WHY does the Tundra get such bad MPGs? - Page 3 - TundraTalk.net - Toyota Tundra Discussion Forum
User Tag List

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #31 of 127 (permalink) Old 02-08-2017, 08:28 PM Thread Starter
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 83
Thanks: 55
Thanked 24 Times in 18 Posts
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
--- THREAD RESET ---

I like all the input. Great points made, especially the hills. When you take a nationwide average you don't take into account the environmental variables depending where each truck drives.

But back to the purpose of the thread... There are endless threads on what actual MPGs people get. On this thread I was hoping to focus on the WHY? Like what mechanical issues are the biggest factor? And would Tundra owners be happy if Toyota added those factors that increase mpg to same levels as comparable trucks?

Disclaimer: None of us are willing to change vehicles for better mpg we all knew what we got into willingly. Tundras are still comparable to others but we all know we're lower even if just by margin. And yes, Tundras beat other vehicles in countless categories so they're still a better choice even with even lower MPGs.

Ok, thread back on course. Mechanics and super smart aficionados please chime in to what mechanical design factors affect MPGs most directly. Thanks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Nootherids is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 127 (permalink) Old 02-08-2017, 08:38 PM
Senior Member
Premium Member
 
Breathing Borla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,295
Thanks: 2,066
Thanked 2,908 Times in 1,877 Posts
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1266 Post(s)
Garage
Who gives a shit

There I solved the problem for everyone


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

2016 Tundra Platinum Crewmax 4x4
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

2013 Ram Sport 4x4, 8-speed, 3.92, 5.7, 4x4, Borla exhaust
2010 LTD Tundra DC, 4x4 RW Wheels 33" Cooper ST Maxx
2001 tundra Access Cab 4x4
2000 tundra Access Cab 4x4
1998 Tacoma extended cab 4x4
1997 Tacoma regular cab 4x4
1995.5 Tacoma regular cab 4x4
Breathing Borla is offline  
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Breathing Borla For This Useful Post:
1lowlife (02-08-2017), Azblue (02-09-2017), kstateskier (02-09-2017), mrmachinist (02-09-2017)
post #33 of 127 (permalink) Old 02-08-2017, 08:43 PM
Super Moderator
Premium Member
 
StevenD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: DFW, Texas
Posts: 13,780
Thanks: 701
Thanked 22,328 Times in 10,051 Posts
Mentioned: 423 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6067 Post(s)
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by Breathing Borla View Post
Who gives a shit

There I solved the problem for everyone
Yeah...im just about ready to close this thread.

2015 Tundra CrewMax 1794 2WD

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
ddd
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
ddd
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

StevenD is offline  
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to StevenD For This Useful Post:
1lowlife (02-08-2017), Azblue (02-09-2017), Breathing Borla (02-08-2017), UNTMatt (02-10-2017)
 
post #34 of 127 (permalink) Old 02-08-2017, 08:48 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 96
Thanks: 4
Thanked 39 Times in 25 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
2017 Lexus LX 570, same 5.7 weights 6k gets same MPG with the 8 speed transmission (13city, 18hw, 15combine).

You ask me it's the steep gears, alot of the domestic are running 3.08, 3.23s all for highway mgp
Devi8 is offline  
post #35 of 127 (permalink) Old 02-08-2017, 09:01 PM Thread Starter
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 83
Thanks: 55
Thanked 24 Times in 18 Posts
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by StevenD View Post
Yeah...im just about ready to close this thread.

Damn! Well that was unexpected. People communicating and a member asking a valid question to better understand his truck, a question that Google can't seem to answer so I brought it here with the expectation that an open forum for sharing knowledge would be able, willing, and interested in answering. And the mods wanna close it cause two people wasted their time reading another mpg whining thread and then whined about wasting their time.

Point is... I Care! That's why I asked. And nobody is whining about low MPGs. I didn't ask what anybody gets. People are just sharing their minds. Anyway, close it if you want. Shitty, but it's your power. I was just hoping that Google would finally be able to answer this question thanks to this thread and the knowledge in this forum.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Nootherids is offline  
post #36 of 127 (permalink) Old 02-08-2017, 09:03 PM
Premium Member
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Chandler AZ
Posts: 1,660
Thanks: 0
Thanked 994 Times in 669 Posts
Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 499 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by StevenD View Post
Yeah...im just about ready to close this thread.
Why?

I'm not judging...I'm just sayin


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
l1tech is offline  
post #37 of 127 (permalink) Old 02-08-2017, 09:04 PM
Super Moderator
Premium Member
 
StevenD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: DFW, Texas
Posts: 13,780
Thanks: 701
Thanked 22,328 Times in 10,051 Posts
Mentioned: 423 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6067 Post(s)
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by l1tech View Post
Why?
Because these treads go nowhere. And there are roughly 700 other threads just like this one.

And I get tired of people buying 6000# vehicles and then bitching about mpg.

2015 Tundra CrewMax 1794 2WD

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
ddd
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
ddd
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

StevenD is offline  
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to StevenD For This Useful Post:
1lowlife (02-08-2017), Azblue (02-09-2017), kstateskier (02-09-2017), UNTMatt (02-10-2017), Vu37 (02-09-2017)
post #38 of 127 (permalink) Old 02-08-2017, 09:05 PM
Senior Member
 
tomscigars's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: St. Petersburg, FL
Posts: 410
Thanks: 21
Thanked 430 Times in 245 Posts
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 142 Post(s)
It's really simple. Big rear end, big heavy truck, big displacement V8, no shoddy tech like cylinder deactivation.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

2014 5.7L SR Loooooong bed!
DirtyDeeds Stainless 8" BAMuffler
CrimeStopper SP-502
Raptor 4" Nerf Bars
Husky X-Act Contour Floor Liners
20% Tint
BBS RD423 20" wheels. Yokohama Geolandar A/T G015xl 275/55R20
tomscigars is offline  
post #39 of 127 (permalink) Old 02-08-2017, 09:11 PM Thread Starter
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 83
Thanks: 55
Thanked 24 Times in 18 Posts
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devi8 View Post
2017 Lexus LX 570, same 5.7 weights 6k gets same MPG with the 8 speed transmission (13city, 18hw, 15combine).



You ask me it's the steep gears, alot of the domestic are running 3.08, 3.23s all for highway mgp


Damn, I honestly didn't know they ran gears that low. I figured all modern trucks ran close to 3.80 for towing power at least.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Nootherids is offline  
post #40 of 127 (permalink) Old 02-08-2017, 09:11 PM
Senior Member
 
theoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: BC
Posts: 3,392
Thanks: 9,783
Thanked 2,042 Times in 1,326 Posts
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 422 Post(s)


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Crewmax LTD/RB10/BHLM/LAHM/Husky Classic Liners/Line-x/5100's/Ride Rites/Coachbuilder +2 Shackles/285/60/20 Duratracs
theoat is offline  
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to theoat For This Useful Post:
Azblue (02-09-2017), mrmachinist (02-09-2017)
post #41 of 127 (permalink) Old 02-08-2017, 09:22 PM Thread Starter
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 83
Thanks: 55
Thanked 24 Times in 18 Posts
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomscigars View Post
It's really simple. Big rear end, big heavy truck, big displacement V8, no shoddy tech like cylinder deactivation.

Yeah, 10 years ago most big truck V8's were made the same like tanks and F the MPGs. (I'm assuming since I'm new to trucks). Now they have those cylinder deactivation and Eco choices. I personally would rather put my trust in a tank like solid V8.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Nootherids is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to Nootherids For This Useful Post:
theoat (02-08-2017)
post #42 of 127 (permalink) Old 02-08-2017, 10:19 PM
Senior Member
 
Lattimer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: NJ
Posts: 706
Thanks: 25
Thanked 422 Times in 254 Posts
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 79 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nootherids View Post
Damn, I honestly didn't know they ran gears that low. I figured all modern trucks ran close to 3.80 for towing power at least.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The thing you have to watch is what truck was used exactly for the mpg that is claimed. Its usually a regular cab short bed no options with the highest gears they can offer. A lot of the Chevy's run 3.08 or 3.21, Dodge runs 3.55 a lot. I've driven several rentals for 500+ miles, and I've found the ecoboost to be just ok, but kind of a dog for higher speed acceleration. Its best at part throttle from lower speeds where you can feel the torque. The Chevy's seem to feel anemic with the 5.3. The Ram has good power --- but its a Ram. I think any one of them with our 4:30 gears would feel so much higher performance.

Ford runs a turbo V-6 to get better mileage. Chevy and Dodge use cylinder deactivation. The newer transmissions are supposed to help with the 8 speeds, but it seems to be a tiny increase compared to the normal 6 speed.


Overall weight makes a difference, so comparing a crewmax 4x4 to a 2wd regular cab will show a significant change.

The way the engine is tuned makes a big difference also. The computer control makes it so you can fine tune it infinitely, so if you want big power you can make it pretty easily, but if you want good mileage you can do that too.

Good example is the Chevy LS engines. People doing engine swaps rebuild them and drop them into classics a lot. Stock rated truck 5.3's were like 315 hp a few years back. Some tweaks (cam, porting, intake and injector mods) and aftermarket controllers they are over 400 pretty quickly. So that shows you that they have been significantly "de-tuned" in production form, and that is often for fuel mileage.

I have several friends with other brand trucks, and they really don't seem to get significantly better real world mileage. One friend has a 2-year old Ram, the other has a 2012 Silverado. I know the Silverado has the 5.3 with 3.08's, and he only beats my truck by about 1.5 mpg with he same type of driving that I do. The Ram gets about 4 mpg better than me, but he drives almost all highway all the time. When I have checked a tank running highway the whole way I've been more like 2 less than him. He has a 3.92 rear, and cylinder deactivation. I think that combo makes all the difference.



Personally, I'm not thrilled with cylinder deactivation. I think long term its a reliability issue. I do like the Ford idea with the turbo 6, but turbo's create other issues down the road.


FWIW, I owned a 2000 Dodge Dakota that I bought new. It got 14 mpg and had a 170 hp V-6. I later upgraded to a 2005 Dodge Ram, it had the 345 hp hemi, and got 14 mpg. I then upgraded to a 2008 Tundra, which got.......you guessed it.......14 mpg.

Lattimer

2015 TRD Pro CM Supercharged

Traded-- 2012 Crewmax 4x4 SR5 TRD Offroad
Traded-- 2008 DoubleCab 4x4 SR5 TRD Offroad
Lattimer is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to Lattimer For This Useful Post:
Nootherids (02-08-2017)
post #43 of 127 (permalink) Old 02-08-2017, 10:57 PM Thread Starter
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 83
Thanks: 55
Thanked 24 Times in 18 Posts
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lattimer View Post
The thing you have to watch is what truck was used exactly for the mpg that is claimed. Its usually a regular cab short bed no options with the highest gears they can offer. A lot of the Chevy's run 3.08 or 3.21, Dodge runs 3.55 a lot. I've driven several rentals for 500+ miles, and I've found the ecoboost to be just ok, but kind of a dog for higher speed acceleration. Its best at part throttle from lower speeds where you can feel the torque. The Chevy's seem to feel anemic with the 5.3. The Ram has good power --- but its a Ram. I think any one of them with our 4:30 gears would feel so much higher performance.



Ford runs a turbo V-6 to get better mileage. Chevy and Dodge use cylinder deactivation. The newer transmissions are supposed to help with the 8 speeds, but it seems to be a tiny increase compared to the normal 6 speed.





Overall weight makes a difference, so comparing a crewmax 4x4 to a 2wd regular cab will show a significant change.



The way the engine is tuned makes a big difference also. The computer control makes it so you can fine tune it infinitely, so if you want big power you can make it pretty easily, but if you want good mileage you can do that too.



Good example is the Chevy LS engines. People doing engine swaps rebuild them and drop them into classics a lot. Stock rated truck 5.3's were like 315 hp a few years back. Some tweaks (cam, porting, intake and injector mods) and aftermarket controllers they are over 400 pretty quickly. So that shows you that they have been significantly "de-tuned" in production form, and that is often for fuel mileage.



I have several friends with other brand trucks, and they really don't seem to get significantly better real world mileage. One friend has a 2-year old Ram, the other has a 2012 Silverado. I know the Silverado has the 5.3 with 3.08's, and he only beats my truck by about 1.5 mpg with he same type of driving that I do. The Ram gets about 4 mpg better than me, but he drives almost all highway all the time. When I have checked a tank running highway the whole way I've been more like 2 less than him. He has a 3.92 rear, and cylinder deactivation. I think that combo makes all the difference.







Personally, I'm not thrilled with cylinder deactivation. I think long term its a reliability issue. I do like the Ford idea with the turbo 6, but turbo's create other issues down the road.





FWIW, I owned a 2000 Dodge Dakota that I bought new. It got 14 mpg and had a 170 hp V-6. I later upgraded to a 2005 Dodge Ram, it had the 345 hp hemi, and got 14 mpg. I then upgraded to a 2008 Tundra, which got.......you guessed it.......14 mpg.

No joke, that is exactly the kind of answer I was hoping to get. Thank you very much for taking the time to write it. I've read it over several times and it brings it all together to make sense. Like I said, I'm new to trucks. For example, I drive the Ram and loved the way it feels on the road cause it felt very car like. But I wanted something more "truck" and loved the look and feel of the Tundra so that's what I went for. It wasn't until later experiencing why truck owners are so dedicated to them that I came to learn the real value of the truck I chose.

So the tire types, suspension, aerodynamics, etc were always pretty obvious factors to me. But I wasn't even aware that there were different gearing ratios and what they meant until learning about them mostly through this forum relatively recently. I'm surprised there are so many. I though trucks basically had 3.80 or 4.30 or a custom modification. And I never thought of the impacts they could have on mileage, I just though about towing power. Nor did I think the weight differences would also factor in too much.

For example, one of my buddies claiming like 21 mpg has a brand new Ram Hemi crew cab with road tires. He does have the part-time/auto 4WD but I have no idea what gearing and I assume he has the cylinder deactivation too. Mine is a CrewMax with A/T-M/T tires, 4x4, and I guess the 4.30 gears with the Rock Warrior tow pkg. Add that he calculates gas mileage through the trip computer and I get it through math at the pump. Whether his is "stronger" or same as mine I don't know, maybe. But I already know his truck has been to the shop for some maintenance while mine hasn't had a hiccup in 80k miles. With the info you provided I can see more clearly why he might be getting so much better mileage than me (likely not a real 21 though).

I get so many people telling me to get rid of my gas guzzling Tundra already. I don't bother arguing with them, and I pay them no mind cause its not like I didn't already know and accept it gladly. Now I'm still not gonna argue them, but I'm glad my head can make a bit more sense of the many potential "why's" our trucks might be different.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Nootherids is offline  
post #44 of 127 (permalink) Old 02-08-2017, 11:09 PM
Senior Member
 
theoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: BC
Posts: 3,392
Thanks: 9,783
Thanked 2,042 Times in 1,326 Posts
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 422 Post(s)


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Crewmax LTD/RB10/BHLM/LAHM/Husky Classic Liners/Line-x/5100's/Ride Rites/Coachbuilder +2 Shackles/285/60/20 Duratracs
theoat is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to theoat For This Useful Post:
Nootherids (02-09-2017)
post #45 of 127 (permalink) Old 02-08-2017, 11:27 PM
Senior Member
 
Lattimer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: NJ
Posts: 706
Thanks: 25
Thanked 422 Times in 254 Posts
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 79 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nootherids View Post
No joke, that is exactly the kind of answer I was hoping to get. Thank you very much for taking the time to write it. I've read it over several times and it brings it all together to make sense. Like I said, I'm new to trucks. For example, I drive the Ram and loved the way it feels on the road cause it felt very car like. But I wanted something more "truck" and loved the look and feel of the Tundra so that's what I went for. It wasn't until later experiencing why truck owners are so dedicated to them that I came to learn the real value of the truck I chose.

So the tire types, suspension, aerodynamics, etc were always pretty obvious factors to me. But I wasn't even aware that there were different gearing ratios and what they meant until learning about them mostly through this forum relatively recently. I'm surprised there are so many. I though trucks basically had 3.80 or 4.30 or a custom modification. And I never thought of the impacts they could have on mileage, I just though about towing power. Nor did I think the weight differences would also factor in too much.

For example, one of my buddies claiming like 21 mpg has a brand new Ram Hemi crew cab with road tires. He does have the part-time/auto 4WD but I have no idea what gearing and I assume he has the cylinder deactivation too. Mine is a CrewMax with A/T-M/T tires, 4x4, and I guess the 4.30 gears with the Rock Warrior tow pkg. Add that he calculates gas mileage through the trip computer and I get it through math at the pump. Whether his is "stronger" or same as mine I don't know, maybe. But I already know his truck has been to the shop for some maintenance while mine hasn't had a hiccup in 80k miles. With the info you provided I can see more clearly why he might be getting so much better mileage than me (likely not a real 21 though).

I get so many people telling me to get rid of my gas guzzling Tundra already. I don't bother arguing with them, and I pay them no mind cause its not like I didn't already know and accept it gladly. Now I'm still not gonna argue them, but I'm glad my head can make a bit more sense of the many potential "why's" our trucks might be different.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Good stuff.

Never trust the mileage computer on any vehicle, they pretty much all tell you a better number than reality. My last Tundra showed about 1.5 mpg better than a hand calculation, and I tried several ways from letting it average out over a bunch of miles to resetting it each tank. My Tundra now with the supercharger flash miscalculates horribly (its a known issue). It tells me I am getting like 19.8 mpg. Maybe I could get that on a rollback....LOL

The best way for a real comparison is calculate each tank at the pump.

Lattimer

2015 TRD Pro CM Supercharged

Traded-- 2012 Crewmax 4x4 SR5 TRD Offroad
Traded-- 2008 DoubleCab 4x4 SR5 TRD Offroad
Lattimer is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to Lattimer For This Useful Post:
Nootherids (02-09-2017)
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Closed Thread

  TundraTalk.net - Toyota Tundra Discussion Forum > Tundra Discussion > Tundra General Discussion

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the TundraTalk.net - Toyota Tundra Discussion Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome