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

I expect the 2022 will be better loaded than towing. Towing anything significant means single digits in mpg does it not.
How much does loading it down affect things where you are not carrying something tall.
Just dealing with a lot more weight.

My personal experience.
If I am not carrying anything tall in the bed - so it all fits under the tonneau jammed full and cab is loaded.
with the 2018
I get 12.5 - 13.5 l/100 kms in the 50 mph hilly two lane country roads I travel in .
I will get close to 12.5 - 13.5 on these same roads with an empty truck.
Thats 18-19 mpg
50-55 mph (80-95 kms) is a sweet spot with the 5.7
IMO the n/a 5.7 has much more reserve over a n/a 3.5 (when the turbos are not working)

So how much do the working turbos on the 3.5 when loaded down.... affect mileage ?
Hilly terrain.

 

Yeah, hills will make a big difference to MPG if loaded. Flats, not so much. What also will be interesting is to see if eco mode might save some mpgs in the hills by keeping the turbos from kicking in so soon and hard. I doubt eco would make any difference on steady state flat drives, like the video above.

 

Just filled up for the second time with 87 regular, two people 320 pounds, 250 pounds of camping gear in bed, since new added side-rails, bed mat, and Toyota bed cover.

Less than 600 miles total on the 2WD Crewmax Tundra so far, last tank about 30% around town and 70% on the highway.
Used 13.7 gallons after 283.2 miles = 20.6 MPG for a increase of .5MPG from first fill up.

 

2WD?

 

Forgot to post that, it's a 2WD! MPG post updated,
Thanks,

 

I know and to think they still want to find tow hooks to install which were obviously left off for better MPG.

 

This is my truck in 6th doing 55 mph on completely flat ground. 3.73 axle gears and a .69:1 trans gear. TCBP is the pressure just before the throttle body, basically the unrestricted pressure from the turbos. Mines making about 3 psi here because of my altitude.

Now swap that to 3.31’s and a .61:1 trans gear and a Tundra is turning 1500 rpm doing 70 mph. So you are pushing an equally large brick through the air considerably faster at the same rpm and i can guarantee it will be in boost.

the entire point of using a TT V6(or a displacement on demand V8 for that matter) is to run the engine with minimal manifold vacuum to reduce pumping losses or even run under constant boost. Why you think the 2.7 Ecoboost is so efficient? Its gotta be in boost most of the time to drag a half ton truck down the road at low rpm.

 

??? Do you have a 6-speed F150?

F150 0.69x3.73 gear ratio is almost equal to Tundra 8th gear. At 55 mph it’s usually either in 8th or 9th so engine rpm will be the same if not a little lower.

F150: 0.69x3.73 = 2.5737 (1442 rpm)
Tundra 8th: 0.80x3.307 = 2.6456 (1482 rpm)
Tundra 9th: 0.66x3.307 = 2.1826 (1222 rpm)

Also your map is at 88 kPa so really you’re only boosting +8 kPa above ambient. Are you sure TCBP (turbocharger boost pressure??) isn’t the pressure before the intercooler? That would explain the 12ish kPa drop across the throttle plate.

 

Which one is throttle position? I don’t believe the 2.7 is so efficient because it’s in boost most of the time when cruising with low throttle input (which would require increase in fuel consumption). I believe It’s efficient because it displaces 2.7liters instead of 5 or 6. Not an engineer, looking to learn.

 

if you read my original post, these engines almost always create boost. The amount of pressure that ends up in the intake manifold is controlled by the throttle. The throttles position rarely has any actual correlation to the gas pedal.

if you look, my throttle angle is only 17*(ECT_ACT). My TCBP is essentially ambient at sea level, my MAP is only slightly lower. Again, going 55. If I increase my speed my RPm increase linearly, as does my HP, but my aero drag increases as a square.

and my point was, a tundra driving at 70 mph has considerably more aerodynamic drag. It has to create more hp to move that fast than it does at 55 mph. If its having to create that HP in 10th at 1500 rpm, then it must be generating it via torque and increased boost. It will be in boost

 

I suspect you are right about this scenario, at 70mph, a brick like the Tundra will have enough drag to increase engine load and get you into boost, albeit relatively low if not towing or going up hill. At 55mph, I suspect there will be low enough load that there would be no boost. All of the ecoboost cars I have driven do not produce boost cruising at any highway speed unless you mash the throttle to pass. A truck with increase drag may change that. Real world data on the 22 Tundra will be interesting.

 

Throttle might be ECT_ACT (it’s in degrees) but that won’t tell you much. You want to look at absolute load which is basically how much air is entering the engine. 100% abs load is equal to the displacement volume of the engine. Since this is a boosted engine, it can exceed 100%. One of the reasons small displacement turbos are efficient is because they can produce large torque at low rpm vs. NA engines. This reduces losses and increases the drivetrain efficiency.

Yeah you’re right that Tundra at 70 mph will be in the boost and so would F150 maybe (6 speed, not sure haven’t driven one in 6 years…). But based on your 55 mph example, I think Tundra and F150 would be similar in terms of required torque at 55 mph. Technically, if you were driving at sea level there would be a vacuum in your manifold relative to ambient pressure (-12 kPa gage). So potentially Tundra in 8th would be in a similar situation. Tundra also has a more efficient intercooler with a smaller pressure drop so turbos might also be under a vacuum to ambient.

We can ignore throttle because it’s controlled to make a certain torque output. Some cars with variable valve lift (BMW) will open the throttle 100% and control the airflow into the engine via turbocharger and intake valve lift.

 

I just put the 1.75" RC level on mine and I have not done anything else to the truck. SR5 4x4 and I am getting 16.8 consistently.

 

The last poll results.
Gas mileage met Objectives - 44%
Gas mileage did not meet Objectives - 44%
Gas mileage exceeded objectives - 12%

The poll questions have been changed to the following, and polling numbers reset.

******************************************************

Gas Mileage Expectation Gen 3 Tundra? 17-city/22 hwy/19 Combined
Votes can be changed later.

• I am achieving EPA ratings.
• I am not achieving EPA ratings.

******************************************************

These results although anecdotal, will be of benefit to present and future owners of the Gen 3.
Please vote again, and if your EPA results change, you can go in and change your vote later.
Thanks

 

and the ford got 36 mpg - lol - so much for video
so far no one in poll has achieved epa

 

Not buying that F150 unloaded 36MPG result. As he said "maybe there is something else going on there". He should immediately have gone out and done a few more runs to test and/or verify the result.

 

I wonder how many people expect the EPA rating but let their car idle for 30 minutes to warm it up in the winter.

 

that should not be necessary. He owns that truck. Just tell us the number.
If anything he should of redid the Toyota.

that's why this thread is called Real World Mileage

my son let his 4runner warm up for 10 minutes this morning.

 

But still, this kind of controlled test is somewhat useful for thinking about a long road trip where the vehicle would not have those multiple warm up runs per tankful. I make 1000 mile days on runs to FL. One warm up, 2 or 3 gas stops and other wise just drive all day. Doing that in my Tacoma I get 21 MPG. If a Tundra can really get 24... or the Tundra hybrid even a little better, that makes it acceptable. Not ideal, but at least acceptable. When I say acceptable, I mean for me as opposed to getting a more efficient vehicle and sacrificing some utility. A solid 24 MPG on the highway like this would be outstanding in a truck this size. But I also don't believe many people will ever get that. Maybe in the coming hybrid version? TBD...

 

I understand I’m just curious if people make the connection that being 16 mpg or whatever and idling their truck 30 minutes are correlated.

That’s another interesting point about highway fuel economy. Most people want the highway number but want to get it while driving 80 mph.

Is fuelly a better way to track real world mpg instead of the forum?

 

If they don't they are clueless. I have remote start on my Tacoma and even though between 5 and 10 minutes is plenty of warm up on the coldest days I don't even bother to check MPG for local DD winter driving. I know it takes a big hit and it is what it is.

Fuelly might be a good way to check once there is a decent sized user base. IDK, though, I have never really looked at that data for my vehicles.

 

Can the guys coming from a 2.5 gen to the 3rd gen post what you were getting in your old truck as well as your new truck. I think it is obvious that everyone drives and uses their trucks differently. And this will help people see the potential increase in mpg. Also state if you switched to premium fuel for the 3rd gen.
Thanks in advance

 

MPG's are so reliant on personal driving, I really don't think you can get an accurate representation for what you will get based on other people's data. Yeah there are averages, but depending on the terrain and elevation that you drive at, how heavy your foot is, percentage of hwy vs city, how fast you drive on the hwy, driving loaded vs unloaded, etc. There are too many variables in individual driving styles that averages just don't work for most. Best you can really hope for is looking at how much better one manufacturer is than another on average.

 

Another place to look for this is Car and Driver road tests. They do a "real world" MPG test that consists of a highway drive like the one in the TFL video but a bit longer at 75 miles. I would trust them to have a more rigid approach than the TFL video above, to include confirming what they get, especially if they get such an unexpected (ridiculous?) result like that 36 MPG. Unfortunately C/D doesn't yet have results for the regular Tundra, Tundra hybrid or for the F150 hybrid which makes no sense for the Ford since it has been available for a while. Maybe Ford put pressure on them to hold that back for some reason?

 

Yes, YMMV, as they say, but data from others and especially controlled tests at least gives you an idea what is possible with the vehicle. The rest is up to you as the driver.

 

Since no one referenced it I will.
Why is Andre of TFL using 91 octane gas for these mileage reviews ?
Is High Octane needed to achieve EPA ratings with the smaller turbo engines ?
I personally think with the price of gas that most people are using regular gas.

 

He was obviously doing everything possible to maximize the result. Whether premium is necessary for that or not there is no way to tell without much more testing and perhaps running a data logger to see if timing ever gets pulled during a run on the 87 octane. I would wager that on a dead flat run without hard accelerations the result should be the same on 87 or 91+.

 

fwiw and not to take the discussion sideways.
As a Gen 2.5 owner myself, this would be very very interesting to me sure... however, and this is just my opinion.
I think most buyers of this Gen 3 are coming from - smaller vehicles, suv's, other pickup brands.
I think this was Toyotas target plan all along.
I think 2.5 gen owners represent, Yes, a piece of the pie, but a smaller one.
Hey....Someone should run a poll. 8^0

Gen 2.5 owners are a unique lot and I include myself in that group.
This 3.0 Gen added stuff but it also took away alot from the Gen 2.5 truck.
Each 2.5 Gen person decides for themselves if there are more pros over cons for them.
I think this is why we are getting a type of, well......lets call it not great..... reaction on this forum from a number of 2.5 gen owners on this 3.0 gen.
Again JMO.

 

Regarding the 87 vs 91 octane thing. Canadian view

I personally have only used select 91 gas for atv/lawnmower small engines as I can only get one brand ethanol free at that rating here. In cars I’ve only ever run 87.
If take a 100 L (26.4 gal approx) fuel up at the price difference here in S/W Ontario, at todays prices I’m looking at $25 more per fuel up. I don’t know if that $$ would give me an equal improvement in range / l/100km (mpg) or not. I’ve never tested it. But that is a lot of extra $ in fuel / yr if there is not a noticeable improvement in range - under normal driving not towing.
Im not in the habit of burning money but if there was a return on investment for that $25/fill up then…..

my perspective

 

Maybe he used 91 to avoid 'winter gas' ? Not sure if fuel suppliers change the premium fuel in the same way they change the regular.