bkg
Explorer
how are we defining "slow," exactly?
Tundra vs F150
- Thread starter rrflyer
- Start date
- Status
how are we defining "slow," exactly?
tacollie
Glamper
Anything modified starts to suck gas. My brothers 6.7 averages 10 because it weighs 11,800 lbs(motor is stock). My 22r in my 82' pu got the same milage as my Tundra and it was actually slow.
There isn't a dead winner in the truck market. Drive them all and buy the one you like the best.
Well in general, I agree. Modifications = decreased fuel efficiency. However the end result is not the same across the board.
A stock 4runner (4.0l v6) is lucky to get 21-22mpg highway. A stock 2.8l Duramax Colorado can easily get 30-31mpg highway. Modifications will affect the mpg's of both, but one has a higher starting point than the other.
D
Deleted member 9101
Guest
This.right. here.
For some reason in every forum I am am member of, there are droves of people complaining about fuel economy and then you find put that they are lifted and destroyed what little aerodynamics their truck had. Then in every other post its "this truck sucks fuel."
One advantage that the EcoBoost has is if you go for a modest power gain, the MPG goes up, provided you drive it like a responsible adult.
Last edited by a moderator:
rruff
Explorer
It's been done. ~2mpg better. ~14 vs ~16.
Ford F-150 MPG - Actual MPG from 3,917 Ford F-150 owners
The most accurate Ford F-150 MPG estimates based on real world results of 116.6 million miles driven in 3,917 Ford F-150s
www.fuelly.com
Toyota Tundra MPG - Actual MPG from 1,743 Toyota Tundra owners
The most accurate Toyota Tundra MPG estimates based on real world results of 44.6 million miles driven in 1,743 Toyota Tundras
www.fuelly.com
D
Deleted member 9101
Guest
I have had both the 3.5 and 2.7, neither got that low unless I was towing. In fact the life time average for my 2.7 is 20.9 MPG (~30,000 miles).
D
Deleted member 9101
Guest
My 2.7 gets better fuel economy in town than either of my Tundras ever did on the HW. The HW mileage of my 2.7 isn't even worth comparing due to the drastic difference.
D
Deleted member 9101
Guest
Meh... I have never gotten as bad of fuel economy as what's stated on Fuelly. Sadly, some people think its the unquestionable word of a diety.
Driving style plays a huge role in mpg's (it accounts for as much as a 30% variance in mpg results according to one study). So too does climate, terrain/topography, traffic patterns ect. So someone driving flat, open highway commutes at 60mph is going to get a different combined average than someone driving up and down mountain passes in the dead of winter.
The point of a website like fuelly isn't that it will accurately predict what every single driver of truck X will get for mpg results, but rather that it provides a good baseline for efficiency trends with different vehicles, and different configurations of those vehicles.
The 16 mpg that a 3.5l ecoboost offers certainly is better than the Tundra's 14 mpg average, but also does prove that these ecoboost engines don't necessarily live up to the EPA ratings (~19mpg combined). As well a 2 mpg difference isn't huge IMHO...you're going to be paying a lot for fuel with either vehicle.
rruff
Explorer
Me neither. But your baby turbo gets ~18mpg on that site, so 2mpg better than the 3.5 and 4mpg better than the Tundra.
rruff
Explorer
Considering all the other costs of ownership, it doesn't amount to that much. Excluding fuel costs, Edmunds predicts 5yr (15k/yr) ownership cost for an F150 XLT Crew to be ~$40k. For a Tundra SR5 Crew it's $33k.
Cost of fuel for a Tundra 75k miles and 14mpg and $2.50/gal is $13.4k.
For the 3.5 Eco 16mpg (or 5.0) it's $11.7k.
For the 2.7 Eco 18mpg it's $10.4k.
The difference in fuel cost if dwarfed by other expenses (mostly depreciation).
- Status