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
#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...
#966 of 2059 Re: To get us back on topic...... [belias]
Feb 27, 2007 (5:22 am)
Rest assured...Ford will do it. They have to, and they will. Dodge? They should just go away, but will they? I doubt it, not completely anyway.
#967 of 2059 Re: Just read the review of the Tundra by C&D [jreagan]
Feb 27, 2007 (5:34 am)
Actually, my uncle used to work for GM and I have 2nd cousins that design for GM, so, ironically I'm getting most of this info from them, not Toyota. I've toured the Nummi plant here and a GM plant overseas. I've seen them build everything from commercial trucks to Opels. I've seen and attended talks on quality control and design from various Toyota, Honda, BMW, Volvo, and GM executives. I have a degree in production and operations management and taken many courses in actuarial mathematics. There are literally dozens, if not hundreds of design considerations that have been well documented by companies like Ford and GM that show that they've sacrificed design aspects for cost rather than safety because they know the average death-benefits of victims and the number of anticipated lawsuits would still be lower than the cost of designing that particular area of the vehicle to meet a safer specification.
There is little benefit to making a chassis rigid to the point of unusability in a truck. They strive for that in racing cars because the ultimate goal is shaving off that extra 1/10 of a second over the course of 500 miles. In a truck, it is primarily the ability to tow (has nothing to do with fully-boxed frame or not because most of the force is moving front to back) and the actual support between the main channels (i.e. ladder-frame design).
All you do by making a fully-boxed frame throughout the truck is make the ride more stiff and the handling a little more dangerous. Trucks are not like cars in this regard, they're expected to carry a load and they need a proper balance of strength and durability. That said, we're talking literally 10ths of an inch difference in tolerances, it isn't like these are wooden chassis like on some older exotic race cars.
So, no, I don't work for Toyota and have never been to a Toyota-only plant, but people here act like these manufacturers and engineers don't know what they're doing. There are different priorities for manufacturers and their designs are far better than most people realize. The "fully boxed" frame that the new Silverado rides on, isn't towing any more than the Tundra, in fact it is less and in some cases the difference is quite a bit more than the 300 lbs that is mentioned here all the time.
Anybody that thinks that either GM, Ford, Dodge, or Toyota doesn't know how to make a good design has obviously no clue whatsoever about engineering and manufacturing. All of these companies can build vehicles with literally two or three times their current capabilities with little effort (and the engineers would literally LOVE it), but they would also be building vehicles that a) cost $250K, b) kill off most of the rest of their vehicle line-up, and c) prevent them from coming up with a tiered-improvement system for future products (that is what happens when you take one big leap).
So, Toyota's take was to come up with a better balance. Honda's take was to join the bed with the overall frame for better handling. GM's take is to have a fully-boxed frame to accommodate a variety of engine/platform combinations. Ford and Dodge and Nissan have other priorities.
jreagan, if you can't see that, then stick to driving trucks, not talking about strategic design. You're fooling yourself if you think any one of these companies can't produce a truck exactly like the others... ok, now I'll get off my soap box!
#968 of 2059 Re: Just read the review of the Tundra by C&D [belias]
Feb 27, 2007 (6:11 am)
I too am in the Mfg industry and have been designing custom machinery (automation) for the past 18 years. So, I do know a thing or 2 about engineering principles, so, yes, get off your soap box and stop trying to fool people, including yourself.
All you do by making a fully-boxed frame throughout the truck is make the ride more stiff and the handling a little more dangerous.
Then why does the GM truck ride and handle better and smoother than the Toy? (based on EVERY comparison I have read).
Yes, Engineers have the capability to design/engineer anything they want. What is your point? Toy Engineers have the same hurdles and restrictions that GM and Ford Engineers have. So, maybe they didn't incorporate a fully boxed frame for financial or economic reasons rather than because it was a "better" design? Obviously, all of the Engineers at GM, Ford and other's who use it think it's a better, higher tech design, are they all wrong? Face it, GM is always the "Lead Frog" in the technological game of leapfrog. IE: GM started using Hydroformed frames (for lighter, stronger frames) back in the late 80's and Dodge started using that technology at least 10 years later, then had to "gall" to brag about it in their ads.
So, call it what you want (balance?) and justify it however you want. The bottom line is that GM is ahead of Toyota in the overall technology dept. yes, they have a great drivetrain (on paper anyway), and my guess is that is where they focused their attention and is why they did not incorporate higher technology elsewhere (such as in frame design). More to follow, gotta go to a meeting...
#969 of 2059 I am not a full-size truck buyer, even though I live in the heart of Texas
Feb 27, 2007 (6:58 am)
And though I like Toyota a lot, I don't really care about either truck, since if Toyota does make the best truck, it won't make a huge difference in the market.
I know from sitting in, but not driving, both trucks, seen them on the street, and read about them in the mags.
Have seen the C&D and Inside Line comparisons, and both Tundras had the TRD susp. pkg, which takes the ride quality away, so pumping up the Silvys ride is phony in that regard, since a std. suspenion Tundra hasn't been tested.
This website's assessment of the Tundra's handling: Steering is quick and precise, and the chassis is suited to dancing.
Again, the last Tundra rode better, and had a better interior, than the Silverado ever did! Where is the statue in Tundra's honor?
C&D had to reach to find a negative thing to say about the Tundra. Low tow hooks?
Why are people here comparing HD GM trucks to the Tundra? GM doesn't make a half-ton diesel/dualie, so you are comparing apples and oranges.
C&D called the Tundra chassis "sophisticated", with "excellent control". I guess they'd rather have a "squeaky-flexy" Nissan chassis instead.
To each his own.