|
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 1,743
Campfire Regular
|
OP
Campfire Regular
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 1,743 |
1000 miles in on my new truck and overall fuel average is 15.8 mpg.....for an overbuilt half ton with a 5.7l 381 hp engine with 4.30 gears (AWESOME) I am not complaining one bit. A lot of people are drawn to the higher MPG in some of these new half ton trucks that run 3.21, 3.43, 3.55 gears - that's great if you don't tow, but when you hook up 7-8k of trailer - those 4.30's flat rock. The 38 gallon tank is sure nice as well. To my mind, the tundra is a 3/4 ton gas truck in every category except payload.
Last edited by Hiaring8; 02/08/18.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 1,743
Campfire Regular
|
OP
Campfire Regular
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 1,743 |
Congrats on the Tundra. My white hippo is a 2017, and I love it. Factory Michelins sucked though. Lots of sidewall flex while cornering on pavement, and they are about as tough as a bicycle tire. Been using Toyo M-55 and R/T in the past for gravel and stone drilling protection, but went Nitto EXO for the Tundra. Supposedly the same carcass as the Toyo (sister company), snowflake rating (traction device, not the liberal type), and less money. They definitely have less vibration than the M-55, and are actually heavier than the M-55, KO2, and other similar tires with like tread depth. No proof, but redneck logic tells me that they have more something. I drive fast on gravel and the suspension and tires are doing well. Minimal cuts in the tread. My only wish right now is the cone clutch for the rearend. That and a bigger tank... I got the small one since I wanted the bench seat and not the buckets with bigger tank. Are those 275/70/18's which are 33.2"? Any rubbing at all over the stock 32" tires?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 69,396 Likes: 4
Campfire Kahuna
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 69,396 Likes: 4 |
I don't know about the Tundra, but some new pickups don't have enough clearance under the front fenders to use tire chains. If you drive where they're needed, you'd better check it out.
“In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” ― George Orwell
It's not over when you lose. It's over when you quit.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,122
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,122 |
Congrats on the Tundra. My white hippo is a 2017, and I love it. Factory Michelins sucked though. Lots of sidewall flex while cornering on pavement, and they are about as tough as a bicycle tire. Been using Toyo M-55 and R/T in the past for gravel and stone drilling protection, but went Nitto EXO for the Tundra. Supposedly the same carcass as the Toyo (sister company), snowflake rating (traction device, not the liberal type), and less money. They definitely have less vibration than the M-55, and are actually heavier than the M-55, KO2, and other similar tires with like tread depth. No proof, but redneck logic tells me that they have more something. I drive fast on gravel and the suspension and tires are doing well. Minimal cuts in the tread. My only wish right now is the cone clutch for the rearend. That and a bigger tank... I got the small one since I wanted the bench seat and not the buckets with bigger tank. Are those 275/70/18's which are 33.2"? Any rubbing at all over the stock 32" tires? I have TOYO ATIIs in that size on my 2016. No problems with any clearance issues.
I've seen more well-shot game lost with TSXs than any other premium bullet.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,874
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,874 |
Are those 275/70/18's which are 33.2"? Any rubbing at all over the stock 32" tires?
Negative. I went 275/65-18, which are ~32". I considered those 33" tires, but decided against it and will explain in the next post. Also, not to burst your bubble but the axle ratio is only one factor in the equation, literally. You have to consider the transmission and transfer case ratios. For example, the Tundra has a low ratio for the axle, but taller ratios for the tranny compared to other trucks. And crawl ratios between the different makes are similar, even with different axle ratios.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,874
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,874 |
I don't know about the Tundra, but some new pickups don't have enough clearance under the front fenders to use tire chains. If you drive where they're needed, you'd better check it out. Good point RC. The fender wells have plenty of clearance. On this generation of Tundra, the clearance issue seems to be the upper A-arm and sidewall. The owner's manual says to use chains only on the rear. However, I use chains on all four tires. With 275/65-18 tires I have just enough room for SCC cables. I've had awesome luck with their cable chains on multiple vehicles, but admit that there are times when I'd prefer to use V-bar chains. No problem on the rear, but the front would be an issue. If I went 275/70-18, I think the sidewall bulge would be closer to the upper A-arm which would decrease clearance further. I could be wrong though. Maybe they'd fit better.
Last edited by 4th_point; 02/09/18.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 12,156
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 12,156 |
...not to burst your bubble but the axle ratio is only one factor in the equation, literally. You have to consider the transmission and transfer case ratios. For example, the Tundra has a low ratio for the axle, but taller ratios for the tranny compared to other trucks. And crawl ratios between the different makes are similar, even with different axle ratios.
Absolutely true. A lot of folks get hung up on the 4.30 rear end but it doesn't mean a thing until you know what the transmission gears are you're pairing it with. The Tundra's also not a 3/4 ton no matter what anyone wants to make it out to be. I've got a 16 tundra and a real 3/4 ton, a 99 dodge 2500 diesel, and as much as I love the tundra it doesn't compare to the dodge when you're looking to haul something or tow something. It's a half ton grocery getter like all the rest, it just doesn't break down like the others do.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 69,396 Likes: 4
Campfire Kahuna
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 69,396 Likes: 4 |
I don't know about the Tundra, but some new pickups don't have enough clearance under the front fenders to use tire chains. If you drive where they're needed, you'd better check it out. Good point RC. The fender wells have plenty of clearance. On this generation of Tundra, the clearance issue seems to be the upper A-arm and sidewall. The owner's manual says to use chains only on the rear. However, I use chains on all four tires. With 275/65-18 tires I have just enough room for SCC cables. I've had awesome luck with their cable chains on multiple vehicles, but admit that there are times when I'd prefer to use V-bar chains. No problem on the rear, but the front would be an issue. If I went 275/70-18, I think the sidewall bulge would be closer to the upper A-arm which would decrease clearance further. I could be wrong though. Maybe they'd fit better. My Dodge says to use only the small S size of chains on the front. The stock tires were 265-70-17. I'm running 245-75-17. They're the same height and load capacity but almost 2" narrower. They leave room for any chains I want to put on it. I think they handle better than the wider one's, too.
“In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” ― George Orwell
It's not over when you lose. It's over when you quit.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,216
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,216 |
Can't you guys get aftermarket lockers like a Detroit Locker or an air/electric locker for your Tundra's?
NYH1. Also can get a Harrop elocker for the Tundra, which is the way I would go.
Regards,
Tom
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 28,258 Likes: 6
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 28,258 Likes: 6 |
...not to burst your bubble but the axle ratio is only one factor in the equation, literally. You have to consider the transmission and transfer case ratios. For example, the Tundra has a low ratio for the axle, but taller ratios for the tranny compared to other trucks. And crawl ratios between the different makes are similar, even with different axle ratios.
Absolutely true. A lot of folks get hung up on the 4.30 rear end but it doesn't mean a thing until you know what the transmission gears are you're pairing it with. The Tundra's also not a 3/4 ton no matter what anyone wants to make it out to be. I've got a 16 tundra and a real 3/4 ton, a 99 dodge 2500 diesel, and as much as I love the tundra it doesn't compare to the dodge when you're looking to haul something or tow something. It's a half ton grocery getter like all the rest, it just doesn't break down like the others do. That's all true, but there's no denying in real world driving you'll get 13mpg/ 17mpg if you're lucky, at least that's what my super crew 4x4 got over 80k miles. Not having an option on rear end is senseless IMO. Mine was not trouble free though. I had some sort of cold start valve/sensor go bad, and continuous problems with the navigation and sound system. It would reset itself for no apparent reason, go off and on, etc.
Last edited by JGRaider; 02/10/18.
It is irrelevant what you think. What matters is the TRUTH.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,205
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,205 |
1000 miles in on my new truck and overall fuel average is 15.8 mpg.....for an overbuilt half ton with a 5.7l 381 hp engine with 4.30 gears (AWESOME) I am not complaining one bit. A lot of people are drawn to the higher MPG in some of these new half ton trucks that run 3.21, 3.43, 3.55 gears - that's great if you don't tow, but when you hook up 7-8k of trailer - those 4.30's flat rock. The 38 gallon tank is sure nice as well. To my mind, the tundra is a 3/4 ton gas truck in every category except payload. I know you are liking your new truck and don’t mean to be the negative nelly here but just to put your beast mode assessment of the overbuilt Tundra into perspective you might want to watch some of the Ike Gauntlet tests done on all the half tons towing 9000 lbs. The Tundra came in last! Even the Nissan Titan beat it in time and fuel mileage. The guys even commented how much more the ass end of the Tundra sagged when hooking the trailer up to it. Better fuel mileage can be had with most newer half tons made today as well as significantly better performance both towing and empty. The Tundra was a beast in 2007 but not so much today. FWIW........ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AFg6eDuZ85E. Tundra https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_z4isefQedA F150 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SsujrWpqngw Titan https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0f674yOdPcg Ram 1500 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dq8S83AYKsU Chevy 1500
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 12,156
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 12,156 |
The Tundra could use a taller rear end ratio but it’s still not revving very high while cruising at 70 because of the tall 6th gear. I think most of the reason for the bad fuel economy is the engine’s just inefficient. The 5.7 still uses single point throttle body style fuel injection instead of multipoint like most vehicles today. The Camry for 2018 had an EPA mileage jump from 32 hwy to 39 by incorporating direct injection, hopefully something like that is in the works for the Tundra. I think there’s some kind of new fuel economy requirements coming up so maybe that’ll kick them in the ass to fix it.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,122
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,122 |
Absolutely true. A lot of folks get hung up on the 4.30 rear end but it doesn't mean a thing until you know what the transmission gears are you're pairing it with.
The Tundra's also not a 3/4 ton no matter what anyone wants to make it out to be. I've got a 16 tundra and a real 3/4 ton, a 99 dodge 2500 diesel, and as much as I love the tundra it doesn't compare to the dodge when you're looking to haul something or tow something. It's a half ton grocery getter like all the rest, it just doesn't break down like the others do.
Agreed. I love my 2016 Tundra- you couldn't give me any other 1/2 ton- but my 2002 Dodge 2500 CTD is much better for towing heavy trailers. No comparison. Two different tools, for different jobs.
Last edited by Wrongside; 02/11/18.
I've seen more well-shot game lost with TSXs than any other premium bullet.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,874
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,874 |
Same here... love my 2017 Tundra, but if I was towing anything heavy I'd be driving a 3/4-ton or 1-ton diesel.
Last edited by 4th_point; 02/10/18.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 29,383
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 29,383 |
1000 miles in on my new truck and overall fuel average is 15.8 mpg.....for an overbuilt half ton with a 5.7l 381 hp engine with 4.30 gears (AWESOME) I am not complaining one bit. A lot of people are drawn to the higher MPG in some of these new half ton trucks that run 3.21, 3.43, 3.55 gears - that's great if you don't tow, but when you hook up 7-8k of trailer - those 4.30's flat rock. The 38 gallon tank is sure nice as well. To my mind, the tundra is a 3/4 ton gas truck in every category except payload. I know you are liking your new truck and don’t mean to be the negative nelly here but just to put your beast mode assessment of the overbuilt Tundra into perspective you might want to watch some of the Ike Gauntlet tests done on all the half tons towing 9000 lbs. The Tundra came in last! Even the Nissan Titan beat it in time and fuel mileage. The guys even commented how much more the ass end of the Tundra sagged when hooking the trailer up to it. Better fuel mileage can be had with most newer half tons made today as well as significantly better performance both towing and empty. The Tundra was a beast in 2007 but not so much today. FWIW........ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AFg6eDuZ85E. Tundra https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_z4isefQedA F150 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SsujrWpqngw Titan https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0f674yOdPcg Ram 1500 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dq8S83AYKsU Chevy 1500 Only Fullsize truck recommended by Consumer Reports. Good Luck with your F150 you will need it, Negative Nelly LMFAO you are all of that and more.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 29,383
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 29,383 |
The Tundra could use a taller rear end ratio but it’s still not revving very high while cruising at 70 because of the tall 6th gear. I think most of the reason for the bad fuel economy is the engine’s just inefficient. The 5.7 still uses single point throttle body style fuel injection instead of multipoint like most vehicles today. The Camry for 2018 had an EPA mileage jump from 32 hwy to 39 by incorporating direct injection, hopefully something like that is in the works for the Tundra. I think there’s some kind of new fuel economy requirements coming up so maybe that’ll kick them in the ass to fix it. Tundras have multiport, they could end up going to Direct Injection but then you have carbon buildup issues like the Fraud Ecoburst engine which ended up going to a combo of multiport and direct injection in the 2017 F150 Ecoburst.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,205
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,205 |
1000 miles in on my new truck and overall fuel average is 15.8 mpg.....for an overbuilt half ton with a 5.7l 381 hp engine with 4.30 gears (AWESOME) I am not complaining one bit. A lot of people are drawn to the higher MPG in some of these new half ton trucks that run 3.21, 3.43, 3.55 gears - that's great if you don't tow, but when you hook up 7-8k of trailer - those 4.30's flat rock. The 38 gallon tank is sure nice as well. To my mind, the tundra is a 3/4 ton gas truck in every category except payload. I know you are liking your new truck and don’t mean to be the negative nelly here but just to put your beast mode assessment of the overbuilt Tundra into perspective you might want to watch some of the Ike Gauntlet tests done on all the half tons towing 9000 lbs. The Tundra came in last! Even the Nissan Titan beat it in time and fuel mileage. The guys even commented how much more the ass end of the Tundra sagged when hooking the trailer up to it. Better fuel mileage can be had with most newer half tons made today as well as significantly better performance both towing and empty. The Tundra was a beast in 2007 but not so much today. FWIW........ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AFg6eDuZ85E. Tundra https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_z4isefQedA F150 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SsujrWpqngw Titan https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0f674yOdPcg Ram 1500 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dq8S83AYKsU Chevy 1500 Only Fullsize truck recommended by Consumer Reports. Good Luck with your F150 you will need it, Negative Nelly LMFAO you are all of that and more. Jeez a little sensitive are we?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 29,383
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 29,383 |
1000 miles in on my new truck and overall fuel average is 15.8 mpg.....for an overbuilt half ton with a 5.7l 381 hp engine with 4.30 gears (AWESOME) I am not complaining one bit. A lot of people are drawn to the higher MPG in some of these new half ton trucks that run 3.21, 3.43, 3.55 gears - that's great if you don't tow, but when you hook up 7-8k of trailer - those 4.30's flat rock. The 38 gallon tank is sure nice as well. To my mind, the tundra is a 3/4 ton gas truck in every category except payload. I know you are liking your new truck and don’t mean to be the negative nelly here but just to put your beast mode assessment of the overbuilt Tundra into perspective you might want to watch some of the Ike Gauntlet tests done on all the half tons towing 9000 lbs. The Tundra came in last! Even the Nissan Titan beat it in time and fuel mileage. The guys even commented how much more the ass end of the Tundra sagged when hooking the trailer up to it. Better fuel mileage can be had with most newer half tons made today as well as significantly better performance both towing and empty. The Tundra was a beast in 2007 but not so much today. FWIW........ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AFg6eDuZ85E. Tundra https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_z4isefQedA F150 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SsujrWpqngw Titan https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0f674yOdPcg Ram 1500 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dq8S83AYKsU Chevy 1500 Only Fullsize truck recommended by Consumer Reports. Good Luck with your F150 you will need it, Negative Nelly LMFAO you are all of that and more. Jeez a little sensitive are we? Trying to understand why someone would throw in some negative posts after a Guy just purchased a new Tundra.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,216
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,216 |
1000 miles in on my new truck and overall fuel average is 15.8 mpg.....for an overbuilt half ton with a 5.7l 381 hp engine with 4.30 gears (AWESOME) I am not complaining one bit. A lot of people are drawn to the higher MPG in some of these new half ton trucks that run 3.21, 3.43, 3.55 gears - that's great if you don't tow, but when you hook up 7-8k of trailer - those 4.30's flat rock. The 38 gallon tank is sure nice as well. To my mind, the tundra is a 3/4 ton gas truck in every category except payload. I know you are liking your new truck and don’t mean to be the negative nelly here but just to put your beast mode assessment of the overbuilt Tundra into perspective you might want to watch some of the Ike Gauntlet tests done on all the half tons towing 9000 lbs. The Tundra came in last! Even the Nissan Titan beat it in time and fuel mileage. The guys even commented how much more the ass end of the Tundra sagged when hooking the trailer up to it. Better fuel mileage can be had with most newer half tons made today as well as significantly better performance both towing and empty. The Tundra was a beast in 2007 but not so much today. FWIW........ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AFg6eDuZ85E. Tundra https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_z4isefQedA F150 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SsujrWpqngw Titan https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0f674yOdPcg Ram 1500 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dq8S83AYKsU Chevy 1500 Only Fullsize truck recommended by Consumer Reports. Good Luck with your F150 you will need it, Negative Nelly LMFAO you are all of that and more. Jeez a little sensitive are we? Trying to understand why someone would throw in some negative posts after a Guy just purchased a new Tundra. There's always somebody around waiting to piss on a parade
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 7,512 Likes: 1
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 7,512 Likes: 1 |
Great trucks with the worst fuel mileage. At least they finally put a bigger fuel tank in em a few years ago. I disliked the huge console between the bucket seats with my sr5, so I'd want a bench seat. And I'd have to have the 38 gallon tank given the pathetic mileage. So, it appears according to this thread that the bench seat isn't available with the sr5 and larger fuel tank? Congrats to the OP, beautiful ride...
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,192,371
Posts18,488,328
Members73,970
|
Most Online11,491 Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|