2015/2016 New 3rd gen Tacoma Debut in Detriot

[bkg]

Medium duty trucks are C-Channel.

Comparing a Tacoma to an MDT is dumb. Comparing a 1/4" c-channel that is 9-12" tall to the Tacoma is ridiculous. Comparing a Tacoma to the other vehicles in segment with boxed frames is what people should be doing. Others abandoned c-channel years ago, for a reason. Even four-wheeler commented on this wrt frame on tundra.

So mos mtg go boxed. Toyota goes cheap. People praise Toyota by comparing to MDTs and dismiss the others in segment. That logic makes no sense to me.

But I see I am alone in my willingness to call out Toyota on this, so I'll drop it.

 

[Dougnuts]

So the new V6 is direct injection (actually it is both direct and multi-port). Of course we don't know any specifics for this particular engine, but one of the benefits of direct injection is that it can greatly reduce fuel consumption at idle and low loads. In fact direct injection engines can run ultra-lean in idle with ratios of 65:1 (as opposed to the nominal 14.7:1). So modern gasoline technology allows for significantly lower idle fuel consumption than engines of just a few years past. As to how good the new Tacoma V6 will be in idle that remains to be seen. First person who gets one please hook up a scan gauge

They can (so can some port injection engines), but if I remember correctly, lean burn with gasoline is not currently legal in the US due to NOx increases.

Edit: On a previous car of mine, I was looking into HPTuners to implement lean burn and the Government made them (HPTuners) remove, from the software, the ability to enable that function.

 

[DaveInDenver]

Comparing a Tacoma to an MDT is dumb. Comparing a 1/4" c-channel that is 9-12" tall to the Tacoma is ridiculous. Comparing a Tacoma to the other vehicles in segment with boxed frames is what people should be doing. Others abandoned c-channel years ago, for a reason. Even four-wheeler commented on this wrt frame on tundra.

So mos mtg go boxed. Toyota goes cheap. People praise Toyota by comparing to MDTs and dismiss the others in segment. That logic makes no sense to me.

But I see I am alone in my willingness to call out Toyota on this, so I'll drop it.

I made the point that Toyota abandoned a history of fully boxed frames when they designed the Tacoma and still retains them on the Hilux and Cruiser. I don't think they are necessary in the context of a light duty truck, marketing not withstanding. But I don't think Toyota moved that way for any other reason than cost cutting. There are valid engineering reasons to use an open frame, one of which is there is no need to weld two halves together or hydroform a tube, and requiring additional heat treating.

Just to make the point, this is what the Hilux frames look like:

 

[Clutch]

Comparing a Tacoma to an MDT is dumb. Comparing a 1/4" c-channel that is 9-12" tall to the Tacoma is ridiculous. Comparing a Tacoma to the other vehicles in segment with boxed frames is what people should be doing. Others abandoned c-channel years ago, for a reason. Even four-wheeler commented on this wrt frame on tundra.

So mos mtg go boxed. Toyota goes cheap. People praise Toyota by comparing to MDTs and dismiss the others in segment. That logic makes no sense to me.

But I see I am alone in my willingness to call out Toyota on this, so I'll drop it.

Why? MDT use a C-Channel as most heavy duty trucks as well.

Fully boxed frame on a light duty truck is simply not needed. Just use heavier gauge steel. I have 290K miles on mine...never had a problem. I also don't over load it.

 

[bkg]

I made the point that Toyota abandoned a history of fully boxed frames when they designed the Tacoma and still retains them on the Hilux and Cruiser. I don't think they are necessary in the context of a light duty truck, marketing not withstanding. But I don't think Toyota moved that way for any other reason than cost cutting. There are valid engineering reasons to use an open frame, one of which is there is no need to weld two halves together or hydroform a tube, and requiring additional heat treating.

Just to make the point, this is what the Hilux frames look like:

Amen. Amen indeed.

 

[bkg]

Why? MDT use a C-Channel as most heavy duty trucks as well.

Fully boxed frame on a light duty truck is simply not needed. Just use heavier gauge steel. I have 290K miles on mine...never had a problem. I also don't over load it.

So then every other truck manufacturers engineers are dumb? It's a bad comparison because its apples to oranges.

 

[Clutch]

So then every other truck manufacturers engineers are dumb? It's a bad comparison because its apples to oranges.

Did I say it was dumb?

Just differently engineered. Like anything else (diesel vs. petrol...manual vs. auto, fullsize vs. compact, SAS vs. IFS etc....) there is no best....people have their preferences and will argue to others what they think is best.

I never had an issue with my Tacoma, so I don't see what they big deal is about. I had two fully boxed framed Toyotas as well...honestly I couldn't tell the difference for the most part. The Taco does ride the best out of those two...but one was torsion bar the other was leaf sprung SAS.

The only reason I want a HiLux because they look a little better to me (don't care what type of frame it has)...they share a lot of the same parts as the Tacoma.

You can read the similarities here: http://overlandexpo.squarespace.com...2/11/16/forbidden-fruit-the-toyota-hilux.html


Though I will say this, it would be nice if the Taco's payload would be up around the 2000 lbs mark, that way I could get a FWC and not overload the poor thing. If I get a FWC I would have to get a Tundra. But that would put Tacomas competing against 1/2 tons, the marketing guys from the other teams would have a field day.

 

[toylandcruiser]

So then every other truck manufacturers engineers are dumb? It's a bad comparison because its apples to oranges.

You're just failing to grasp what is being said here. You drank the kool aid that a fully boxed frame is the only way to go. Everyone else is showing you examples of why it's not. It's just the cool thing now to have a fully boxed frame on the lightest duty truck the particular manufacturer makes and your pride or whatever reason you have is blocking you from common sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bkg]

Did I say it was dumb?

Just differently engineered. Like anything else (diesel vs. petrol...manual vs. auto, fullsize vs. compact, SAS vs. IFS etc....) there is no best....people have their preferences and will argue to others what they think is best.

I never had an issue with my Tacoma, so I don't see what they big deal is about. I had two fully boxed framed Toyotas as well...honestly I couldn't tell the difference for the most part. The Taco does ride the best out of those two...but one was torsion bar the other was leaf sprung SAS.

The only reason I want a HiLux because they look a little better to me (don't care what type of frame it has)...they share a lot of the same parts as the Tacoma.

You can read the similarities here: http://overlandexpo.squarespace.com...2/11/16/forbidden-fruit-the-toyota-hilux.html

I could agree with you if Toyota wet overbuilding the c-channel. The dents on the back of my cab say they are not.

 

[p nut]

...But I don't think Toyota moved that way for any other reason than cost cutting...

I have no knowledge whether cost was the sole driver for the change, but let's not forget they're a business, first and foremost. And a very efficient one at that. Lots of other companies, including rivals, have studied Toyota's efficient operations model (which has changed the industry). This is just another way of being more efficient (and more profitable). Two frames accomplish the same thing, one is cheaper. Obvious choice.

 

[bkg]

You're just failing to grasp what is being said here. You drank the kool aid that a fully boxed frame is the only way to go. Everyone else is showing you examples of why it's not. It's just the cool thing now to have a fully boxed frame on the lightest duty truck the particular manufacturer makes and your pride or whatever reason you have is blocking you from common sense.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

C'mon... Kool-aid? No where near. I've owned 50+ Toyotas.... I've built a dozen. Stating that it's kool-aid drinking to be frustrated with Toyota's abandonment of boxed frames for Dana's design has no logic. Nor does ignoring every other mfg strategy (including Toyota) of using boxed and comparing to MDT for support.

But, I said I let.it go, so this will be my last post on the subject.

 

[Clutch]

I could agree with you if Toyota wet overbuilding the c-channel. The dents on the back of my cab say they are not.

Yeah, that is no beuno. You have (had?) a double cab short bed? If so...I wonder if they are over leveraged because of the cab/bed design, axle placement?

Seems to me the fulcrum is near the front of the bed back of the cab. Be like breaking a piece of wood, easier to break it right in the middle.

 

[calicamper]

The Hilux is being used in regions where weight of the vehicle vs its hauling capacity can be a competitive factor. A boxed frame costs more but lets the maker build a stronger lighter frame to retain load capacity capability which is not being impacted too much by the weight of the physical vehicle. C channel frames with the same capacity of a Boxed frame will need to be heavier for obvious reasons weight vs load capacity vs vehicle performance etc etc.

The Tacoma for US spec load numbers clearly doesn't need to be a boxed frame to keep weight down vs payload capability etc. However we all agree that a lighter truck especially a Taco would be a positive thing on the trail. However mid sized truck market is a goofy zone its not as profitable as the full size truck market if it were Toyota wouldn't think twice about giving us a Hilux due to profits being there to justify it etc.

 

[bkg]

Yeah, that is no beuno. You have (had?) a double cab short bed? If so...I wonder if they are over leveraged because of the cab/bed design, axle placement?

Seems to me the fulcrum is near the front of the bed back of the cab. Be like breaking a piece of wood, easier to break it right in the middle.

Two 04's and a '10.

Actually, I believe the doublecab has the problem less than the xcab... I bet the cab bears the brunt of the "band-aid" by absorbing force.

Buddy's cab (tundra) ripped due to frame flex... Wheeled hard, though.

 

[2025 deleted member]

I have seen a few different navara's that way, and people always say how much better that boxed frame is. I guess either design is good, as long as its designed and used as its supposed to be.

Yeah, that is no beuno. You have (had?) a double cab short bed? If so...I wonder if they are over leveraged because of the cab/bed design, axle placement?

Seems to me the fulcrum is near the front of the bed back of the cab. Be like breaking a piece of wood, easier to break it right in the middle.