- Joined
- Nov 27, 2015
- Messages
- 806
You’d rather have a truck that won’t move? Okay…I'd rather have that issue then a weak built 4WD system.

You’d rather have a truck that won’t move? Okay…I'd rather have that issue then a weak built 4WD system.
That was a different truck. The only thing that’s still the same is the name of the manufacturer, and I say that as someone who owned four 4x4 Toyota trucks from 1981 until 2004.Very disappointing for a truck known for its legendary durability.
The explanation given was because it was so slippery at every wheel the torque management system sent all the torque it could forward at just the wrong time when the front wheels didn't have any traction either and then the traction control clamped down on the brakes to prevent wheel slip that exceeded the maximum torque. The chief engineer claimed the fact they were on ice was contributory as it essentially meant there were no frictional losses reducing torque at the wheels and he went as far as saying this would not have happened on sand or dirt. At least that's his story.Slippery surface should not be factor in this failure.
The broken ADD yes, but I did not see anything posted about the chief engineer's explanation of the event.Was this issue not posted already??
Isn't this similar in functionality to the vacuum operated axle disconnect on the Super Duty?It wasn't the "Differential" (Ie: the ring and pinion or spider gears) that failed. It was the sleeve that engages and disengages drive (which IS designed as a fusible link) in the A.D.D. (Automatic Disconnecting Differential) portion of the assembly. That part (and maybe more) are under-designed for the torque capable of being produced.
The Engineer basically said that the traction control system applied the brake to the individual spinning wheels so well, that the amount of torque sent to one wheel through the A.D.D. engagement sleeve, exceeded it's torque capacity, and the sleeve failed. So the fix is to limit how hard each brake can be applied, thus limiting the potential of excessive torque going to one wheel. Which also limits how effective the traction control will be.
I'd personally like to see them strengthen the parts to comfortably handle the torque load in the drivetrain. Of course that would add weight, and potentially negatively effect fuel economy...
Isn't this similar in functionality to the vacuum operated axle disconnect on the Super Duty?
I agree with you, they should have sized the parts properly for the application, as it really sounds like they've gone right on the margin with the expectation that the software will save them (and the money required to make it more robust).
Oh boy. Wait until they realize ice is pretty regular in CO and other states. IMO, absolute BS driven by marketing concerns.The explanation given was because it was so slippery at every wheel the torque management system sent all the torque it could forward at just the wrong time when the front wheels didn't have any traction either and then the traction control clamped down on the brakes to prevent wheel slip that exceeded the maximum torque. The chief engineer claimed the fact they were on ice was contributory as it essentially meant there were no frictional losses reducing torque at the wheels and he went as far as saying this would not have happened on sand or dirt. At least that's his story.
They will do software “fix.”Isn't this similar in functionality to the vacuum operated axle disconnect on the Super Duty?
I agree with you, they should have sized the parts properly for the application, as it really sounds like they've gone right on the margin with the expectation that the software will save them (and the money required to make it more robust).
Well, they have a software fix that was already developed for the higher-torque hybrid. Not sure how it will affect drivability but who cares, I don't plan on owning one.Oh boy. Wait until they realize ice is pretty regular in CO and other states. IMO, absolute BS driven by marketing concerns.
This will be like transmissions on Highlander and Sienna AWD. Quietly fix issue without recall, which is their modus operandi.
Interesting response.
If I’m double locked in 4Lo - that computer can take a nap -I saw that video a few days ago. I think he inadvertently tried to go into 1st gear, and oversped the released clutch, causing it to scatter. At least without seeing the truck for myself, that would make sense.
Interesting response.
I saw that video a few days ago. I think he inadvertently tried to go into 1st gear, and oversped the released clutch, causing it to scatter. At least without seeing the truck for myself, that would make sense.
no, would buy a Toyota Hilux from that time eraThat was a different truck. The only thing that’s still the same is the name of the manufacturer, and I say that as someone who owned four 4x4 Toyota trucks from 1981 until 2004.
Were I in the market for a ‘compact’ truck today I would buy the Nissan.