Mike Sweers Interview - He wanted a Diesel Tundra (and to keep the 5.7 as an option)

The lie-o-meter in my brother's 5.3 says his best ever fuel economy is 8.5L/100 km but that was on a long downhill stretch of highway.

 

Honestly, I bore scoped my intake valves on my Ecoboost at 100k miles and they were very clean. Barely anything on them. I don't really think its a big deal except for maybe trucks that really get babied and never get hot.

Allegedly Ford does some trickery with the variable valve timing to let fuel back out of the cylinder to wash the valves.

 

It probably depends what octane is in the Ecoboost. But the steel body trucks were heavier and had 20 less HP than the 2g Tundra so it would make sense.

 

I've been saying this the whole time about everyone who thinks a V8 is a better option.

Yes, it may have been if they had kept the exact same V8 completely unchanged. However, that was never going to happen. Best I can tell is the turbo 6 cylinders are no more of an issue than any of the DoD V8's. Both GM and Ram have issues with their DoD systems.

We'll see what happens with Ford's system on the 5.0 since its completely different being a DOHC V8.

 

I once got 9.9 L/100 with the 5.7 that's about 24 mpg. Similar situation. The trip was about 10 kms. 6 miles.

Used to live in a valley. Filled up at a gas station at the top. There was no traffic so I put it in D and just let it go all the way home to see what would happen for fun. So 8 cylinders going in D. Got going pretty good if you look at the speedometer.

 

Best I've ever seen is 12.7 but I don't have any long downhills here (at least not without long uphills right before or after).

 

it is really the same or slower? I havent seen any actual testing at the same time. Seems odd with all that extra power

they lost me with losing the underseat storage.

 

they lost me on the non-hybrid because of the back seat storage design.

 

referring to the hump? not ideal but not a deal killer for me

 

no - its the frame for the batteries. Absolutely cannot be removed. All pro solutions I have seen are bandaids.
A piece of plywood is no good. I need a lower floor - the hump sure doesn't help, neither does the smaller cab size and bed size.
Anyway - bitch and complain I need my truck for utility and space.
And I won't buy the Ford because I need the truck past the warranty period and I want the full rear open window.
My son in law's Limited F150 has everything - everything - then this tiny window at the back - I don't get it.
You wouldn't believe what I have had sticking out of that window. from the inside out and the outside in.
rant over.

edit
@Sweers - change the seat design in the back so they fold up along with their supports like in the Gen 2 at least.

 

C&D shows the same 1/4 mile time, but 3 mph slower through the traps for the hybrid. It also takes 18 seconds for the hybrid to get to 100mph vs 15.9 for the non hybrid they tested.

TLFtrucks less scientific testing had the hybrid at .5 seconds slower in the 1/4.

It seems to get off the line slightly faster but then craps out up top.

Yeah, yeah, drag racing trucks is dumb, but it definitely seems to indicate the hybrid isn't doing much for anyone. Not in performance, not it mpg's. Personally, I'd rather save the weight, complexity and money since the benefit seems pretty minimal.

 

wow, wasnt aware of that. and agreed, I don't race trucks but stuff that that gives you an idea of real world driving performance, etc.

I have been fairly out on the hybrid and this just adds to it.

 

Agreed that posting 0-60 times for trucks is stupid. I'd prefer if C&D and these other places would instead give 50-70 times with max payload or while towing a 7klb trailer to give an idea of takeover or passing power when you meet that slow 18 wheeler on the highway.

 

I can tell you hybrid vs non hybrid driving the same stretch of highway the hybrid is noticeably faster passing/ accelerating.

Also this shows data that the hybrid (with larger tires and lift being a pro) is faster.

 

The trd pro tires are the same od just slightly wider and on those light weight bbs wheels. I bet its in the white noise

 

TRD Pro tires are 32.6” vs regular Tundra’s getting a 32.5” at least if the diameters are running true (often times tires don’t).

The 285/65/R18 Falken Wildpeak AT3W on the TRD Pro weighs 50lbs per tire if it’s a P metric:

https://m.tirerack.com/tires/Spec.jsp?tireMake=Falken&tireModel=WildPeak+A/T3W&partnum=865TR8WPAT3W

The other choice in that size is a Load E at 61lbs per tire:

https://m.tirerack.com/tires/tires....R8WPAT3W&vehicleSearch=false&fromCompare1=yes

Pretty safe bet the TRD Pro is running the P metric 50lbs/tire setup.

The Falken Wildpeak AT3W-A in 265/60/R20 weighs only 39lbs per tire.

https://m.tirerack.com/tires/Spec.j...2022&autoModel=Tundra+4x4&autoModClar=CrewMax

So the TRD Pro is running a tire that is 11lbs heavier per tire, or 28% heavier for a total penalty of 44lbs of extra rotational mass. Assuming wheel weights are identical, which is unlikely. I would be curious to see if the BBS forged 18”s are lighter than the 20” cast wheels on the TRD Off-road package. They might be, but looking at them I’m not convinced weight savings were the main goal; they’re pretty thick, probably very very strong too.

 

If they're anything like the 2.5 gen BBS wheels they are a lot lighter. Something like 5 or 6 lbs lighter than the similar 18" rim.

 

So if that’s the case you’re still looking at a 5-6lb net penalty for the larger tires on the Pro.

 

I bet the 20" wheel you got the tire weight for is way heavier. I had 275/60R20's and the combined weight of the oem wheel and tire was 91.5 lbs. I went to 315/70R17's and the combined weight was 93 lbs. OEM 20" wheels are like a ship anchor.

Either way the weight should matter less at the top end where the hybrid falls on its face. Tire weight would matter at the low end where the truck is accelerating the fastest. The trap speed for the TRD Pro is 3 mph slower, and if you go to the C&D website its time to 100 mph is like 2.5 seconds slower than the non-hybrid. The thing takes a massive dump once its up and moving.

I guess until they test a Limited hybrid then there is no sense in arguing though.

 

You can’t compare the Pro wildpeaks to the specs you see on the website for the usual wildpeak of the same size. They were specifically made for Toyota to come on the new tundras. They have less tread depth and a lighter weight, etc. here is a snippet from an article about it from gearjunkie.com

“The Tundra TRD Pro runs on 18×8 black forged-aluminum BBS wheels with 33-inch (P285/65R18) Falken Wildpeak all-terrain tires. The tires are specially made for Toyota, so don’t expect the tread depth you’d see on the Wildpeaks you can buy at your local tire shop.

These special tires are used for fuel efficiency and on-road noise mitigation. You’ll probably want to upgrade them at some point if you plan to actually use the truck off-road.”

 

I am fairly certain they weren’t even testing a full production truck when they tested the TRD Pro.