http://www.autoblog.com/2007/06/25/v...re-test-track/

 

that tunda bed looks soo bad. i think its cuz it has that c frame instead of a boxed (not 100% on that) but yeah, doesnt look too good.

who from yt wants to put their truck to the test. that would be awesome!

 

as bad as it looks for the Tundra, which of the 3 do you think was the most comfortable over those bumps? not the Ford I promise.

 

id pick the ford deep down frame wise its crap

 

I've hammered on a lot of washboard roads and such with many different vehicles...but that wheel hop, that bed swaying man thats brutal....truthfully wouldn't spend money on any of them.

 

the tundra is designed to do that to give a comfortable ride in the cab. Im sure that if you had a load in the bed the bed would bounce around much less and if you had a load in the other two which barely moved the entire truck would be bouncing around much more

 

The new Tundras are really starting to grow on me. If I were looking into buying a full size I would consider a older Dodge W/ the cummins or one of the new Tundras. The Tundra got pretty shaky but it doesn't scare me.

 

i feel sorry for the test driver

 

i wonder how a fully boxed older yota would fare in the test.

 

Can I get some fries with that shake?

Im curious as to why they showed the Toyota, Ford, and Chevy trucks on the Chrysler track, but not a Dodge???

 

i was thinking the same thing, any 79-95 pickup owners wana give it a shot?

 

id be afraid my wheels would fall off and things flying off, etc. aside from my butt and head it would be fun, in someone elses truck, or my x'es jeep

 

can u imagine u driving the tundra and me and ur ex in the bed oh yeah.LOL

 

shes all yours man, hope u like to shop and listen to pointless bitching.

 

hahhahahaha. you guys crack me up. yeah, if i did that text my poor truck would hate me.

 

... yeah I'm pretty sure my kidneys would fall out in my old '92 on that track. The lane divider reflector bumps gave me seizures some times!

 

lol.thanks just what i needed

 

What is really stupid about that video (even though it is obvious how badly the Tundra did, I'll admit that) is how different the angles and speed were when they filmed the Ford

Do back and watch it again, it was actually shaking pretty bad too, but the camera is either too far away, or moving too fast, or at a wrong angle to see how bad it really is. I'm no conspiracy nut, but I would assume that Ford had something to do with the administering of this test.



All that said, why the heck did Toyota stop using fully boxed frames? esp. on the "FULL SIZE" Tundra?

This year (or redesign?) they put in a bigger rear axle and apparently upgraded a bunch of other stuff (hello 5.7 liter!) so why leave the frame a c-channel?

Don't get me wrong, I love Toyota's, but they really need to get with the program and do some research into what the needs are of the market they are going after with the Tundra.

The Tundra was definitely 1000% closer to "full size" than the T100 was, and it came with a V8, but it still misses the mark. Give us a diesel, give us a 1/2, and at least 3/4 ton models, give us a fully boxed frame, maybe even give us a dually. They already have a bajillion different cab configurations and luxo-packages, that is all just good frosting for a bland cake.

Well Toyota: How about some STEAK with our potatoes?

 

The Tundra's aren't even Full size 3/4tons are they? has a lot of power for a 1/2 ton lol.

 

i drove my buddy's new 2009 tundra with the 5.7L and that thing HAULS serious butt. Makes my 3.4L feel like a super sick 3.0L