Motor Trend names Tundra truck of the year

[Thai]

Why can't you just EXCEPT the fact that the Tundra is the best 1/2 ton out there!:headslap:

Koz

You're right...EXCEPT that the Tundra has many capable competitors out there...and as of now, it canNOT even beat the domestics with it's strong card (reliability)! Without reliability and durability, Toyota has lost it's strongest argument in the 1/2 ton class. Sales don't lie...Tundra is not even close to getting a step on the major domestics (Ford, Chevy, Dodge). I have not seen so many discounts and rebates on a Toyota in my life!! It's like buying a freaking Chevy Aveo! Toyota is desparate...they know that their 1/2 ton "monster" has more than a few holes in it. Mind you, the Tundra is getting to it's conservative sales goal (set by Toyota to avoid embarrassment) with tons and tons of discounts & rebates!

Now, the Sequoia...now, that is a winner IMHO. Hopefully, it will have better reliability than Tundra since Toyota learn it's lesson about releasing a vehicle too soon.

 

[OUTRNNR]

You're right...EXCEPT that the Tundra has many capable competitors out there...and as of now, it canNOT even beat the domestics with it's strong card (reliability)! Without reliability and durability, Toyota has lost it's strongest argument in the 1/2 ton class. Sales don't lie...Tundra is not even close to getting a step on the major domestics (Ford, Chevy, Dodge). I have not seen so many discounts and rebates on a Toyota in my life!! It's like buying a freaking Chevy Aveo! Toyota is desparate...they know that their 1/2 ton "monster" has more than a few holes in it. Mind you, the Tundra is getting to it's conservative sales goal (set by Toyota to avoid embarrassment) with tons and tons of discounts & rebates!

Now, the Sequoia...now, that is a winner IMHO. Hopefully, it will have better reliability than Tundra since Toyota learn it's lesson about releasing a vehicle too soon.

I wouldn't go so far as to write the Tundra off in the reliability and durability department. Keep in mind that the problems that are circulating the blogosphere are fairly isolated in nature, AND Toyota has taken swift affimative action to remedy each incident.

The camshafts were limited to less than 50 motors - with that, TMC has offered brand new engines to the affected owners as well as making a payment (where applicable) and offering a lifetime powertrain warranty on the vehicle. In regard to the torque converter (NOT TRANSMISSION) problems, TMC is replacing faulty units free of charge to the less than 5% of 6-speed trucks reportedly affected. Lastly, with the recall of the driveshaft in 4WD Tundras, TMC is recalling around 15,000; or less than 10% of Tundras sold for PRE-EMPTIVE testing. Approximately 7% of the recalled vehicles are suspected to have a propeller shaft that is not constructed of properly hardened steel. The recalled vehicles have a quick hardness test performed on them. If they pass, nothing else happens. If they don't pass, a new driveshaft is ordered and replaced. It should be noted that no driveshaft failures have actually occured yet. Now, tell me that any major domestic auto-maker would do this type of recall and analysis. They wouldn't, and they haven't. Just because Chevy hasn't had any recalls doesn't mean there isn't something wrong with their brand new platform. The truth will surface in time...

To address the rebates/discount issue: I think that the increased incentives stem more from gas prices than anything else. Right now is a tough time to sell a truck. Plus, the incentives vary widely from region to region. For example, the new Tundras are still selling very well in my region, so the rebates are lower.

Thai, I offer the suggestion that you go out and test drive each half-ton truck and make the decision based on your own observations, instead of just repeating internet hear-say.

Cheers!

 

[Thai]

I have taken very close look of the Tundra vs. domestics. My Toyota dealer is 5 min away from home. My work place has plenty of domestic dealers (small town = domestics).

What you're saying about domestics hiding their problems on the Silverados, F150, Ram has NOT been proven...yet. All i see is Toyota exec "shameful" of Tundra's issues and then, a few days later, yet another problem on the Tundra published...again, i am sure that Toyota exec won't be saying this because of "toothing issues" with new models...he/she did not even say that about the Avalon when it came out and that was a major headache for Toyota's reputation! He/she is saying it because he/she knows that the Tundra was release too damn early!

It's well-known that Toyota released the 5.7L V8 engine to the public with the knowledge that some of them have camshaft problems...this is indeed shameful for any manufacturer, much less Toyota...so let's not put Toyota too high on the pedestal! BTW, Toyota has a well-known history of hiding and denying it's problems also...and i am sure that you're well aware of them.

BTW, i would ask your Toyota salesman why the Sequoia does NOT have the (in)famous TripleTech frame of the Tundra...it tows the same as Tundra (thus eliminating the towing factor).

 

[Thai]

The camshafts were limited to less than 50 motors - with that, TMC has offered brand new engines to the affected owners as well as making a payment (where applicable) and offering a lifetime powertrain warranty on the vehicle.

OutRNNR, does Toyota know the exact amount of engine affected?? Last i heard, Toyota will not do anything until your engine fails. Basically, for those lucky early owners, they have to continue to drive their "time bomb" until it breaks down, THEN Toyota will replace the engine. This sucks as you can imagine because you can't go anywhere far nor off-road anywhere far from civilization because if it breaks down, then you're screwed. In addition, this also puts your truck in the hands of the Toyota wrench monkeys which is not always a good thing.

So far, there may be 50 motors affected, but this number could grow down the road because that "bad batch" consists MORE than 50 motors i think. Correct me if i am wrong.

 

[OUTRNNR]

It's well-known that Toyota released the 5.7L V8 engine to the public with the knowledge that some of them have camshaft problems...this is indeed shameful for any manufacturer, much less Toyota...so let's not put Toyota too high on the pedestal! BTW, Toyota has a well-known history of hiding and denying it's problems also...and i am sure that you're well aware of them.

I haven't heard anything about Toyota knowing about the camshaft casting flaw in the 5.7 prior to release. If they did, don't you think they would have delayed the release more to save the embarassment? This doesn't add up...

OutRNNR, does Toyota know the exact amount of engine affected?? Last i heard, Toyota will not do anything until your engine fails. Basically, for those lucky early owners, they have to continue to drive their "time bomb" until it breaks down, THEN Toyota will replace the engine. This sucks as you can imagine because you can't go anywhere far nor off-road anywhere far from civilization because if it breaks down, then you're screwed. In addition, this also puts your truck in the hands of the Toyota wrench monkeys which is not always a good thing.

So far, there may be 50 motors affected, but this number could grow down the road because that "bad batch" consists MORE than 50 motors i think. Correct me if i am wrong.

I don't believe that Toyota knows the exact number, but they believe it to be less than 50 motors. There have only been less than 20 cases reported, so even worst case 50/177356 = .028 % chance of failure - I'll take my chances.

BTW, i would ask your Toyota salesman why the Sequoia does NOT have the (in)famous TripleTech frame of the Tundra...it tows the same as Tundra (thus eliminating the towing factor).

Anybody who knows anything about a truck knows that frame construction dictates hauling dynamics much more than it dictates towing dynamics. Putting 1500 lbs in the bed of a truck places additional stress on the frame of the vehicle along with the suspension components.

I believe having an open c-channel along the length of the bed is acutually beneficial in a truck vs. a fully boxed frame (FBF) - Here's why: The Tundra's frame is much more flexible than say the F-150's frame because it is less robust and under the bed, the open c-channel is allowed to flex a bit. It's an urban leged among auto consumers that a FBF is superior to a non-FBF. In overall strength and rigidity, this is probably true. However, is this really better?

With a heavy load in the bed a FBF will not flex nearly as much as the TT frame. This means that the rear suspension has to dissipate all of the energy input (in the form of bumps) from the road. At some point, the suspension system becomes overloaded (underdamped) and the wheels will eventually lose contact with the road as the bump input is increased. The Tundra's TT frame is designed to flex more than a FBF and dissipate some of this energy helping the rear suspension do its job - keep the wheels on the road.

If having a FBF is so beneficial why does all of the heavy duty domestic trucks and semi tractors use c channel frames? There is a video floating around probably made by Ford that shows trucks running over a rutted and bumpy surface at a certain speed with empty beds. The F-150 seemingly glides over all of the bumps while the Tundra looks like its bed and cab are on two different frames. There is alot of flex in the Tundra frame causing a resonance and the bed is shaking violently back and forth. This video cracks me up because it allows me to prove why the TT frame is superior. You throw 1000 lbs of weight in each of those beds and the outcome is completely different. The Tundra's frame helps absorb the bumps while the Ford's suspenion is overloaded with the double duty of dissipating all of the vertical energy from the road because the FBF won't flex. This means more vertical wheel travel and less tire-road contact - plain and simple. Cracks me up that Ford would do this test with trucks with empty beds. What the hell do you use a truck for?

The short answer: The Seqouia does not have the hauling capacity and therefore realizes benefits from a FBF (although I still think FBF is overkill).

One other note here: I think we can all agree that Toyota engineers are pretty brilliant minds, right? If they used the F-150 as a benchmark for the Tundra and had the FBF sitting right under their nose, why didn't they use it in the Tundra? The answer is NOT because of cost. I think its safe to say Toyota spared no expense in the design of the Tundra. FBF's are overkill plain and simple. Like building a treehouse out of steel girders.

Whew!! What else ya got?

 

[Thai]

OUtrunner,

I have to find the link...but rumors has it that Toyota knew about the issue early on, but kept it on the low down during the introduction of the Tundra. Remember, if the Tundra was release without the 5.7L V8, then Toyota would lose millions of dollars from lost sales. The 5.7L V8 is one of the main selling points of the Tundra. The 4.7L V8 is way underpowered for the Tundra.

Here is a link from an online article: (see last sentence)
"Toyota will certainly pay the estimated $100,000 to repair the 20 trucks already known to have experienced a camshaft failure, but the looming question that

 

[Thai]

IThe short answer: The Seqouia does not have the hauling capacity and therefore realizes benefits from a FBF (although I still think FBF is overkill).

So, you prefer that your 4runner have C-frame??!!

 

[Thai]

Another old post: (as you can see, domestics deal with frame design similar to Toyota...they know about hauling aspects very well and have been designing trucks waaayyyy before Toyota even thought about trucks! It's the American way of life for most folks!)

"There is nothing new about the Toyota's "Triple Tech" design...it's pure marketing that is already on most (if not all) domestic trucks. For example, Chevy also uses a THREE-section frame for it's truck...with hydroformed front and rear sections, high-strenth steel on the front and middle sections. Here are more details about it:

The new, boxed frame design offers 49-percent increased torsional stiffness (side-to-side twisting) and 35-percent improved beaming frequency (front-to-back bending), compared with previous-generation vehicles. The stronger frame also supports an increased load capacity of approximately 5 percent.

The frame

 

[OUTRNNR]

And it is clear that everyone knows that a BOXED frame is the best because ALL trucks have boxed front and center sections for cabin stability, ride comfort, and crash protection. With that knowledge alone, more than half of toyota's boasts about it's breakthru frame goes down the drain!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW, you want the suspension to take most of the grunt of a heavy load. Flexy frames --> vibrations/jittery --> loosen parts --> decrease durability & reliability.

So, you're telling me that ALL domestic trucks got it wrong when they went with fully-boxed frame?? That somehow, Toyota has found the magic design?? If what you say is true about C-rear frame, then WHY DID ALL THE DOMESTICS GO FROM C-FRAME TO FULLY-BOXED FRAME?? ALL OF THEM. Am i the only one that see this as being odd????

This is the last I'm going to debate about this, so we are probably going to have to agree to disagree.

First of all, a FBF is as much of a marketing ploy as the TT frame. Just because a frame is boxed does not make it stronger - it just changes the dynamics of the frame. Through the use of stronger materials and thicker walls a C-channel frame can acutally be as strong or stronger than a FBF but give more to dynamics loads due to the moment of inertia difference in the geometry of the frame sections.

Secondly, just because a frame flexes under load doesn't make it "jittery and loosen parts". Like I explained above it helps dissipate energy from the bumps in the road. Have you ever even ridden in a truck with a FBF? I drive an '07 F-150 for a work vehicle and it is much more jittery and harsh than my Tundra!! And this is because of the overly stiff FBF!! Plus, I have the 20" wheels and low profile tires on my truck and my work truck has balloons for tires.

Now I'm not saying that trucks with FBF's got it wrong. A FBF is a strong frame, but I've said it before and I'll say it again. A FBF is overkill, plain and simple. Truck frames can be built just as strong and durable with open channel sections that use less steel which reduces weight and cost and increases performance and fuel economy!!

 

[Thai]

This is the last I'm going to debate about this, so we are probably going to have to agree to disagree.

I drive an '07 F-150 for a work vehicle and it is much more jittery and harsh than my Tundra!! And this is because of the overly stiff FBF!! Plus, I have the 20" wheels and low profile tires on my truck and my work truck has balloons for tires.

...use less steel which reduces weight and cost and increases performance and fuel economy!!

Could it be that your F150 has shitty suspension?? At the same time, a jittery ride may settle down with load...maybe that was Ford's intention?? I don't know. A weak frame may ride well, but may not do well down the road with full loads or with towing.

Your last sentence is exactly why HD trucks have c-frames and why Tundra has it. But, that does NOT necessary mean that Tundra frame design is superior to other fully-boxed frame...i would argue the opposite. It is just like why i appreciate my G500's fully boxed frame and thick tube welded crossmembers. A strong frame is the backbone of SUVs and trucks. You state that fully-boxed frame is "overkill"...well, IMHO, overkill (aka overengineered) is a good thing, right? I like overkill stuff.

It's the holidays...so, i agree to disagree.

 

[Thai]

The new, boxed frame design offers 49-percent increased torsional stiffness (side-to-side twisting) and 35-percent improved beaming frequency (front-to-back bending), compared with previous-generation vehicles. The stronger frame also supports an increased load capacity of approximately 5 percent.

The above quote (in my post) may answer some questions. The previous Chevy Silverado had boxed frame in front, but C-frame in the rear (like Tundra). The current recently-redesigned Silverado has fully boxed frame front to rear.

From the data above, it appears that a fully-boxed frame does not add much to load capacity...only 5%...not nearly as much as how it affects torsional stiffness and bending strength. I assume that load capacity is equal to hauling capability that OUTRUNNR was talking about. So, OUTRUNNR is somewhat correct in what he wrote. It does NOT mean that a C-frame can carry more...it just means that a boxed frame only adds a little bit to the hauling capability of a truck.

On the other hand, a boxed frame adds tremendously to the torsional and bending strength of a truck. This means that a boxed frame may add significant durability to a towing vehicle. Of course, if you off-road, then a boxed frame is clearly the better design.

So, this is probably why HD trucks use big ass C-frames to avoid weight and save cost...at the same time, not affecting it's hauling capability too much (as compared to HD truck with boxed frame). Toyota may have save some cost with the Tundra frame while not trailing the domestics in hauling capability. It's a decent compromise for it's intented purpose.