Discussion in 'Ford Raptor Engine Discussion and Performance Mods' started by sisaacks, Mar 15, 2020.
What's the "basic American truck durability test"?
I little better resolution.
Yeah, the rigid frame on the F-150 is amazing, and Toyota's 3-section box/C/open design certainly falls short (and 2020 is the 14TH model year of it). Toyota is incredibly conservative in their designs, preferring tried and true technology over newer/better/more performant technology, and then keeping it around long enough to the point where it's proper *OLD* technology. But frame rigidity is a performance feature, not a durability one. Just because it's too elastic doesn't mean it's prone to failure.
From what I've seen of Tundras, they're pretty good at durability *because* the designs are so conservative. They get crushed on performance. Conservatism/risk avoidance is what delivers their reputation for quality.
Just like the 6.2L vs Ecoboost ( in stock condition). Tried-and-true vs advanced design.
I got kinda excited watching the Tundra “twerk”.
Toyota trucks are far from tried and true; they're just old and outdated. Frame rigidity is not a performance feature, it is an expected attribute of any truck and defines both capability and durability. It also has nothing to do with being elastic; the Tundra is simply poorly engineered with cheap materials. Under the conditions in that test, the Tundra's bed contacts the cab, resulting in severe damage to both. It's been well documented in real world applications as well, under conditions much less severe.
Tundras are not "good at durability" either; they have widespread pattern failures and are the most expensive pickups in the industry to repair this side of a 3/4 ton diesel. The early 5.7 engines were snapping camshafts, and all model years also have a massive problem with cam tower oil leaks. The cam tower mounts to the cylinder head and houses the camshaft journals; their unique 2-piece design is sealed with RTV and develops an oil leak at this mating surface, resulting in oil dripping down the sides of the engine and on to the exhaust manifolds. The issue affects 2007 models (first model year) to current 2020 models; Toyota never revised the design. Must be "tried and true". Here's a 77+ page thread on the issue for some good reading:
Don't get me started on the $3500 Air Injection Pump (AIP) failures or frame rust lawsuits. Toyotas are junk overhyped by fanboy brand loyalists.
Did not realize their 5.7 was so problematic...that cam tower leak looks like quite the flaw, a lot of skilled work to correct.
I think the early cam failure was a metallurgy issue with initial production and was just a few thousand trucks, '07 only. Have never owned one and don't read their forums though. I only know of it because the GM forums made fun of them at the time. People picked on them for not having a fully boxed frame (when GM just introduced theirs in 07, and Ford in 04), the cam failures, and the 07-only tailgate design flaw when loading ATVs.
I still don't think the lack of torsional rigidity is a durability issue. Every truck has a max speed on that course, and the Ford's is a hell of a lot higher than the Toyota's. Could drive a Raptor down that 10mph faster and then call the regular F-150 a POS when its bed hits the cab at that speed. Or take a built desert truck down it 20mph faster and then call the Raptor a POS for the same. That course at that speed exceeded the Toyota's performance capabilities, and it failed. Looks like he hit a harmonic with it, where each impact is timed to compound the last. An '03 Ford and an '06 Chevy would probably do the same thing.
Hit that shit at like 80 in the rap. It would just float over the tops.
Yes, the camshaft failures only affected the engines in early models, but that was still a population of about 30,000. The cheap, poorly designed and failure prone tailgate was a widespread issue; they "reinforced" it in later years but they're still made from thin, low grade bonded sheet metal. Failures like that really exemplify the difference between Japanese and American manufacturers; the Japanese don't have the slightest clue how Americans use their trucks, so all they can do is copy American designs and rely on second hand market research information. I guarantee they never even tried loading an ATV or motorcycle into the Tundra during development; if they had, they would have realized the failure mode immediately. Instead, they identified an opportunity to save weight/cost by "lightweighting" the tailgate and it's components, with zero insight as to why the American trucks use robust tailgate design.
As far as frames, GM was introducing their fully boxed and hydroformed frame in their all-new 2007 GMT-900 trucks at the same time that Toyota was introducing their all-new 2007 Tundra with an open c-channel frame. Another example of a foreign company completely failing to understand their target market while chasing profit opportunity instead of quality.
A lack of torsional rigidity is a significant durability issue because it affects more than just the system that the flex originates in. All components are rated to a fatigue cycle, which means that after a certain number of cycles, the component will exceed it's duty cycle and fail. In the case of the mild steel body panels on the Tundra, running that Ford durability test will inevitably result in a failure of the frame or it's fastened components. That translates to real world failures, which are well documented.
You are assuming that the test results are correlated to the suspension, which is not accurate. The test is designed to max out a the capability of the suspension without causing damage to the chassis. You can run a standard F-150 across that test as fast as you want, it may not retain the desired stability, but the cab will not hit the bed and the frame will not bend. Same with a Raptor or any other real truck; exceeding the suspension's capability should never result in damage to the frame and body. Toyota doesn't care about any of those things; they focus on selling based on the badge, not the quality or capability of the product.
True. The 6.2 is definitely one of the best motors Ford has ever built for doing work reliably, but it was used in the Raptor before it made its way to the Super Duty. And while it may not have been boosted from the factory, it sure does handle it well. Mine saw 14 psi peak this week and 13 psi sustained on a few pulls. Been boosted for around 5 years now. Still holding strong. And MTF is approaching a decade with his. At 560+ whp with full stock exhaust, no less.
OP - sorry about your troubles. Don't take the whole Hennesscrewed thing personally. That guy has been screwing customers for something like 20 years now. It's his whole business model. And burning a piston is a lot better than burning a whole truck to the ground (he is responsible for many of those in the Raptor community). Also a lot better than having your Viper stripped and all the parts (including the motor) sold, instead of being built, while he uses your money to finance his lifestyle.
Hope your situation is resolved favorably.
Great info FordTechOne. On a related note, my wife has a 2012 Sequoia and I have a 2013 Roush Raptor Stage II. It’s been supercharged (TVS2300) since day one and has 121,000 miles at present. The last ~20,000 have been at 9-10psi and likely near 650 hp versus the original 590 hp. I don’t abuse the truck, but I do have occasional WOT pulls.
It’s been a great truck. No issues other than my power steering pump is on its way out. It was fine, then I ended up getting off of my driveway when leaving for work in the morning six weeks ago. I was in the yard (~30” on snow at the time) which took some jostling to make it out of (once the snow melts here in a month or so, I can only imagine what the 37” grapplers did to the grass!). I made it out, but returning home from work I noticed the steering effort significantly increased at low rpm. I’ve been driving it since and it hasn’t degraded much, if any, but will need to be replaced at some point sooner than later.
Separate names with a comma.