Last post on Mar 29, 2007 at 5:33 AM
You are in the Toyota Tundra
What is this discussion about?
Toyota Tundra, Chevrolet Silverado 1500, Truck
#956 of 2059 Re: Just read the review of the Tundra by C&D [pmusce]
Feb 26, 2007 (9:38 pm)
The Tundra also does not have a fully boxed frame which leads me to question its long term durability.
Oh NO not the 'it-doesn't-have-a-fully-boxed-frame' curse again.
Darn didn't Toyota learn from all those dead GM's and F150's from the 80's and 90's that died from overwork because NONE of them had fully-boxed-frames. Heck they're all over the road and job sites dead as Iraqi tanks simply because they don't have fully-boxed-frames.
Oh wait a second none of this is true. Many are still working and have given GM and Ford a reputation of durability and toughness WITHOUT fully-boxed-frames.
What did Ford gain by going to a f-b-f? Nothing, except that it wasn't embarrased when the IIHS did follow up crash tests on the new 2004 models and the frame withstood the crash forces instead of folding up like an accordian the way the 2001 did. It gained lots of weight to further stress out the weakest engine in the class and it made the F150 a hard working burro.
Then Nissan and GM followed dutifully along behind because Ford was the leader. And they gained?
Nissan - great motor but the payload capacity of a Frontier.
GMT900 - a solid smooth ride....and more weight....and.....
#957 of 2059 Re: Just read the review of the Tundra by C&D [kdhspyder]
Feb 26, 2007 (9:55 pm)
Well those Fully-Boxed Frames do help a truck hold togeather better when they driving around farms.
Feb 27, 2007 (12:44 am)
Test drove an 2007 4wd ext cab Rado today. It is greatly improved over my 2003 Rado, steering is perfect, better control over bumps, very quiet.
I dislike the new interior gages, too much plastic chrome. GM, This is a truck, not some blinged-out pimpmobile. The old interior was straightforward, easy to read gages, please bring it back.
While you're at it, please bring back the Protec composite bed. I absolutely love this option in my truck. No dents, rust or cracks in 3 years and now Toyota is offering a composite bed. GM had this option years ago and really needs to market this again or risk falling behind Toyota.
#959 of 2059 Re: Pmusce [drfill]
Feb 27, 2007 (4:16 am)
Composite frame? You are making things up. The Tundra frame is very similar to the Silverado frame except its not fully boxed. There is nothing different about the frame. It was on display at NAIAS for all to see. Can you tell the difference between a fully boxed frame and one that is not? I never said the Tundra would fall apart. I simply questioned long term durability. The frame will twist more which will cause squeaks and rattles over time. GM has a damped tailgate option as well.
No matter what I say or C&D or Motor Trend or anyone else you think the Tundra is the best and thats fine with me. Its a good truck. I think the Silverado is better. You asked me reasons why and here they are:
Tighter gap tolerances
Fully boxed frame -> More rigid frame (Read Automobiles review of the Tundra. They complained about the chassis flex)
Heavy Duty Versions
Diesal Power Available
Better Looking (this is subjective)
drfill, have you ever owned a full size truck? Again, I'm not trying to convince you because I'm sure I won't. To each his own.
#960 of 2059 Re: Just read the review of the Tundra by C&D [kdhspyder]
Feb 27, 2007 (4:24 am)
Again I never suggested the trucks would fall apart. Great for Toyota to match the 80-90's GM and Ford trucks for frame integrity. The standard now is fully boxed frame. If you don't understand the benefit of that, that's your problem. It had nothing to do with crash tests. It reduces chassis flex. As to what it did for Ford is gave Ford the best chassis in the fill size market. Ford has other issues with their truck (i.e. power) but the frame and chassis are great. The reason Nissan and GM also boxed their frames is that it is better engineering. I can't wait to see the HD Tundra with its current frame try to tow 16,000 lbs on a regular basis.
So Toyota did not follow the leader. What does the Tundra bring to the market that is so unique? Don't say power because each generation of these trucks ups the power race. I'm sure the 2009 Ram and F1050 will trump 381 hp and then the leapfrogging will occur again and again.
#961 of 2059 Re: Pmusce [pmusce]
Feb 27, 2007 (4:39 am)
Good post pmusce,
I would like to add:
Why do you Toyota fans discount the advantages of the GM over the Toyota as "useless", "insignificant", etc, etc. yet you claim the Tundra is better because it can tow 300 lbs more and does the 1/4 mile in a fraction of a second less time. Talk about useless specs!!!
Tell me what the Tundra can do that the GM's can't? And with higher tech frames, better ride, better interior, more availability (HD versions...PROVEN ones), better warranty, etc, etc. The obvious choice is the GM.
#962 of 2059 Re: To get us back on topic...... [blkhemi]
Feb 27, 2007 (4:44 am)
Yes, the 5.7l HEMI on paper was the most powerful pick-up up until a couple of years ago, but Chevy/GMC had many options including the 8.1l that was considerably stronger and more capable. The larger problem was that the HEMI didn't feel like it was very powerful. I remember asking the salesman on the test drive if he was sure that it had the HEMI engine in it. Honestly, both the 5.3l Avalanche and the Titan at the time felt stronger. They had better pickup and were quieter on the highway.
But, you're right about it being technically the most powerful up until recently. That isn't the point though, the larger point is that Dodge in particular, and even Ford have a serious issue producing efficient engines. When a 5.7l Hemi is getting close to the same gas mileage as an 8.1l Chevy engine, something is seriously wrong. Look at some feedback numbers from customers just on sedans with the Hemi in it! It is ridiculous that an AWD 300C with the 5.7 Hemi gets almost the same real-world mileage as an AWD truck like the Tundra or Silverado. Many are saying 14mpg city, 20mpg hwy and there are just as many claiming significantly less as more than that. I didn't do any averages on customer feedback, but results are definitely poor. And that Hemi has MDS on it as well to save fuel on hwy drives.
So, if a car that weighs 1700 lbs less than a truck has an engine that takes virtually as much gas, what do you think happens when you put it in a full-size truck with the extra weight? Never mind the problems in trying to use the same Hemi design to get more power. That means that fuel consumption will go up even more. The 6.1 Hemi on the sedan gets worse mileage than the Tundra and the Silverado (and Titan and even Ford). That engine already produces 425hp, but add another 1700 lbs, and the already poor mileage drops by another 30%. Ram owners are reporting numbers in the 10mpg range city and 12/13mpg hwy. That is with the current Hemi. Their 5.9l did considerably worse, so the Hemi was a step up, but gas mileage is certainly more important now. Manufacturers have to be able to produce a truck that has a huge capacity for strength, durability and power, while ensuring that it is efficient when those attributes are not required. That is VERY difficult to do.
Ford has a similar problem though they are not obligated to a particular engine design because of marketing like Dodge is. They just need to bring their numbers up period. Too much weight in the truck, an anemic engine, and pretty much the ugliest truck around up until this current model. I've always wondered why people ever bought them... but they are nice inside.
Anyhow, point taken on your specs, I understand that; my point was that, going ahead, Ford and Dodge are going to have a lot of challenges to tackle. Nissan's challenge is more related to offerings and more variety in bed lengths and cab configurations. Chevy/GMC have a variety of engines to choose from. Toyota needs to bring out 3/4 and 1 ton trucks to continue to be competititve. I just see Dodge trying to hang on to their current numberd for dear life. Ford is definitely going to shed some truck sales to the competition, though the rate may not be too bad overall.
Still, it is hard to believe that these trucks all get much better mileage than my dad's 1975 Nova 6-banger...
#963 of 2059 Re: Just read the review of the Tundra by C&D [pmusce]
Feb 27, 2007 (4:56 am)
Well, the Tundra is fully boxed up front under the engine, then it has a double-re-enforced C channel under the cab and a C channel under the bed.
The reasoning is that a fully-boxed frame all the way through puts a lot of strain and stress on the suspension. It also has the problem of dragging the front end of the vehicle (causing some control loss) when the bed is loaded and there is a loss of traction.
The idea of the chassis is to provide both strength and durability. Fully boxed frames are nothing new, but there are proven reasons why they have not always been used. Squeaks and rattles BTW are just as easily caused by a fully boxed frame because the interior materials used in trucks flex more than the frame. So, it is striking a balance that prevents it. If the frame flexes too much, you get squeaks -- not enough, you get squeaks. It has to be accommodating in certain areas.
It is the same concept used with crash protection. We have the knowledge, materials, and capability to produce a vehicle that will virtually be indestructable in a car accident, but we don't design vehicles that way because all of the crash-energy would then be absorbed by the occupants in the vehicle and would cause a much greater fatality rate.
I like the Toyota setup on the chassis moreso than on the Chevy -- I consider that a strength. Heck the leaf spring design is great too. For 3/4 and 1 ton models, we're talking completely different priorities. These are, after all REAL trucks. If Toyota could make a chassis design similar to the current Tundra's for 3/4 and 1 ton trucks, it would be pretty amazing. A fully boxed frame in that case may out-weigh the comfort/design benefits of the current frame.
#964 of 2059 Re: Just read the review of the Tundra by C&D [belias]
Feb 27, 2007 (5:02 am)
Nice try Belias,
Boy, you sure are able to convince yourself that even the drawbacks and inferiorities of the Tundra are actually advantages. Impressive. Do you work for Toyota? Have stock in them? Or just plain brainwashed?
#965 of 2059 Re: To get us back on topic...... [rockylee]
Feb 27, 2007 (5:09 am)
Yeah, I know there aren't a lot of Tundra fans on this board (or at least they aren't as visible as the Chevy fans), but I think there is a unique challenge in the truck segment. For the first time in a LONG time, there are two very good, very capable trucks. There is no denying that despite many of our differences on tastes, etc. that both the Tundra and Silverado are way ahead of the competition (including the Sierra as well obviously). My personal preference right now is the Tundra, though I'm holding out on a final decision until I see the Denali. But, others will choose the Silverado.
In any case, the unique challenge in the industry is that now there are two other companies that thrive on truck sales and are in serious trouble -- both financially and in terms of design. They are a good 1 to 2 years from updating their platforms. They have serious challenges to address in terms of sheer engineering, design, and capability. They have to pair that with the need to be able to charge more for their vehicles without alienating their faithful customers and STILL be able to offer as much or more in terms of features, capabilities, and options.
In all likelihood at least one of them will do so, but it will be interesting to see the approaches of both Ford and Dodge on this one. It is not going to be easy on either company...