Tundra vs 5.9 Cummins - Help!

[Ducky's Dad]

Always wondered why Toyota couldn't be bothered to put a rear sway bar on the Tundra.

Possibly because it hinders articulation? Sway bars will help with attitude when cornering, but they also compromise absolute adhesion, and these things with the 5.7 are already a little tail happy. My CrewMax is so nose heavy when empty that I don't think a rear sway bar would make a noticeable difference on paved roads.

 

[Comanche Scott]

It's more than just fuel mileage

If we're going to bicker, lets make it over my situation so at least somebody benefits. Take that 15k miles/ 292$ in savings and double or triple it and you're looking at 600-900$ a year. Assuming the mileage numbers are accurate that's about what I'd be seeing. Not everyone drives 12-15k miles a year.

it would be very beneficial to consider the driving conditions, because that will make a big difference.
Case in point. I just drove from Spokane to Central California in a pretty stock '07 Dodge 2500 CC-SB 4x4. 125,000 miles, stock except for exhaust, and in excellent condition. Cummins/48RE, 265/70R 17 Goodyear ice tires (known to reduce mpg between 1-2mpg).
Drove at or slightly below speed limits using cruise control as much as absolutely possible until south of Sacramento, where it was stop and go for a lot of the next 60 miles.
Spokane, WA to Tigard, OR 17.48mpg (99% freeway) Some pretty big winds
Tigard, OR to Corning, CA 19.01mpg (98% freeway)
Corning, CA to just west of Modesto, CA 15.67mpg (about 60% stop and go).

So this is just one example, from one truck, but it does show a large percentage difference between cruising on the freeway, versus stop and go. Also there was a noticable drop in fuel mileage above 65 mph.
Something else to consider with a diesel is that it's not really a fun vehicle to drive in stop and go, because that big lump of an engine takes a bit to go and slow.

I've had two Tundras, the first was a 2000, and basically a glorified T100 with a V8. The second was an 04 4x4 with V8. My Brother had an '09 4x4, and our good friend has a '12 4x4. I don't have the numbers for mpg on those trucks any more, but it was pretty comparable.
The difference being, I enjoy the Ram on open cruising, but curse it for stop and go. I liked the Tundras. But didn't love any of them for long cruising, or stop and go.
Had an '09 Tacoma 4x4 crew cab, and really liked it for both long cruising, and stop and go.

Moral of the story...
If you can spend some time driving what you are looking to buy, it would be very helpful. Because in the end, only you can decide what is best for you.
In the end, walking out and being happy to jump in and drive is probably the most important element to happiness with the purchase. :beer:

 

[IdaSHO]

Both articles made reference to a study conducted by the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (conducted in 2013).

Yeah, and a BIG difference between referencing, and based upon.

Link you provided was 100% based upon cars and trucks.

Link I provided referenced that study, but the results were based upon Vincentric.

I encourage you to actually read the results and fine print in that data table. That Vincentric study assumes that over 5 years of driving, 15k miles a year, a diesel Ram 2500, for example, actually costs $292 more in fuel relative to its gasoline counterpart. The study claims that Ford and GM diesel trucks have even higher fuel costs relative to their gasoline counterparts. I'm very curious to know where they got their fuel data from, because based on the real world mpg I've seen and what others have seen, the diesel trucks can save anywhere from $400 to over $1k in fuel costs per year (mpg varies widely depending on driving habits). I also find it amusing that you're relying on internet sites to make your point rather than your own personal experience.

You encourage me to read the study closer, yet you cannot even understand it yourself. :ugh:

If you do some digging (google helps....) on your own, you will find the specifics with regards to how they conducted the study.
Hell, there is a link in the article.

To save you the trouble...

http://www.vincentric.com/Home/Industry-Reports/US-Diesel-Analysis-2016

This quote might help you wrap your brain around it as well.

Fuel prices used in this analysis are based on a weighted average over the previous five months rather than the exact fuel prices you might see at a gas station today. This is done to help ensure that the analysis reflects current market trends and not market extremes.

In a nut shell, they used ACTUAL fuel cost (national averages) and usage data, over the course of a 5-month period.

So Im not sure why you have such a hard time believing the Ram diesel cost MORE in fuel than a gasser.
Fuel costs change, and using actual data from a great period of time (say, 5 months) will provide much better insight into the actual cost of ownership than other tests that use current costs, and try to predict future costs.

Chances are, within that 5-month period the cost of diesel was significantly higher than gas, which tipped the scales.

Such a situation is common. And an analysis that uses such data provides much more true-to-life results.

 

[Dalko43]

You encourage me to read the study closer, yet you cannot even understand it yourself. :ugh:

If you do some digging (google helps....) on your own, you will find the specifics with regards to how they conducted the study.
Hell, there is a link in the article.

To save you the trouble...

http://www.vincentric.com/Home/Industry-Reports/US-Diesel-Analysis-2016

This quote might help you wrap your brain around it as well.



In a nut shell, they used ACTUAL fuel cost (national averages) and usage data, over the course of a 5-month period.

So Im not sure why you have such a hard time believing the Ram diesel cost MORE in fuel than a gasser.
Fuel costs change, and using actual data from a great period of time (say, 5 months) will provide much better insight into the actual cost of ownership than other tests that use current costs, and try to predict future costs.

Chances are, within that 5-month period the cost of diesel was significantly higher than gas, which tipped the scales.

Such a situation is common. And an analysis that uses such data provides much more true-to-life results.

Kenny, go read the fine print in the original chart you provided. The fuel pricing may be based on 5 month data, but the actual fuel and ownership costs were based on 5 years of ownership, with 15k miles assumed in a year. It says so at the bottom of the chart, and it states so again in the site you linked above:

The report assumes the vehicles are owned for five years with 15,000 miles driven annually. The numbers in the report are U.S. averages, however the same analysis can be done for any state or the District of Columbia.

A gasoline Hemi Ram 2500 having $292 less in fuel costs than a Ram 2500 w/ 6.7L Cummins (over the course of 5 years), does not match the real world mpg results I've seen from either vehicle. I just don't find that figure credible, especially without the hard data to back it up. I'm not sure where/how they're getting those kinds of results, and I'm fairly certain you aren't either as you're simply regurgitating what Vincentric is claiming.

 

[IdaSHO]

And you still are not following.

The data used based upon 5 months of actual fuel costs was used as a sample to provide the data needed to show real world trends.

That data was then applied to 5 years of ownership.

 

[IdaSHO]

The fuel pricing may be based on 5 month data, but the actual fuel and ownership costs were based on 5 years of ownership, with 15k miles assumed in a year. It says so at the bottom of the chart, and it states so again in the site you linked above:

You are misquoting, again.

Nowhere does it say actual fuel and ownership costs were based on 5 years of ownership. Nowhere.

Even the quote you provided proves that. What is DOES say is...

The report assumes the vehicles are owned for five years with 15,000 miles driven annually.

As in, take the numbers provided by 5 months of fuel cost data (averages) , and apply it to 5 years of ownership, with 15k miles driven annually.

 

[calicamper]

Scuba gear is heavy and space consuming. 6ft bed and full sized which means you have the biggest pool of used vehicles to choose from. I honestly dont know why people buy new full sized trucks today? My uncle picked up grandpas really nice 98 gmc 2500 4x4 z1 with no joke 32,000 miles on it. He sold his new Tundra because the 98 GMC got better mileage and carried the camper better and cost him $9000! Lol.

 

[toylandcruiser]

Scuba gear is heavy and space consuming. 6ft bed and full sized which means you have the biggest pool of used vehicles to choose from. I honestly dont know why people buy new full sized trucks today? My uncle picked up grandpas really nice 98 gmc 2500 4x4 z1 with no joke 32,000 miles on it. He sold his new Tundra because the 98 GMC got better mileage and carried the camper better and cost him $9000! Lol.

Well it's a 3/4 ton? Why wouldn't it carry it better. Lol. That gmc sure makes a a lot less power than the tundra does. Hahahahahaha

 

[Dalko43]

You are misquoting, again.

Nowhere does it say actual fuel and ownership costs were based on 5 years of ownership. Nowhere.

Even the quote you provided proves that. What is DOES say is...



As in, take the numbers provided by 5 months of fuel cost data (averages) , and apply it to 5 years of ownership, with 15k miles driven annually.

Firstly, reread your own comment (in bold) as you are contradicting yourself.

Secondly, you’re so emotionally invested in this argument that you’re not even taking the time to fully understand the sources you’re relying on, however dubious they might be. The study, and chart, you referenced are talking about fuel costs and total ownership costs over 5 years of driving, 15k miles a year. The fuel pricing is taken from a 5 month period, however the actual fuel costs are not. It says so explicitly at the bottom of the chart and on the site you linked. Edit: meaning that they took the fuel pricing (derived from a 5 month period) and multiplied it by the gallons of fuel consumed (I assume estimated on their part) over 5 years of driving, at 15k miles per year. That method also has inherent inaccuracies as fuel prices have varied widely over the last 6 years.

Go look at the fuel costs for the Ram 2500; Vincentric noted $18,327 for the diesel version and $18,035 for the gasoline version, which is gives you the $292 difference I referred to earlier. You don’t incur +$18k in fuel costs over 5 months of driving. Heck even $18k in fuel costs over 5 years of driving sounds a bit off to me. The numbers Vincentric is claiming (especially the higher fuel cost they're assigning to the diesel) don’t match what I’ve seen and moreover they’re not even showing their work on how they developed those numbers. I'm willing to bet they based their fuel costs and overall costs on assumptions and estimates rather than real world data...meaning, I'm fairly certain they didn't buy all the vehicles they listed in their study and drive and maintain them for 5 years.

Why don't you tell me what mpg averages and costs you've actually observed for these trucks rather than rely on hypothetical studies conducted by 3rd parties.

 

[Clutch]

Scuba gear is heavy and space consuming. 6ft bed and full sized which means you have the biggest pool of used vehicles to choose from. I honestly dont know why people buy new full sized trucks today? My uncle picked up grandpas really nice 98 gmc 2500 4x4 z1 with no joke 32,000 miles on it. He sold his new Tundra because the 98 GMC got better mileage and carried the camper better and cost him $9000! Lol.

Because trying to find a low mile used one that isn't roached out is darn near impossible. I have been looking for years...but every once in awhile, you'll hear stories like yours. I have a dirt bike buddy (have a lot of dirt bike buddies ) he found a 3/4 ton RC with the 6.0 and manual trans, plus a 7X12 trailer that he converted into a toyhauler...all for $12K.

They are out there, but finding those gems is another story.

 

[p nut]

Because trying to find a low mile used one that isn't roached out is darn near impossible. I have been looking for years...but every once in awhile, you'll hear stories like yours. I have a dirt bike buddy (have a lot of dirt bike buddies ) he found a 3/4 ton RC with the 6.0 and manual trans, plus a 7X12 trailer that he converted into a toyhauler...all for $12K.

They are out there, but finding those gems is another story.

Well, on the other hand, too low of miles could mean trouble as well. Seals don't get regularly lubricated, as well as the engine, etc.
-
I looked around for a low mileage truck as well, before buying mine. But with the gas prices where they're at (and were at 2 years ago), they were almost as much as brand new trucks! With the advancements in safety and MPG, for me, it was a no-brainer to go new.

 

[Clutch]

Well, on the other hand, too low of miles could mean trouble as well. Seals don't get regularly lubricated, as well as the engine, etc.
-
I looked around for a low mileage truck as well, before buying mine. But with the gas prices where they're at (and were at 2 years ago), they were almost as much as brand new trucks! With the advancements in safety and MPG, for me, it was a no-brainer to go new.

That too!

---

...and what used vehicles [high mile at that] command in price these days, it is almost better to spend a little more and buy brandy new. Plenty of no frills 4WD trucks under the $25K range. May not be the most powerful or have all the bells and whistlers, but it will get you there with peace of of mind.

OP already bought the Cummins it looks like, but just about every truck out there will tow 1500lbs of scuba gear no problem. Think lowest rating is 3500 lbs (Tacoma SR), V6 fullsizes are rated around the 7'000 mark.

Be fine with a Subaru with the rear seats folded down for the dogs...and a small enclosed trailer.

Then you don't need some hulking old truck that is going to need tending to.

 

[jreilly2120]

Haven't bought anything yet. Need to sell the Frontier first. And I should clarify, I tow horses, not scuba gear. The dive gear needs to be comfortably within the bed's payload limit, not including a cap and a minimalist camper, and recovery gear, and room for myself, another person, and two dogs. A stock frontier doesnt handle 1000 lbs well, let alone 1500 + another 3-500 in other gear. That rules out subarus and tacomas.

That too!

---

...and what used vehicles [high mile at that] command in price these days, it is almost better to spend a little more and buy brandy new. Plenty of no frills 4WD trucks under the $25K range. May not be the most powerful or have all the bells and whistlers, but it will get you there with peace of of mind.

OP already bought the Cummins it looks like, but just about every truck out there will tow 1500lbs of scuba gear no problem. Think lowest rating is 3500 lbs (Tacoma SR), V6 fullsizes are rated around the 7'000 mark.

Be fine with a Subaru with the rear seats folded down for the dogs...and a small enclosed trailer.

Then you don't need some hulking old truck that is going to need tending to.

 

[Clutch]

Haven't bought anything yet. Need to sell the Frontier first. And I should clarify, I tow horses, not scuba gear. The dive gear needs to be comfortably within the bed's payload limit, not including a cap and a minimalist camper, and recovery gear, and room for myself, another person, and two dogs. A stock frontier doesnt handle 1000 lbs well, let alone 1500 + another 3-500 in other gear. That rules out subarus and tacomas.

Ahhh, thought you said you needed to haul 1500 lbs of Scuba gear, and do mostly solo trips???

Looking for a long term overland vehicle for myself, my girlfriend, and our one (soon to be two) dog/s. I have a nissan frontier with a storage/camper setup built in the back under an ARE MX cap, but between the lack of space, the weak suspension design (even with helper springs and spring clamps I'm getting severe axle wrap on repetitive bumps), and the quickly rising miles, I'm looking to move to a full size. I've put 46k on this truck in 1.5 years of ownership, and that's climbing quickly. My overlanding is exclusively solo and mostly limited to beach and forest road trips, with a lot of highway miles in between, but we spend most weekends living in/out of the truck either sleeping in the back or in a tent. I also need to be able to carry 1500+ lbs of SCUBA gear on a regular basis. My helper springs make it manageable in the Frontier, but not ideal.

Honestly, I would do a new spring pack maybe from Old Man Emu HDs...and run that Nissan until it dies. I have OME HD's on my Tacoma, tow 1500 lbs regularly plus 800 lbs of gear in the bed (which includes me and the topper), barely even know it is back there.


But since you mentioned horses, yeah get a bigger truck. Used high mileage vehicles are such a crap shoot though, no matter the brand. Laaaard knows we inmates all like to argue about anything and everything on here, and think we know best (we are ALL such full ********!)....but, you really don't know if it is going to be good or bad until you have it for a while, and look back at it. No matter what us knuckle heads say. Damn near impossible to predict if a vehicle is going to good in the future. All we can do is make uneducated guesses...

Like most things in life if it has tits or wheels it is gonna give ya trouble!

 

[p nut]

That too!

---

...and what used vehicles [high mile at that] command in price these days, it is almost better to spend a little more and buy brandy new. Plenty of no frills 4WD trucks under the $25K range. May not be the most powerful or have all the bells and whistlers, but it will get you there with peace of of mind.

OP already bought the Cummins it looks like, but just about every truck out there will tow 1500lbs of scuba gear no problem. Think lowest rating is 3500 lbs (Tacoma SR), V6 fullsizes are rated around the 7'000 mark.

Be fine with a Subaru with the rear seats folded down for the dogs...and a small enclosed trailer.

Then you don't need some hulking old truck that is going to need tending to.

Nothing decided yet, but come next year, I might have to do just that. The garage won't comfortably fit a minivan and the truck. So instead of getting rid of her Subaru, I might have to trade the truck in for a minivan (gag) and drive the Sub. If that happens, I'll definitely get a trailer (probably a folding). But I'm hoping we'll think of another solution first.
-
I really wish she were more comfortable with bigger cars. I'd get her a Nissan NV. 2WD, and that may be a hang up. Although, some of these guys living in snow country don't think it's that big of a deal.
http://forum.expeditionportal.com/threads/174558-2WD-van-in-the-winter-snow