Once you turn the nannies off onthe Toyota it is easy to drive it at the limit and steer it with the throttle just like an old Porsche 911. The interior is deifnately better ont he Tundra and Ford would be my second choice for interior comfort and placement of controls.I do not care for the apperance of either the tundra or F150 interior but can not fualt the fit finish or materials. The Chevy has the best looking interior but it feels cheap and is not as intuitive in my opion.The flexing in the box area is not a huge issue for load carring capacity but it could lead to long term NVH issues.If they stop the flexing before it makes it to the cabin area their is hope of a tight quite ride. The obvious problem is body panel fit issues long term.
Chevy vs Toyota vs Ford--silver creek test track
- Thread starter 97tbird
- Start date
- Status
All that proves to me is that the Ford looks to have underdamped suspension when carrying a load. Put full payload capacity in the beds and run the same test...I put little value in that test...although it did look cool!
That's my biggest problem with this test, too. Trucks are built to be able to carry a load. When you stiffen up a suspension to be able to do that, you're naturally going to lose some controllability when the truck is unloaded. Also, as others pointed out, who in their right mind would drive that fast over such a surface? IMO, the only thing you can really interpret from that is how the body reacts to the rough treatment.
I always like Chrysler products interiors the best. GM has a nice truck IMO. F-150s around here are selling for the giveaway price of $12,995. I would buy based on price and go with Ford.
I have a 07 Silverado with the v-max engine and just love the truck. I looked at Chevy, Ford, Dodge, and Toyota and the Chevy was the one for me. I had a Dodge for 7 years and the Silverado is much better than the Ram. I almost got the Toyota but found a better deal with the Chevy. IMHO the Ford was the worst of the group as far as comfort and performance. I do not drive a lot of miles with my truck and do not use it for work.
As far as the test goes I don`t put much belief in those kind of tests. For example, run the trucks at different speeds and see what happens. Maybe the Ford does best at 28 mph but looks like ____ at 33 mph. And who`s to say that flex is a bad thing going over a rough surface at that speed? If the truck doesn`t flex it might be more likely to break over a period of time.
As far as the test goes I don`t put much belief in those kind of tests. For example, run the trucks at different speeds and see what happens. Maybe the Ford does best at 28 mph but looks like ____ at 33 mph. And who`s to say that flex is a bad thing going over a rough surface at that speed? If the truck doesn`t flex it might be more likely to break over a period of time.
"Besides showing bed flexing and suspension articulation that test doesn't mean anything to real work situations."
You can perform a test hitting a bump / hole once in awhile, and take a long time to do the test, or hit a bunch of bumps / holes in a short period to see what breaks. 'Testing to failure' is common, you just need to determine if making a product passing the test results in a better product for the customer, or just a more expensive one. If the axles / tires on all three trucks were moving about the same, the test shows how stiff / flexible the chassis and body on each truck is. In any case, the Toyota would have been harder on a payload, judging by how much it was twisting.
You can perform a test hitting a bump / hole once in awhile, and take a long time to do the test, or hit a bunch of bumps / holes in a short period to see what breaks. 'Testing to failure' is common, you just need to determine if making a product passing the test results in a better product for the customer, or just a more expensive one. If the axles / tires on all three trucks were moving about the same, the test shows how stiff / flexible the chassis and body on each truck is. In any case, the Toyota would have been harder on a payload, judging by how much it was twisting.
I think Toyota is trying to impress everyone with there 5.7l beast and didn't have enough funds left to build a truck around it and still sell it for a price anyone would pay. I left my Titan behind (to many probs.) really wanted to like the tundra motor is strong but EVERYTHING else goes to the Ford I wasn't crazy about the looks, I thought the int was the worst out there by far not Toyota quality at all and it rides like an old 1 ton ford I just couldn't get past those things so I got a F-150 and I don't miss the HP difference at all.
I know alot of people will disagree but I think Toyota is going against what they have done in the past to get to where they are. Maybe they have become as arrogant as the domestic mfg were at one time.
I know alot of people will disagree but I think Toyota is going against what they have done in the past to get to where they are. Maybe they have become as arrogant as the domestic mfg were at one time.
I doubt Toyota didn't have the funds. They are still learning about full size trucks with the Tundra, and frame construction may be an area they still need to develop. On the other hand, Ford has 90 years of experience with trucks, and they have tried everything from swiss cheese frames to the current F-150's super stiff, overbuilt frame.
Wow... you live in East Tennessee. I'm so sorry. I got the hel1 outta there years ago! heh.
About this test: It's nearly meaningless. Ford's frame MIGHT be stiffer than Yota's... or the opposite could just as easily be true. The frames would have to be checked for flex independently, sitting still. Wouldn't be too hard to do it with some jackstands, a jack, and a measuring tape.
There are lots of engineers on this board, and they should remember from their differential equations classes that driven harmonic systems (a truck frame, in this case) almost ALWAYS develop a maximum amplitude at a specific frequency. In the case of this test, that optimum frequence for the Yota frame was obviously approached with this test at 28mph. Apparently Chevy has a similar optimum frequency. Ford's isn't the same- could be lower or higher. If this test had been performed at 20mph or at 35 mph, the results MIGHT be totally different. We just don't know. In a test like this, one could- by trial end error- easily find a speed at which one truck will look great... doesn't mean much in the real world.
BTW- my truck is a ford.
About this test: It's nearly meaningless. Ford's frame MIGHT be stiffer than Yota's... or the opposite could just as easily be true. The frames would have to be checked for flex independently, sitting still. Wouldn't be too hard to do it with some jackstands, a jack, and a measuring tape.
There are lots of engineers on this board, and they should remember from their differential equations classes that driven harmonic systems (a truck frame, in this case) almost ALWAYS develop a maximum amplitude at a specific frequency. In the case of this test, that optimum frequence for the Yota frame was obviously approached with this test at 28mph. Apparently Chevy has a similar optimum frequency. Ford's isn't the same- could be lower or higher. If this test had been performed at 20mph or at 35 mph, the results MIGHT be totally different. We just don't know. In a test like this, one could- by trial end error- easily find a speed at which one truck will look great... doesn't mean much in the real world.
BTW- my truck is a ford.
This like the other video won't mean anything to those who are in a state of denial. They have been drinking far too much Toyota Cool-Aid they wont admit it even when they see it with their own eyes.
Someone whan to explain why the flex is bad. If the frame is strong enough to support the load the truck is rated for, maybe the flex will allow for a softer ride? I don`t know, I am just making a guess. I drove Ford, Chevy, and Toyota half-ton 2 WD trucks and Ford had the worst ride of the three. IMHO
My '85 Ford has more flex in the frame than in the suspension- it looks like it's articulated in the middle when I drive through a pasture. Been that way for 240,000 miles or so, so it can't be THAT important.
I'm still impressed with that second video. Still have doubts about the first.
I'm still impressed with that second video. Still have doubts about the first.
It's not hard for me to admit that Ford really does make one tough truck.
Flexing of the frame is bad because it affects handling, sometimes causing more dangerous situations under cerain loads. Also too much frame flex will eventually lead to more flex later down the road when the rivets, for example, begin to gain tolerance. Also, the resonance of the frame flex from the first running test seemed to really vibrate and jarr the components (ie fuel tank, pump, lines etc) which I logically conclude will increase chances of failure.
Flexing of the frame is bad because it affects handling, sometimes causing more dangerous situations under cerain loads. Also too much frame flex will eventually lead to more flex later down the road when the rivets, for example, begin to gain tolerance. Also, the resonance of the frame flex from the first running test seemed to really vibrate and jarr the components (ie fuel tank, pump, lines etc) which I logically conclude will increase chances of failure.
Max, Let me restate my question. Your points are well taken if the frame in question is designed not to flex and it does. How do we know that the engineers have not put the flex into the vehicle? Architects put flex into tall buildings and they don`t fail over time. Ford does make a heavy and tough truck. It also rides like one. These are half-tons not HD one-tons. A lot of people, like me, only need the capabilities of a truck a few times a year and like the softer ride the rest of the time. That is why I did not buy a Ford.
I'd want to see the same test with a couple hundred pounds in the bed and see how they handle. Ride behavior empty vs loaded are two different animals.
Alex.
Alex.
It sounds like you are saying that a truck with a frame that will flex will ride better????
The ride is controlled by the suspension.
The reason that Manufactures brag about a strong frame is because a weak or flexing frame is a poor designed and inferior structure.
Frames under some conditions will flex but excessive flex like what you see in the Toyota is not good.
I would bet money that you will see Toyota building a better frame on their truck in the near future.
Race car use tubular frames designed to be very stiff because this will improve handling.
You should not try comparing a truck frame to a building you don't need to be concerned about how well the building drives.
- Status
