I'm no engineer either, but I have read explanations that were written by Toyota engineers. People automatically assume fully boxed has to be better, but that's not any more true than the old adage bigger is better. You just cannot make such a simplistic assumption. Lots of factors have to be considered for a truck, including tow/hauling, acceleration, ride quality, etc. There's also the issue of flex. Flex can be either good or bad, but the thing to consider is that you don't want too much of it, and you also don't want to totally eliminate it. The tripletech frame puts strength where it is needed most and allows for flex and lighter weight where it can enhance the tow/haul capacities, acceleration and ride quality.I am not an engineer, so maybe someone could explain what this benefits. The only thing I see is less weight, but a fully boxed frame throughout seems it would be a lot more sturdy then c style or c style with reinforcements. Your thoughts??
Less weight works, but not cost effective. It actually costs Toyota more to build this frame than a fully boxed frame like Ford. Ford's hydroformed frame is really a tube of steel put in a form and water forces it into its now current shape. Much easier than building and putting together three different pieces of frame. Also, Tundra has had this same frame for years, as the Silverado until the 2007 redesign.Less weight and more cost effective for their goals would be my guess. Its not like boxed frame = greatest thing ever. Current Super Duties dont have boxed frames but you dont hear Ford boys gripin about them...
Quite true, you'll not find any truck frames from 1 tons on up to semi trucks and trailers that use anything but channel iron or aluminum.People automatically assume fully boxed has to be better, but that's not any more true than the old adage bigger is better.
Not really, get along side a loaded 53' flatbed sometimes at highway speeds. They're designed to flex a good 2"-3". I've welded up more than one semi-trailer frame that was broken/cracked in the middle and the cause was always overloading, not from flex.i do believe that the most stucturally rigid frame that does its job to provide load support while allowing the suspension to do its job to provide ride comfort is the optimal engineering accomplishment.
You make good points, but I would add this: "rigidity" does not equal "strength". Rigidity is a measure of flex or lack thereof; Strength is a measure of force need to break, not bend. There is a huge difference. Strength can be accomplished with more material (thicker), shape (boxed) or metalurgy (stronger material per pound). Something can be extraordinarily strong, but flexible (think synthetic winch lines). Making something more rigid does NOT mean stronger (concrete is rigid, but not as strong as steel) and transfers forces to the other components (hence the huge bolts Ford talks about).ok Im done, go ahead and hate me
You make good points, but I would add this: "rigidity" does not equal "strength".
You also make good points,
"Strength can be accomplished with more material (thicker), shape (boxed) or metalurgy (stronger material per pound). Something can be extraordinarily strong, but flexible (think synthetic winch lines)."
And nice rhetoric, you sound smarter than me lol, I am aware that rigidity does not necessarily equal strength, hence the extremely marginal amount of carbon that is added to iron to make a less rigid, yet stronger material called Steel, bad choice of words on my part, it was not in the scope of my statement to get so indepth. To put simply I do not think anyone is going to argue that boxing the current tundra frame would only make it stronger without introducing stretch of the imagination issues such as Frame rail Stress Cracks and suspension component failures from over rigidity.
To sum up if your happy with your Triple-tech, GREAT, you probably will never have issues with it,
But truth be told, if there was an option box that read
which box would you have checked.............REALLY.
- Boxed Frame
- Unboxed Frame
Peace all !
Did you experience any problems hauling this load? If not then we can assume that atleast one of these applied:Well I put 55 bags of sand in the back of mine the other day. I had one load of 25 and another load of 30. I did not have a trailer to trailer it or I would have most likely.
During the summer I had 3/4 a yard of dirt (it was more than likely more than that) dumped into the back of my truck because I don't have a utility trailer or anything. I didn't want to pay to have it delivered either. It is a truck that is meant to be worked up to it's capacities (safely) and then some (forum police anyone?).
And you could very well be right, but I still would rather have a boxed frame as i am not aware of any recalls from ford or chevy do to "snapped frames"When it comes to engineering I'm gonna trust the guys at Toyota before I trust the engineers from other companies who are still sitting on their asses, perfectly complacent to use old technology instead of seeing if something might actually work better. A little FYI Toyota bought at least one of each of the competitors trucks to see if anything they did would be worth while. Put under enough stress, guess what a fully boxed frame doesn't do? Bend, it just snaps.
So I'm not checking fully boxed. It's been mentioned before, if that were the best frame then all the heavy duty trucks would use it.
I doubt the higher payload comes from the boxed frame though. If that were true they would box the frame of the heavy duty trucks to give them a higher payload.And you could very well be right, but I still would rather have a boxed frame as i am not aware of any recalls from ford or chevy do to "snapped frames"
I am however aware of there higher payloads.
But I am not arguing, to each his own and i do believe you choosed the right truck.
The Tundra has a payload of over 2,000 pounds on a regular cab pickup. I haven't checked on a Chevy, but just try and buy one of those Fords that supposedly have the Max Payload package. They aren't really available. I've tried many Ford dealers with the same response. My Tundra has a payload capacity of 1,515 lbs., and I was very close to this hauling a pallet of tile home one evening. My 2005 DC had a payload of over 1,800 lbs, and took 33 bags of concrete (2,640 lbs, plus me at 270 lbs.) and it handled it fine.And you could very well be right, but I still would rather have a boxed frame as i am not aware of any recalls from ford or chevy do to "snapped frames"
I am however aware of there higher payloads.
But I am not arguing, to each his own and i do believe you chose the right truck.
I can't speak for the latest model 1/2 tons, but Ford has used channel iron (C channel) forever on their 3/4 tons and up. I'm almost sure the same applies to GMC also. Same with all the older 1/2 tons.but I still would rather have a boxed frame as i am not aware of any recalls from ford or chevy do to "snapped frames"