Tundra's Non-Boxed Frame?

[HERR42]

Brand bashing (not that you were) gets my hackles up when it comes to false and misleading propaganda.


i dont think it is brand bashing....more just a set of observations.

in what way would it be considered misleading?

 

[DirtyDog]

I spoke to that guy (I think we're thinking of the same one) as I was just ordering my bobcat at the time. Then I spoke to Ben about him. He didn't know much and it should be mentioned he had a 2nd gen Tundra with the doublecab, which is the longest frame they made in the 2nd gen and not one of the original designs. Ben said it was "a little weird" but never saw that problem with any other Tundra. Brand bashing (not that you were) gets my hackles up when it comes to false and misleading propaganda.


I met that guy after he got the new Tundra and he wasn't all that happy with the frame stiffness on that either. In fact, he demonstrated how he could reach up with one hand and grab the over cab part of the ATC and with little effort cause visible movement in the bed related to the cab. I believe the information presented in the video is factual, however whether or not that info is going to cause any actual issues in the real world is debatable at best, and probably unlikely.

The fact is - the Tundra frame is more flexible than other half ton trucks. Is that a problem for most people? Probably not.

Now about the bias, keep in mind I also own a Toyota

 

[brett13]

i dont think it is brand bashing....more just a set of observations.

in what way would it be considered misleading?

Ford sponsored several videos a few years ago insisting that the Tundra was "weak" in some way because the of non-boxed flexibility. That insinuation is factually wrong: flexible does not equal weak. The 3rd gen Tundra IS more flexible, I'm not denying that, just the weak conclusions. Tailoring a video to a specific vehicle's natural resonance is misleading propaganda. Who drives a stock truck at that speed over a course even remotely like that? Is it supposed to be a real-world test or propaganda? Or would the additional articulation be better at a rock crawl speed? In fact, the Tundra was judged as significantly better tow vehicle in several mags because of the flexibility! Toyota could have easily found the frequency or bump spacing for the Ford and done the same, but they didn't. In other words, some manufactures like to run stealthy negative ad campaigns.

When the new Tundra was launched, I was on several forums where flag-waving big-3 lovers constantly pulled the "my Ford's bolts are bigger" nonsense along with these videos- all of which are irrelevant and meaningless (the bolts were bigger because the Ford frame doesn't flex as much which transfers more force to the bolts). I got tired of of bad info and insults, so I'm defensive.

To be clear, I'm not accusing DD or anyone here of bias. I'm just trying to highlight that what passes as "data" isn't unbiased or even truthful. Personally, I think all the half-tons are pretty damn capable these days.

And yes, the Tundra's frame is more flexible than other trucks, by design. Caveat emptor.

 

[DirtyDog]

To be clear, I'm not accusing DD or anyone here of bias. I'm just trying to highlight that what passes as "data" isn't unbiased or even truthful. Personally, I think all the half-tons are pretty damn capable these days.


I think it would be more accurate to say that the raw data is truthful (more flex), but that the conclusions or insinuated conclusions (weakness) are untruthful.

 

[brett13]

I think it would be more accurate to say that the raw data is truthful (more flex), but that the conclusions or insinuated conclusions (weakness) are untruthful.

True. The raw data is truthful, though the test itself (parameters, conditions) are biased. The insinuated conclusions are misleading.

 

[Cort]

True. The raw data is truthful, though the test itself (parameters, conditions) are biased. The insinuated conclusions are misleading.



Brett13,

Very well stated.....Bravo!

 

[rich]

I have a 2007 Tundra and can tell you that it doesn't know the camper is there even when offroading.


Hi Brett,

I am in the market for a new truck right now I am deciding between a 1999-2003 F-250 diesel and an '07 Tundra. My T-100 did alright with the camper on but it definitely felt it and I felt like I was beating it up.

You have been happy with the way your '07 Tundra handles the camper?

 

[brett13]

Hi Brett,

I am in the market for a new truck right now I am deciding between a 1999-2003 F-250 diesel and an '07 Tundra. My T-100 did alright with the camper on but it definitely felt it and I felt like I was beating it up.

You have been happy with the way your '07 Tundra handles the camper?

Love it. I added airbags (which I could have lived without as I never have more than 20psi out of 100 in them) and E-rated tires. With those, I don't even know the camper is there. However, I've never had a p/u truck before nor have I been in a 3/4ton+ with a camper, so I can't tell you if that is better. All I know is that the truck performs great, never complains and does what I ask. It does not feel to me like I'm "beating it up".

 

[HERR42]

the phrase "cant even tell the campers on the truck" sure gets used a lot.

how can this be? i have a 3/4 ton ford under a '07 hawk.

i can sure tell its there.

doesnt it stand to reason that in a even smaller truck you could tell even more?

why do small truck owners often discuss aftermarket products related to suspension upgrades?

i wish i could "not tell its there".

 

[brett13]

Of course you can "tell", I can see the thing. But I have the narrower bobcat, so it doesn't block my side views. The whole setup is close to GVW, but with suspension/tire upgrades it handles it fine. You always drive slower with a camper on, so the weight feels about the same without the camper. Same goes for braking- I'm sure the brakes are actually working harder, but I'm going slower and anticipating more. And up Vail pass, the engine works harder, but I'm not trying to pass a Porche, only that old VW going 45, and I'm not trying to go the same 75 as I would empty. The differences are minor and in terms of driving experience about the same. Very different from when you drive, say your empty sedan vs when you load it with 4 people and luggage. That you can tell. Camper, not so much.

 

[rich]

the phrase "cant even tell the campers on the truck" sure gets used a lot.

how can this be? i have a 3/4 ton ford under a '07 hawk.

i can sure tell its there.

doesnt it stand to reason that in a even smaller truck you could tell even more?

why do small truck owners often discuss aftermarket products related to suspension upgrades?

i wish i could "not tell its there".

Hi Jeff,

I drove an '07 Tundra and a F-250 diesel again tonight and am torn straight down the middle on these two. I know I or more appropriately the truck would notice the camper less on the F-250 but it's still a lot of truck for a daily driver, the Tundra felt a lot more nimble on the road. It's a tough call neither one is slam dunk. I can tell you this, my T-100 definitely felt the camper. I also can't get an accurate payload rating on these damn trucks I have seen sites listing the '06 tundras at 1,875 payload and the '07 at 2,000 lbs. I have read posts from owners saying their sticker tells them they have a 1,565 lb payload on their '07 Tundra and I have had one dealer say 1,700 lbs and one say 1,600 lbs for the '07 Tundra. Shouldn't this be the most basic and static stat for a pick up? Why is this so hard to nail these guys down on?

 

[HERR42]

Hi Jeff, ....Shouldn't this be the most basic and static stat for a pick up? Why is this so hard to nail these guys down on?


yes it is a slippery fish!
the ratings i look at are in owners manuals or from the specification pages from the company web sites.
they list max load for the different chassis configurations (short bed, long bed, crew cab, 1/2, 2/4, 1 ton etc.) BUT they dont include passengers, fuel, etc.

look at the web site for the current f series here http://www.fordvehicles.com/trucks/superduty/specifications/view-all/

none of the caveats are listed so you really have to look at the owners manuals.

now look at the toyota site here http://www.toyota.com/tundra/specs.html

 

[rich]

look at the web site for the current f series here http://www.fordvehicles.com/trucks/superduty/specifications/view-all/

none of the caveats are listed so you really have to look at the owners manuals.

now look at the toyota site here http://www.toyota.com/tundra/specs.html



Good links HERR,

1,000 lb difference between the Tundra and the F-250 that is nothing to shake a stick at. You could carry 2 four wheels on the F-250

So here's my calc on the Tundra
Payload 1,640 Lb's
My FWC wet and loaded 1,000
26.4 gallons of fuel at 8 lbs/ gallon = 211.2 lbs
Me, my wife and the dog = 388 lbs total

So we have about 1,599.2 lbs in it with a payload capacity of 1,640 that leaves us 40.8 lbs before we max out our payload. Our paddle boards weigh 31 lbs each, that's 62 lbs and all she wrote for that truck, god forbid we try to bring our whitewater raft and frame.

It's a bummer that payload is so low.

 

[Overland Hadley]

BUT they dont include passengers, fuel, etc.




So here's my calc on the Tundra
Payload 1,640 Lb's
My FWC wet and loaded 1,000
26.4 gallons of fuel at 8 lbs/ gallon = 211.2 lbs
Me, my wife and the dog = 388 lbs total



Common misconception here. Payload for the truck is figured with full fluids, so you do not need to figure fuel (what is in the stock tank) into what you are carrying on the truck.

So, that gives you an extra 211 pounds to play with. Not much, I know, but every little bit helps.

 

[brett13]

Payload is simply the difference between the GVWR and the actual weight as weighed. I don't know if Toyota weighed it with gas or not. '07 and later Tundra's are either 7100 or 7200# GVWR (the true 4-door has an extra 100#, totally arbitrary, so I use 7200). Weigh the truck with gas and subtract. Rich is pretty close to my figures, but I can't remember what they actually were.