YACT: What's up with pickups?

[Demon-Xanth]

The driveshaft will have a given amount of stress on it, with the 3.92 vs. the 3.55 the stress will be lower. This leads me to believe that either the driveshaft, pinion gear, or the transmission is the limiting factor. Given the history of the parts and where else they're used, (the engine, transmission, and rear gears are used in the half tons) I'm inclined to believe that the driveshaft is what limits the vehicle. No, there's no problem if you don't go over the spec. But EVERY assembly has a weakest link. But just because it is the weakest link doesn't mean that it initself is weak. 5,400-6,300LBs is damned beefy for a compact truck.

 

[Ornery]

"I'm speaking to passenger cars, not to trucks, the topic of this thread"

You morons bitch and moan that all the SUVs out there are not used for off roading, and that everyone driving a truck never hauls anything. Not to mention the groans elicited by the proliferation of minivans. A rugged, V8, full framed passenger car is the PERFECT compromise. Room for six and the balls to haul sh*t the few times you need to. Slap modern electronic ignition in there and you're near 20MPG all the time in total comfort and safety.

Looks like the pendulum is swinging my way again, because even Japan is getting on the full size truck band wagon with ever larger Camrys and Accords coming out all the time. Hell, even Kia is building bigger econoboxes! Chrysler's designing V8 RWDs one after another and Cadillac may be leading the way for future GM RWD UPGRADING. Thank God!

 

[PG]

No, No, No. The driveshaft isn't the limiting issue, it's the size of the truck and the frame.
The engine power is the same no matter what the rear axle ratio. This same power is transfered through the driveshaft and only then does the rear axle ratio come into play. The higher torque multiplication of the 3.92 gears helps with towing, but as I said, the full sized truck is bigger and heavier. That's your limiting factor.

 

[Tom]

It's not the driveshaft. It's because the lower gear effectively increases the torque of the engine. This means it can get a heavier trailer moving. The higher gearing also means the engine is at a higher rpm at a given speed, which means it's making more power.

 

[grillmasterP]

Its not as simple as just engine size. Alot has to do with the weight of the what is being towed as well as the vehicle doing the towing.
Think of it in terms of power to weight ratio. Here is a simplifed example- Take a 150 lb built athlete vs a 350 lb overweight/non-athlete and allow them to play tug-o-war. The smaller guy may be stronger when looking at his strength, or ability to lift a percentage of his body weight. Who could squat or leg press more weight? Probably the bigger guy.
If you've ever towed anything, when its windy, up a boat ramp, up an incline, or trying to brake/stop/slow down from a high speed. You will realize that more is involved then just engine size. Its not just pulling or carrying weight around, its also about stopping. You want the tow vehicle to be in control. Even if you beefed up the suspension or brakes of a tow vehicle, if the object being towed significantly outweighed the tow vehicle - the vehicle would be "bullied" by the object being towed.

As far as building up compact pick ups with stonger components - they already do. However- overbuilding components/suspension may not always be cost effective or practical. People buy the vehicles that suit their needs. If I had a large gooseneck trailer or towed a fifth wheel, I could justify the diesel dually. But would that be practical to meet my daily driving needs? What if towing/carrying loads is a small percentage of what the vehicle will be doing.
You can't expect a vehicle to do everything well without some trade offs.

I have a compact/mid-size Tacoma Xtracab V6 4wd. Its my daily driver/commuter. I have the ability to haul stuff when I need or tow our 2500lb (+ trailer weight) mastercraft ski boat with ease on the weekends. When I go offroading- I can go through narrower trails than the full-size trucks.

this pic sums it all

 

[Demon-Xanth]

Towing capacity of a Dakota with the 4.7+3.55: 5,400
Towing capacity of a Dakota with the 4.7+3.92: 6,300 (so the size of the f'ing truck doesn't have anything to do with the 5,400 limit)
Towing capacity of a Ram 1500 with the 4.7+3.92: 7,200

Same engine, same transmission, same rear end housing (Chrysler 9.25"). The size of the truck may be the 6,300 limit, but it sure as hell isn't the 5,400. Something else is causing that limit. And given what is the same, that leads me to believe that it's the driveshaft, since the engine, transmission, and rear end can all handle MORE abuse.

 

[PG]

The 6300 limit is the size of the truck. The 5400 limit is the axle ratio.
I'm sure the driveshaft is the same.

 

[amnesiac]

AT LEAST MY TUNDRA IS MADE IN THE USA.

ENJOY YOUR MEXICAN-BUILT CHEVYS. HAHAHAHAHAHAAH.

Oh, and at least my truck has made it 75,000 miles in 4 years without a single breakdown.
Can't say that for my old POS GM truck.

 

[Quixfire]

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis
What I'm saying is why can't small pickups have stronger components? I didn't mean that small trucks aren't weaker.

Because you would then raise the price you put your product out of the market for small truck buyers. Understand that you could have a Heavy Duty light truck, but the additional cost won't out weight the advantages you would gain.

Example

Small Truck: V6 4x4, pulls 4000 lbs, costs 15-17K.

HD Small Truck: V6 or Small V8 4x4, pulls 6000 lbs, cost 17-23K.

Light Truck: V6 or V8 4x4, pulls 8,000 lbs, cost 18-25K.

Which would you buy?

Plus this doesn't take in the factor of having more storage space in the bed.

 

[OutHouse]

Compact/smaller truck have weaker componets because of cost. people want a small truck to haul small stuff and not have to shell out the $$$$ for a full size. People who buy a full size pay the $$$ to haul HEAVY stuff. its as simple as that.

<< proud owner of a 1995 GMC Extened cab 4X4 Sierra. Proudly made in Canada.

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: Ornery
"I'm speaking to passenger cars, not to trucks, the topic of this thread"

You morons bitch and moan that all the SUVs out there are not used for off roading, and that everyone driving a truck never hauls anything. Not to mention the groans elicited by the proliferation of minivans. A rugged, V8, full framed passenger car is the PERFECT compromise. Room for six and the balls to haul sh*t the few times you need to. Slap modern electronic ignition in there and you're near 20MPG all the time in total comfort and safety.

Looks like the pendulum is swinging my way again, because even Japan is getting on the full size truck band wagon with ever larger Camrys and Accords coming out all the time. Hell, even Kia is building bigger econoboxes! Chrysler's designing V8 RWDs one after another and Cadillac may be leading the way for future GM RWD UPGRADING. Thank God!

The idea that this country needs to go back to heavy, large, full-framed, gas guzzling (yes I consider 20mpg to be gas guzzling) cars to solve our problems is completely moronic. But I'm not going to continue arguing this, because it's off-topic for this thread. I'll save it for somewhere else.

 

[vi edit]

The idea that this country needs to go back to heavy, large, full-framed, gas guzzling (yes I consider 20mpg to be gas guzzling) cars to solve our problems is completely moronic. But I'm not going to continue arguing this, because it's off-topic for this thread. I'll save it for somewhere else.

I don't know if I fully agree with you on the milage issue. A crown vic w/ a V8 pulls about 25MPG on the highway. My Passat w/ the V6 pulls about 25-26. Not much of a difference in milage. Emissions though...that may be a different story.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
Towing capacity of a Dakota with the 4.7+3.55: 5,400
Towing capacity of a Dakota with the 4.7+3.92: 6,300 (so the size of the f'ing truck doesn't have anything to do with the 5,400 limit)
Towing capacity of a Ram 1500 with the 4.7+3.92: 7,200


In the comparison of the similarly equipped Dakota and Ram it might be the tires or springs. On the Ram the same configuration with different tires makes a 1000 lb difference in towing capacity.(according to Dodge website)

 

[Ornery]

The idea that this country needs to go back to heavy, large, full-framed, gas guzzling (yes I consider 20mpg to be gas guzzling) cars to solve our problems is completely moronic. But I'm not going to continue arguing this, because it's off-topic for this thread. I'll save it for somewhere else.

It's ON TOPIC because these little weenie pickups never existed before the Japanese econobox invasion. Full size cars could easily do what WinkO wants without breaking a sweat. They can haul more people comfortably when they're used strictly for transportation, as most trucks generally are, eliminate the 'need' for most SUVs AND minivans, and be quicker, more nimble, and safe to boot!

 

[dh8lvr]

a truck question on a cs forum? dunno if that's cool, or just really odd.

before the discussion turns to the inevitable discussions regarding whos is bigger re: american made tundras vs mexican made f150s, canadian made silverados, etc...(btw that is a true statement...it just does not include the fact that not all f150s are made in mexico as "ladies man" stated), here are a few more honest replies to WinkOsmosis:

In addition to the power output of the engine (think torque, not horsepower), the chassis, and the drivetrain, even the bearings and axles of a fullsize truck are constructed and assembled in a different manned from midsize and compact trucks. The rear axles of a fullsize (including 3/4 tons) are a full-floating configuration, where the hub and axle are two different pieces, riding inside the bearing. Midsize and compact trucks have an axle and hub which are the same piece, meaning load must be carried by the hub+axle assembly rather than the bearing, putting the system under undue load when carrying a heavy load.

I'm at a loss as to why some people are comparing midsize to 3/4T and 1T trucks. Most if not all midsize and smaller trucks utilize a semi-float axle assembly as detailed above and are not capable of safely handling the loads the 3/4T and 1T trucks are meant to handle. Modern midsize trucks are also built with independent front suspension as a general rule, have small (for a truck) gasoline engines, semi-floating axles, and a couple of narrow leaf springs and a single thick overload leaf in the rear. While they are capable of hauling a couple of 'bikes or an ATV, they are not work trucks for carrying a barnyard or pulling a house off its foundation (or carrying a load of manure). Even though you might not be a big fan of a lumbering fullsize, they're the best for the job. If you need to do real work, don't compare midsize (Tundra, F150, Ram1500, Silverado), go direct to the big boys--the Superdutys, Duramax, etc...and make sure you get diesel, it's more efficient than gasoline, especially when a large heavy load is concerned.

For the record, I drive a 55% US-parts-content Tundra, 100% assembled in America. The other 45% are probably non-Japanese, likely Mexico if the wiring harness labels are any indicator, much like every other automobile that's claimed to be "All-American". Detroit is lucky Toyota is barred from importing their diesel engines, and uninterested (thus far) in building a large truck (they almost didn't make the Tundra, as they thought a large engine was unnecessary--BAH!). Also for the record, I decided against buying an F250 extended cab short bed diesel (my other top choice), as I'm more likely to be 4wheeling than pulling houses off their foundations...the Superduty line is a completely different animal from the F150, the 03 and 04 of which are incidentally based on the Tundra of all things (no, I'm not kidding mr. made-in-america, they bought a couple and pulled them apart in an attempt to figure out why they work so well). I'd highly recommend the Superduties or any truck with a Duramax (built by Isuzu) powerplant.

-dh8lvr

(flame away!)

 

[Skawttey]

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
Towing capacity of a Dakota with the 4.7+3.55: 5,400
Towing capacity of a Dakota with the 4.7+3.92: 6,300 (so the size of the f'ing truck doesn't have anything to do with the 5,400 limit)
Towing capacity of a Ram 1500 with the 4.7+3.92: 7,200

Same engine, same transmission, same rear end housing (Chrysler 9.25"). The size of the truck may be the 6,300 limit, but it sure as hell isn't the 5,400. Something else is causing that limit. And given what is the same, that leads me to believe that it's the driveshaft, since the engine, transmission, and rear end can all handle MORE abuse.

The difference between the 3.55 and the 3.92 is the ratio of the gears in the rear end. The housing may be the same in both, but the gears are not. This is what gives the 3.92 the higher towing capacity. The higher the gear ratio, the more the torque of the engine is multiplied and thus the more you can tow. It has nothing to do with the driveshaft.

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: dh8lvr
a truck question on a cs forum? dunno if that's cool, or just really odd.

...

(flame away!)

...CS forum?

ahahahaha.


Anyways..I can't believe nobody has mentioned brakes yet --- I don't know much about trucks..but I would imagine that's another major difference between a heavy duallie vs even a midsize truck..getting the load moving is only half the issue..the other half is getting it to stop. 😛

Edit: My mistake..I see grillmasterP already addressed that.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

Originally posted by: Skawttey

The difference between the 3.55 and the 3.92 is the ratio of the gears in the rear end. The housing may be the same in both, but the gears are not. This is what gives the 3.92 the higher towing capacity. The higher the gear ratio, the more the torque of the engine is multiplied and thus the more you can tow. It has nothing to do with the driveshaft.

The fact that the 1500 can do so much more pretty much establishes that the 4.7 and the transmission has enough torque. Yes, it makes more torque hit the ground. But my point is that if a job requires 1000LB/ft on the axle (such as moving a boat up a ramp), the 3.92 will put porportionally LESS stress on the driveshaft than the 3.55. Going back to the 1500, the engine and transmission seem to be able to handle much more stress. Thus that does not sound like the weak point. The single difference in the drivetrain is the drive shaft. I'm almost 100% the Ram and Dakota use different drive shafts.

Just because they're simple doesn't mean they can't be the weak point.

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
In the comparison of the similarly equipped Dakota and Ram it might be the tires or springs. On the Ram the same configuration with different tires makes a 1000 lb difference in towing capacity.(according to Dodge website)

I'm not arguing about the limit on the 3.92. The 1000LB difference is due to the fact that the tires on the 20" rims can't handle heavy truck usage. They're just smallish SUV at best tires.

 

[grillmasterP]

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth


I'm not arguing about the limit on the 3.92. The 1000LB difference is due to the fact that the tires on the 20" rims can't handle heavy truck usage. They're just smallish SUV at best tires.

On a similar note- Tire /wheel combos play another factor - If you overload the weight of the bed - could potentially blow the tire off of the bead.

 

[cavemanmoron]

Originally posted by: d33pt
even though you don't seem to think so, the suspension, drivetrain, and chassis ARE weaker on smaller trucks...
also the weight of the vehicle has a major effect on its towing capabilities... imagine how fun it is to stop when you're towing a 4000lb boat with your 3000lb truck.

too true,
if u want to haul tow a heavy load,then you buy the correct size vehicle.

you want to put 2500 Lbs of stuff in a Datsun pickup,thats rated for 650 lbs,go ahead..

Toyota used to make a 1 ton small sized truck,but i think they stopped producing it due to lack of sales.

at my job we used to use 1/2 ton pickups for snow plowing sidewalks,we have switched to 3/4 ton,and 1 ton, pickups,as they are heavier duty,and don't break parts as easy.

 

[carterbeauford]

hi. i've owned a 2000 tundra for over 3 years. let me clarify some things. it has 77,000 problem-free miles, toyota reliability is legendary and has not changed with this truck. it weighs 5900lbs, compared to the 3000lb analogy previously made. it will tow up to 8000lbs easily and hold 2000lbs of cargo, both of which are over the recommended ratings since it's a 1/2-ton, but within the tundra's capabilities. it has a bulletproof 245hp iron-block V8, which is of course less powerful than 300+hp diesel 1-tons that it's been senselessly compared to, but albeit provides ample power and torque. its drivetrain can be easily modified with locking differentials, and it can be easily lifted making it a serious contender offroad. it will tow anything within the limits of any comparable 1/2-ton pickup, i've pulled an 8000lb sailboat with ease. i recently rearended someone going 45mph and was uninjured and the truck does not even look like it's been in an accident. the tundra was rated #1 in safety among all comparable full size pickups. watch the video of the f150 hitting a wall and tell me how safe you feel. the tundra is approaching its 4th model year and 5th year on the market, and a crew cab version has been released for 2004. silverados, f150s, and rams have been around for years. the tundra is evolving quickly, and rest assured, 3/4 and 1-ton versions are inevitable. the tundra's place as a serious competitor has been achieved, causing such heated discussions as this one. thousands have made the switch to a tundra from an f150, silverado, or ram and vowed to never go back. the tundra plant in princeton created thousands of jobs. another plant in san antonio is being built and will create thousands more. my truck is built in the US. yours isn't. what have the big 3 done for america lately? my tundra is a superior truck. however slowly, people are realizing this and making the switch. they wouldn't have flown off the lots over the last 5 years if they sucked, trust me. when the '06 diesel 1-ton hits the market, watch your superduty sales plummet. i just wanted to clarify the claims of the tundra sucking, or being a japanese econo-box, or a POS for the less-informed folks who made them. if you can overcome your biases and prejudices and try a tundra, you'll thank me after you own it for a while. go to princeton or san antonio and americans will thank you. mexicans and canadians might thank you if they see your f150, silverado, or ram when you cross the border to our north or south, but i hope you understand spanish or french.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Another factor largely ignored is the physical size of a full size truck VS a compact truck when towing, you want the stability of a larger vehicle to reduce the tendency of the trailer/vehicle to oscillate.

You just haven't lived till a trailer starts to whip around because of the size/road conditions/speed/load placement.

You also need big brakes, etc to slow down the mass you've managed to get moving.

 

[toph99]

Originally posted by: vi_edit

The idea that this country needs to go back to heavy, large, full-framed, gas guzzling (yes I consider 20mpg to be gas guzzling) cars to solve our problems is completely moronic. But I'm not going to continue arguing this, because it's off-topic for this thread. I'll save it for somewhere else.

I don't know if I fully agree with you on the milage issue. A crown vic w/ a V8 pulls about 25MPG on the highway. My Passat w/ the V6 pulls about 25-26. Not much of a difference in milage. Emissions though...that may be a different story.

actually my 93 crown vic(142k km) pulls 29mpg on the highway, and i will get 19 in the city if i keep my foot out of it(but what's the fun of all the torque if you don't use it?) New ones have slightly lower mileage because the bodies are less aerodynamic. You can get them with 2.87(i think) rear ends, whereas i have a 3.27, which doesn't help with the fuel economy.

 

[iamwiz82]

Originally posted by: carterbeauford
hi. i've owned a 2000 tundra for over 3 years. let me clarify some things. it has 77,000 problem-free miles, toyota reliability is legendary and has not changed with this truck. it weighs 5900lbs, compared to the 3000lb analogy previously made. it will tow up to 8000lbs easily and hold 2000lbs of cargo, both of which are over the recommended ratings since it's a 1/2-ton, but within the tundra's capabilities. it has a bulletproof 245hp iron-block V8, which is of course less powerful than 300+hp diesel 1-tons that it's been senselessly compared to, but albeit provides ample power and torque. its drivetrain can be easily modified with locking differentials, and it can be easily lifted making it a serious contender offroad. it will tow anything within the limits of any comparable 1/2-ton pickup, i've pulled an 8000lb sailboat with ease. i recently rearended someone going 45mph and was uninjured and the truck does not even look like it's been in an accident. the tundra was rated #1 in safety among all comparable full size pickups. watch the video of the f150 hitting a wall and tell me how safe you feel. the tundra is approaching its 4th model year and 5th year on the market, and a crew cab version has been released for 2004. silverados, f150s, and rams have been around for years. the tundra is evolving quickly, and rest assured, 3/4 and 1-ton versions are inevitable. the tundra's place as a serious competitor has been achieved, causing such heated discussions as this one. thousands have made the switch to a tundra from an f150, silverado, or ram and vowed to never go back. the tundra plant in princeton created thousands of jobs. another plant in san antonio is being built and will create thousands more. my truck is built in the US. yours isn't. what have the big 3 done for america lately? my tundra is a superior truck. however slowly, people are realizing this and making the switch. they wouldn't have flown off the lots over the last 5 years if they sucked, trust me. when the '06 diesel 1-ton hits the market, watch your superduty sales plummet. i just wanted to clarify the claims of the tundra sucking, or being a japanese econo-box, or a POS for the less-informed folks who made them. if you can overcome your biases and prejudices and try a tundra, you'll thank me after you own it for a while. go to princeton or san antonio and americans will thank you. mexicans and canadians might thank you if they see your f150, silverado, or ram when you cross the border to our north or south, but i hope you understand spanish or french.

first paragraphs do work, believe me.

Second, your Tundra only hauls 7100lbs. This comes directly from Truck World .

Third, your truck as the 8.25" rear end. There are only 3 lockers i know of offhand for it, lockrite, no-slip, and an uber expensive LSD that is pretty much garbage. This rear end is not that spectacular and, in fact, will not hand 35" tires without issue.

Fourth, Toyota is behind the game when it comes to development. They are just now coming out with a 4 door model? Hell, all their customers went to the big three looking for a 4 door solution.

Fifth, look at the sales of Tundra's versus F150's and tell me they are coming close. Hell, the F150 got best truck in its final year under this design.

 

[BadNewsBears]

Originally posted by: bunker

I think the Tundra superior to any so called " american made "truck (Tundra is made in Indiana)(Fords,Chevy, made in Mexico, Canada)

Want to show me where you got that info?
My F-150 was made in Kentucky, the new F-150 is being produced in Kansas City and Norfolk, Va. I love it when people spout out things they "think" they know

As for the original post. A compact pickup could be made to do the hauling/towing but it is cost prohibitive. The big 3 sell the smaller trucks because of their price. If they beefed them up enough to be able to do the hauling/towing of their bigger brothers it would cost a hell of a lot more. Why by a compact for the same price as a full size? Doesn't make sense.

That said I towed quite a bit with my old Ranger and it was painful every time I did. Upgraded to an F-150 and it's a pleasure to tow. With the Ranger you could feel the trailer pushing/pulling the truck around, with the F-150 I push and pull the trailer around.

Exavtly. He is an idiot. I live outside of detroit, and we have plants everywhere. Ford has 2 plants near me, the detroit deisel plant and the automatic transmition plant.