mmarshall

The Tundra's C-rail frame, in the I-Force V8 version I reviewed, was rated to tow 10,300 lbs.....the same general range as comparable F-150's. Toyota simply uses different matallurgy and a different type of shape/forging to accomplish the same frame strength, that's all. It's not inferior, just different.

mmarshall

The Tundra's C-rail frame, in the I-Force V8 version I reviewed, was rated to tow 10,300 lbs.....the same general range as comparable F-150's. Toyota simply uses different metallurgy and a different type of shape/forging to accomplish the same frame strength, that's all. It's not inferior, just different.

Where the Tundra DOES fall short, especially compared to the F-150 and the new Silverado, as I mentioned earlier, is in the interior materials....some of them are a joke.

SecPole14

With regard to the Tundra, I respectfully disagree. Its frame is inferior by design. I do agree, however, that Ford and especially GM have much better interiors.

You might have seen these videos, but if not, here you go. They're from Ford, so somewhat biased, but I don't think they're stretching the truth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRfE_XAk2mE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zShwG9l1F0Q

The Tundra looks like it's made of Jello, easily the worst performance of the three tested!

TRDFantasy

Those videos are from Ford and of course they are designed to show the Ford truck being the best. Put a Freightliner or Peterbilt truck through that test and you'll conclude that they're "made of jello" too. C-channel frames are designed to "give" a bit to absorb any forces acting on the frame. If the frame is too stiff like a fully boxed frame, then those forces travel directly into the truck's cabin and you get a real harsh ride. Plus, a fully boxed frame is stiff and can snap if enough force is applied to it. It will take more force for a C-channel to snap.

If you believe the Tundra's frame is "inferior by design" and all you have to prove it are those Ford videos, than that's hardly any proof at all. FYI, Toyota built fully boxed trucks way back in the 1980's. Do you think the Tundra is "inferior" to the small fully boxed pickups that Toyota had 20 years ago? I'm quite sure Toyota knows what it's doing. Toyota trucks and SUVs are some of the most legendary and renowned in the world. When you got to countries outside of North America you don't see F150s or Silverados roaming the streets, you see a lot of Toyota Hilux trucks or Land Cruisers.

Also Ford's Superduty trucks and GM's HD trucks all use C-channel frames. Are you going to tell me those heavy duty trucks are also "inferior" by design? The Tundra's specs and frame are closer to a heavy duty truck than a normal half ton.

jimxo

I Still like the Caddy

jimxo

.................

SecPole14

The comparisons you are trying to make are not realistic. How many Tundras do you see roaming the streets, fields, jungles, and deserts overseas? The Tundra, like the F150 and GMT900 variants, are designed with one market in mind: the USA. There is no effort made to market these vehicles overseas because they're not designed for those kinds of customers.

I don't know about the current generation, but I think every previous Hillux/Tacoma was designed with a FBF. So yes, most of the little Toyota pickups and utes we see on CNN broadcasts are probably fully-boxed. This test was designed to show performance in poor off-road conditions, and fully-boxed trucks like a F150 or Hilux will have the advantage.

For a HD or tractor setup, an open frame would be more appropriate. But we're talking about half-ton pickups and smaller here, and in that regard, I stand by my assertion that the Tundra is inferior to its competition.

TRDFantasy

Truthfully, the Tundra's frame is a mixed design. The front section is fully boxed, and only the rear section is C-channel. Again, you haven't explained or provided proof of why or how the Tundra's frame is "inferior".

-J-P-L-

Well, since it is a Tundra based SUV, it follows the Tundras base dimensions which are nw quite large. I wouldn't expect it to get any bigger after this generation as there is no need for the Tundra to grow any bigger.

-J-P-L-

The new Siverado and Sierra look terrible. I can't believe GM would mess up such important vehicles. The Tundra is the only truck that matters now. Every time I see one, I can't but stare.

The Tahoe/Suburban/Denali/Escalade on the other hand are far better looking. That is how the pickups should have looked.



Don't forget that the Escalade is a luxury class full size SUV costing a good amount more. The Sequoia is Expedition class for example.

RXGS

iTrader: (2)

hmm looked more like an expidition to me but please toyota, move the shifter from the steering column reminds me to much of a minivan. but tundra suv or not, i would buy it anyways