Tundra vs 5.9 Cummins - Help!

[Clutch]

C'mon, man! You getting your facts from trump??? F150 is only 5" wider. F150: 79.9" Tacoma: 75.2".
-
I'll have to agree on the approach angle. Well, if off-road capability is lacking, you can just simply do a front level. 33" tires fit at stock height as well.

EDIT: Well, now I'm the one looking like trump....err....idiot. You're talking about your 1st gen Taco. Ok, nevermind. Skip my comment.

Ha ha! DOH!

I have had my Taco in some hairy spots fetching broken down bikes...F150 appears to be a bit bloated to make it or at least do it without tearing it up.

Stock the approach angle looks horrible, not even sure it will clear some curbs...(I'll bounce up over a curb from time to time too)

 

[p nut]

Well, it's not THAT bad. It looks like the approach/dep angles are 25.5/26 degrees. Tacoma has better approach, at 29 deg, but actually falls short on departure, at 23.5 deg. That front dam definitely would need to go. Do a simple Bilstein shock/lift, and you're set. As far as your tight trails---well, told you before, just ride your bike or tow a UTV!

 

[plainjaneFJC]

Parking should be a non-issue with these new trucks.

Compared to all of my old leaf sprung rigs, the new superduties turn WAY tight.

Turning radius is much improved.

The 360 camera makes parking a breeze. Nice thing about it was the fact you can order it on base model trucks.

 

[p nut]

The 360 camera makes parking a breeze. Nice thing about it was the fact you can order it on base model trucks.

That is a pretty cool feature. Wish I had that. Guess I should be just grateful I have a backup cam. But every time I get in my neighbor's Platinum............

 

[16crewmax]

The tundras are a great truck my family/ company has had 4 2nd gen tundras. I put 50,000-75,000 miles a year on my tundras. The biggest expense so far has been a seeping water pump at 175,000 miles, that was 500 dollars installed. Second most has been front rotors at 300 for a set of drilled and slotted with ceramic pads, that wasn't the trucks fault though. Every so often I pull a very heavy trailer 5000-7500 pounds with no brakes down a windy mountain road, it cooks stock rotors on pretty much whatever we use to pull it down the hill with.

I will say though the tundra handles it max payload and towing very well. I have ridden in a chevy and ford loaded heavy and neither felt as solid with the weight.

The ford felt the strongest with the ecoboost, but you could defiantly tell it was a lighter truck as the trailer wanted to pull and push it around a bit more.

The tundra was a far second on the power, keeping the motor wound out all the time but the Dohc 32 valves loves being above 3000 rpm and doesn't seem to struggle while up there, it felt more in control of the weight and a lot more stable.

The chevy was way in the back with the pushrod 5.3 it felt like it was struggling the whole time with the weight and even in tow haul always seemed to want to shift up right when you needed the power the most causing rough bogging down with a rough down shift. It was somewhere in between on handling with the trailer. It been a while since I've ridden in that truck.

Out of those 3 trucks the tundra get the worst mileage by about 2-3 mpg the other 2 are pretty close


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Clutch]

Well, it's not THAT bad. It looks like the approach/dep angles are 25.5/26 degrees. Tacoma has better approach, at 29 deg, but actually falls short on departure, at 23.5 deg. That front dam definitely would need to go. Do a simple Bilstein shock/lift, and you're set.

It's horrible! ha ha! naaah, it isn't that bad...lift would help and 33's...then there goes your mileage.

Have been looking at these bumpers from CBI, come in aluminum [to keep the weight down], increase the approach of the Taco a bit more.



make a high clearance rear too, wouldn't want the spare mount tho', believe you can order it without.

As far as your tight trails---well, told you before, just ride your bike or tow a UTV!

Yeah, I know...problem is I like doing both. I'll get back in some out of the way spot dorking around in my truck, and think to myself, glad I don't have anything bigger. Then I'll see a Subaru Forester.... ha ha!

 

[p nut]

Or in my case, I'll squeeze through a spot (in my old 01 Taco), sweating a bit, then negotiate through some tight turns to the top.....to see a F350 crew cab at the top.
-
By the way, lift and +1 size (33's) should affect the MPG that much. I went from a P rated 32's to LT 33's and lost probably 2MPG. But going from LT 32's to LT 33's, I'd say maybe 1. It's been reported that not much is lost with a slight lift, either. But I can't confirm.

 

[rruff]

But going from LT 32's to LT 33's, I'd say maybe 1. It's been reported that not much is lost with a slight lift, either. But I can't confirm.

Larger tires should have lower rolling resistance, all else being equal. Gnarly treads and tough casings will suck the gas though. And aero drag is another matter.

 

[p nut]

Larger tires should have lower rolling resistance, all else being equal. Gnarly treads and tough casings will suck the gas though. And aero drag is another matter.

I haven't found that to be the case, personally. I've used 31 to 33" tires, all same brand/tire (specifically, BFG KO). Going bigger meant less MPG. It just takes more power to move bigger/heavier wheels. I even went bigger but skinny (bought into the expo article that's been circulating for years)---nope, still loss in MPG. Smoother ride, sure, but MPG drops, as well as power (due to effective change in FD).

 

[rruff]

I haven't found that to be the case, personally. I've used 31 to 33" tires, all same brand/tire (specifically, BFG KO). Going bigger meant less MPG. It just takes more power to move bigger/heavier wheels. I even went bigger but skinny (bought into the expo article that's been circulating for years)---nope, still loss in MPG. Smoother ride, sure, but MPG drops, as well as power (due to effective change in FD).

It doesn't take any more power to move heavier wheels unless you are accelerating or climbing. And then it's small compared to the total weight.

I read an article from a tire engineer claiming that wider tires, larger rim diameter, and lower profile all contributed to an improvement in Crr. I downloaded a large data set of tire tests and I'm not through evaluating it, but he appears to be right about the width and wheel diameter, but I'm not seeing any correlation with profile. If there *was* a decrease in Crr with reduced profile, then you could expect to have a small increase in going the opposite direction (which you observed). If you went wider as well though, it should cancel out. But you'd still have the aero drag increase if you are looking at highway cruising. Offroad I think big will always win.

 

[p nut]

It doesn't take any more power to move heavier wheels unless you are accelerating or climbing. And then it's small compared to the total weight.

I read an article from a tire engineer claiming that wider tires, larger rim diameter, and lower profile all contributed to an improvement in Crr. I downloaded a large data set of tire tests and I'm not through evaluating it, but he appears to be right about the width and wheel diameter, but I'm not seeing any correlation with profile. If there *was* a decrease in Crr with reduced profile, then you could expect to have a small increase in going the opposite direction (which you observed). If you went wider as well though, it should cancel out. But you'd still have the aero drag increase if you are looking at highway cruising. Offroad I think big will always win.

Well, you should test it out for yourself, then, and report back. I've spent too much time/$ doing that myself... I have spreadsheets of data on this, as I used to commute 100 miles daily (for 8 years...).

 

[Clutch]

Or in my case, I'll squeeze through a spot (in my old 01 Taco), sweating a bit, then negotiate through some tight turns to the top.....to see a F350 crew cab at the top.
-
By the way, lift and +1 size (33's) should affect the MPG that much. I went from a P rated 32's to LT 33's and lost probably 2MPG. But going from LT 32's to LT 33's, I'd say maybe 1. It's been reported that not much is lost with a slight lift, either. But I can't confirm.

Ha ha! That too! F250 has crossed the mind, you can stuff 35's under there stock I am told. Prolly not the best truck for commuting though.

---

Yeah, thinking with all that it will push the 5.0 into the 15 mpg range, really the only engine in the F150 that I am quasi interested in. Maybe just maybe the naturally aspirated V6, unsure how that engine will handle 33's without a regear. I see it snowballing real quick.

Where the Taco is pretty darn good stock with 265/75's slung on. Remember 98-98% of the time it is just me in it. Commute-wise I set the cruise at 63 mph...which is a mostly level shot for 28 miles. Thinking HWY mpg will be low 20's... http://www.fuelly.com/car/toyota/tacoma/2017?engineconfig_id=95&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=


....could have two sets of tires/wheels (like I do now) have some P rated 245's for commuting then sling on the LT265 AT's for back country. Still thinking the 4 banger is the way to go, even if the better 3/4's said spend $10K more, because I deserve it, which we all know that is a bunch of horse ********... ha ha!

 

[p nut]

Ha ha! That too! F250 has crossed the mind, you can stuff 35's under there stock I am told. Prolly not the best truck for commuting though.

---

Yeah, thinking with all that it will push the 5.0 into the 15 mpg range, really the only engine in the F150 that I am quasi interested in. Maybe just maybe the naturally aspirated V6, unsure how that engine will handle 33's without a regear. I see it snowballing real quick.

Where the Taco is pretty darn good stock with 265/75's slung on. Remember 98-98% of the time it is just me in it. Commute-wise I set the cruise at 63 mph...which is a mostly level shot for 28 miles. Thinking HWY mpg will be low 20's... http://www.fuelly.com/car/toyota/tacoma/2017?engineconfig_id=95&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=


....could have two sets of tires/wheels (like I do now) have some P rated 245's for commuting then sling on the LT265 AT's for back country. Still thinking the 4 banger is the way to go, even if the better 3/4's said spend $10K more, because I deserve it, which we all know that is a bunch of horse ********... ha ha!

I bet with the 5.0 and 33's, you'd be at 18-19MPG on the freeway (at 70mph). My truck (with 33's) is at 21-22MPG, all freeway, at 70MPH. I was up in Wyoming a little while ago and on a 50 mile flattish section of the highway, no cars on the road (around 11PM), I was doing about 55mph and fuel history reported about 24-25MPG.
Edmunds did a test a while ago (in stock vehicles):

https://www.edmunds.com/ford/f-150/...my-test-27-liter-ecoboost-vs-50-liter-v8.html
-
Remember this was with the old 6-sp transmissions. The new 10-sp will probably net better.
-
The N/A V6 would be a nice engine as well. Comparable with the Tacoma V6. I doubt you'd need to regear, especially if you get it with the 3.73 rear end. Of course, optional rear locker with the XL trim. It would get the same MPG as the 4-banger, especially when you're lugging your bikes up in the mountains.

 

[Clutch]

I bet with the 5.0 and 33's, you'd be at 18-19MPG on the freeway (at 70mph). My truck (with 33's) is at 21-22MPG, all freeway, at 70MPH. I was up in Wyoming a little while ago and on a 50 mile flattish section of the highway, no cars on the road (around 11PM), I was doing about 55mph and fuel history reported about 24-25MPG.
Edmunds did a test a while ago (in stock vehicles):

https://www.edmunds.com/ford/f-150/...my-test-27-liter-ecoboost-vs-50-liter-v8.html
-
Remember this was with the old 6-sp transmissions. The new 10-sp will probably net better.
-
The N/A V6 would be a nice engine as well. Comparable with the Tacoma V6. I doubt you'd need to regear, especially if you get it with the 3.73 rear end. Of course, optional rear locker with the XL trim. It would get the same MPG as the 4-banger, especially when you're lugging your bikes up in the mountains.

Good info, as always, thanks p-nut.

You might get me in a F150 yet!

 

[IdaSHO]

I tend to break 1/2 tons.

So its 3/4 ton or greater, only.

So Im "stuck" with less than stellar MPG.


Although the 5.0 with a 10-speed does sound promising.