The 4.3L V6 is a great powerplant, and i didnt even know it was still around. I have one in my boat (91 Mariah MX19).

Ford needs to get the boss 351 (5.8L) and the boss 390 (6.2L) out soon after the EcoBoost, and it will win the truck battle hands down.

Looking forward to F150 Raptor. Better towing, and now offroad performance than toyota.

polarbear said:

So when does the CTS-V go in your driveway?

Click to expand...

I would own that car in a heartbeat!!!



I have $2,000 in GMAC cash......does the V qualify for Employee pricing???


Probably would still put me in the 50K+ range....

i would still go with the fords frame. a lot more durable then the yota. not nearly as much flex as the yota and i hate where the tundra's front tow hooks are as opposed to the f-150. whyNOT box the whole frame? what exactly is the disadvantage with doing that? its a whole lot stronger, doesn't bend as much and it lasts longer being that salt/sand/moisture isn't sitting on the inside of the frame. for me rust issues later on in life is a BIG issue for me and most of the yotas around here are.....well very rusty. good luck trying to find a 97ish-04ish tacoma or tundra thats not rusted/rotted out. all there frames are junk and yes i said junk. didn't make them right from the factory

89frankenford said:

i would still go with the fords frame. a lot more durable then the yota. not nearly as much flex as the yota and i hate where the tundra's front tow hooks are as opposed to the f-150. whyNOT box the whole frame? what exactly is the disadvantage with doing that? its a whole lot stronger, doesn't bend as much and it lasts longer being that salt/sand/moisture isn't sitting on the inside of the frame. for me rust issues later on in life is a BIG issue for me and most of the yotas around here are.....well very rusty. good luck trying to find a 97ish-04ish tacoma or tundra thats not rusted/rotted out. all there frames are junk and yes i said junk. didn't make them right from the factory

Click to expand...

How do you know it's more durable???

Are all pre '04 Ford frames failing??? (NONE of them were boxed)


Ummmm....a boxed frame would "trap" a lot more salt/water than a C-channel.

What's funny is that the Taco frames that are rusting are all boxed.

(and Toyota is buying 'em back at OVER retail book value.....could you imagine Ford or GM doing this on any of their screwups???)


Did you know Ford boxed the early Bronco frame('66-'77) and that they are notorious for being rotted out.???


Don't think you'll find any '97-'99 Tundra frames rusting.


If boxed frames are so much better, why do CURRENT Ford/GM 3/4 ton and up trucks still use C-channel???


Enquiring minds want to know....




[EDIT] Worthless trivia time:

Dana makes the current Tundra frame......yes, the same Dana that makes transfer cases, axles, u-joints, and many other parts for our Fords and GM's.

DOHCmarauder said:

How do you know it's more durable???

Are all pre '04 Ford frames failing??? (NONE of them were boxed)


Ummmm....a boxed frame would "trap" a lot more salt/water than a C-channel.

What's funny is that the Taco frames that are rusting are all boxed.

(and Toyota is buying 'em back at OVER retail book value.....could you imagine Ford or GM doing this on any of their screwups???)


Did you know Ford boxed the early Bronco frame('66-'77) and that they are notorious for being rotted out.???


Don't think you'll find any '97-'99 Tundra frames rusting.


If boxed frames are so much better, why do CURRENT Ford/GM 3/4 ton and up trucks still use C-channel???


Enquiring minds want to know....




[EDIT] Worthless trivia time:

Dana makes the current Tundra frame......yes, the same Dana that makes transfer cases, axles, u-joints, and many other parts for our Fords and GM's.

Click to expand...

Simple answer on the C-channel- weight. Here's what you won't see GM doing with a frame- start with fully boxed, then weld c-Channel to that until the bed, then take a couple of L-chennels, weld then together, and then attach those to the C-channels. Gawd-damnest frame construction I've ever seen.




I've seen literally dozens of pics like that- one reason I keep hammering on the way they mounted the rear axle.

I haven't heard of Tundra frames rusting out. I have heard of recalls for Ball joints. Four- each time digging further back into the model years. And no, 'Yota was dragged to the table kicking annd screaming. Admittedly, just like their domestic competitors- but I guess that's the point.

polarbear said:

Simple answer on the C-channel- weight. Here's what you won't see GM doing with a frame- start with fully boxed, then weld c-Channel to that until the bed, then take a couple of L-chennels, weld then together, and then attach those to the C-channels. Gawd-damnest frame construction I've ever seen..

Click to expand...

You REALLY need to look at the 3/4 ton frames......except for the double wall C-channel under the cab it is how Ford and GM do it.

Boxed in the front, C-channel the rest of the way back.......not sure what the "L" channel you're reffering to is.


BTW, the last couple feet under the bed of the GM 1/2 tons are also open C-channel.....surely you noticed that while fixating on the spring mounts???


As far as your weight comment, where are you going with that??

You were already mis-guided by those pesky GM engineers when they erroneously told you the GM weighed more.

polarbear said:

I've seen literally dozens of pics like that- one reason I keep hammering on the way they mounted the rear axle..

Click to expand...

My Super Duty uses the exact same set up......a bracket attached with 4 rivets. I guess the F-250's are sub-standard too???


[EDIT] Duramax buddy just came over.....checked out his shackle brackets. Yup, riveted on, just like the Tundra.


And I've responded to an accident where a Super Duty body was 100% detached from the frame killing the entire family except for the father.....what exactly do your pictures prove???

polarbear said:

I haven't heard of Tundra frames rusting out. I have heard of recalls for Ball joints. Four- each time digging further back into the model years. And no, 'Yota was dragged to the table kicking annd screaming. Admittedly, just like their domestic competitors- but I guess that's the point.

Click to expand...

You have heard of no ball joint recalls on the current generation Tundra.

There has been one recall on the '07's affecting very few units.....but I'll let you research it.

DOHCmarauder said:

You REALLY need to look at the 3/4 ton frames......except for the double wall C-channel under the cab it is how Ford and GM do it.

Boxed in the front, C-channel the rest of the way back.......not sure what the "L" channel you're reffering to is.

There'a reason for that too- body upfitters require mounting points on the frame (serious).


BTW, the last couple feet under the bed of the GM 1/2 tons are also open C-channel.....surely you noticed that while fixating on the spring mounts???

Brake modules, bumpers, hitches have to be mounted somewhere.


As far as your weight comment, where are you going with that??

C-channels are lighter-weight.

You were already mis-guided by those pesky GM engineers when they erroneously told you the GM weighed more.

That was number of pistons on the front brakes.

My Super Duty uses the exact same set up......a bracket attached with 4 rivets. I guess the F-250's are sub-standard too???

You said it, I didn't. Actually, that's been another pet-peeve of GM- it's a less than ideal method.

And I've responded to an accident where a Super Duty body was 100% detached from the frame killing the entire family except for the father.....what exactly do your picture prove???

Rear axles aren't holding to their mounting points. The resultant damage is causing trucks to be totalled that otherwise may not have been. It also demostrates an inherent design weakness.


You have heard of no ball joint recalls on the current generation Tundra.

There has been one recall on the '07's affecting very few units.....but I'll let you research it.

Click to expand...

I'm aware the ball-joints affected the prior generation. But it took four recalls to address the entire number of trucks involved, and Toyota fought the NHSTA the whole way. In that sense, they're no different than the domestics.

Good point on the body upfitters......maybe that is what Toyota was thinking.

In fact, I saw a service body on a Tundra the other day and I have seen pictures of a Tundra Tow truck.



So where did you get the info that the GM 1/2 tons weighed more????


As far as C-channel being lighter weight.....I'll agree if both are the same cross section/thickness; obviously the box section will be heavier.

But if a C-channel is taller/double walled in some sections (Tundra)and the entire truck is 300 pounds heavier(Tundra) I'm fairly certain it wasn't done for weight.


Pet peeve or not, GM also uses the same method on their "heavier duty" trucks. Do you point out this "weakness" when selling the 2500's??


I assure you it's not a design weakness under normal operating parameters.....just like GM and Ford's smaller ring gear suffices,

And to be 100% honest (whether you're correct or not concerning vehicles being totalled that otherwise would be fixed) after an accident in your pictures, I would BEG to have my vehicle totalled. Besides the reduced value, I would always know my truck's been violated.

Good point on the body upfitters......maybe that is what Toyota was thinking.

In fact, I saw a service body on a Tundra the other day and I have seen pictures of a Tundra Tow truck.



So where did you get the info that the GM 1/2 tons weighed more????

They don't- hope I didn't say so. I actually made the point that the Tundra (and the F150) are porkers- and it get's in the way of some of the stuff they're supposed to do. Like turn and stop.


As far as C-channel being lighter weight.....I'll agree if both are the same cross section/thickness; obviously the box section will be heavier.

But if a C-channel is taller/double walled in some sections (Tundra)and the entire truck is 300 pounds heavier(Tundra) I'm fairly certain it wasn't done for weight.

But WTH did they take two thinner sections and weld them together before attaching that? Really lame way of beefing things up, IMO. I know they know, because they did a good job of hiding that. You have to be clear underneath to see how they did that.


Pet peeve or not, GM also uses the same method on their "heavier duty" trucks. Do you point out this "weakness" when selling the 2500's??

The hell we do- go look at a new one.

I assure you it's not a design weakness under normal operating parameters.....just like GM and Ford's smaller ring gear suffices,

Probably right- but also indicative of a design that's advertised to be a helluva lot more than it actually is- a decent truck with a funky bodystyle. They haven't re-invented the truck, nor have they gained aceptance in the mainstream pickup makret- which is what they really want, more than anything.

polarbear said:

Good point on the body upfitters......maybe that is what Toyota was thinking.

In fact, I saw a service body on a Tundra the other day and I have seen pictures of a Tundra Tow truck.



So where did you get the info that the GM 1/2 tons weighed more????

They don't- hope I didn't say so. I actually made the point that the Tundra (and the F150) are porkers- and it get's in the way of some of the stuff they're supposed to do. Like turn and stop.


As far as C-channel being lighter weight.....I'll agree if both are the same cross section/thickness; obviously the box section will be heavier.

But if a C-channel is taller/double walled in some sections (Tundra)and the entire truck is 300 pounds heavier(Tundra) I'm fairly certain it wasn't done for weight.

But WTH did they take two thinner sections and weld them together before attaching that? Really lame way of beefing things up, IMO. I know they know, because they did a good job of hiding that. You have to be clear underneath to see how they did that.


Pet peeve or not, GM also uses the same method on their "heavier duty" trucks. Do you point out this "weakness" when selling the 2500's??

The hell we do- go look at a new one.

I assure you it's not a design weakness under normal operating parameters.....just like GM and Ford's smaller ring gear suffices,

Probably right- but also indicative of a design that's advertised to be a helluva lot more than it actually is- a decent truck with a funky bodystyle. They haven't re-invented the truck, nor have they gained aceptance in the mainstream pickup makret- which is what they really want, more than anything.

Click to expand...

You had said in an earlier post the Silverado stopped quicker than the Tundra even though it weighed more and used drum rears....I'll find it if you'd like.


I just looked at my buddy's Dmax with riveted mounts.....I'll double check what year it is.


Ernie, the Tundra met its sales goal upon introduction (196,000 of 200,000 in a 10 month period)

It is only offered as a 1/2 ton truck compared to Ford and GM counting all F-series or all Silverados.

I think we'd all be surprised at how close the sales are when just comparing 1/2 ton to 1/2 ton.


Tundra sales are down the LEAST of all full size trucks this year.


The frame issue is marketing hype.....and I mean that across the board.


I don't think the triple tech frame is anything special the same as I don't think a fully boxed frame adds anything to the dance.


Just differnt ways of doing the same thing.

DOHCmarauder said:

You had said in an earlier post the Silverado stopped quicker than the Tundra even though it weighed more and used drum rears....I'll find it if you'd like.


I just looked at my buddy's Dmax with riveted mounts.....I'll double check what year it is.


Ernie, the Tundra met its sales goal upon introduction (196,000 of 200,000 in a 10 month period)

It is only offered as a 1/2 ton truck compared to Ford and GM counting all F-series or all Silverados.

I think we'd all be surprised at how close the sales are when just comparing 1/2 ton to 1/2 ton.


Tundra sales are down the LEAST of all full size trucks this year.


The frame issue is marketing hype.....and I mean that across the board.


I don't think the triple tech frame is anything special the same as I don't think a fully boxed frame adds anything to the dance.


Just differnt ways of doing the same thing.

Click to expand...

re: Sales. YTD- GM's sitting on 435,000 Silverado/Sierras. Fords at 360,000 F-Series pickups. Dodge has 175,000 Rams out the door.

Toyota has 107,000 Tundras YTD. The Tacoma is currently outselling it. Roughly 10% market share. They're down the least, but at the kind of numbers they were generating before, that can't be a surprise either.

http://www.pickuptrucks.com/html/otf0999.html

This is the 8th month of the second year. So far, it's panning out exactly the way I suspected. There was an initial surge of new owners (apparantly, most current Toyota owners, since the Tacoma sales cratered last year as the Tundra took off). Now that the newness is off, we're back to truck sales as normal. It's a Titan and Ridgeline story all over again, except Toyota has deeper pockets to ride it through no matter what. They also have the ability to build Tacomas and Camry's to pick up the slack- score one for Toyota.

re: frame issue. Yes, it is marketing hype- but GM's currently leading cutting edge frame technology (after years of being dead last).

polarbear said:

re: Sales. YTD- GM's sitting on 435,000 Silverado/Sierras. Fords at 360,000 F-Series pickups. Dodge has 175,000 Rams out the door.

Toyota has 107,000 Tundras YTD. The Tacoma is currently outselling it. Roughly 10% market share. They're down the least, but at the kind of numbers they were generating before, that can't be a surprise either.

http://www.pickuptrucks.com/html/otf0999.html

This is the 8th month of the second year. So far, it's panning out exactly the way I suspected. There was an initial surge of new owners (apparantly, most current Toyota owners, since the Tacoma sales cratered last year as the Tundra took off). Now that the newness is off, we're back to truck sales as normal. It's a Titan and Ridgeline story all over again, except Toyota has deeper pockets to ride it through no matter what. They also have the ability to build Tacomas and Camry's to pick up the slack- score one for Toyota.

re: frame issue. Yes, it is marketing hype- but GM's currently leading cutting edge frame technology (after years of being dead last).

Click to expand...

Dude, you're not getting it.


435,000 GM's is NOT 435,000 1/2 tons.

I believe you said at one time that you thought 1/2 of all Silverado sales were 1/2 tons....???????

Nobody can tell me what the Ford break down is. F series = 150 on up.


So even if 1/2 of Ford's are 150's, all of a sudden the numbers change to:

GM 1/2 tons = 218,000 (?)

Ford 1/2 tons = 180,000 (?)

Dodge= 90,000 1/2 tons.(?)


107,000 Tundras isn't that far off the pace considering it's been out only 2 years.



"The numbers they were generating before" are the numbers they predicted for the 1st year; I'm still not clear why you won't accept that or why you keep harping on it.


The sales slump is industry wide and according to the figures, the Tundra has had the least drop in sales % wise.


Whether Toy thinks it's worth it to sell 160,000 Tundras a year is yet to be seen, but don't even try to compare it to the Titan sales fiasco.....not even in the same ballpark......Titan's original sales goal in '04 was 100,000 they fell well short.

Longest lasting truck defenatly has to the the international scout.

We may have some new trucks in here soon, i heard honda announced there new v8 engine there going to be putting in the acura tl, claimed to be as powerful if not more powerful than an american muscle v8... its also going to be vtec i believe too..

if i had to guess, Honda will redesign the ridgeline and put the new V8 in it... hmmmm something to ponder

Keep in mind with your frame talk, your pitting older frames against newer ones.. I havent seen a spec of runst on a 04-UP f150 frame yet, and im in new england.. thats at least 4 harsh winters and the salt the hell out of the oads around here... the newer frames i believe have coarting on the outside and inside that prevents rusting..