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

Definitely have the air dam installed and this works as you demonstrate.

 

Nice!

Maybe that accounts for the much better fuel efficiency TFL Truck got on their towing test up to the Eisenhower tunnel versus their results with various Ford EcoBoost engines.

 

I found that to be an impressive performance as well. Sweers said he wanted diesel like performance out of the new engine, and it seems they have achieved that.

The comments of the TFL Truck crew about the Tundra not straining at the leash like an EcoBoost so to speak was funny to me. I get the feeling those guys don’t fully understand the difference in performance of a long stroke under square engine like the V35A-FTS, and shorter stroke over square engine like the 3.5L EcoBoost. The V35A-FTS did exactly what it was designed to do: make as much low RPM torque (and therefore horsepower at that low RPM) as possible. Just nonchalantly building power with no drama, no need for large engine speed increase, and minimal need for gear changes.

 

cruising down the highway with no load at 1200rpm will not create boost. Turbos are always spinning. Quite fast even. But they are not always creating boost. They certainly are not creating boost in an unloaded small displacement engine in a light duty vehicle at very low rpm. Manifold air pressure during this type of driving will be negative or vacuum. Even at 2k rpm unloaded, likely still vacuum. Would love to hear some real world reports under these conditions in the new Tundra.

 

Well our friend @xc_tc knows how to data log….

 

Unfortunately I didn’t measure cruising manifold pressures… I can imagine low torque operation would have wastegate fully open and not producing boost. I don’t have wastegate positions signals so I can’t check.

 

So max boost on these engines are around 24psi? That is pretty crazy--and I guess not very high in today's world. Still pretty cool.

 

show us.

Thats not how my Ecoboost works. Flat road at 55mph my truck is basically ambient manifold pressure at very low rpm.

at 70 mph its in boost.

And mine is an old 6 speed with 3.73’s. when you have a 3.31 axle with and very tall 10th gear, then the engine is gunna need to be producing boost to move the truck. 70 mph in 10th gear is only 1500 rpm.

 

Cool, show us

 

2022 sr5 sport, getting about 17 mpg

 

Saw this on Facebook

 

Long time lurker, first posting....
Don't believe everything you read. Most of us here have had the Gen Is and Gen IIs and whether it's the 4.6, 4.7 or 5.7 the mileage is, and always has been, woeful. 20mpg is a wet dream. Anything over 18 is honestly, yeah, yeah. Yours is different! grin.

Some can justify horrible mpg, I can't. I'll be drinking the TTV6 koolaid. I was never happier than when I was getting a legitimate 22-23 mpg with my T100 sr5 ext cab with 4wd and automatic.
No excuse to not be getting 20's in this day and age.

 

Regardless of one’s economic situation, I’d advocate $900+/year not burned is quite tangible.

 

Power, longevity, fuel mileage. You can have 2 out of 3 in the real world.

 

Refer to post #123 - That TTV6 is indeed Koolaid

 

I’ll fill up tomorrow but I’m getting 16.5 mpg in eco, with really mixed driving. This tank had some long warm up idles as well and there are approximately 1200 miles on it. The next tank will be normal mode just to see if there’s a difference. Every vehicle I’ve had, eco always sucked.

 

We'll see, but I don't expect a ton of objectively from a current late 5.7 owner. That isn't meant as disrespectful, just factual. I've met very few with late model Tundras that want any part of the new TTV6 truck. They are out there, just haven't met one.

 

There are lots of us… it’s just the anti gen 3 guys that bark the loudest. I can’t wait to get my gen3, improvement in almost every way over my 2.5gen

 

My first tank was 16.7, that was about half highway driving mixed with a lot of idling and a lot of 4x4 to and from work. Seems I could get 21-23 on a highway tank but in town driving I’m looking more around 15. Considering I drive 4 miles to Work I’m happy.

 

Thats not bad. My very first tank was 21 and change, but it was highway and tollway mainly.
To put my daily driving in perspective. I work nights, so I pick up (drop off in the a.m) both kids from school which is right down the road. Then I pick my son up from daycare in the next town, take the kids to my wife’s work a town west from there and finally head to work a town south from there. Of course it’s a straight shot home. So I drive a huge circle approximately 60 miles total three days a week.

 

"You haven't met"?...You haven't looked to hard neither- The vast majority on this forum

Good Luck!

 

I would have absolutely no problem going with one of the new TTV6 Tundras.

That being said, it's long been 'standard' that some avoid the first year of a major refresh due to potential issues that might crop up - and that's without supply chain issues being in play. That, plus the fact that the 2.5 Gen wasn't exactly a piece of crap (the 5.7 IS pretty dang reliable) and there are a few questionable design decisions with the 3rd Gen, mean at the very least that guys like me aren't exactly breaking our necks to trade our vehicles in ASAP, that's all.

With THAT said, once supply chain issues clear up and they work out a few bugs, I'll have NO problems trading for a new one.

 

Hell that sounds like my commute and I am getting 16 LOL

 

Well, I know lot's of guys with Gen 2.5's but am new here so hopefully that's true, time will tell.

 

My point was that some people including a friend with a perfect low mileage 2019 was talking about buying a '22 just for the gas savings!
That's what I called dumping a perfect truck for a bad reason ...

He told me he saves a lot of gas money! But based on the trade numbers he gave me, it would have taken him more than 20 years to recover the trade loss, fees, taxes, etc. (based on the $900 annual gas savings). I think he changed his mind after that!

I told him if you want a new car, buy it. but don't fool yourself and justify it with a little gas savings.

 

Mine gets better MPG in non-freeway driving with 35x13" Hankook ATMs than the crappy Bridgestones it came with.

If it's the same tire design, a bigger tire will have less rolling resistance. In my case I went to a much heavier AT and still get better MPG. Aerodynamics are going to suffer though, especially if you get a lift.

Most ATs have crappy rolling resistance as well, but the Hankooks are good. Since there very few actual tests I think the best proxy is to look at speed (temperature) rating. Falken AT3W are another good pick.

 

I totally get this... I wish they made a tundra prime.
My rav4 prime is paying for itself quite quickly with gas prices where they are compared to the subaru I traded in on it. 24 vs basic 9999999.99 with my wife's commute on all electric(we had excess solar so it is -free- since I oversized the system for other future needs that we won't be doing anymore)

It will pay the difference within 70k miles versus say a base rav4.

 

What year is that truck. Does it have a 10 speed and 3.31's?

 

This is so wrong... it is amazing the mental gymnastics you used to try it make it right.

A bigger tire will ALWAYS get worse than a smaller tire since it takes more energy to turn that larger tire.(weight)
A bigger tire has lower rolling resistance? Uh no... that is why you put bigger tires on it.. for better traction/better contact patch.