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

[skrypj]

That's nonsense because prior to 1995 all Toyota truck in the U.S. were boxed frame and the HIlux and Land Cruiser ute always have been. And for their size and weight the Hilux and Cruiser have higher payloads, too. It's only the Tacoma and Tundra there were outliers. As has been noted having two major body assemblies on a flexible frame presents problems, too, like the box hitting the cab and denting it. Flex is less obvious on a pickup than doors that won't open on a wagon body, though.

Its not nonsense. Thats what he said.

My F150 is fully boxed with leafs, so I understand it can be done, but the reason given was that the c-channel frame absorbed some of the crappy characteristic of leafs. My F150 transmitted a lot of vibration and wiggles through the frame from the rear end until I upgraded shocks.

 

[bkg]

Its not nonsense. Thats what he said.

My F150 is fully boxed with leafs, so I understand it can be done, but the reason given was that the c-channel frame absorbed some of the crappy characteristic of leafs. My F150 transmitted a lot of vibration and wiggles through the frame from the rear end until I upgraded shocks.

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 other mfg’s… people really need to stop defending Toyota over their poor decisions - it’s just fanboy-ish.

I’ve owned more Toyotas than most people in this thread. I am a fan. But it’s important to not put Toyota in a pedestal.

 

[Moyshe Kapoyer]

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 other mfg’s… people really need to stop defending Toyota over their poor decisions - it’s just fanboy-ish.

I’ve owned more Toyotas than most people in this thread. I am a fan. But it’s important to not put Toyota in a pedestal.

As an owner of a 21 Tundra ...I agree with all of this!!! Toyota fanboys are automotive zealots that are almost impossible to have an honest conversation with.

 

[rruff]

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.

From the wiki page on the Tacoma:

"The Tacoma was introduced in the US in February 1995 (with a market launch in March 1995) as a replacement for the Toyota Pickup (which was the name used for the Hilux in the North American market). When comparing with the Hilux, the Tacoma receives engineering with greater priority on ride quality, handling, comfort, and safety over ruggedness and payload capacity. The design intends to better suit the needs of the US and Canadian market, where pickup trucks are used as personal vehicles rather than for commercial, agricultural, and off-road purposes."

It appears that this coincided with design and engineering being done in the US also. It would be interesting to know where those engineers came from, and if they had experience building trucks! Anyway, flexy frames on pickups were the norm back then, and still are on >1 ton domestic pickups and any cab-chassis, so it isn't a weird choice. The payload bit has nothing to do with a flexible chassis, but has everything to do with a soft ride while unloaded. Also, regarding "safety" our US standards require that a frame be able to crumple in an impact, absorbing energy to reduce the G-force on occupants. The older Toyota trucks were notoriously poor at this. Obviously the decisions made to cause crumpling during impact are somewhat at odds with making a frame stiff and light. I expect that the wimpy last few feet of the frames is designed to be the crumple zone for rear impacts... or at least it's a side benefit.

The Tundra in particular is a low volume model, and simple economics will tell you that Toyota can't afford to spend too much on engineering. Back in the early 2000s I think they believed sales would be higher, but it became obvious that insurmountable buyer attitudes would prevent that, so they did what needed to be done to make it profitable... meaning the truck wasn't really updated for 15 years.

At any rate, the frame might be flexy for whatever reason, but it isn't weak. People abuse and overload the Tundras like crazy and they have a good rep for tolerating it. The flex doesn't hurt offroad ability either as I helps keep tires on the ground. Honestly, I think it's totally fine off road, as I've never gotten any weird sensations from the flex and it seems to ride and handle quite well. On-road I liked it less, but much stiffer digressive shocks were a huge improvement everywhere, IMO.

Regarding "suspension tuning"... Back then I don't think any manufacturers used more than 2 brain cells working 5 minutes to design the suspensions on trucks. Leaf springs to carry whatever load you want to design it for and slap a cheap shock on it. If someone wants use it to haul bigger loads, or actually perform offroad, they'll upgrade it anyway. Keeps the aftermarket in business!

 

[bkg]

From the wiki page on the Tacoma:

"The Tacoma was introduced in the US in February 1995 (with a market launch in March 1995) as a replacement for the Toyota Pickup (which was the name used for the Hilux in the North American market). When comparing with the Hilux, the Tacoma receives engineering with greater priority on ride quality, handling, comfort, and safety over ruggedness and payload capacity. The design intends to better suit the needs of the US and Canadian market, where pickup trucks are used as personal vehicles rather than for commercial, agricultural, and off-road purposes."

It appears that this coincided with design and engineering being done in the US also. It would be interesting to know where those engineers came from, and if they had experience building trucks! Anyway, flexy frames on pickups were the norm back then, and still are on >1 ton domestic pickups and any cab-chassis, so it isn't a weird choice. The payload bit has nothing to do with a flexible chassis, but has everything to do with a soft ride while unloaded. Also, regarding "safety" our US standards require that a frame be able to crumple in an impact, absorbing energy to reduce the G-force on occupants. The older Toyota trucks were notoriously poor at this. Obviously the decisions made to cause crumpling during impact are somewhat at odds with making a frame stiff and light. I expect that the wimpy last few feet of the frames is designed to be the crumple zone for rear impacts... or at least it's a side benefit.

The Tundra in particular is a low volume model, and simple economics will tell you that Toyota can't afford to spend too much on engineering. Back in the early 2000s I think they believed sales would be higher, but it became obvious that insurmountable buyer attitudes would prevent that, so they did what needed to be done to make it profitable... meaning the truck wasn't really updated for 15 years.

At any rate, the frame might be flexy for whatever reason, but it isn't weak. People abuse and overload the Tundras like crazy and they have a good rep for tolerating it. The flex doesn't hurt offroad ability either as I helps keep tires on the ground. Honestly, I think it's totally fine off road, as I've never gotten any weird sensations from the flex and it seems to ride and handle quite well. On-road I liked it less, but much stiffer digressive shocks were a huge improvement everywhere, IMO.

Regarding "suspension tuning"... Back then I don't think any manufacturers used more than 2 brain cells working 5 minutes to design the suspensions on trucks. Leaf springs to carry whatever load you want to design it for and slap a cheap shock on it. If someone wants use it to haul bigger loads, or actually perform offroad, they'll upgrade it anyway. Keeps the aftermarket in business!

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 Toyota responds with “hold my beer!”

 

[plainjaneFJC]

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 other mfg’s… people really need to stop defending Toyota over their poor decisions - it’s just fanboy-ish.

I’ve owned more Toyotas than most people in this thread. I am a fan. But it’s important to not put Toyota in a pedestal.

The previous gen tundra frame does have some legitimate advantages off road over the current model and the advantage of the boxed frame is definitely on road not off road. A YouTube engineering channel has done a few side by side comparisons of the models and the new ones excel on road, previous gen off road, really the lack of an e locker in previous gen is its only shortcoming for off-road.

 

[bkg]

The previous gen tundra frame does have some legitimate advantages off road over the current model and the advantage of the boxed frame is definitely on road not off road. A YouTube engineering channel has done a few side by side comparisons of the models and the new ones excel on road, previous gen off road, really the lack of an e locker in previous gen is its only shortcoming for off-road.

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 thread talking about how important the frame design has been - that is, the frame designs that Toyota used for the Tacoma and tundra only… and that Toyota has since abandoned… about 10 years after most mfg’s and about 25 years after Toyota abandoned their heritage - and now current - frame design.

Excuses.

Edit: how many tacomas have dented cabs because “better off-road”???

How many tundras have cracked/slitting bodies because the body can’t deal with the frame flex?

 

[plainjaneFJC]

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 thread talking about how important the frame design has been - that is, the fram designs that tiyota used for the Tacoma and tundra only… and that toyota has since abandoned… about 10 years after most mfg’s and about 25 years after toyota abandoned their heritage - and now current - frame design.

Excuses.

Edit: how many tacomas have dented cabs because “better offroad”???

How many tundras have cracked/slitting bodies because the body can’t deal with the frame flex?

By off-road I mean a truck with stock suspension or mild lifts- basically 95 percent of trucks off-road. The last gen tundra will keep tires in the ground- front and rear, a lot longer.- Tie rods twice as strong on last gen- new gen lower shock mounts and rear track bar mounts hanging down- narrow frame since it’s a universal architecture means a ton of leverage on sliders.

 

[plainjaneFJC]

I have never heard of a cracked tundra body- I’m sure I can google examples but before you mentioned it I don’t know it was a thing.

 

[bkg]

I have never heard of a cracked tundra body- I’m sure I can google examples but before you mentioned it I don’t know it was a thing.

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.

 

[bkg]

By off-road I mean a truck with stock suspension or mild lifts- basically 95 percent of trucks off-road. The last gen tundra will keep tires in the ground- front and rear, a lot longer.- Tie rods twice as strong on last gen- new gen lower shock mounts and rear track bar mounts hanging down- narrow frame since it’s a universal architecture means a ton of leverage on sliders.

That means nothing until a person goes back to all design considerations. Same front suspension travel? Same sway bars? Same rear suspension travel? Same sway bars? Same wheelbase? Same spring rates? Same tire size? Same tire pressure?

Until all other variables are eliminated, saying that one wheels better because wet noodle frame is misleading at best, a lie at worst.

 

[plainjaneFJC]

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

I assume the crew cab is ok because of the b-pillar?

 

[plainjaneFJC]

That means nothing until a person goes back to all design considerations. Same front suspension travel? Same sway bars? Same rear suspension travel? Same sway bars? Same wheelbase? Same spring rates? Same tire size? Same tire pressure?

Until all other variables are eliminated, saying that one wheels better because wet noodle frame is misleading at best, a lie at worst.

No it’s not- because you have to consider the entire package- it all works together. If you are just laying two bare frames on the floor then yes give me the boxed frame every time, but that’s not the discussion.

 

[bkg]

I assume the crew cab is ok because of the b-pillar?

honestly, I don't know. I would assume more rigidity in the crew cab because of that. IIRC, the frame is "boxed" farther back than the AC as well.

 

[bkg]

No it’s not- because you have to consider the entire package- it all works together. If you are just laying two bare frames on the floor then yes give me the boxed frame every time, but that’s not the discussion.

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.