Why Tundra's frame is inferior....Good read..

[VMax2007]

http://www.hydroforming.net/hydro/ho...nt.php?sid=162

[PowerChoke]

So Toyota doesn't hydroform their frames? Wow! From what I can gather, the Tundra has a 4.3 rear axle ratio, 10:1 compression ratio, and a non hydroformed frame. Is it just me, or does anyone else think Toyota should have done a little more research and development?

[likearock00]

GM used this in advertising back when the 800's first came out. Now, not a word. GM really needs to step up their advertising- proving how it's better than the TUndra.

[PowerChoke]

Honestly, I do not think GM feels they really have to run down Toyota to make the 900s look good. GM is happy with stating the facts, such as the superior fuel economy figures, and just letting the product sale itself. Toyota is a minor player in the truck market, only tooled up to produce 200k trucks per year at maximum production, so it just isn't worth it to GM.

Also, anybody who knows anything about trucks should know that a truck with a stub nosed front end, a V8 with one H-U-G-E drive belt, a 4.3 rear axle ratio, and a 10:1 compression ratio is inferior to GM's 900s.

[1931Chevy]

I think Toyota dont hydroform the Tundra chassis because that would ass more cost the the costly tundra

Honestly, I do not think GM feels they really have to run down Toyota to make the 900s look good. GM is happy with stating the facts, such as the superior fuel economy figures, and just letting the product sale itself. Toyota is a minor player in the truck market, only tooled up to produce 200k trucks per year at maximum production, so it just isn't worth it to GM.

Also, anybody who knows anything about trucks should know that a truck with a stub nosed front end, a V8 with one H-U-G-E drive belt, a 4.3 rear axle ratio, and a 10:1 compression ratio is inferior to GM's 900s.

And I prefer that Ford and GM attack the Tundra now and not let the Tundra get stronger,Toyota have the capacity for 350k Tundras and that would mean they would sell more Tundras than GM Sierras and maybe Dodge Rams

[PowerChoke]

Your right that Tundra is very costly, but why? If they cut corners with things like not hydroforming the frame, why is the Tundra higher priced then the GMs? BTW, the Tundra is off pace for 200k trucks arent they? Or was that bad info?

[Shotgun]

What's funny is that GM just started doing it in their trucks this year, Ford in 2004, not sure about Dodge...but the fact is, why didn't Toyota? They should've known that this was the way to go. Of course, nobody cared about frames before. Most are just find with the old style frame. It's just something to discuss now that GM finally uses it on it's fullsize trucks. However, I bet most would rather have an updated powertrain (at least the ones complaining). I thought and still think that the 800's are still nice trucks, some of the best. They just needed a little "massaging" again, for the most part.

[PowerChoke]

Yes, the powertrain improvement would be top priority, but I guess the thing that rubs me wrong about Toyota is that they did not hydroform their frame but they still charge full price as if they are totaly new and modern while they are still using an old syled frame. You know where I'm coming from?

[Mr. Burns]

Originally Posted by likearock00

GM used this in advertising back when the 800's first came out. Now, not a word. GM really needs to step up their advertising- proving how it's better than the TUndra.

why waste advertising money? The tundra already has a huge cliff to climb, advertisements putting it down won't really do much IMO. But I'm not saying they should ignore it, certainly not.

focus on the camcords instead.

[Shotgun]

Originally Posted by PowerChoke

Yes, the powertrain improvement would be top priority, but I guess the thing that rubs me wrong about Toyota is that they did not hydroform their frame but they still charge full price as if they are totaly new and modern while they are still using an old syled frame. You know where I'm coming from?

I totally agree that the Tundra is a bit overpriced. Of course, they are banking on the "It's a Toyota and that will sell itself" mentality a bit. I can see them offering larger incentives for some time as they try to get more people in their truck.

[PowerChoke]

Definitly, the incentives will start up soon as soon as people start relizing that the Tundra is about a generation behind GM. I would put the Tundra up against the 800s but the 900s are in a league of their own. I agree with you, the Toyota emblem was supposed to sale the Tundra and that has worked for a few unknowledgable people about trucks but anybody who knows cars, can see GM makes a better truck.

[Michael_S]

Originally Posted by PowerChoke

From what I can gather, the Tundra has a 4.3 rear axle ratio, 10:1 compression ratio,

GM has announced that it will be putting its 6-speed Hydramatic on the GMT900s and replacing the Vortec Max 6.0 with the 6.2 from the Escalade/Yukon Denali/Sierra Denali.

I researched the gearing in the Toyota transmission, and it's much taller than in the GM 6 speed. So multiplied out, the total gear multiplier for the Tundra is only slightly shorter than the Sierra Denali. Check this post:
6.0L V8 will be retired and replaced with the 403-hp 6.2L V8

And the 10.0 compression ratio is not far off the 10.5 compression ratio in the Sierra Denali, and both make their power on regular fuel.

The GM pickups are winning comparisons based on a better frame, better driving characteristics and handling, and a nicer interior. But I don't think there's anything wrong with the new Tundra's powertrain.

[BigAls87Z28]

GM cannot make fun of no ignore the Tundra. They need to keep the claim that they make the best trucks around. They need to highlight the benifits of the truck that make it great.

[1931Chevy]

^now is the time for GM and Ford to attack Toyota, when your enemy is week attack him, this is the same tactic Toyota has been giving Ford and GM on the car front ,so they need to do the sameon the truck side, GM should do the same thing they are doind with the Aura, putting a Camry and Accord to compare ,they should do the same with the trucks

[HoeyHimself]

Originally Posted by BigAls87Z28

GM cannot make fun of no ignore the Tundra. They need to keep the claim that they make the best trucks around. They need to highlight the benifits of the truck that make it great.

Exactly..while the truck market is very differant than the car market, as far as loyalty and differant, some times more attentive to power and reliability..there are more light duty trucks being sold to the non-working class man now and many of which have a Camry in the driveway and up until now havent had much to look at outside of the domestics. With the new Tundra, whether it be the greatest truck or the worst, its still a threat. It could be the biggest pile of crap (some argue it is) but based on its big brawd looks, tough talking ads, and Toyota name..it is undoubtably a threat. GM no longer can just look to please to "truck guys"..they have to also cater to the urban pavement pounders that wont see a day of hard work (and thats fine, some people have justification for owning a truck but not nessecarly putting it to work frequently.)

I do wish GM would toss out some gorilla warfare campaigns..just using facts but throwing every flaw of the Tundra out to the consumers with marketing. Ford does it...Toyota does it..GM, give it more of a shot! It reminds me of the Coke/Pepsi battle..Coke plays clean, you see their commercials during Christmas with Santa and polar bears..whats Pepsi doing? Talking trash about Coke. I dont know, I have always thought Coke was kinda a wussy for not taking a stand..GM, dont be a wussy..dont be too arrogant..but please, if you got it, flaunt it..and with the best truck in the market, youve got "it."