Motor Trend - June 2007
The New York Times has reported that a senior General Motors executive
e-mailed dealers to point out that Toyota may have been a bit too slick
with that slick Tundra "see-saw" advertisement http://snipurl.com/1ky41
- The GM guy claims the 10,000-pounds referred to in the voiceover
means the combined weight of truck and trailer, not just the trailer,
as implied. And he indicates you have to read the fine print to see the
trailer is fitted with electric brakes. Wonder how they got any
traction on a steel grating in the first place..
The trailer was only around 5,000 lbs. Even my Frontier claims I can
tow 5,000 lbs but Nissan does recommend the use of trailer brakes for
any trailer over 1,000 lbs. I've towed a trailer over 5,000lb behind
an Expedition with no trailer brakes, but I wouldn't want to try to go
down a 45 degree ramp that way.
The whole deceptive Tundra ads debate played out a couple of months
back. The see-saw ad is one of a series of misleading/deceptive Tundra
ads. Another was the one where they ran the Tundra down a ramp out
over a canyon - they masked out the tether used in that one. Or the 0
to 60 to 0 commercial where the voice over implies that the Tundra
stopped much shorter than the other trucks. Actually the Tundra has no
advantage in terms of stopping distances, but it did accelerate to 60
in a shorter distance, allowing it to start stopping sooner. The
commercial was factually correct, but implied something that was not
If you do the math the Toyota has more drawbar/pulling power than ANY
1/2 truck out there regardless of tow ratings. (anything other models
are rated to tow, it will pul it harder) Sometimes ads do not really
show this. As far as break, once I loast brakes and a 20K plus grain
trailer in town near a mill at low speed (about 15 MPH) and it pushed
me like I was not even there in slow motion with all 4 tires locked up
until it stopped which seemed like for ever. You can tow 5k without
brakes as many do but you will not be able to stop it effectively in a
hurry, especailly at speed especail with a short wheel based vehicle
like a explorer.
The trailer hauling the load is required under federal law to have its own
brakes, having to state so in the fine print is a formality. Toyota did
The GVWR is the truck, trailer, and the load -- including any load tht is
physically in the truck, not just the load that is on the trailer. Toyota
did nothing wrong.
Stopping -- gaining traction -- on grating is perhaps the easiest part of
the commercial. The grates are on edge, and this offers a very high
coeffecient of friction.
*crosspost removed from Chevy and Ford groups*
Jeff Strickland wrote:
GVWR is the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating. It does not include an allowance
for trailer weight other than the load the trailer tongue puts on the tow
vehicle. Gross /Combined/ Weight Rating (G*C*WR) would include the total
weight of the loaded vehicle and trailer.
If you look at the picture of my certification sticker you will see the GVWR
listed (8800 lbs) in the top right corner.
If you compare this weight ticket to my certification sticker you will see
that I was under the weight ratings for the front axle, rear axle, and GVWR.
The /combined/ weight was 1,940 lbs beyond the 8800 lb GVWR but still
completely legal and under all weight ratings.
On the flats side they are slick, but on edge, there are several sharp (not
sharp as in knife) edges that are gripping the tire. And, when they make
ramps like these, not only are the grates on edge, the edges are spiked to
make traction even greater.
I agree completely that a flat metal ramp is slicker than snot, but when the
metal is placed on edge, it gains rigidity and traction.
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.