Ramon

There is a HUGE difference between comparing cars which Toyota has been doing for decades and has managed to nearly perfect, versus comparing real full size trucks designed for heavy loads and towing which Toyota has been doing for a few months and is anything but perfected. A frame that flexes THAT much is only going to get worse over time, and it will get worse a lot faster than a rigid frame.

GStateOM

F150 does have a stronger frame. F150 does tow more. But then you also have to be looking at the Toyota Trucks that have been on the road. As many old domestic trucks that are running today, there are just as many from Toyota. I use to work with a bunch of domestic fans who always talked down on anything non-domestic. Checked out their cars and trucks. The older trucks ran and had good towing ability. But then the dashboard looked halfway melted from the sun and the interior was falling apart (and the new Tundra doesn't have the best quality interior either, btw). When I went to their homes, I could usually tell where they parked their trucks because of the huge oil stain that they left behind. What I do know is that the new Tundra is creating a lot of talk among them. It's almost like a exgirlfriend or something, but that can't be true, you know, that Tundra and its weak frame, it can't possibly hurt their Silverado or F150, can't it

It's funny about all of these comparisons from all the car companies about who has the strongest truck. Although trucks are made for work, a large portion of them are going to do nothing but hail around a small fishing boat, go to Costco and sit on 24 inch rims. At least in California, trucks stay pretty , especially trucks that have more than 2 opening doors.

Threxx

By linear cohesion I was referring to unibody platforms acting as a 3D structure in which, much like an egg, they will support pressure from any given direction, but don't hold up well when pulled in two opposite directions.

Uh... what's your point? Is this your way of agreeing with me? Your own links show that the Tundra is typically heavier given the same configuration as the Silverado, which would serve to agree with my point that the added weight of the fully boxed frame didn't make the truck overly heavy.

Stage3

iTrader: (3)

Whoa... all that flexing is definitely concerning...

JeffTsai

iTrader: (1)

Well, Toyota did build some pretty tough trucks back in the day. I'm not sure how much better or worse they have become.

Check out these videos where a Toyota truck survives through assasination attempts...
Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hzRLG8dA-E
Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfZDtC9kjVk

Mr. Jones

except the Silverado isn't fully boxed.

well let's see. adding 4wd to the Tundra adds 300lbs compared to 200lbs for the Silverado.

http://www.trucktrend.com/roadtests/...s_pricing.html

The Tundra clearly outweighs the Silverado, yet its not up to par?

$600 billion is spent on advertising annually.

Based on this thread a simple advertisment @ 28mph can be highly effective.

Threxx

Wow - the point just flew past you so fiercly I think I just heard a sonic boom.
Please read more carefully... I said the Silverado is NOT overweight. Why would being heavier than the competition be a good thing? It's not, unless it's for a good cause and can be overcome by the overall design of the truck.

Toyota's arguement against fully boxing the Tundra's frame was weight savings - they said it would add unnecessary weight.

Yet in this test we see that the Silverado's frame is obviously doing a far better job of retaining torsional rigidity, and to top it all off, the truck, as a whole, still weighs less than the Tundra, which is to say that the engineers at Toyota obviously didn't save THAT much weight by cutting corners on the frame.

Oh, and lastly, as mentioned, this is not an advertisement - it was an independent test... I believe performed by the editors at trucktrend.com
Or is this footage for an upcoming commercial that I'm unaware of?

It should be, though...

Edit: The Silverado frame is close enough to fully boxed to just say it is. Front section is 100% fully boxed and the rear section is fully boxed all the way back until the spare tire cross member at which point c-channel usage begins. And even then the Silverado uses hydroformed steel (very high strength to weight ratio due to being completely unfatigued 'natural' steel in its intended form), as well as its frame components itself (rails and cross members) are easy to see are quite a bit larger and thicker than the Tundra's. Oh, and they use welded-through cross members as well. I believe the Tundra uses bolted-on cross members, or at least the previous design did - I haven't looked at the current one to see if they continued the trend but I think I heard they did.

Every aspect of the new Tundra's frame screams 'corners were cut' - and I suspect it was done mainly for cost savings... I guess it might have been done for weight savings too but again, the truck is still heavier than the competition, so I guess that just kept a porky truck from being even porkier.

SoCalSC4

Frankly, I don't know what this test really tells us; without instrument data it's not that conclusive. Obviously the oscillation causes more movement in the Toyota frame/bed, but how were the results at 15mph? 78 mph? 27 mph?
Over prolonged periods movement like this can be somewhat desirable, reducing the potential for catastrophic fatigue failures. The Boeing 777 video is a good illustration of this. If the wings were totally rigid, the fatigue/stress threshold would be much lower.

Suspension tuning also plays a major role here; a softer suspension will absorb more of those oscillations and reduce movement in the frame structure.

Just because the new Tundra is Toyota's first real "full size" truck doesn't mean much; they're been building pickups with frames for decades, just on a smaller scale.

I don't think this will drive many prospective Tundra buyers away. The bottom-line is the folks at Toyota know a thing about engineering and quality; there is a reason for everything that they do. At the end of the day, most pickups I see on the road are just that- daily driven commuter trucks. Will 99% of buyers ever put their pickups through this type of abuse? Doubtful.

Threxx

Well, in structural design there's always that balancing act between weight, cost, strength, and rigidity.

In the case of the Boeing 777, having ultra rigid wings is of very little benefit. It's not going to improve the way the plane 'rides', and the 'handling' is already terrible so while it could improve the response of the plane when turning, the difference would probably hardly be noticeable. And of more importance, a plane's number one objective is for the safety of its passengers - so making sure that the wings can endure far more load than they should ever need to before they fail is of utmost importance, as is reducing the structural weight (because they have to support their own weight, not to mention additional weight means reduced economy which adds up quickly). So building a less stiff structure that is designed to bend costs less, provides more bending ability to the point of failure, and saves weight which improves economy. It's the obvious choice for the wings of a plane.

However, in the case of a truck, the weigh of the structure is still an issue, as is safety, but generally speaking there are very few circumstances short of a flat out defective weld that are going to cause any frame to out-right fail and fracture for some reason under high load. Especially any form of load that tests the torsional or bending strength of the frame since accidents are about the most traumatic load a frame could see, and accidents tend to most often be on a plane roughly level and flat with the structure of the frame itself.

I suppose you could have somebody that could put too much weight in their bed and then go off roading, too, and hit a really sharp bump or rock that impacts and breaks their frame, but in that case they can also have long ago said goodbye to their suspension, tires, and quite a bit of their underbody components. Not to mention that's just flat out user stupidity. Maybe some engineer wants to design a frame with enough flex so that in that circumstance of a stupid user, they'll only damage everything BUT their frame... but I don't want a truck that has been that compromised because I know I'm not going to be that stupid with it.

Mr. Jones

it's Toyota who displays their frame, not their competitors. And ask GM why their 2500/3500HD trucks continue to use a traditonal C-channel design?

there is absolutely no evidence anyone but Ford devised and conducted this test.

no, like the other two videos Ford put out earlier it's a viral advertisment that insults the intelligence of consumers.

based on what Ford and their followers say. The only one cutting corners is Ford with their ancient powertrain.