Chevy vs Toyota vs Ford--silver creek test track

[1sttruck]

People like flexi-frames because the ride is softer ?

Glad I already have my truck, so that it doesn't get 'improved' to satisfy the impeccable tastes of the mass market. From what people have figured out about the only difference between my 3/4 ton and the single wheel 1 tons is that the 1 tons have extra helper springs on the rear axle.

 

[brianl703]

Quote:

---

It sounds like you are saying that a truck with a frame that will flex will ride better????

---

I think a frame/body that flexes does NOT ride better. When I added subframe connectors to my Mustang, I found that it rides much better and the different is particularly noticeable going over dips and bumps in the road.

Also, one of the things about economy cars in the past is that they had a more flexible chassis than bigger cars and they have improved that over the years because it does affect how well the car rides.

Trucks presumably are the same.

 

[mrsilv04]

I can honestly say, that I got a good laugh out of that video. I just wonder what all that felt like in the cab?

I think we may have just seen the test, that helped Ford decide to put the rear shocks on the OUTSIDE of the frame rails, instead of inside of them.

Anyhow, I'm still keeping my Silverado.

 

[Thorn]

The Ford F-150 has a fully-boxed frame, whereas the Tundra has a boxed frame in the cabin area and a C-channel frame under the bed.

I've heard that flex can be advantageous in managing heavy loads. If you look at Ford's website, you will see that the newly designed SuperDuty trucks (F-250, F-350 and F-450) all have a combination-style frame similar to the Tundra.

Why would Ford use a fully-boxed frame in their 1/2 ton, and use a non-fully boxed frame in the F-450, which has a payload of over 3 tons and a towing capacity of 24,500 lbs.?

 

[Black Bart]

Class 8 trucks do NOT have a boxed frame and they carry 80,000 lbs
The fact that it has a boxed frame means that you can use lighter metal and still have strength.
Comparing a boxed frame to a C frame proofs nothing unless you know the thickness of the metal.

 

[Thorn]

Quote:

---

Class 8 trucks do NOT have a boxed frame and they carry 80,000 lbs
The fact that it has a boxed frame means that you can use lighter metal and still have strength.
Comparing a boxed frame to a C frame proofs nothing unless you know the thickness of the metal.

---

I was just wondering whether the boxed frame of the F-150 provides more torsional stiffness and rigidity versus the C-channel used in the Tundra. This may explain why the Ford looked so good in this particular video.

However, this may not prove anything as far as the durability or strength of the frame goes other than that the boxed frame flexes less in this test.

If a rigid, fully-boxed frame is so great, why doesn't Ford use it in their newer, heavier-duty (and more expensive) trucks? How would a F-250, without a fully-boxed frame, perform in this test? Similar to the Tundra?

 

[Black Bart]

How would a F-250, without a fully-boxed frame, perform in this test? Similar to the Tundra?
Only way to answer that for sure would be to test like the second video between the F150 and the Tundra.
The F150 defiantly has a stronger frame than the Tundra and a 250 would be stronger than the F150 so I think it would be much stronger.
Frames or a unibody car should not flex and that is why the Mustangs handle so much better after you install sub frame connectors and tower braces.
Removing flex and stiffing a car or truck is always better.
NO manufacture has ever intentionally designed a frame to flex. All frames will flex but as you saw in the video some will flex much more than others.
All of the manufactures will brag about how their cars or trucks are built strong. You will never hear them say that they engineered them to flex.

 

[01rangerxl]

Quote:

---

If a rigid, fully-boxed frame is so great, why doesn't Ford use it in their newer, heavier-duty (and more expensive) trucks? How would a F-250, without a fully-boxed frame, perform in this test? Similar to the Tundra?

---

Weight savings are less of a concern in the heavier trucks. They can use thicker metal and be just fine with a c-channel. Ford has to keep the weight of the F-150 at a reasonable number so that fuel economy isn't terrible and the engines are not overworked.

Another issue is keeping the frames upfitter friendly. A lot of Super Duties will end up with aftermarket beds, van bodies, etc... The simple c-channel probably makes installing things like that easier.

 

[CaspianM]

Some of the torsional stiffness is removed from the bed for safty. Under extreme it saves the entire vehicle to flip. It also serves as isolating the cabin from the bed. Has Totyota gone too far, it is not known but it seems it was done based on an engineering stand point. The test also seems over the head. If they do the same test with load I bet it will not show so much bouncing and flexing as the springs dampens under load.

 

[Duffman77]

A few misconceptions here. Do not confuse stiffness with strength. One can be stronger than the other and yet have less stiffness. In Fords case here you can see in the second video that it is indeed stiffer and you know it is stronger by how much beefier it is.

When it comes to frames you cant have too much stiffness (assuming the strength holds up). Many of you are confusing ride quality with frame stiffness, that is non-sense. A soft ride comes from soft springs and shocks allowing the wheels to do the work of adsorbing the road. Anyone who has ever rode in a Chev and a F150 will tell you the chev is softer and you can clearly see that in the suspension travel in the video. You can also see the excessive wander that the chev has as well. That is because the frame is deflecting under load and the geometry of the suspension is not where it is suppose to be when the wheel comes back down on the ground and the wheel is not pointing straight.

Yes this is a cool video, but is actually illustrates what a quality frame and well engineered suspension actually do on a truck when subjected to off-road conditions. This is Fords way of showing that they are the best in this category, its a lot harder than just putting a HP number on a sales brochure and hoping it will sell trucks like Toyota is doing.

 

[CaspianM]

The video is an exhibition for stiffness not strenght.
All Ford is showing is stifness. Strenght? We can't conclude by this clip.
Toyota clips shows rock solid cabin where the unloaded cabin is bouncing. Is these class of vehicles are designed to be driven under that condition?? I say it is a well designed test to show torsional stability of the truck's bed with respect to the cabin.

 

[Duffman77]

You are right about it as a demonstration of stiffness. One can infer the strength on the second video by how much bigger the Ford frame is. Strength is almost always proportional to mass unless it was engineered by high school students. I am pretty sure if you checked the weights of the two trucks this would be very true.

The reason you are seeing the box move relative to the cabin is there is no sheetmetal to resist the deflection there. That means severe stresses on the cabin. Wonder why your doors and glass don’t align well anymore and cracks are forming where the body mounts to the chassis???

If all you can say is its a test of bed to cabin stability, go back and read the second para of my last post. Chassis stiffness provides stability when the suspension deflects. Race car chassis are stiff for a reason.

 

[LouDawg]

Black Bart and Duffman, well said. Here, here!

 

[Black Bart]

Duffman77 Well said and you are correct.
Like I said in an earlier post no one intentionally designs a frame to flex.
Some statements made in this thread show a complete lack of understanding of steering geometry and what a suspension system is designed to do and how it works.
You mentioned the horsepower of the Tundra I believe this is another area that Toyota is trying to misslead people.
I have seen many times their ad of the Tundra beating the Chevy and Ford in a drag race.
Has anyone took time to think about the fact that the Tundra is running the biggest and most powerful engine available against the smaller engines offered by Ford and Chevy.
Instead of running the 5.3 in the chevy what about using the largest engine offered by all three that would be a 5.8 in the Tundra's and a 498 cid V8 in the Chevy and a 498 cid V10 in the Ford.
Anyone have any doubt about how it would turn out then.
This is Toyota's first attempt at a full size pickup and in time they will get it right but the present model they laid a Turd not a Tundra

 

[CLG]

Quote:

---

Duffman77 Well said and you are correct.
Like I said in an earlier post no one intentionally designs a frame to flex.
Some statements made in this thread show a complete lack of understanding of steering geometry and what a suspension system is designed to do and how it works.
You mentioned the horsepower of the Tundra I believe this is another area that Toyota is trying to misslead people.
I have seen many times their ad of the Tundra beating the Chevy and Ford in a drag race.
Has anyone took time to think about the fact that the Tundra is running the biggest and most powerful engine available against the smaller engines offered by Ford and Chevy.
Instead of running the 5.3 in the chevy what about using the largest engine offered by all three that would be a 5.8 in the Tundra's and a 498 cid V8 in the Chevy and a 498 cid V10 in the Ford.
Anyone have any doubt about how it would turn out then.
This is Toyota's first attempt at a full size pickup and in time they will get it right but the present model they laid a Turd not a Tundra

---

I am not a big Toyota fan I have an 07 F-150 5.4l 4x4. That 5.7l Tundra has 381hp and is a much faster motor in its stock form that any of the motors you mention although it wont out tow the v-10ford and maybe not the 6.0l chevy? And def. not any of the diesels. The 6sp. auto trans is nice also but, like I said earlier in my post something has to be sacrificed if you want to keep the price of the truck down I just don't thing there is anyway around that.

 

[jason929rr]

Yeah i recently seen a friends super duty king ranch i think its called, that think drips testosterone! Interior is nice too compared to past ones.

 

[CaspianM]

Quote:

---

Like I said in an earlier post no one intentionally designs a frame to flex.
Some statements made in this thread show a complete lack of understanding of steering geometry and what a suspension system is designed to do and how it works.
You mentioned the horsepower of the Tundra I believe this is another area that Toyota is trying to misslead people.
I have seen many times their ad of the Tundra beating the Chevy and Ford in a drag race.
Has anyone took time to think about the fact that the Tundra is running the biggest and most powerful engine available against the smaller engines offered by Ford and Chevy.
Instead of running the 5.3 in the chevy what about using the largest engine offered by all three that would be a 5.8 in the Tundra's and a 498 cid V8 in the Chevy and a 498 cid V10 in the Ford.
Anyone have any doubt about how it would turn out then.
This is Toyota's first attempt at a full size pickup and in time they will get it right but the present model they laid a Turd not a Tundra

---

Have you done any machine/auto design work and experience?
Flex are allowed into design all the time.
In race cars stifness is important cause need for predictable and precise handling but center of gravity is super low.
In truck, if there was no flex needed for the bed they would have designed the whole thing as unibody with bed as an integerated part of the passenger box. It is only a question of what the truck is designed for and how much flex should be allowed. A truck without chassis flex feels like a moving bunker.

 

[1sttruck]

"A truck without chassis flex feels like a moving bunker."

Just advertise the Tundra as yet another Toyota 'not a full size truck' and no one will have anything to disagree with. The chassis on a medium duty truck is usually stiffer than that found on a 1 ton light duty (pickups are light duty regardless of what the vehicle badges state) which is usually stiffer than that found on a 1/2 ton which is usually stiffer than that found on a mini-truck. Chassis stiffness is needed for handling loads on a variety of terrain over long periods of time with no problems. The Tundra chassis seems to be the lightest duty of the 1/2 tons, placing it where it has been all these years; not quite a (real) full size truck. That's fine, that's why people buy them, in part because the chassis is lighter duty, flexes more, and is more comfortable. Be happy, I am, as I don't have one.

 

[ryansride2017]

"You mentioned the horsepower of the Tundra I believe this is another area that Toyota is trying to misslead people.
I have seen many times their ad of the Tundra beating the Chevy and Ford in a drag race.
Has anyone took time to think about the fact that the Tundra is running the biggest and most powerful engine available against the smaller engines offered by Ford and Chevy.
Instead of running the 5.3 in the chevy what about using the largest engine offered by all three that would be a 5.8 in the Tundra's and a 498 cid V8 in the Chevy and a 498 cid V10 in the Ford."

Apples to Apples. Please show me where Ford puts a V-10 in a 1/2 ton truck because I would like to buy one IMMEDIATELY!!

 

[tenderloin]

Hopefully the talk that Ford is resurrecting the 6.2L Hurricane engine is true.