14th Nov 2007, 23:32
17:40,
Watch the "truth about trucks" video.
They test all the trucks on a flex-course. The tundra did the worse. The whole frame was flexing, the tailpipes were slapping against the bed, the fuel door was flying open, etc. The F-150, because of its THICKER AND STRONGER FULLY BOXED FRAME, did the best, 10x better than the Tundra with its weak c-channel frame. There was little movement. The trucks that did the WORSE were trucks with C-channel frames, like the Tundra.
My point is, that a fully boxed frame is flat out stronger than any C-channel can ever be. My comments were about frames, not bridges that are made of mostly concrete.
Sorry to disappoint you, however, I had an S-10 that made it to 496,000 miles before I got rid of it. And it was still running fine. Read the review.
14th Nov 2007, 23:48
Hey everyone, we might as well stop trying to convince this one guy that keeps bragging about his Toyota. Obviously, even with all of the vast differences in weight, metal, rigidity, not to mention aluminum engine vs. cast iron, lack of any real abuse to brag about besides spinning tires in mud instead of real work, and the front end crumpling like a pop can in any minor wreck, if he can't acknowledge these differences, that's his problem.
Toyota needs to change their slogan from "moving forwards" to the Charmin toilet paper slogan, "less is more". Because somehow Toyota has managed to violate both the laws of physics, and logic by convincing people that quality is to have less metal and yet pay more for it.
At least we're not that naive. I actually get down and look underneath these vehicles and compare one to the other. There is no opinionated rants when the metal in the domestics is indeed more from frame, to suspension, to engine.
There is no opinion about thin metal. Thin metal is thin metal whether you says its thin or not. No one's opinion is going to change this. Your Toyota is physically a weaker truck. I like to think of it as the skinny kid on the football team that looks as big as the other team members because of the shoulder pads. The illusion of the sheet metal makes the truck look pretty much the same compared to the others, but underneath it all, it simply isn't there.
15th Nov 2007, 06:54
13:34 there is no way you can mot have trucks at construction sites. I work on these sites. If you were in this field you would realize that fact. I could tag my backhoe and drive it to work perhaps.
15th Nov 2007, 11:42
To think that 90% of the road construction crews I have seen must have transformer vehicles. When I drive by all I see is like 4000 car and like 1/5 of that are trucks. You really need a truck when the state is providing a bob cat or a crane to reconstruct road, right? I mean if you hitched it on your truck and left the site wouldn't that be stealing tax payers stuff? hmmm.
15th Nov 2007, 17:40
23:48 OK, we'll use a football analogy if you like. I like to think of Ford as the fat kid on the team that thinks that just adding more weight everywhere will make him tougher and perform better. Simply not true. Once again, you completely miss the point. So I'll try again. Toyota DESIGN! DESIGN!...The way the frame is shaped and bolted together, is superior to any other truck it's size. I've seen your theories about weight=strength disproven dozens of times off road, where anything else will flex and fall apart before a Toyota will. You obviously don't have enough knowledge about this subject to discuss it. One more time; more material does NOT mean more strength. If it's shaped correctly, maybe so; but the people at Ford and GM have not yet done this. A Toyota will stay tight long after an S-10 has twisted apart. Oh, and an S-10 with 496,000 miles on it? Yeah, sure.
15th Nov 2007, 20:17
Why skimp... its not a small compact having to appeal to the masses mpg woes. These trucks fully equipped are not cheap. I'll take rugged, strength, payloads and great tow capabilities first and then the superior warranty to back it up. That means 3/4 ton pickups if I am buying a truck and insuring it and what is behind it......I am not taking the risk.
15th Nov 2007, 20:41
11:05 Well, I'd like to thank the many thousands of people on Car Survey for steering me away from any Ford, GM, or Dodge product. I realized that they are all junk, and made the smart decision and bought a Toyota, which is a much better product than those 3 will ever hope to make. Glad I read here first and didn't waste my money on garbage.
16th Nov 2007, 09:39
I think some of you who keep throwing the " cast iron and heavy weight is better" argument need to carefully read the comments from 05:43. That person mentioned he worked at a lab in Oak Ridge, TN. I actually grew up not too far from there. That area is heavily involved with nuclear, robotic, and defense research. Now just sit and think about that for a minute. I think this person knows a tad more than the average joe about metallurgical properties. Why even continue the argument?
As I've said before... I haven't seen any cast iron planes flying around... have you?
14th Nov 2007, 23:21
To 22:32.
Weight is the force of gravity placed on an object and is proportional to its mass. Whereas, strength is the amount of force divided by the area. There is no relation between strength and weight. You are correct when you said “We’re not talking about lead” but if weight and strength were related then it would apply to all materials, including lead.
You do know that fully boxed (square) is not the strongest shape, didn’t you? (See above about how strength is determined) The strongest would be a cylinder (circle).
Quick someone call N.A.S.A. and let them know that more equals stronger. More equals more and that is it. You keep mixing up terms and trying to some how say you are right.
I went back and re-read my post to see if I left out something, and lo and behold here it was in black and white… ”This doesn’t just go for the Toyota treads either, but for all of them.” Please explain how and where I said how wonderful Toyotas are and how horrible domestics are.
To 11:20.
It is nice to meet another person who understands how to live a good and debt free life. I get a kick out of some of the people around my neighborhood, big $400,000 to $700,000 homes with Porsches, Mercedes, Audis, BMWs, and Vettes, just to name a few, setting in the drive way. Yet, when you go inside their homes you quickly realize how far they are in debt by the lack of furniture.
I use to love the commercial that was on TV with the guy talking about all the stuff he had, just to have him say he is in debt up to his eyeballs and someone please help him. Maybe someday people will become aware of how much money they are wasting with all those loans and credit cards. They say the average American uses close to a third of their monthly income on interest.