Last post on Nov 02, 2007 at 3:16 AM
You are in the Toyota Tundra
What is this discussion about?
Chevrolet Silverado 1500, Nissan Titan, Toyota Tundra, Truck
Article comments for Comparison Test: 2007 Half-Ton Pickup Trucks - For almost two weeks, we drove all three trucks in a variety of terrain including urban crush, freeways and gravel roads. We loaded and unloaded them, poked and prodded them, and even dyno-tested them. (more)
#248 of 259 Re: 2007 Half-Ton Pickups Comparison [captainmatty]
Jun 27, 2007 (3:56 am)
LOL, is that why the Trailblazer and its 14 different clones are on the chopping block this year?
You may still be living in 1970...
#249 of 259 Re: Pretty Good [1offroader]
Jun 27, 2007 (5:01 am)
I'm not in the least frustrated, as I said, get whatever you like. I simply made a statement and you came out and disected my post like it was something personal. It wasn't even directed at you or any of your posts. It was a response to the 28mph testing and how GM/Ford/Dodge aren't doing themselves any favors by making these obtuse-type tests. Stick to what people that own and use trucks know and rely on. I can't see anybody with half a brain that would say differently. A truck is exactly that, a truck. When you start arguing about bed wiggle performance at 28mph on some road with specific conditions attributed to it, it just makes the whole argument for the truck seem weak.
I think that these truck comparison articles are good for showing the strengths and weaknesses of each model, but people here are really taking it personally.
As for your safety test, I completely agreed with you on it and specificaly said so in my post, but you're making it more of an issue. Heck the 2007 GMC "Classic" models have 4-star and 3-star safety ratings link title for the same tests (for driver and passenger) NHTSA 2007 GMC Fine, score one for the Detroit3 on this. That is good that they are tops in safety, that means that Toyota needs work on the Tundra.
But, that is just one item out of literally dozens that need to be looked at to get the overall picture.
I thought that those that "think before they post" would understand that there are many more aspects to a comparison.
Again, to summarize for you, the whole point of this was to say that the Detroit3 would better serve themselves in the truck market if they simply continued advertising their strengths in terms of towing, hauling, and being "tough". These other types of comparison tests make them look worse than if they hadn't done anything at all. Can you at least agree to that? Or are you going to continue to argue that I'm apparently frustrated by this (fyi, these are trucks, not my relatives or anything meaningful to me, so I can't be frustrated about material things) or that somehow the crash-test result is so damaging to me that I can't get over it! LOL, that one took the cake! Just lighten up a bit. People have every right to make statements here on this forum about whatever truck or product they like. Just because you don't agree with them, doesn't make you the expert on it.
#251 of 259 Re: More necessary rational testing.
Jun 27, 2007 (5:56 pm)
Those were interesting and meaningful (read: not obtuse) tests.
The frame flex test was especially relevant. The Toyota was dismal, to say the least. More than 3 inches of torsional flex, with only 275 lbs. of unsupported load. Those types of conditions are encountered all the time off road. In fact, I predicted that outcome in a much earlier post, just based on my observations from sliding under the Tundra and looking at it. The frame does indeed look flimsy, and the test clearly bears that out. I also believe that frame flex contributes to the severe bed floppage of the Tundra in the 28 mph test.
Interestingly, I note that none of the tests included a GM product for comparison - just Ford vs. Toyota. I wonder why?
#252 of 259 Re: Pretty Good [belias]
Jun 27, 2007 (6:08 pm)
You may find this surprising, but I agree with some of your points.
My point, in the original post, was that you made a big deal of Ford's "obtuse" (your word, not mine) test, specifically the 28 mph test. If you'd thought about it for a nanosecond, you'd have realized that Toyota's so-called "tests" are the most "obtuse" of any pickup manufacturer. After all, people DO drive 28 mph on rough roads, whereas they NEVER drive up giant teeter-totters or through giant slamming doors on the edge of the Grand Canyon.
Do we at least agree on that? If you'd have said so in the beginning, the rest of the posts would have been unnecessary.
I've never considered it a personal "attack" (again, your word) when someone challenges my posts. And of course, people can post whatever they like - hey, it's a forum. But it is a public forum, and when you post something on a public forum, expect that someone may challenge you to back up your statements. And if you can't back it up, expect to take a shot, OK? It's nothing personal. That's my point.
#253 of 259 Re: Pretty Good [1offroader]
Jun 28, 2007 (4:29 am)
OK, fair enough -- I respect your right to post your opinion as well. While I do agree with you that the teeter totter test and grand-canyon test were unrealistic in real life, the point isn't that you'll take your truck through those conditions, the point is that they are showing you the benefits of their braking/acceleration. It is the same like the GM commercials where the trucks were towing other 1/2 ton trucks on a railroad flat-bed. Of course, who is going to driver their truck on a railroad flatbed towing a bunch of the competition's trucks? But, that wasn't the point either -- it was that they wanted to show that their trucks were good at towing.
For the Ford test of the 28mph test, there is nothing of great value there. It is trying to create a problem where none has existed before (i.e. there weren't 28mph off-road tests done for the last 30 years) and provide a solution (their F150) where none is needed. It is the classic marketing campaign more attributable to pharmaceuticals where they want the consumer to be their own doctor, diagnose a condition which really doesn't exist only so that you'll ask your doctor to prescribe you a medication to treat it.
So, yeah, I think we're in agreement and we probably beat this horse to death on this issue.
I do agree that frame-flex can be a problem if it isn't properly controlled. On the other hand, too much rigidity can also be a problem. That is why the largest trucks don't have FBF frames -- the lack of flex for such large loads would be a serious detriment to the ability to handle the weight for the driver. Ironically, even Ford admitted as much when questioned why their super-duty line of trucks weren't fully boxed. So, there is obviously some detriment to having torsional stiffness beyond a certain payload/towing capacity for a truck. What that level is, I don't know. Every manufacturer is going to have their different takes on how to resolve this issue and so far it seems that there hasn't been any serious handling problems from one solution to another. We'll see how the Tundra fairs in the long run with their setup. It may be proven to be a disaster or it may prove to be irrelevant. Right now it is difficult to tell other than to show that it has more flex in the bed than its competition (gotta wonder why all the 1/2 ton trucks weren't included too!)
Have a good one!
#254 of 259 Re: Pretty Good [belias]
Jun 28, 2007 (8:09 pm)
OK, agreed, enuf about "obtuse" tests.
You bring up a different issue, which is frame flex. I contend that it IS a significant issue. Here are my reasons:
1) torsional flex is a BIG DEAL in offroad conditions, where frequently one corner of the vehicle has little (or even no) contact with the ground. That's the nature of the beast. When this happens, the frame flexes. When the frame flexes, that transfers stresses to body parts that are just not designed to handle stress. The body is just sheet metal. Multiply that over thousands, or hundreds of thousands, or millions, of cycles and you induce rattles, metal fatigue, and other problems. It also means you must increase body panel gaps so the edges of the body panels don't come into contact with each other and beat themselves to death.
Why do you think my 69 Bronco, and even my 92 Toyota pickup, had FBFs? Because these vehicles were designed to be superior in offroad conditions. C-channel frames are a big step backwards, offroadwise. But, they are much cheaper to produce so many manufacturers use them. Riveted cross members are also cheaper and easier to produce than double welded cross members. Time is money in the car making business, as elsewhere.
A hunting guide recently told me of a test he witnessed on a Ford lot. I did not witness this, it's only heresay, but based on the video it makes a lot of sense. The Ford dealer took a new Tundra and a new F-150. He supported 3 corners, the 4th (rear) corner was completely unsupported. The tailgate of the Tundra opened with difficulty and with a lot of binding, and would not close due to the torsional flex! The Ford - no problem. Once again, I did not witness this.
When you go offroad, you cannot always choose where you stop, or where you get stuck. If you park at an awkward angle on a steep slope, do you still want to get into the bed of your truck? With the Tundra, that might be difficult, or even impossible.
2) As to the big c-channel frames on the large trucks...these vehicles are not designed for serious offroading, and you rarely ever see them in tough offroad situations. Not necessarily due to frame flex, but because they are so large they are not practical offroad. In any event, flex can be overcome if you throw a lot more steel at the problem even with c-channel. And 3/4-ton and larger trucks have much bigger frames than 1/2 ton trucks. They are built for hauling and towing, and c-channel is just fine for that.
1/2 ton trucks are supposed to be a compromise - some towing/hauling, and some offroad capability (in 4WD). The Tundra will be decidely inferior, from a frame flex standpoint, than the GM or Ford. Not sure about the Dodge. In fact, I'd bet dollars to donuts that the frame flex is why the Tundra looked so bad in the 28mph test.
3) As to your last point, there is NO detriment to having zero torsional flex in a frame. None. You're just wrong on that point. That's what the suspension is supposed to provide. Less flex is always better. The reason that zero flex is not possible, or practical, is that it would cost a fortune to design and build a true zero-flex frame. That's NASA-level stuff. The ideal is to have as near to zero flex as you can get and still make an affordable piece of equipment.
Here's my prediction - the next iteration of the Tundra will have a FBF. And, Toyota will brag that's it's a big improvement. Which will be true.
#255 of 259 Re: Pretty Good [1offroader]
Jun 28, 2007 (8:24 pm)
Hell, I'll go with that, I own a new Frontier 4x4 Nismo.
You know, Titan's little brother. Fully boxed frame, and all that.
Enjoyed your post.
#257 of 259 Interesting safety result
Jul 03, 2007 (4:52 am)
This came directly from MSNBC on crash tests performed on SUVs and Trucks where a rear-end collision at 20mph occurred...
“In stop-and-go commuter traffic, you’re more likely to get in a rear-end collision than any other crash type,” said Institute vice president David Zuby. “It’s not a major feat of engineering to design seats and head restraints that afford good protection in these common crashes.”
In other vehicle categories, the 2007 Toyota Tundra was the only pickup to receive the top score. Three minivans received the highest marks: Ford Freestar, Hyundai Entourage and the Kia Sedona.
For pickups, the institute gave poor ratings to Chevrolet Silverado 1500 Classic and the GMC Sierra 1500 Classic; Dodge Ram 1500; Ford Ranger and Mazda B Series; Nissan Frontier and certain versions of Ford F-150, Dodge Dakota and Mitsubishi Raider.
As a side note, I looked at the IIHS web-site to see what the ratings were for the new GMC Sierra/ Chevy Silverado (since they weren't mentioned in the article) and they recieved an "acceptable" rating for the same test. Ford received "poor"/"marginal" depending on the seatbelt arrangement and Dodge received "poor" ratings. The Titan got the same "acceptable" rating as the Sierra/Silverado.