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

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 127 (permalink) Old 02-08-2017, 03:59 PM Thread Starter
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 80
Thanks: 49
Thanked 18 Times in 14 Posts
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
WHY does the Tundra get such bad MPGs?

Just as the title says, I'm wanting to know the WHY?!?!? We all got our Tundra's knowing that we had some of the worst gas mileage of all 1/2 tons. But today I sat here wondering what the differences are between our truck and others that today are getting 18-24+ mpg.

Most 1/2 tons today have very similar specs as far as their capabilities. Tow around 10k, 4x4, tow/haul gearing options, off road suspension options, traction control, size/weight, tires/wheels, and engines that can last 200-300k miles, etc.

So it begs the question, what's the difference in the production of the Tundra that prevents it from achieving similar MPGs as other brands? AND is that difference desirable enough to justify being satisfied with the compromise of getting such low mileage for whatever design spec is causing it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Nootherids is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 127 (permalink) Old 02-08-2017, 04:04 PM
Senior Member
 
theoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: BC
Posts: 3,225
Thanks: 9,184
Thanked 1,950 Times in 1,264 Posts
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 359 Post(s)
Are the others with similar engines actually getting the mpg's claimed or are they padding their numbers?


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


Crewmax LTD/NFAB SS/BHLM/LAHM/Husky Classic Liners/Line-x/Skyjacker 3" struts/Skyjacker 0-2 rears/Coachbuilder +2 Shackles/285/60/20 Duratracs
theoat is online now  
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to theoat For This Useful Post:
drewbrown (02-08-2017), flighht2k5 (02-08-2017), Mini Madness (02-16-2017)
post #3 of 127 (permalink) Old 02-08-2017, 04:15 PM
Senior Member
 
kstateskier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 2,818
Thanks: 2,101
Thanked 2,378 Times in 1,298 Posts
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 285 Post(s)
I always thought it was because of the 4:30 rear end.

But I have noticed that my 15.3mpg is within a half mpg of my Father's GMC with the weak ass v8 motor they have. And they claim it gets 21mpg.

2017 Tundra Crewmax Limited Weatherby Lake, MO
TRDPro Reservoir shocks Rear
TRD Stainless Dual Exhaust
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

kstateskier is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to kstateskier For This Useful Post:
theoat (02-08-2017)
 
post #4 of 127 (permalink) Old 02-08-2017, 04:22 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 96
Thanks: 82
Thanked 57 Times in 43 Posts
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nootherids View Post
Just as the title says, I'm wanting to know the WHY?!?!? We all got our Tundra's knowing that we had some of the worst gas mileage of all 1/2 tons. But today I sat here wondering what the differences are between our truck and others that today are getting 18-24+ mpg.

Most 1/2 tons today have very similar specs as far as their capabilities. Tow around 10k, 4x4, tow/haul gearing options, off road suspension options, traction control, size/weight, tires/wheels, and engines that can last 200-300k miles, etc.

So it begs the question, what's the difference in the production of the Tundra that prevents it from achieving similar MPGs as other brands? AND is that difference desirable enough to justify being satisfied with the compromise of getting such low mileage for whatever design spec is causing it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I'd be willing to bet most 1/2tons are within a couple mpg of the tundra. Don't believe all the hype on the interwebs.
flighht2k5 is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to flighht2k5 For This Useful Post:
Chireaux (02-12-2017)
post #5 of 127 (permalink) Old 02-08-2017, 04:23 PM Thread Starter
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 80
Thanks: 49
Thanked 18 Times in 14 Posts
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Other trucks really are getting significantly higher mpg's than Tundras. Of course going into the 20's only happens with majority highway non-traffic commuting. But even on roads people are getting solid 16-18's without having to baby it. Model years closer to 2010 and older are all pretty shitty MPGs, but newer models really do out the Tundras mileage numbers to shame. I'm hoping somebody that knows about vehicle design can shed some light.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Nootherids is offline  
post #6 of 127 (permalink) Old 02-08-2017, 04:26 PM Thread Starter
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 80
Thanks: 49
Thanked 18 Times in 14 Posts
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
And I'm talking about people that I know personally with F-150's, Rams, & 1500. When we chat the only ones that say they get similar mileage are the ones that drive their truck like it was an Acura NSX. I personally drive very moderate. Mostly chill with the occasional Go!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Nootherids is offline  
post #7 of 127 (permalink) Old 02-08-2017, 04:32 PM
Senior Member
 
kstateskier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 2,818
Thanks: 2,101
Thanked 2,378 Times in 1,298 Posts
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 285 Post(s)
I'm sure aerodynamics play a role. However weight is also a factor. Tundra is currently heaviest 1/2 ton on the market.

Curb weight of a Crewmax 4x4 is 5690lbs
curb weight of a Silverado 4x4 is 5330lbs (360 lbs lighter)
curb weight of an F150 4x4 is 5236lbs (454lbs lighter)
curb weight of a Ram 4x4 is 5663lbs (only 27lbs lighter)

Oddly enough the closest vehicle in weight is the Ram which also boasts the best mpg in their hemi. However its paired with an 8 speed transmission. Maybe that makes that large of a difference, especially at highway speeds where they highest mpg claim exists.

2017 Tundra Crewmax Limited Weatherby Lake, MO
TRDPro Reservoir shocks Rear
TRD Stainless Dual Exhaust
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

kstateskier is offline  
post #8 of 127 (permalink) Old 02-08-2017, 04:33 PM
Senior Member
 
Schaffer05's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 741
Thanks: 212
Thanked 374 Times in 257 Posts
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 270 Post(s)
I had a 2014 crewcab f150 wth the 5.0. It got 17.7 mpg city and highway. My 2016 crewmax gets 16.1. That's not A huge difference, and the motor is bigger with different gearing.

Everyone I talked to about the ecoboosts got similar fuel economy as my 5.0 did.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Schaffer05 is offline  
post #9 of 127 (permalink) Old 02-08-2017, 04:37 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 545
Thanks: 20
Thanked 286 Times in 199 Posts
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 152 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nootherids View Post
Other trucks really are getting significantly higher mpg's than Tundras. Of course going into the 20's only happens with majority highway non-traffic commuting. But even on roads people are getting solid 16-18's without having to baby it. Model years closer to 2010 and older are all pretty shitty MPGs, but newer models really do out the Tundras mileage numbers to shame. I'm hoping somebody that knows about vehicle design can shed some light.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No. They really aren't. check out Fuelly - Track and Compare your MPG

Choose to chance the rapids. Dare to dance the tide.
bobeast is online now  
post #10 of 127 (permalink) Old 02-08-2017, 04:41 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Colorado
Posts: 181
Thanks: 12
Thanked 65 Times in 54 Posts
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 57 Post(s)
The proof is in the data. Here's a comparison of (503) Tundra 5.7L and (802) F-150 3.5L V6 Ecodoosh:

The 2016 Tundra avg is 14.2MPG with 455k miles tracked, while the 2016 F150 with 866k miles track is 16.7MPG.

I'll take a reliable Tundra over any other truck for a 2MPG hit!

Toyota Tundra MPG - Actual MPG from 503 Toyota Tundra owners
Ford F-150 MPG - Actual MPG from 802 Ford F-150 owners
Attached Images
File Type: png tundra-5.7.fuelly.png (113.6 KB, 169 views)
File Type: png f150-3.5l.fuelly.png (113.6 KB, 162 views)

2014 Tundra DC Limited TRD 1G3 - Bilstein 6112 (max) 5160 + Toytec shackles (max)
Nitto Ridge Grappler 295/70R18 (OEM TRD Wheels) & Cooper M+S LT275/65R20 (OEM Platinum wheels)
Platinum color-matched Grill, Handles, Mirror caps - TRD Pro skid plate - Coachbuilder carrier drop
Snugtop Xtra Vision Shell w/ custom aluminum sleeping platform - ARB 2500 Awning

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
thodhye is offline  
post #11 of 127 (permalink) Old 02-08-2017, 04:47 PM Thread Starter
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 80
Thanks: 49
Thanked 18 Times in 14 Posts
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
@kstateskier , @Schaffer05 , @bobeast (better than multi-quoting)

I'm surprised 400lbs would make a big difference, but that's why I asked cause there are too many here that know way much more than me. But the 8 gears does make sense compared to our 6 (2013 here).

As for claims... Here's a possibility, I measure my mileage through Fuelly and general match calculations. I do not have the digital read out on the trip computer. MAYBE my friends do. So since I don't have first hand experience on how far off the digital computers tend to be then I don't know how wrong my friends might be.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Nootherids is offline  
post #12 of 127 (permalink) Old 02-08-2017, 04:52 PM Thread Starter
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 80
Thanks: 49
Thanked 18 Times in 14 Posts
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by thodhye View Post
I'll take a reliable Tundra over any other truck for a 2MPG hit!

Oh I'm with you brother. I'll take the hit too. I may be a Tundra for life owner myself. Still wondering what mechanical factor prevents us from reaching the 16-17 average mark though.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Nootherids is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to Nootherids For This Useful Post:
rptipton (02-10-2017)
post #13 of 127 (permalink) Old 02-08-2017, 04:59 PM
Premium Member
Premium Member
 
Newm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 282
Thanks: 155
Thanked 126 Times in 86 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 84 Post(s)
Garage
I had a 2014 GMC Sierra with the 6.2 and would average right around 17 MPG but had to run premium. My current tundra sits right around 15 MPG running the same loops around town.

The competition gets a "little" better MPG with the use of any number of the following: cylinder deactivation, direct injection, lighter weight, smaller displacement engines/turbos, lower gear ratios and 8/10 speed transmissions.

2016 4X4 LTD Crewmax

Last edited by Newm; 02-08-2017 at 05:03 PM.
Newm is offline  
post #14 of 127 (permalink) Old 02-08-2017, 05:06 PM
Senior Member
 
kstateskier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 2,818
Thanks: 2,101
Thanked 2,378 Times in 1,298 Posts
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 285 Post(s)
Agree with ya'll. I'll take the reliability any day over the fuel mileage. Frankly I rarely even look at or care about my mpgs. It kinda makes me laugh when I see alot of "whats your mpg" posts on a truck forum. When you gotta haul something, someone or just wanna travel in style there's simply no substitute for power, comfort and reliability of the Tundra!

2017 Tundra Crewmax Limited Weatherby Lake, MO
TRDPro Reservoir shocks Rear
TRD Stainless Dual Exhaust
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

kstateskier is offline  
post #15 of 127 (permalink) Old 02-08-2017, 05:06 PM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 4
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
According to my understanding it would be the combination of lighter weight, cylinder deactivation, and direct injection that account for the majority of the difference.
A couple of extra gears makes a marginal difference at best.
Fowlflogger is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to Fowlflogger For This Useful Post:
tenisfreak (02-15-2017)
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