Which truck

[bkg]

I average ~17 in all driving with fat 35s, but I figure for comparison purposes it's best to look at Fuelly stats (lots of anecdotes instead of just one), and that gives:

Tundra: 14 mpg
F150: 3.5 Eco or 5.0 both 16 mpg, 2.7 Eco 18.5 mpg. That 2.7 has really good specs for performance and MPG.

after owning 3 2nd gen tundras... the best mileage I ever eked out was 18mpg... once. once. I suspect, but don't know, that the tundra is very sensitive to fuel quality.

averaged 14.5 city/highway. 9-10 towing my xtracab.

 

[Dalko43]

My F150 gets 6-8 MPG better than either of my Tundras ever did. I get 20-21 MPG in traffic and 23-24 MPG at 70 MPH and 26-27 MPG at 65, neither of my Tundras could get that high if they were going down hill with a tail wind..lol. (I got ~1MPG more before I leveled it, changed the gears from 3.15 to 3.55, and larger tires) I typically drive 20-30k a year, unless I have to replace an engine or tranny every couple of years... The Tundra will never be cheaper for me...haha.

That's great for you, but the real-world averages show that the majority of F-150 owners are getting, at most, 3-4 mpg better compared to the Tundra. The delta is even smaller if you compare apples-to-apples (3.5l ecoboost or 5.0l coyote vs 5.7l iForce v8).

Case & point below:

I average ~17 in all driving with fat 35s, but I figure for comparison purposes it's best to look at Fuelly stats (lots of anecdotes instead of just one), and that gives:

Tundra: 14 mpg
F150: 3.5 Eco or 5.0 both 16 mpg, 2.7 Eco 18.5 mpg. That 2.7 has really good specs for performance and MPG.

 

[Deleted member 9101]

after owning 3 2nd gen tundras... the best mileage I ever eked out was 18mpg... once. once. I suspect, but don't know, that the tundra is very sensitive to fuel quality.

averaged 14.5 city/highway. 9-10 towing my xtracab.

Same here. 2wd on street tires I would have to baby mine and not go over 70mph to squeeze out 18mpg. If I ran 80 it dropped to 11-12mpg. In town it would usually stay around 12-13.

Whats sad is that's the same fuel economy as my 2017 GMC 2500 4x4 6.0 I drive at work, loaded down with emergency response gear. What makes it worse is it's rated to haul and tow quite a bit more weight than a Tundra.

 

[Deleted member 9101]

That's great for you, but the real-world averages show that the majority of F-150 owners are getting, at most, 3-4 mpg better compared to the Tundra. The delta is even smaller if you compare apples-to-apples (3.5l ecoboost or 5.0l coyote vs 5.7l iForce v8).

Case & point below:

Normally I don't respond to you simply because we don't get along, but in this case I feel the need to make an exception: 0- 60 while towing an 8600lb travel trailer the 2.7 is 1.5 seconds faster than the 3.5 and 2 seconds faster than the 5.0. TFL has a 15 min video on it.

With that fact in mind...do tell how the 2.7 is not "apples to apples" with the 5.7? Every single thing that I towed with my 5.7 I have towed with my 2.7... I can tell you with absolute certainty that the 2.7 does better than the 5.7 loaded or unloaded. Places where the 5.7 would have to drop two gears, rev almost to its redline, and lose speed...my 2.7 only drops one gear and doesn't have to go anywhere close to it's redline and maintains its speed. In fact in places where my Tundra slowed down, my F150 has enough power to accelerate.

So, once again I ask you...how is the 2.7 not "apples to apples" with the 5.7? Are you just going off of displacement or did you compare dyno sheets and performance data?

 

[Dalko43]

Normally I don't respond to you simply because we don't get along, but in this case I feel the need to make an exception: 0- 60 while towing an 8600lb travel trailer the 2.7 is 1.5 seconds faster than the 3.5 and 2 seconds faster than the 3.5. TFL has a 15 min video on it.

With that fact in mind...do tell how the 2.7 is not "apples to apples" with the 5.7? Every single thing that I towed with my 5.7 I have towed with my 2.7... I can tell you with absolute certainty that the 2.7 does better than the 5.7 loaded or unloaded. Places where the 5.7 would have to drop two gears, rev almost to its redline, and lose speed...my 2.7 only drops one gear and doesn't have to go anywhere close to it's redline and maintains its speed. In fact in places where my Tundra slowed down, my F150 has enough power to accelerate.

So, once again I ask you...how is the 2.7 not "apples to apples" with the 5.7? Are you just going off of displacement or did you compare dyno sheets and performance data?

I think you meant to say the 2.7l was 2 seconds faster than the 5.7L?

Anyhow - you're right that an argument isn't worth it. Comparing different platforms with different weights and different gear ratios and #'s..we're not going to get a true comparison of performance capabilities. I really could care less if one truck brand beats another by a few seconds in any sort of drag race or timed event. I care a lot more about how well the average truck performs 100k miles out of warranty.

The bottom line is that the 5.7l has a HP advantage compared to the 2.7l ecoboost and, more importantly for those of us who keep our trucks well past warranty, it has a well-proven track record. I saw someone earlier brag about how there is a 2.7l ecoboost that made it to 400k miles...perhaps a milestone for a F-150, but really nothing to brag about for anything we'd consider a "working" truck. 400k mile Tundra's don't get any special attention because those trucks are simply meeting owner expectations.

The 2.7l ecoboost is an alternative to the 5.0l v8 coyote or 5.7l iForce...I would not consider it to be a replacement for either engine, but that is entirely subjective territory. But however you want to consider it, the average 2.7l ecoboost gets, at most, 4.5mpg better compared to the average 5.7l iForce...statistical outliers and big fish stories won't change that simple fact.

 

[Deleted member 9101]

I think you meant to say the 2.7l was 2 seconds faster than the 5.7L?

Anyhow - you're right that an argument isn't worth it. Comparing different platforms with different weights and different gear ratios and #'s..we're not going to get a true comparison of performance capabilities. I really could care less if one truck brand beats another by a few seconds in any sort of drag race or timed event. I care a lot more about how well the average truck performs 100k miles out of warranty.

The bottom line is that the 5.7l has a HP advantage compared to the 2.7l ecoboost and, more importantly for those of us who keep our trucks well past warranty, it has a well-proven track record. I saw someone earlier brag about how there is a 2.7l ecoboost that made it to 400k miles...perhaps a milestone for a F-150, but really nothing to brag about for anything we'd consider a "working" truck. 400k mile Tundra's don't get any special attention because those trucks are simply meeting owner expectations.

The 2.7l ecoboost is an alternative to the 5.0l v8 coyote or 5.7l iForce...I would not consider it to be a replacement for either engine, but that is entirely subjective territory. But however you want to consider it, the average 2.7l ecoboost gets, at most, 4.5mpg better compared to the average 5.7l iForce...statistical outliers and big fish stories won't change that simple fact.

Well...where to start: the 2.7 has the same TQ as the 5.7 and it comes in at a lower RPM (2750 vs 3600). Max HP isn't that impressive when you have to hit the redline to acheive it...lol. Combine that with the 2018+ 2.7 having 10 gears behind it and the 5.7 becomes even more disadvantaged. As I have told you before I've owned both trucks...there is no area where the 5.7 out preforms the 2.7, not a single one. The 5.7 is a great motor and I'd rather have it over the 5.0, but compared to either EcoBoost it's no longer competitive.

Even if the average 2.7 "only" gets 4.5mpg better....multiply that by 15- 20k miles a year. I'd much rather have that money in my wallet than a Toyota in my garage. If you were to spend any amount of time on a F150 message board or Facebook group, you'd see that they easily surpass your 4.5mpg figure. The truth is, there is no shortage of F150s getting better than 4.5mpg more than the Tundra.

I was the one that made the 400k 2.7 comment. The motor has only been out since 2015... IIRC the guy hit 421k in 2020, his truck is a 2016. He's probably saved enough in fuel compared to a Tundra that he could almost buy another truck. Please, read all 35 pages:

465,000 Mile 2.7 - Ford F150 Forum - Community of Ford Truck Fans

2015 - 2020 Ford F150 - 465,000 Mile 2.7 - I have a friend at church that delivers after hours and emergency parts for Motion Industries. Pat gets the call when some large plant or factory needs a part and they need it ASAP. Anywhere in the Southeast. Last year on 6-1-16 Pat traded his extended...

www.f150forum.com

As for reliability, both of my Tundras needed more repairs and maintaince than my current F150. All three were used the exact same way (minus trips to the drag strip, Tundras are to slow too bother with). In fact, the only vehicle I've had to have towed home was a Tundra.

Also...thank you for completly failing to answer my question and using constantly changing goal post to avoid an honest discussion... Back on the ignore list you go. ?

 

[Todd780]

Maybe have a look at the Ram and Titan.......

Which one of those would be better? Or maybe a Silverado or Sierra....

 

[calicamper]

I think you meant to say the 2.7l was 2 seconds faster than the 5.7L?

Anyhow - you're right that an argument isn't worth it. Comparing different platforms with different weights and different gear ratios and #'s..we're not going to get a true comparison of performance capabilities. I really could care less if one truck brand beats another by a few seconds in any sort of drag race or timed event. I care a lot more about how well the average truck performs 100k miles out of warranty.

The bottom line is that the 5.7l has a HP advantage compared to the 2.7l ecoboost and, more importantly for those of us who keep our trucks well past warranty, it has a well-proven track record. I saw someone earlier brag about how there is a 2.7l ecoboost that made it to 400k miles...perhaps a milestone for a F-150, but really nothing to brag about for anything we'd consider a "working" truck. 400k mile Tundra's don't get any special attention because those trucks are simply meeting owner expectations.

The 2.7l ecoboost is an alternative to the 5.0l v8 coyote or 5.7l iForce...I would not consider it to be a replacement for either engine, but that is entirely subjective territory. But however you want to consider it, the average 2.7l ecoboost gets, at most, 4.5mpg better compared to the average 5.7l iForce...statistical outliers and big fish stories won't change that simple fact.

2.7l buyers are mid sized truck shoppers who realize they need more load capacity but don’t need v8 power or mileage. So the ancient 5.7 comparison is pretty dumb. The 5.7 should have way more high mileage examples over a low volume truck only sold for the last few years?.

I get the Toyota thing spent 25 years in them old simple technology is good up to a point. It does reach a point where its not really better or lower cost. I’d say that the increasing number of former Toyota guys now very happy with their GM’s and Fords is an indication its hit that point. So Toyota is now doing the biggest refresh in what 12 yrs of the Tundra which likely will still be just far enough behind the hybrid trucks that they continue to loose market share. Which is really crazy given Toyota was the hybrid king till they fell asleep in the design studio for 12yrs.

 

[Deleted member 9101]

I get the Toyota thing spent 25 years in them old simple technology is good up to a point. It does reach a point where its not really better or lower cost. I’d say that the increasing number of former Toyota guys now very happy with their GM’s and Fords is an indication its hit that point. So Toyota is now doing the biggest refresh in what 12 yrs of the Tundra which likely will still be just far enough behind the hybrid trucks that they continue to loose market share. Which is really crazy given Toyota was the hybrid king till they fell asleep in the design studio for 12yrs.

The majority of my firends that were pretty loyal to Toyota over tbr last 2+ decades have moved on to domestic trucks.

 

[calicamper]

77
I gave my dad my Toyota Sequoia it had 100,000 miles on it. Poor teacher needed a vehicle. I drive a 2019 Expedition HD now. Another Toyota Didn’t even cross my mind lol. My old Sequoia with a modern head unit and camera system was basically light years better than a new one?

 

[rruff]

I get the Toyota thing spent 25 years in them old simple technology is good up to a point. It does reach a point where its not really better or lower cost. I’d say that the increasing number of former Toyota guys now very happy with their GM’s and Fords is an indication its hit that point.

Toyotas still have the best resale by far, so it depends on your priorities. The Big 3 have better tech and options, no doubt about that. The Tundra isn't 12 years old... it'll be 15 years if the new model comes out in 2022. Hopefully they've put enough R&D in to make it last another 15.

 

[toylandcruiser]

Oh boy here we go again

 

[bkg]

77
I gave my dad my Toyota Sequoia it had 100,000 miles on it. Poor teacher needed a vehicle. I drive a 2019 Expedition HD now. Another Toyota Didn’t even cross my mind lol. My old Sequoia with a modern head unit and camera system was basically light years better than a new one?

My wife's 2015 4runner camera was at least 10x better than the camera in my 15 Tundra. It was weird.

 

[Tex68w]

My wife's 2015 4runner camera was at least 10x better than the camera in my 15 Tundra. It was weird.

That's not surprising because the camera's in the T4R's are trash but so are the camera's in our GX460, LX570, and 200 Series Land Cruiser.

 

[rruff]

My wife's 2015 4runner camera was at least 10x better than the camera in my 15 Tundra. It was weird.

Try cleaning the lens...