Tundra vs F150

[Todd n Natalie]

Fords already ahead of the curve with their "strategic" investment in Rivian....looks like they are taking it seriously too:

https://media.ford.com/content/ford...04/24/rivian-500-million-investment-ford.html

Yep. Read that a while ago. I think there's also an article on the expo home page about it. It will be interesting to see what technology Fords takes away. Maybe some of it will end up in a hybrid / electric F150? Also heard that one of the Bronco will be offered as a hybrid.

 

[nickw]

OEM's routinely overrate the mpg's assigned to their vehicles....or they produce those mpg results in unrealistic driving scenarios. The EPA sets the testing standards, but it's the OEM's who actually conduct the tests and submit the results. The system is far from perfect.

If this is news to you, then you should do some more reading in your spare time.

Edmunds EPA Testing

I'd love to see a Toyota gasoline twin turbo, but I highly doubt we'll see that anytime soon on their trucks. Toyota has been heavily focused on hybrid, atkinson cycle and hydrogen fuel cell applications...that is the direction I see them going. Toyota North America's head truck engineer, Mike Sweers, has said repeatedly that they have looked at incorporating turbo gasoline engines into their truck applications, but that there wasn't enough pay-off in terms of fuel economy for most driving scenarios. I think he mentioned some other longterm reliability concerns as well. I see the next Tundra having a Port + Direct fuel injected v8, similar to the technology used in the Tacoma, with a possible diesel option.

It just wouldn't make sense that Toyota would put a twin turbo gasser into one of their most reliable and respected platforms (Tundra) when they still haven't done that with any of their other current offerings.

I've always been fairly close in MPG from my hand calcs to what it was rated at.....but it requires a few things, a) driving speed limit around 60 and consistent, b) using non-ethanol gas and c) a totally stock truck. Those all seem reasonable for a manuf to assume. True "highway" mileage is done after you get up to speed, flat ground, no dirtbikes, motos in the back, stock tires, etc.

That article you quoted actually indicates that cars do in a lot of cases get as good if not better than their EPA ratings and the EPA does spot checks.

 

[Todd n Natalie]

I've always been fairly close in MPG from my hand calcs to what it was rated at....

This was my experience as well. I stopped doing the had calcs after a few times. If it's off by a 1 mpg, not a big deal. It's a 1/2 ton truck.

If I was that concerned with fuel mileage I would have kept my '09 Jetta TDi.

 

[nickw]

This was my experience as well. I stopped doing the had calcs after a few times. If it's off by a 1 mpg, not a big deal. It's a 1/2 ton truck.

If I was that concerned with fuel mileage I would have kept my '09 Jetta TDi.

I had a 2012 Sportwagen 6spd manual, it got better than the rated MPG on several occasions.....but I think we know why

 

[docwatson]

I see the next Tundra having a Port + Direct fuel injected v8, similar to the technology used in the Tacoma, with a possible diesel option.

That Lexus forum is having that same discussion. Updated V8 vs V6TT. The V6TT is currently in the Lexus LS500. It seems much of the Tundra V6TT assumption is because the Land Cruiser will be moving to V6TT because of displacement taxes in other countries, specifically China. North America may see the updated V8 because of general consumer perception, although Ford is certainly working to (has?) change that.

Again this is some forum hearsay based on conversations with a Russian Toyota dealer and a Japanese trade magazine. So I'd take it all with a grain of salt.

 

[nickw]

That Lexus forum is having that same discussion. Updated V8 vs V6TT. The V6TT is currently in the Lexus LS500. It seems much of the Tundra V6TT assumption is because the Land Cruiser will be moving to V6TT because of displacement taxes in other countries, specifically China. North America may see the updated V8 because of general consumer perception, although Ford is certainly working to (has?) change that.

Again this is some forum hearsay based on conversations with a Russian Toyota dealer and a Japanese trade magazine. So I'd take it all with a grain of salt.

Based on a convo with a Russian Car Dealer....seems legit...j/k

 

[docwatson]

Based on a convo with a Russian Car Dealer....seems legit...j/k

Yeah when most of it was around the Japanese trade magazine it seemed more believe-able. When the corroborating source was Boris...questionable.

 

[Dalko43]

I've always been fairly close in MPG from my hand calcs to what it was rated at.....but it requires a few things, a) driving speed limit around 60 and consistent, b) using non-ethanol gas and c) a totally stock truck. Those all seem reasonable for a manuf to assume. True "highway" mileage is done after you get up to speed, flat ground, no dirtbikes, motos in the back, stock tires, etc.

That article you quoted actually indicates that cars do in a lot of cases get as good if not better than their EPA ratings and the EPA does spot checks.

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.

 

[bkg]

EPA ratings are not at 80mph... just because people drive that fast and get less mileage than the ratings doesn’t make the ratings wrong.

 

[Dalko43]

EPA ratings are not at 80mph... just because people drive that fast and get less mileage than the ratings doesn’t make the ratings wrong.

No, but it does make them unrealistic.

If the posted speed limit is 65mph or 70mph, which it is for many highways and interstates, then it makes little sense to derive a vehicle's "highway" mpg figure from steady-state cruising at 55mph-60mph.

 

[FJR Colorado]

You did yourself, claiming you picked up stock simply because of a new motor.
That's a short term play.

And yes, I'm well aware of Ford stock. I'm also aware that it isn't all about how it looks on the graph.
I've had a bit of Ford stock for 15+ years. With Ford, its all about dividends. Its a high yield dividend stock.

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?

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

 

[bkg]

No, but it does make them unrealistic.

If the posted speed limit is 65mph or 70mph, which it is for many highways and interstates, then it makes little sense to derive a vehicle's "highway" mpg figure from steady-state cruising at 55mph-60mph.

Yes/no... IIRC, the ratings are at 65mph. That may be incorrect. But it's hard to blame a mfg for doing a rating under controlled conditions, especially when most of the highways were close to that mph (or at least were). Plus, they are being squeezed by bureaucracy regularly. Add to the fact of conditions outside of their control, such as speeding, towing, poor gas quality, etc. and it's hard to claim them unrealistic. Plus, they are not guarantees - they are "up to" - which implies specific conditions.

I've gotten over 21 with my F350... twice. I had to work for it, though. And once I put the lift and wider (35x12.5) tires on, 21 became a fantasy. I've crested 20 once in the last 25k miles since putting the lift on.

 

[battleaxe]

Pickups are largely terrible on fuel... And the auto manufacturers exaggerate their ratings.

Glad we were able to clear that up.

 

[Dalko43]

Yes/no... IIRC, the ratings are at 65mph. That may be incorrect. But it's hard to blame a mfg for doing a rating under controlled conditions, especially when most of the highways were close to that mph (or at least were). Plus, they are being squeezed by bureaucracy regularly. Add to the fact of conditions outside of their control, such as speeding, towing, poor gas quality, etc. and it's hard to claim them unrealistic. Plus, they are not guarantees - they are "up to" - which implies specific conditions.

I've gotten over 21 with my F350... twice. I had to work for it, though. And once I put the lift and wider (35x12.5) tires on, 21 became a fantasy. I've crested 20 once in the last 25k miles since putting the lift on.

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.

Yes, I understand how there are a lot of variables that the mfg's can't accurately account for (driving style, wide spectrum of terrain and weather conditions, average haul/payload weight). However, mfg's and the EPA could improve their rating system by driving at more realistic speeds (65-70mph is the new norm on most highways) and engaging in realistic driving maneuvers (merges, brake/accelerations) rather than getting up to 55mph and turning on the cruise control for 50-60 miles.

People like to brag about how an ecoboost F-150 can get 21mpg or more if the speed is low enough and all the other conditions are ideal. Well guess what? When you play that same game for something like a Tundra or 4runner (neither of which are standard-setters in terms of mpg's) you can get achieve a similar increase in mpg's. People like to cherry-pick the "best-case" results for their favored vehicle and compare them to the realistic results from other vehicles. The reality is that none of the mfg's have made any substantial leaps in terms of optimizing the gasoline engine's fuel economy.

 

[bkg]

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.

Yes, I understand how there are a lot of variables that the mfg's can't accurately account for (driving style, wide spectrum of terrain and weather conditions, average haul/payload weight). However, mfg's and the EPA could improve their rating system by driving at more realistic speeds (65-70mph is the new norm on most highways) and engaging in realistic driving maneuvers (merges, brake/accelerations) rather than getting up to 55mph and turning on the cruise control for 50-60 miles.

People like to brag about how an ecoboost F-150 can get 21mpg or more if the speed is low enough and all the other conditions are ideal. Well guess what? When you play that same game for something like a Tundra or 4runner (neither of which are standard-setters in terms of mpg's) you can get achieve a similar increase in mpg's. People like to cherry-pick the "best-case" results for their favored vehicle and compare them to the realistic results from other vehicles. The reality is that none of the mfg's have made any substantial leaps in terms of optimizing the gasoline engine's fuel economy.

"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...