i dont think it is brand bashing....more just a set of observations.
in what way would it be considered misleading?
Ford sponsored several videos a few years ago insisting that the Tundra was "weak" in some way because the of non-boxed flexibility. That insinuation is factually wrong: flexible does not equal weak. The 3rd gen Tundra IS more flexible, I'm not denying that, just the weak conclusions. Tailoring a video to a specific vehicle's natural resonance is misleading propaganda. Who drives a stock truck at that speed over a course even remotely like that? Is it supposed to be a real-world test or propaganda? Or would the additional articulation be better at a rock crawl speed? In fact, the Tundra was judged as significantly better tow vehicle in several mags because of the flexibility! Toyota could have easily found the frequency or bump spacing for the Ford and done the same, but they didn't. In other words, some manufactures like to run stealthy negative ad campaigns.
When the new Tundra was launched, I was on several forums where flag-waving big-3 lovers constantly pulled the "my Ford's bolts are bigger" nonsense along with these videos- all of which are irrelevant and meaningless (the bolts were bigger because the Ford frame doesn't flex as much which transfers more force to the bolts). I got tired of of bad info and insults, so I'm defensive.
To be clear, I'm not accusing DD or anyone here of bias. I'm just trying to highlight that what passes as "data" isn't unbiased or even truthful. Personally, I think all the half-tons are pretty damn capable these days.
And yes, the Tundra's frame is more flexible than other trucks, by design. Caveat emptor.