full size pickups show improved mpg

[haven]

The domestic auto makers are working hard to improve mpg ratings for their full size pickups. The 2014 Chevy Silverado with 5.3L V8 is particularly impressive. Maybe it will be possible to reach 20 mpg in a full size pickup with lightweight, low profile camper.

2014 Chevrolet Silverado
5.3L V8, six speed automatic, 4x4
355 hp, 383 ft lb
16 mpg city, 22 mpg highway

2014 RAM 1500
3.6L V6, 8 speed automatic, 4x4
305 hp, 269 ft lb
16 mpg city, 23 highway

2013 Ford F150
3.5L EcoBoost V6, 6 speed automatic, 4x4
365 hp, 420 ft lb
15 mpg city, 21 highway

The Ford F150 gets a redesign for 2015. Many observers expect Ford to substantially reduce the F150's weight. Maybe we'll see the 3.2L 5 cylinder diesel from the new Transit van in the 2015 F150, as well.

In comparison, Toyota needs to improve the Tacoma.

2013 Toyota Tacoma
4.0L V6, 5 speed automatic, 4x4
236 hp, 266 ft lb
16 mpg city, 21 mpg highway

2013 Toyota Tacoma
2.7L four cylinder, 5 speed automatic, 4x4
159 hp, 180 ft lb
18 mpg city, 21 highway

 

[plainjaneFJC]

Toyota is way behind. Then again I own a 2011 gmc 5.3 and a 2008 gmc 4.3. These things, and I mean all brands, never get close to the mileage they claim they do.

 

[kfgk14]

IMHO GM is way behind the rest...you have to go up to their 6.2 to approach the performance of ford's V6, and then fuel economy is totally out the window. Ram is still lagging in power numbers on their V6 (though the powerful Hemi is slowly moving up the mileage ladder) but they put out really good economy numbers, and the average truck owner, more and more, isn't using their truck as a truck, so not having big torque and horsepower isn't a real detriment really. The Tundra and Tacoma definitely need improvements, but the tundra sure lays out impressive V8 power, and both trucks see good sales as is, so perhaps Toyota can afford to let them sit a few more years.

 

[Chili]

IMHO GM is way behind the rest...you have to go up to their 6.2 to approach the performance of ford's V6, and then fuel economy is totally out the window. Ram is still lagging in power numbers on their V6 (though the powerful Hemi is slowly moving up the mileage ladder) but they put out really good economy numbers, and the average truck owner, more and more, isn't using their truck as a truck, so not having big torque and horsepower isn't a real detriment really. The Tundra and Tacoma definitely need improvements, but the tundra sure lays out impressive V8 power, and both trucks see good sales as is, so perhaps Toyota can afford to let them sit a few more years.

The only caveat to that is that the Ecoboost V6 has been problematic for customers, to say the least. In addition, the cost factor is a big issue. The Chevy 5.3, while a little low on Torque compared to the Ecoboost, is a rock solid / proven platform. And as illustrated above, even has better published fuel efficiency.

 

[Kaisen]

The Tundra and Tacoma definitely need improvements, but the tundra sure lays out impressive V8 power, and both trucks see good sales as is, so perhaps Toyota can afford to let them sit a few more years.

The Tundra sees good sales? Really?

In 2012 Toyota sold 108,862 Tundras in the US and Canada

In 2012 GM sold 654,152 Silverados/Sierras

In 2012 Ford sold 751,654 F-series

So being outsold 6-7:1 is a good job??

 

[Kaisen]

And the Tundra "lays out impressive V8 power"??

Tundra 5.7L makes:
381 hp @ 5600 rpm
401 lb-ft @ 3600 rpm
Rated to tow 9000 lbs
Gets 17 mpg

GM 5.3L makes:
355 hp @ 5600 rpm
383 lb-ft @ 4100 rpm (and more than 300 lb-ft from 2000-5600 rpm)
Rated to tow 11500 lbs
Gets 22 mpg

If I was okay with Toyota's fuel economy, I'd wait for the new GM 6.2L that should be rated at 420hp and 450lb-ft and still do better than the 17mpg Tundra

 

[plainjaneFJC]

I was just talking about fuel economy. I much prefer a Toyota powertrain over any other.

IMHO GM is way behind the rest...you have to go up to their 6.2 to approach the performance of ford's V6, and then fuel economy is totally out the window. Ram is still lagging in power numbers on their V6 (though the powerful Hemi is slowly moving up the mileage ladder) but they put out really good economy numbers, and the average truck owner, more and more, isn't using their truck as a truck, so not having big torque and horsepower isn't a real detriment really. The Tundra and Tacoma definitely need improvements, but the tundra sure lays out impressive V8 power, and both trucks see good sales as is, so perhaps Toyota can afford to let them sit a few more years.

 

[haven]

And of course it's common knowledge that any Cummins Dodge gets at least 25 mpg...unloaded, downhill, with a tailwind, that is.

 

[plainjaneFJC]

Yeah I hear that all the time. Kinda funny I had 4 of them at one time and they never got anything near that number. I had a guy tell me the other day that his 5500 Kodiak with a box bed on the back gets 21mpg? Simple math is way overrated these days!

And of course it's common knowledge that any Cummins Dodge gets at least 25 mpg...unloaded, downhill, with a tailwind, that is.

 

[MotoDave]

I agree the tundra is behind the new trucks, but when it came out it blew away the competition, power wise, while making the same mpg. The older 5.3's made 290 ish hp, not the current 355. They just really need to catch up mpg wise, I was very disappointed that the 2014 model update didn't include any drivetrain improvements.

FYI the 4.6 v8 in the tundra (310 hp, 330 torques) is very equivalent to the old 5.3 chevy v8, and gets 19mpg hwy. The 5.7 has always been more comparable to the 6.2 v8 from chevy.

 

[plainjaneFJC]

agreed

I agree the tundra is behind the new trucks, but when it came out it blew away the competition, power wise, while making the same mpg. The older 5.3's made 290 ish hp, not the current 355. They just really need to catch up mpg wise, I was very disappointed that the 2014 model update didn't include any drivetrain improvements.

FYI the 4.6 v8 in the tundra (310 hp, 330 torques) is very equivalent to the old 5.3 chevy v8, and gets 19mpg hwy. The 5.7 has always been more comparable to the 6.2 v8 from chevy.

 

[goodtimes]

And of course it's common knowledge that any Cummins Dodge gets at least 25 mpg...unloaded, downhill, with a tailwind, that is.

I'll trade my 17.7mpg (hand calculated, w/loaded camper through the mountains in Mexico) for that mythical 25mpg. :elkgrin:

 

[Desert Dan]

Check the gear ratio's in the axle. That can make a big difference in HWY MPG

The Tundra's is 3.90 or 4.10:1

The 2013 Chevy 1500 is 3.23:1 ??

Power Wagon is 4:56:1

 

[txfactor76]

The only caveat to that is that the Ecoboost V6 has been problematic for customers, to say the least.

Really? I have 25k miles on my '12 Ecoboost F150 without a single issue.

 

[arveetek]

Hmmmm.....

My Tahoe just pulled down her best MPG yet after an 800+ mile round trip to Memphis and back this past weekend: 18.67 MPG! And that's with an 18 year old vehicle with 264K on the clock! Ain't too shabby for a fully loaded full size 4x4 if you ask me.

Gotta love a turbodiesel in a 1/2 ton platform....

Casey