Tundras are rotting away too
05-01-2009, 08:35 PM
#81
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: htown
Posts: 1,200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As most already know, the Tundra uses a triple tech frame with a boxed front section, a reinforced C mid section, and a standard C end section. The reinforced parts of the frame are 8mm thick (measured with a caliper), while the non-reinforced sections are 4mm thick.
Here is a video of Bruce Arnold, "The chassis systems engineering supervisor for the super duty program":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8M7VHLaBcM
Some quotes from the big man himself:
"All of the big trucks use an open frame configuration"
"When you go up in capacity it's actually more efficient from a weight and strength perspective to go open-C"
The point being, stiffness does not equal strength. Ford's silver creek video is testing stiffness, not strength. I wonder what a F250 would look like going through that same test??
I am not claiming the tundra frame to be anywhere near the capacity of a heavy duty, since it is a half ton/ 3/4 ton truck. But I doubt Toyota's engineers are sprinkling star-spangled powder on their coffee tables at break time.
The tundra frame was designed to flex, it was designed to do exactly what it's doing in that video. That video shows tests nothing except extreme frame flex under NVH conditions, it does not in any way, shape, or form test frame strength.
The ford doesn't "wet noodle" like the tundra because it's got a fully boxed frame (as do dodge and chevy) which is incredibly stiff. While a FBF may be stiffer then open-C design, it doesn't mean it's stronger.
The main advantage of open-C is under heavy loads the frame is allow to flex. The flex in the frame transfers stress over a very large area, whereas a stiff frame under heavy load will distribute stress over specific areas such as: shock mounts/welds, spring mounts/welds/bolts (maybe the reason ford has such large leafspring bolts??), crossmember welds, etc.
I can't say whether the frame from dodge, chevy, or ford is weaker or stronger then the tundra. I can say that the frame on the tundra is far from weak and performs excellent for what it's intended for (and it wasn't intended for that ridiculous silver creek).
05-01-2009, 09:49 PM
#82
God the world is full of morons! Nobody designs a frame to be less stiff. The ideal frame design would have infinite stiffness and all of your compliance would be in the suspension. This is the reason why manufacturers brag about who has the highest torsional and bending stiffness. They would never say they have the least stiffness in class!
05-01-2009, 09:57 PM
#83
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: htown
Posts: 1,200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
God the world is full of morons! Nobody designs a frame to be less stiff. The ideal frame design would have infinite stiffness and all of your compliance would be in the suspension. This is the reason why manufacturers brag about who has the highest torsional and bending stiffness. They would never say they have the least stiffness in class!
05-01-2009, 10:39 PM
#84
12 Second Club
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What you fail to understand is, that the Tundra shares the same design as the Ford, Dodge and GM 3/4 and 1 ton trucks. Whereas the 1/2 Fords, Dodge etc....., have fully boxed frames. Can you explain to me why Ford doesn't offer a fully boxed frame for their 26k lb F450 Dually?
05-02-2009, 12:12 AM
#85
Restricted User
iTrader: (24)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Fleetwood, PA
Posts: 1,398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These Ford funded bed bounce/frame commercials will never die. I'll explain a few things about frame design that most people don't understand.
As most already know, the Tundra uses a triple tech frame with a boxed front section, a reinforced C mid section, and a standard C end section. The reinforced parts of the frame are 8mm thick (measured with a caliper), while the non-reinforced sections are 4mm thick.
Here is a video of Bruce Arnold, "The chassis systems engineering supervisor for the super duty program":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8M7VHLaBcM
Some quotes from the big man himself:
"All of the big trucks use an open frame configuration"
"When you go up in capacity it's actually more efficient from a weight and strength perspective to go open-C"
The point being, stiffness does not equal strength. Ford's silver creek video is testing stiffness, not strength. I wonder what a F250 would look like going through that same test??
I am not claiming the tundra frame to be anywhere near the capacity of a heavy duty, since it is a half ton/ 3/4 ton truck. But I doubt Toyota's engineers are sprinkling star-spangled powder on their coffee tables at break time.
The tundra frame was designed to flex, it was designed to do exactly what it's doing in that video. That video shows tests nothing except extreme frame flex under NVH conditions, it does not in any way, shape, or form test frame strength.
The ford doesn't "wet noodle" like the tundra because it's got a fully boxed frame (as do dodge and chevy) which is incredibly stiff. While a FBF may be stiffer then open-C design, it doesn't mean it's stronger.
The main advantage of open-C is under heavy loads the frame is allow to flex. The flex in the frame transfers stress over a very large area, whereas a stiff frame under heavy load will distribute stress over specific areas such as: shock mounts/welds, spring mounts/welds/bolts (maybe the reason ford has such large leafspring bolts??), crossmember welds, etc.
I can't say whether the frame from dodge, chevy, or ford is weaker or stronger then the tundra. I can say that the frame on the tundra is far from weak and performs excellent for what it's intended for (and it wasn't intended for that ridiculous silver creek).
As most already know, the Tundra uses a triple tech frame with a boxed front section, a reinforced C mid section, and a standard C end section. The reinforced parts of the frame are 8mm thick (measured with a caliper), while the non-reinforced sections are 4mm thick.
Here is a video of Bruce Arnold, "The chassis systems engineering supervisor for the super duty program":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8M7VHLaBcM
Some quotes from the big man himself:
"All of the big trucks use an open frame configuration"
"When you go up in capacity it's actually more efficient from a weight and strength perspective to go open-C"
The point being, stiffness does not equal strength. Ford's silver creek video is testing stiffness, not strength. I wonder what a F250 would look like going through that same test??
I am not claiming the tundra frame to be anywhere near the capacity of a heavy duty, since it is a half ton/ 3/4 ton truck. But I doubt Toyota's engineers are sprinkling star-spangled powder on their coffee tables at break time.
The tundra frame was designed to flex, it was designed to do exactly what it's doing in that video. That video shows tests nothing except extreme frame flex under NVH conditions, it does not in any way, shape, or form test frame strength.
The ford doesn't "wet noodle" like the tundra because it's got a fully boxed frame (as do dodge and chevy) which is incredibly stiff. While a FBF may be stiffer then open-C design, it doesn't mean it's stronger.
The main advantage of open-C is under heavy loads the frame is allow to flex. The flex in the frame transfers stress over a very large area, whereas a stiff frame under heavy load will distribute stress over specific areas such as: shock mounts/welds, spring mounts/welds/bolts (maybe the reason ford has such large leafspring bolts??), crossmember welds, etc.
I can't say whether the frame from dodge, chevy, or ford is weaker or stronger then the tundra. I can say that the frame on the tundra is far from weak and performs excellent for what it's intended for (and it wasn't intended for that ridiculous silver creek).
What you saw in the video was not simply flexing. It was what is referred to as resonance, in this case caused by an under-engineered frame.
I'm not going to try to deny that Ford's full of **** in that video, as i've already gone to great lengths to prove that they are. However, the Toyota performs very poorly in that test, and you'd be a moron to try to claim that they WANTED that result.
Stiffness does not equal strength, this is true, they are two very different measures. However it seems that you have neglected concession to the fact that frame stiffness is far more important than frame strength in a pickup. This does make Ford's measures very valid in this case, even if their conclusions are a bit skewed.
Originally Posted by 25psi
What you fail to understand is, that the Tundra shares the same design as the Ford, Dodge and GM 3/4 and 1 ton trucks. Whereas the 1/2 Fords, Dodge etc....., have fully boxed frames. Can you explain to me why Ford doesn't offer a fully boxed frame for their 26k lb F450 Dually?
05-02-2009, 08:13 AM
#86
But then the same can go for GM dealers...perhaps you just have to find the right one...i.e. one with a generous service manager just like yourself.
Not replaced frames. They've replaced vehicles because of frame issues. Again, it depends on the dealer it seems, but I know of two examples in my time. But again, where is your mention of the past 20 years where Toyota not only didn't do anything about major problems like this, but went so far as to deny the problem and try to cover it up?
Apparently you don't pay much attention to what I actually say then. I don't "bash toyota" If you read what I have to say, you'll notice I never say anything to the tune of "Toyota sucks". I definitely dislike Toyotas...they are uninspired plain blahmobiles that I wouldn't be caught dead in. However, as a company, I have very little issue with Toyota. They have done what they needed to do to remain successful in a changing economy. While I don't agree with their product planning, I do have respect for the way they run their business. What I do have issue with is the free pass that they get whenever stuff like this comes up. If the subject of this thread were GM, all we'd be seeing is posts to the tune of "typical GM crap" or "no surprise another GM vehicle falling apart". Now it happens to Toyota and the excusers are out in force.
Not replaced frames. They've replaced vehicles because of frame issues. Again, it depends on the dealer it seems, but I know of two examples in my time. But again, where is your mention of the past 20 years where Toyota not only didn't do anything about major problems like this, but went so far as to deny the problem and try to cover it up?
Apparently you don't pay much attention to what I actually say then. I don't "bash toyota" If you read what I have to say, you'll notice I never say anything to the tune of "Toyota sucks". I definitely dislike Toyotas...they are uninspired plain blahmobiles that I wouldn't be caught dead in. However, as a company, I have very little issue with Toyota. They have done what they needed to do to remain successful in a changing economy. While I don't agree with their product planning, I do have respect for the way they run their business. What I do have issue with is the free pass that they get whenever stuff like this comes up. If the subject of this thread were GM, all we'd be seeing is posts to the tune of "typical GM crap" or "no surprise another GM vehicle falling apart". Now it happens to Toyota and the excusers are out in force.
05-02-2009, 10:59 AM
#87
Restricted User
iTrader: (24)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Fleetwood, PA
Posts: 1,398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's clear that you and I differ greatly on what's "interesting" or "exciting" in automotive styling.
For instance, in my opinion, exciting or interestingly styled cars - Just about every Cadillac currently built, all of pontiac's line excluding G5, G3, and Vibe (yes I do think the Torrent looks good), Corvette, Camaro, Mustang, Challenger and Charger, all BMWs, all Infinitis, most Acuras, 370Z, S2000...etc. There are of course plenty more, but I can't think of a single Toyota to add to that list...and i'm seriously trying. Maybe the Lexus IS.
But it doesn't end there either...when you take the whole car into account, my list gets alot smaller. The car has to have a great drivetrain and at least a decent interior. That's yet another area where Toyotas fail for me, because despite being of high quality, i'm put to sleep when I sit in just about any Toyota.
Incidentally, i'm not a fan of Mercedes Benz. I find them to be largely uninspiring also. I suppose it's mostly because of the drivetrains...they don't do well in the quality area, and unless you go with AMG cars, they've got no standout performance compared to other class offerings.
05-02-2009, 02:36 PM
#88
What you fail to understand is, that the Tundra shares the same design as the Ford, Dodge and GM 3/4 and 1 ton trucks. Whereas the 1/2 Fords, Dodge etc....., have fully boxed frames. Can you explain to me why Ford doesn't offer a fully boxed frame for their 26k lb F450 Dually?
05-02-2009, 02:54 PM
#90
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (41)
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Lancaster California
Posts: 1,431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't fret it guys ... 25psi ... is a domestic hating troll ... on our forum here.
Don't take my word for it ... check some of his post from other previous threads.
He will almost always advocate for any non-domestic or import.
If an import is better ... fair enough ... but in this day and age I don't see that being the case anymore ... Most imports have become grossly overrated and overpriced.
To keep this on topic ... Regardless of what 25psi says ... it's only his misguided opinion. The Ford frame and body is far superior to that of the Tundra.
.
Don't take my word for it ... check some of his post from other previous threads.
He will almost always advocate for any non-domestic or import.
If an import is better ... fair enough ... but in this day and age I don't see that being the case anymore ... Most imports have become grossly overrated and overpriced.
To keep this on topic ... Regardless of what 25psi says ... it's only his misguided opinion. The Ford frame and body is far superior to that of the Tundra.
.
05-02-2009, 03:10 PM
#91
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (41)
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Lancaster California
Posts: 1,431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let me add this 25 psi ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx3QGObyj2U
Toyota ... stronger frame ... okie dokie ...
Enjoy your Toyota...
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx3QGObyj2U
Toyota ... stronger frame ... okie dokie ...
Enjoy your Toyota...
.
