Tundra vs F150

[Todd780]

If mfg's test a vehicle's "highway" mpg at steady-state cruising at 55-60mph, with no hills, no headwinds, and the best case scenario for all other factors, what relevance does that metric have to the average person who is driving in the realword (faster speeds, traffic, accelerations, headwinds, ect)? It's close to being a meaningless measurement IMHO, since 99% of drivers are never going to match it.

That's actually pretty much my daily commute, lol. I'm also the guy in the right lane doing 60-65 getting passed the whole time... I am the 1% I guess..

 

[Dalko43]

"up to"... why is that confusing, though? seems like it puts the power to the driver, re: the mileage they want to get.

and again - it's not at 55mph... it's at 65...

According to the EPA website, the highway testing portion consists of two separate tests: one where the car speed never exceeds 60 mph; another where the vehicle speed does reach 70-80 mph.

Neither "highway" test is very long (total drive time for the two combined is just over 20 minutes) and all the testing takes place in laboratory.

So half of the "highway" driving is conducted at unrealistic speeds and the overall test takes place in simulated (rather than realistic) highway driving conditions. The testing is standardized, but it's not realistic.

EPA mpg Testing

 

[bkg]

According to the EPA website, the highway testing portion consists of two separate tests: one where the car speed never exceeds 60 mph; another where the vehicle speed does reach 70-80 mph.

Neither "highway" test is very long (total drive time for the two combined is just over 20 minutes) and all the testing takes place in laboratory.

So half of the "highway" driving is conducted at unrealistic speeds and the overall test takes place in simulated (rather than realistic) highway driving conditions. The testing is standardized, but it's not realistic.

EPA mpg Testing

what should they do, then? I'm curious your thoughts now, given that they are reaching (what i'll call) average driving speeds at 70+....

 

[Dalko43]

what should they do, then? I'm curious your thoughts now, given that they are reaching (what i'll call) average driving speeds at 70+....

Well given that the EPA test only reaches +70mph for select portions of the 9 minute 'high speed' test, that means for the rest of that test and for the entirety of the other highway test (13 minutes in length) the speed is below 70 mph. Thus the weighted average is well below 70 mph. The website actually notes that the average speed for both tests was about 48 mph.

It's not realistic. A realistic "highway" test would include at least 30-40 minutes of highway driving on a real road (not on rollers in laboratory) with more time spent at the 70-75mph range and an average speed of at least 55-60 mph.

 

[Todd780]

I wonder what ever happened to the OP....

 

[bkg]

Well given that the EPA test only reaches +70mph for select portions of the 9 minute 'high speed' test, that means for the rest of that test and for the entirety of the other highway test (13 minutes in length) the speed is below 70 mph. Thus the weighted average is well below 70 mph. The website actually notes that the average speed for both tests was about 48 mph.

It's not realistic. A realistic "highway" test would include at least 30-40 minutes of highway driving on a real road (not on rollers in laboratory) with more time spent at the 70-75mph range and an average speed of at least 55-60 mph.

Got it. I see your point. I can imagine that no matter what they do, it likely will be unrealistic comparison to a large percentage of drivers... Catch-22, I suppose, given the amount of things out of their control. But again, your point is certainly noted.

 

[nickw]

1) No one drives 60 mph on any of the highways I regularly use...maybe you live in Slowville, but 70-75 mph is the new norm where I live, with many people pressing beyond that. So yes, everyone can milk out those extra mpg's by going 60 mph, but on a lot of highway stretches, 60 mph just isn't realistic (unless you don't mind getting passed by everyone else going 10-15mph faster).

2) Your hand calculations may be fairly close to the EPA ratings, but for the average F-150 owner that isn't the case. The average mpg on fuelly for the 4x4 3.5l F-150 is ~16.5 mpg (compared to the EPA rating of 19 mpg). There are plenty of magazine articles covering this discrepancy between the EPA ratings and the F-150's real world mpg results. Likewise, there are similar accounts that are starting to emerge in regards to the new Ranger ecoboost:
Car & Driver
Pickup Trucks
So if you want to stick your head in the sand and pretend that Ford has some magical solution to the mpg issue with their ecoboost family, fine go ahead. The reality is that their engines are only slightly more efficient, or in some instances slightly less efficient, compared to all the other gasoline trucks on the market. This issue is well documented, and while the results on fuelly and magazine articles aren't 100% perfect, they're certainly a lot more credible than the echo-chamber induced hype that exists on facebook pages and brand-specific forums.

3) The EPA spot-checks, but at the end of the day it's a government agency that is imperfect and prone to mistakes just like everything else. Theoretically, the EPA testing standards were supposed to prevent OEM's from producing too much pollution, but we've already seen one OEM totally bypass those testing procedures...the only reason VW got caught was because of the research being conducted by a non-government organization.

So yeah, the EPA says that several gasoline 1/2 tons are rated at 18-19mpg combined; the reality is that most 1/2 tons (in the aggregate) aren't getting those kinds of results. When you apply an honest perspective to the something like the Tundra, it becomes apparent that 14 mpg, while it's lower, isn't all that abnormal compared to the rest of the segment.

Edit: And highway mileage should be calculated going from pump to pump...if all you're doing is grabbing the instantaneous average off the vehicle's dash, you're simply kidding yourself.

I drive between 60 and 65 90% of the time. When I am on I5 I'll jump up to 70, but that is not common, so I guess I live in Slowville. They do spot checks and caught a cheater, the systems pretty much works. All manuf have similiar testing procedures, if they use ideal conditions, who cares?

Remember when you were thought the MT "Real MPG" test a few pages back was accurate, let me quote you "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."





There is this too "That's no test lab trickery. Over the course of our road trip, an XL-trim 4x2 self-reported 27.7 mpg, and a nearly 700-pound-heavier Platinum 4x4 self-reported 23.7 mpg. To be sure, we hooked both trucks up to our EQUA Real MPG equipment. The XL returned 22.9/34.3/27.0 city/highway/combined mpg and the Platinum 20.9/28.6/23.8 mpg city/highway/combined, all handily beating Ford's estimates."

https://www.motortrend.com/cars/ford/f-150/2018/2018-ford-f-150-diesel-first-test-review/

As I've stated, I don't like tests like this, but you liked the MT tests and thought they were accurate....so.

 

[IdaSHO]

I bought Amazon at $250+/- per share in 2012 because the Fire was coming out. Sold it 6x years later at close to $2K/share.

Buying a stock based on forthcoming product announcement has nothing to do with whether you are doing a short-term or long-term play.

From where are you drawing such ridiculous conclusions?

You just proved my point. 6 year later is a long term play. And this one panned out. Good for you.
Not every new fancy product release pans out. That's the point.

Playing it short, you are banking on little more than speculation, which is a solid strategy quite often, but in order for it to work it is anything but a long play.
Pretty simple really, buy in banking on a quick rise in share value based upon little more than speculation, then sell before it (potentially) tanks.

Like I said, not every new fancy product pans out.

Had your investment in Fire tanked in the first few months (like many products do) you would be singing a different tune.

If you have owned Ford stock for 15 years, I can only offer my deepest condolences.

Is what it is. Not everything is a huge winner. And there is more than one way to play.
A good portion of our portfolio is based upon high yield dividends. Ford is one of them

Ford has been, and is currently providing one of the highest dividend return out there.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/3-high-yield-dividend-stocks-113000673.html

https://investorplace.com/2019/05/7-winning-high-yield-dividend-stocks-with-payouts-over-5/

If you dont understand the value of investing in such stock, Id advise you read up.

 

[Dalko43]

I drive between 60 and 65 90% of the time. When I am on I5 I'll jump up to 70, but that is not common, so I guess I live in Slowville. They do spot checks and caught a cheater, the systems pretty much works. All manuf have similiar testing procedures, if they use ideal conditions, who cares?

Remember when you were thought the MT "Real MPG" test a few pages back was accurate, let me quote you "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."

View attachment 516275

View attachment 516276

There is this too "That's no test lab trickery. Over the course of our road trip, an XL-trim 4x2 self-reported 27.7 mpg, and a nearly 700-pound-heavier Platinum 4x4 self-reported 23.7 mpg. To be sure, we hooked both trucks up to our EQUA Real MPG equipment. The XL returned 22.9/34.3/27.0 city/highway/combined mpg and the Platinum 20.9/28.6/23.8 mpg city/highway/combined, all handily beating Ford's estimates."

https://www.motortrend.com/cars/ford/f-150/2018/2018-ford-f-150-diesel-first-test-review/

As I've stated, I don't like tests like this, but you liked the MT tests and thought they were accurate....so.

The MT longterm review I was referencing was in regards to a F-150 3.5l ecoboost.

The article you linked above is referencing a F-150 diesel.

I don't follow your logic, and quite honestly I'm not interested in trying to at this point. The ecoboost F-150's are overrated; most owners don't get achieve the EPA-listed mpg figures. That's all there is to it.

 

[nickw]

The MT longterm review I was referencing was in regards to a F-150 3.5l ecoboost.

The article you linked above is referencing a F-150 diesel.

I don't follow your logic, and quite honestly I'm not interested in trying to at this point. The ecoboost F-150's are overrated; most owners don't get achieve the EPA-listed mpg figures. That's all there is to it.

Both of them get better than EPA ratings which you said doesn't happen, according to a test you thought was accurate, pretty simply really.

 

[Deleted member 9101]

That's actually pretty much my daily commute, lol. I'm also the guy in the right lane doing 60-65 getting passed the whole time... I am the 1% I guess..

You are not alone... my truck usually cruises at 65 in the right lane.

 

[rruff]

You are not alone... my truck usually cruises at 65 in the right lane.

Best way to boost mpg is to get right behind a big truck and stay there...

 

[Todd780]

Best way to boost mpg is to get right behind a big truck and stay there...

Also a good way to get rock chips in your windshield too though....

 

[nickw]

Best way to boost mpg is to get right behind a big truck and stay there...

They did that on Mythbusters....

 

[Highlander]

Didn’t want to open a new thread about the tundra 2021, though it may be well deserved, I came across this great news. Toyota is working on a new tundra. The mules are bing tested.

Toyota Tundra 2021

I personally am looking forward to it.

Any predictions?