Tundra.... Would you switch from a new Ram Powerwagon?

[justcuz]

Pretty much everything I said was reiterated by moonshiner.

 

[moonshiner]

Pretty much everything I said was reiterated by moonshiner.

Hmm...I don't remember saying anything about Toyota using a cheaper weaker frame for US vehicles. The Tundra's frame has less torsional stiffness than a boxed section frame but it is not weaker or cheaper. And the difference in torsional stiffness between a boxed section and c-channel frame is very small compared to the difference in torsional stiffness between a boxed section frame and a unibody.

 

[Doc_]

Hello everyone. I was just surfing this thread and thought that I'd chime in give my 2 cents.

A lot people tend to confuse stiffness and strength. They are related but not the same. For example, a soda can is very stiff for it's weight, but would you call it "strong"? On the other hand, a piece of rebar (let's say a 2 foot length of #3 bar) is heavy but can be flexed by your bare hands, would you consider it "weak"?

If you want torsional stiffness, a unibody has ANY body on frame beat by a mile and a half in a one mile race. I recall reading somewhere when the Ridgeline debut that Honda claimed it is 20 times stiffer in torsion than the best BOF compact pickup currently on the market and 2.5 times stiffer in bending. And I have no reason to doubt that claim. Unibodies are just naturally stiffer than BOF. But stiffness does not equal strength. And strength to me is robustness, or the ability to handle a wide range of loading scenarios, the ability to be pushed a little too hard beyond it's intended design, including overloading without yielding. That robustness actually comes from a BOF ability to flex and that thick frame absorbing a majority of the loading instead of passing it onto the sheet metal body as is the case in a unibody.

That same reasoning can be used in the boxed section vs c-channel frame. A boxed section frame is stiffer in torsion. That's basic mechanics of material. But is a boxed section frame stronger, more robust? The answer is probably not, if all things being equal. Yes, it's stiffer in torsion but about the same or even less in bending. The extra flex inherent in a c-channel frame is actually preferred in the heavy haul industry from a durability stand point because dynamic loading is not so much about the magnitude of the dynamic force but more about the magnitude of the dynamic displacement. Being able to flex without yielding is good that's why the RAM 4500 and 5500 uses a c-channel frame and riveted cross members instead welded cross members. The ability to easily upfit a c-channel is another plus, but boxed section frames can be upfit without much trouble too. Both types are frame are good for their intended purpose, but each has as many pros and cons as the other. Saying one is better than the other would be a lacking of discernment.

In terms of NVH, it really comes down to the tuning of the bushings and suspenion and the body construction than the design choice of the chassis.

Well said.


When the chips are down, comparing a RAM to a Tundra is like comparing chocolate to vanilla ice cream: I'd like two scoops of each, please. They're both very good trucks, and the Tundra is more than adequate for the majority of what people do with them; but the RAM has so much overkill going on that when it comes down to an apples-to-apples comparison, the RAM will edge out in toughness and working torque. I would not make the switch.

I sometimes feel that Toyota took a misstep with the second-gen Tundra, the first-gen was just as rugged and comparable to what it was up against on the market, but it still was sized-down enough to be practical and streetable. The second-gen is just so bulky and exaggerated, it took a double dose of the whole "man-truck machismo" thing that's been going on, and lost some of its practicality in the process.

 

[toylandcruiser]

Well said.


When the chips are down, comparing a RAM to a Tundra is like comparing chocolate to vanilla ice cream: I'd like two scoops of each, please. They're both very good trucks, and the Tundra is more than adequate for the majority of what people do with them; but the RAM has so much overkill going on that when it comes down to an apples-to-apples comparison, the RAM will edge out in toughness and working torque. I would not make the switch.

I sometimes feel that Toyota took a misstep with the second-gen Tundra, the first-gen was just as rugged and comparable to what it was up against on the market, but it still was sized-down enough to be practical and streetable. The second-gen is just so bulky and exaggerated, it took a double dose of the whole "man-truck machismo" thing that's been going on, and lost some of its practicality in the process.

Axle the size of a 14 bolt on a half ton, wheel bearings bigger than a super duty on a half ton and a 6 bolt main engine isn't strong enough for you? Well to each his own.


The following is a signature.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

 

[Doc_]

Axle the size of a 14 bolt on a half ton, wheel bearings bigger than a super duty on a half ton and a 6 bolt main engine isn't strong enough for you? Well to each his own.


The following is a signature.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

I never said any of that. I like what both trucks offer, but I wouldn't make the switch.

 

[toylandcruiser]

I never said any of that. I like what both trucks offer, but I wouldn't make the switch.

You did say the ram is overkill. Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by overkill. Good luck with your truck


The following is a signature.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

 

[Doc_]

You did say the ram is overkill. Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by overkill. Good luck with your truck


The following is a signature.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Overkill can be a good thing!
My personal motto is: "There's no kill like overkill!"

Thanks!

 

[Utah KJ]

with the Toyota, you have to worry about Chinese hackers taking over your truck... oh wait...

 

[Littlehouse]

Axle the size of a 14 bolt on a half ton, wheel bearings bigger than a super duty on a half ton and a 6 bolt main engine isn't strong enough for you? Well to each his own.


The following is a signature.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

How strong is the front diff?

 

[Doc_]

How strong is the front diff?

On solid-axle RAMs I believe it's the same diff as the rear. The AAM units in these trucks make the D60\70 and 14-bolt axles of the wheeling world seem puny and brittle.

The only axle issue I've read about with these trucks is that the fronts can bow a bit with high-speed impacts, but there are truss kits out there to bulk 'em up.

I'm not familiar with the IFS units for 1/2 ton trucks, but anything's better than GM's IFS.

 

[justcuz]

Hmm...I don't remember saying anything about Toyota using a cheaper weaker frame for US vehicles. The Tundra's frame has less torsional stiffness than a boxed section frame but it is not weaker or cheaper. And the difference in torsional stiffness between a boxed section and c-channel frame is very small compared to the difference in torsional stiffness between a boxed section frame and a unibody.

True but we are not comparing unibody trucks here. I agree with your statements about unibody being stiffer by virtue of its construction. But NVH on unibody is horrible compared to body on frame construction, especially on vehicles with suspension attached directly to the structure with no subframes. I rode in a BMW SUV the other day and it's road noise was very pronounced compared to my daughters Tahoe. Other unibody SUVs I have ridden in suffer the same issues to a greater or lesser degree.
The boxed frames are used to improve NVH in light duty trucks because U.S. Consumers are demanding more car like attributes in their trucks. The frame comments you made are pretty much what I said only in more technical terms.

 

[toylandcruiser]

True but we are not comparing unibody trucks here. I agree with your statements about unibody being stiffer by virtue of its construction. But NVH on unibody is horrible compared to body on frame construction, especially on vehicles with suspension attached directly to the structure with no subframes. I rode in a BMW SUV the other day and it's road noise was very pronounced compared to my daughters Tahoe. Other unibody SUVs I have ridden in suffer the same issues to a greater or lesser degree.
The boxed frames are used to improve NVH in light duty trucks because U.S. Consumers are demanding more car like attributes in their trucks. The frame comments you made are pretty much what I said only in more technical terms.

No. You were saying that c channels are weaker than boxed. That's not what he said. He said the opposite.
Yo associate ridged frames with strength. Which it's not. It's just more rigid. You dislike tundras because they don't have a boxed frame while all domestic utilize a boxed frame. What ive been trying to explain and what moon said is boxed frames are not stronger.


The following is a signature.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

 

[toylandcruiser]

How strong is the front diff?

The only thing I could find was its an 8.7" front.


The following is a signature.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

 

[justcuz]

He even said boxed frames are stronger in torsion and went on to explain that unibody is stronger still. My point is Toyota moved away from fully boxed frames which they had for years and still use in other markets. The competition uses fully boxed frames on their 1/2 ton trucks and moved away from c channel frames. Why does Toyota still use a boxed frame in every market but here in a Tacoma? I think I covered it, but you refuse to accept anything but your version of the truth.
I'll give the Tundra this; its V8 model has the largest rear axles in the 1/2 ton field (10.5 in ring gear, 1.47 diameter axles with 36 splines) and possibly the biggest IFS center section at 8.7 in which I know is bigger than GMs 8.25, but need to check Ford and Dodge.
Oh and for the record its you I don't like, not the Tundra. Your childish desire to twist any subject around to try to win any argument is pretty much a thread killer. You should become a politician, they believe all there own B S too.

 

[Judoka]

Well, the rear axle of the Tundra qualifies as "Overkill" in my opinion; which is great. But, how strong is the front axle for an Overlanding application? Hauling a heavy load across often rugged and unstable terrain basically.