24hourcampfire.com
24hourcampfire.com
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Hop To
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 25,033
Campfire Ranger
Online Happy
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 25,033
Ed-
I don't know if you've looked at them, but I'd go Tundra in a heart beat.

I was shopping for a truck to pull a boat and test drove them all. To me, Tundra was hands down the best of the bunch. Built in the U.S. to boot.

The 5.7 is a hell of an engine.


“Life is life and fun is fun, but it's all so quiet when the goldfish die.”
GB2

Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 23,385
7
79S Offline
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
7
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 23,385
Originally Posted by Old_Toot
79s, what is your mileage?


12.5 to 13.5 mpg But mine isn't even broke in yet. I do not run ethanol in mine either talk about [bleep] mileage 8.5-9.0 mpg makes you remember the glory days of gas guzzling wonders 460 lol.

Last edited by 79S; 05/27/15.

Originally Posted by Bricktop
Then STFU. The rest of your statement is superflous bullshit with no real bearing on this discussion other than to massage your own ego.

Suckin' on my titties like you wanted me.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,424
B
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
B
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,424
Originally Posted by tzone
Originally Posted by EdM
2015 and towing a 4000# travel trailer.


You can tow that with a station wagon. Don't need a 3/4 ton for that unless you just want one. Hell, my 2011 f150was rated for 11k pounds.i pulled 5k pounds of boat and gear all over mn and wi without even knowing it was back there.


I'm kind of a sucker for overkill myself. If you've got any plans of running west into the headwinds, it makes sense. My Dakota is rated for somewhere between 4 & 5 k, but I'd rather not pull anything on that leg of the trip.


If you love someone set them free
If they come back no one else liked them
Set them free again
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 15,793
O
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 15,793
Originally Posted by MadMooner
Ed-
I don't know if you've looked at them, but I'd go Tundra in a heart beat.

I was shopping for a truck to pull a boat and test drove them all. To me, Tundra was hands down the best of the bunch. Built in the U.S. to boot.

The 5.7 is a hell of an engine.
I like the Tundra and will be trading mt Tacoma this fall to either a Tundra or F150.

Would you consider the smaller Tundra engine offering?


There are 2 rules to success:

1. Never tell everything that you know.
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 860
A
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
A
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 860
Originally Posted by OSU_Sig
Would you consider the smaller Tundra engine offering?


Why would you? The 4.7 was fine in the 1st gen Tundra, but that was a lot smaller truck than the current version. The mpg gains are next to nothing compared to the difference in power.

IC B2

Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 453
S
Campfire Member
Offline
Campfire Member
S
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 453
Originally Posted by OSU_Sig
Originally Posted by MadMooner
Ed-
I don't know if you've looked at them, but I'd go Tundra in a heart beat.

I was shopping for a truck to pull a boat and test drove them all. To me, Tundra was hands down the best of the bunch. Built in the U.S. to boot.

The 5.7 is a hell of an engine.
I like the Tundra and will be trading mt Tacoma this fall to either a Tundra or F150.

Would you consider the smaller Tundra engine offering?


If you're going to tow anything I'd get a 5.7. I've had my Tundra for 7 years with no issues. I tow a 5K boat effortlessly, and have towed up to 8K with no problems. For the significant extra HP and Torque, with a minimal 1-2 mpg loss, it's kind of a no brainer.

If you never tow, or keep it super light, maybe you could go with the smaller engine.

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 15,793
O
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 15,793
Originally Posted by sigguy
Originally Posted by OSU_Sig
Originally Posted by MadMooner
Ed-
I don't know if you've looked at them, but I'd go Tundra in a heart beat.

I was shopping for a truck to pull a boat and test drove them all. To me, Tundra was hands down the best of the bunch. Built in the U.S. to boot.

The 5.7 is a hell of an engine.
I like the Tundra and will be trading mt Tacoma this fall to either a Tundra or F150.

Would you consider the smaller Tundra engine offering?


If you're going to tow anything I'd get a 5.7. I've had my Tundra for 7 years with no issues. I tow a 5K boat effortlessly, and have towed up to 8K with no problems. For the significant extra HP and Torque, with a minimal 1-2 mpg loss, it's kind of a no brainer.

If you never tow, or keep it super light, maybe you could go with the smaller engine.

Thanks for the info. Your point on mileage is well taken.


There are 2 rules to success:

1. Never tell everything that you know.
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 945
J
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
J
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 945
I have a 2011 F250 with the 6.2. I actually like the engine pretty well. The transmission is really nice. The mileage is the worst of any truck I have ever owned. It gets right at 10 MPG around town unloaded. I don't get it on the highway much. As others have mentioned, it's sags really bad with a load. I really don't like the suspension at all.

Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 147
G
Campfire Member
Offline
Campfire Member
G
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 147
I have a 2013 F250 with the 6.2. It's a CC LB 4X4 with 3.73 rear. I get 15.8 - 16.1 on the highway at 70 (hand calculated) running 85 or 87 octane fuel.

It does ride a bit rough but I figure it's a 3/4 ton truck with solid axles. I drive a sedan day to day.

Last edited by GUhunter; 08/17/15.
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 21,317
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 21,317
Originally Posted by sdgunslinger
I dont "expect" more ....just stating a fact LOL

but you would think with all of our vast technical advances , engineers could design a 3/4 ton gasser that would get 15+ highway milege


You simply can't accelerate a 6000# truck, with enough power to tow a laod and move all that air out of the way without burning fuel.

The fuel efficiency advances in cars is from making them light weight, aerodynamic and putting small engines in them.

IC B3

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 33,529
E
EdM Offline OP
Campfire 'Bwana
OP Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
E
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 33,529
Yep. That said, I don't mind paying for MPG if the power is there. A return drive of the truck convinced me it wan't.


Conduct is the best proof of character.
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,411
O
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
O
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,411
Originally Posted by GUhunter
I have a 2013 F250 with the 6.2. It's a CC LB 4X4 with 3.73 rear. I get 15.8 - 16.1 on the highway at 70 (hand calculated) running 85 or 87 octane fuel.

It does ride a bit rough but I figure it's a 3/4 ton truck with solid axles. I drive a sedan day to day.


Remarkable mileage, indeed.


The degree of my privacy is no business of yours.

What we've learned from history is that we haven't learned from it.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 14,408
R
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
R
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 14,408
my 15 f250 4x4 supercrew with the 6.2 and 3.73 rear just turned over 10k. on a highway trip the other day i got 13.3 mpg. and that was with cruise set at 73 for most of the way. PA hills are tough on gas mileage.


My diploma is a DD214
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 147
G
Campfire Member
Offline
Campfire Member
G
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 147
Originally Posted by Old_Toot
Originally Posted by GUhunter
I have a 2013 F250 with the 6.2. It's a CC LB 4X4 with 3.73 rear. I get 15.8 - 16.1 on the highway at 70 (hand calculated) running 85 or 87 octane fuel.

It does ride a bit rough but I figure it's a 3/4 ton truck with solid axles. I drive a sedan day to day.


Remarkable mileage, indeed.


Especially considering I never broke 20 with my 2009 extended cab 4.0 liter Tacoma with the 6 speed manual.

Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,411
O
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
O
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,411
GU, I wasn't poking fun at all if it was taken that way. I, too, have noticed a definite increase in my gas mileage once I get far enough north and west to start using the lower octanes.

2 friends have Tacomas w/V-6 engines, auto trannys and neither gets above 14-15 mpg. Hard to believe,,,sorta.


The degree of my privacy is no business of yours.

What we've learned from history is that we haven't learned from it.
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 860
A
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
A
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 860
For the year I lived in WI my mileage in my Frontier never got above 17 and was closer to 15-16 most of the time. Since I've moved back to NM in January I haven't seen a tank under 19

Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 147
G
Campfire Member
Offline
Campfire Member
G
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 147
Originally Posted by Old_Toot
GU, I wasn't poking fun at all if it was taken that way. I, too, have noticed a definite increase in my gas mileage once I get far enough north and west to start using the lower octanes.

2 friends have Tacomas w/V-6 engines, auto trannys and neither gets above 14-15 mpg. Hard to believe,,,sorta.


I didn't take it that way at all. What I always figured was the problem with the Tacoma (at least for gas mileage) was that it was geared very low in the axles and consequently cruised at reasonably high RPMs on the highway. I owned it for about 3 years and sold it when it no longer suited my needs but it was a great truck.


Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 19,503
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 19,503
Originally Posted by ajmorell
Originally Posted by OSU_Sig
Would you consider the smaller Tundra engine offering?


Why would you? The 4.7 was fine in the 1st gen Tundra, but that was a lot smaller truck than the current version. The mpg gains are next to nothing compared to the difference in power.


FWIW, the 4.7 is gone. It was replaced a few years ago by the then new 4.6. The 4.7 was rated for anywhere from 240-281 HP depending on the year of the truck. The newer 4.6 is rated for 310 HP and reviews when it came out said it didn't give up much to the 5.7, though I'd bet that gas mileage didn't improve all that much, either, likely making the 5.7 the better choice.


4 out of 5 Great Lakes prefer Michigan. smile
Page 2 of 2 1 2

Moderated by  RickBin 

Link Copied to Clipboard
YB23

Who's Online Now
657 members (1234, 06hunter59, 007FJ, 01Foreman400, 222ND, 160user, 73 invisible), 2,915 guests, and 1,379 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums81
Topics1,187,658
Posts18,399,290
Members73,817
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023


 







Fish & Game Departments | Solunar Tables | Mission Statement | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | DMCA
Hunting | Fishing | Camping | Backpacking | Reloading | Campfire Forums | Gear Shop
Copyright © 2000-2024 24hourcampfire.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.3.33 Page Time: 0.155s Queries: 14 (0.005s) Memory: 0.8870 MB (Peak: 1.0160 MB) Data Comp: Zlib Server Time: 2024-03-28 19:23:49 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS