Toyota Commercial Teases Consumers

Toyota commercial II

A new commercial from Toyota seems to imply we'll be seeing something new. From the looks of it — and viewers only get brief glimpses — there might be a new look or trim package headed our way. The commercial ran during a recent Supercross event and has us thinking there must be some kind of tie-in, given the entire ad emphasized dust and dirt. We're guessing it could be an off-road package for possibly three different vehicles.

PickupTrucks.com contacted Toyota, and spokesmen flatly stated they cannot confirm or deny any knowledge of a new option package or new vehicle from Toyota. The ad showed a blacked-out front grille with writing on it, similar to what we saw on the FJ Cruiser Final Edition. Maybe it means Toyota is changing how it wants to identify vehicles; clearly one vehicle is a new Tundra.

Since the vehicles in the commercial are running through the desert like wild horses, we're hoping the package offers more than just a face-lift and new stickers. Fingers crossed for a new Toyota Racing Development package or Baja Edition.

 

Comments

The infamous Raptors that bent their frames did not bend as one would expect. If one looks at pictures of the trucks in question, they created a gap between the upper edge of the box and cab. The frames bent upwards.
The consensus was this occured due to those Raptors running aftermarket springs "softer" than factory. A "softer" spring allows the axle to "travel" more rapidly. The axles on these trucks hit the "jounce" stops so hard that the frame bent upwards.
There were several "stock" Raptors on the same run that DID NOT bend frames.

Pretty sure the conditions under which the raptors bent their frames would have absolutely ruined any other stock truck. I read that they were traveling at a high rate of speed and hit a large bump. Every truck has limits, and the fact is the raptor's limits for high speed off-road are well above the limits of ANY other stock truck. Anybody complaining about bent raptor frames is a troll plain and simple.

Obviously, Alex, I have to repeat myself. I said the frames "COULD" literally break, not "would". Arguing semantics should be beneath you. Same with the Toyota statement because your words IMPLIED that I am a Toyota fan, even if you didn't state it outright. Otherwise, you never would have made that statement.

We do agree on one point--a point that I already made, in fact. Toyota's stunt would be easily repeatable by any of those trucks and almost any car with enough horsepower and traction to get it moving. About 50 horses with low enough gearing should do the job. The typical tow vehicle for a larger jet is a small tractor about the size of a Chevy Spark--though a lot heavier and with a 4- to 6-cylinder diesel under the hood. It's not the horsepower, it's the amount of torque you can solidly lay on the road. I only referenced Top Gear there to demonstrate just how simple it really is for those who Don't know and might want to.

As for the damage on the trucks, while I don't specifically have the images from that report on hand, I believe they bent DOWNwards, not upwards, though it was due to the axles hitting the bump stops. However, according to that same report, the ones that did not bend also did not jump as far--and it wasn't due to a mere "bump", they were intentional jumps of about 40-60 feet. Meanwhile, that record-breaking jump of 120+ feet did destroy the truck--and the damage looked like the frame itself broke. They didn't really offer many decent photos of the wreck.

Yeah i know nothing alex........

SO explain to me then why the Torque converter on the Aisin is a 4 disc clutch and the torqshift is a 2? and the output shaft is larger on the Aisin while the Input is a little larger on the torqshift. Its funny how Toyota is the most efficient company in the world so weight is utilized in all the important areas and the Aisin weighs more than the torqshift but i'm sure you'll say thats because of the magic fairy dust that ford uses that you drink...... Ford never overrates anything right? LOL LOL just like the input rating on that trans.........

http://www.dieselpowermag.com/tech/1206dp_allison_vs_torqshift_vs_aisin/


Here in the US Hino would source Allison for some things but they use Aisin too your such a fanboi...... proof below

the Class V trucks use the Aisin A465.

http://www.hino.com/trucks/story_1214.php?PHPSESSID=3f2e1b0263cb0a32031c6a4da77d7fae

Alex

Do you really not understand frame construction at all? A box structure if overloaded will "kink" or bend if you will...... you seem to confuse this with the Tundra's frame which allows for bending or "compliance" which means it will comply or flex, bend whatever under an overload condition but when the load is removed the frame will return to its original shape due to its C-channel design... for some reason i just dont think you understand this.....

The super duty tailgate is an extreme condition and shows they did not design the truck to comply that far without tailgate damage. I WILL GUARANTEE YOU that you COULD do this to a Tundra with absolutely ZERO tailgate damage. as you would say it just look at the bed flex in that Ford propaganda video! The Tundra's frame is FAR FAR superior to the F150. look at the size of the crossmembers of the frames the Tundra's crossmembers are MANY times larger than the ford's. I'm sorry this is too hard for you to understand obviously the general public are not mechanical engineers for a reason.

Fords frame:

http://blogs.cars.com/.a/6a00d83451b3c669e2019b04b52ca1970d-pi

Toyota Tundras frame

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Tundra+frame&qs=n&form=QBIR&pq=tundra+frame&sc=8-12&sp=-1&sk=#view=detail&id=7EFC27EC2E58C023A9F2C0E3EA24E643BF6FF918&selectedIndex=18

Also alex please tell me how Ford uses a butt mounted Class IV hitch rated for 10k with 3 bolts holding it to the very back end of the frame and claim they tow 11300 with it........

Meanwhile the Tundra's class V hitch is rated for 15k and the structure bolts to the side of the frame rail 2.5 FEET down the side of the frame with 6 bolts on each side. Take off your rose colored glasses and its OBVIOUS the Tundra is MUCH better. even having the rear leaf springs "toed out" creating a trapazoidal rear end so the truck doesnt sway with a trailer benind it like the tail waggin f150 does.

@roadwhale - The most infamous Raptor bent frame incident is where multiple Raptors IIRC 6 out of 10 bent frames on a square lip about a foot tall.

Here is a link showing pictures and even an in-cab video of the incident. The head of the Raptor program explains what happened. His explanation is basically what I had said.
http://www.autoblog.com/2011/07/21/svt-boss-goes-on-record-about-ford-raptor-frame-damage-claims-w/

@HemiLOL, Alex, Vulpine

There are pros and cons to different frame configurations. I think that Toyota will most likely shift to a boxed frame if for no other reason than optics. How ever you slice it they have developed a reputation for "bed bounce" and excessive flex. One can argue all they want as to which frame is superior but if the public thinks otherwise, it doesn't matter how good it is.

As Alex has pointed out, how will they spin it once the "triple-tec" frame changes? Ram pushed "DEF free" as a cost saver even though their trucks were hard on fuel and improved with DEF.

C-channel is popular in industry because it allows for an easy portal for air lines and electrical lines. It also makes up-fitting easier. C-channel does flex a lot. It is also less costly to build than a boxed frame.
In a transport truck, the cab will not tear itself apart due to flex. I've seen frames flex on heavy trucks under extreme loads to the point where you even notice some flex at the hood/cab junction. I've seen C-channel bent to the point of "no return". Industrial trucks primarily used off highway will run double cradle C-channel. That is c-channel inside of c-channel.


@ Lou

your actually wrong on cost in the case of the tundra. the frame cost 40% more than the f150 hydroformed frame. in a traditional sense a c-channel straight frame would be cheaper to build but not in reality at least not in the case were speaking of.

There's no doubt about it, Toyota saved money on the 2nd gen Tundra by calling the frame "triple tech" which really means in Toyota jargon: "we saved money on the frame". Not only that, but they "riveted" the major cross members to the side rails. Rivets!!! Now before we get onto a long diatribe of why rivets are better than welding...hmm..wait a minute...there's no argument that can be made about that. Welded cross members are a lot stronger and longer lasting than stupid rivets. Sorry Tundra fanbois, your Tundra frame is a pile of junk and so is the "can't sit on or put much weight on it" tailgates you now have. Even the 2wd Tacoma's have open C-channel after the cab section. It's nothing but a cost saving measure by the bean counters at Toyota. Nothing more, nothing less. The '95 and older U.S spec Toyota PU's (Hilux) had fully boxed frames. And, those old (Hilux) trucks could be sent to hell and back and they still kept running. I know, I had one.

Look, it's cute that you spell "boy" with an i instead of a y, but I'm not going to be bullied into liking Toyotas. You should try another tactic. If Toyota made class-leading trucks, your job of defending them would be so much easier, you should write them a letter.

You may think I am biased toward Ford, but at least I can point out their faults and say where they need improvement. It's ok to be biased, just don't let your bias blind you from critical thinking.

If Hino puts an Aisin in the Class V and an Allison in the bigger Class VII, which one do you think is the heavier-duty transmission?

Your examples are pure pedantry. It would be like me criticizing your 5-lug wheels. No I don't think 5 lugs are going to break in regular half-ton use, so I'm not going to waste my time on little points like that. I'll make you a promise. When my frame snaps, or when my class IV hitch breaks off, I will buy a Tundra! I'm on the Toyota website right now preparing... Now where's that heavy-duty diesel model? ;)

Also, when the frame bends on a Toyota and magically "springs back" to its original position, does all the sheet metal and plastic bend and return with it without any damage? Yes c-channels are the best, even though everyone else has moved on.

Keep cycling through that toyota frame link and you'll see the real quality. Toyota doesn't make record profits by putting the best components in their vehicles, common sense. Cycle through that link to see the rusty toyota frames.

My next truck will either be a tundra or dodge ram with that ecodiesel. If toyota comes out with some new engines then I'm going with the toyota. But that new front looks really cool. I think toyota is coming up with some new engine choices soon with ford having 2 new engines. But that dodge ram ecodiesel is cool 28mpg highway that's really good. But toyota is definitely my first choice.

Alex whats funny to me is you throw stones in a glass house. i NEVER argued nor implied that the heavier allison transmissions were somehow not as strong as the aisin a465 you merely used that as an angle to argue and move off the topic at hand which is the aisin is a better trans than the 6r140 torqshift. critical thinking you say? thats PRECISELY what i do. most of the people on this site dont have one single iota about how ANYTHING works and just makes blind judgements based on hollow opinions.

NOW, back to the discussion of how YOU seem to automatically refer to the heavier trucks as your go to point lets reverse the roll. you sit there yelling that the medium duties use this and that........... SO why is it again that they too use a C-channel frame? before you go all " its for upfitters and its not the same" yada yada yada let me remind you that the frame RAILS are not necessarily the only point of a frame that decide strength the cross members do more of that than you would assume. here is a bit of frame tech for you on this link. maybe more people should read this and get a better understanding of frames. when i refer to the frame of the tundra allowing compliance which means it will deflect or bend under an overload but recover to its original position when unloaded this link will help describe why this is to those dont understand.

http://transportation.centennialcollege.ca/oduffy/Trailers/Level%201/Frames%20handout.pdf

Heh. Well, Hemi's link is a good one that completely refutes Alex's home-grown understanding. I do understand that welding is stronger under certain circumstances, but I also know that the steel next to the weld tends to become extremely brittle. The weld itself almost never breaks while the once-hardened steel has lost almost all its temper. The only way to resolve that is to re-temper the entire frame, which is near impossible to all but the biggest restoration shops and difficult even there. Having worked for a company that specialized in welded boilers, I fully understand the processes and how time-consuming and expensive they can be. Essentially, welding is great for one-shot purposes but without considerable post processing it simply cannot handle long-term stress.

I also like the fact that the article fully explains the advantages of C-channel vs fully boxed; and as I said fully boxed, while more rigid, is not as strong overall because any bend becomes permanent. I-beams are stronger yet but except for really heavy loads is simple overkill on a truck. You'll find I-beams strung longitudinally under a trailer more often than box beams. And almost universally you'll find them either bolted or riveted, not welded.

As such, the more Alex argues against Toyota, the more I see the sense in Toyota's methods. Maybe that's why Toyotas are being purchased in greater numbers by farmers in my part of the country.

@HemiLOL - I didn't say Toyota went with C-channel because it is cheaper, I said that in heavy industry it is cheaper to build.

I am fully aware that crossmembers in a frame just like crossmembers in a bridge add rigidity and help with torsional loads.

Seriously first it's "The boxed frame will just snap" and the "Tundra frame will just bend" then it's "the boxed frame bends, but it doesn't bend back to the way it was." I can't keep up with your ever changing stories. Time to move on.

@ lou

I just didnt want the hating over cost to start back up again. for what its worth i never challanged your knowledge of crossmembers just setting alex straight......

@ alex

A box frame overloaded will bend. being too rigid can cause it to fracture so it can do both neither of which is good. I PROVED you wrong and now your just dodging it. so whatever you have fun with your box frame just dont act as if its better than a frame thats completely superior to it.

@Hemi, if you wanna be a right fighter and blow your own trumpet to make yourself feel better, be my guest.

I actually agree with you that if it is too rigid it can fracture. That's what the article you linked said and I agree with that. But your point is that the F150 and Silverado HD (or any other fully-boxed) frames are too rigid and will fracture or break. The article doesn't say anything negative about boxed frames in general, other than that it is difficult for upfitting, repairing, and reinforcing. It does not say they are too rigid. Again, it did make the point that too rigid is bad, but that's not to say that any frame more rigid than a Tundra is too rigid.

Just like too rigid is bad, too flimsy is also bad, the vehicle will handle like crap and the body will have to take the stresses when the frame flexes too much. So either extreme is not good. GM and Ford show their boxed frames bending, so what's the problem? GM and Ford frames are obviously not 100% rigid, likewise, the Toyota frame isn't 100% flimsy. If the boxed frames don't have a problem breaking, then the enhanced rigidity is worth it.

So what's the perfect balance of stiffness with enough flexibility to avoid fracturing in the rigidity continuum? If the frames are fracturing, then you could say they are too rigid. If the vehicles feel loose with cornering and the flexing is excessive enough to cause body damage when a wheel is off the ground, they are not rigid enough. So find your perfect sweet spot and be done with it.

The motorcycle industry went through a phase where they discovered that "too rigid" was bad. They found that there needed to be a certain amount of flex in the frame to improve handling especially when leaned over. This was apparent in both sport bikes and MX bikes.

@HemiLOL - no worries.

@ alex

you just cant help but argue can you lol. an overloaded box structure will kink NEVER to return to its original shape. THEREFORE a Tundra can take overloading it MUCH better than any box frame truck in the half ton segment.

I'm not tooting my horn as you suggest rather if everyone reads through all your posts you try to slither out of the "I'm wrong corner" by any means necessary which forced me to cover your argument from both angles where you said everyone was waffling as to whether its too stiff or it bends...... Now you make your story that you never said those things when CLEARLY you did say exactly that.


FINALLY, rigidity is bad at any level when loading a truck as long as it maintains its composure while driving. the Most compliant frame you can muster up is the best since if you actually take one off road it will keep the tires planted to the road MUCH better than ANY box frame. Any compliancy you add to the frame equals more wheel travel which is what you want off road.

While my Tundra has been the best rig I have ever owned, I am not getting my hopes too much by this commerical. Toyota is really conservative and it is unlikely that this will be anything earth-shattering. I have to give Ford credit; they make some cool niche vehicles.

One good thing about this "Pro" package--whatever it is--the mechanical stuff (assuming it is desirable) can likely be retrofitted to a last generation like mine.

@Hemi lol, stop making this personal with your little digs like "you can't help but argue." That doesn't strengthen your argument.
You said you're a critical thinker, so you should know that.

"FINALLY, rigidity is bad at any level when loading a truck as long as it maintains its composure while driving." That doesn't make sense. Everything has rigidity at some level.

"if you actually take one off road it will keep the tires planted to the road MUCH better than ANY box frame" That's what suspension articulation is for. Jeep switched from c-channels to a fully-boxed frame and the Rubicon chassis is at least as good off-road as the CJ7 was.

I am not changing my story. Boxed frames are better. I am still willing to bet that Toyota will one day catch up.

Also STOP randomly CAPITALIZING words in YOUR posts. They are not even words that require any emphasis. See HOW annoying IT is to READ?

@alex

I actually just enjoy that your annoyed. I jeep wheel base is 2/3 of a full size truck so not will be gained from a 100 inch wheel base. that is not a good analogy at all. the Tundra has the longest wheel base on the typical cab config. at 145.7 inches. at darn near 4 feet more wheel base some compliance in the frame can go a long way in wheel articulation. a box frame structure is necessary on a full cab i.e. a jeep with a "hard top" which is probably more the reason why they switched. the theory of how to build an SUV has nothing to do with a truck. why on earth do you think that there is a space between the cab and bed? any "real truck" needs this space because you dont want the load to stress the body and over a longer wheelbase such as a pickup truck its too hard to deal with making it that rigid....

Case in point, every Toyota SUV thats body on frame sports a boxed frame. The Sequoia, the 4 Runner and FJ Cruiser (the only 2 midsizers left BOF) and Land Cruiser. By comparison Toyota sells 51k 4 Runners a year, 13k Sequoias, 2k land cruisers and 14k FJ Cruisers..... Its not them cheapin out i assure you they sold 270,000 Tacomas and Tundra's last year. the Frame under the Tundra cost considerably more to produce but its a better structure to cope with all the stresses over a long wheel base like a pickup truck.

i dont need to strengthen my argument at all. clearly no matter what i type you have some hollow no fact comback to retort to me with.

Again boxed frames are NOT better, clearly every serious truck on the road doesnt use a box frame. Remember a Boeing 747-400"s wingspan at 117' has a wing nearly 50 ft. in length. at its wing tip it flexes 26 FEET top to bottom so 13 feet up and 13 feet down from center yet carry's an 800,000 piece of metal upwards of 40,000 feet in the air at 600 MPH without a problem, clearly compliance is good.

OH did i mention that NOWHERE in the frame of a 747-400 is a box structure of any kind.........

"I actually just enjoy that your annoyed" Seriously? That's the type of person you want to be? What a shame, I have no animosity toward you (I don't even know you), I just disagree with your claims about the Tundra frame being superior. But if you think our differences of opinion is a good enough reason to be a jerk, then I am truly sorry for you. Again, it doesn't enhance your arguement or image as a critical thinker. Anyway...

"OH did i mention that NOWHERE in the frame of a 747-400 is a box structure of any kind........." Oh really? You neglected to mention it's also not sitting on top of a c-channel frame. You talk about the elasticity/compliance of the wing tips, but you ignore the rigidity of the plane's hull! Yes the wings need to be compliant enough to change from the downward pressure from the weight of the wings when grounded to upward pressure from the weight of the fuselage when airborne. Yet they need to be light enough and stiff enough to hold their form. It's not dichotomous like you make it out to be: 100% flexible vs. 100% rigid. It just doesn't work that way.

I agreed with your point that too much rigidity is bad (so I don't know why you feel the need to keep arguing that point), you need some elasticity. Then I added you also need enough rigidity. Then you said "rigidity is bad at any level." Look, even paper has some level of rigidity, so what the heck are you on about? If thick paper has more rigidity than thin paper, and cardboard has more rigidity than that, obviously a Tundra frame also has some rigidity. All matter has a certain amount of rigidity to it, otherwise it wouldn't be tangible. Obviously the ideal amount of rigidity depends on the specific application.

So back on topic here, what's the ideal amount of rigidity for a light-duty pickup truck? The Tundra has a certain amount of flexibility and rigidity to it. Toyota can make the next platform more flexible or more rigid if it wanted to. Do you believe Toyota has achieved the absolute perfect balance right where it is now, and that it cannot in any way be improved? Hypothetically, if Toyota did add some rigidity to the next frame, would you criticize them for it?

@Alex: You should have stayed out of that aerodynamics argument--you only proved how little you know. Except in cases like the B-52 you simply won't see any downward curve worth speaking of on a B-747's wings because of the depth of the wing vs the length. A B-747's wing may flex a total of 34 feet but a B-52's wings flex a whole lot more. Additionally, some aircraft like the C-5 and the newer C-17s intentionally have that downward angle to the wings when grounded, but still offer enormous flex in the vertical. It's not just loaded wing vs unloaded. In fact, those wings NEED that flex to act as shock absorbers, to prevent the wing from breaking off in turbulence.

And that's again why the C-channel frame in the Toyota trucks seem to have the advantage. There is a difference between the words 'can' and 'will'. With the torsional flexibility of the Toyota, it's able to keep all four wheels on the ground more reliably--and a simple mounting of the bed just forward and aft of the rear axle allows that frame all the room it needs to flex between the cab and the bed. You see it as a weakness, but I see it as more 'forgiving'; better able to take the pounding of everyday driving no matter the road. You will note that even the Toyota frame is boxed--at the axles. Your own reference videos pointed that out early on.

As for your argument about, "Also, when the frame bends on a Toyota and magically "springs back" to its original position, does all the sheet metal and plastic bend and return with it without any damage?" Hemi made the point quite clear that there's no bodywork involved because there's that two-inch gap between the cab and bed; a gap that has existed there for at least 60 years. Even then truck manufacturers recognized that they needed to accommodate a certain level of flex even with the most rigid frame. In other words, that GM promo piece about rigidity is emphasizing more a design flaw in the Ford while essentially ignoring an equivalent one in their own design. That ¼" twist in the 2500 vs 1"+ in the F-250 in both cases had at least one wheel off the ground--losing traction you might need to get over an obstacle of some sort--that a Toyota would simply flex over with all wheels likely holding traction.

Again, Toyota's design makes sense, which may be why more people are buying it for real work.

@RW, I wasn't talking even talking about aerodynamics. I was simply saying the wings have flexibility, the hull has rigidity. (That's the bit at the bottom of the plane that doesn't flop when passengers are walking down the aisle).

The Super Duty also has a gap between the bed and the cab. That didn't protect the tailgate in the twist video. Nor did its c-channel frame. All real pickups have a gap there. Even the ones with boxed frames. Why? Because they all flex to a degree! The boxed ones just flex to a lesser degree.

"Which may be why more people are buying it for real work." Ummm you are wrong here! Nice appeal to popularity, but the Tundra is only ahead of the Titan in full-size pickup sales.
http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2014/01/best-selling-pickup-trucks-december-2013.html

"That ¼" twist in the 2500 vs 1"+ in the F-250 in both cases had at least one wheel off the ground--losing traction you might need to get over an obstacle of some sort--that a Toyota would simply flex over with all wheels likely holding traction." Seriously are you freaking kidding me? You cannot be serious? I'd love to see a video of that!

@Hemi, looks like you got yourself a follower, congrats!

@ alex

YES i do think that the tundra has the best mix of compliance and rigidity. See personally i have towed 12,500 with my tundra with absolutely no problem at all. meanwhile in the cab my truck road like the proverbial cadillac.

You seem to enjoy taking any one word or phrase and trying to tear it apart and turn it into something else. when i made the comment about any rigidity being bad i only meant that in the context of any more than necessary. You seem to imply that i want my trucks frame to act like rubber. I really thought you were smart enough to read and comprehend that naturally the frame will have a level of rigidity to complete a task. yet any extra is above and beyond whats needed (provided your engineering dept. is smart enough to realize this balance) is bad. why not have all the compliance you can if you can stably control a 12,500 lb load with no weight distributing and no sway kit and have the truck tow true down the road not trying to sway one bit! meanwhile the frame having enough torsional compliance to maintain contact with the ground on uneven pavement......

Heres a challange Ford: redo that test at propaganda creek but TOW a trailer behind it at say 8,000lbs and see who wins.... i will guarantee you its the tundra. you will think what you want but remember this. Toyota spends more on R&D than ford by multiples! no one will argue the Toyota is far superior in longevity durability and reliability..... this isnt by accident.

The tailgate on the super duty bent because the didnt build in the compliance through all the other parts from the frame up.... Obviously toyota did if you look at the video that ford made at propaganda creek.

BTW you brind up my comment about being annoyed...... your the one making it personal with "if thats the person you want to be comment" LOL

And i'm pretty certain i have made my point through all of this "argument" as you call it. I'm just tired of people that dont really know what they are talking about making it seem like ford built a better frame when they did it because its cheap to make more money off of YOU. Since i build cars that hop 80-100" in the air i'm quite certain i understand what needs to be flexible and what needs to be rigid. Toyota just a far superior frame and unfortunately the uneducated on the subject will believe any propaganda put in front of them....... what ashame.

@Hemi, fair enough I have no doubt that it pulls your 12,500 lb trailer just fine. That's it really, as long as we like the trucks we paid good money for, and they have served their intended purpose for our needs, that's all that matters really. Thanks for answering my question!

Cheers.

I wouldn't care if they were giving Toyota's away cause the 3 Toyota Dealers in my area are all a**holes

The main plane of an aircraft is THE main structure.

The fuselage isn't the main part of an aircraft's structure.

Since the main plane is the actual structure, at the fuselage you will find the most strength at the centre of the main plane. The main load bearing undercarriage is placed there as well as most of the aircrafts fuel is located between the main formers forward and aft of the main plane.

The flex in an aircrafts wings has not much to do with a wing being weaker or stronger. They are engineered to flex due to lift. You will not have a wing not flex.

@ tom#3

i'm sorry to hear that

That rigid piece that passengers walk on is a 1" thick aluminum honeycomb with a 1/16" top and bottom sheet of soft aluminum. It can be easily scratched and gouged, which is why they lay carpet over it to absorb the impact of high heels and other abuse. One 4'x8' sheet of that weighs less than the typical sheet of ¾" plywood. Again, it's obvious you know nothing of aircraft engineering.

You're right that the gap didn't protect the SD from tailgate damage; bad design in the mounting points of the bed is the main culprit there. Had the mounting points been jus fore and aft of the rear axle, you simply would not have seen that torque in the bodywork, though you would have seen more twist in the frame. Take a look at those mounting bolts sometime and see how far forward they're placed.

I never said the Tundra was leading in any sales chart, what I said is that more people are buying them than ever before. Toyota Tundra is approaching GMC's sales if it hasn't surpassed it.

Personally, I'd like to see it too (Toyota frame twist on that exact experiment). I'd like to see it just to prove my point. Remember, the weight of the load tends to go more on the rear axle than towards the front; that's just the way pickup trucks are designed. You want just enough weight forward of the axle to help keep the truck's front wheels on the ground. With today's crew-cab-short-bed trucks, ALL the load weight goes right over the axle itself; there's almost no room for any load forward. It's even pretty tight when hauling a fifth-wheel trailer where the corner of the trailer could contact the cab in a tight maneuver. It clears, granted, but it tells me these new trucks are built much more for towing than for hauling--and I don't tow.

@Tom#3: That's the dealer's fault, not Toyota's. Ever try contacting Toyota itself about their dealers in your area?



The comments to this entry are closed.