Tundra vs F150

[Buliwyf]

I love how ya'll calculate economy. If city economy mattered, I'd take steps to reduce it, take the car, ride my motorcycle, or stop on the way home in my work truck.

Fuelly? hahahahahah.

The only economy that I budget for is highway. My f250 is 15mpg@80mph. My old F150 with the 4.6 would often get 19@75. An Eco better get better than 20mpg.

 

[Deleted member 9101]

I love how ya'll calculate economy. If city economy mattered, I'd take steps to reduce it, take the car, ride my motorcycle, or stop on the way home in my work truck.

Fuelly? hahahahahah.

The only economy that I budget for is highway. My f250 is 15mpg@80mph. My old F150 with the 4.6 would often get 19@75. An Eco better get better than 20mpg.

The only time I drop to 20mpg on the HW is when the cruise is set at 80...lol.

 

[Dalko43]

I love how ya'll calculate economy. If city economy mattered, I'd take steps to reduce it, take the car, ride my motorcycle, or stop on the way home in my work truck.

Fuelly? hahahahahah.

The only economy that I budget for is highway. My f250 is 15mpg@80mph. My old F150 with the 4.6 would often get 19@75. An Eco better get better than 20mpg.

I love how you criticize fuelly for being inaccurate, but then the only counter-evidence you provide is based on limited personal experience.

You've cited results for (1) F-250 and (1) older F-150, and somehow that qualifies you to discredit the thousands of other truck owners who have put their own fuel efficiency results up on that website.

No one is saying that website is a perfect indicator, but it certainly trumps the exaggerations and outright lies that are prevalent on the forums. You go to a forum for any brand or truck, and everyone is getting X mpg. You view the results for that truck on fuelly, and everyone is getting X-3 or X-4 mpg....which is usually very similar to the results achieved by various auto magazines throughout their longterm testing.

It's funny how that plays out.

 

[nickw]

I love how you criticize fuelly for being inaccurate, but then the only counter-evidence you provide is based on limited personal experience.

You've cited results for (1) F-250 and (1) older F-150, and somehow that qualifies you to discredit the thousands of other truck owners who have put their own fuel efficiency results up on that website.

No one is saying that website is a perfect indicator, but it certainly trumps the exaggerations and outright lies that are prevalent on the forums. You go to a forum for any brand or truck, and everyone is getting X mpg. You view the results for that truck on fuelly, and everyone is getting X-3 or X-4 mpg....which is usually very similar to the results achieved by various auto magazines throughout their longterm testing.

It's funny how that plays out.

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.

Pot....kettle? I dunno at this point.

I've seen a lot of screen shots of dash's showing 30+ when I was researching the 2.8's, but have not seen any verification of that, particularly not a 4x4 like you insinuate.

 

[Buliwyf]

Thousands of owners that couldn't make a repeatable experiment if it cost them their lives.

DRIVING AROUND YOUR TOWN, FUEL ECONOMY, DOES NOT MATCH ANYONE ELSE, CLEAR ACROSS THE FRACKING COUNTRY.

Especially with a heavy truck. Where every stop, every brake check, has a massive impact on fuel economy. Repeatable results require known conditions. Not random city routes. Nobody cares about your economy parked at a fat burger drive through, there isn't any.

And I'm pretty sure I have more experience than two trucks. But since you want to be a jerk about it, welcome to ignore, D43.

 

[Dalko43]

Pot....kettle? I dunno at this point.

I've seen a lot of screen shots of dash's showing 30+ when I was researching the 2.8's, but have not seen any verification of that, particularly not a 4x4 like you insinuate.

Hmmm....I wonder where I got those results from (besides my own experiences driving that engine and other 2.8l diesels)?

Motor trend long term test: Z71 diesel Motor Trend Review

21.5/31.9/25.2 Real MPG city/highway/combined.

As for fuelly results, those show combined averages. But plenty of of users demonstrate that the engine is capable of 30 mpg or more under the right driving conditions. You're welcome to browse and see those results for yourself.

 

[Deleted member 9101]

But since you want to be a jerk about it, welcome to ignore, D43.

Hahahaha...I put that clown on it ignore a long time ago.

 

[rruff]

In the test you linked, they got 23.3mpg overall long term. These numbers (21.5/31.9/25.2) are from their test cycle. Very impressive mpg either way. Fuelly shows ~23mpg average. http://www.fuelly.com/car/chevrolet/colorado?engineconfig_id=229&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=

 

[nickw]

Hmmm....I wonder where I got those results from (besides my own experiences driving that engine and other 2.8l diesels)?

Motor trend long term test: Z71 diesel Motor Trend Review


As for fuelly results, those show combined averages. But plenty of of users demonstrate that the engine is capable of 30 mpg or more under the right driving conditions. You're welcome to browse and see those results for yourself.

I know exactly what Fuelly is, you'd think folks that drive a lot of hwy would have data supporting the "EASILY" gets 30-31, there are no data points that suggest that, and it includes 2wd vehicles too. And to YOUR point, the Fuelly average is 22.6 combined (all vehicles) or 23.2 - 23.7 (2016 - 2018) , while MT ranks it at 25.2, so follows the X-Y "theory"....you can't pick and choose what data point you want. Don't put too much faith in (1) data point like MT...

MT ratings are ideal conditions and in many cases matches or exceeds EPA, not what people actually get in the real world....to your point which it seems like you are arguing against, I dunno to be honest. But if you are going to use website X, then do it for all the vehicles so at least it's a fair comparison, accuracy aside.

What does MT rank the Tundra and F150 at? I bet the results will surprise you.....

 

[Dalko43]

I know exactly what Fuelly is, you'd think folks that drive a lot of hwy would have data supporting the "EASILY" gets 30-31, there are no data points that suggest that, and it includes 2wd vehicles too. And to YOUR point, the Fuelly average is 22.6 combined (all vehicles) or 23.2 - 23.7 (2016 - 2018) , while MT ranks it at 25.2, so follows the X-Y "theory"....you can't pick and choose what data point you want. Don't put too much faith in (1) data point like MT...

There are some users who show best tanks of +30 mpg, so there are in fact data points which support what I'm saying.
As well, there are some users who have higher combined averages than others (25-26mpg) with a variance of 4-5mpg on either side of that average....in order to get that high of an average, those users had to achieve mpg's which were greater than 25-26 mpg on a good number of their trips...that's how an average works.

MT ratings are ideal conditions and in many cases matches or exceeds EPA, not what people actually get in the real world....to your point which it seems like you are arguing against, I dunno to be honest. But if you are going to use website X, then do it for all the vehicles so at least it's a fair comparison, accuracy aside.

The MotorTrend mpg numbers aren't "ratings" for ideal driving conditions, they are numbers which were derived from thousands of miles of real-world testing...I encourage you to actually read the article instead of making a snap judgement.

It is only one user group, or data point; I never argued that it is representative of the overall trend. But it does nonetheless show the 2.8l Duramax getting north of 30 mpg on the highway.

All that aside, I really don't care if you "dunno." I've driven these types of engines; 30 mpg is absolutely achievable on the highway so long as you don't drive like an a$%hole.

 

[battleaxe]

I don't even understand why you'd compare an F150 with an Ecoboost to a Tundra with a V8. May as well compare a diesel Colorado to a gas Tacoma and call the Tacoma bad on fuel too...

If you need the V8, pick between the F150 and the Tundra... If you don't need the V8, and care about economy, buy the Ecoboost F150...

 

[nickw]

There are some users who show best tanks of +30 mpg, so there are in fact data points which support what I'm saying.
As well, there are some users who have higher combined averages than others (25-26mpg) with a variance of 4-5mpg on either side of that average....in order to get that high of an average, those users had to achieve mpg's which were greater than 25-26 mpg on a good number of their trips...that's how an average works.




The MotorTrend mpg numbers aren't "ratings" for ideal driving conditions, they are numbers which were derived from thousands of miles of real-world testing...I encourage you to actually read the article instead of making a snap judgement.

It is only one user group, or data point; I never argued that it is representative of the overall trend. But it does nonetheless show the 2.8l Duramax getting north of 30 mpg on the highway.

All that aside, I really don't care if you "dunno." I've driven these types of engines; 30 mpg is absolutely achievable on the highway so long as you don't drive like an a$%hole.

Just do me one favor, go look up Tundra and F150 MT "Ratings" and report back, what does it say?

 

[nickw]

I don't even understand why you'd compare an F150 with an Ecoboost to a Tundra with a V8. May as well compare a diesel Colorado to a gas Tacoma and call the Tacoma bad on fuel too...

If you need the V8, pick between the F150 and the Tundra... If you don't need the V8, and care about economy, buy the Ecoboost F150...

What does "If you need a V8" mean?

 

[Todd780]

What does "If you need a V8" mean?

Need to have? Maybe want.... I fit that bill. I'll always choose the V8 if it's an option. Just personal preference.

Same thing with Mustangs, Camaros, Challegers etc... Even if the V6 was more powerful, cheaper, better on fuel...I'd stick pick the V8. I'm old school, lol

 

[nickw]

Need to have? Maybe want.... I fit that bill. I'll always choose the V8 if it's an option. Just personal preference.

Same thing with Mustangs, Camaros, Challegers etc... Even if the V6 was more powerful, cheaper, better on fuel...I'd stick pick the V8. I'm old school, lol

V8 without question when it comes to a sports car....if I had the choice. May as well give me a manual too.