Search results

They tear. The access cab most prone. Because the frame flexes under the cab. I know of at least one person on this forum who had that issue.

Define offroad. Almost all great, competitive offroad vehicles have non-wet-noodle frames. From high-speed desert to rock crawling to over-landing to camel trophy. Sure… someone will claim “but my unimog!” Again… it’s people looking for areas to defend Toyota’s choices. Shoot… people in this...

Flexy May not mean weak. But it also doesn’t mean strong. It’s all “yeah, but”-ism. Just like the justification for better ride… when competitors who sell many times more vehicles are on a completely different page. Of course, someone will jump in with “yeah… but boxed frames rust.” And...

It is nonsense. Anyone who uses a flexible frame to make up for poor suspension tuning is using a crutch. And then to have people defend it like Toyota engineers are smarter than all other truth MFG’s is equally a cop out. Toyota engineers are not gods. They are not better than engineers at...

Do it... film it... cry over it. :p The difference in quality of ride on my last CrewMax between factory and with AllPro sliders was very noticeable.

Want to see how flexy a 2nd gen tundra frame really is - do a brake stand and watch the cab/bed separate.

My xtracab has dents on the cab from the top of the box. Very common. People like to defend Toyota for their wet noodle frames. Many of those same people defend Toyota for not abandoning rear drums for almost a decade after other mfg’s did so. Hard for many people to separate emotion from...

Tundra - 2000-2021 - only boxed (bascially) from firewall forward. Then modified c-channel to back of cab. then open c-channel. wet noodles.

Having owned 4 1st gens, I was about to call fowl on the width. But according to edmunds, you are correct. Measure w/o the massive flares, and I bet the numbers are much different. Shoot, according to Edmonds, the first gen is .2” narrower than the 2nd gen tundra. No way. Compare shoulder room...

According to your logic, though, a Prius may have better brakes than a Tacoma (if it has a shorter stopping distance) and therefore handle being overloaded better than a tremor. You’re also assuming that impacts of load are linear between the Tacoma and Tremor. That may not be the case, which...

sigh... you can't state the brakes are "great" on a Tacoma and "bad" on a Tremor (emphasis mine) while ignoring almost 4000 lbs weight difference. Put that 4k in a Tacoma and compare the brakes between the Tacoma and the Tremor and report back using the same method as the C&D article your entire...

you seem to love reading into anything and everything to justify overloading a truck... emotion <> fact.

You're comparing a truck that weighs 1/2 as much as the other and claiming the brakes on the lighter truck are better. Put the same load in the tacoma and report back.

horrible comparison, IMHO, to use the Tremor. Tremor weighs over 8k lbs... nearly 2x as much as the tacoma. Load the tacoma up to 8k lbs and redo your math. I own a Tremor and 2 tacoma's... there's no comparison in braking capability.

I don't think your first statement is accurate, just based on looking at tire weight differences between most C's and E's that I've looked at.

I’m sure there have been failures… everything has SOME failures. But 7 in a single storm, including on driveways? Bull. Just complete bull.

I call complete and utter BS on the claim.

Not much to add, really. Frozen Rotors and Hawk Pads are my favorite. A little noisier than stock, but grab way better.

Hawk Pads, Frozen Rotors. Put them on 3 1st gen tundras. My favorite combination.

i have 4.88's w/ 285/75-16's. I will argue all day long that 5.29's would have been a better choice. The OD on the Auto is way higher than the OD on the manual... even w/ 5.29's, the cruising RPM's are almost the same as stock 5-speed w/ 4.10's/31.s