2019 Tundra

[Clutch]

Dunno, clutch, I think the XD may well be onto something.

How many folks overload their 1/2? I'd suggest anyone with a camper does - the 1/2 tons just don't provide the payload for a 1500# camper, 4 people and supplies. The area I worry about is the legal aftermath in a wreck...

And often those same folk will be the ones to say “I don't need/want a 3/4 ton.” For a DD, most of those folks ar probably right.

So enter the “new” heavy half and it can legitimately fill a niche. People seemed to like the 1500hd when Chevy made them for a few years.

The only reasons I went with the f350 over the f250 is payload. Will I ever need it? Likely not, but if we were to get a slide-in, it gives me wiggle room.

Did nissan execute correctly? Remains to be seen. I'd say 80% of the xd's i see have the diesel. They have some great options and design items. Not a fan of the front clip.

I had high hopes for it, who needs 900 ft/lbs of torque? I sure don't. The Nissan seems to hit a sweet spot, decent payload, but nothing a F150 with the HD package wouldn't do. It doesn't get better fuel economy and the cost isn't all that much different than a 3/4-1 Ton, not that I need a ton of power by why pay more for a truck that is down on power comparatively. I don't see the point of it, at least the way Nissan executed it, which a lot of people don't either, sales have been poor.

Ford and Chevy have made heavy halfs (or has Ford called it Light Duty 250), didn't think that were real high sellers...do you see many around? I don't and my grandfather owned one of the Chevy's.

Styling....ummm yeah, they are all pretty ugly, as I said before, seems like they are seeing who can build the ugliest truck and still sell them. Nissan seems to win in the ugly department, so much it is a fail.

Do like they have a regular cab, as I see the Tundra has got rid of theirs. One of my favorite features of the RC Tundra was extra cab like space behind the seat, be nice if they all did that. As I have no need for a crew cab or even an double cab in a fullsize, though I am a very very very small portion of the market. Seems like my wife and I rare that we have no kids. Families with the need for a family truckster have seemed to ruin the good ol' basic truck.

 

[Dalko43]

I clearly stated the conditions under which I got 30 mpg (-1% grade and 25 mph tailwind over 75 miles) and it is 100% legit. ANY truck would get 30 mpg in those conditions. I posted it as a comeback to someone's Ford 2.7l trip claim, and anyone's anecdotal claims. Ya, you can get outstanding MPG on a trip if everything is just right.

You stated later on that it was a MPG readout from the truck's computer, which is far from accurate. 30 mpg is not a realistic highway average for the Tundra; there really is no point in arguing that any further. I could probably squeeze out 27 mpg coasting down a hill in my 4runner, but given how little I encounter that scenario, I don't go around bragging that 27 mpg is realistic for my vehicle.

I'd only buy a diesel if I can get a good delete kit for it, since lots of them have unsolvable problems when the mileage gets up. I like to buy stuff that will last. The Ecodiesel averages ~23mpg IRL, and with emissions delete should be even better. It's just dicey though, there could be a national crackdown on emissions. You have to also consider paying more upfront for the diesel engine and more for fuel.

The Ram ecodiesel has gotten 25 to +30 mpg highway in various magazine tests:
(https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2017-ram-1500-in-depth-model-review-2017-ram-1500-fuel-economy-review-car-and-driver-page-3).

https://jalopnik.com/ram-ecodiesel-real-world-fuel-economy-over-50-000-hard-1762998445


It's combined 22 mpg is still 6-7 mpg better than what most NA gasoline v8's get. The emissions were an issue for most of the diesels early on (2007-2010) but have seen a lot of refinement in recent years. Deletes really only made sense on the early emissions-laden diesels, especially for those with a DPF but no SCR. The advantage of doing a delete on modern diesels is becoming less and less definitive.

The price of diesel is a bit higher than 87 octane gasoline, but that added cost is more than made up when comparing fuel costs for a 3.0l turbodiesel to a gasoline v8 over extended driving.

The 5.0 CTD in the Titan doesn't even good mpg. Seems pretty useless.

The 5.0 CTD isn't useless, nor is the XD platform it is put in. The XD is a vehicle with nearly the same size footprint and weight of a regular 3/4 ton, so no one should expect it to get much better mpg than those trucks. BTW, it's mpg is still quite a bit better than what Nissan's gasoline v8 gets in the same platform.

On every Toyota thread all he does is whine and cry about new Toyota's.

I don't recall whining about Toyota's. I like a lot of qualities displayed by their vehicles, though I'm not afraid to criticize them when I think it's warranted. If I had nothing but contempt for Toyota's, why would I own one?

 

[phsycle]

Just did some more looking on Fuelly, and noticed the Ford 3.5L NA doesn't get any better mpg than the 5.0L or the 3.5L turbo, all about 16. Makes sense why it isn't popular. The 2.7L is ~18.

The Colorado with the V6 does a little over 19, and over 23 with the diesel. Will be interesting to see what the 2.3L turbo in the Ranger does.

I don't put too much into Fuelly figures. There is no way to control any of the variables. City vs Hwy mileage, speed, terrain, temperature/climate, type of gas, driving habits, etc. can drastically affect the output. But it doesn't take much to do a comparative test. Take a Saturday and head to the Ford dealer, and go on an extended test drive on the freeway (>100 miles). Hopefully one that has little traffic and flat terrain. Keep the speed consistent. Then do the same with your truck.

 

[FJR Colorado]

Dude, have any rumors on Toyota vehicles ever panned out? Toyota is good about keeping a tight lid on things. That photo looks like a PS hackjob.



That's hilarious!

Apparently, you found great irony...

You must have missed the final sentence so I shall repeat it for you:
I've checked them out and continue to do so every year or so. PASS!

The FJ Cruiser was a pretty darn good rumor! Oh, I'm sure you loathe that too...

 

[FJR Colorado]

I don't put too much into Fuelly figures. There is no way to control any of the variables. City vs Hwy mileage, speed, terrain, temperature/climate, type of gas, driving habits, etc. can drastically affect the output. But it doesn't take much to do a comparative test. Take a Saturday and head to the Ford dealer, and go on an extended test drive on the freeway (>100 miles). Hopefully one that has little traffic and flat terrain. Keep the speed consistent. Then do the same with your truck.

Now you're begging people to take Ford test drives... yeesh...

 

[phsycle]

The FJ Cruiser was a pretty darn good rumor! Oh, I'm sure you loathe that too...

I was never a fan of the FJC. The 4Runner did everything it did with more room and less expensive windshield. And if I remember, there wasn't much info on it until after its debut at the Detroit/Chicago autoshow.

 

[Clutch]

You stated later on that it was a MPG readout from the truck's computer, which is far from accurate. 30 mpg is not a realistic highway average for the Tundra; there really is no point in arguing that any further. I could probably squeeze out 27 mpg coasting down a hill in my 4runner, but given how little I encounter that scenario, I don't go around bragging that 27 mpg is realistic for my vehicle.

rruff did say it was anecdotal...

...like when my GPS states I was going 900 mph....

I don't put too much into Fuelly figures. There is no way to control any of the variables. City vs Hwy mileage, speed, terrain, temperature/climate, type of gas, driving habits, etc. can drastically affect the output. But it doesn't take much to do a comparative test. Take a Saturday and head to the Ford dealer, and go on an extended test drive on the freeway (>100 miles). Hopefully one that has little traffic and flat terrain. Keep the speed consistent. Then do the same with your truck.

It is good to get a general idea, BUT from what I witness on my 5-6 day 60 mile round trip commute that most people drive like morons, hence the lower mpg averages. I am one of the few that actually drives the speed limit which is 65 on the stretch I travel on.

I'll go through fuelly and look for the ones who drive mostly highway, they are generally higher than the averages.

Now you're begging people to take Ford test drives... yeesh...

Actually not a bad idea, they are nice trucks...though they are all about the same anymore, just lay out the dash and controls differently. Nothing really all that ground breaking underneath. WHERE is my Mr. Fusion, eh?

 

[FJR Colorado]

If the Ford community would like me to say something positive, I would say that adding a diesel to the F-150 is a great move. So much so, that I recently bought Ford stock.

I expect a diesel F-150 will be a big seller, yes.

I also doubt very much that I will be a buyer. But I am positive that I will try it.

 

[FJR Colorado]

I was never a fan of the FJC. The 4Runner did everything it did with more room and less expensive windshield. And if I remember, there wasn't much info on it until after its debut at the Detroit/Chicago autoshow.

You're actually quite wrong about the room. I'm 6'6" and the FJC is super comfortable. 4Runners are quite cramped.

The build up to the FJC was years in the making and many scoffed and cried BS.

I recall it well since I was on a waiting list and purchased one of the first ever sold.

 

[Clutch]

If the Ford community would like me to say something positive, I would say that adding a diesel to the F-150 is a great move. So much so, that I recently bought Ford stock.

I expect a diesel F-150 will be a big seller, yes.

I also doubt very much that I will be a buyer. But I am positive that I will try it.

Not that I would buy a diesel , but it is a shame they are only putting it in the higher trim models. Thought the whole point of the diesel was to save on fuel, thus saving money. Not really aimed at the dirt bag/penny pinching contractor market.

With the current long term sub-prime auto loans, yep they'll probably sell a lot of them.

 

[Clutch]

The baseline F-150 is way under sprung, my Tacoma handles 1500 lbs much better than the F-150. But after 10 hours behind the wheel, I feel better climbing out of the F-150 than the Tacoma.

Torn on the Titan, though I see a bunch every day now.

I don't agree with that. My Tacoma with a full load like that (especially talking 500lb over payload) handles way worse than any fullsize truck I've driven, including the new F150. And definitely more comfortable. I can get into parking spots easier, though! I don't carry that much weight (ever), so Taco still does what I need it to do. But when I was hauling some mulch last spring, I was bottoming out like crazy. And that was probably what, 700lbs?

I am with physcle on that, the stock Tacoma springs are horrible at best. I have HD OME's on mine, and no way does it handle 1500 lbs all that well. 700-800 lbs is about all it will do comfortably, I am pretty particular about weight for payload and towing, like to be at about half capacity.

 

[bkg]

Not that I would buy a diesel , but it is a shame they are putting it in the higher trim models. Thought the whole point of the diesel was to save on fuel, thus saving money. Not really aimed at the dirt bag/ penny pinching contractor market.

With the current long term sub-prime auto loans, yep they'll probably sell a lot of them.

the job of marketing is to create a desire for a product. Unfortunately, that product is an expensive one right now, in terms of trust (see vw), price of fuel, price of upkeep. I suspect, but can't confirm, that is exactly why most smaller contractors are now driving gas vehicles. Performance is up, mileage (sadly) doesn't have the large gap it used to, cheaper to maintain, etc.

Is it true that all MFG's will have a 1/2 ton diesel next year but Toyota? Will Toyota skip the long rumored diesel (including the 5.0 cummins) and go hybrid? That could be an interesting option - instant torque, better fuel economy...

 

[bkg]

I am with physcle on that, the stock Tacoma springs are horrible at best. I have HD OME's on mine, and no way does it handle 1500 lbs all that well. 700-800 lbs is about all it will do legally.

Another aspect to consider.... unfortunately.

 

[Clutch]

the job of marketing is to create a desire for a product. Unfortunately, that product is an expensive one right now, in terms of trust (see vw), price of fuel, price of upkeep. I suspect, but can't confirm, that is exactly why most smaller contractors are now driving gas vehicles. Performance is up, mileage (sadly) doesn't have the large gap it used to, cheaper to maintain, etc.

Is it true that all MFG's will have a 1/2 ton diesel next year but Toyota? Will Toyota skip the long rumored diesel (including the 5.0 cummins) and go hybrid? That could be an interesting option - instant torque, better fuel economy...

Speaking of marketing BS, We were talking about the "able to fit a sheet of plywood between the wheel wells" marketing BS in the Ranger thread....what contractor does that anymore? It is either shipped right to the site or they have a trailer. The irony is that the bed of the pickup truck as become least used part of the vehicle.

Most of my dirt bike buddies drive fullsize deezuls, a lot of them went back to gas because of the maintenance and repair cost.

Believe the only way to own a diesel is to lease or get one of those long term loans and turn it in before the warranty is up...hopefully you don't loose your shirt on resale.

Even though the Tundra and Tacoma, need some updating, they do hold their value...I mean craaaap...damn used Tacomas can nearly go for what they cost new. Just nuts! be interesting to see what the Ranger does to Toyota resale, but probably won't see anything for another 5 years or so.

I would much rather see a hybrid than a diesel in the Tundra.

Another aspect to consider.... unfortunately.

Yeah, so many over loaded Tacomas on this site...

 

[phsycle]

Now you're begging people to take Ford test drives... yeesh...

Yes, I did suggest some people should take off their blinders. :bigok:

You're actually quite wrong about the room. I'm 6'6" and the FJC is super comfortable. 4Runners are quite cramped.

The build up to the FJC was years in the making and many scoffed and cried BS.

I recall it well since I was on a waiting list and purchased one of the first ever sold.

I am 6', so can't comment on the lack of room in the 4Runner for uber giants like yourself. But for the general populous, 4Runner front seats are just as good as the FJC. Back seats, suicide doors, etc. is where the FJC falls short.
.
There were lots of rumors, just like I said. But I don't recall seeing any credible leaked images of the FJC until its debut.