I have a joke for you!

[rmc523]

I checked back at the image codes in the edit screen and there is no gaps. I don't understand why!

 

No gaps in what?

 

I always push return/enter between images and that solves the problem.

[Furious1Auto]

No gaps in what?

 

I always push return/enter between images and that solves the problem.

My browser doesn't work that way. When you click on the image tab in the text window, a new window appears on the top of the screen then you paste the image code there and click O.K. and it automatically pastes it to the text window!

[rmc523]

My browser doesn't work that way. When you click on the image tab in the text window, a new window appears on the top of the screen then you paste the image code there and click O.K. and it automatically pastes it to the text window!

 

Mine works the same way.

 

I meant, after allowing that image tag/link to post itself in the text window, I push enter, then repeat the image tab to new window/entering link process again on a new line.

 

I hope that makes sense.

 

Because of the one horizontally stacked image, my whole screen on this page has to be scrolled over to see entire posts.

[Furious1Auto]

Mine works the same way.

 

I meant, after allowing that image tag/link to post itself in the text window, I push enter, then repeat the image tab to new window/entering link process again on a new line.

 

I hope that makes sense.

 

Because of the one horizontally stacked image, my whole screen on this page has to be scrolled over to see entire posts.

Slow down man, I'm a novice! What did you mean?

[rmc523]

Slow down man, I'm a novice! What did you mean?

 

I'll try this again.....

 

Posting an image works the same for me as it does for you: when you/I click the image tab, a separate window pops up, you paste the link to your image in and click ok. the image link is then put into the tags.

 

All I'm saying is I do that process then click enter after each tag, so I avoid the horizontally stacked images problem.

 

EX: When typing a reply I do this:

 

Reply.......

http://www.autocarparts.com/images/product.../TL-S_Front.jpg [/ img] {enter}

http://www.autocarparts.com/images/product.../TL-S_Front.jpg [/ img]

More comments.......

(end post)

 

Does it make sense now?

Edited February 11, 2008 by rmc523

[Furious1Auto]

Gotcha! :shades:

[Ford-150]

i edited your post to what i like.....sorry - Ford-150

 

 

lol its fucking the Ferrari

i love that thing....i just think the bed is a little out of place, if they made a bed for the F-650 instead of pulling it from a SD then it would look insane

Edited February 11, 2008 by Ford-150

[ebritt]

Where can I buy this one?????

 

LOL

 

[rmc523]

That's quite alright.

 

I do agree with you that the SD's bed looks a little out of place on the 650, a larger looking bed would be more appropriate to go along with the large front end.

 

Now, P71, you'd need a ladder to put cash on the hood of this thing.

[rmc523]

Where can I buy this one?????

 

LOL

 

 

Well, you can buy your basic F-650/F-750 at your local Commercial Ford dealer (which for me is both commercial and regular) for a cool $90,000.

[96towncarcartier]

Just the way I like to see a Toyoder... WRECKED.

 

 

Follow the Link for the answer! LINK to the answer!

[OX1]

You need to go to the "bed bounce" thread about four down from your's and set them straight. One poster says "it's a truck, of course the bed will bounce" and goes on to say Ford and Dodge just make heavy trucks to hide the bounce and Toyota makes the best frames to tow the most and has the highest payload.

 

 

Best frame my butt. I did a little digging (measuring) into frames the past couple days

 

The frame on the tundra ain't much bigger that a new tacoma.

 

Brand new Tacoma (not boxed)

 

Center section-6 X 2

Rear section (over wheelwell)-5 X 2.25

 

2007 Tundra (not boxed)

 

Center section 6.5 X 3

Rear section over wheewell 5.5 X 3

End of frame 4 X 2.75

 

2004+ F150 (all boxed)

 

Center section 8.5 X 2

Rear section 5.25 X 2 X 2.75 (hard to measure as it tapers almost all the way over the axle area and it is boxed, but T-shaped when looking longitudenally along it, making top width wider than bottom width at that area).

End of frame-4.5 X 2.75

 

For reference my 78 bronco has 6 X 2.5 all the way down (unboxed and substanitally thicker wall @ .253 vs .189 for the tundra), but those were not rated to tow 10K either.

 

So yeah, it will be faster, but 30 years from now, which one will still have a frame in it? Some could say they just used a much better material for the Toy frame too equal the f150 frame, but I think this proves they did not.

 

 

Might say Toy WANTED some frame flex, but that flies in the face of every new car/truck review I've read over 30 years and how everyone strives for a more rigid frame.......

 

I suspect that is one reason it is so fast. The drivetrain seems stout and the drivetrain parts should be beefier (6 speed auto, more HP/torque) and heavier than the F150. So how did Toy get the weight of it 141 lbs less than an equivalent F150, when the Toy is also 5 inches longer and 1 inch wider.

 

We know they skimped big time on the tailgate.

http://www.petitiononline.com/Kwasted/petition.html

 

Before tundrasoluntions deleted the TG thread (I assume, it is now gone), one guy claimed he went to the dealer and 5 out of 9 TG's he opened were cracked on the lot. Like this.

 

http://www.bodyshopzone.com/editoria...y_problem.html

 

It sure seems like they scimped on the frame, unless you think the Tocoma and the F150 frames

are just massively overdesigned (but then what does that say about Toy's philosphy on designing

frames so varied in strength vs their intended usage)???

 

Aside from the frame issue, I don't see the point of having such a fast

truck when it's handling is miserable. First fast corner and you get your arse

handed to you by a bunch of minivans, BWAHAHA!!!

(4 out 5 of these minivans beat the tundra in slalom and skidpad)

What a turd...........

 

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do.....;/pageId=117551

 

http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpconta.....;/pageNumber=11

[rmc523]

Just the way I like to see a Toyoder... WRECKED.

 

LOL, same here.

[Furious1Auto]

Best frame my butt. I did a little digging (measuring) into frames the past couple days

 

The frame on the tundra ain't much bigger that a new tacoma.

 

Brand new Tacoma (not boxed)

 

Center section-6 X 2

Rear section (over wheelwell)-5 X 2.25

 

2007 Tundra (not boxed)

 

Center section 6.5 X 3

Rear section over wheewell 5.5 X 3

End of frame 4 X 2.75

 

2004+ F150 (all boxed)

 

Center section 8.5 X 2

Rear section 5.25 X 2 X 2.75 (hard to measure as it tapers almost all the way over the axle area and it is boxed, but T-shaped when looking longitudenally along it, making top width wider than bottom width at that area).

End of frame-4.5 X 2.75

 

For reference my 78 bronco has 6 X 2.5 all the way down (unboxed and substanitally thicker wall @ .253 vs .189 for the tundra), but those were not rated to tow 10K either.

 

So yeah, it will be faster, but 30 years from now, which one will still have a frame in it? Some could say they just used a much better material for the Toy frame too equal the f150 frame, but I think this proves they did not.

 

 

Might say Toy WANTED some frame flex, but that flies in the face of every new car/truck review I've read over 30 years and how everyone strives for a more rigid frame.......

 

I suspect that is one reason it is so fast. The drivetrain seems stout and the drivetrain parts should be beefier (6 speed auto, more HP/torque) and heavier than the F150. So how did Toy get the weight of it 141 lbs less than an equivalent F150, when the Toy is also 5 inches longer and 1 inch wider.

 

We know they skimped big time on the tailgate.

http://www.petitiononline.com/Kwasted/petition.html

 

Before tundrasoluntions deleted the TG thread (I assume, it is now gone), one guy claimed he went to the dealer and 5 out of 9 TG's he opened were cracked on the lot. Like this.

 

http://www.bodyshopzone.com/editoria...y_problem.html

 

It sure seems like they scimped on the frame, unless you think the Tocoma and the F150 frames

are just massively overdesigned (but then what does that say about Toy's philosphy on designing

frames so varied in strength vs their intended usage)???

 

Aside from the frame issue, I don't see the point of having such a fast

truck when it's handling is miserable. First fast corner and you get your arse

handed to you by a bunch of minivans, BWAHAHA!!!

(4 out 5 of these minivans beat the tundra in slalom and skidpad)

What a turd...........

 

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do.....;/pageId=117551

 

http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpconta.....;/pageNumber=11

If Ford were to change their rear gearing they could also acheive better acceleration and speed, but it would be at the sacrifice of payload. And payload is what working people value more than speed. Ford just needs to bring the Lightning back in to production and with such a drivetrain that Toyo can't aswer it, so that Toyo will shut their mouth about how fast the Tundra is. No new stock Toyo can beat the old stock Lightning ET's!

Edited February 17, 2008 by Furious1Auto

[rmc523]

If Ford were to change their rear gearing they could also acheive better acceleration and speed, but it would be at the sacrifice of payload. And payload is what working people value more than speed. Ford just needs to bring the Lightning back in to production and with such a drivetrain that Toyo can't aswer it, so that Toyo will shut their mouth about how fast the Tundra is. No new stock Toyo can beat the old stock Lightning ET's!

 

I'm thinking a little 6.2 EcoBoost (TwinForce in Lightning application), w/ about 600 hp?