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

Haven't heard or seen anything lately on Toyota possibly offering a 5.0 liter Cummins diesel in the Tundra. Anyone know if this is still in the works?

Good buddy is a 10 year veteran sales manager at our local Toyota dealership...deisel tundra is not happening...at least not anytime soon as Toyota is not going down that road...2020/21 tundra will have some engine updates for power/mileage is the 5.7 as well as an 8 speed transmission...at least that’s what they have been told.

That is the same story I have been told at a nearby dealership.

Pretty sure the 5.0L Cummins in a Toyota idea died when Nissan implemented it 1st.

And then Nissan killed it.

Everyone clamors for a 1/2 ton diesel when they bring them out they barely sell them. Also I think 5-6 yrs ago president Toyota North America said no diesel in the tundra. Was rumor they were going to put turbo charged v6 in the tundra but that was supposed to happen 2-3 yrs ago. See how far that went..

I think it was the new product development leader at Toyota, or whatever they call that role internally, who publicly stated that Toyota did the market research and couldn't make a business case for a 1/2-ton diesel. They had no desire to pursue it from there, at least publicly.

I worked with some former Cummins employees involved with their engine development, on the engineering side. Actually two of them became my boss, and I took a class from one of their former department managers for diesel engine development. As I recall, I believe that they said that Cummins developed the engine for RAM and had a good relationship with them from the Dodge days. Anyway, RAM backed out, which made Cummins look for a new buyer. Toyota didn't want it. Nissan did.

That is what I recall, but am not really a diesel engine guy and never paid too much attention to it.

I guess they are content with their 10 MPG V-8... The new style Tundra's are land yachts, they would have benefitted from diesel power. That or the twin turbo charged v-6 isn't a bad idea.

You are correct before the 2008-2009 economy meltdown Dodge/Ram was working with Cummins so they could put a diesel in the ram 1500. From what I read all the hard work was done it was like 80% complete. Then 2008 hit Dodge almost went bankrupt and they scrapped the whole thing. Then 2014-2015 Nissan came along and bought the motor.

Man if Toyota put a Cat diesel in the tundra I be the first one to get one! They say Cat had diesel motor for HD trucks, GM was close to making a deal with cat the only hang up GM wanted the same warranty that Cummins gives Ram 100,000 miles. Supposedly Cat wouldn’t do that. GM walked and that’s how they ended up with an Isuzu diesel..

I’m a big fan of the tundra design but not a fan of 13 mpg either

While they're at the drawing board improving mileage, how about a 6.5'+ box to go with the Crew-Max cab as well. 38Gal fuel tank mandatory when so configured as well.

Having owned them since 2008, they really need to upgrade some stuff. The mileage is stupid. Current 2015 just passed 100,000 without needing a single repair but the truck needs updating before I'll buy another. Fortunately it will last while I wait I guess.

Their primary market is suburbia. We bought a pickup in '12 so it's been 8 years but at the time the Toyota dealer told us that they were sticking with what suburbia wanted. At the time, 8' beds were very hard to find. In fact, the dealer here could only find 1 for us to even look at. Diesels and 3/4 tons were off the drawing board because suburbia wouldn't buy them in large enough numbers to be profitable.

I’m on my 3rd Ram Cummins, 06, 14 and now a 20. I’ve had nothing really to get lathered up happen to any of them.

A Toyota Tacoma or Tundra would be slick but Toyota has an AWESOME diesel in their Hilux Overseas. Incredible motor. The Tundra might’ve been wicked with the Cummins that Nissan uses.

I’ve driven a few of the Nissans and man I liked them. All of the diesels suck for mileage though in my opinion. The newer ones. Deleted my 14 was decent, my 06 5.9 was okay, my 20 is a pig but man, 1000 ftlbs don’t stink when I’m towing. It’s an absolute animal.

Plus, no one wants the 10k up charge for a diesel really. I want a diesel Rubicon so bad I can taste it but my 16 Rubicon with the 3.6l sure ain’t a bad motor. Quick, decent on gas (for a Jeep) and just runs its guts out.

I’m a huge lover of diesels but man, if you aren’t going to work the new ones they fill up DPFs pretty quick, take awhile to break it, etc.

But I hope they keep making more diesels as technology will get them better I think. They are some smooth animals today, if you need them and will utilize the power.

Toyota used to offer lil smokeys:
The 1hdt and the 12ht.

If you want a diesel toyota, got to Alberta or b.c. with $7500 for a hdj 81 or hi 61. Do a truck conversion, which is super easy. Or, buy an fj 45 pickup and slap a 12 ht and 5 speed h55 in er.

You'll get more satisfaction than crying on the internet.

Driving from the right hand side is no big deal. Mine towed a 24 ft twin axle trailer with my 1976 3/4 ton dodge plow truck.

Long since sold, but my hdj 81 was imported from Japan. It had a full floating rear axle, a heavy duty transmission, lockers front and rear and a nice inline 6 Toyota turbo diesel.

It was not a wallowing marshmallow, like what we get in the United States.


I'm over land cruisers nowadays though, because 67-72 chevys with built 292 inline sixes and one ton axles will stomp the expensive land cruiser bullsht. Not to mention, 1/4 the price to build. They look better too.

Try going to napa for a fuel filter for a 1hdt

Best fuel economy I ever got towing, was my 6bt cummins after I installed fresh injectors, rebuilt the turbo and adjusted pump timing+bumped up fuel pressure.

I got 17 mpg, towing a 20 ft twin axle trailer full of 30 windows, steel roofing and tounge n groove flooring. A Toyota engine gives that type of fuel economy towing NOTHING.

Fkn Toyota fan boys, I used to be one of yas.

Best cold start was 57 below zero while the coolant looked like a green slushy: 6bt cummins.

Cool Toyota’s Mainer. Those are tough looking rigs.

6BT is king in my book. If the world was coming to an end and I had the time I’d have one of those. They run on about any oil based fuel you can get in the tank and require 12V’s to get down the road.

Toyota isn't gonna put a diesel in a half ton Tundra, forget about it.

I've got a couple of trucks, a 2016 Tundra and a 1999 dodge/cummins. At the time I bought the dodge diesel fuel was 1.20 a gallon and unleaded was 1.50, my truck unloaded will get 22 mpg on the highway. Today diesel fuel is 30-50 cents a gallon more than unleaded and the new diesels get about 15 instead of 22 like my dodge. The cost of operating one is through the roof compared to my old truck. When I bought mine in 1999 I could drive my truck about 50% per mile cheaper than a comparable gas truck, new diesels now cost about 50% more than a gas truck per mile to operate. The poor mileage of newer diesels and the high fuel price have pretty much gutted the market for diesel trucks as daily drivers.

Admittedly the new ones pull great, but unless you have to have one for you pulling needs they're too expensive for my blood, the cost advantage now is heavily towards gas. My 2016 Tundra is a great truck, absolutely nothing has ever gone wrong with it. It does suck the fuel though, 15 mpg or so but that's about what a new diesel will get empty using fuel that's more expensive than gas. It doesn't pull like the diesel, my old dodge now has about 400,000 miles on it and gets strictly used for pulling farm trailers.

I wish Toyota would sell a diesel Hilux in the U.S., I see them all over the world in my travels but the EPA makes it impossible. The US has the strictest diesel emissions standards in the world which is why our diesel fuel mileage sucks so badly. I'd be all over a four cylinder Hilux that got 30 mpg but the EPA won't let it happen. Caterpillar doesn't even make engines for highway legal vehicles any more, they quit making them when the emissions requirements got too bad.

The redesigned Tundra is supposed to have a twin turbo V6 instead of the 5.7L V8, the rumor is the fuel mileage will be much better. It's a long time past when they should have fixed the mileage.

The fuel economy complaint is a non-issue. The Tundra is really no worse than any other V8 truck with 1/2-ton capacity and spark ignition.

Check Fuelly. There are literally millions of miles logged from GM, Ford, RAM, and Toyota owners. Guess what? They all get about the same fuel mileage.

The fuel mileage reported follows a normal distribution. If you are in the tail ends of the distribution, you are an outlier. And that doesn't reflect the majority. That is the data, whether people want to acknowledge it or not.

This isn't rocket science. The various makes of 1/2-ton trucks all weight about the same. All of the engines have similar efficiency. Same with the drivetrain losses and aerodynamics. There are some gimmicks, like cylinder deactivation and smaller engines with turbos, which can have better fuel economy under light loads. But, when you get on the gas, the power demands are similar. The efficiencies are similar.

There's no free lunch.

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.

Exactly

http://topclassiccarsforsale.com/to...el-22-litre-5-speed-low-miles-hilux.html
Here's your Toyota diesel pickups. If you didn't hot rod you could get close to 50mpg on the highway.

That right there is making a big difference in these newer trucks, both gassers and diesels. Heck, I'd bet Ford's new 7.3 gasser isn't any worse than my 2020 Cummins in mileage. Having the right gears definitely makes a big difference.

Well, if you want a V8 Tundra, you better get one. Dealership just told me that next gen will be all V6s and no diesel. No more V8s. Maybe it’s just a rumor.

Yep. The overall ratio is more important than just the diff ratio. Some people get hung up on the diff ratio, but it doesn't mean much unless you factor the tranny and transfer case into the equation.

For sure. With double OD’s on the newer automatics you can run higher numerical gear sets in the rear end to assist with getting a load rolling and then enjoy lower RPMs out on the open road. Makes for a versatile combo.

Wasn’t too long ago you had to decide 3.55’s for Highway and lighter towing with decent mileage or 4.10’s for all out towing with screaming RPMs while cruising empty.

My '08 Dodge 2500 has 3.73. Diesel, manual tranny. At 60 mph, it's right on 2000 rpm.

That’s exactly like my 06 was with the G56. It’d pull a trailer in 6th and 27k combined without ever having to worry about downshifting but man it sucked empty out on the big roads running 70-75.

My 14 had the Manual but with 3.42’s and was much nicer on the Highway and I just used 5th gear if I was pulling heavy trailers. Worked the same but it took my brain a little to realize I couldn’t run it in 6th like the 06 even though they were basically the same truck.

I have one of the 1/2 ton Silverado with the 3.0 liter inline 6 cylinder diesel and I like it alot so far. About 8000 miles and the average over that time is 23.5 mpg. I have had trips on 2 lanes at 58-62 mph that have averaged 28 mpg over 200+ miles. Quiet and comfortable to drive.

Those 1/2 ton diesels are mighty slick. The mileage they’re getting is pretty darned nice.

Just my perceptions: My issue with a 1/2 ton diesel is that it does nothing a half ton gasser won’t do, except get more MPG....they don’t tow more or haul more, just cost more to buy and maintain. It seems more practical (for true truck use) to have a 3/4 ton, if you NEED a diesel....but I don’t have one, and Biden gas may end up at $8/gallon and change our dynamics to running golf carts.

The cost for the diesel is exactly the same as the 6.2 liter gas motor in the Silverado, same torque and much better mileage. Seemed like a decent way to go for me as I drive quite a bit for work, about 25k per year, much of it highway

I drive a 2014 Suburban. Had it for a couple of years now and I'm not sure what it gets. It's what I wanted.

And they paid for it upfront and will pay for it again in general maintenance costs. How much does DEF run nowadays?

I've been driving a 2020 Ram 1500 4x4 Crew Ecodiesel for the last 6 months and it runs circles around any other 1/2t crew 4x4 I've ever driven, and I've owned and driven the all. Avg 23.6 mpg combined in that time.

JG,

Get back to us at 6 years. Then it’ll mean something.


(Just hacking on ya. Glad you’re happy with your truck.)