Judoka
Learning To Live
That is incorrect sir! Case in point, the truck which started this thread, my Ram 2500. Fully Boxed Frame, just like all Ram HD Trucks.
Tundra.... Would you switch from a new Ram Powerwagon?
- Thread starter Judoka
- Start date
That is incorrect sir! Case in point, the truck which started this thread, my Ram 2500. Fully Boxed Frame, just like all Ram HD Trucks.
toylandcruiser
Expedition Leader
I said f250 didn't I?
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."
Judoka
Learning To Live
Yes, you referenced an F250. However, if you read your post again you will see that before you referenced an F250, you stated," Look at all heavy duty trucks made, they all have c channel frames." which is not in fact true.
toylandcruiser
Expedition Leader
Oh geez. You're digging guy.
How about this, anything 1.5 ton and above is a c channel.
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."
Last edited:
federalfighter
Observer
Just cant admit when you have made a mistake and own it. Now, lets stay on topic of the thread. This debate can have its own thread so others are not bother with it if they dont want to be.
toylandcruiser
Expedition Leader
I didn't make a mistake. I was implying heavy duty trucks. As in commercial trucks. I was also correct that f250s and above are c channel. And doesn't change the fact that real heavy duty trucks are all c channel , only light duty trucks are boxed frame. You may consider a 1 ton heavy duty but compared to semis, dump trucks, cement trucks, military trucks, etc they are not. So jokes on you.
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
Explorer
We are talking about the Tundra, not commercial trucks 1.5 tons and above which are in a complete different vehicle class. Toyota trucks used to have boxed frames, basically the only difference between the world wide Tacoma and and the U.S. Tacoma is we don't get the stronger boxed frame and rear springs. Even John Hanson mentions it on his evaluation in the thread about the difference in the two. In short Toyota is decontenting their vehicles for the U.S. Market to save a few bucks. Of course you being one of the "Toyota builds the greatest vehicles on earth" afflicted ones will never admit that Toyota is decontenting/cheapening in plain English, their vehicles. This has been proven repeatedly in the automotive press. Even books have been written about it for Petes sake!
Boxed frames are stiffer allowing less torsional frame flex, reduced NVH and thinner material section width with equal or greater strength than C Chanel frames.
The fact that you draw out these threads trying to make your points valid and arguing with people while taking the thread off point, proves you are a sore loser and a troll. Its obvious you have a very high opinion of yourself that others find offensive.
Boxed frames are stiffer allowing less torsional frame flex, reduced NVH and thinner material section width with equal or greater strength than C Chanel frames.
The fact that you draw out these threads trying to make your points valid and arguing with people while taking the thread off point, proves you are a sore loser and a troll. Its obvious you have a very high opinion of yourself that others find offensive.
Judoka
Learning To Live
You know, I like the points here. Ok, so if I am correct, you believe that Toyota is making lesser quality vehicles here for the U.S Market. Does that just translate to the frames and suspension components? If those are the chief compromises I think we need to take into consideration something that both of those components have in common; they weigh a lot. So, cutting weigh by only boxing a portion of the frame, or by putting in lighter duty suspension parts in an attempt to conserve weight might not be a reflection on Toyota's desire to cut costs as much as it may be a reflection upon the effects of EPA Intervention. Everyone across the board has to find ways to improve fuel economy, and unfortunately that is often most easily achieved by lightening the vehicle, and sacrificing quality to some extent.
But what other quality compromises do you notice?
justcuz
Explorer
There is a thread in the Toyota section that discusses the Tacoma and the difference between the worldwide vehicle and the U.S. version. Arguments were made that the worldwide version is a different vehicle. Jonathan said his experience is that they are basically the same vehicle except for the frame differences. His observation was that if you put heavier worldwide springs on a U.S. version it could or did result in frame cracking. Your EPA points are well taken, however I believe it may be more market driven. As you know the rest of the world does not have the equivalent of our full size pickups, so smaller ones (even though they are getting bigger) have to be built to a higher standard. Very few folks in the U.S. use their pickups to their full capacity very often and all manufacturers know this. As for frame boxing, others do it and Japanese mini trucks started the trend years ago. Going away from it could be a cost and weight savings, but if others are boxed, they must have figured a way to overcome the weight penalty. In thinking about this a bit further it may be possible that the interior and comfort features desired by American consumers may impose a weight penalty that Toyota needed to address elsewhere in the vehicle. There again others makers seem to accomplish both.
To wrap this back around to the Tundra, I am impressed with the size of the rear axle housing and running gear on the full size Tundra. The rear bumper is real thin, odd for a truck bumper. I am kind of anal about truck bumpers, I used to work for Fey Bumpers and we supplied aftermarket bumpers to the Japanese import trucks years ago. As far as other decontenting and quality issues, some are to align themselves with the market (Camry specifically) others are EPA weight related and some are just plain money savers for Toyota.
I am retired and usually read a couple automotive trade articles a day, not hobby magazines but trade publications. They all have posted articles that when Toyota decided to displace GM as the largest automotive company in the world, they sacrificed some quality.
Last edited:
toylandcruiser
Expedition Leader
No you're just failing to see the point. That's all it is. Seeing the old boxed frame is stronger than c channel argument is old. My point is, if c channel is so weak why is it that heavy duty trucks use them and not boxed frame? And why is it that light duty trucks use stuff boxed frames. You fanboys of stiff boxed frames can never answer that question. Ford the first one to brag about its super stiff boxed frames and call the tundra week uses flexy c channel in EVERYTHING above a 3/4 ton truck. Why is that? If it's so weak why don't they carry on the box frame above the 1/2 ton truck? But I'm sure you fanboys will beat around the bush and not directly answer the question.
So......
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
Explorer
You have a reading comprehension problem? Reread what I said about boxed frames. Most C Channel commercial truck frames are straight rail frames. This allows mounting of different boxes, fifth wheels and other configurations on commercial chassis easily and economically. Commercial trucks don't care about ride quality, they are a tool and built economically to accomplish a goal. Because of the varied lengths of different commercial truck applications it is not cost effective to build boxed heavy truck frames. Finally because commercial trucks are designed to carry heavy loads, they are stiffly sprung and the C channel chassis flexes purposely to prevent breakage. You going to tell me now Toyota Tundra/Tacoma has C channel frames only in the U.S. because it is a designed in part of the suspension? :coffeedrink:
toylandcruiser
Expedition Leader
You're just beating around the bush is all you're doing
as far as the frame being part of the suspension, well that's what Toyota is saying. They designed the thing you didn't. They may know more than you Here because you're so dense I'll let Toyota explain it. The guy who helped design it
http://youtu.be/GNeLQmE1s0M
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."
moonshiner
Observer
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.
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.
Last edited:
toylandcruiser
Expedition Leader
That's a good post.
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."
Judoka
Learning To Live
Wow! Imagine that. After a bit of a pissing match, (we all new it would happen) we have minds putting together concept and ideas, supported (for the most part) by sound reasoning. Now I am learning what I wanted to learn when I started this thread! Now, frame aside, lets move on to the axles! Chime in guys!