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

With the 122 Liter (26 gallon) Tundra gas tank at $1.51 liter Canadian regular gas (Ontario)

That's $184 Canadian dollars to fill up the tank.

Come summer driving season......
some I know may be parking their i/o boats that use Super Gas.

 

122 litres is 32 US gallons

 

Yes, but since it seems the ‘reserve’ fuel amount is significant in this tank due to their long shape, somewhere near empty would be approx 100 L, which is convenient for calculating. So just gotta move the decimal pt. Looking at $140-150 for regular near me, & around $170 for premium. Unless towing, I’m not sure the price is worth it for me.

 

You don't have to be a mechanical engineer to see how this works.

Power is a result of air + fuel. With 8 cylinders, you have more cubic inches to stuff air into so it's easier to make power. You don't have to pressurize the cylinders with forced induction. With only 6 cylinders you're losing significant volume so that's where the turbos come into play. They're stuffing MORE air into 6 cylinders than what a V8 would need. With that added air comes added fuel. And obviously this is exponential so the harder you work the turbos the more fuel the injectors are going to spray at an exponential rate.

That's why EcoBust engines typically see single digit MPGs while towing in the F-150s, while the Coyote V8 towing the same load may see 12 MPG or so.

The Tundra will be no different, except with the Tundra you've got 1,000 lbs. more curb weight than the F-150 so the turbos will stay spooled more of the time resulting in less real world MPG.

Toyota knows this which is why they have never made fuel economy the big deal with this new engine. They understand that it's going to be only marginally better unloaded and worse towing heavy. So they use the emissions excuse to defend the choice.

As soon as the Fuelly numbers hit their website for the '22 you'll see what I mean. Real world averages won't be all that spectacular.

 

^^^^^
the TFL videos to date have shown the Tundra has better towing mileage than competitors.
Seems to be pulling off quite the feat actually.

The question remains how reliable is that engine/turbo config. going to be in a heavy truck.

122 liters 32 us gallons 26 imp gallons

I don't see any mention in the manual for needing High Octane Gas for towing.
Where is this recommendation coming from ?

 

I know, but you're just going to confuse our cousins to the south even more. LOL

 

Well they are probably laughing at us right now anyway.
here we are an Oil energy rich nation sending most of our oil/nat. gas to the US
and we are the ones paying $1.51 liter for regular gas.

 

I had a 2019 Tacoma before my 2022 Tacoma and I noticed fuel economy increased a good bit after 5k miles. I don’t know if that will be the same with Tundras, but it will be interested to see. The mileage seemed to go up right after the first service.

 

Haha, i wasn’t even going to go down the Imp gallon rd! Lol

 

Its what our govts do - sell our natural resources for instant revenue rather than invest in refining & production with said resources for future larger profits. But discussions for other places than this thread.

 

This statement is right. For a 2.7L to create the HP needed to move the truck, it needs to consume a certain amount of air. A 2.7L naturally consumes less air than a 3.5L or a 6.0L would. So for a 2.7L to consume the air it needs to make the HP it need to run with the throttle plate open more. Because of this the 2.7 runs in a ambient or positive manifold pressure state more of the time than a 3.5L(or a 6.0) and so pumping losses are lower. Pumping losses are the effort the piston has to make to suck air into the cylinder against the vacuum of the manifold. Effectively, if you have a vacuum in you manifold, you piston is creating negative torque against the crankshaft during the intake stroke since its being pulled against a vacuum.

So a 2.7L is a better sized motor for your average 1/2 ton driver than a 3.5L. And that shows in the MPG's that the 2.7L gets.

GM achieves the same thing with their displacement on demand. A 5.3L V8 becomes a 2.65L 4 cylinder and a 6.2L becomes a 3.1L 4 cylinder. So they can run their 5.3L at WOT in 4 cylinder mode and achieve zero pumping losses cruising down the freeway. And now GM can run their engines on anywhere from 1 to 8 cylinders so they can fine tune the engines displacement on the fly. The problem is, they still have the frictional losses of 8 cylinders. And so they released their own 2.7L turbo motor.

TCBP is pressure right before the throttle body, after the intercooler. Ford has a pressure/temperature sensor just before the TB and then on top of the intake manifold.

It all depends on the car. A Ford Taurus with a 3.5L is probably gunna have half the resistance at 70mph than an F150 and so the 3.5L will barely be working and pumping losses will be high. Thats why Ford has a 1.3L Ecoboost.

Correct on the throttle. The Ford logic(and I assume Toyotas) uses the Turbo for gross air flow adjustments and then the throttle to fine tune it to hit a desired torque based on throttle position.

I finally got time to run the truck up to 70mph(I live in an area with 55mph roads and lots of hills so its hard to hit a flat road and do 70mph). Its in the order 70, 65, 60 mph:






Also, my IAT2(manifold temp) is near freezing. On a warm day the boost would have to be higher to hit the same engine load.

 

Good tech analysis and data... BTW, If you are on the eastern side of Mass I assume there won't be any 70 MPH runs today! Good luck.

 

no im in Utah now. They have more snow than we do

 

Ah I didn’t realize that turbo boost sensor is also the air charge temperature sensor. I see it’s just before the throttle plate. That’s interesting and unique. At any rate, your engine manifold pressure is under sea level ambient pressure so you could run an NA 3.5 V6 at 65 mph. 70 mph might need to downshift. It’s interesting that the throttle doesn’t open more, maybe it helps reduce pulsation from the turbo?

 

After 150 mile drive from Seattle to WA coast

 

yeah but the turbos are producing boost. Which was my original point. They are not just sitting there freewheeling. Just not boosting in the mani.

and if my truck had a 10 speed and 3.31’s it would be turning about 300 rpm less and producing more boost for a given speed. I assume the Tundra would use 10th at 70 or possibly 65?

 

Second fill up,
Reported: 16.4 mpg
Calculated: 16.59 mpg

 

That’s impressive… Similar to my climate. My Gen 2 with 34’s averages 10-11. Under ideal conditions no 4x4 all highway at best 14-15mpg.

 

Just got my New Tundra this past Friday and put over 100 miles on it. I am getting 16 to 17 mpg in western Pennsylvania which is all steep hills. What I expected for my area. However, had a major event today. I was out driving and my engine just shut off. Check engine light came on. Good thing I was not going very fast. I was able to pull over and restart the truck with no issues. Going to dealer first thing tomorrow.

 

Just filled up our 2WD SR5 Crewmax for third time, it now has a total of 806 miles. Two people onboard and 200 pounds of camping gear in the bed. Drove 80% highway and 20% around town on this tank. Not using cruise control for first 1000 miles and saw highway speed from 60MPH to 70MPH. Drove 295.4 miles using 13.5 gallons getting 21.8MPG. At the second fill-up got 20.6MPG with 75% highway and 25% around town. Fuel economy is getting better with each fill-up, so far.

 

This guy provides an update on his L/100km after over 4000 kms of driving. He lives north of Toronto, Canada.

https://youtu.be/zIcoYv-vIwo

 

Looks like '22 MPG is yet ANOTHER disappointment!

 

^^^
here is the mileage snapshot from the video.
for our US friends 13.6 L/100 is about 17 mpg.
this one is personal as close to home.
I can tell you that yesterday, with the break in weather and with the snow coming down today as I type.
I went up to the Haliburton Highlands. My Gen 2.5 had not been started in more than a week.
Its a 170 kms trip. I got 13.9l/100 on the way up mostly uphill, and 13.1 l/100 coming back.
I am not a commuter on the 401 doing 120km for an hour a day.
Just an observation. Appreciate all inputs.

 

Nope these trucks can get 22 no problem. As advertised.

 

I see MANY post (on this thread) posting 16 -17mpg, I guess they are lying...whatever you say!

 

I am getting from this thread so far
that as a
1)commuter vehicle doing 60 mph - 100 kms and
2) as a tow vehicle..... (from videos) it is doing well.

However
When used as a truck doing chores, and especially if going up and down terrain, stop and start, with the turbos engaged - it is getting 16-17.

are my impressions wrong ?

 

Not enough data yet to see the True MPG averages,
Just looking at the "survey" at the top of this thread 8 out of 13 votes claim "I'm NOT achieving EPA rating"...though a small sampling that's 60% of said owners NOT achieving EPA rating, for what it's worth, only time will tell!

 

My son drives a 4Runner and has been averaging 11.5 -12 l/100 in all around driving this winter.
He got home tonight after driving 700 kms over two days mixed driving in a new well, one year old GMC 5.3 liter.
A work vehicle with Cyl deactivation. He returned the vehicle today.
Because of this thread I asked him about the kind of mileage he was getting - did he look at the computer.
First he cursed ....told me he doesn't like, (not his words) the truck, and told me the computer said 16.6 l/100 kms.
And he said he drove it nice and easy. so 14 mpg.

 

I don’t think you understand how fuel mileage works. It’s not always the same no Matter how you drive. Different speeds and different types of drives result in different mileage.

 

No shit Sherlock!