2019 Tundra
- Thread starter FJR Colorado
- Start date
keep calling me a fanboy you dork.
Clutch
<---Pass
Toyota's vehicles are tried but true. The problem with that formula is that the new crop of F-150's and GM Colorado/Canyon's are not only providing better efficiency and power delivery than their Toyota counterparts, but they have made vast improvements in quality and reliability over the last decade or so.
The tried-and-true mantra is only going to work for Toyota North America for so long before consumers move elsewhere. I've got the utmost faith in my 4runner, but its engine/transmission is woefully outdated and inefficient. I'm more much more interested in picking up a Colorado or the upcoming Ranger over something like a Tacoma, which is essentially just a slight optimization of the previous version. Same applies when comparing the new F-150 to the Tundra; the Tundra is a solid truck, but the Ford's powertrain options and trim levels make it a much more logical buy IMO.
rruff
Explorer
Not reliability. And most of those engines fail to get close to EPA numbers for efficiency. The Tundra still holds the crown for worst MPG, but it isn't by a lot. Even compared to the 2.7l Ford.
The Tundra is inherently a low volume vehicle so they can't afford to update it every couple years. Granted some major updates are due for 2020 (guess), and I suspect they will catch up to the tech on their competitors.
The main things I wish were different are a lower cab and seat, sloping hood, more efficient engine option (less power is fine), and torsionally stiffer frame. The engine and frame might happen, but not the first two...
D
Deleted member 9101
Guest
D
Deleted member 9101
Guest
********... do tell. You can get 24 mpg out of a 4x4, double cab, long bed, with the 5.7? Were you going down hill with a tail wind...lol.
rruff
Explorer
I've gotten over 30 mpg. Good tailwind, keep the speeds modest, or elevation drop. I average >18 mpg overall, with lots of hill climbing.
But to see what people are really getting I just look them up on Fuelly. The 2.7l averages a little over 18 mpg. The Tundra is 14. I wouldn't really consider them equivalent engines though. The 3.5l and 5.0l are ~16 mpg.
True and I don't ever think they can ever surpass the Big 3. They do, however, need to stay competitive enough to keep their current and loyal customers. I just feel that the truck market is picking up real quick and if Toyota doesn't do enough to at least keep pace then they will lose customers and get left behind.
if that makes your little feelings happy believe what you want.
if that makes your little feelings happy believe what you want.
Shhh, adults are having a real conversation and discussion. If you have nothing other than pee wee childish insults then just have a seat.
So far this is his argument "Well Toyota doesn't care and neither should you". I'm not sure he's contributed one intelligent thing to this thread.
D
Deleted member 9101
Guest
I have never averaged that low and I do mostly city driving and I keep up with traffic.
I do agree though, the 2.7 and 5.7 are not equivalent engines... the 2.7 is substantially better in every aspect. Not that the 5.7 is bad... but it is antiquated.
Last edited by a moderator:
bkg
Explorer
Now you sound like those Cummins fan boys who claim 35 mpg pulling 20k# at 75 mph.
The only time any of my (8) tundras saw over 20 was downhill coasting. So I gotta call just a bit of bs on your “I can get that with my Tundra” statement. If you can, you are the only one... and you should be asking Toyota to give you $250k for that truck so they can study it.
I dont want them to do anything other than quit cutting small features like oh-**** handles etc. They did add a decent size fuel tank in recent years and I am fine with my trouble free 13mpg.
They have pretty much perfected the light duty p/u and should just leave it alone. Quit changing things and let us all enjoy the part availability that comes with a truck that is essentially unchanged for 2 decades.
If forced to offer suggestions:
Optional factory locking differentials
Manual transmission
They have pretty much perfected the light duty p/u and should just leave it alone. Quit changing things and let us all enjoy the part availability that comes with a truck that is essentially unchanged for 2 decades.
If forced to offer suggestions:
Optional factory locking differentials
Manual transmission
Clutch
<---Pass
All of my Toyotas had/have oh ******** handles, don't think I have ever used them.
Do agree with you on the manual trans and locking rear diff. But mannies are all about dead, have come to terms with that.... also have a locker and only used a handful of times, which were "hey, lets see if this makes a difference...meh not really" I can live without either...heck I even question if I need 4WD anymore....and thats living in Idaho.
Last edited:
I'm calling BS on this as well. My 5th gen 4runner, which is smaller, lighter and has a more efficient engine (though not by much) has barely broken 22 mpg on the highway, and that only happened on rare occasions. No way your Tundra is getting anywhere close to 30mpg except maybe for a brief moment when coasting down a 30 degree slope. I have doubts about you getting an 18mpg as an overall average as well.
The Ford ecoboost engines, both the 2.7l and 3.5l, are a bit more efficient than the Tundra's 5.7l v8. There is plenty of real world testing that validates that. Now, if you throw bigger tires, tow heavy or high payload, that fuel efficiency advantage starts to go away, as is the case for any turbo gasoline engine. Basically if the engine is under load, the turbo isn't all that more efficient over a NA engine. But for light cruising when empty, the Ford ecoboost engines get very good fuel economy.