Ford Vrs Toyota course

[Fireman78]

Hey guys, I am a Dodge guy, but I found this video highly amusing.. watch the Tundras deflection from the rear camera angle... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrieIkkTx7Y remind me not to put a cooler back there.

 

[brianjwilson]

The Dodge wasn't a whole lot better either.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmSVIXgiuvM

 

[The Adam Blaster]

I can't watch youtube at work, but are these the vids of the trucks going over the cement corrugated sections set up by Ford to try and show it's strengths vs. the competition?

 

[4Rescue]

That's the one... Just another Sahmeful attemt by Ford to make their trucks look like the toughest. From waht I remember didn't they un-bolt the bed of the Tundra and do a few other odd-ball things to skew the results??? Sorry, but the Tundra is built like a Tank and those vids are not a very fair representation of either truck. I find it funny that Ford tries to do these kind of things. Like other truck makers are just completely incompotent and ONLY Ford could possibly build a good truck... So stupid.

Cheers

Dave

 

[Larry]

I wonder if Ford hired someone from Dateline (i.e GM C/K truck fuel tanks) or ABC news (i.e. Toyota ETC) to help them manipulate the filming to their advantage.

I'll double down and say Ford has 500 to 1000 lbs of ballast in the bed near the tailgate. Oldest trick in the book.

 

[Strizzo]

That's the one... Just another Sahmeful attemt by Ford to make their trucks look like the toughest. From waht I remember didn't they un-bolt the bed of the Tundra and do a few other odd-ball things to skew the results??? Sorry, but the Tundra is built like a Tank and those vids are not a very fair representation of either truck. I find it funny that Ford tries to do these kind of things. Like other truck makers are just completely incompotent and ONLY Ford could possibly build a good truck... So stupid.

Cheers

Dave

you mean like the late night "shows" that GM used to run where they talk about how their trucks are so much better than all the rest in obviously biased tests to make the chevy look better?

and more weight in the truck is supposed to make the chassis flex less?

how so?

 

[Desert Dan]

very interesting

lot of possible variables

air pressure type and profile of tires spring rates

 

[ujoint]

Do you really think Ford would jeopardize their reputation to skew the results? It would result in a backlash of BS that no one would benefit from. No automaker today can take chances like that.

 

[Larry]

and more weight in the truck is supposed to make the chassis flex less?

how so?

Absolutely…

When we do our durability testing on an unladen vehicle it bounces all over the test track and often off the track (Bosch Proving Grounds in New Carlisle, IN to be exact) but once you add ballest (dead weight) to the load box it settles right down. You can actually watch the Hz frequencies go from a buzz to huge lumpy low digits when ballast is added. It is obvious to me the Ford has had ballest added.

Another durability testing thing that seems backassards is vehicles break less componets when fully laden (at GVWR) than unladen. Seems backwards but the data is there to prove it every time.

 

[Regcabguy]

I read in one of the four wheel rags an account of the Aussies shearing off the axle studs of a new Tundra imported for their opinion. They were disappointed. They are quick,I'll grant you that.

 

[john101477]

most expensive car commercials in the world? transformers, what a great commercial though. everyone tries to steer folks in there direction.

 

[brianjwilson]

I don't know, I work for a coal mining company and their trucks are driving off road all day every day. They don't use any Dodge trucks but they have Chevy, Totota and Ford trucks.
While driving their tundras on washboard roads, they really do shimmy bad like that. Over 20 mph they get scary. They are fast and the interiors are quiet but the entire chassis twists like a red vine and the rear end hops around like crazy.
They Chevy trucks are the same way only with a lot more squeaks and rattles. If you watch in the mirror you worry about the bed bouncing right off the truck.
But the ford trucks are so much more solid. Less shimmy, less shake and they can travel comfortably at higher speeds.
Maybe if you only occasionally go off road you wouldn't notice, but to me it says a lot about the strength and long term durability seeing each truck performs off road every day.
So I don't believe the test is fixed. Maybe you have seen test about the torsionally rigidity of the f150 frame over other half tons? Or that must have been fixed too?
Each truck has it's own strengths and weaknesses and people will buy what they like. But my personal experience shows that those tests are fairly accurate in the real world.
I'm not trying to bash any particular manufacturer, these are just my observations.

 

[Strizzo]

Absolutely…

When we do our durability testing on an unladen vehicle it bounces all over the test track and often off the track (Bosch Proving Grounds in New Carlisle, IN to be exact) but once you add ballest (dead weight) to the load box it settles right down. You can actually watch the Hz frequencies go from a buzz to huge lumpy low digits when ballast is added. It is obvious to me the Ford has had ballest added.

Another durability testing thing that seems backassards is vehicles break less componets when fully laden (at GVWR) than unladen. Seems backwards but the data is there to prove it every time.

i understand what you're saying, but that is not what is being shown, they're not showing how the rear end isn't skipping all over the place, they're showing how little the chassis and bed area are flexing.

i find it interesting that you say you're sure that the test is rigged and theres no way that the ford truck can just be better, especially since the ford was the only truck with a fully boxed frame and outboard mounted shocks in the test.

i suppose if you saw a comparison between a 4 wheel independent suspended suv and a live axle/ ifs truck, that test must have been rigged too eh?

 

[R_Lefebvre]

I'm sorry, but there's a whole lot of Toyota Fanboys around here. The test was not rigged. The F-150 was that much better than the Tundra. The Tundra frame was a weakling compared to the F-150.

Check out this video, which was done in front of media who were able to see what was going on. Just look at the frame comparison side by side! Channel vs. Fully Boxed. Skip ahead to about 3 minutes if you want to get to the good stuff where they actually start twisting the frames.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRfE_XAk2mE

Guess it's all smoke and mirrors too eh? I don't know how anybody could watch that, or actually crawl under a Toyota and Ford and look at the frame themselves, and not see how frame strength is a huge factor here.

Even other Toyota Fanboys acknowledge this problem, and don't think the Ford video was "faked", but they do think it may have been exaggerated. They know the problem is real because they experience "Bed Bounce" on paved freeways!

http://www.tundraheadquarters.com/blog/2007/08/30/toyota-tundra-bed-bounce-issue-our-position/

I know it's hard for some to believe, but Toyota doesn't always build the best-in-class vehicles.

 

[Schattenjager]

My name is Don and I'm a Toyota Man.

Lets start by saying I am very proud of Ford for being the only non-government owned car company based in the USA! I'm sure they were able to avoid the reaper by building cool cars and trucks with great reliability at affordable prices.

My 2005 Tacoma was totaled because of a puny frame. Insurance adjusters commented on how many total losses they were seeing on otherwise repairable Tacos. Made me very sad to learn this. I know there is a night and day difference in the Tundra and Tacoma vs an F150, but I think a new Toyota SOP is surfacing.

As for a little older stuff - I've never seen a 1997 Ford or any American made rig look as nice nor run as well nor holds value like a Land Cruiser. Different times, no?