Track Car
-
Eurofan;302095 wrote:
Okay okay, the sti is cute.But not as cute as my trk car dood. :icon_salut:
So how fast does this track car go? Would it say do 95.........................in a 75, like your last car???? I thought you didn't have to push your car to prove anything? Or you just scared to get another ticket? Show up to an autox event this year please.
-
-
Something botheres me about that toyota vs. Ford video. The video insinuates that the toyota is behaving defectively and that the ford isn't, but doesn't appear to say so or why that's the case.
Visually, the box on the toyota seems to oscillate with a much higher amplitude than the Ford. That may or may not be a problem.
For one, certain trucks, like the Unimog, have a semi-flexible chassis that helps them articulate over rough surfaces. Ford has never and will never make a truck that competes with the Unimog. I have no idea if Toyota was trying to design a bendy chassis for some reason [my guess: they weren't] but it isn't necessarily a bad move in a heavy truck. Just about nothing mass produced has more "real truck" cred than the Unimog.
Secondly, the spacing and size of bumps could have been chosen "carefully". When the Toyota bed appears to be moving most wildly, my non-trained eyes say "that thing is in resonance". The box is rotating in equal degrees each direction off verticle center. That doesn't happen on a random sequence of bumps. Every mechanical system has resonant frequences whereby additional input energy causes massive additional output oscillation [the tacoma narrows bridge video is the canonical example of mechanical systems resonance].
Ford engineers would be clever enough to determine the resonant frequency of of the Toyota, and due to different design decisoins, that frequency could be different than the Ford truck.
If the Toyota box / frame goes into resonance in normal driving / bump situations and the Ford will not, then sure; clear advantage Ford.
But it may be that the Toyota and Ford will go into resonant oscillation at slightly different speeds / bump configurations, and Ford chose the course configuration that maximizes resonant oscillation in the Toyota and then ran the Ford over the same course to "show off" how much better the Ford is.
IOW: without a better description of this test and why it is what it is, it's hard to draw a conclusion from it.
-
WannabeG;302080 wrote:
Off-topic, but hows your tundra holding up? Did you know that Toyota riveted their frames together? Tisk tisk.Toyota should stick to making cars..
My Toyota is doing just fine, how often do you actually drive on something like that you stupid fuck? And ask me again why my Tundra can pull my camper no problems up hills and my brothers Ford had to pull over and sit for a bit cause it got a little tired :icon_scratch:
2003 Mitsubishi Evolution 8
2011 Ford F150 Ecoboost
-
There is a longer version online that has i think 4 trucks running the same test road this one is just the side by side of the best and worst i think.
But this is out of context, i will see if i can find the whole video.
EDIT: looks as if i was wrong, it was done by ford. i thought i remembered it wasn't. oh well.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJZVUnOduH4&feature=related[/ame]
-
This might explain the very bad shaking
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRfE_XAk2mE&feature=related[/ame]
-
Like thrash said though, that is the point of the typical C channel frame, allowing flex over uneven ground, to reduce chances of cracking, and to keep traction
dont know about new dodges but the 2nd gen frames are boxed from the front to just a bit behind the firewall, C channel the rest of the way
-
zbrown;302229 wrote:
Like thrash said though, that is the point of the typical C channel frame, allowing flex over uneven ground, to reduce chances of cracking, and to keep tractiondont know about new dodges but the 2nd gen frames are boxed from the front to just a bit behind the firewall, C channel the rest of the way
Well, the thing is, these tests are obviously proven to show Ford as the "best". I highly doubt these are standardized tests, but I could be wrong.
-
everyone has numbers to support "built ford tough" or "chevy like a rock" or "gmc professional grade." who cares anyways. toyota makes a great GAS truck. you going to be the new eurofan of pickups now?
-
zbrown;302058 wrote:
so can we all friends if we clarify that it is not Hondas that suck, but rather FWD in general...Yes.
> Mitch Hedberg wrote:
> I'm sick of following my dreams, I'm just going to find out where they are going and hook up with them later.ASE certified parts specialist.
2004 Impala LS 3.8 -
YellowEvo;302221 wrote:
My Toyota is doing just fine, how often do you actually drive on something like that you stupid fuck? And ask me again why my Tundra can pull my camper no problems up hills and my brothers Ford had to pull over and sit for a bit cause it got a little tired :icon_scratch:Toyota tough gets all butt hurt when i call his truck out. I did it because your probably some JDM butt humper that bought that crappy pickup because its a 'toyota'. And those tests show a lot. When you have a heavy load on your truck, a flexible frame is something you do NOT want. Maybe if you drive around town with some plywood in if the bed, its fine, but for anyone that actually uses a truck for what its designed to do, that won't cut it.
Figured i'd exchange the shit and put it on somebody else for a change. :icon_santa: and BTW, i don't drive a Ford. Never have, never will, but they know how to build a fullsize truck 30X better than Toyota. Its not a very good truck, but its better than a Ridgeline lol.
Ridgelines are gay. :icon_rr: Honda building a truck.... ROFLMAO
-
WannabeG;302438 wrote:
Toyota tough gets all butt hurt when i call his truck out. I did it because your probably some JDM butt humper that bought that crappy pickup because its a 'toyota'. And those tests show a lot. When you have a heavy load on your truck, a flexible frame is something you do NOT want. Maybe if you drive around town with some plywood in if the bed, its fine, but for anyone that actually uses a truck for what its designed to do, that won't cut it.Figured i'd exchange the shit and put it on somebody else for a change. :icon_santa: and BTW, i don't drive a Ford. Never have, never will, but they know how to build a fullsize truck 30X better than Toyota. Its not a very good truck, but its better than a Ridgeline lol.
Ridgelines are gay. :icon_rr: Honda building a truck.... ROFLMAO
I don't think that yellow evo would use his truck for hardcore offroading or for a farm truck, at least that's how he comes across, lol.... So why the hell would it matter if his truck can go through that kind abuse...
-
yeah considering that Joe has owned 4 trucks before this one, he had a F150, a silverado, and 2 duramax's. And btw i just wanna make sure i have this right.... if you're not constantly hauling around the heaviest load possible then you're not using the truck for what its "designed" for???:icon_salut:
-
I had a Tundra that did experience the "bed bounce" in one spot on the road (by hillsboro heading south) but ONLY when traveling at ~63 to 67 mph. Yes, it was a resonance issue, but all you had to do was speed up above 67 or slow down below 62 to overcome it....and even then only at certain times/pavement types/expansion joint spacings did it ever occur. FWIW, my Tundra would out-pull my dads F150 with EASE when pulling a loaded stock trailer. IF I were to buy another new 1/2 ton, Toyota would still be high on my list....especially if it were for pulling a trailer of some sort.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login