Tundra frame compared to the Land Cruiser 200 and Ford F-150?

[plainjaneFJC]

That's my point - what is the entire package?

Would I say my IFS doublecab is better offroad than my SAS'd xtracab? Depends on the situation... depends on if I'm allowed to use lockers in one, but not the other. Depends on the type of "off road" we're discussing.

We're literally trying to give credit to a wet noodle frame for making one vehicle better offroad while ignoring everything else, and then trying to give credit to the wet noodle frame. That's illogical.

The point is IMO- you don’t drive a frame off-road, you drive a truck- and for better of worse overall the last gen Tundra keeps tires on the ground a lot better.

 

[tacollie]

The point is IMO- you don’t drive a frame off-road, you drive a truck- and for better of worse overall the last gen Tundra keeps tires on the ground a lot better.

The second gen Tundra had more rear wheel travel along with the flexi frame. Maybe that's why they finally offered a rear locker on the 3rd gen.

 

[bkg]

The point is IMO- you don’t drive a frame off-road, you drive a truck- and for better of worse overall the last gen Tundra keeps tires on the ground a lot better.

So net/net... the determination off road capability is the amount of times a vehicle can keep it's wheels on the ground?

And if the only way to get that is to drive a wet noodle, then okay?

Not following the logic at all.

Again... seems like a lot of defense of Toyota's decisions where they aren't warranted...

 

[calicamper]

Pretty sure crash metrics for US standards resulted in a frame design change seen at the back of the cab on all pickups. They are designed to bend right at the cab/bed location on the frame.

SUVs / Wagon bodies on full frames can’t flex or bend till your behind the 2nd row seats again crash metrics.

F150 has like 200 variations including heavy payload versions that get different frame factors than the standard basic F150.

Your question is super broad and covers everything under the sun built body on frame especially if its US spec ie crash metrics etc.

The Australian Ford ranger had to get a completely reworked frame for a US version of nearly the same truck thanks to crash metrics in the US.

 

[rruff]

Flexy May not mean weak. But it also doesn’t mean strong.

Right, it doesn't mean anything.

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.

Please do tell. Never heard of that, and it's what I'm driving... assuming that you mean double cab, as that is what Toyota calls it on a Tundra. The bigger one is a crew cab. They both have b-pillars.

If somebody mounts a rigid structure to the bed mounts... like pretty much everyone who puts a flatbed on a Tundra... then I can see that being a possibility, since the rear of the frame that is designed to flex the most, can't. Instead the middle (the part under the cab) flexes more. There are bed mounts that will take care of some of that, but they aren't designed for the rear of the frame to be rigid.

When the 2nd gen came out, boxed frames on pickups were not the norm. I don't know if any of the domestics were fully boxed then. The F250 (before it was redesigned in 2017) was particularly notorious. The cab mounts on those are sponge rubber and need to be replaced regularly. Same with the mounts on the E series van.

Again... seems like a lot of defense of Toyota's decisions where they aren't warranted...

I see people defending against your unwarranted assertions.

If this just happened then speculating that the 2nd gen Tundra frame is crap could have some validity... but this was ~18 years ago! And they aren't crap, based on the opinions of most people who've owned them. And they seem to be a lot more popular with offroaders and overlanders than their sales numbers would justify.

 

[plainjaneFJC]

So net/net... the determination off road capability is the amount of times a vehicle can keep it's wheels on the ground?

And if the only way to get that is to drive a wet noodle, then okay?

Not following the logic at all.

Again... seems like a lot of defense of Toyota's decisions where they aren't warranted...

I’m not defending the frame- just stating the reality that they made it- it’s has shortcomings- yet it still performs better off-road than the next gen model at slow speed flex stuff.

 

[bkg]

Right, it doesn't mean anything.


Please do tell. Never heard of that, and it's what I'm driving... assuming that you mean double cab, as that is what Toyota calls it on a Tundra. The bigger one is a crew cab. They both have b-pillars.

If somebody mounts a rigid structure to the bed mounts... like pretty much everyone who puts a flatbed on a Tundra... then I can see that being a possibility, since the rear of the frame that is designed to flex the most, can't. Instead the middle (the part under the cab) flexes more. There are bed mounts that will take care of some of that, but they aren't designed for the rear of the frame to be rigid.

When the 2nd gen came out, boxed frames on pickups were not the norm. I don't know if any of the domestics were fully boxed then. The F250 (before it was redesigned in 2017) was particularly notorious. The cab mounts on those are sponge rubber and need to be replaced regularly. Same with the mounts on the E series van.


I see people defending against your unwarranted assertions.

If this just happened then speculating that the 2nd gen Tundra frame is crap could have some validity... but this was ~18 years ago! And they aren't crap, based on the opinions of most people who've owned them. And they seem to be a lot more popular with offroaders and overlanders than their sales numbers would justify.

Ever notice that every single offroad modification for Toyotas adds stiffness to the frame? Bumpers, sliders, skids, etc.
AccessCab - 1st gen tundra. Not 2nd gen. Frame isn't much different...
What unwarranted assertion have I made? I've stated the frame is a wet noodle and it's NOT the end all be all that some people want to claim. And Toyota has since abandoned it. So it's unwarranted to assert that the design isn't as good as their current design? Or frankly, previous designs?

Next you'll say that frame rust recall was NBD. 😆

 

[rruff]

I've stated the frame is a wet noodle and it's NOT the end all be all that some people want to claim... Next you'll say that frame rust recall was NBD. 😆

It sounds like you are creating strawmen. I haven't seen anyone claiming that it's "the end all, be all" in this thread or this forum, or any of the Tundra forums. It's just you expressing your rather extreme opinions... and making stuff up.

Dana Corp was sued over the frame rust debacle, and rusted frames were recalled. Not sure what that is "proof" of in your mind.

 

[rruff]

Ever notice that every single offroad modification for Toyotas adds stiffness to the frame? Bumpers, sliders, skids, etc.
AccessCab - 1st gen tundra. Not 2nd gen. Frame isn't much different...

I forgot to reply to this part...

Are you claiming that the typical offroad mods add stiffness for a purpose, or by accident? Don't they look about the same as they do on every other truck? I don't think the bumpers add much if any torsional stiffness... it's just another cross-member. And the skid is under the boxed part of the frame. Sliders would add stiffness under the cab, but not under the bed where most of the flex typically is.

Here is a photo of the wet noodle 1st gen Access Cab getting some air. Belonged to the Dirty Deeds guy. I thought there was a video of the same jump, but didn't find it.

Obviously that one is heavily modified, and he may have done something to the frame. This one isn't modified, though:

 

[bkg]

I forgot to reply to this part...

Are you claiming that the typical offroad mods add stiffness for a purpose, or by accident? Don't they look about the same as they do on every other truck? I don't think the bumpers add much if any torsional stiffness... it's just another cross-member. And the skid is under the boxed part of the frame. Sliders would add stiffness under the cab, but not under the bed where most of the flex typically is.

Here is a photo of the wet noodle 1st gen Access Cab getting some air. Belonged to the Dirty Deeds guy. I thought there was a video of the same jump, but didn't find it.




Obviously that one is heavily modified, and he may have done something to the frame. This one isn't modified, though:

hard to design something that adds protection that decreases stiffness, isn't it? I've personally never seen a single modification to a vehicle that intentionally decreases stiffness of a frame. Please share if you know of some.

Re: intentional or unintentional, you'd have to ask each individual builder. I'd argue a bit of both - intentional and happy side effect. With how many people make frame plates (internal or external) for toyota frames, I'd lean on intentionally.

And yes, solid bumpers do add torsional rigidity, depending on how they are mounted, especially compared to stock.

Posting a picture of a highly modified vehicle - with clear frame stiffening modifications (i.e. - looks like an entire bed cage) seems to support my point, no?

 

[bkg]

It sounds like you are creating strawmen. I haven't seen anyone claiming that it's "the end all, be all" in this thread or this forum, or any of the Tundra forums. It's just you expressing your rather extreme opinions... and making stuff up.

Dana Corp was sued over the frame rust debacle, and rusted frames were recalled. Not sure what that is "proof" of in your mind.

what's extreme about the fact of that Toyota built flexible frames? Seriously - what's extreme about acknowledging that?

What have I made up? You made the claim - support it with evidence, please.

Dana corp getting sued doesn't remove any of Toyota's culpability. That's just another "yeah-but..."

 

[rruff]

what's extreme about the fact of that Toyota built flexible frames? Seriously - what's extreme about acknowledging that?

If that was all you claimed, there'd be crickets...

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

The Australian Ford ranger had to get a completely reworked frame for a US version of nearly the same truck thanks to crash metrics in the US.

Different front bumper, engine, transmission and rear axle/suspension may have been factors as well.

I haven't found the ambition to see what all got changed in the front drive/suspension.

At the unveiling in 2018 they did tell us it was an all new frame but they left it pretty vague as to what exactly that meant.

 

[calicamper]

Different front bumper, engine, transmission and rear axle/suspension may have been factors as well.

I haven't found the ambition to see what all got changed in the front drive/suspension.

At the unveiling in 2018 they did tell us it was an all new frame but they left it pretty vague as to what exactly that meant.

They run the 10spd over there now also. Its possible the Australian frame got reworked also.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

They run the 10spd over there now also. Its possible the Australian frame got reworked also.

It's hard to say, not a normal comparison thing and they are rarely on the same contentment to compare side by side.

The truck they had when they relaunched the ranger in NA had the aussie style banjo rear axle lol.