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
They claim it's fixed on the 3.4 engine, but they just recently extended a special warentee to the 3.4 headgaskets, and are talking about a TSB.
"oops".
One rumor has Toyota building a lower-cost alternative to a 4Runner at the plant -or, perhaps, even the next-generation 4Runner itself.
Second off, they are building a full size SUV to compete with the Expedition/Tahoe. It will be considerably smaller than both, but thats what market they want to sell it to. Independantly sprung front, coil sprung live rear, 3.4 V6 standard with the 8 as an option, Full time non-viscous 4wd (IE, when one tire gets in the air, all stop untill you lock the central differential, like the 1984-86 Cherokee's with full time 4). Other than that, they're keeping quite a good lid on it!
The issue of Sport Truck that first mentioned the T100 brought this response in the Letters section three months later:
"...I'm a Ford man, but I'll push a Chevy before I drive a Toyota...."
Not only do I still think that's funny, but Toyota will learn once again that it's very TRUE.
TUNDRA
Somehow, when I think of "tundra", I think of Alaska and Lambeau Field. Not Toyota. Can you just hear the jokes starting about this name?
They'll have little or no trouble selling 100,000 of them a year.
Can you imaging a shopper coming out of a mega-mall and saying to the parking patrol officer, "Pardon me, officer - I seem to have lost my Focus"?
They didn't change the name when they exported it to mexico. In spanish, "No Va" mean's, "doesn't Go"
So how did it feel?????
jd
Come on Toyota give us some options. Let us have it 'our way'. kip
Look at it this way - Ford, Chevy/GMC, and Dodge each give you Four separate bodies (reg cab with short and long bed, ext cab with short and long bed). Toyota is only giving you two. The Toyota is also built in just one plant, so variations are going to have to be very limited. If Dodge wanted to, they could build each of the four bodies in each of the four plants and have enough stock room to make every possible option available.
No other automaker in the world has managed to build different vehicles (I'm referring to the Sienna, Camry and Avalon) on the same assembly line. Toyota has, and I have no doubt that they could easily integrate more truck configurations onto the same assembly line. They probably won't do that with the Tundra, partly because they're planning a sport-utility vehicle for the same plant (and knowing Toyota, probably the same assembly line).
I've owned several pickups, foreign and domestic; concurrently even. Our 1996 Z71 was great for trips, mid level hauling, and nights out on the town. My 1990 Toyota 4x4 extended cab (4cyl) was great for everything else; day-to-day driving, light hauling, camping, commuting, etc.
I'm a die-hard "buy american" fan, but to be honest, comparing the two trucks without a load in four-wheel-drive conditions; the Toyota was hands down the winner. On the other hand, if I needed to haul something out of the mud or was carrying a load, the Chevy was my choice.
I guess the jist of my post is that there is a large market for trucks the size of the Dakota, T100, and the new T150. I think they're all trying to figure out how to comfortably put four people in a truck smaller than the traditional f150.
Here's my dream truck...
Dodge dakota 5.9 4x4 manual w/four dours.. not suicide, but four real doors. I'd take either the short or long bed.
That's my version of the perfect SUV. It's got plenty of room inside, but has a bed I don't have to worry about throwing dirty camping gear, dogs, bikes, and other stuff into.
Again, that's just my 2cents.
RT
The Tundra will be a leap from the T100, for sure. However, Toyota couldn't go after the market full-bore even if it wanted to. If it did, it would be slammed by the protectionists in Detroit. Because Detroit is so focused on trucks, Toyota, Honda, et. al., have gotten away with stealing huge amounts of market share from Detroit - imported cars account for over 50% of the market - but it would never get away with the same thing with trucks, especially given the current market.
One reason why Toyota wants to build a
Truck here is because of the import Tariff,Remeber they said that the initial production will be 100,00 units and now its 150..
lexus dealerships are begging toyota to also build a lexus production line and get away with that impot tariff.Just imagine if they start making those LX/RX here and selling them by hundred of thousand units,Men.....thats a lot of money for them
The Toyota trucks I've seen look sharp. Appearance always plays a big part in sales of midsize and 1/2 ton trucks, so I suspect Toyota will be able to sell most, if not all, of the trucks they can make. Most of the towing and hauling needs of these buyers will be easily handled by the T-150, or any 1/2 ton truck. Getting the light boat or jet ski to the river on the weekend generally doesn't require more than a 1/2 ton.
Ford's most recent estimate was 60% light duty F-series, and overall, 80% Super or Crew Cab.
i don't know how much you know about Land Cruisers, but they are built with more iron than any Suburban, Expedition, Tahoe, etc.
A landcruiser will out last ford, dodge, GM, whoevers, comparable product. they put more into their product, its that simple. Ford and GM are little more worried about profit, with ~$10K markup, but toyota actually sells you one hell of a product for $40K.
Dodge full-size 4x4s are all solid axle, and the Ford SuperDuty 4x4s are all solid axle in response to customer request. Rumor has it that GM will go to solid axle with the HD pickups in 2001, since the torsion bar IFS in the 3500s isn't worth a crap under the level of abuse a 1 ton rig usually gets. Jeep of course SWEARS by solid front ends.
The IFS has been in use since the 60s as you say, but on TWO wheel drive trucks. Ford's Twin Traction Beam didn't appear until 1980, and GM's 4x4 IFS was 1988. Only the Durango and Dakota use 4x4 IFS at Dodge.
in response more to the 4x4 torsion bar system.
a torsion bar is just a different mechanical way of absorbing energy. Input load (front weight)is transmitted to a thick single bar which undergoes torsion, governed by shear stress. The coil springs on solid front axles transmit energy to the coil in the same way. Shear stress inside the coils is what makes a spring "springy". the only difference between a torsion bar and coil spring, is the coil spring sees about 6-7 times less shear stress than a torsion bar, yet the diameter is also ~6-7 times smaller than that of a torsion bar.
What are your exact reasons for thinking IFS torsion bar can't take the abuse.
If you are referring to GM, the only problems they had with the heavy duty 4x4s, in the early K series is that under a lot of abuse(high speed, rough terrain, as in flying over terraces, or coming off of climbing steep grades to fast, kinda like the commercials) the output shafts would break. They beefed up the output shafts and the universals, and oila, no problems since. But these early failures were not due to the "weight" that a 1 ton has to endure daily. there is very little weight distributed to the front axles anyway, compared to 1/2 tons. Even if you load 2 tons between the rear axle and cab, 80% of that still is taken by the rear axle.
Personally i think either system is fine. Performance wise, you get better handling and ride with IFS.
I don't think Ford or Dodge went out and asked anybody what kinda front system they wanted. but a lot of people like that solid front end cuz it "looks tough", make the truck stand taller, etc, etc. (not saying it isn't tough, it'll get the job done everytime.) that is the governing things in the majority of peoples decision making process. It looks cool, or sounds cool, whatever.
If these systems weren't up to par, there should be hundreds of thousands GM 1 tons sitting in garages somewhere getting torsion bars replaced, because they've sold a lot over the past 10 years. But there aren't. I think that speaks volumes.
Basically, is it just perception and/or bias(honesty, please), or is there hard core info i don't know? (not trying to insult or criticize, in anyway
If you don't think Ford asked anybody, go back to 1986. The F350 4x4 was switched from the Twin Traction Beam to a solid axle. Reason? Customer request. Dodge's research into the 1994 redesign said 4x4 full-size truck owners preferred the simplicity and durability of a solid axle. My Ram 3500 rides pretty much the same as my F150 with Twin Traction Beam IFS, so it's really a matter of how well you design the springs as to what kind of ride you get.
You mentioned the folks who broke their GMs due to high load, high abuse driving. That's what a one ton 4x4 truck will see. There are very few daily drivers in this category. You're talking about fleet trucks, public works, construction, search and rescue, and of course, snow plowing. All loads that will beat the crap out of a front end. You can only beef up a 4x4 IFS so much. The load ratings show the difference,. The Ford F350 offers a 5200 lb front axle, the Dodge is 4850. That GM front end is a mere 4250 on the K3500 Regular cab and 4500 for the Crew Cab.
Example
Friend drove his truck down a creek bottom to fix water gap fence after big flood. Had to drive down ~30-35° grade, approx 40 ft elevation difference, rough dirt terrain. should have used a 4 wheeler. to get the truck back up the grade, he had to hit the incline at a running start and keep it floored all the way up in 4 wheel drive. when he got to the top, was still doing about 15 mph, the front end of the truck launched about 5 ft off the ground before slamming back to the ground, shattering output shafts.
that situation would probably have taken out a solid axle also. (does anyone watch TNN?)
One point I recognize is the customer "want" issue. A manufacturer cannot tell the customer what he wants. If there was research, (I simply don't know of any), and the design is for that, then I can live with that.
I still say the IFS can handle whatever you design it for. If you want front suspension that can handle 10,000lbs, all you have to do is make your torsion bar diameter thicker. Stiffness, as well as material failure mechanics, are governed by 1)diameter of torsion bar, and 2)shear modulus of the material. The exact same properties govern the mechanics of coil spring. You want more, you just make it thicker. People see those bare output shafts, flat shaped A-arms, and think "Oh, thats going to break." Sorry, not the case. There is no stress on those parts, so their is nothing to fail them, unless you forget to grease the ball joints.
The load numbers don't mean as much to me, I guess as they do to you. I had a statistics class, and I can play the # games with the best of 'em. As far as the front end load numbers, GM underrates all their load capacities, GVRWs, towing capacities, etc., for liability reasons. And no, thats not from the dealer down the street.
I do see how that makes the system look weaker, when looking at it explicitly like we are.
IFS setups really don't stand up to alot of abuse as well as solid axles, from what I've seen. Example, I hit a rockslide (rocks were still moving, didn't have a chance to stop) on US Highway 6 with a live axle vehicle, I destroyed one tire and bent the rim, and that was the only damage. A Trooper coming the other way (going a bit SLOWER than I was) managed to completely rip the right front suspension practically off. Yes, it may well be that he just "hit it wrong", but everyone I talk to says they've come to pretty much the same conclusion after seeing the same thing over and over again.
Another major weak-point in independant is off-road capability; Independant suspensions used in stock trucks simply have no articulation, compared to a coil/live axle.
Something else I've noticed is when an Independant suspension vehicle reaches full compression, the differential drops down to only a few inches above the ground, whereas a live axle keeps the same clearence numbers at all times. (worst case scenario I've seen was a truck coming down off a boulder a little fast, following a land-rover. The front compressed fully, and there was this rock that the rover's live axles got over without noticing, that the guy didn't see.... bashed in the front differential, put a nice hole in the casing. Yeh, that could have been avoided with a front skidplate, but still, why not just avoid the problem alltogether with a live axle?)
Another "Plus" for live axles is availability of traction devices (read: Lockers) for cheap. It's a [non-permissible content removed] and a quarter to lock independant stuff.
Additionally, most heavy trucks use full-floating axles, so if the axle DOES break, it's still drivable by the other axle. When an independant breaks, You're not going anywhere, sporto.
To top that off, most live axles are considerably stronger (in both the differentials AND the shafts) than independant suspension setups. (Take the Hummer, considered to have the strongest halfshafts in any independant suspension vehicle; when AMG took on the rubicon with their hummers, they had to order out for *EXTRA* shafts, because not only did they have to replace the originals with their spares, they had to replace the spares, too! Solid axle trucks take that trail all the time without trouble like that, even the considerably weak (in comparison with the Dana 44 "option" and other makes live axles) Dana 35 C-clip in the rear end of older stock Jeeps doesn't have trouble on that trail.)
Jeep itself played with Independant suspension back in the 60's, and found it not to be a viable option, and switched back to live. Land-Rover did the same tests I beleive, and wound up with the same conclusion. Toyota still sells Live-axled vehicles overseas, where they consider the "Tough truck" industry to be.
You make the call...
I know all about stats - I'm in market research. I can tell you 6 equals 3 and prove it
The load numbers mean sometyhing because of how much heavier the 1 tons are. My Ram 3500 has a static weight of 4000 on the front end at all times. There's another 2900 on the rear axle. and that's without me in it. That means with a full load of people, I will come very close to front GAWR. On a two wheel drive truck, it's no big deal, but on a 4x4, the last thing I need to do is snap a U- or CV-joint. Granted, I have that heavy Cummins under the hood, but that's something that has to be accounted for in suspension design. Trucks really have to be designed downward. Think of the maximum load, and design the components to handle it. Ford did this with the Super Duty line. The F350 used to be an upgraded F150; now it's a "lightened" F550, thus it way stronger than any load you could put in it.
I was focusing more on the load carrying capabilities, but you've made excellent arguements for the live axle. Like i've said, i've seen many IFS's go thru hell and come out. I've never seen the problems like you've cited. But when you look up reliablities, from different sources, you don't see suspension problems showing up for live axle OR IFS. i think that might take us back to the extreme situation arguement.
the only other thing i wanted to say was that locking differentials is not a problem with GMs 4x4s, and in fact, i think its a option on the '99s that you can get the torque proportioning AWD system, where a computer determines when and which wheels get torque. Not cheap and not simple, though.
Right on, kcram.
This horse is pretty beat up. Where did we start? Is the T-150, (Tundra, whatever) not tough enough because it doesn't have live axle? I still say it will do whatever a half ton 4x4 is supposed to do, and do just as well as Ford, Ram, and Silverado can do. I simply have that kinda respect due to Toyota's track record.
Every Truck Owner manual I ever read stated the load should be placed starting at the FRONT of the bed and usually had pictures to impress the idea. Any one Read a Truck owner manual lately?
Respectfuly. maydaytoy
As with any suspension system, there are trade-offs. My opinion, at least in theory, is that independent suspensions are superior in that the movement of one wheel does not necessarily affect the movement of the opposite wheel, unlike that in a solid axle setup. I am very familiar with the articulation issue. I think it is just a matter of time before that is successfully addressed.
KC, you may be right in terms of customers requesting solid setups. Those requests were made in making direct comparisons with what was currently in production then. Granted, early IFS suspensions on trucks left a lot to be desired. I wouldn't write off the idea of IFSs based upon those early examples.
Bob
The F150 Lightning is a limited production sports truck, hopped up by the Ford Special Vehicle Team (SVT). The previous Lightning used a high output 351 with GT40 heads; the new one due next year will have a supercharged 5.4 good for an estimated 325hp. They are lowered and will use 18 inch footwear.