http://www.autoblog.com/2007/06/25/video-fords-silver-creek-truck-torture-test-track/http://www.autoblog.com/2007/06/25/video-fords-silver-creek-truck-torture-test-track/4#comments


IDK if this is the real deal or if the tundra was altered somehow by ford.

I don't think it was Ford that did that test - I think it was the staff at pickuptruck.com that used the Ford testing grounds to perform that test.

The Silverado and Ford most definitely demonstrate their superior frame strength in that test.

My friend test drove all of the trucks and he bought the F-150. I think he made the right choice. The trucks are the only vehicles that detroit still does right :thumbup:

Wow the flexing on the Tundra is horrible!!

the tundra's so flexible, lol.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Uo0C01Fwb8

The 777 most definitely demonstrates its superior frame strength in that test.

The Silverado and Ford most definitely demonstrate their superior frame strength in that test.

yeah trucks should be unibodies, since trucks need the most rigid frame possible. and they should start using fully-boxed frames on semi-trucks cause Ford does so on the F150.

:rolleyes:

yeah trucks should be unibodies, since trucks need the most rigid frame possible. and they should start using fully-boxed frames on semi-trucks cause Ford does so on the F150.

:rolleyes:

They don't need the most rigid frame possible, nor do they need other various creature comforts and performance enhancing features, but they surely benefit greatly from it. The only argument you could possibly make against the obviously superior performing frames on the Silverado and F150 is that they're too stiff, to the point of reaching critical failure (cracking), or that the trucks were made far too heavy for their own good from the additional weight.

I've yet to see a frame fail on either of those trucks. Have you? Likely not, so cross that one off the list.

Glancing over the curb weights it appears that the Silverado and F150 are still well within a reasonable range when using the Tundra as a reference point, so the frame's additional weight didn't push the overall truck up an unacceptable limit.

You seriously kill me Mr Jones... you find a way to excuse Toyota of any test or measure at which they fail to perform at, and glorify those at which they do well at.

Frame rigidity is a GOOD thing so long as it doesn't make the frame prone to critical failure, creating an overweight structure, or adding too much additional cost.

The rigidity of a unibody structure would be great for a truck if it wasn't for unibody's inherent lack of linear cohesion that causes it to generally lack durability when used in heavy towing and off roading applications (though there are exceptions, of course).

You seriously kill me Mr Jones... you find a way to excuse Toyota of any test or measure at which they fail to perform at, and glorify those at which they do well at.



I recognize there is a major difference between rigidity and strength. And I recognize a truck is designed to behave like a truck not a car.

Sorry, but I will never believe Ford's own devised tests. No, I don't believe that a competitor with an active interest in disproving another competitor's product will be honest. Especially when the one area they can hope to counter a competitor is by questioning its frame.

However there are plenty of outside sources which have tested the trucks and Ford has consistently failed to find a victory.

Glancing over the curb weights it appears that the Silverado and F150 are still well within a reasonable range when using the Tundra as a reference point, so the frame's additional weight didn't push the overall truck up an unacceptable limit.

http://www.toyota.com/vehicles/2007/tundra/specs_dcab.html

http://www.chevrolet.com/silverado/specifications/

The rigidity of a unibody structure would be great for a truck if it wasn't for unibody's inherent lack of linear cohesion that causes it to generally lack durability when used in heavy towing and off roading applications (though there are exceptions, of course).

linear cohesion?

Yep, I posted the same vids here a couple days ago... Needless to say, if I ever find myself in the market for a truck, the Tundra is not going to be a consideration. I would have liked to see the Titan in that comparison as well.

I believe that was a 3rd party test. Is it really THAT surprising that the F150 has a better frame than Toyota? It is literally the best selling vehicle in America and Ford has had decades to perfect it and know what their customers are looking for in a truck.

I'd still put my money on the Tundra.

Let's meet back in 15 years and see which truck is holding up better.

:)

I'd still put my money on the Tundra.

Let's meet back in 15 years and see which truck is holding up better.

:)

The F150 would hold up better. There are plenty of american trucks that are well over a decade old that are still out on the streets. The frame and bolts on the Tundra aren't going to get any stronger when they're 15 years old... Putting money on the Tundra only proves you're a poor gambler. You're putting money on the team you like instead of the team that's actually going to win.

I'd still put my money on the Tundra.

Let's meet back in 15 years and see which truck is holding up better.

:)
exactly, and that's all that matters. That's why I drive a Lexus GS, not a Lincoln LS. That's why I drive a Toyota Camry, not a Ford Taurus, etc. Good chance both will still be running. While the F150 will still be drivable 15 years from now, what about the quality otherwise? How many repairs would it go through? It's still going to leave a mess on the driveway.



I'm not loyal to any one car company. If Toyota starts slipping down domestic routes, I'm bailing out as well.

There is a HUGE difference between comparing cars which Toyota has been doing for decades and has managed to nearly perfect, versus comparing real full size trucks designed for heavy loads and towing which Toyota has been doing for a few months and is anything but perfected. A frame that flexes THAT much is only going to get worse over time, and it will get worse a lot faster than a rigid frame.

F150 does have a stronger frame. F150 does tow more. But then you also have to be looking at the Toyota Trucks that have been on the road. As many old domestic trucks that are running today, there are just as many from Toyota. I use to work with a bunch of domestic fans who always talked down on anything non-domestic. Checked out their cars and trucks. The older trucks ran and had good towing ability. But then the dashboard looked halfway melted from the sun and the interior was falling apart (and the new Tundra doesn't have the best quality interior either, btw). When I went to their homes, I could usually tell where they parked their trucks because of the huge oil stain that they left behind. What I do know is that the new Tundra is creating a lot of talk among them. It's almost like a exgirlfriend or something, but that can't be true, you know, that Tundra and its weak frame, it can't possibly hurt their Silverado or F150, can't it :)

It's funny about all of these comparisons from all the car companies about who has the strongest truck. Although trucks are made for work, a large portion of them are going to do nothing but hail around a small fishing boat, go to Costco and sit on 24 inch rims. At least in California, trucks stay pretty :D , especially trucks that have more than 2 opening doors.

By linear cohesion I was referring to unibody platforms acting as a 3D structure in which, much like an egg, they will support pressure from any given direction, but don't hold up well when pulled in two opposite directions.

http://www.toyota.com/vehicles/2007/tundra/specs_dcab.html

http://www.chevrolet.com/silverado/specifications/

Uh... what's your point? Is this your way of agreeing with me? Your own links show that the Tundra is typically heavier given the same configuration as the Silverado, which would serve to agree with my point that the added weight of the fully boxed frame didn't make the truck overly heavy.

Whoa... all that flexing is definitely concerning...:eek2:

Well, Toyota did build some pretty tough trucks back in the day. I'm not sure how much better or worse they have become.

Check out these videos where a Toyota truck survives through assasination attempts...
Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hzRLG8dA-E
Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfZDtC9kjVk

Uh... what's your point? Is this your way of agreeing with me? Your own links show that the Tundra is typically heavier given the same configuration as the Silverado, which would serve to agree with my point that the added weight of the fully boxed frame didn't make the truck overly heavy.

except the Silverado isn't fully boxed.

well let's see. adding 4wd to the Tundra adds 300lbs compared to 200lbs for the Silverado.

http://www.trucktrend.com/roadtests/pickup/163_0706_full_size_truck_comparison/specs_pricing.html

The Tundra clearly outweighs the Silverado, yet its not up to par?

$600 billion is spent on advertising annually.

Based on this thread a simple advertisment @ 28mph :rolleyes: can be highly effective.

except the Silverado isn't fully boxed.

well let's see. adding 4wd to the Tundra adds 300lbs compared to 200lbs for the Silverado.

http://www.trucktrend.com/roadtests/pickup/163_0706_full_size_truck_comparison/specs_pricing.html

The Tundra clearly outweighs the Silverado, yet its not up to par?

$600 billion is spent on advertising annually.

Based on this thread a simple advertisment @ 28mph :rolleyes: can be highly effective.

Wow - the point just flew past you so fiercly I think I just heard a sonic boom.;)
Please read more carefully... I said the Silverado is NOT overweight. Why would being heavier than the competition be a good thing? It's not, unless it's for a good cause and can be overcome by the overall design of the truck.

Toyota's arguement against fully boxing the Tundra's frame was weight savings - they said it would add unnecessary weight.

Yet in this test we see that the Silverado's frame is obviously doing a far better job of retaining torsional rigidity, and to top it all off, the truck, as a whole, still weighs less than the Tundra, which is to say that the engineers at Toyota obviously didn't save THAT much weight by cutting corners on the frame.

Oh, and lastly, as mentioned, this is not an advertisement - it was an independent test... I believe performed by the editors at trucktrend.com
Or is this footage for an upcoming commercial that I'm unaware of?

It should be, though...

Edit: The Silverado frame is close enough to fully boxed to just say it is. Front section is 100% fully boxed and the rear section is fully boxed all the way back until the spare tire cross member at which point c-channel usage begins. And even then the Silverado uses hydroformed steel (very high strength to weight ratio due to being completely unfatigued 'natural' steel in its intended form), as well as its frame components itself (rails and cross members) are easy to see are quite a bit larger and thicker than the Tundra's. Oh, and they use welded-through cross members as well. I believe the Tundra uses bolted-on cross members, or at least the previous design did - I haven't looked at the current one to see if they continued the trend but I think I heard they did.

Every aspect of the new Tundra's frame screams 'corners were cut' - and I suspect it was done mainly for cost savings... I guess it might have been done for weight savings too but again, the truck is still heavier than the competition, so I guess that just kept a porky truck from being even porkier.

Frankly, I don't know what this test really tells us; without instrument data it's not that conclusive. Obviously the oscillation causes more movement in the Toyota frame/bed, but how were the results at 15mph? 78 mph? 27 mph?
Over prolonged periods movement like this can be somewhat desirable, reducing the potential for catastrophic fatigue failures. The Boeing 777 video is a good illustration of this. If the wings were totally rigid, the fatigue/stress threshold would be much lower.

Suspension tuning also plays a major role here; a softer suspension will absorb more of those oscillations and reduce movement in the frame structure.

Just because the new Tundra is Toyota's first real "full size" truck doesn't mean much; they're been building pickups with frames for decades, just on a smaller scale.

I don't think this will drive many prospective Tundra buyers away. The bottom-line is the folks at Toyota know a thing about engineering and quality; there is a reason for everything that they do. At the end of the day, most pickups I see on the road are just that- daily driven commuter trucks. Will 99% of buyers ever put their pickups through this type of abuse? Doubtful.

Over prolonged periods movement like this can be somewhat desirable, reducing the potential for catastrophic fatigue failures. The Boeing 777 video is a good illustration of this. If the wings were totally rigid, the fatigue/stress threshold would be much lower.

Well, in structural design there's always that balancing act between weight, cost, strength, and rigidity.

In the case of the Boeing 777, having ultra rigid wings is of very little benefit. It's not going to improve the way the plane 'rides', and the 'handling' is already terrible so while it could improve the response of the plane when turning, the difference would probably hardly be noticeable. And of more importance, a plane's number one objective is for the safety of its passengers - so making sure that the wings can endure far more load than they should ever need to before they fail is of utmost importance, as is reducing the structural weight (because they have to support their own weight, not to mention additional weight means reduced economy which adds up quickly). So building a less stiff structure that is designed to bend costs less, provides more bending ability to the point of failure, and saves weight which improves economy. It's the obvious choice for the wings of a plane.

However, in the case of a truck, the weigh of the structure is still an issue, as is safety, but generally speaking there are very few circumstances short of a flat out defective weld that are going to cause any frame to out-right fail and fracture for some reason under high load. Especially any form of load that tests the torsional or bending strength of the frame since accidents are about the most traumatic load a frame could see, and accidents tend to most often be on a plane roughly level and flat with the structure of the frame itself.

I suppose you could have somebody that could put too much weight in their bed and then go off roading, too, and hit a really sharp bump or rock that impacts and breaks their frame, but in that case they can also have long ago said goodbye to their suspension, tires, and quite a bit of their underbody components. Not to mention that's just flat out user stupidity. Maybe some engineer wants to design a frame with enough flex so that in that circumstance of a stupid user, they'll only damage everything BUT their frame... but I don't want a truck that has been that compromised because I know I'm not going to be that stupid with it.

Edit: The Silverado frame is close enough to fully boxed to just say it is. Front section is 100% fully boxed and the rear section is fully boxed all the way back until the spare tire cross member at which point c-channel usage begins. And even then the Silverado uses hydroformed steel (very high strength to weight ratio due to being completely unfatigued 'natural' steel in its intended form), as well as its frame components itself (rails and cross members) are easy to see are quite a bit larger and thicker than the Tundra's. Oh, and they use welded-through cross members as well. I believe the Tundra uses bolted-on cross members, or at least the previous design did - I haven't looked at the current one to see if they continued the trend but I think I heard they did.


it's Toyota who displays their frame, not their competitors. And ask GM why their 2500/3500HD trucks continue to use a traditonal C-channel design?



Oh, and lastly, as mentioned, this is not an advertisement - it was an independent test... I believe performed by the editors at trucktrend.com
Or is this footage for an upcoming commercial that I'm unaware of?

It should be, though...


there is absolutely no evidence anyone but Ford devised and conducted this test.

no, like the other two videos Ford put out earlier it's a viral advertisment that insults the intelligence of consumers.


Every aspect of the new Tundra's frame screams 'corners were cut' - and I suspect it was done mainly for cost savings...

based on what Ford and their followers say. The only one cutting corners is Ford with their ancient powertrain.