Tundra Fuel Economy vs competition

So I've driven Tundra's for the last 3 years now. A 2011 2wd CM and now a 2016 4x4 CM. One constant I always hear in talking with people or reading online articles is how bad the Tundra fuel economy is versus others.

I thought I'd dig around for some comparisons to see what "real world" results were. I found the results interesting.

Here are all comparisons by Car and Driver.

Let's start with the 2017 Tundra 4x4 Crewmax.

https://www.caranddriver.com/toyota/tundra

They returned 14mpg average and 17mpg on their 75mph / 200 mile road test. Sounds dead on from my experience.


Let's go back to a 2011 F-150 when they came out with the 5.0L.

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2011-ford-f-150-xlt-supercrew-4x4-50-v8-review

Rated at 14/19 but C & D only managed to average 14mpg like the Tundra. OK


Let's now go to an aluminum 2016 F-150 4x4.

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2016-ford-f-150-lariat-supercrew-50l-4x4-test-review

16mpg observed average. OK, better than the Tundra but not as much increase as I would have thought.


What about the Ecoboost and added 10-speed?

2017 Ecoboost

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2017-ford-f-150-35l-ecoboost-10-speed-automatic-test-review

What? This can't be right? C & D observed 15mpg average? 75mph test results with 19mpg? So an Ecoboost with 10-speed is worse than the V8 6-speed. Wow.


What about a 2018 F-150 with the 5.0L and 10-speed?

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2018-ford-f-150-50l-v-8-4x4-supercrew-review

Rated at 16/22 they averaged 15mpg yet again and 19mpg on the 75mph test.


How about a 2016 Chevy Silverado 1500 8-speed 4x4?

https://www.caranddriver.com/review...do-1500-z71-53l-8-speed-automatic-test-review

Rated at 15/21. C & D returns 15mpg


I realize this is one company testing these but find it interesting that they are getting no where near the claims that the manufacturers are stating whereas the Tundra's is dead on.

While the Tundra's is still the worst at 20k miles per year and $2.50 per gallon on a truck at 14mpg avg versus 16mpg you're talking about $446.43, or $37.21 per month more in gas. If you're worried about $37 in gas in a month's period I don't think a truck is for you period.

Bottom line, from what I've researched they are all pretty darn close despite advancements. This surprised me.

The one thing I will give Ford is their new F-150's are pretty fast. 0-60 in 5.9 secs is impressive. Definitely noticeably quicker in the 1/4 too.

Jeremy

 

What a useful post!

I had mostly F-150s before buying my 2018 Tundra CM (first Tundra for me) and I did a lot of research before doing so, one of the reasons were all the MPG horror stories. I took two 2017 Tundra CMs on an extended test drive and, according to the dash computer it wasn't all that bad. I have driven my truck now almost 5K miles and my overall average is better then 17, it is around 18.

Yesterday we went shopping and on the way back I set the cruise to 65 and over 85 miles my dash showed 19 MPG for that trip, my tank average is 18.1 after 412 miles with 143 miles remaining until empty. I just recently started using Fuelie and just entered one fill up. That one calculated to 15.3 (dash showed 15.5), it was mostly non-highway, cold, winter gas and letting the truck warm up at least 3 times because the windows were frozen up.

Anybody can achieve those numbers with a stock Tundra (no lift, no big tires) and driving reasonable without impeding traffic. The way I drive my last F-150 EB got about 3 MPGs better......I don't care because it is only about 40 bucks more a month.

 

i had a 2012 ecoboost. I drove from NC to FL at 80ish and got less than 17mpg... i was less than thrilled. I drove home at about 60-65 to see how much better i could get and got 21mpg. At that point i was very happy it was quick because i wasn't going to drive at 60 everywhere so fuel efficiency was out of the window.

 

IMHO a gas engine in a truck is never going to get huge gas mileage. A diesel sure. But driving a giant brick down the highway takes a large amount of energy no matter how you slice it. Yes 2 mpg in the long run ads up. 6 mpg vs 10... huge difference. 10 vs 20... obvious. 14 vs 16? Meh. The cost difference is there but not huge enough for me to really care. Not when I’d have to sacrifice Toyota’s reliability. The other manufacturers BS claims of mpg are laughable. Sure they’re obtainable in the perfect conditions, but for most, unlikely. I like that Toyota is more honest in their claims. It’s too bad that the Big 3 are allowed to claim this. If the numbers were measured the way Toyota’s are I think they would lose a few customers.

 

Great post! Thanks for bringing the data (links) together for easy reference.

Yeah, mpg didn't factor in the first time I bought a Tundra, neither did it the second. I know I'd pay the delta to own a truck that won't fail. Also, afaik, nobody beats Toyotas 4x4 systems. They've done great in every one I've had (2 pu's, 1 Tacoma).

 

Good information. I also almost bought a F-150 ecoboost because of the rumored better gas mileage. Fortunately I just could not get myself to do it. I have been a Toyota guy for about 40 years.

My wife drives a Prius. She gets just over 500 miles on a tank. I have the optional 38 gallon tank and get almost 600 miles, so I tell people that I get better mileage in the truck than her in the Prius. I don't tell them the Prius only has a 9 gallon tank

 

Good articles. Negligible MPG all around. The only way trucks are gonna improve their mpg is being hybrid. No point then, may as well get a Chevy volt or Prius, etc. A truck is a truck, mpg, is what it is. If people are gonna whinge then they shouldn’t get one. Simple.

I knew what I was getting but don’t care

 

Great post!

My scenario was a final choice between a F150 [I just graduated from a 99 F150, original owner], a Tacoma, and a Tundra. Test drove them all.

Tundra, test drove and liked it a lot, but gas milage... similar or better to my existing 99 F150.

F150, test drove a 2.7 EB XLT and 5.0 V8 Lariet. After reading a lot of posts, I decided a EB was not good as they are bad [or worse] for towing wrt gas milage. Survey of Ford Techs recommend naturally aspirated 5.0. In order to get adjustable seats with leather, the packages added up to over 50K easily.. Also horror stories about F150s [2018 model] being built with without wiring for tow controller. A lot of options that seems to confuse the factory build and quality. Rear window leaks, frozen doors, etc. My wife never liked the old F150 bench seat.

Tacoma, really like but since i will have a lot of camping gear, it seemed small. The clincher was my wife is 6 ft, with long legs, she could not sit in the passenger seat with legs straight. I did not want to put seat extensions, as it just makes it difficult getting in and out of the vehicle. I also wanted more adjustments on the seat, the limited Tundra had electric adjustments.

Final synopsis: I am retired and truck will be for using local fishing and camping. Off road is needed as I do forest service roads and mountains. Tundra is high so I can see over my OR popup camper and around the sides. I like that a lot. My milage will only range at 5 to 10K miles per year. As mentioned above, the comfort of the Tundra is worth it to me. I want something reliable as I am out in the mountains with out cell coverage, might do a few cross country trips.

My wife has a BMW X3 diesel, so we can do non travel milage trips at 34 mpg. My good weather fun car is a M235, and it gets 27mpg ave, 30+ hwy.

I have had my Tundra limited for 3 days now. Cheers.

 

Our 4.3 rear end needs to be factored in. Most of the comps are running higher gears which helps with their mpg ratings.

 

Tows like a frickin champ with the gears we have! Other trucks have a better gear ratio to achieve those MPG results. Sacrifice one to get get another. I do buy to keep long term and support drilling for new oil so i can put some cheap gas into the real pig, my boat. That THIRSTY TURD gets about 2.5 mpg.......

 

I average 16.2. I drive mostly highway with lights. So it is not an interstate hwy. Just long stretch without lights. A coworker gets something like 10 because he is in stop and go traffic to and from work. When I went hunting my mpg dropped to 9.8 because of slow driving on logging roads.

 

Manufacturers will display the mpg of their best efficient motor while displaying another. This gets the viewer believing third best motor gets the best mpg. The same with towing. Dodge says "30K lbs towing capacity" while they show a 1500. The 30k lbs I'd for their diesel duelly.

 

I think this has a lot of validity based on the reviews. If the new F-150 is rated up to 22mpg but only achieves 19mpg at 75mph then obviously those numbers come from a lower highway speed. If that is the case and let's say that's at 65mph or even 60mph, then the Tundra could get 19 or maybe even 20 in the same test since it got 17 at 75.

 

I might be wrong but I was under the impression that the sticker MPG numbers are determined by the EPA and not by the manufacturer. I also think that the numbers are obtained by using the same driving cycles for all trucks. I don't think that it is up to the manufacturer to create their own cycle and are allowed to put them on the window sticker.

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml

So far I have always done better on the highway then what the EPA numbers suggest.

 

Exactly!

 

***BREAKING NEWS*** Starting in 2020 all trucks will be advancing to the flux capacitor cell for it's primary fuel source

 

Bingo. Great post OP.

Also once you factor in the lack of turbos (which will eventually wear out) the lack of DEF, the lack of any direct injection carbon build up issues, the Tundra comes out on top IMO.

 

well... if you want an even simpler way of coming out on top... just look at resale value alone.

But that, and all the factors you mention, one or two mpg difference is a small price to pay

 

Also true, great point!

 

So far I’m basically getting exactly what the window sticker said. 14 city and 18 highway. I can do a little better on the highway if I stay at 55 mph.

If I want to save money on gas I can take the 60 mpg Suzuki out.

 

Great post! All the mpg talk for trucks from all those “expert” reviewers is just stupid. Even diesels are being choked with all the new emissions junk required.

I didn’t buy a 1/2 ton truck to worry about gas. I bought it to haul, tow, go Offroad, and carry stuff.

If I wanted mpg I would get some small 4 cylinder peanut car with hybrid crap on it. Lol

 

I'm like you. I didn't buy my Tundra to conserve gas. I bought it to move things, pull things and have fun with!!!!

 

Exactly! Plus I’m like 6’3” so I’m not fitting in a small @ss car easy anytime soon. Lol

I think one think the expert reviewers always miss is reliability. Toyota has not let me down or stranded. Can’t say the same for others.

Oh but others got 2mpg better.

 

Exactly. I'm a Carpenter, the Tundra gets used everyday for all kinds of things. I'd love to see a Hybrid carry 20 10ft sheets of 5/8" Drywall.

 

I'm 6ft 280lbs and wide. My first gen fits me very, very nicely. I can average 17-19mpg on the highway depending on my speed. Around town it's 15 or so. I'm not complaining a bit. I love the reliability.

 

I had 2013 crew cab 4x4 Eco with the 3.5 - 6 speed transmission. Go rid of it at about 105K miles. About half the miles were with the stock highway tires and about other half were with Toyo AT 2 which were factory size. Only thing I had on the truck was a 2.5" level. I AVG 16.5 on the truck. Ford had two gauges you could reset mileage and on one I never reset it. My 2017 Toyota crew max 4x4 gets close to that. I find I get a little worse MPG in the city that with my ECO. I have the stock tires with a 2" level kit. I would think the 10 speed Eco gets better a MPG vs my 6 speed but Ford inflates those MPG numbers big time. The sticker on my truck I think showed like 15-21.

 

Add in repair costs and inconvenience and Tundra is by far the better choice. Only disappointment I have is no electronic rear locker. Only needed it once on Tacoma. ATRAC by itself probably would have done trick but went ahead and hit the locker button.

 

I don't know how much this helps, but I had a 2014 Ecoboost fx4 with a exhaust, I/c pipes, intake and a tune. I got 18 and could get 19-21 driving easy, but the truck was fast I gotta say.

While getting my shit Ford paint fixed from rust after one year they gave me a 15 lariat with a 2.7 in hopes I'd sell mine and get the re-design. i got 23 mpg.

I'd still rather get what my tundra gets. Both those trucks don't stack up to the quality of my tundra and felt way cheaper. Also I owned that fx4 for like aayear and a half.. traded it in stock with 25k for 32 after paying 48k. I just traded in my 4runner to get my tundra that I paid 34.9for, for 31 after owning it for 2 years and putting 30k on it.

Toyota for life

 

I also had several F-150's (3.5 EB and 5.0L) and bought a Tundra last November. Yes, fuel mileage on the Tundra is a little lower (about 3 MPGs) but you will get over it in short order, I never got over the constant repairs on my Fords though, and mine were new or nearly new.

I haven't regretted the switch and neither will you.