Tundra related....HOLY HELL

[spud72]

http://www.pickuptruck.com/html/stories/silvercreek/silvercreek.html

The link from the original source.

I will admit, it doesn't look good but you have to remember 1 test does not damn a vehicle. It could be a number of things:

Was the 28MPH a specific speed pulled out to bring out the worst possible resonance in the Toyota? Maybe. I don't know. Would 30 have been better? Worse?

Worse the truck faulty or rigged? Who knows. 1 test from a competing manufacturer does not tell the tail. If it was, say, Car and Driver, their drivers and sourced vehicles, I would give it a bit more weight.

Would you put your faith behind a test Apple did of a Windows computer that SURPRISE showed the Mac was superior? I would hope not. That doesn't mean it's wrong though, it is just 1 test from one, possibly biased, source. More evidence is needed making a decision.

 

[scott78945]

I agree with many of the other posters. If this test was done from a 3rd party I would definately put more credit into it. However, since this is a test from Ford and since Ford is losing A LOT of business to the Tundra, I don't put a whole lot of faith into it. Now, I am not saying that the Tundra is without its faults, but Ford definately has their own agenda when they run a test like this and that is to make their product better. Plain and simple. Is it legit, maybe...maybe not. To each their own...if you believe it then Ford achieved their goal. I think that no one can really take any of these tests to heart until an impartial party does the test. You may see similar tests from Chevy and maybe even Toyota pointing out the faults of the others. Mfgrs will do ANYTHING to keep business, and that includes faulting other vehicles purposely to show how theirs is superior. Its just business...in a cutthroat world.

 

[toto]

Seems like a BS test to me, given the probable bias of the source. I agree with spud72 - does 28 MPH emphasize some sort of resonance in the frame? Who in their right mind will drive down a road that bumpy at that speed? I think Ford is groping to find anything about the Tundra that they can attack, and they found something. True, Toyota could have made the frame stiffer, but is it really necessary for the real world?

I'm surprised the exterior trim pieces didn't fall off the Ford in that video... they must have rigged it with extra rivets or super glue. A Ranger I test drove once lost a piece of the wheel well lining on a pretty tame piece of Interstate.

 

[Thai]

Thanks spud for the full article. I encourage people to read it...it answers a lot of the questions in this thread.

FYI, a lot of the time, these tests exaggerate the real world...thus, giving the engineers a glimpse of the future with just a few hours/days/weeks of running. Thus, "Silver Creek is foot-for-foot the roughest man-made durability test road in the world."

"So how does the unrealistic surface of Silver Creek relate to what these trucks might encounter in the real world? At some point in time almost every pickup is going to be overloaded or stressed past its operating limits, even if it's only for a few seconds. Its engineering for these types of events that make for really tough trucks."

And if you read the article, then you will see this: "Each truck enters Silver Creek at 28 miles per hour - near the upper boundary for maintaining control." Thus, this speed was determined by the engineers as the highest speed thru this obstacle that still allows driver control. So, this was probably NOT a speed that Ford found to be the exact body frequency to shake the Tundra to pieces! And if you look closely at the video, 28 mph appears to be indeed the highest speed you can go without losing control!

And apparently, the PICKUPTRUCK.COM people agree with my early (many moons ago might i add) assessment: "Both the F-150 and Silverado have fully boxed frames that are more resistant to twist than the Toyota's partially-boxed C-channel chassis." As expected, Toyota is not fooling a lot of people (who have been around trucks/SUVs) with their "innovative" or "breakthrough" frame design.

Bottom line...why is Toyota the ONLY 1/2-ton truck manufacturer still using C-frame?? Dodge, Chevy, and Ford all abandoned it...and they know a thing or two about trucks. It just goes against any logic that makes us owners (& former owners) proud of our 4runner...our stout fully-boxed frame.

And BTW, the Ford Proving Ground was constructed before the Tundra came out.

 

[Thai]

I may have another explanation for the 28 mph speed...could it be due to ATRAC or VSC?? That is, at lower speed, VSC may not intervene enough to kill the momentum, which would clearly void this test. I do know that on my G500, shutting off VSC would only last until 30 mph when it turns itself back on automatically. And don't these trucks come with VSC as an option?? I don't think that Ford has it, but the other two does.

Pure speculation on my part.

 

[Thai]

Another point i forgot to mention...a fully boxed frame is heavier. I wonder if Toyota went with C-frame in the rear to save weight...thus, improve performance and fuel economy. The Tundra is heavy as it is...and if it had a fully-boxed frame, then it may not look as "green" as the Americans, esp. with recent push from government to decrease fuel economy.

My guess...Toyota compromise on the frame to save weight and realize that most owners will probalby never see this compromise in their daily use.

Toyota is really just getting some of it's medicine. When the Tundra came out, Toyota touted it's big brakes, big tie rod, and big rear ring gear...and how all of these are superior to the Americans. Now, the competition is attacking back at what Toyota compromised in their design. Everything is fair game at this point.

 

[xUSNavy]

If it does not jeopardize the reliability or safety of the truck, then I would still choose it over the Ford or Chevy. In my opinion, Toyota still has a better track record of quality/reliability than any of the domestics.

 

[gizmopt2002]

Notice how the Tundra's wheels stay in contact with the earth the most. i found that to be interesting. Besides who the hell would go on a road like that that fast anyways? Honestly if I had to get a pick-up I would NEVER, EVER, EVER buy a Ford or Chevy. Besides, I absolutely HATE the people who buy the Ford F-350SuperDuty for ego, and tow a 4,000# boat occasionally. I have a friend who tows a 7,500# cargo trailer regularly with a Sequoia, with a full load in the car. Never has he experienced instibilty, (except in storm and above 65 MPH). I was surprised that he doesn't have any problems what so ever. He also uses all Amsoil fluid.

 

[HiVel-JR]

It is a Ford commercial, they show you what they want you to see. Plain and simple. The frame on the Ford and Chevy may be better, but it is a video made by Ford and they use different camera angles on the other trucks to show you what they want you to see. For all we know all the bolts on the ford could have rattled loose with the truck falling apart and the wheels falling off as soon as they stopped the truck.

 

[marjnap]

I can't see the video since I am at work. However, from the comments it must be ugly. I own a 93 Ford F-150 with a C-frame with almost 400,000 miles(back when they made them to last) and it has hauled pallets of sod heavy then it was rated for and was recently wrecked which twisted the frame, which was straightened, and it is still going. Also, my 2003 F-350 Super Duty has a C-frame, so I don't know when they changed the frame to a box or if they even did on the Super Duty's, but to me it seems that Ford is "the pot calling the kettle black". If my F-150 been around this long with a C-frame can they be all that bad? Common sense would point to a box frame being better, but maybe overkill?

 

[Thai]

If my F-150 been around this long with a C-frame can they be all that bad? Common sense would point to a box frame being better, but maybe overkill?

Well, don't you prefer an overengineered product??

 

[marjnap]

Well, don't you prefer an overengineered product??

Logic makes me want to say yes. However, I have a vehicle that is fourteen years old, 400,000 miles, thats towed hard and been wrecked and is still drive without an issue with a C-frame makes me think is it really necessary? Therefore, real world experience I would say no it just a waste of money, metal and extra gas because of the weight. Although, I would be the first to agrue that my 4Runner is better made because of it's box frame. I am bias when it comes to my 4Runner, because I think Toyota really thought it out well. I think they should have went with a box fame on the Tacoma and Tundra even if it is overengineered.

 

[Northof49]

I can't see the video since I am at work. However, from the comments it must be ugly. I own a 93 Ford F-150 with a C-frame with almost 400,000 miles(back when they made them to last) and it has hauled pallets of sod heavy then it was rated for and was recently wrecked which twisted the frame, which was straightened, and it is still going. Also, my 2003 F-350 Super Duty has a C-frame, so I don't know when they changed the frame to a box or if they even did on the Super Duty's, but to me it seems that Ford is "the pot calling the kettle black". If my F-150 been around this long with a C-frame can they be all that bad? Common sense would point to a box frame being better, but maybe overkill?

That's what I was getting at....and those years of F150 were known as notoriosly weak and flexy, and they still worked fine for the most part. I have many friends who, like you, ran that vintage of truck for 10 years+

The newest Superduty's use boxed front sections with c-channel rears, similar to the Tundra's setup. Would be interesting to see them run their own F250-F350 through the same course....

 

[Thai]

Although, I would be the first to agrue that my 4Runner is better made because of it's box frame. I am bias when it comes to my 4Runner, because I think Toyota really thought it out well. I think they should have went with a box fame on the Tacoma and Tundra even if it is overengineered.

Exactly.

Although the HD trucks have C-frame in the rear, this does NOT make it right. Can you imagine how much those tanks would cost and weigh if the HD trucks had fully boxed frame?!! I would imagine that it would be astronomical...way too much for most construction worker to afford. Top-end HD trucks now run in the $40-50K price range...with fully boxed frame, i would bet that not many (if any) people can afford one since most of them would cost as much as a BMW M3!

It's all about cost vs. practicality. Could it be that American automakers found the rear C-frame to be a liability in their 1/2-ton trucks?? As NORTHOF49 pointed out, some American trucks are known to have a flexy frame in the past. 1/2-ton trucks are limited by their small frame (unlike the HD trucks with their thick huge frames)...thus, the American automakers boxed them to approach the durability of the bigger HD boys?? Does anyone find it strange that all the American automakers boxed their 1/2-ton trucks?? They have been in the truck business for a long time...i would hope that they know a thing or two about building them. And as noted, American trucks have a very strong following...they would not have this if they were shitty, right?

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!:bash:

 

[Baba Booey]

Can any engineers here comment on this post that I came across on another forum regarding this very same video:

There are lots of engineers on this board, and they should remember from their differential equations classes that driven harmonic systems (a truck frame, in this case) almost ALWAYS develop a maximum amplitude at a specific frequency. In the case of this test, that optimum frequence for the Yota frame was obviously approached with this test at 28mph. Apparently Chevy has a similar optimum frequency. Ford's isn't the same- could be lower or higher. If this test had been performed at 20mph or at 35 mph, the results MIGHT be totally different. We just don't know. In a test like this, one could- by trial end error- easily find a speed at which one truck will look great... doesn't mean much in the real world.

 

[Thai]

It is strange that both Ford and Chevy have optimum rigidity at this speed/frequency?! So, is this video a whole big conspiracy by BOTH American brands?? Highly unlikely.

As noted above, the speed was likely chosen because it is the highest speed that you can go over that course without losing control. You can see where the Chevy was bouncing left and right through the course...at any high speed, i would think that the Chevy, Ford, and Toyota would wipe out!

But, then again, i am no physicist.

 

[Northof49]

Does anyone find it strange that all the American automakers boxed their 1/2-ton trucks?? They have been in the truck business for a long time...i would hope that they know a thing or two about building them. And as noted, American trucks have a very strong following...they would not have this if they were shitty, right?

I agree with the rest of your post....buuuut, I will contest this a little. Up until recent years, the American trucks were basically the only option if you need something heavy-1/2 or larger. They definetly know what the buyer wants, but they have never been at the tops of quality and durability. F150's are the top selling vehicle in North Am, but you'll still chew through brakes and balljoints like candy....

I might question the motive of weight for the boxed/open frame decision. In theory, couldn't a boxed frame be constructed of thinner material to achieve the same (or greater) strength of an open design? That's getting into areas of engineering over my head tho....

I also think you're giving Ford a little too much credit that they did not design the test to their advantage.....this IS the car business afterall. I'm not saying they did anything underhanded, but to think that they did not choose conditions in their favour is naive to me....being a guy in the business. They chevy, from a stability standpoint, looked more out of control than the Toyota...despite the bed shake on the Tundra.

 

[Thai]

I also think you're giving Ford a little too much credit that they did not design the test to their advantage.....this IS the car business afterall. I'm not saying they did anything underhanded, but to think that they did not choose conditions in their favour is naive to me....being a guy in the business. They chevy, from a stability standpoint, looked more out of control than the Toyota...despite the bed shake on the Tundra.

I am sure that this test probably favors the Ford. For example, Ford chose a Chevy with Z71 package that stiffens the suspension...thus, leading to the bouncing Chevy in the video. I cannot see clearly if the Ford nor the Toyota had their off-road package. This all i can understand if you were complaining about it.

However, you also should not lose sight of how severe the Tundra frame/bed flexed and gyro'ed over that same surface. It was not just a little different than the other truck, but A WHOLE LOT different...and this is where my criticism points at.

IMHO, Toyota compromised the design where a construction worker (or truck enthusiast) cared most about (well, maybe after engine power)...the frame...aka backbone. Now, there is no doubt that the Americans have made mistakes in their truck lines in the past...remember, the tin can Ford F150 that collapsed in the crash test? Thus, i was not supportive of American trucks in the past. However, with the current generation, the American trucks, esp. Ford and Chevy, have made big strides in crash worthiness and frame design. Toyota, being a new player and having the NEWEST design, should know better, esp. with their failed experiments (T100 and previous Tundra). Let's not forget that the Tacoma's frame is also not class-leading either.

It sure looks like Toyota concentrated more on the bling aspect of truck than on the basics. They threw in a super duper V8 with 6-speed auto, big brakes, and just big everything. Yes, it does have a big rear ring gear along with big tie rod. I did not know that the latter (weak tie rod) was a problem for most trucks. But, it is clear that Toyota compromised on the frame to make everything else super. That's my biggest criticism.

 

[Thai]

I might question the motive of weight for the boxed/open frame decision. In theory, couldn't a boxed frame be constructed of thinner material to achieve the same (or greater) strength of an open design? That's getting into areas of engineering over my head tho....

Well, until i see an actual measurement of the frames between the different brands, i have to disagree with you. As i pointed out in another thread, 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

 

[Thai]

Let's take the Ford F150 out of the equation/video since this was a Ford production video. Let's concentrate on the Chevy vs. Toyota comparision. Is this not a fair fight?? I believe it is.

What was the major difference that you see in the video between Chevy and Toyota? Chevy did not sponsor this video...therefore, this video clearly did not favor the Chevy. And what did we see? The frame is surely stronger on the Chevy. Although the suspension did bounce a lot, this could be due to it's off-road suspension...but Toyota and Ford probably have better suspension tuning. But, it is quite clear that there is something significantly wrong with the Tundra's frame/bed when you compare it with the Chevy. If you do not, then i really question whether you're looking at this with an unbias eye.