2016 Tacoma DCLB 4x4 vs 2015 4Runner Trail Premium 4x4

ah... rust. a strawman. and regarding flexing, fatigue and crash worthiness - pure conjecture.

 

...it doesn't take a genious to surmise that crash worthiness over is affected by rust and use. these vehicles are tested when new, not after they have used for years.

State inspections fail vehicles all the time in heavily salted areas that have significant rust because they are declared...unsafe. Your straw man. metal fitique doesn't affect crash worthiness either. Everything is beautiful in Tacoma land....they are the cheapest ladder frame vehicle Toyota makes...and their underpinnings show it.

 

of course the rust can be an issue, that again is a strawman argument, assuming the truck years later will have rusted. your posts are critical issues and high irresponsible.

 

I would think that stating rust and use are important factors in long term crash test results and Tacomas have a history of frame rust that, that according to their own engineers, they are designed to flex, every owner would be wise to take measures to help prevent the rust and not over load them, is pretty damn responsible. The "every thing is awesome " head in the sand , especially in light the recent VW revelations means owner beware on every front. What is irresponsible is just assuming that all cars are crash tested and the results are final for the life of the vehicle. I have had a bunch of Toyota trucks, seven in all and have made yearly inspection and treatment a necessary priority. BTW....You say, that"rust can be an issue " then you say it's a "straw man," which is a fallacy, wtf is it ?

 

Dagosa I think if you get into an accident of enough severity to worry about life and death of the occupants....boxed frame or not, c channel or not, rust or not, the frame is gonna be fucked anyways. Some or all parts of the frame will be replaced. Intuitively while boxing a structure should make it stiffer, it also matters completely on the whole design. The Gauge of metal makes a difference. The load paths make a difference. Until you or anyone else does the finite element analysis on the structure to predict the failure model...it's all conjecture as to what is stronger than what. Failure and flex are two different things. Boxed or not, crumpling of the frame is/should be part of the force attenuation that saves the lives of the occupants. Having a frame that is too strong translates the g-forces of a collision to the occupants rather than being soaked up in collapse of the structure.

It just kinda sucks that we have to trust that the engineers did the job they get paid to do and design and make the vehicle within the constraints they decide upon.

I think Woody said talking about rust was a strawman because he didn't say anything about rust being an issue and you brought it up like you were countering that it was.

 

I think the both of you are missing the point and no matter how many different ways I say it, it is still lost in a defensive posture that our Tacoma's are safe vehicles and we don't want to hear any blasphemy to the contrary. Or course they are safe. This is not about whether a Taco is safe, becasue passing an initial crash tests is pretty straight forward. A 4 Runner as both are made now....just happens to be a sturdier vehicle having owned both and my observation, and had with fewer issues with the 4 Runner that could affect real world crash results as both cars age. Now saying that a Taco passenger could survive a crash as well as a 4 Runner negates the difference between say a Camry and a Yaris even though both have acceptable crash test results. And yet, given the two, most would choose being a passenger in a Camry. Btw, these are all my preferences and my reasons and I presume not to speak for annoy else.

 

It sounded like opinion being passed as fact as to whether a 4runner had a stronger frame or a stiffer frame based on visual inspection compared to a Taco, and whether it was relevant that having a stronger frame or a stiffer frame was necessary.

Having said that I don't know anything about a 4runner frame and deep down in my gut I prefer a boxed frame but I hope/trust that my 2nd gen is strong enough. Time will tell.

I did bend my 1st gen frame above the rear axle.

 

AAAAAhhhhhhhahahahahahaha

 

The 4 Runner does have a stiffer frame.....just listen to the engineers who discribe the Tacoma. Crash tests in 4 Runners are more consistently good then Tacoma's. Check different years. What is relevant is than you have a frame that does not have as extensive a history of rust.
http://www.safercar.gov/Vehicle+Sho...type=model&make=TOYOTA&model=TACOMA&year=2015

 

Point taken.

 

causation and correlation...

 

I would gladly give up crash survivability for a herculean frame that I could overload at will. LOL.

 

yes - changing the conditions - no duh that if the frame is rusted to the point that it affects the outcome of the crash that it's a problem (that was never a part of the original set of conditions but thrown in to the reply to make their statement have validity). no one has proven that the differences in the frame have any correlation to crash outcomes. that is nonsense unless someone can post objective data that says otherwise (maybe they can, and if so that is the data they need to post). this is complete speculation and conjecture from completely random data points. how the overall car is designed is what impacts crash results - crumple zones, etc. you see similar autos with similar frames perform very differently in crash tests due to all the other variables. hell... the people that put armor on their vehicles are really creating problems for themselves and potentially the 'other' car in a crash (don't get me wrong, i love me some armor!) - but i digress...

if there is a significant enough difference between the crash test results, i can understand some people taking that into consideration in their purchase, however i'm not sure why the frame is being singled out as the contributor (more speculation) to results that as of now are solely speculation in the first place.

 

And not as friendly. As matter of fact, far from it.

 

sounds like gen4 from the rumors i hear....

 

Is that the non-abs disc brake version that looks like a first gen? Lord knows that drum brakes don't work anymore.

 

drums back there??? not sure why they even put any brakes back there then... i just Fred Flintstone it.

 

Well, they only do tire tests on new tires yet they expect their performance to deteriorate because of wear, ( other then dry road traction) even if they don't test them. If you are sitting around expecting some one to prove your point that an old rusted car or heavily used one will not yield any change from it's original crash test, you have a long wait too. Most logical people expect lesser performance because rusted metal is less strong and does not behave as expected when new and stressed.
But go ahead, use your logical.

 

you missed the point completely. the assumption as originally posted was two new, good condition vehicles. if you damage one of them to skew your results, of course you change the outcome.

 

The point is, the Tacoma is more suseptable to change then the 4Runner and given that the crash test are more consistently good when new for the 4 Runner over the Taco, I think we have an acknowledged safety winner.....in this corner, the 4Runner.