Cab Mount Chop - Food for thought?

A cab mount being chopped and replated is one thing, but I don’t think 2 or 3 pinhole rivets for a snorkel are going to lead to catastrophic damage in an accident. Seems like you’d have a higher chance of the snorkel itself killing/maiming someone.

 

I still say do the chop and plate it if you have sliders. If you don’t then do it and maybe worry for 30 seconds.

And don’t remove your sway bar if you don’t have coil overs.

 

Between you and @Stocklocker, there is only one looking like an idiot. I’m not saying it’s you, but it ain’t Stocklocker

 

You’re late to the party but welcome to it

 

I’ve been curious about that one myself. I drilled the a-pillar on my last truck. I won’t be doing it again. Mainly because I don’t want to risk and moisture getting in there. I don’t think the small holes drilled into the a-pillar weaken the integrity because they are holes in the sheet metal not in the actual structure of the a pillar. But if you don’t prep it correctly you can get moisture and yeah that would be bad news bears.

If you want to do it you can use some specific double sided (someone posted it up not sure which) but it holds like cement

 

Nope. Look back farther.

 

Lol welcome anyways

 

I’ll say this thread definitely has more info now @Stocklocker so it’ll be a good hit on google.

I waiting for @hiPSI to post his tinfoil hat post though

 

@Stocklocker here's what really pisses me off about this whole thing. First some seemingly random stats:
*47% of car accidents happen on 45 and 50 mph roads.
*The AVERAGE passenger vehicle weight is around 4100 lbs as of a few years ago. 3200 was average in 1989.
*IILS tests their crashes at 40 mph.
*NHTSA do their tests at 35 mph.
*Both of these agencies crash their vehicles into a wall (important!)
*Crash Forces QUADRUPLE by only doubling your speed
*You have less than 25% chance of surviving a 70 mph crash.

Why This All Pisses Me Off:
43 mph is a magic number. Why? Because most people survive under 43 mph. Most people don't over 45 mph.

Now, a note to readers: Very few higher speed head on accidents actually happen at initial speed. For example, a guy going 70 mph on interstate might look up, see a car stopped and slam on brakes, slowing down to 40 before striking that stopped guy. Another would be two vehicles hitting on a two lane road. One will probably swerve and hit more broadside, which will bleed off energy and lessen the impact. It is rare somebody just spats into a bridge at 70 mph. Even rarer if someone lives to tell about it.

Crash tests happen by ramming a select vehicle into a wall at 35 or 40 mph. This simulates that vehicle hitting the exact same vehicle.

Well, if the average weight of a passenger vehicle is 4200 lbs and your testing a 5000 lb vehicle, the test is unfair because it will be much more likely you will hit a lighter vehicle.
Conversely, if your little car weighs 3000 lbs and you get a five star crash rating, that's just not true. Chances are you will hit a vehicle weighing 4100 lbs so you will have a lot more damage.
Bottom line, a heavier vehicle is always safer than a lighter vehicle and because of testing standards, the heavier vehicle is built much safer because it has to go up against itself in the crash test!

These guys never tell you all that stuff do they....

Another thing... why don't they test above 40 mph? The answer is at speeds much above that, all those safety devices like airbags and cab mounts are just not adequate because forces are just too great. Designing a safe vehicle at 70 mph would cost too much for the average person and the whole driving dynamic would have to profoundly change. Think HANS devices, five point harnesses and helmets, to go across town. Not going to happen.

I will stop here because I think you guys see my point. I'm pretty sure everyone reading went above 43 mph, or a deadly speed today and do so every day. Vehicles are designed to be safe only up to 40 mph. After that, all bets are off, which means all this discussion about cab mount chops is moot above 43 mph. I understand why our insurance and some government agencies don't tell you to drive a heavy vehicle or to stay below 43 mph if you want a good chance to live. Why? Because there are environmental and other government agencies telling you to get little cars so you burn less fuel!

This is why I get mad when I read people's comments that obviously have no idea what's happening. Even worse, they believe whatever group has the best ad campaign.

Thanks for reading and letting me vent a bit. Any questions are welcome.

 

This is why we add steel plate bumpers. Since that pretty much wipes out most of the crush zone, there is little chance that a crash would affect the front wheels and cab mount since the bulk of the energy will be transferred from the bumper to the chassis.

 

@hiPSI not going quote because that’s a long post. And it’s not tinfoil I completely agree with most of your points

 

On the 4Runner forum, there was a 5th gen owner that hit a big tree at 40 mph. He had an ARB full hoped bumper. It was completely flat and wrapped some around the tree. Don't overestimate the strength of those bumpers.

 

I think those ARBs are specifically built to be crash compliant and work with all airbags based on that. However, the steel bumper made by a local fab shop likely has none of that testing or engineering built into it.

When the Enigma crashed his Taco, his bumper never moved

 

Thanks. It's truth. It's also not discussed much because of other agendas like mpg.

 

Check this out.

https://www.tacomaworld.com/threads/horrible-end-to-this-year.466841/

 

This is actually a very good point. It appears that Toyota decided to pass the small offset crash test by adding bracing on the side of the truck in the form of an extra beefy cab mount. An alternative method that would provide the same small overlap protection would be extra wide reinforcement in the crash bar (or off-road bumper). Of course this has other downsides not the least of which is cost and added weight.

 

Eh. What is the difference between the structure and the sheet metal?

Personally the rust paranoia, and not being able to return to stock appearance easily if I hated it would prevent me from making that change.

 

If I'm seeing that right. the underside of the mount is 780 and the top is 440.

 

Everything boils down to cost. A vehicle could be made to increase survivability of the occupants but it would look like a stock car inside, roll cage, HANS, etc as @hiPSI says. It would get 6 MPG and cost $200k.

That, like putting substantial bumpers on, would not sell in the market. Too expensive. Another potential reason OEMs don't use ARBs from the factory is the damage you'd do to other vehicles in accidents, even fender benders, would increase. So you'd pay more for insurance.

It's all statistics and probabilities.

I know what you're saying, not sure which way it would fall, though. The stock bumper and crash bar will disperse energy as they break apart. So I wonder if putting a bumper on makes things worse.

What I mean is even an ARB exposes more of the tire so unless the crash is centered there is maybe less preventing an offset barrier or other vehicle from directly hitting the tire. Although the wings of the bumper are more substantial, so maybe it would help to have that plate bumper as you say. It's even further pushed down with a lift.

I'm wondering if Toyota beefed up the cab mount on the 3rd gen because they increased the ride height an inch, for example. I haven't looked to see if the front profile changed much.

 

Im selling my Tacoma, buying a big-rig, and putting a snow plow on the front of it. No chop necessary. Excellent advise.