ProudPony

I be-littled Toyota... FOR NOT DOING THE BEST THEY COULD HAVE DONE, DESPITE THEIR CLAIMS THAT THEY HAD.
THEY CLAIM TO HAVE THE BEST TRUCK AVAILABLE... despite admitting it's shortcoming in the frame.

Ford saw benefit - did it.
GM saw benefit - did it.
Toyota saw benefit - decided to cut a corner, and blame it on a "resulting payload capacity reduction".

Sheesh.

ProudPony

Actually - no, I disagree. You will notice the ride quality on the average road.
Expansion joints, driveway entrances, road crowns when crossing at intersections, etc - there are a lot of places on everyday roads where harsh transitions or "bumps" generate vibration that is channeled into the cab and seats instead of being contained in the suspension and frame.

A healthy frame provides a good "grounding element" into which harmonic vibration and resonances can be funneled and absorbed via a properly designed suspension. Likewise, a good suspension will absorb lots of the unwanted discontinuities of the road and never let them get to the frame or cabin.

You can basically design a frame to hold a 7000lb truck with 2000lbs in the bed and not "twist" or "flex" much if supported on only 3 corners.
You can't do the same for a 30,000lb truck with 80,000lbs of payload distributed over 5 axles, or even 30,000lbs distributed over 2 axles.

Road tractors and box trucks are not designed for ride quality. They are designed for payload. Older road tractors rode so bad, they incorporated an air-ride driver's seat to isolate vibration from the driver. That technology only made it to the axles in the last decade or so commercially.
You don't fetch groceries in a dumptruck, and you don't move dirt with a Pinto. The designs are specifically done and tuned to their intended purpose.

Remember, there is as much persuit of rigidity in unitized bodies as there is in light truck frames. Ride quality IS related directly thereto regardless of the terrain.

96_Camaro_B4C

They still use air ride seats, and rightfully so. Even modern trucks (especially without air ride) will pount the hell out of your kidneys and rattle your teeth (especially the vocational, non-line haul trucks, like a big Mack Granite).

Air ride in the luxo line haul tractors will help some, but air seats are still quite common.

Threxx

Read your past postings about the Tundra frame:
http://web.camaross.com/forums/showp...8&postcount=22
and

http://web.camaross.com/forums/showp...80&postcount=4
The first time you flat out predicted a high rate of Tundra frames failing due to c-channel construction and the second time you implied that there was something wrong with c-channel construction.


Funny... you obviously used to have a problem with the frame itself.

Now you're acting like all you've ever had a problem with is their marketing department making stupid excuses for whatever 'real' reason they decided not to box certain sections of their frame.

Where'd you learn to backpedal like that? Football camp?

ProudPony

Here come the goofy posts - just like I predicted.
I have no time to waste with you.

I'm outta here. Have fun.

Silverado C-10

Not sure why this is still going on and why the accusations are necessary?

I've put it as simply as it can be put. The fully boxed hyrdroformed GM frame is stiffer than the Toyota frame which allows the GM trucks to have TIGHTER panel gaps, a smoother ride, and higher payload because of less flexing.

Is one frame stronger than the other? That's pure speculation. There are too many factors to determine that, and none of us have the testing capabilities to do such. Is one frame more rigid than the other? Absolutely. GM's is.

I think the "big rig" portion of the question was answered well above.

arjainz

Threxx, there's no use discussing the technical stuff and trying to get into the bottom of things. Some people here plainly hates non-GM cars and would do their best to discredit other brands. Just where the hate is coming from, your guess is as good as mine.

Threxx

I was trying to keep it somewhat lighthearted.

You've certainly been known to post some really damn goofy stuff in the midst of an argument, yourself.

Don't make me have to dig that crap up too, because everytime I go to the effort of digging up any evidence to refute your claims, you go on and do stuff like this... say you're done with the discussion, or just don't reply at all.

I think I made it clear enough that despite your claims in this thread you've had a very different approach to this topic in past discussion. You backpedaled. As to why, who knows. I guess we won't be getting an explanation from you judging by your last post.

How convenient.:blah:

Do you have a source for that info? Actual test numbers that you can post?

I'm not saying I don't believe you - in fact despite my lack of evidence I would guess that you are right. However it'd be nice to see where you're coming up with this info so as to pass it on to the guys on the Toyota boards who still say the Tundra has a stiffer and superior frame despite the c-channels.

See, the ironic thing about this whole discussion is I'm actually attempting to gather knowledge/evidence to refute the claims of some pro-Tundra/Toyota people on another board I'm on. But in order to do that I have to treat information here skeptically, for which I'm regarded as being pro Toyota.

It seems despite the educational benefits of a skeptical attitude, some people don't take kindly to them when they're displayed toward the board's favorite brand.

Silverado C-10

My information is compiled over many articles I've read, both pro and con, for both Toyota and GM. Through Toyota's own admissions, the panel gaps on the truck ARE wider than the previous gen Tundra. Toyota "says" it's due to their attmept to make the truck look more "rugged." This is what they would like you to believe. The reality is that when a mfg has wide panel gaps, it's typically due to a chassis or frame that's not stiff enough to support tighter gaps. The previous Tundra had closer gaps because the truck was smaller, lighter, and overall more rigid than the current truck. That's not to say it was better, it's just easier to build a rigid frame for a truck that's ligher with lower towing and payload capacities, according to many sources, the previous Tundra also rode and handled better than the '07, mostly due to it's smaller size.

Through GM's own admissions, the previous Silverado's had poor panel gaps due to a frame that wasn't stiff enough. GM claims their new hydroform frame is stiffer, which allows the tighter panel gaps.

Also, Look at payload capacities, why is the silverado several hundred pounds greater than the tundra?

Am I against the Tundra and it's capabilities? Absolutely not. I'm sure GM is already tearing them down to see what Toyota has done. In additon to my GM trucks I'm also part owner of a Tacoma and Corolla (girlfriend and soon to be fiance's rides).

I wouldn't go arguing with Toyota loyalists. They're even more loyal than the GM or Ford crowd and are usually "right"

Sorry, I can't support my theories without a doubt, but I am a Civil engineer and what I've said makes sense to me and from my readings seems to fit my conclusion.

But like I've said, as far as overall strength, that's totally up in the air. WAY too many variables for that one. I think they're overall very closely matched.

In my opinon, the Silverado has a stiffer frame.

bossco

I could use some of that! It'd make me more famouser than Ron Jeremy!

Uh, okay, maybe wrong forum for that...

Threxx

OK well my general feelings on the subject have led me to guesstimate roughly the same as you have guesstimated, but frame rigidity numbers are not something you can really have an opinion on, and most of your sources are 'soft', at best.

I was hoping for some solid numbers since you were so confidently outright stating it as a fact earlier.

90rocz

Yeah, they still use air-ride seats, and it makes a huge difference! Some HD, or MD trucks don't even use shocks, just rubber dampers and bump-stops. And they do flex, and I guess they'd better.

But it doesn't take an engineer to see that a fully boxed frame is actually 2-"C" frames in mirror image, and should be proportionally stronger(all things else being equal).
But to quantify that it would.
And frame boxing probably allows the frame to be made lighter, w/o giving up any strength.

W/o all the frame specs of both, types of metals used, hardning processes, or some manufacturer test-to-failure data...there's not much discussion, right?
Maybe it's stronger, or maybe they're firing back in the "perception" battle..?

Threxx

Not really - I don't hate GM. In fact right now if I was going shopping for a new half ton, it'd be a GM. Actually probably the Sierra Denali or Chevy Avalanche.

I simply want to ask the questions that nobody else seems to be asking - the ones that question GM's superiority - something that is too often assumed around here by pointing to circumstantial logic.

GTOJack

Whats all the fuss? Any truck with spark plugs and less than 6 wheels is just a toy.

Derek M

F-150 frame vs Tundra....

http://www.pickuptruck.com/html/2007...ges/page3.html