2007 Tundra vs F250 5.4

[Kahuna]

Toyota really makes a big deal about their triple frame technology. They have the fully boxed frame up front, the double C channel under the cab then a regular C channel near the back. They claim this is designed for a better ride with more strength and durability.

I believe the half ton Chevy and F150 both use a fully boxed frame. Heavier trucks like the F250 and semi trucks have a regular C frame (or double C) down the entire truck. I have seen some tests and I think a certain amount of flexibility is built in the frame so it is not so rigid. I guess time will tell how it holds up over a load and with time.

From what I have read, Toyota spared no dollars in the design and construction of the new Tundra and I'm sure they did their homework before going with this triple tech frame.

 

[L-ENTERPRISES]

Ford F150 vs Chevy vs Toyota - Bed Bounce


Ford F150 vs Toyota Tundra - Frame Strength


http://www.leftlanenews.com/tundra-problem...-to-toyota.html

Autoblog

 

[Kahuna]

I already saw these frame strength and bed bounce tests on U-Tube. At least one was sponsored by Ford, perhaps all. I was concerned about the Tundra bed bounce and spoke to some private disinterested parties and they said a rigid frame looks good on a test but is by no means the absolute criteria for engineering a durable frame. The frame, I am told, was designed for a certain amount of flexibility.

The Ford and Chevy have the box frame that is more rigid but both have lesser tow capacities than the Tundra. Toyota could just have easily built a fully boxed frame because this truck was totally redesigned from the ground up using hardly any previous parts. I think the only thing used on the new Tundra from the old truck was the 4.6 engine.

Toyota didn't spare any expense in the new design. I'm sure if the engineers thought the fully boxed frame with little flexibility was the way to go, they would have used it. Some people can't seem to believe Toyota has set the standard against Chevy, Ford and Dodge. I was a skeptic myself until I drove one. I left for the day looking to buy a new Ford and came home with the Tundra.

 

[cp1969]

Toyota didn't spare any expense in the new design. I'm sure if the engineers thought the fully boxed frame with little flexibility was the way to go, they would have used it.

Where did you get this info? All engineering design for the open market 'spares expense.' If it didn't, cars and trucks would cost as much per pound as the space shuttle, i.e., with titanium frames, aluminum bodies, etc.

 

[Z-Michigan]

Great videos, finally got to watch them now. Yes they are clearly made by Ford, but I don't see any defect in the testing. The one labeled "strength" is really just another test of stiffness, not of strength (as in yield or breaking strength). Clearly the F150 frame has a huge edge in stiffness. This doesn't automatically mean better durability, but it is likely to, and I don't see any drawback to stiffness. I suspect Toyota chose a C-channel frame for cost and/or ease of manufacture. IMHO Toyota is still chasing the Big 3 on pickup truck engineering, which I find hilarious since they are perhaps the simplest 4-wheeled highway vehicle to engineer of anything sold in the US.

I have owned cars/trucks from Toyota, Honda, Ford, Chrysler, and now GM, and I think the claimed differences in quality or engineering are vastly exaggerated and in many cases opposite of the reality.

As for tow rating, I think Toyota went all out since they don't offer anything above a 1/2 ton, but with the GM 1/2 tons offering ratings up to 10,500lbs (6.0L V8 with "MAX towing" package) I don't see any meaningful difference between that and Toyota's rating of 10,800 or whatever it is. I think you have no business trying to tow more than 10k with a 1/2 ton. FWIW, I wouldn't tow more than 8-9k with a 1/2 ton regardless of rating or engine. 10k to 11k is where I start thinking of upgrading from a 3/4 ton to 1-ton.

The new Tundras main advantage at the moment is putting a 6-speed auto in a 1/2 ton (GM has 6-speed autos in all their HD trucks, Chrysler has a 6-speed with the Cummins and a 5-speed with Hemi, and I don't pay much attention to Ford but know they offer a 6-speed in some trucks/SUVs). With gas prices I think 6-speeds will be showing up in GM and Ford 1/2 tons really soon, maybe for 2009 models; they already make the 6-speeds, they just are production limited due to their volumes.

 

[Skidmark25]

I have had my '07 for a couple of months now and have driven it like a little old lady for 2,500 miles or so, just really hit the accelerator pedal this weekend and nearly had to change my underpants.

 

[gemini5362]

Is there any difference in the GM 3/4 HD with the duramax and allyson transmission versus the GM 1ton HD with the duramax and allyson. The only difference I see is the 1 ton has dual wheels which could be put on the 3/4 ton.

 

[DrRick]

Only difference in the specs seems to be the frame itself. All other components such as axles, springs , brakes , etc. are interchangeable. I have a 05'duramax 4X4 crew cab shortbed , and BIL has the same in a one ton. We can't find any differences.
rick roberts

 

[Z-Michigan]

I would be really surprised if the springs are the same, at least the rear springs. The 1 ton has nearly double the rated payload. Frame, engine, transmission should be identical (the frame IS different between 1/2 ton and HD models). The wheels (all around) and wheel bearings (front axle) are probably different for the higher rating. Something more than the stickered rating is changing the empty weight between the two trucks.

 

[wushaw]

The obvious differences between a 3/4 and one ton are:

1. ft. rotors
2. rear rotors
3. wheels
4. rear springs with the overload frame stops
5. fender flares

I think that's about it.