Ram bringing back 5.7 hemi

Are you saying that dropping 2 cylinders off an engine stops all chemical contamination ?

 

Pondering this

towing 5000lbs

Does a v6 or a v8 tundra contaminant more children?

if you look at the comparative mileage, it would appear they are VERY similar



cruising at 65mph. Unloaded

which one contaminates more?


My point. It’s insignificant

yet, I can’t get another v8 tundra


If, God forbid, something happens to my v8 tundra….i will replace it with another v8 half ton

v10 is possible

Godspeed Ram. Bring on the displacement

 

Not until your fit it into a truck that is bigger than HD truck of past, and hand it over to soccer mom for soccer mom's daily chores. Then it is all good and EPA-approved.

 

the excursion

diesel bliss

 

no im saying getting rid of the epa and allowing multinational companies to do whatever the hell they want does.

 

Right. Because the only option is a complete and extreme reversal to shove the pendulum to the other far extreme. That's exactly what people who don't like the way the EPA, CAFE, and other alphabet agencies are run are advocating. For sure. Totally.

 

I must admit, I ran over a bunch of chipmunks and squirrels, one duckling and hit two birds to death in my old school V8 truck. It is basically scything the environment each time I drive it. I blame it on the V8. Unfortunately not any deer yet, so no venison for the table.

 

Whats interesting that I rarely see ever get mentioned in these debates is the amount of oil most of these modern engines burn. Your average run of the mill commuter vehicle burns oil on regular use due to the oil manufacturers are using as well as the tighter ring packs to get the slightest bit more economy out of it by less drag. No one can tell me that this doesn't create more problems than the stricter emission standards fix.
Coming from diesels, the DEF in plastic jugs that get tossed in the trash, also makes zero sense. They created the need for DEF cause of the EGR which then created a need for a DPF which then... etc etc etc... This is my beef with EPA regulations. They're not fixes, they're bandaids that create MORE problems than they solve and pad the pockets of companies that give two shits about creating cleaner environments. Add that to my deleted diesel getting significantly better fuel economy, oil stays cleaner cause its not full of soot and can actually run great OCIs and so on. The EPA has a great concept but their execution is shit, like most government agencies.

 

All great points, and to add to that, another thing not mentioned is what is the EPA's goal? They have shifted that goal post continuously. Initially the EPA cut down on N03, carbon monoxide, and other tailpipe pollutants that contributed to smog over metropolitan areas. That was worthwhile and a rare example of a government agency succeeding at something.

They then shifted their focus to reducing carbon dioxide emissions (eventually aiming for net zero), a totally impossible goal, that ensures job security for their entire agency.

 

Chevy was supposed to put the 6.2 in an RST but I don't think they ever did.

 

I don't suppose anyone bothered to tell them that burning ethanol in gasoline increases smog.

 

we have 2 6.2l's that have dropped the lifters. Denali pickup...Denali Tahoe.

the remedy:

 

That answer has more to do with market share goals than capitulation to regulatory standards.

What’s crazy to me is how Toyota sells more highly efficient commuter cars than all the domestics combined—more than enough to offset the inefficient, last-forever drivetrains of their trucks and BOF SUVs.

But think of all the Toyota vehicles the 3UR went into—Tundra, Sequoia, Land Cruiser, and LX570. Not a single one outperformed in its class compared to domestics, and most full-size domestics either had v8s with cylinder deactivation or twin turbo v6s.

Maybe Toyota understands that Americans care a lot about improved fuel economy. Seeing over 20mpg at the end of one trip of highway cruising makes people think they’re making significant inroads to efficiency, even if that gap dwindles to only 3mpg over the entire tank of fuel with the same driving style and vehicle mods. Maybe Toyota’s move to turbos, v6s and 4cyls, and hybrids in BOF trucks and SUVs is just as much if not more about capturing market share than crying uncle to the EPA.

 

Good point i purposefully did not buy the old 4 runner or the old tundra because of their miserable mileage.

 

The opposite viewpoint is that the fuel economy delta in reality is only about 3mpg (aggregated self reporting of real world experiences on Fuelly supports this), and this is well worth the track record of zero hassle ownership over the long term. But if you swap out vehicles a lot, it’s probably not a big deal

 

13 mpg epa in the city is a complete joke and a colossal waste of money in gas

 

Gas mileage isn’t as big of a cost factor as the media and government make it out to be. If people actually sat down and did the math, they’d realize 3mpg isn’t the savings they thought.

At 12k miles a year, the difference between 15mpg and 20mpg assuming $3/gal is only $600 a year in savings. Not exactly worth getting a new car payment or dealing with higher insurance rates or risking longevity or really even worth the hassle.

Same applies to all this new green energy high efficiency crap appliances. Read through the marketing and do the math and these things don’t save enough to justify the cost of upgrading to them.

 

I will agree these trucks get shit mileage compared to the competition. It’s pretty freaking awful and Toyota could have done better there. But then again I read about plenty of people on this forum getting 17+ so I dunno.

 

right on.

at the end of the day...you can't have the shit you want, because you got told you can't.

and

it is about mileage or clean air?

because we are the leaders in both of those aspects.




or is it climate change? because that line of bullshit is a simple grift.




and...let me get this straight...a 6500lb vehicle gets bad mileage? welcome to the real world.

next thing they will say is...there is a vehicle weight limit...because polar bears are dying.


imagine the pearl-clutching if someone puts a big ole Supercharger on their Tundra.

 

I drive a 13 MPG city car that I've got for $2200 in 2018. It would take a few human life spans to offset fuel savings of a new $50k hybrid car.

Less exacerbated but still a good example is my $35k Tundra. It is literally gas every month, oil twice a year and rubber every 3-4 years. Nothing breaks. Buying a new Tundra with meager MPG improvement is at least $30k on top of that, and that's a lot of fuel. Not to mention I don't want a new engine. I don't want to visit dealer at all. It is wasting my time and hurting my income, even if it's "free" and "under warranty".

Do your math.

 

Wife gets 21+, almost 22 MPG in her V8 Sequoia on highway. Tundra was 16-17 before mods.

 

Excuse my lack of knowledge here but does the new V6TT require premium fuel? Many new turbo engines don’t require premium but return the best performance and economy with premium, therefore wiping out any savings.

 

Runs "normally" on 87 gas. Means, it starts with higher pressure and retards once engine starts knocking.

 

no, full power on 87 regular.

the 479 ft lbs at 2,400 with the 10-speed Aisin behind it is super impressive. I loved my 350 tundras , but this thing does everything with ease.

 

Assuming there's no magic in this world, how did they do it? I mean, I have a vehicle (god forbid saying its brand here) that has a low pressure 0.5 BAR turbo, yet I see at least 50% boost cutoff on a mildly warm day on 87 vs 93 that I normally put into it. V6TT is HPT, yet it runs "full power" on 87. Perhaps it does not show same numbers when it's fully warmed up, especially on a hot day?

 

Exactly. These people spewing all these cost savings for driving electric like no oil changes or low maintenance are just spinning people up. Yes you may save $200 in a year by not having to do two oil changes but what’s it cost you monthly for that new car payment? People don’t factor in the return on investment. It’s why I’ve never put solar on my house. The cost to install would take me 40yrs to offset the energy savings and my entire house is electric with no gas. And that’s assuming I paid cash for the install and didn’t have to finance it.

 

Funny you said it, this weekend I turned away solar panel contractors at Lowes as soon as they've heard "ROI"

 

Thats kind of my point. There isn't THAT much difference in modern 87 to 93 octane but on a forced induction engine, it makes a significant difference in performance and economy. These modern engine have so many sensors that the slightest change or issue will show. Example... My previous Power Wagon, 6.4 NA. Ran fuel economy test across all octane levels available. 93 returned the best fuel economy, 9.3mpg and saw no timing retard versus 87 which returned 8.8 mpg and saw retard timing a lot. It wasn't enough to feel and the cost of 93 isn't worth it, but we are talking about an NA V8 here. Add boost and everything from that example only gets exacerbated

 

If 13-14mpg is a complete joke and a colossal waste, what is 16? Just a partial joke and a regular-sized waste?



Some of us would just rather not deal with any headaches at all and are happy to pay for 3mpg worse fuel economy. Maybe more of us that we realize. Ram seems to think people will buy their 5.7L v8 if they bring it back.

 

And compare that to 16-17mpg that 3rd Gen Tundras get, and then tell me how many years down the road is your break even point if it costs let's say ~$20k to upgrade from that "complete joke and colossal waste of money" of a truck.