Poll - New 2022 Tundra Owners Please Post Comments on Real World Mileage

2022 sr5 sport, getting about 17 mpg

 

Saw this on Facebook

 

Long time lurker, first posting....
Don't believe everything you read. Most of us here have had the Gen Is and Gen IIs and whether it's the 4.6, 4.7 or 5.7 the mileage is, and always has been, woeful. 20mpg is a wet dream. Anything over 18 is honestly, yeah, yeah. Yours is different! grin.

Some can justify horrible mpg, I can't. I'll be drinking the TTV6 koolaid. I was never happier than when I was getting a legitimate 22-23 mpg with my T100 sr5 ext cab with 4wd and automatic.
No excuse to not be getting 20's in this day and age.

 

Regardless of one’s economic situation, I’d advocate $900+/year not burned is quite tangible.

 

Power, longevity, fuel mileage. You can have 2 out of 3 in the real world.

 

Refer to post #123 - That TTV6 is indeed Koolaid

 

I’ll fill up tomorrow but I’m getting 16.5 mpg in eco, with really mixed driving. This tank had some long warm up idles as well and there are approximately 1200 miles on it. The next tank will be normal mode just to see if there’s a difference. Every vehicle I’ve had, eco always sucked.

 

We'll see, but I don't expect a ton of objectively from a current late 5.7 owner. That isn't meant as disrespectful, just factual. I've met very few with late model Tundras that want any part of the new TTV6 truck. They are out there, just haven't met one.

 

There are lots of us… it’s just the anti gen 3 guys that bark the loudest. I can’t wait to get my gen3, improvement in almost every way over my 2.5gen

 

My first tank was 16.7, that was about half highway driving mixed with a lot of idling and a lot of 4x4 to and from work. Seems I could get 21-23 on a highway tank but in town driving I’m looking more around 15. Considering I drive 4 miles to Work I’m happy.

 

Thats not bad. My very first tank was 21 and change, but it was highway and tollway mainly.
To put my daily driving in perspective. I work nights, so I pick up (drop off in the a.m) both kids from school which is right down the road. Then I pick my son up from daycare in the next town, take the kids to my wife’s work a town west from there and finally head to work a town south from there. Of course it’s a straight shot home. So I drive a huge circle approximately 60 miles total three days a week.

 

"You haven't met"?...You haven't looked to hard neither- The vast majority on this forum

Good Luck!

 

I would have absolutely no problem going with one of the new TTV6 Tundras.

That being said, it's long been 'standard' that some avoid the first year of a major refresh due to potential issues that might crop up - and that's without supply chain issues being in play. That, plus the fact that the 2.5 Gen wasn't exactly a piece of crap (the 5.7 IS pretty dang reliable) and there are a few questionable design decisions with the 3rd Gen, mean at the very least that guys like me aren't exactly breaking our necks to trade our vehicles in ASAP, that's all.

With THAT said, once supply chain issues clear up and they work out a few bugs, I'll have NO problems trading for a new one.

 

Hell that sounds like my commute and I am getting 16 LOL

 

Well, I know lot's of guys with Gen 2.5's but am new here so hopefully that's true, time will tell.

 

My point was that some people including a friend with a perfect low mileage 2019 was talking about buying a '22 just for the gas savings!
That's what I called dumping a perfect truck for a bad reason ...

He told me he saves a lot of gas money! But based on the trade numbers he gave me, it would have taken him more than 20 years to recover the trade loss, fees, taxes, etc. (based on the $900 annual gas savings). I think he changed his mind after that!

I told him if you want a new car, buy it. but don't fool yourself and justify it with a little gas savings.

 

Mine gets better MPG in non-freeway driving with 35x13" Hankook ATMs than the crappy Bridgestones it came with.

If it's the same tire design, a bigger tire will have less rolling resistance. In my case I went to a much heavier AT and still get better MPG. Aerodynamics are going to suffer though, especially if you get a lift.

Most ATs have crappy rolling resistance as well, but the Hankooks are good. Since there very few actual tests I think the best proxy is to look at speed (temperature) rating. Falken AT3W are another good pick.

 

I totally get this... I wish they made a tundra prime.
My rav4 prime is paying for itself quite quickly with gas prices where they are compared to the subaru I traded in on it. 24 vs basic 9999999.99 with my wife's commute on all electric(we had excess solar so it is -free- since I oversized the system for other future needs that we won't be doing anymore)

It will pay the difference within 70k miles versus say a base rav4.

 

What year is that truck. Does it have a 10 speed and 3.31's?

 

This is so wrong... it is amazing the mental gymnastics you used to try it make it right.

A bigger tire will ALWAYS get worse than a smaller tire since it takes more energy to turn that larger tire.(weight)
A bigger tire has lower rolling resistance? Uh no... that is why you put bigger tires on it.. for better traction/better contact patch.

 

On Fuelly the old Tundra averages ~14 MPG, and the 3.5L Ford ~16 MPG. Since the Ford is quite a bit lighter, and the Tundra has a little more power... I wouldn't expect more than a 2 MPG improvement with the 2022.

If you drive 12k miles per year, and gas is $3.50/gal...

Old Tundra = $3,000 in gas.
New Tundra = $2,625 in gas. $375/yr difference.

That's a pittance in the grand scheme of things.

 

This is 100% true right here.

No one should be upgrading trucks based on fuel savings alone. If you need a new truck, sure, get a new truck. But the cost will likely not be overcome by the fuel savings in a reasonable lifetime of the truck.

 

I got about that when I bought my 2014 F150 Ecoboost and drove across the county with 1200 mile on the clock. After about 5k miles it broke in and now I have been averaging 17.2 on LT315/70R17's and was averaging 18.x on 275/60R20 Duratracs.

The winter mileage always drops though. So relax. You'll have nothing to complain about once the trucks are broken in and summer rolls around.

 

It takes more energy to *accelerate* a heavier tire (a tiny bit compared to the whole truck), but not any at all to cruise. With the same tire design rolling resistance is inversely proportional to size. A shorter and wider contact patch will have less tire distortion and less friction generated. For the same reasons higher pressure reduces rolling resistance if the road is smooth.

1) I have my truck to go by...
2) I've spent too many hours investigating this
3) I'm a physicist/engineer and understand this stuff very well
4) And you obviously don't...

 

"In my case I went to a much heavier AT and still get better MPG" = BS

 

" I'm a physicist/engineer" = that explains the BS- carry on!!

 

HAHAHAHA no you aren't if you think that a larger, heavier tire will increase fuel mileage.
You're not fooling anyone with that bullshit claim you're a physicist/engineer.
That is so far from correct literally pigs are flying.
A heavier tire take quite a bit more energy to get moving and MAINTAIN motion because it has MORE FORCE being exerted on it(wind resistance, rolling resistance due to bigger contact patch). You would think... a physicist would understand that..

A larger HEAVIER tire will always decrease mileage...

I would agree if they maintained the same weight .. but that isn't the case especially when compared to stock.
The less effective gear ratio you would have which could HELP but very minor.

By your logic I might as well pull a trailer.. since the weight doesn't effect mileage, I can just air up my tires and bam, 24mpg.

EDIT: your thought process is flawed btw... You state that a shorter tire with a wider contact patch has lower friction.. which inversely says your taller tires will have higher friction thus showing it has more rolling resistance(excluding wind resistance from the bigger tire too).

 

I was hoping that at least one of your criticisms would be worthy of comment.. but nope, not a bit.

 

I agree with most that a bigger tire will have worse fuel economy. Especially because most of the drop in fuel economy comes from acceleration. Just watch your mpg meter when you accelerate from a light vs. cruising.
Also, I would say that the tire tread is super important too. An M/T tire definitely has higher rolling resistance than an A/S tire and that will have a big impact on mpg.