MY new TUNDRA

[jcmseven]

The Tundra is a fine truck and in my opinion Toyota has done a good job promoting it, which is why I feel it so popular. Time will tell how these trucks hold up to the pounding they will assuredly receive from some of their owners. As we have debated in multiple prolonged and at times agonizing forums over the prior months, GM, Mopar and Ford all offer viable options to the Toyota truck, and having driven each of them and or owned them, I feel there are viable options across the lineups. Having owned a V10 in the past I can attest that the truck will get BETTER than 10 mpg and in fact will push the diesels currently out in unloaded fuel economy. The loaded FE is much closer also. If someone does not tow much and/or wants a truck mainly to drive that is comfortable and manuverable and has good capability then a half ton, including a Toyota half ton, is a nice choice. If one wants more capability and safety when towing and does not mind a larger vehicle, the domestics all offer 2500 level chassis with stout gas engines, any of which would simply outperform our example in both safety and capability. Most of these trucks, specific examples notwithstanding, all get REASONABLY close fuel economy, so essentially the choice is whether one tows enough to justify the compromises seen with a 2500 level truck. This in no way in meant to downplay the Toyota; I almost bought one myself. In April, I test drove one, liked it and made our local dealer an offer which was quite fair--and for a cash sale. I did so due to my job change and my need of a truck with high capability yet low roof line height to be able to park in my new parking deck at work. The dealer tried some "funny business" in the deal and ultimately caused me not to trade. With the increased gas prices, that same truck is STILL on their lot and probably will stay there.

John M

[wushaw]

[quote=No, the guy asking never mentioned he only wanted a 1/2 ton truck...[/QUOTE]

He was talking Tundra specs and as we all know Toyota doesn't make anything bigger than a half ton....if they did I am fairly sure we all would have heard about it.

[escavader]

Originally Posted by Patches

I'll agree the V-10 will outpull a Tundra any day, but the V-10 is not available in a half-ton, and your estimate fuel mileage for the Tundra is way off the mark; 17.5/18 putzing around on county roads, 19.5+ on the interstate at 70+ mph empty. I seldom pull a heavily loaded trailer, but on occasion pull a trailer with a pulling tractor for a friend. The total weight is in the 8000/8500lb area and the Tundra consistantly gets 12.5+mpg. He is of the opinion if he didn't need the capacity of an F350,(to tow his bigger tractors,and heavily loaded hay trailers) he'd have a Tundra.We all know if you're hauling heavy loads often, you need a diesel or a 250 or up V-10.I'm very happy with my 1/2 ton Tundra, comfortable ride and acceptable fuel mileage for what I need to tow, and on occasion surprise a few hard-cores

Yep ,hes way off.Iget 19 mpg empty consistantly.When im towing my tandem 5 atvs and 5 passengers,up here in the hills i get 13-14 .Ihave no reason to feed bull to anyone.In the winter i only got 15 mpg ,as the dealer said.I know its early,but the 6 mo i have had 0 problems with the truck.Ireally enjoy passing people on a hill with a loaded trailer too Will i haul a bulldozer,large farm tractor etc no,but for all the 1/2 tons i have had or drove its really got some nuts.
ALAN

[RobertN]

Originally Posted by escavader

Yep ,hes way off.Iget 19 mpg empty consistantly.When im towing my tandem 5 atvs and 5 passengers,up here in the hills i get 13-14 .

The thing that gets me about all this, is it is 2008. The Toy was a new truck design. Yet they only get 18-19mpg. This is not just the Toyota; the rest(Nissan/Datsun, Dodge, Chevy/GM, Ford) are the same.

All the technology we have, fuel injection, computer control etc, and 18-19 mpg is the best they can do...

[Patches]

When you take into consideration a gear ratio of 4.30:1, I think it pretty impressive. You have a 344 cu.in., 8 cylinder engine producing 381HP with 401 lb/ft of torque and you're still getting 19+ mpg

[schmism]

Originally Posted by RobertN

The thing that gets me about all this, is it is 2008. The Toy was a new truck design. Yet they only get 18-19mpg. T

look at it this way... take power to weight ratio. graph vs mpg.

it will look roughly the same over the last 20 years.

but in reality, the weights of cars/trucks have nearly doubled sence the early 80's. power has nearly doubled also to keep up with the weight.

so in a sence you HAVE achived something in terms of engineering. You can still manage to get 1980's mpg out of something nearly twice as heavy and twice as powerfull.

unfortantly they arnt applying the same engineering to cars that weigh and are powered at 1980's levels.


ive always wondered why a semi with a GVW of 80K lbs gets 5-7 mpg when my truck weighs only 6% of what the semi does but only gets roughly 3 times the mpg.

useing the same weight per mpg i should be getting nealy 100mpg on 5K lbs.

[Builder]

Originally Posted by schmism

ive always wondered why a semi with a GVW of 80K lbs gets 5-7 mpg when my truck weighs only 6% of what the semi does but only gets roughly 3 times the mpg. useing the same weight per mpg i should be getting nealy 100mpg on 5K lbs.

The main reason is because your truck has a HUGE advantage in HP to weight ratio. Your truck probably weighs 6,000lbs, yet has 380HP. Horsepower consumes fuel. A tractor trailer weighs 80,000lbs, but may only have 500-600HP. The tractor trailer uses much less fuel to pull all 80K down the road compared to your truck which uses 380HP to pull 6K down the road.

Another reason is the beauty of the diesel engine. It performs work more efficiently because it makes much more power at lower RPM. The harder it works the more it out-does a gas engine.

[wkpoor]

One thing that hasn't been mentioned here is the power #'s on the Tundra are probably unrealistic everyday usable #'s. Example is I had a 454 that only made 245HP and around 400lb. of torque. But it made those #'s at 1600 and 2400 RPM. I'll bet the HP on the Tundra is wrapped up close to 5k where no one would ever take it.
I would love to pull into a Toy lot with this rig and see if they even have a truck I could set it on let alone take it down the road. BTW that is an 02 Express 3500 that was only 18K new. Quite a truck for not much moola.

[shvl73]

Originally Posted by wkpoor

One thing that hasn't been mentioned here is the power #'s on the Tundra are probably unrealistic everyday usable #'s. Example is I had a 454 that only made 245HP and around 400lb. of torque. But it made those #'s at 1600 and 2400 RPM. I'll bet the HP on the Tundra is wrapped up close to 5k where no one would ever take it.
I would love to pull into a Toy lot with this rig and see if they even have a truck I could set it on let alone take it down the road. BTW that is an 02 Express 3500 that was only 18K new. Quite a truck for not much moola.

Toyota's 5.7L has 381hp @5600RPM & 401ft lb torque @ 3600

[Iron Horse]

Just out of curiosity , how much horsepower and torque do they have at a useable 2000-3000 rev range ?