Hilux-frame compared to Land Cruiser 200/Ranger

[Oshkosh-P]

Hello,

so the titel pretty much says it all - how does the Hilux frame compare to the big brother Land Cruiser 200 which is based off the Tundra chassis?

And also how does it compare to the EU Ranger frame if anyone knows.

Reason is: As far as i know in some countries the F-150 and the Range have a very similiar frame, so that Range frame is massive, but the EU range has a weaker one. Maybe that is similiar with the Hilux? That it has als a Tundra-derived frame and can compare with the big boys because of that?

Kind reagrds,

Marcus

 

[plainjaneFJC]

The new Tacoma has basically the same frame as the Tundra- I think the difference is in all the running gear, suspension, axles, steering, control arms, etc.

 

[DaveInDenver]

Be sure to consider frame wall thickness as well as other dimensions when comparing various trucks in markets.

For example the Tacoma and Hilux have historically derived from a similar platform but in some markets a Hilux will get a 3,000 kg GVWR. That's around 6,600 lbs. In the U.S. that would put it in the same light duty truck class 2 as an F150, which covers trucks from 6,001 to 10,000 lbs GVWR.

The Tacoma falls in class 1, which is 0 to 6,000 lbs GVWR and most of them have had GVWR around 5,500 lbs.

That means the Hilux is probably 20% heavier duty than the Tacoma, which is reflected in things like the frame wall and axle housing thickness and isn't necessarily apparent when you look at dimensional drawings. Other things, like the Hilux having traditional compression shackles and a fully boxed frame while the Tacoma went to inverted tension shackles and open-C channels.

The Tundra and 200 are likely to be closer due to the way the government treats SUVs in the U.S. But in any case even now that everything is moving to the TNGA-F there's no guarantee that all the truck chassis are actually identical. Toyota can tailor just about aspect of manufacturing to meet the specification.

I'd think Ford would do the same thing on their trucks to trailor them for a market. If they step down a wall size for some markets that adds up to a lot of material, not to mention weight and fuel economy. If they can shave 200 lbs from a frame that's also 200 lbs more junk they can shove inside to meet what the target buyer is demanding, e.g. a big screen for their iPhone instead of a truck that can safely carry more cargo.

 

[Oshkosh-P]

Yeah that is an unfortunate truth.

The Ranger frame is supposed to be 230x90x2.2 in the US, which was baffling to me since this is the exact same dimension as the F-150. Wonder how much weaker the EU version is.

The Land Cruiser LC 200 used to be 185x90x3.2, the tundra must have been similiar but open C, wonder how the modern day Hilux compared to that.

 

[plainjaneFJC]

Frames aren’t breaking so it’s not the weak point IMO. Nissan had some frontiers breaking, the Colorado zr2 broke some frames- it all seems really rare.

 

[Oshkosh-P]

Still in australian documents with the Isuzu and Hino trucks they always include the C-Profile measurements. Wuld be easy to do the same with any frame-based vehicle, just the mid-section measurements, steel, and amount of crossmembers to get a rough estimation of how strong it is. They do that with Chassi cap trucks too.

 

[rruff]

The Land Cruiser LC 200 used to be 185x90x3.2, the tundra must have been similiar but open C, wonder how the modern day Hilux compared to that.

The Tundra was closed C, with extra C-channel pieces riveted in top and bottom. My crude measurement is ~185x75x3.2mm (or 1/8") for the main part and similar thickness for the riveted in pieces, so ~6.4mm top and bottom. The rear part of the frame is smaller and single wall though.

 

[Oshkosh-P]

Interesting, thank you for the Info. That also makes sense since the LC 200 was based on that frame and is very similiar with the measurements, just a bit wider and boxed instead of the reinforced open C.

 

[nickw]

Be sure to consider frame wall thickness as well as other dimensions when comparing various trucks in markets.

For example the Tacoma and Hilux have historically derived from a similar platform but in some markets a Hilux will get a 3,000 kg GVWR. That's around 6,600 lbs. In the U.S. that would put it in the same light duty truck class 2 as an F150, which covers trucks from 6,001 to 10,000 lbs GVWR.

The Tacoma falls in class 1, which is 0 to 6,000 lbs GVWR and most of them have had GVWR around 5,500 lbs.

That means the Hilux is probably 20% heavier duty than the Tacoma, which is reflected in things like the frame wall and axle housing thickness and isn't necessarily apparent when you look at dimensional drawings. Other things, like the Hilux having traditional compression shackles and a fully boxed frame while the Tacoma went to inverted tension shackles and open-C channels.

The Tundra and 200 are likely to be closer due to the way the government treats SUVs in the U.S. But in any case even now that everything is moving to the TNGA-F there's no guarantee that all the truck chassis are actually identical. Toyota can tailor just about aspect of manufacturing to meet the specification.

I'd think Ford would do the same thing on their trucks to trailor them for a market. If they step down a wall size for some markets that adds up to a lot of material, not to mention weight and fuel economy. If they can shave 200 lbs from a frame that's also 200 lbs more junk they can shove inside to meet what the target buyer is demanding, e.g. a big screen for their iPhone instead of a truck that can safely carry more cargo.

Spot on - there was a lot of chatter about this 20+ years ago, Hilux vs 1st gen Tacoma....looks very sim but the Hilux was thicker and fully boxed.

Truth is outside the 3/4 and 1T market in the US NVH is king, which means more flexible frames in general. Not the same in AUS or Africa where the Hiluxes are basically our version of 3/4 an 1T rigs.