Hybrid mpg

If that combined MPG is equivalent or better for the non-PRO hybrid models, than that is appealing to me. I average 14.4 MPG with my 5.7, so that’s a 45-46% increase in MPG. The PRO has little appeal to me, but the hybrid engine on the Platinum I’m currently waiting on could be nice. The MPG reports for the non-hybrid has been all over the map, so it’s hard to gauge.

 

I think he’s saying all the extra stuff on the pro negatively impacts mpg and it still gets 21. The other hybrid trims (less weight and drag) should get a couple more mpgs tacked on

 

OK, that makes sense to me now. Thanks for clarifying. Maybe that's what the sales person was hoping for when he stated 30mpg. Hopefully the lowest trim and lightest iForce Max gets at least 25mpg.

 

25 mpg on 2WD i force max is possible but unlikely when comparing to Ford.

 

I am saying the trd pro with hybrid engine will get lower number than say a limited, platinum or 1794 with the i force max due to the additional items I listed above. The max is only available on this trims.

 

Thanks. I got it now. Sorry I didn't understand your initial post there. I agree 100%, not that anyone asked or should care.

 

It's easy to gauge, you just have to use some sense.

Fuelly gives ~14 MPG for the 5.7, and ~16 for the Ford 3.5L TT. Ford's EPA is 20 MPG combined vs 19 for the Tundra, so the non-hybrid Tundra will be at best 2 MPG better than the 5.7. Probably less. All these people reporting ~16 MPG in their new Tundras are not experiencing a strange anomaly...

Sweers who is the Tundra chief engineer, said that the hybrid wasn't for MPG but for power and torque. If it gives an additional 2 MPG boost over the non-hybrid, I'd say that is very good. I doubt it will be that much, likely closer to 1.

Why would anyone buy it? More power (437 vs 389, a 12% increase) and torque (583 vs 479, a 22% increase). The 5.7 has 401 torque, so that's a whopping 45% increase compared to last gen. Plus you even get 5-10% MPG improvement over the standard engine which is a nice bonus, and 15-20% over the 5.7.

 

That's a very well thought out and intelligent post. That really helps me put it in perspective. Thanks man!

I guess I was being quite myopic and focusing solely on the fuel economy. That said, many 2.5 gen, or older, owners on here have poopooed the 3rd gen for what they feel is just a minor improvement in real world fuel economy. I was assuming they'd feel the same if those iForce Max numbers prove to be accurate.

 

A lot of people believed the 5.7 was worse for MPG than it was, relative to the competition. That's because the Tundra actually matched its EPA ratings in the real world, while the others all fell short by quite a bit. Are they tuned for the EPA cycle or cheating somehow (tuning for the test being different than what you buy)? Regardless, Toyota seems to be doing the same for the new Tundra.

Going by EPA ratings though... where the Ford 3.5 is 20 vs 14 for the 5.7 for instance, a 43% difference!... the Tundra was still the cheapest full size to own (according to Edmunds). In the grand scheme of things MPG isn't that big of a deal even on these big trucks. Everyone likes to pretend it matters, but it's really just $ and not many at that.

Power rules. When you are trying to sell macho trucks to guys with waning testosterone, having power #s to brag about is way better than MPG #s.

 

Agreed. Fortunately government regulations in numerous jurisdictions throughout world are forcing manufacturers to consider MPG. And, BEV trucks can offer both, just not for as long. That video of the R1T smoking that Ram TRX put a shit ass eating grin on my face!

 

Yes, but its still 5-700 lbs more than an equally optioned GM or Ford. Although, its tough to tell because I think the payload stickers on the tundra are BS. Either way though, Andre's crewmax Limited on TFL truck is claimed to be 5800 lbs while an equivalent F150 would be like 5300 lbs probably. Even if they generate the same HP, the F150 will be considerably quicker.

 

And the lack of pumping losses. Diesels don't have a throttle plate the the cylinders have to pull against.

This is why auto manufacturers are going to small displacement V6's and V8's with displacement on demand. If you have a 6L V8 that barely has to work to move a truck down the road, the pistons are having to pull against a significant vacuum in the intake manifold because the throttle plate is closed. By shutting off half the cylinders, they make it a 3.0L and the engine suddenly has to be close to WOT throttle to be able to produce the power/torque needed to move the truck and the pistons are not pulling against a vacuum anymore and not working against the other cylinders.

Its also the same reason people with old school big blocks don't see a huge hit in MPG's when towing. The engine is highly inefficient at low load, but when you hook up a trailer and start working the engine hard(and open the throttle), the efficiency per HP generated increases dramatically.

Basically, if you look, the efficiency of trucks in the last 10 years has only increased in the unloaded state. Towing, our gas engines today are basically getting the same mileage as one from >10 years ago plus or minus a little bit.

 

The TRX is also on 325/65R18's and down 15+% on power though. I bet that would be a different race if you lived at the lower elevations that the rest of the world does, and certainly if the TRX was also a mid-sized truck on 32" allseasons that weighed 1000 lbs less than it does.

The Rivian is cool, but it needs all of the those 835 hp to make its 7200 lbs fast.

I mean the TRX could barely beat andre's powerboost a few weeks ago.

 

Agreed it would be a different race. However, physics doesn't lie. If the TRX was in a position to produce its rated torque it would be interesting to see how much the difference in weight, torque and the torque curve of the BEV would impact the results.

 

Put a max load trailer behind the Rivian and do a 300 mile towing test. Pick any midsize or 1/2 ton truck you like in comparison. See which one makes the 300 mile finish line first.

 

Why would anyone waste their time, money and resources to do so? Everyone knows what the results would be based on today's technology, even you.

 

I still want to see it illustrated, not everyone knows what would happen.

 

Then they're not paying attention.

 

Most consumers don’t pay attention.

 

I don't care about the comparison. I'm just looking forward to the results of TFL's towing test with the R1T.

 

This could help the R1T's towing test results.

Thor Industries has introduced an EV Airstream.

https://www.thorindustries.com/innovation-estream

 

While adding exponentially to the expense of RV costs.

I support that.

As someone who hates RV’s with the intensity of 100,000 burning suns I want them so expensive no one can afford one. That way I never have to see another one on the road dawdling along like a moron blocking traffic.

 

Sounds like today is a good day for you, eh?

 

While not official, here's the email I received from the sales manager at our Toyota dealership.

“Just a small update as we have received some basic training/information today. (Sorry no pricing shared with us)


We have learned today that the optimization of the Tundra Hybrid has not had the focus for fuel savings but primarily power gains.


The estimated value has been told to us to be 11.2 liters per hundred, vs gas being 12.2 liters per hundred. (combined)


The HP gains and Torque are what you will gain.

437hp and 583 torque vs gas which is at 389 hp and 479 torque.


We also learned the Hybrid will be available on the Limited grades and above, only in the Crewmax offering and include a first electric opening gas hatch.

The TRD Pro will remain as a very limited available unit, where the Capstone has been told to be a per order scenario. Given the climate however, assume low production availability on everything as we’ve been experiencing.”

Note: 11.2L/100km is 21mpg

 

21.2 MPG, that's not very promising

 

Nope

 

It's actually 21 which is then translated to Canadian units.

That's a 10% boost over the standard engine, which seems quite good to me. The Ford hybrid is listed at 23 MPG (vs 20 non-hybrid) and it gets similar power and torque gains. The Ford gets no where near its EPA rating in the real world, but that isn't surprising. Consumer Reports had the Powerboost getting 20 MPG in their driving cycle, vs 15 for the old Tundra, 19 for the Tacoma, and 19 for the F150 with 2.7L Eco. They didn't test the 3.5L Eco, but I suspect it would get 17 based on relative differences from other tests. So a little bigger hybrid increase vs the Tundra. The Ford also has more cool features added with the hybrid.

Anybody know what the Tundra hybrid upgrade will cost? In 100k miles you'll save ~$2,500 in gas, so if it's around that... it's basically a free power upgrade at the expense of complexity.

 

https://youtu.be/BmbGU-6l3vM

 

You know it’s okay to say the hybrid is disappointing. We won’t judge you.