Are the others with similar engines actually getting the mpg's claimed or are they padding their numbers?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

@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

 

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.

 

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!

 

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.

 

...and engines that can last 200-300k miles, etc.

You do realize that the Tundra is the only recommended full size truck on Consumer Reports due to reliability?

--Matt

 

My '07 Tundra DC with the 4.7 L engine has never gotten better than 13 mpg in town and maybe 16 - 17 on the highway. I like the truck, it's paid off but if I ever get a new truck it won't be another Tundra. This is definitely pickup truck country for work or play. All my friends with Fords or Chevys get at least 2 mpg better. I'm at 5,000' altitude which might make a difference but so are they. Anytime I leave town it is downhill so I'm fighting some steep grades on the way home. BTW, I have less than 35K on the odometer so I'll probably have this truck for a long time.

 

I don't care. MPGs are just part of the puzzle I had an 05 Hemi Ram QCSB. Did CAI exhaust and programmer. Life time average of 21 MPG over 72k. Best was a 450 trip from NJ to the OBX avg was 26. Smart driving and throttle control. That truck has 3.92 tears.

Another reading the Tundra sucks on gas? They're too damn fun to drive


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I for one are looking forward to buying a Tundra, lower mpg or not. The AFM/DOD is too much a concern over the long haul for me,

The 4:30 gearing is another plus for me. If I lift it, no gearing changes needed.

A friend bought a 2016 Tundra supercab 5.7..... gets 19mpg highway, his 5.7 Hemi Ram gets less.

 

Fuelly is where the real numbers are at. Mine is 12.3, but that's with 35s and no recalibration. It's probably closer to 13.4. Most of my driving is short trips in town with multiple stoplights.

 

I thought that it was funny when I went to Key Largo in January I averaged 18 mpg driving up and down that one highway that goes everywhere and ow I'm back in Pittsburgh where I always get 12.5mpg driving the same way.

Hills are a killer.

 

My daily commute takes me about 30min each way to go 20 miles on secondary roads with about 20-25 stop lights to get to work. Reading is 15.0mpg and has hovered around 14.9-15 since last April when i picked it up. Seems like other Toyota SUVs, LC that i;ve owned are running around that mpg give or take 1 to 2. miles. Granted they have lasted 200k miles with out any huge needed service besides timing belt/water pump change. I'd take that vs being in the shop a few times a year for other issues that ive seen with other makes out there.

 

My daily driving is a mix of interstate and local roads. Average around 14.something to 15, tops.

I took a drive from St. Petersburg to Orlando and topped out at 19.5 mpg. Granted, the only thing in the truck was me and a passenger.

Considering the 5.7L V8 goodness at my command, I don't think that's horrible mileage. Nothing to brag about, sure. But, I prefer to own a truck that starts when you turn the key.

 

I think its unfair to compare and so quickly claim the Tundra is a gas guzzler compared to its competitors.

Compare power output for one thing and lack of high octane fuel requirement. Those getting 18-22 are not getting the same power output we have, and those make a little more power, require high octane fuel and dont get any better MPG then we do.

And try to find 1/2 ton truck owners not running the ECO wimp diesel getting over 18-19 consistently.

From what I find, our 5.7's are getting respectable REAL WORLD MPG compared to all the others.

If you really must nit-pick...averages of the masses found on Fuelly for example *might* be 1-2 higher. Is that a big deal for a truck? I think not.

 

I average 14.5 hand calculated in 50% highway 50% stoplight driving. Thats with a heavy foot and a supercharger.

If I wanted gas mileage I would buy a Prius. I wanted a truck so I bought a Tundra.

I certainly wouldn't drive a lesser truck for 1-2 mpg improvement.

 

Seriously, if people are that concerned with mileage, why get a truck? I am concerned with MPG's, but I have a Prius for that, and a Tundra for when I don't care about MPG's.

 

Pointless thread......

 

You may pay a few more dollars in fuel costs but you save a ton on repairs and depreciation. A great deal IMO

 

Always read the fine print when you read car ads too, often there will be a little symbol that directs you to the tiny font that says the advertised mpg is based on the lightest, most fuel-efficient model. The big 3 are always guilty of this...

Also, I'd much rather be paying for more fuel than paying for parts and labor!