By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Do NOT drive your vehicle in gear range "3", "2", or "1" at elevated engine speeds or up a slope or grade for extended periods of time. Engine or transmission overheating may occur.
Now really, How else do you tow a trailer uphill?
Mabey your supposed to push it up the hill in reverse :lemon:
On a different issue, I'm puzzled about the number of comments about the fit of the body panels on the Tundra vs. other pickups. At first glance, it seems that to compare panel gaps on pickup trucks is a complete waste of time. Or is it that the people who complain about panel gap see wide panel gaps as symptomatic other other, less visible assembly deficiencies?
These ads remind me more of the type of ads you would see for HD commercial trucks rather than lifestyle-oriented 1/2-ton trucks. They're really making an effort to point out that the Tundra meets or exceeds the domestic 1/2-tons in terms of work capability. Very little marketing effort is being spent on so-called "comfort" features that most 1/2-tons focus on.
Bob
Do they use different ads in different areas of the US?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Imports outsell the domestics by a huge margin up here, we don't really look at a brands origin before we buy. In fact I bet you'll find a lot of Mazda, Volvo and Saab owners who have no idea their cars are owned by domestic nameplates. A common sight in driveways here is usually a foriegn sedan (or Honda Pilot) shared with a domestic pickup.
Hmmm...never knew that there was a lot of Saab owners.
kcram - Pickups Host
Talk about leaving the competition in the dust. The Tundra won all the objective test from accleration to braking etc. CHECK IT OUT
To youtube....if you think that RECREATION will change anyone's mind on the Tundra....don't think so.
What would be more interesting would have been to see the trucks run a slalom with a 1200 lb load.....
I thought that Power was one of the main things truck owners look for when shopping. That and braking distance, bed sizes and towing.
I think the 'Luxury' thing is a recent trend that Toyota did not delve into. It was probably started by the first Cadillac Escallade EXT although that is debatable.
What's good about the truck fight, as opposed to the car fight between US and Japanese, is that with cars and the 1973 oil crisis US companies were taken completely off guard. With the trucks, they knew the Japanese were comming, and are putting up one hell of a fight.
IF GM disables that fuel cuttoff feature, I bet it could be much closer if not match the Tundras acceleration. One question, where does this leave Ford?
I think this forum has run its course anyway so there isn't much more to talk about. Most people have already gone to their respective truck-choice forums for actual owner usage info, pricing and feedback on how they perform...
Wait, wait ... Don't cancel this forum yet.
I vote for the Tundra. OK now you can retire it.
Thanks,
David "Snuffy" Smith
Not sure who you think I am, but I am not a "die hard GM fan". I just traded in my 04 F150 on my New GMC. Not because I was unhappy with my Ford, but because I fell in love with the new GMC. My Ford was a very good truck that served me well and I would buy another one in a second. I have owned Fords and GM products my whole life and probably will continue to do so. My wife's currently driving a Ford. So, why do you assume I am a die hard GM fan? Yes, I do love my new GMC and I am a GM fan, but I am not "stuck" with a single brand like some people are. Although I do prefer to stick with domestics.
I think that the above comment is correct. Look for example at the current issue of Time Magazine for two full pages of tech specs (transmission oil coolers, etc. etc.) that you usually don't get in a truck ad. Moreover, the local dealers seem to have an initial stock of single cab, work type trucks. None are the super deluxe models. Why? Maybe Toyota feels that the way to market a new full size truck from Japan is to go head to head with the competition on tech specs, "ruggedness", etc. Afterall, you can't get much more macho looking than the black grille on the front of these.
IMHO this is the way to go. First get the truck accepted, then add on the very profitable "civilain" accessories. Speaking if accessories, I found the Toyota web site hard and slow to navigate. I couldn't find popular options like plow packages, wheel and tire upgrades, etc. and like most Japanese products, options were all grouped into which Tundra model you wanted. If you wanted leather, you couldn't get it in anything but the Limited, for example. For what it is worth, I've always felt that the Japanese kept the option game simple because due to the long lag time from factory to US dealer, they had to limit the permutations someone could select. Not so with the domestics. "You want leather captains chairs in a two wheel drive single cab work truck? Just check off the box."
Yeah... that lag time from San Antonio, TX or Princeton, IN is a killer. Before you know it, the [non-permissible content removed] will be making trucks in the US. Or they may go to Mexico or Canada like Chevrolemon or Ford :surprise:
The correct usage of the word Japanese which indicates people with origins from Japan.
"Yeah... that lag time from San Antonio, TX or Princeton, IN is a killer. Before you know it, the [non-permissible content removed] will be making trucks in the US. Or they may go to Mexico or Canada like Chevrolemon or Ford"
[non-permissible content removed] is defined as a racial slur.
A fact that is not well known.
A fact that is not well known.
We seem to get a lot of that here on this forum unfortunately. Forget about even treating people around the world equally or even wanting them to have the same types of opportunities as any of us have, but the Tundra is still built by Americans here in the U.S. and that isn't good enough for some! Despite the fact that it has a great interior, lots of room and power and is at least as good if not the best at virtually every criteria that makes a 1/2 ton truck good, people will make comments like that because they have nothing else to fall back on. I'm willing to bet that the same people that make these racial comments are also stuffing their vehicles with things from Walmart (which has basically become a storefront for China). I'm sure that taking stock of what is in their homes will reveal that it is highly unlikely that even one appliance, article of clothing, or piece of electronic equipment is made here. Yet their the ones that are also making the argument for "buying American" when it comes to the Silverado (despite it being mostly built in Mexico/Canada). Ironic isn't it?
I believe that statemetn is very presumptive in making generalizations about what people have in their homes. That's something about which you do not know nor have a clue.
The discussion is about the trucks. Toyota is a Japanese company; Chevrolet, US company.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
How did this get started? Maybe the origin of this was when the Japanese first began to export to North America./ They must have realized that to maintain quality and simplify long lead times to North America that simple was better. On the other hand, one could trot out Porsche. They are the poster boy for options. They have similar concerns about lead times ("Its on the water for 6 weeks") and quality but an endless list of options (even the rear wiper is an option on a 911!), all of which can be ordered a la carte.
So, if you go into Macy's then everything is made in the US?
THe only thing WallMart did is to reduce the cost of living in terms of consumer goods in an age where gas, milk, and healthcare are all rising.
This flawed logic about Wall Mart is also applied to cars. SO, because Toyota hires a hand full of Americans (which is good for those who now have those jobs) then all of a sudden we can forget how they are destroying the US auto industry?
No!
The problem is that Toyota was smart enough not to have a union at its throat, amoung other things. Who do you blame for W-M? If you want more things made in the US, you can blame those same unions, and the people who think that raising the minimum wage is somehow good for the economy.
THe difference is that the auto biz is stronger than say, shirt-making or even steel today. THey have been weathering the storm for some time now. Also, for a long time, the auto industry has been advancing, so it was harder for weaker countries to create a car that sells well here.
Today, even the chinese may be doing that soon. And its our fault in many, although limited, ways.
The Porsche option that really gets me is the "soft leather" option. For roughly $1000 over and above the cost of nice, neat leather, they make the seats look like a couple spent their prom night in the car and call it "soft leather". No joke. Rumpled leather is better leather, I guess.
Toyota isn't destroying the US Auto Industry.
They're just in the best position to pick up the pieces after the Big 3 destroy the US Auto Industry.
An analogy: Did Toyota T-Bone the US Auto Industry?
Or did a Toyota roll up after the Big 3 had a massive DUI accident (that wasn't so accidental), and pick up any surviving passengers? :surprise:
DrFill
Dusty
Speaking of DUI's, I hope your not driving tonight
Toyota would need alot more than a Tundra to pick up even a small percentage of any "pieces" of the Big 3.
But, I will agree that Toyota and other foreign auto companies are helping the US auto industry stay on it's toes and the domestic quality improvement shows. They have NOTHING over the domestics in quality any longer.
Let's dissect that statement, shall we?
Great interior - crikey! I believe a Tundra fan in a previous post wondered who was on LSD when they designed that gawdawful interior. The interior is really cheesy and jarring to the eye, and the controls are funky and spaced far apart. I'd feel like I need a co-pilot to operate some of the controls, they are so far out of reach. Chevy/GM made a great interior this time, which helps make a good truck, yes? After all, all of your time on the road is spent in the interior...
Lots of room and power - no disagreement there.
However, let's talk about some of the other issues that make a truck "good".
Safety - Tundra placed DEAD LAST in the front crash test compared to GM, Ford, and Dodge, which all tied for FIRST. No OnStar - a big boo-boo, considering the crash test results. You are twice as likely to need it in a Tundra, at least in a frontal crash. Top notch safety - does it make a truck "good"? Yup.
C-channel frame - a huge leap backwards for Toyota. Heck, my 1985 and 1992 Toyotas had fully boxed frames. They had to save money somewhere, and they obviously did save some on the C-channel frame with bolted-on cross members. But why did they cut corners on the "flagship"? A beefy frame makes a truck "good" IMO.
What about mileage? I don't hear of many Tundra owners bragging, so let me brag about the 18.2 highway mpg I recently got on my 6.0L Chevy Crew 4x4. And it's not even broken in! When gas goes to $3.50, then $4.00, every mpg will really count.
Let's talk about the less capable Toyota LS vs. the rear locker on the GM products. No contest there. Traction, or the ability to put power to the ground, makes a truck good, yes?
Other than the interior, these are not subjective items. They are facts, and they are facts that distinguish a good truck from a so-so truck. Just to be clear, the Tundra is not a bad truck. It's just not "at least as good if not the best at virtually every criteria that makes a good truck." The facts are out there if one wishes to see them. I've listed a few.
1offroader
I don't begrudge the Detroit3 for trying to lower expenses by manufacturing in Mexico and Canada, ordering parts from overseas, etc. -- they need to survive. But, lets face it, every time they do that, they take away another "good" paying job from the U.S. for one that pays far less. They are shedding jobs and plants like crazy. Do I think it is their fault? Well, they made a lot of promises early on that they can not afford to keep. They also have to deal with the UAW which in large part is the biggest financial burden for them.
So, when I think of what is "American" about the Silverado, I think that it has lost most of that title unfortunately. I don't blame Chevrolet because the product is good. But to me, buying one now isn't like it was 20 years ago. Back then you were supporting families and the economy here. Now, you're bailing out investors, sending money to Mexico and Canada, and essentially supporting the "idea" that continued outsourcing is somehow advantageous for us. Buying the Tundra is not supporting the Japanese any more than it is supporting much of Asia, Mexico, and Canada through buying domestic. And at least I can rest assured that supporting them means bringing in more manufacturing and vendors/suppliers back into the U.S. As long as this continues, I see that as a benefit. Right now, none of the U.S. companies are even maintaining their current employment much less growing it. What they've done in the past has been great, but unfortunately they mismanaged themselves into their current situation...
Interior is pretty subjective and most people I know are pretty happy with the Tundra's interior; especially on Limited models where even the dashboard is superior to the Chevy's (again in my opinion) dimpled hard-as-a-rock plastic. Again, I can extol the virtues of the setup because it is done quite well for me; Chevy guys will argue otherwise. In any case, regardless of looks, neither is lacking any major fundamental features though we could nit-pick for months about little things here and there.
Safety, yes, I agree that in the NHTSA test that the Tundra only got 4 stars. But they even said that based on previous statistics that only 2% of accidents are full-frontal head-on collisions. The other thing to consider is that this test is basically measuring what it is like to crash into another vehicle of similar size/weight. While that is more relevant for cars (since cars can hit things considerably heavier and sometimes a little lighter), it is not as relevant for trucks because most vehicles will be considerably lighter. Not defending Toyota here, I'm just pointing out that there are still real-world safety tests such as off-center head-on collisions, rollovers, t-bones, and rear-collision tests that not only make up the vast majority of accidents, but take into consideration more than just one dimension of testing. Remember, the full-frontal head on collisions are a relic of days where many roads were two-way without dividers and when even seatbelt use was very low and DUIs were still pretty normal. Aside from my street which is 1/4 mile long, and the last 1 mile before the parking garage at work, there is no road where I even have the opportunity to be on a two-way highway. I'm much more likely to get hit from behind because somebody isn't paying attention or to be hit from the side at an intersetion if somebody runs a red light.
As far as frame, mpg, etc. well arguments have been made back and forth on this issue. Show me an engine that is as powerful and that gets the kind of mileage that the Tundra does. Not saying there isn't one, but you'd be hard pressed to name anything that has real-world numbers as good or better for the type of power it delivers. And, as pointed out many times, the frame is fully-boxed in the front, reinforced c-channel under the cab, and open c under the bed. Look at virtually any "real" trucks out there and they are almost all open c-channel frames. They are significantly more capable than 1/2 trucks and have been used for decades. Even cement trucks use "I" beams instead of fully-boxed frames and they are taking incredible amounts of stress on their vehicles.
I think the real issue in this comparison is that there really isn't an issue. The Tundra is a great truck; so is the Chevy. But for the first time, the domestics really do have something to compete with other than themselves. If the Tundra was really a bad truck the Detroit3 would have ignored it much like they did when the T100 came out. But now, all you do is see them scrambling and fumbling over themselves to try to discredit it in any way possible. That ford video did way more damage for ford than toyota. The best strategy the Detroit3 can employ to counter the Tundra is to ignore it and concentrate on selling their own trucks. The more they bring attention to it, the more the public becomes aware of it.
The 6.2 liter with the 6 spd which is now available in the Yukon and Sierra Denali's and soon (later this year? or next year) in all 1/2 tons. It has 400+ hp and 417 lb-ft of torque. I believe the MPG numbers are only slightly less than the 6.0's.
And, as pointed out many times, the frame is fully-boxed in the front, reinforced c-channel under the cab, and open c under the bed. Look at virtually any "real" trucks out there and they are almost all open c-channel frames. They are significantly more capable than 1/2 trucks and have been used for decades. Even cement trucks use "I" beams instead of fully-boxed frames and they are taking incredible amounts of stress on their vehicles.
Yes, C-channel frames CAN be made as strong as you need them to be (Cement truck is a great example), that is not the point. The point (and main advantage) of a fully boxed frame in a 1/2 ton is the strength and stiffness per lb. Fully boxed frames can be made stronger with LESS material and weight due to the rigid structure. This means a lighter frame that is also stronger and more torsionally rigid. This helps MPGs. This is probably the main reason the Tundra is the heaviest 1/2 ton of the main 5. They could have reduced the weight by using a fully boxed frame which would have helped their MPG numbers. Also, aside from Fully boxed construction, the frame is also inferior in how it's put together. C'mon....Bolted in stamped crossmembers? Gimme a break, please tell me how that is just as good as tubular members welded through both walls of the boxed frame.
Sure, HD trucks use C-channel frames, but weight is not a huge concern on these vehicles since they are not marketed to daily commuters. So they can throw all the steel they want at them. Think about it...
I agree, the Tundra IS a good truck, but until they refine it to the level of the GMs, it is not a "great" truck. My bet is they will go to a boxed frame in the next few years. They couldn't do everything at once and still be competitive. That is why you'll also see other refinements added as well. GM has been refining their 1/2 tons for decades, so naturally they are further along.
That ford video did way more damage for ford than toyota. The best strategy the Detroit3 can employ to counter the Tundra is to ignore it and concentrate on selling their own trucks. The more they bring attention to it, the more the public becomes aware of it.
I agree completely!!! Worry about yourself and stop bashing the competition and let the people decide. Now if only politicians would do that!!!
Safety - Tundra placed DEAD LAST in the front crash test compared to GM, Ford, and Dodge, which all tied for FIRST. No OnStar - a big boo-boo, considering the crash test results. You are twice as likely to need it in a Tundra, at least in a frontal crash. Top notch safety - does it make a truck "good"? Yup.
C-channel frame - a huge leap backwards for Toyota. Heck, my 1985 and 1992 Toyotas had fully boxed frames. They had to save money somewhere, and they obviously did save some on the C-channel frame with bolted-on cross members. But why did they cut corners on the "flagship"? A beefy frame makes a truck "good" IMO.
What about mileage? I don't hear of many Tundra owners bragging, so let me brag about the 18.2 highway mpg I recently got on my 6.0L Chevy Crew 4x4. And it's not even broken in! When gas goes to $3.50, then $4.00, every mpg will really count.
Let's talk about the less capable Toyota LS vs. the rear locker on the GM products. No contest there. Traction, or the ability to put power to the ground, makes a truck good, yes?
Other than the interior, these are not subjective items. They are facts, and they are facts that distinguish a good truck from a so-so truck. Just to be clear, the Tundra is not a bad truck. It's just not "at least as good if not the best at virtually every criteria that makes a good truck." The facts are out there if one wishes to see them. I've listed a few.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
OK let's disect these statements as well.
Dead last or 2nd. Your personal pov. but as we've discussed here before the margin between 5 and 4 is at most 19% points and at least 1% point. Both ratings are still good. And while the others may score higher in the NHTSA test ( on only one cab model, btw ) I will defer judgement until the IIHS weighs in with it's results.
Then there is the issue of side and curtain airbags (which you conveniently neglect to mention) and stability control. From the IIHS site occupants are much more likely to die from rollovers in large trucks and SUV's then from frontal crashes. 46% of deaths come from rollovers!!!!!
From the IIHS website:
[Quote]
3. Are rollovers more common for SUVs than for other vehicles?
Rollovers are much more common for SUVs and pickups than for cars, and more common for SUVs than for pickups. This has been true in the past and continues to be so. In 2005, 60 percent of SUV occupants killed in crashes were in vehicles that rolled over. In comparison, 46 percent of deaths in pickups and 24 percent of deaths in cars were in rollovers.
[Unquote]
BTW, OnStar does you no good if you're in heaven. There's no connnection from there. It's a nice feature, though.
I'll take the S/C airbags and stability control as standard in all models. Pity the poor drivers of RC T900's and F150's that can't get any of these features at any price.
C-channel frame.. under the bed. In fact it is no change at all from past Tundra models. None of the trucks of the past 50 years seem to be suffering at all from this structure. You seem to be re-grasping at straws to find some advantage.
Point-of-fact: No one on any forum here or elsewhere has been able to point out one single advantage to the FBF in the performance of the truck. None, Zero, Zilch.
It's stronger, so what. It may 'feel' more solid but it also may 'feel' harsher. Lots of 'touchy feely' stuff but nothing better for what a truck does.
Fuel economy: Read Ts. Lots of reports there.
ALSD vs locker. A locker is a more capable system deep offroad, c.f. FJ's. However for the nost common offroad situations a truck like this will encounter the ALSD is perfectly capable.
Your facts are skewed since you are viewing them through a prism of prejudice. Other than the locker issue for a few users, all the rest of your 'facts' are anecdotal ( FE ) or no fact at all ( FBF ) or in the case of the missing safety options all in favor of the Tundra.
Conclusion: This is an argument you can repeat over and over and over but just saying it multilple times doesn't make it true.
1) I am still waiting for some one to show any specific measurable benefit to the FBF.
2) When the other truck makers offer S/C Airbags and Stability control standard on all models then and only then will I grant them equal status to the Tundra in the safety realm.
3) When the others can offer..
...the full towing capability across the whole product line ( not just isolated configurations );
...the most modern transmission ( not just isolated models );
...then the others can considered equal performers to the Tundra.
Read my previous post. The "measurable" advantage is the weight/strength ratio and the better economy that comes with it. Also, since when does a better design need to improve any "performance" numbers? ALOT of features in a car/truck add improvement to a vehicle without affecting any "performance" numbers. This is a very weak argument. I happen to agree that GM should make side airbags and stabilitrak standard in all of their trucks, so I can admit a disadvantage there, why can't you admit that a FBF is better when basic engineering principles obviously show that it is a superior design for strentgh, stiffness, torsional rigidity and weight. For example, take a paper towel core and using your fingers...twist it, bend it,flex it several different ways. then slit it down the middle the entire length and unroll it, then form it into a "C" channel and do the same test. Elementary? yes, but so is the fact that a box is stronger than a C pound for pound.
4-5mm panel gaps are also a result of this superior frame design. but again, that isn't performance related now is it?
BTW, the side airbag issue will go away by 2010 for ALL makes since they will be required by the NHTSA by then. (probably sooner for GM).
Rear locking diffs are NOT just for offroad use. They help on all slippery surfaces, especially boat ramps. I never have to lock my truck into 4wd on wet boat ramps with the rear locker.
GM's so-called disadvantage in power and the lack of a 6 spd tranny will be gone next year when the 6.2 with the 6 spd is available in all 1/2 tons. BTW, the 6.2 hs MORE power and MORE torque than the 5.7. Enjoy theis advantage while you can, it is short-lived.
BTW, you selectively chose not to address my point about the construction of the frame regarding bolted in, stamped cross members. Please answer my question on my previous post as to how that is as good as tubular members welded through both sides of the boxed frame. Oh wait, that doesn't help the "performance" of the truck either, sorry, my bad.
The transmissions in the Toyota line have had some problems, ES, Avalon, and now Camry, in these 'modern' transmissions. Have there been problems in the Tundra? How much does it cost to replace a 6-speed vs a 4-speed auto?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Just out of curiosity, what portion of that 46% of pick-ups were RCs? ECs? Crewcabs? My guess is that most were crewcabs or ext cabs, very few RCs. High center of gravity is the culprit here, and SUVs have the highest, followed by Crewcabs, ext cabs, then RCs. This is the reasoning that GM uses for not using Stabilitrak on RCs. But they will, keep in mind, when they go to something like this standard, it affects nearly 1 million vehicles/year, not 100-125K. So it takes time to ramp up. Just a fact of life in the manufacturing world. Same reason the 6.2s and the 6 spds are only available on a limited basis, give them a year to ramp up and then judge them. If Toyota were making 1 million Tundras this year, I would be curious to know what limitations they would have as far as availablity and standard features.
Common sense tells us that a FBF should be stiffer than a C-channel frame given that they both have the same depth or height, width, and thickness. But let’s examine the numbers to see if it is stiffer and by how much. For example, let’s compare a C6x10.5 C-channel to an HSS6x2x5/16 rectangular section (Both can be found in the AISC Manual of Steel Construction). I chose theses two because they are similar with regards to external dimensions and we don't know the exact dimensions of the frames in questions. A C6x10.5 section has a depth of 6.0 inches, a width of 2.03 inches, web thickness of 0.314 inch, flange thickness of 0.343 inch (the flange is actually at a slope but it’ll suffice for this discussion), and weighs 10.5 lbs/ft. An HSS6x2x5/16 has a depth of 6.0 inches, a width of 2.0 inches, a wall thickness of 0.291 or ~5/16 inch, and weighs 14.8 lbs/ft. These are published NOMINAL dimensions by the way.
The section property that measures how stiff a section is in bending is its Area Moment of Inertia (not to be confused with Mass Moment of Inertia for all you ME’s out there) normally represented by an “I”. The bigger the “I”, the more load it can carry before being overstressed. The Moment of Inertia for a C6x10.5 is 15.1 in^4. The Moment of Inertia for an HSS6x2x5/16 is 15.3 in^4. Therefore the rectangular section is stiffer than the C-channel, but by only 1%. But the rectangular section weighs almost 41% more than the C-channel. Hmm let’s add 41% more steel to increase the bending stiffness by 1%. That’s because the “extra” material is added in the wrong location to be effective for bending resistance. The extra material needs to be added as far away from the centroid as possible. That's where Toyota reinforced the frame rail on under the cab, at the top and bottom flanges.
So what if we picked a C-channeled that weighed about the same as this HSS section, a C8x13.75 for example (weight = 13.75 lbs/ft). It has a moment of inertia of 36.1 in^4. That’s 235.9% increase in bending stiffness compared to the HSS6x2x5/16.
The features you did mention that were advantageous for Toyota but would be coming for the Silverado just illustrate the point of Tundra being very good in those respects. They are available now and even though others will eventually bring those types of features, that in fact reinforces the advantages of this design. Same goes for things vice versa. But as much as any of these pros/cons for these trucks are illustrated here, the real problem is that most people don't actually go see both vehicles to really see for themselves these pros/cons.
I was at both a Chevy dealer and Toyota dealer 3 times each this year and at a GMC dealer once. For me all trucks are very capable and great. For my particular needs the Tundra is fantastic in the areas that are most important to me. Even things that aren't readily discussed like how the Navigation system on the Tundra is much, much better than what is on the Chevy. Still those are secondary things for some and not a deal breaker. But the important thing is that for those that actually want those types of things now, they'll choose that truck. For others that won't be the case.
Either way, this thread has gone on way too long...
BTW if a C or a reinforced C is superior to a box, then why didn't Toyota use it for the entire frame?
Still waiting for the defense of the chincy stamped, bolted in crossmembers too. You all seem to avoid this part of this discussion. Why?
Nope, never had a problem with frames, just pointing out that the GM's is superior and you Toyota people just cannot accept ANYTHING being better then the Tundra's, no matter how obvious it is.
Yes the FBF's might be stronger, I'll grant that, depending on design, steel thickness, steel grade of course.
Still with this presumably stronger frame what does a truck owner gain? OK it's stronger......and..?
No T900 2WD can tow as much as a Tundra 5.7L and most 4WD's are at best equal.
One F150 configuration with the FBF can slightly out-tow a Tundra but the rest of the line is way below the Toyota's capability.
No Dodge Hemi Ram can out-tow any Tundra and most payload on any Ram are far below the Tundra.
None of the others in the class are as quick whether unburdened or carrying or towing.
There is no single measurable benefit. The fact that the FBF is likely stronger is a feature....but where's the benefit.
Regarding the frame construction I can't comment since I am not privvy to any of the engineering data. Unless you are a mechanical engineer in the auto design area I guess we'll have to say that time will tell. Durability has never been a problem with the modern Toyota's. In fact it's reputation is quite the opposite. They get the benefit of the doubt. I'm also sure that the T900's will pass the test of time also.
Lighter!!! Which equates to better fuel economy.
Torsionally Stiffer!!! Which equates to better ride and handling since the suspension can now behave as it was designed to behave.
Got it? or are you going to keep asking?
Doesn't take an ME to know that welded construction on a frame is superior to bolts, especially when the bolts are subjected to constant vibration, torsion, etc, etc. Well, maybe it does require some engineering background to understand this. I agree most salespeople wouldn't understand it.
They get the benefit of the doubt.
From YOU!! Speak for yourself.
And yeah, I guess somebody with "common sense" will know better than engineers -- especially when they're talking engineering. Gimme a break!