On Topic (116) | Off Topic (10) | All (126)
Comments: 1-15, 16-30, 31-45, 46-60, 61-75, 76-90, 91-105, 106-116
Nothing yet, but there is a recall for the ball joints. Had the same problem with my 2002 Tundra.
The 5 speed automatic is a nice feature, I get 15-16 MPG around town, better than my '02 Tundra.
This truck feels solid, handles well, and is very comfortable.
Early indications are this truck will be as reliable as my 2002 Tundra so I guess I won't complain about 1 factory recall.
I don't like the OEM tires, they are fine on dry pavement, but don't perform that well in the snow. I would have chosen something with a bit more aggressive tread.
I hope you are ready for the steering, brake and air bag problems, as well as lots of others the newer Toyotas seem to be experiencing. Our friend just had to take his back in for the brakes again.
Good luck in the long term!!! With the mounting recalls and toy-like quality of your rice burner, you better dump it while you can... no wonder Toyota offers only a fraction of the warranty GM does!!!
Annoying rattles. You can feel that the body is about to come apart from the frame. Big v8 hp and torque figures left in the dust of a Dakota.
No full boxed frame here. Tailgate one to see how the bed is working more than the suspension!
As far as your complaint about the tires, check out the Yokohama Geolander AT line. Great tread pattern, and an excellent price. I live in upstate NY, and these tires are excellent in the snow.
No full boxed frame for the same reason people don't make wheels out of stone anymore; technology and progress show us how to build a stronger frame using less metal and therefore less dead weight. Don't make me laugh, a Ford guy saying Toyota's flex going down the road? You apparently have not driven both a Toyota truck and a Ford truck, or you wouldn't say something like that.
20:26 wake up You believe some fairy tale hype with a happy ending sad truth is the process used to manufacture frame rails is most likely the same as it was over a decade ago lets face it you can not out fit an entire industry as little improvements in technology occur due to the fact the existing platforms have to pay for themselves first then generate profits.
Just for sake of argument let's say you are right still a fully box frame would be superior to the c channel due to the extra wall the only difference is you would be employing new methods to make an even stronger frame rail. In other words when all is held equal the box is best it is just physics.
Since many new true full size trucks move with dynamic not just static loads it seems clearly evident to myself that the additional stress applied (both in the bed and when towing) would be one of many of the primary reasons professional contractors and savvy homeowners purchase several times more Ford F Series alone than Tundras annually in the U.S.A. Its prudent to compare the actual load and towing capacities before you buy any new boat, trailer or expect to do serious hauling, I would certainly rather have a reserve factor remaining rather than ever overload mine especially if a load of base material is accidently overloaded in my domestic.
Only 4 stars crash test, the worst in the market, this is how Japanese make fuel efficiency cars and trucks.
Of course you never see Toyotas with bent frames; nobody ever hauls anything with them. I've seen Fords with tree trunks cut in half and laying in the back of them. Has anyone in a Toyota ever hauled a fully grown tree trunk? Of course not; you wouldn't dream of doing that. As for the off-roader in the Toyota, your Toyota is lighter than any of those competitors and can flutter across the mud like a little butterfly. If your Taco had a load in the back of it, it would break a control arm or frame quickly. Of course it will go across mud better, if it's light. That doesn't mean it's tough; that means it's light. You should get your eyes checked because I've seen those original Tundra frames, and they are thin, not folded very tall or very wide. I've seen and owned Ford frames and Chevy frames; they're twice as thick, twice as heavy, twice as tall, twice as wide, and the Ford is fully boxed. If you're going to tell me a Toyota is tougher because it is lighter and made of less metal, then I'm going to tell you, you're dreamin'. They use car engines and car transmissions that are light and useless for any kind of work, and since they weigh nothing, they put no load on the frame or suspension. I bet a Tyco RC could go across mud better than an F-350. It weighs two pounds and wouldn't even sink into the mud. Your Toyota is pretty much the same way. It's light and fluffy, and with no real load in the back, it just glides across the mud without even sinking in. Let's just meet half way. Toyotas are superior toys for playing in mud like a little kid, and domestics are superior work machines made for moving multiple tons. I bet you don't pull 12,000lb. fertilizer buggies as I saw an S-10 doing the other day. (Very dangerous, but it was pulling it up a very hilly road.)
10:05 Well, I guess your 'superior box frame' in your Ford isn't built very well if it's BENT, now is it? You disprove your own statements!
I already said, I've loaded mine until the suspension was bottomed and the tires were almost flattening and my truck is as straight as day one. Yeah, it's tough, not light. And, as for the 'light weight' issue; they're not 'light' at all, and they're a hell of a lot tougher than a Ford of the same size. AND they perform off road better because they're designed better. Got anything else?
Sure climb under both and look up.
Yeah, I've got something else. I've never seen a Ford with a bent frame. So how many pounds did it take to squat your Toyota all the way down? 300? 400? Oh maybe 1000 if you were feeling crazy. Oooooooooooohhhh! Heavy load! 1000 Pounds will squat my F-150 about 3 inches with it sitting against the tailgate. 4000 pounds will squat my Chevy about six inches. Oh no - of course, I'm making up all of these numbers because there's no way in Hell a Chevy or Ford could haul more than a Toyota...
I'm pretty confident you've never put a two-ton load in your Tundra as my Dad did his old F-150 13 years ago or my old Chevy 9 years ago. I'm also pretty confident you've never pulled 12,000lbs with your Tundra as my Chevy had done. I bet that "heavy-duty" aluminum engine would handle that much weight for thirty years, as Cast-Iron Chevy engines have from the old Custom Deluxe days, huh?
Thinner metal is not tougher. Why don't you take a measuring tape and measure the frame on your vehicle instead of just saying "it's tougher." Put the numbers to the test and let them speak for themselves.
You're right, your Tundra is tougher...
It's tougher because its frame is thinner.
It's tougher because its frame is not as wide.
It's tougher because its frame is not as tall.
It's tougher because its cross-members are smaller.
It's tougher because it has fewer cross-members.
It's tougher because its axles are smaller.
It's tougher because its leaf-springs are thinner.
It's tougher because it has fewer leaf-springs.
It's tougher because its front control arms are skinnier.
It's tougher because its hub-carriers are thinner.
It's tougher because its sheet metal is thinner.
It's tougher because its 500 to 1000 pounds lighter.
It's tougher because it can go through mud.
It's tougher because it is never used to do any real work.
It's tougher because it squats with a few hundred pounds in the back.
It's tougher because it can't pull as much.
It's tougher because it has a soft and light aluminum engine.
It's tougher because it doesn't have a heavy cast-iron engine.
It's tougher because it's notorious for having front brake rotor issues.
It's tougher because it's "more reliable" because it's never been put through any real abuse.
Yep, if this is what you mean by "tougher", then you're right, it's tougher.
You really got me... your turn. :)
21:50 Everything you mentioned has no relevance at all. The same could be said of your truck versus a big triaxle dump truck. My Toyota will still last longer, break less, go way more places, and is worth more now and will be if I EVER need to replace it; which might be in about 15 more years, since it's ten years old already.
And you don't remember that I said I use my truck for work and haul heavy loads all the time. Just did it again today on a construction site.
The two Ford vans that we usually use are both broken right now. One is leaking transmission fluid and the other won't start. The one leaking tranny fluid has about 150,000 on it. Any of my Toyota's went 50 to 100,000 miles further than that before I sold them, and nothing ever needed fixed. So, the Toyota truck got us there and back, like always, overloaded and still flawless.
The facts remain;
1. My truck will do anything yours will on the road, getting better gas mileage all the way.
2. You can't follow me off road because your truck isn't capable of going where mine can. Your thick frame and cast iron block (which is useless and outdated) are both worthless if they can't get you where you need to go.
It must be silly season. This is the most ridiculous Toyota thread I have ever seen. A Toyota fan has now actually implied that the laws of Physics do not apply to Toyota's, by actually implying that a Tundra's C frame is stronger than a Ford's (or other real truck's) box frame.
Here are the facts, in case you (Toyota fan (s) ) have never seen them before.
There are two types of stresses of primary concern to the load carrying capability and/or durability of a truck (can't include Toyota in this group of course for reasons that will become apparent) frame. Those are Tensile stress, and shear stress.
Tensile stress, which also has the same characteristics (behaves in the same way) as compressive stress, deals with how much you can pull or push on an object (i.e. a truck frame member), verses how much elongation or compression (tensile strain) you will get for the given amount of force applied.
Shear stress deals with twisting force, or specifically how much twisting force (force tangent to a material surface divided by the area on which it acts) can be applied to a body, versus how much twisting movement (shear strain) it creates.
Now pay attention...
Tensile “strain” is how much elongation or compression you get in an object divided by its length, for a given amount of force applied ( (elongated length – original length / original length). How much tensile strain will be produced in a material for a given amount of tensile stress is different for every type of material; in this case, we are concerned about that material parameters for steel. The term for that value in Physics is called Young's modulus, and guess how Young's modulus is defined Toyota fans... It is the elongated length divided by original length we already discussed, multiplied by stress divided by cross sectional “AREA.” Guess what that means... The THICKER the frame, the less tensile strain (elongation/compression) it will undergo for a given amount of applied force. That also means the MORE material/steel you use, such as with a BOX FRAME verses a C FRAME, the more tensile force you will be able to apply to a frame before it breaks or gets bent out of shape.
Bottom line: there is positively NO WAY the C frame of a Tundra can take more tensile stress than the box frame of a Ford, Chevy, or any type of real truck.
The same is true for shear stress, which is also dependent on AREA and/or amount of the material in question, which I do not feel like typing again. Bottom line: for the same reason(s) as noted again, real truck frames can take more shear stress then TOYota truck frames.
If you (Toyota fans) need more details, consult any Physics book. It is all there.