blk05runner
New member
Hell No would be my answer:runaway:
Tundra related....HOLY HELL
- Thread starter Casper
- Start date
- Status
Northof49
New member
Ford's (who made the video) very own trucks utilize boxed front sections with c-channel rears....not the 1/2 tons, but the Superduty 3/4 and 1-tons. Actually all the big 3's 3/4 ton+ trucks use this design IIRC.
I've never seen this particular example; running over a bunch of bumps at precisely 28 (?) mph....but a test is a test I suppose. Maybe the 28 mph is just an average type speed?
That said, I have no idea how any of my past (mostly Toyota) pickups would have looked doing the same thing....likely terrible if these 3 are the latest and greatest? They all stood up to years, 200,000 miles, being jumped, and running logging roads at excessive speeds with heavy loads, etc, tho....so I'm not sure if I'm worried about it?
Either way, video's a video
I've never seen this particular example; running over a bunch of bumps at precisely 28 (?) mph....but a test is a test I suppose. Maybe the 28 mph is just an average type speed?
That said, I have no idea how any of my past (mostly Toyota) pickups would have looked doing the same thing....likely terrible if these 3 are the latest and greatest? They all stood up to years, 200,000 miles, being jumped, and running logging roads at excessive speeds with heavy loads, etc, tho....so I'm not sure if I'm worried about it?
Either way, video's a video
Thai
Elite Member
Northof49 said:
From my previous post: "The C-section (if it's tall) is good enough to withstand vertical loads...thus, you can get away with it in the rear bed. The problem with C-section frame is that it is bad with twisting forces (e.g. off-roading) and side load (e.g. accident). This is why the big HD trucks can get away with using tall C-section frame in the rear 1/2 of the vehicle...easy and cheaper to produce and does the job good enough for the average truck owner...BUT it is NOT necessarily the best solution in terms of frame strength and durability.
This is why the front of the Tundra (and all trucks on the market today) are boxed for crash testing strength and cabin stability while the rear bed is C-section because the bed mainly deals with vertical load.
Therefore, having C-section frame in the rear has NOTHING to do with ride comfort or handling. It is meeting with the needs of most truck owners."
And in addition, see my post on page 4.
Northof49
New member
1/2 of my point was that we don't know what many other trucks (past and present) look like under that specific condition. My 98 Tacoma was an awesome truck.....beat to hell and back on backroads, hauled and towed sleds down terrble roads, but I can't imagine what it would look like in that test. Actually, with the overloads I had in it....it probably would have bounced right off the course!Thai said:
We don't know what 3/4 tons and 1-tons would look like. We don't even know if 28mph is just a bad spot for the others and a sweet spot for the Ford....kind of a strange, yet specific speed.
Ford couldn't even keep the stripes and body lines lined up on their 80's and 90's pickups, so they definetly required improvement. That said, even in those years, they outsold all the others despite the weakest frame.
A video is a video....it ain't the bible. That said, I like the Tundra and would rather see it besting the domestics in ALL tests.
blk05runner
New member
don't think he wants to answer you:bash:
I wonder why
I wonder why
E
Even Steven
Guest
Watching that video would be enough to make me visit my local Ford dealer for a full-size truck.
I bet the video is making its rounds through Toyota...and they are embarrased by it. The Tundras bed flexed so much Im surprised the sheet metal didnt get wrinkled.
Did anyone wonder how they did that camera work? How did they take the shots directly from the rear without the camera shaking? Some kind of boom that hovered over the test track?
I bet the video is making its rounds through Toyota...and they are embarrased by it. The Tundras bed flexed so much Im surprised the sheet metal didnt get wrinkled.
Did anyone wonder how they did that camera work? How did they take the shots directly from the rear without the camera shaking? Some kind of boom that hovered over the test track?
blk05runner
New member
no way I would ever put my R1 in that bed.
Northof49
New member
Put it in a trailer behind your 4Runner and drive down that road at 28mph and show us a video....blk05runner said:
Some of you guys are hilarious. A test you've never seen performed before (why?), executed by a manufacturer who makes the product with the best outcome in said test (why?), shows that a product performs better than other products under a very specific condition (why?). OMG OMG which way to the panic button???!?
Last edited:
blk05runner
New member
funny I'll let you go 1st.
ptung07
New member
I was in shock of how much movement the bed has moved in that video. However, did you notice Toyota's small attention to detail? The truck before the Tundra had its gas cap popped open from all the vibrations. The tundra's didn't even open, even after all the flexing and vibrating 
hahah
hahah
E
Even Steven
Guest
Northof49 said:
I see your point, but that still does not make the end results any better. The test may seem silly, but in the real world, we all drive over obstacles that cause flex every day. The back end of the Tundra appeared to take a beating compared to the other trucks, so that is the reason everyone is commenting.
The other day I was following behind a new Jeep Grand Cherokee on my way home from work. I just happened to notice that the Jeep had quite a bit of axle hop when it drove over a railroad crossing. I followed behind him for about two more miles and noticed how junky his suspension looked as it hit any bump in the road.
I wondered how my 4Runner would look from behind driving on the same road. I certainly felt the bumps, but my 4Runner seemed to soak them up without any drama. A few days later, I found myself behind a 4th generation 4Runner on the same road. Guess what? The 4Runner suspension gobbled up every bump in the road without any axle hop or tire rebound at all.
Maybe its just me, but I pay attention to this kind of stuff on the road. It seems to me that the Tundra should have been built a little more solid like the domestic trucks. Would a fully-boxed frame have helped?
westwind1124a
New member
It looked like the Chevy had the Off-road z-71 package. If I'm correct that would make it more prone to shaking like crazy over those bumps and it still seemed to do pretty well. Could you guys tell what kind of suspention packages the Ford and Toyota had?
Northof49
New member
Don't get me wrong, I would've hoped the Tundra would best the others in any test they could throw at it.Even Steven said:
Just pointing out that this test is a specific condition. For one thing, the Tundra's tires seem to maintain more contact with the road than the other 2. For another, one can't help but wonder if at other speeds the results would look wholely different or favor another truck. The width of the bumps vs wheelbases, suspension tuning and a host of other variables can easily come into play....finding the "resonance speed" kinda thing. That's why I stated this test won't be the bible for me. Why they picked one speed and only one speed is questionable to me; being a test orchestrated by the "winning team."
Last edited:
- Status
