Originally Posted By: 3Toyotas
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: 3Toyotas
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: 3Toyotas
I really don't care how fast my truck is empty; all that does not excite me. Well, maybe once in a great while to blow away that hemi or titan. But what i use my truck for 90% of the time is towing trailers.
That video has nothing to do with loading our trucks whatsoever. Just so you know, all real trucks bounce a little.
And Toyota knows real trucks, which is why they had frame rot problems spanning more than a decade right?
They've been making "real" trucks for only a couple years. I cannot think of any truck from Toyota, used for real WORK produced during the 60's, 70's, 80's or 90's, can you?
The argument that Toyota then knows more about making trucks is ridiculous. They copied the F-150 so blatantly it is hilarious. My uncle has a Tundra. It's like stepping into a Ford.
Quote:
So this is just another desperate attempt by the big 3 to reduce their market share losses to Toyota. Plain and simple my friend. Pretty cheap [censored] marketing efforts on their part, i'd say. Couldn't find anything else in their 80's stlye drivetrains, so they got to play their own little games. Pathetic.
80's style drivetrains? Toyota didn't even HAVE a 1/2 ton drivetrain in the 80's! That's almost a compliment, given that EVERYTHING Toyota has learned in the truck market is what they've copied from the Big 3.
Quote:
As far as rigidity in the frame, i think you need to do a little more research. What type of frame is on big tractor trailers? They are C-channel. Why? because they are less likely to brake when loaded heavy. They have more room to flex, whereas a full boxed frame (ford) is more likely to break when loaded heavy.
We are talking about 1/2-ton frames here, not something found in a Kenworth, which is REQUIRED to afford twist due to the sheer mass they pull and the several THOUSAND lb-ft of torque those huge diesels produce, something your 1/2 ton truck is NEVER in a million years going to come close to. Remember, Ford makes up the F-550, they know a thing or two about making trucks larger than a 1/2-ton, and have been doing so for much, MUCH longer. Way before Toyota started capitalizing on the domestic truck market. As have the other two.
Quote:
So, which one is better? i'd say C channel which is what's on the tundra. Under the cab it is reinforced C-channel, and in front of the cab it is fully boxed for better crash protection.
Of course you would. Because you believe everything Toyota does is superior.
Quote:
I'm not super happy with the interior, but i'm certainly not dissapointed with it. I think toyota could have spent more time designing it, but most of their efforts were focused on the drivetrain. Of which, they did a fine job. Much more technologically advanced than the big 3 counterparts.
What?
Technologically advanced? In what ways? Please elaborate here. Is it the 381HP out of the overhead camshaft engine? Because that's not new technology. And Dodge is squeezing 390HP out of their 5.7L now.
Quote:
Better trucks from GM, Ford, Or Dodge? I wonder why they can't compete then? Still the old style push rod motors with almost the same HP numbers they've had for years. Especially the 5.4 triton v-8 POS. Then the dreaded 4-speed transmissions, which are a joke when towing.
1. The pushrods in that Dodge make more power and take up less space than the engine in the Tundra.
2. The 5.4L "POS" made 425HP in the Cobra-R, and they have TWO models making similar figures in Australia in the Falcon. Yes, out of less displacement than your Toyota. Also, the 5.4L/4.6L engines are also overhead cam, NOT pushrod.
3. The 4R100 is a very competent transmission, proven to handle ridiculous power levels. I have one in my Expedition.
Quote:
GM has made an attempt here, but yet again they have failed. The 6.0 / 6speed combo has proven it cannot pull ANY slight incline in 6th gear.
So Why are they riding on old technology?
Define old technology? The Japanese are riding on technology they borrowed from the Americans and the Germans.......
Quote:
It all comes down to being able to AFFORD to gain new technology my friend, and none of the 3 seem to know how to.
The Japanese government paid for the development of the Prius. Who's affording what here?
Quote:
Or they think they don't need to, or both. Probably both.
What exactly have the Japanese pioneered? What sort of bold technological advances have they given the automotive world?
Never heard or read anything on frame rot. Wonder why i've never experienced that in over 20 years with toyota?
This is a HUGE, well documented issue with Toyota issuing a RECALL over it, and REPLACING trucks!
Google -> Images -> Toyota Frame rot. Browse away.
Here's a link to info on it:
http://www.toyotanation.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2349601
Sorry, it was FIFTEEN years, not 10.
Quote:
If they've only been making real trucks for a couple years, why are they more technologically advanced.
In what way are they more technologically advanced? You keep saying this, but cite no examples.
Quote:
I think Hino has been around for a looooong time, which is owned by toyota. Matter of fact, the rear end in the tundra is made by Hino. Yeah, it's about as beefy as some 1 ton trucks.
HINO was founded in 1942. Another WWII gem like Mitsubishi. They joined Toyota in 1967. They produced Renault cars (under license from Renault) for sale in Japan for a number of years. They stopped making cars after they joined Toyota.
GM owned White, Chrysler owned Western Star, and Ford made their own large transports that are much larger than the small HINO "get arounds", but that make sense given the geographic differences between Japan and North America.
Quote:
When did i say toyota knows more about making trucks? I don't beleive i even said that.
Isn't that the message you are saying here by constantly saying the Tundra is better?
Quote:
Copied the f-150. That was a good one.
The similarities between the previous gen Tundra and the F-150 are MANY.
Quote:
Toyota didn't have a half ton truck in the 80's tells me they had plenty of time to perfect it.
Now that is funny!
Quote:
Copied the big 3? Where did they do that? Standard 4-speed; NO.
Well, they are producing a vehicle NOW, that they other three have been producing for decades, and borrowed numerous features from them. I'd call that copying.
Quote:
Old style single overhead cam? NO. 3 stage fuel pump? 2 stage induction system? dual timing chains for intake AND exhaust gases?
Can't see where they copied them with the motor anywhere.
Ford was using DOHC in the 1950's! This is NOT new technology! The 427SOHC produced by Ford in 1964 made 657HP. What kind of technological marvels was Toyota churning out in the 60's?
The Modular motor is no less advanced than the Toyota engine, but has more than a decade more use behind it, MASSIVE fleet use in law enforcement and taxi service....etc.
It was available in DOHC AND SOHC configurations, and currently in an SOHC 3-valve. The use of SOHC in the trucks is for superior torque production according to Ford engineers.
For 2000, the Tundra's largest engine was a 245HP 4.7L V8 with 315lb-ft. That same year, Ford was fitting the Cobra R with a 425HP 5.4L, and making 320HP out of the 4.6L in the Cobra. That's because the Modular has more duties than just a single chassis..... Similar to how GM's LSx engines do duty in both their trucks and the Corvette......
I applaud Toyota's upgrade to the 381HP 5.7L, but the figures are not due to superior engineering; Ford was making more power with less displacement almost a decade ago using dual overhead cams on the 5.4L.
As far as two-stage induction, again, Ford has been using this since the early 90's. The Lincoln Mark VIII had it, as did the Cobra. Not a Toyota first. In fact it would look like they are just following Ford......
Quote:
MY half ton is designed for what i need it to do, so that's all that matters to me. Toyota knows that it's what most people need their truck for as well; to tow 10k lbs or less. Most people don't need to tow 8-10 tons around.
But you are comparing it, and claiming superiority to a truck rating to carry 16,700+lbs.
Quote:
If you do some more research with those engineers who know more than we do on frame strength, then you'd know that a c-channel frame is much less apt to break.
Ford isn't having frame breakage issues. I'm sure they employ quite a few engineers.
Quote:
I'm talking about the POS 5.4L they're putting in the f-150's, and has nothing to do with the cobra.
But it has everything to do with the Cobra. They are the exact same engine family. The Modular series. I can swap a 4.6L out of an '03 Cobra into an F-150, slap a set of twins on it and make 1,000HP on the stock guts. Can you do that with the Tundra?
The 5.4L is not a POS. I have one in my Expedition mated to a 4R100. It works very well, we've owned three of them.
Quote:
I will have to say though, that Ford has more going for them now more than the other 2. They got wise just in the nick of time, and hired a big time money guy to shape things up for them.
Koodos goes to that guy.
Drive what you want though, it's all good. I'm happy.
No need to get all [censored] over the situation. It's all fun.
I am driving what I want. I simply want to inject some reality here that the comparison being made is not a good one. You are comparing a gasser to a diesel and drawing conclusions. You cannot.
I'm awaiting Hurricane/BOSS. It should be an interesting twist to the current truck line-up.
YOu are reading into this discussion completely wrong my friend. I am saying the tundra is superior in performance vs. the big 3 for WHAT IT IS DESIGNED TO DO. Period.
I agree, the f150 is similiar in a few things. But definately not stock HP or TQ ratings with the 5.4L.
From what i have read, the stock 5.4L ford puts down 200 RWHP. What a joke, and a huge drivetrain loss.
The tundra puts down 300 RWHP, bone stock. 320 ft/lbs at 1500 rpms (crank). Yes, 1500 rpms. For a gasser that is impressive.
I guess if you say toyota's copying the big 3; i guess you're right then huh?
HP per Liter, toyota has always been impressive in STOCK motors. Usually in the 60's. This 5.7 is 66.84 HP per liter stock.
The hurricane boss will be interesting, if ford can get that power to the ground without huge drivetrain losses. But toyota will have D.I. up their sleeve then and it should get interesting. From what toyota execs. say, this 5.7 is capable of 500 hp with a few adjustments and direct injection. After all, this motor is a lexus design off of the 4.6L.
Which 5.4L is putting down 200RWHP? The 310HP one from the current F-150 or the previous gen 260HP one? Make sure you are checking the right engine. Interestingly there are MANY 4.6L Mustangs putting down 300HP to the tires with VERY slight mods from their 300HP 4.6L's.......
The current 5.4L makes 310HP, and 365lb-ft; 320HP and 390lb-ft on E-85. It also is mated to a 6-speed auto. And has an 11,300lb towing capacity. Hurricane/BOSS should mix it up a little, but we are not talking a huge torque difference, even given the .3L of displacement difference.
We don't race or tow with dyno's. My cam grinder's 'stang went 11.19 @ 120+Mph with a touch over 300RWHP. I've made your Tundra's RWHP numbers with stock junk on a 330,000Km 302, giving up .7L of displacement.
How a truck shows on a dyno has very little to do with how it is going to work in real life. A loose or unlocked converter has a massive effect on the dyno results.
Ultimately, I think the HP numbers are being read into far too much, and being used as a basis for "performance" here, which is why earlier, I brought up the SRT-10 and the Lightning. Obviously much more power has been done. Why it is not currently being done; why the 5.4L from the Falcon isn't in the F-150, well, I am sure there are reasons.
