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

[toylandcruiser]

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.

Yea I really don't care if you like me or not. My life doesn't revolve around whether or not Justcuz on expedition portal likes me. Once again. The tundra frame is not weak. More rigid is just that rigid. Not stronger. But I guess you can't comprehend that. You obviously didn't watch the video of the engineer who help dragon the truck explain why they use c channel. Box frame is just a marketing ploy that Toyota desires not to participate in. That's it. I think if they were so worried about a c channel they would have changed it after 8 years of manufacturing that way. Who knows maybe because of guys like you that are crying about the frame, they may change it in the next model year. That's funny. I never said any personal attacks against you. The only thing I said was dense. But hey, if that's how you debate, that's how you debate I guess. It's funny, after you tried to claim moon agreed with you and he responded that he didn't agree with you. You still are trying to push that you were right all along.


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]

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.

As pointed out its a good size. I tried a quick google search and could not find anything about how reliable they have been. It will at least on par with anything domestic. As long as you're not going on an expedition with a snow plow on the front, I think it'll be ok.


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."

 

[Stoffregen Motorsports]

I don't know if I've posted on this topic or not, but there's no way on earth I would get out of a Power Wagon and into a Tundra. Would I like a Tundra? Absolutely, but I don't see how they would even compare.

It would be like comparing an axe to an electric chainsaw.

 

[justcuz]

The Tundra forum has a thread about rear axle issues. It seems to be the outer wheel bearings having an issue.
From what I have read they are a sealed bearing that is not lubed by gear oil running out to the axle ends.
As I understand from reading the thread the ABS sensors are in the bearing. I am pretty sure I am interpreting this right, but you can search "Tundra rear axle" and the thread will be on the Tundra forums. It starts as a noise or rumble from the rear axle as reported by the posters. It sounds like this may be limited to the 10.5 axles. V6 Tundras have the 9.5 axle and I did not see that mentioned. It looks like you can no longer get a V6 Tundra, the 4.6 V8 is now the smallest engine and I am not sure what rear axle it uses. I can look it up though.

 

[Judoka]

I honestly will not even start to debate or question the rear axle of ANY Toyota. I have seen those things beat to snot on rock crawlers and they are bombproof! So, say what you want , but you will never change my mind about a Toyota solid axle. I am more concerned about the front assembly. Sure they have huge wheel bearings, but how durable are they when hauling a heavy load through a rock garden or through deep mud riddled with tree roots? GM IFS was mentioned earlier, and that is the only experience I have with IFS. I separated a half shaft on a 1 ton truck I had while driving up a steep hill with some rock ledges. I had driven that hill dozens of times in my Jeep without any trouble at all, but the truck busted bad! Since then I have been very against IFS.

 

[Doc_]

The Tundra forum has a thread about rear axle issues. It seems to be the outer wheel bearings having an issue.
From what I have read they are a sealed bearing that is not lubed by gear oil running out to the axle ends.
As I understand from reading the thread the ABS sensors are in the bearing. I am pretty sure I am interpreting this right, but you can search "Tundra rear axle" and the thread will be on the Tundra forums. It starts as a noise or rumble from the rear axle as reported by the posters. It sounds like this may be limited to the 10.5 axles. V6 Tundras have the 9.5 axle and I did not see that mentioned. It looks like you can no longer get a V6 Tundra, the 4.6 V8 is now the smallest engine and I am not sure what rear axle it uses. I can look it up though.

I'm not sure that you want axle oil getting into wheel bearings on any make of axle. Diff oil helps cool and lube the diff and inners, but you want really thick, packable grease in the bearings, like moly. Usually gear oil access to the bearings is a sign of a blown bearing seal. At the very least, the thinner diff oil wouldn't be able to handle the heat and friction of the wheel bearings and possibly allow road grit and debris into the diff causing wear and failure.

 

[Arktikos]

To make this a little more interesting, ... I am not mechanically inclined really, so Durability and Dependability in remote rugged terrain are paramount.

One and the same, from my point of view. You don't want it to break down. Obviously Toyota gets the nod in this category. That said, not sure I would make the trade. Besides, both of those trucks are way too big, IMO.
The local auto shop teacher set out on a family road trip with his brand new, gi normous Dodge Ram last summer, only to have it break down just inside Canada. It was a computer problem, not repairable without a new computer. The company paid for the part, but none of his other expenses related to the fiasco. Needless to say, he will never buy Dodge again.

 

[justcuz]

I think all factory IFS drive systems have their limitations. Given the complexity and number of parts vs a solid axle, any factory IFS drive system will be more prone to breakage. Can a relatively unbreakable IFS system be built, yes it can, but no manufacturer is going to invest the costs to build it. Most consumers will never use their vehicle in tough enough terrain to justify the factories investment.
The Power Wagon remains solid axle for the same reason Jeep Wrangler owners want them. Simple, uncomplicated, rugged running gear, that can be easily modified. Dodge or Ram (they will always be Dodge trucks to me) even simplified the front suspension on the new models and went from a 5 link to a 3 link front suspension.
The new suspension is very reminiscent of the old Ford Mono Bean front suspension used on the old F100/150's.
It has 2 radius arms from the axle to the chassis with a track bar to keep the axle centered. The radius arms are longer than the previous links and Dodge/Ram is claiming better articulation with the newer setup.

 

[justcuz]

U

I'm not sure that you want axle oil getting into wheel bearings on any make of axle. Diff oil helps cool and lube the diff and inners, but you want really thick, packable grease in the bearings, like moly. Usually gear oil access to the bearings is a sign of a blown bearing seal. At the very least, the thinner diff oil wouldn't be able to handle the heat and friction of the wheel bearings and possibly allow road grit and debris into the diff causing wear and failure.

Doc,
Most semi float rear axles actually do lube the bearing with gear oil that is carried out the axles to the bearings. The seals at the end of the axle tubes hold the oil in. Many full float axles are the same way, thats why when you pull the axle you get a little gear oil drainage. Usually gear oil on the brakes or dripping out of the backing plate are signs of seal leakage.
On front drive axles your statements are correct since the seals are at the carrier end of the tube and the back side of the knuckle. However with unit bearings being predominantly used on front axles now, they are sealed and not serviceable like the older style front full floating 2 bearing hubs. This is where you use your moly grease or blue waterproof boat bearing grease.
This is why I thought it was strange that the Tundra used sealed bearings at the axle ends, because they don't have a constant source of oil to cool and lube the bearings.
According to what I read the 10.5 rear axle is made by Hino which is Toyotas heavy truck division. It would be cool if they made it a full floater rear axle like the older 80 series Land Cruiser. Hmm I wonder if Land Cruiser hubs would bolt to that axle flange?
I also believe the front of the Power Wagon is a 9.25 AAM front axle, I think a Dana 60 has a 9.75" ring gear. The same 9.25 is actually used in the front of GM 2500 IFS but in a different carrier, obviously. I believe the big rear axle your thinking about is the 11.5 rear axle used in diesels by Dodge and GM and yes it is huge, but its not used in the gas powered Power Wagon. I am pretty sure that the Power Wagon uses a 10.5 AAM full floater rear axle. You know that the AAM 10.5 rear axle is the same as a GM 14 bolt full floater right? When GM sold off its axle division AAM bought it, so most rear axles in 2500 and 3500 Dodge and GM trucks are the same. Given the same size ring gear between the Power Wagon and the Tundra, the full floater will always be a stronger rear axle. The hub and 2 bearings carry the weight in a full floater and the axle just drives the wheels. A semi floater rear axle only has one bearing and the axle and that one bearing carry the weight and drive the wheels.
Edit: Although the GM 14 bolt is now manufactured by AAM, it appears there is a 10.5" Dodge specific rear axle according to West Coast Differentials. I'll report back on this.
Edit:#2 It appears AAM makes 2 10.5" rear axles, the GM style and the Dodge style which has a Dana 60 style pinion. The 11.5 diesel axle however looks like the part numbers are the same for Dodge and GM. Well learned something new today!

 

[Judoka]

I think all factory IFS drive systems have their limitations. Given the complexity and number of parts vs a solid axle, any factory IFS drive system will be more prone to breakage. Can a relatively unbreakable IFS system be built, yes it can, but no manufacturer is going to invest the costs to build it. Most consumers will never use their vehicle in tough enough terrain to justify the factories investment.
The Power Wagon remains solid axle for the same reason Jeep Wrangler owners want them. Simple, uncomplicated, rugged running gear, that can be easily modified. Dodge or Ram (they will always be Dodge trucks to me) even simplified the front suspension on the new models and went from a 5 link to a 3 link front suspension.
The new suspension is very reminiscent of the old Ford Mono Bean front suspension used on the old F100/150's.
It has 2 radius arms from the axle to the chassis with a track bar to keep the axle centered. The radius arms are longer than the previous links and Dodge/Ram is claiming better articulation with the newer setup.

I can attest to the improved articulation! I have put this truck through places that White Knuckle my Jeepin' buddies! Seriously it is a robust truck.

However, computer issues are just a crippling as snapped axle shafts...more so sometimes.

 

[justcuz]

I can attest to the improved articulation! I have put this truck through places that White Knuckle my Jeepin' buddies! Seriously it is a robust truck.

However, computer issues are just a crippling as snapped axle shafts...more so sometimes.

I think computer issues are worse! Most of the time with a snapped axle shaft you can get off the trail and maybe even home. Computer issues are another bag of snakes all together.

 

[87GMCJimmy]

I own a 2012 Power Wagon and LOVE it!!!! I have ridden in a new Tundra and was simply not impressed; though the ride was okay, the ergonomics and interior layout are hideous to me. (beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I know, LOL!) I don't honestly know how the new Tundra does offroad but, looking at it over and under, I really doubt it would do anywhere near as well as a Power Wagon. Also, you cannot fit as generous of a tire size with minimal lift on a Tundra as a Power Wagon my Power Wagon is on a 3" Carli suspension (just under 2" of lift vs where it sat stock since the Power Wagon sits higher than a regular 2500 stock) and runs 37x12.50R17 Nitto Trail Grapplers on stock wheels. The ONLY thing I like better about the Tundra vs the Power Wagon is how the whole rear window of the Tundra rolls down, that is really neat! (but, not enough to make me even remotely think of buying a Tundra vs my Power Wagon) On a side note- no, I am not brand biased, the Power Wagon is actually the first Dodge I ever bought! (okay, yeah, they call them Rams now but, there are still Dodge logos on/in it)

If I were you, I would simply build your current 2014 2500 Ram (I think I recall reading that is your current rig???) into a Power Wagon-
Carli supsension 3" lift (it is different for a 2014+ than the Carli 3" lift I have on my 2012 but, they make a great product!)
ARB lockers front and rear with 4.88 gears (rather than the 4.56 gears in my 2012 or the 4.10 gears in the 2014+ Power Wagons)
The front bumper of your choice with a 12K+ lb capacity winch
Some custom made skidplates
Then, you have almost the same setup as a Power Wagon, lacking not but 3 things:
1) Limited slip rearend (when not locked)- depending on your outlook on this, the lack of a permanent limited slip can be a plus or a minus
2) Electronic disconnect swaybar- yeah, it will be a PITA to go under the truck and disconnect the swaybar ends manually and tie them out of the way (when you need more flex) but, it's really not that bad, I did it all the time with my ZJ and, not having the electronic swaybar disconnect eliminates the Achille's Heel electrical gremlin of the Power Wagon.
3) It's not a Power Wagon- so, you can't legitimately run the sweet tailgate badge, BOO-HOO!!! (LOL!)

 

[Doc_]

U
Doc,
Most semi float rear axles actually do lube the bearing with gear oil that is carried out the axles to the bearings. The seals at the end of the axle tubes hold the oil in. Many full float axles are the same way, thats why when you pull the axle you get a little gear oil drainage. Usually gear oil on the brakes or dripping out of the backing plate are signs of seal leakage.
On front drive axles your statements are correct since the seals are at the carrier end of the tube and the back side of the knuckle. However with unit bearings being predominantly used on front axles now, they are sealed and not serviceable like the older style front full floating 2 bearing hubs. This is where you use your moly grease or blue waterproof boat bearing grease.
This is why I thought it was strange that the Tundra used sealed bearings at the axle ends, because they don't have a constant source of oil to cool and lube the bearings.
According to what I read the 10.5 rear axle is made by Hino which is Toyotas heavy truck division. It would be cool if they made it a full floater rear axle like the older 80 series Land Cruiser. Hmm I wonder if Land Cruiser hubs would bolt to that axle flange?
I also believe the front of the Power Wagon is a 9.25 AAM front axle, I think a Dana 60 has a 9.75" ring gear. The same 9.25 is actually used in the front of GM 2500 IFS but in a different carrier, obviously. I believe the big rear axle your thinking about is the 11.5 rear axle used in diesels by Dodge and GM and yes it is huge, but its not used in the gas powered Power Wagon. I am pretty sure that the Power Wagon uses a 10.5 AAM full floater rear axle. You know that the AAM 10.5 rear axle is the same as a GM 14 bolt full floater right? When GM sold off its axle division AAM bought it, so most rear axles in 2500 and 3500 Dodge and GM trucks are the same. Given the same size ring gear between the Power Wagon and the Tundra, the full floater will always be a stronger rear axle. The hub and 2 bearings carry the weight in a full floater and the axle just drives the wheels. A semi floater rear axle only has one bearing and the axle and that one bearing carry the weight and drive the wheels.
Edit: Although the GM 14 bolt is now manufactured by AAM, it appears there is a 10.5" Dodge specific rear axle according to West Coast Differentials. I'll report back on this.
Edit:#2 It appears AAM makes 2 10.5" rear axles, the GM style and the Dodge style which has a Dana 60 style pinion. The 11.5 diesel axle however looks like the part numbers are the same for Dodge and GM. Well learned something new today!

Thanks, that's interesting info.
AAM kind of pulled an Athena and cropped up out of nowhere, it's nice to know some of the logistics that's behind their hardware.

 

[jham]

If you would like some insight into the reputation of reliability of Toyota as a whole, come visit me in Uganda. 80% of the vehicles on the road (and on the "not roads") are Toyotas and for good reason. I've also studied Toyota's production process in detail for an MBA. I realize different products will have different "defects per million" but I can't imagine Toyota cranking out a product that is so comprehensively inferior to another.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Judoka]

If you would like some insight into the reputation of reliability of Toyota as a whole, come visit me in Uganda. 80% of the vehicles on the road (and on the "not roads") are Toyotas and for good reason. I've also studied Toyota's production process in detail for an MBA. I realize different products will have different "defects per million" but I can't imagine Toyota cranking out a product that is so comprehensively inferior to another.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

True. You have to respect a company that empowers each of their employees to pull a cord and stop production to fix a defect immediately at the root, rather then send it off to a bullpen to fix later.