What the hell ''flexy frame'' means????

The 1st gen tacomas had c frames too, its the pre 95 pickups that had fully boxed frames.

 

The 1st gens are boxed right down to the leaf spring, crawl under and take another look.

 

The only problem with this theory is all the trucks were driven at the same speed. So this really does nothing to bolster your theory.

On a truer note, lots of older trucks were C channel framed, so this does not worry me as much. If it did I would be driving a Frontier right now, and I am not.

 

...which has nothing to do with anything. That speed over bumps of that frequency give the Tundra problems. I'm sure you could find a similar speed/frequency combo to drive the F-150 nuts.

They're both fine trucks. The point is, stay clear of marketing propaganda from any manufacturer and stick with the independent reviews.

 

While I absolutely agree with that and have never bought a product without research, the argument to bolster the Tundra position cannot be they drove it at X speed, when all trucks were driven at the same speed. Hate to tell everyone but most data for comparison is done with the same controlled elements and the difference being the tested product.

 

Yes, but the test is also not rigged against one specific product in the lineup.

A single circumstance is too simplistic a method to use for judging an automobile you intend to purchase. Who's to say the Ford/Dodge/GMC/Whoever doesn't have the ass end flip a shit on the same track at 50, whereas the Tundra smooths out?

Partial information is often worse than none.

 

^Stop making sense.

 

He's thinking of the Ridgeline which is fwd bias until you encounter crap then it shifts it to 50/50 with the rear.

The Nissan Frontier is exactly like our trucks in terms of it being RWD with optional part time 4x4.

 

I agree that until a full test is completed at a larger interval between X miles to X miles can a true comparison be achieved. And one test does not make the final decision on any purchase, or I might be in a Ford right now. Instead I am in a Tacoma.

But I still stand by the belief that just because the test was only conducted at 45 miles per hour there is some justification that the Tundra is better until there is data to prove that and at this time there is not since Toyota has failed to release any results of their own test.

And don't anyone sit at their computer and think that Toyota has not conducted the same test as all manufactures conduct the same stress test.

 

Remember that flex is not per se a bad thing. Ever watched the wingtips of an airplane in flight? A 777's wing is designed to flex something like 26 feet at maximum stress. Without flex all other structures would have to be reinforced accordingly, with a concomitant increase in weight.

If you have ever ridden in the back of an Army duce and a half you will learn to appreciate a light-weight flexy vehicle.

 

No one's saying anything about the Tundra being better - just that Ford, in creating a marketing video, put it in a situation that would show it in the least flattering light possible.

 

Ever looked at the frame on an 18-wheeler? That's a C-channel frame.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:A_truck_chassis_section.jpg

 

A very small amount of flex in the fame is acceptable, but let's be reasonable here. The suspension is meant to flex and absorb the variations in the terrain, not the frame.

The frame takes a lot of stress. This is especially true when the tires are off the ground. From what I can tell it seems to do a pretty good job.

 

isn't a flexy frame better for u offroaders? neway, i hate my frame lol tryin to stiffen it up anway....

 

Remember that vehicle frames are designed by engineers and approved by governmental agencies after undergoing safety tests.

Modifications quite often detract from vehicle safety. For instance, many aftermarket bumpers will cause the air-bag system to not work as designed. Any lift in a vehicle that already is top-heavy and prone to rollover will just exacerbate the problem. Also, frame and/or body reinforcements may render safety crumple zones ineffective.

Consider the consequences should you get into an accident with your highly modified vehicle. If you are lifting your trucks or otherwise modifying them in structurally-significant ways then I'd pay a visit to your insurance company and make sure that your policies are still valid. If you are injured or injure someone else in an accident with a truck that has extensive modifications and the insurance company can show that the modifications detracted from the safety engineering then they can void your policy and render you personally liable.

 

maybe its written by some nerd who after "testing" vehicles, he jumps in his hyundai and goes home.

 

Not that I disagree but saying that the government approves it is like saying Hitler had great organizational skills. Doesn't give me much confidence.

 

People like to use the boxed subframe as a big advantage of the Frontier but in reality when I was comparing them before I got my truck I found it was just not true. On forums like clubfrontier and others half the users on the entire forum had damage from the frame flexing and the bed hitting the cab. The frame on it is boxed but it is also thinner, smaller, and lighter than our frames. Users were having them warp or buckle pulling trailers completely within its advertised limits. They were damaged very easily in an accident, and images showing the amount of flex were completely comparable to the flex on a tacoma. People would say things like 'I thought our frames didn't flex' and get responces about the it being more about the thickness of the steel and the nissan frame being thin and light.

 

Not everything the government does is bad. I can eat a can of food without having it tested or take an aspirin without having it analyzed or buy a steak without having to bring a scale to weigh it or a DNA testing kit to ensure it's not horse meat.

If people didn't try to take advantage of each other and cover up their mistakes there would be no need for government; as long as they do, there will. Do you think Toyota would have said much more than "Sorry, out of warranty" to the 1st Gen frame issue had it not been for the NHTSA investigation?

 

Interesting discussion. I am still not sure what to think of the frame after seeing my bed buck all over the place wheeling or going over bumpers. My old Ranger was also a C channel but was evidently much stiffer.

I am not sure if the "but big duty trucks have C channels" analogy is accurate. I would think that in building equally strong frames, the boxed frame would be lighter. These vehicles have much greater curb weights and massive components. They can afford the weight of a necessarily massive/stiff c channel.


Another point I would raise is to look at worldwide marketed small pickups such as Hilux, Navara, L200, (and yes even Ranger). You see these things crawling all over the lousy places in the third world on terrible roads, under poor maintenance conditions, and hauling massive loads (or insurgents with a pintle mount DSHK.) Unlike the current Taco, these minis are designed to do work. All seem to have boxed frames.