fatal flaw. The CA (cab-to-axle) dimension is totally wrong. If you look at any of the full or mini domestics (including the Mazda and Isuzu which are now Ford and GM trucks), the extended cab shortbed is on a unique chassis, while the Japanese trucks simply saw off the longbed to extend the cab. This puts the rear axle very close to the front of the bed, and against everything I ever learned in engineering physics, does not permit loads of any substantial size to be placed ahead of the axle so that the front suspension can share the weight. This also eliminates any possibility of using industry standard parts and accessories, something the domestic full-sizers can generally do. The only domestic exception is the F150, but they solved the problem the opposite way; they made the CA on the longbed further back, so that the regular and extended cab shortbeds were identical.
When Toyota *really* wants to join the full-size arena, they will make something a little more versatile than a 5%-larger Dakota. And even then, a V8 Dakota will smoke this thing.
#5 of 474 lwf
May 10, 1998 (3:15 am)
"The CA (cab-to-axle)dimension is totally wrong."
You kind of lost me on this one. Would you mind sharing with us the actual CA dimensions of the various vehicles, and indicate what the "good" and "bad" dimensions are and where the cross-over point is between the two. I usually use a trailer for heavy stuff like crushed stone, etc., but I have occasionally hauled a bed full of oak logs, and I always thought the general idea was to try to center the load over the rear axle so the front axle didn't get too much.
#6 of 474 Rocles
May 10, 1998 (6:19 am)
Huh? Rear-axles generally benefit from receiving as little ballast as possible. It would be advantageous to place any load under the rear to fully appreciate the full usage of both axles. The cab is always on top of the front axle. The wheel-base is better at some distance and I guess kcram meant that. Longer wheel-base?Or--do you mean the Japanese neglect of proportions?
#7 of 474 Actually, there IS a choice of engines
May 10, 1998 (9:29 am)
The Toyota T150 (incidently, the name is no coincidence... it is meant to be an "In your face, Ford" reference) will NOT be coming standard with the V-8.
The standard engine will be the V-6, with the 4.7L V-8 available as an upgrade. This is the same engine currently in the LandCruiser, but it will be torqued differently. I think the magazine said it was rated at 270hp.
Incidently, one of the magazines that has a picture of it is Car & Driver's May issue.
Toyota admits it missed the mark with the T100. However, Toyota doesn't often miss the mark, and when they do, they usually come back with a bang, and this one looks like it could be just that.
Incidently, the truck will be manufactured here in the U.S. at their new plant in (I think) Indiana.
They expect to be ready to start shipping them around this time next year.
If I were Ford, I'd take notice or else, at this time next year, they could be holding their stomachs and saying "Ohh... what a feeling!"
#8 of 474 cdean
May 10, 1998 (3:27 pm)
I think toyota will get their own faithful into this truck first, with Ford, Chevy, and Dodge drivers starting to take a little notice later. Right now, there is an incredible amount of first time truck buyers out on the market. I think this is why Ford had such a great year last year, their F150 is more like a car than any other truck, while at the same time being a functional truck. I didn't mean that derogatory, I meant it is really refined. Toyota is going to dip into this pool of first time buyers.
Toyota has more followers than you would imagine. I know a few disgruntled Chevy and Ford owners who went with smaller toyotas for improved quality. They have their stuff together, and i expect a good truck. I'm not sure about the discussion on the cab to axle ratio. do you really think they've engineered those smaller trucks to haul any kind of load to begin with? i don't.
by the way, it's my experience, the further back the center of gravity of your load, the more likely the vehicle will experience yaw, which is fish-tailing. By putting a heavy load in front of the bed, you still have 80-90% of the load on the back axle since you are only 2 ft from the back axle and 10 to 12 ft from the front. My chevy's have always handled any load, anywhere, but the truck sits best with the load up as far as possible. i have tool box, so that limits me.
#9 of 474 lwf
May 10, 1998 (6:29 pm)
I don't want to make a big thing out of this, but I'm of the opinion that pickups are designed for the payload to be supported almost entirely by the rear springs, which are heavy-duty leaf springs as opposed to the front springs which are coil. If you look at the dimensions of an American make, full-size extra cab with a short bed (76"-78"), the rear axle is typically 40 inches in front of the tailgate which leaves about 38" to the front of the bed. Suppose you were to load the bed with about a ton of stone of roofing shingles which implies the weight is distributed evenly. This kind of a truck generally has a wheelbase of 139", so if you do the math to calculate the tributary weight supported by the front axle, it will be almost 0. Actually it will be a -14 lbs, because there is more weight in the bed to the rear of the back axle than in front of it so it will be unloading the front axle of a few pounds of the engine weight. Do the same kind of arithmetic for a long-bed extended cab with an 8' bed (40" in back of the axle and 56" in front) and 157" wheel base, and the tributary load on the front axle will be 101 lbs. Next do the same calculations for regular cabs with wheelbase of 120" and 139" for short and long bed, respectively, and the front-axle loads are -16 lbs and +115 lbs. Which essentially says that if you drop a ton of stone in the bed of your truck, almost all of that weight will go directly to the rear axle. I had always assumed that's what was intended, because although coil springs may be ok for each of all four wheels of a passenger car or the front wheels of a pickup, they're not really designed for extra-heavy loads. As far as a concentrated load (like a heavy machine) is concerned, I definitely would not put it back near the tailgate. But depending on how heavy it was, I'd try to keep it's center of gravity near the rear axle, if possible. But it's a free country and I guess everyone can load their own pickup as he/she sees fit.
I was just completely puzzled by kcram's new (to me) parameter(CA). I never knew there was a problem, so I was trying to find out a little more about it.
#10 of 474 kcram
by kcram HOST
May 10, 1998 (10:18 pm)
Let me dredge up some physics from my college days...
Think of the load you place in your pickup bed creating a torque (twisting effect) around the axle. If the load of the truck (and this must count the entire load: cab, passengers, and cargo) is between the axles, the suspensions work together - the torque or twist on the front axle is rearward (looking at the truck from the driver's side, it's clockwise), the torque on the rear axle is forward. The suspensions thus share the load. If you overload the back of the truck (concentrating more of the weight behind the rear axle, the torque on the rear axle is *rearward*, away from the truck - this causes the front axle to unload, or lift, to follow this torque curve. By having a CA dimension that is too short, the majority of bed cargo will end up behind the rear axle causing this undesirable suspension effect.
I realixe that's tough to understand if you never took engineering physics, but it does work in life. Example: think about the overloaded station wagon we have all seen on the highway - back end scraping the ground and its headlights illuminating trees instead of the road. If that same load is in front of the rear axle, the car will still be closer to the ground but LEVEL, because now, the front suspension is sharing the load.
Trailer towing is a different effect because this is more a function of tensile strength and power. You could capably pull two friends in your little red wagon just as you could pull one, but it took more effort, and you could feel the tension in your arms under the heavier load. Didn't have much effect on the weight to your shoes, though. That's why pickup tow ratings are often 1 1/2 to twice their own curb weights.