http://www.autoblog.com/2007/03/16/t...ontal-crash-t/

In the link, Toyota said they were expecting a 5 star rating. Dodge, Ford, and GM all apprently have 5 star front crash ratings on their current trucks. Within that article is another link that talks about the higher percentage of non-boxed frame portions on the Tunrda. Even saying that Toyota purposely put C channels in places. Will their be revisions to 08 models to get the 5 stars, maybe more fully boxed sections? I assume Toyota does not want, and can't afford, to have any "marketing" weakness on this truck. It will be interesting to see how it does in side crashes and the offset frontal crash.

Yes it is just a test and real world safety is rarely just like the test, but I assume many average consumers do value those stars. Not trying to promote more Tundra hating. I think Toyota did a good job (minus the interior) on the truck. I just found it interesting that Toyota failed to meet theiw own expectation.

I wonder which domestic manufacturer will be the first to take advantage of their superior crash rating in a commercial? "Some full size trucks come with adequate crash ratings of 3 or 4 stars. You wanted the best, a 5 star rating. Bingo. Superior safety is standard on the new 2007 Chevrolet Silverado/Ford F-150/Dodge Ram."

 

I think many give this new Tundra more credit than it deserves. Its easy to sit back and take joy on every issue Toyota has with the truck but remember this is probably their first real full size truck. The last Tundra wasn't really in the running. So while we all expect Toyota to make a near perfect vehicle when it comes to full size trucks they are still learning.

 

Maybe they engineered it for the IIHS test.

 

Be careful how you comment on the boxed frame (or lack thereof).
Some people on this site will point out that Ford and GM just went to fully-boxed hydroformed frames recently, so there must not be anything wrong with a C-shaped frame.

I think you know where I stand.

 

In the world of engineering, you design a product to meet the desired attributes that you need at the lowest cost. If c-channels can be used, and still give you the performance requirments, then I have no problem with that. You can over design anything.

Toyota looks to have skimped a little to much in this case though. I'm sure they will take care of it in the future, since crash rating status is HUGE for advertising youself vs the competition.

Toyota is marketing the heck out of this new truck, and to stub their toe like this is a big deal. Some engineers are sweating right now, I can gaurantee that.

I'm not a Toyota fan-boy, and must say that I hope this pushes higher sales of the GM/Ford trucks.

Dan

 

Management material if I've ever seen it!

Boy, you are GOING places!!!

You just need to change the word "engineering" to "manufacturing", and you are all set!

 

Yeah because Toyota never advertised or classified the last Tundra as fullsize.

 

You have to admit there isn't a manufacturer out there that doesn't have a marketing department that isn't guilty of advertising a vehicle of theirs that they and everyone else with any clue realizes is a wannabe/substandard vehicle.

The Tundra was regarded as 3/4 of a full size - not compact but not full sized. They still advertised it as full sized and it worked well because... let's be honest... most people that are buying full sized trucks today would actually be just as capable of their daily routine in a compact, but they want a full size so that they can enjoy the benefits of the virtual ***** extension it provides.

Company comes along and markets a more road/home friendly 3/4 size truck but tries to make people believe it's rough and tough enough to compete with the big boys and, well, that's marketing for you.

 

Sure that is the marketing people's jobs. Good luck to them for it. And right now it is Honda doing it with the Ridgeline moreso than ANY marketing group.

True but the fact remains that Toyota (by their own admission) has produced a 'fullsize' truck before so the new Tundra is their 2nd attempt, I am not getting into the T100s because frankly I know almost nothing about them more than they existed.

 

My point was that this Tundra more than other trucks previously produced is directed squarly at the full size segment. Toyota just tested the water with the last Tundra and Tacoma. In doing so they touted the last Tundra as full size probably to see if they could. Don't get me wrong I'm glad they are having growing pains with the new Tundra but make no mistake this truck is a departure from what Toyota has done before. I just saw C&D where the Silverado beat out the Titan and Tundra with the Ram and F150 far behind.

I'm just taking notice of Toyota learing this full size truck segment and seeing how they react. Its like watching them in NASCAR w/o the jet fuel....

 

I don't quite understand the point of this post. If you design a product to meet the desired attributes that you need at the lowest cost, it's called GOOD DESIGN.

If another company can make a similar product with the same attributes for lower cost it means that your design is inefficient and that you'll soon be out of business if you don't do something about it.

I think you've confused lowest cost for "cheap crap".

 

GM you listening to this..jump on it.

 

OK, out of the gate, I have to say common sense must prevail. Don't for a minute think that any engineer just throws cost out the window. It's always in the back of your mind, but it is NOT the only criteria at play in engineering something that people's lives are dependent on. (not to the engineer anyways... a bean-counter is a different story.)

I strive to design my machines to last, not for the minimum required lifecycle, but 2 to 4 times that. As they get beat on with hammers, hit with tow motors, bumped with skids, cranes dropping parts on them and other non-intended uses, it is virtually impossible to make something that guys in the plant can't tear-up.

Likewise, my buddies at GM's Janesville Plant have shared stories about how equipment gets treated in the assembly line - same as mine.
Engineers and designers of cars and drivelines (if they are worth a sh1+ or a donut) will design the system to exceed the expected use by a good margin, typically 1.5 to 2.0 : 1 which is called our "safety factor". This is for safety (as the name implies) and also brings to the party reduced warranty claims, extended life, perceived quality, and long-term durability - all things that are typically lauded and praised by owners and companies like JD Power, and they actually bring BRAND EQUITY to the product... a value in and of itself.

HOWEVER - this concept of safety factors somehow leaked out of engineering departments and was "discovered" by accounting. Ever since that fateful day, accounting has lobbied the front management to cut cost out of the vehicles and the first place they want to go for it is in the design. Does that 7ga steel really need to be that thick? Why not use 12 ga steel instead? Do we really need 6 rivets in that joint, can't we use 4? Etc, etc, etc.

Honestly, I have yet to meet an engineer that REALLY wants to design something with the goals of barely meeting required performance and minimized cost... it recons too closely with the old planned obsolescence theory of "make it as cheaply as possible and have it work for 4 years then fall apart".
A true engineer will put SAFETY first in their design, then accomplishing the required tasks, then review the factor of safety, then cost.
You need look no further than NASA for examples of this publicly, but it runs rampant throughout industry as well - I fight it every day.

So my comments were intended to show that this guy exhibits the traits of a great manager... design it with cost as a primary (if not the main) driver. Sounds like my boss in fact.
I would like to change his comment though - based on my experiences in industry - to reflect that production or manufaturing management are the ones always wanting to cut a penny from a design, not so much the engineering group as was indicated. You'll find engineers are FAR more willing to SPEND the extra penny to have a part or design that will last longer, do it better, etc. I wager that other engineers that frequent this site will tend to agree with me on this too.

 

That last gen Tundra is no Ford Ranger, Toyota has experience with full size, just not with 2500 full size.

 

You're right - no one wants to design things with cost in mind, but trust me, every safety-critical component in a vehicle was designed to be as inexpensive as possible while still meeting the minimum performance requirements. Now, this tends to be done rather successfully, as evidenced by the amazing low number of accidents that are due to equipment failure (and this is the result of those "minimum performance requirements" being pretty damn rigorous - typically well beyond what any sane person would put their vehicle through in normal use). Regardless, I assure you that even the fanciest X-by-wire system on a modern vehicle had every penny squeezed out of it by the time it made it to the assembly line. There's actually a compelling argument for doing this - the cheaper one can make a safety-related component, the more end customers that can afford the product - thus maximizing the benefit to society.