Home Forums Gear Hunting Trucks and Four-Wheel Drives Toyota and Cummins

If anyone thinks that they have a super duper fuel efficient 1/2-ton gasser, I'd really like to see their numbers and description of their driving patterns. Then, let's look at the data reported from Fuelly and we can see where they fit into the distribution from a larger sample size.

If people are honest, with themselves and others, they will learn that there's only a few MPG difference between any make of 1/2-ton. Unless you go with a hybrid powertrain. Or diesel. But those alternatives have their own downsides.

From fuelly the Tundra from 2015-2020 with the 5.7 V8 avg is 13.9 mpg, The F150 3.5 ecoboost is 16.1, the Silverado 1500 with the 5.3 is 16.2. A 2.2-2.3 mpg spread might not sound like much but it's around 15%, that's significant and adds up over time. I used the 3.5 ecoboost for the Ford because that's the closest equivalent to the 5.7 even though it's a V6. The difference in my opinion is mostly explained by direct injection in the Ford and Chevy engines, the Toyota isn't direct injected.

Gearing ratios in the transmission and rear ends make a difference too.

That's exactly my point. I wouldn't let 2 MPG difference influence my decision on a vehicle. Does it add up? Yes. Would it sway me to buy one brand over another? Probably not. It would depend on other factors.

The broader point is that they all suck for fuel mileage, compared to an econobox. Pretty dang similar is the point.

At least we aren't discussing outlier examples of 20+ MPG from Ford, RAM, or GM They all get similar fuel mileage. Which is not what I usually hear from many people complaining about the Tundra.

If 1 or 2 MPG breaks the bank, then that is another issue.

A guy I used to work with had an '08 Tundra with the smaller v-8 and it sucked donkey balls. An honest 10 mpg. The same can be said about a couple buddies that had newer Tundra's with the 5.7's. Great power, but they passed everything but a gas station. My Tundra doesn't count because its 21 years old and gets 20 mpg. Sorry..


The first gen's are the only one I'd consider.. It even does better than my '04 double cab TRD taco..

I don’t do Fuelly but I can tell you that after owning 2 Tundras it’s more than 1 or 2 mpg difference between Ford, Ram and GM and the Tundras I owned. I couldn’t get 19 or 20 mpg out of any of my Tundras, the F150 Eco and Ram Hemi can. 15 was pretty standard on a highway road trip in the Tundra with nothing hooked to the back of it. 4+ mpg is a big difference in economy on say a 500 mile trip. And don’t get me started on Tundra mileage hooked up to any trailer regardless of weight, suddenly your luck to get 10mpg.

Nice truck L train.. What you do with the ol cheby you had?

That's been my experience with my 2000 Tundra 4x4. 11-12 mpg around town--maybe 13-14 on highway. Wonderful truck otherwise.

Still don’t see the allure of a diesel, unless your pulling a stock trailer or 5th wheel constantly...

Corvettes and Ferraris won’t work on anything but a racetrack, who would want one?

Oh you are so wrong, they help quite a bit with getting pussy too!

I heard in 2023 the 5.7 will be replaced in the Tundra, Sequoia and maybe the Land Cruiser later than that. It won't be no Diesel for sure. Also going to aluminum bodies. My source is good but not perfect.

Magnum PI had one, but I hear he doesn't even like pussy.

Couldn’t agree more. My 3500 sits in the driveway unless it’s hooked to my Gooseneck equipment trailer, 20ft enclosed for hunting or taking the ATV/bikes on a trip or the 5 th wheel camper.

Everyday, I run the Rubicon. It’s much easier to scoot around and less money for normal maintenance.

I think a lot of people bought the 5.7L Tundras and even the 4.0L Tacomas over their domestic counterparts for the Toyota reliability and resale, even though they knew they often got 2-3mpg worse than the domestics. The question now is will a current Ram, Silverado, or F150 keep up with a Tundra for reliability/resale while offering that mpg boost? A lot of folks are getting 200k miles out of the domestics these days with few significant issues. More than 15-20 years ago.

It’s all about fuel mileage. I have a buddy with a new GM 1/2 ton with the baby Dura Max and another buddy with a new Ram 1500 Eco Diesel. Getting 25-30 mpg if you drive a lot of miles throughout the year is pretty damn nice. Add to that that Diesel has been cheaper than gas around here this year, what’s not to like.

When I bought my 1999 dodge diesel the price of diesel was 30 cents a gallon less than unleaded and the truck got 22 mpg vs about 14 for an equivalent gasser. You could count on about 150,000 miles out of a gasser and my cummins is still running like new at 400,000 miles. At that time I drove about 40,000 mostly highway miles a year. I pulled with mine some, but most of the miles were running around empty. At the time it was far, far cheaper to drive than any gas truck on the road. That truck was one of most economical vehicles to drive I've ever had.

Fast forward to now and the new 3/4 ton and one ton diesels get about 14-15 mpg and diesel fuel has been anywhere from .25 cents to a buck more than unleaded ever since they switched to ULSD. In my area, east central MS, diesel right now is still about 30 cents more than unleaded.

At one time it was a LOT cheaper to drive a diesel pickup than a gasser, the EPA has ruined that. To most people a couple of MPG difference doesn't matter much, but to someone that drives 40-45K a year like me it makes a real difference, close to a thousand dollars a year difference for 2 mpg in a truck. Multiply that over the years and it adds up. It matters enough to me that I have a Camry I drive 95% of the time so I don't have to drive the Tundra. It gets 38 mpg which to my calculations saves me about $4000 a year in fuel costs vs. driving the truck full time.

Lawrence,

First generation Tundra is 2000 - 2006? If so, there is nearly 20 million miles reported on Fuelly for that vintage. The lowest average is 14.4 MPG for the 2004. The highest average is 15.1 MPG. The average for all, 2000 - 2006, is 14.7 MPG. I don't see how this better than the current generation.

Your experience is not reflected in the data for over 1000 other first generation Tundras and their drivers. The data follows a normal distribution, as one would expect. I'd say that you are an outlier, as you fall into the tail end of the distribution.

Jason

On a 500 mile trip, the Tundra at 14 MPG would need 35.7 gallons of gasoline. Ford or RAM, at 4 MPG greater fuel economy, would need 27.8 gallons. Difference of 7.9 gallons.

Using 16 MPG for the non-Toyota trucks, which was mentioned earlier, would require 31.3 gallons. Difference of 4.4 gallons, compared to the Tundra.

Definitely a difference. With local gasoline prices, that would be $10 - 18 extra for that trip with the Tundra. Whether that actually matters, given other factors, is personal. For me, not so much as there are other considerations such as purchase price, reliability, resale, etc.

Yup. Much ado about nothing, IMO. Easy to plan and budget for fuel, not so much for breakdowns and repairs.