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

On Fuelly the old Tundra averages ~14 MPG, and the 3.5L Ford ~16 MPG. Since the Ford is quite a bit lighter, and the Tundra has a little more power... I wouldn't expect more than a 2 MPG improvement with the 2022.

If you drive 12k miles per year, and gas is $3.50/gal...

Old Tundra = $3,000 in gas.
New Tundra = $2,625 in gas. $375/yr difference.

That's a pittance in the grand scheme of things.

 

This is 100% true right here.

No one should be upgrading trucks based on fuel savings alone. If you need a new truck, sure, get a new truck. But the cost will likely not be overcome by the fuel savings in a reasonable lifetime of the truck.

 

I got about that when I bought my 2014 F150 Ecoboost and drove across the county with 1200 mile on the clock. After about 5k miles it broke in and now I have been averaging 17.2 on LT315/70R17's and was averaging 18.x on 275/60R20 Duratracs.

The winter mileage always drops though. So relax. You'll have nothing to complain about once the trucks are broken in and summer rolls around.

 

It takes more energy to *accelerate* a heavier tire (a tiny bit compared to the whole truck), but not any at all to cruise. With the same tire design rolling resistance is inversely proportional to size. A shorter and wider contact patch will have less tire distortion and less friction generated. For the same reasons higher pressure reduces rolling resistance if the road is smooth.

1) I have my truck to go by...
2) I've spent too many hours investigating this
3) I'm a physicist/engineer and understand this stuff very well
4) And you obviously don't...

 

"In my case I went to a much heavier AT and still get better MPG" = BS

 

" I'm a physicist/engineer" = that explains the BS- carry on!!

 

HAHAHAHA no you aren't if you think that a larger, heavier tire will increase fuel mileage.
You're not fooling anyone with that bullshit claim you're a physicist/engineer.
That is so far from correct literally pigs are flying.
A heavier tire take quite a bit more energy to get moving and MAINTAIN motion because it has MORE FORCE being exerted on it(wind resistance, rolling resistance due to bigger contact patch). You would think... a physicist would understand that..

A larger HEAVIER tire will always decrease mileage...

I would agree if they maintained the same weight .. but that isn't the case especially when compared to stock.
The less effective gear ratio you would have which could HELP but very minor.

By your logic I might as well pull a trailer.. since the weight doesn't effect mileage, I can just air up my tires and bam, 24mpg.

EDIT: your thought process is flawed btw... You state that a shorter tire with a wider contact patch has lower friction.. which inversely says your taller tires will have higher friction thus showing it has more rolling resistance(excluding wind resistance from the bigger tire too).

 

I was hoping that at least one of your criticisms would be worthy of comment.. but nope, not a bit.

 

I agree with most that a bigger tire will have worse fuel economy. Especially because most of the drop in fuel economy comes from acceleration. Just watch your mpg meter when you accelerate from a light vs. cruising.
Also, I would say that the tire tread is super important too. An M/T tire definitely has higher rolling resistance than an A/S tire and that will have a big impact on mpg.

 

I filled up today (I have the receipt in my truck) with 6 miles left until empty and I put a hair over 27 gallons in it.

 

This isn't politics or an opinion poll....

As I said...
- mine gets better MPG in non freeway driving than it did on stock Bridgestones.
- a bigger tire of the same design has less rolling resistance; shorter and wider contact patch = less casing distortion and less friction.
- aerodynamics will suffer with a big tire, especially with a lift.
- ATs usually suck for rolling resistance (MTs even more), but not all.
- Tire weight has a tiny negative effect when accelerating. Probably ~2% of energy required, if you are going to big tires from stock on a Tundra. How much of the time do you spend accelerating vs cruising or slowing down? Plus, if you are coasting, that weight becomes a benefit.

... but you can believe what you like.

 

I mean typically a larger diameter tire usually is an M/T or A/T or just much wider. Your anecdotal evidence is you get better fuel economy off the highway so at lower rotational speeds. Energy ~ Ixx*w^2 and a larger, heavier tire will have a much larger rotational inertia so for any given rotational speed will require more energy to keep rotating and even more so at faster speeds. Also, estimating 2% loss due to tire size may be a decent approximation but it heavily depends on tire diameter and tire weight because again the torque necessary to spin a tire is a factor of Ixx and rotational acceleration. So if you try to accelerate at the same rate, a larger tire will require more torque to keep the same angular acceleration (thus increasing fuel consumption)

I understand that larger tires (be it width or diameter) can have better rolling resistance due to difference in contact patch. But tire pressure can also do that (one reason why many German cars have tire pressure of 40 psi or more). Also reducing the weight supported by the tires can reduce rolling resistance.

So what is your highway fuel economy compared to stock?

I do a lot of city driving and a some stop and go traffic so I spend very little time on the highway. I think I would see a big drop in fuel economy switching from the 32” stock Bridgestone tires to the next size up 34” tires especially because the difference in weight for the same tire is 14 lbs per tire.

 

Nope, once it's reached speed it takes no additional energy to keep it spinning. It takes more energy to accelerate it but not to maintain. It's weird that people way overestimate this. I'm more familiar with racing bicycles (road) and for many decades it was believed that wheel weight was a thing that you absolutely needed to minimize. But it's easy to show it's trivial for bikes too, even for crits which have a lot of speed changes. They are going to bigger tires for road bikes now also, because they have less rolling resistance.

My tires went from 37 to 74 lbs each! Just looked it up. I didn't realize it was that much.

I'm not sure if highway MPG went up or down. At higher speeds wind direction, drafting, air density, hills, speed, etc all have a big affect. After I broke it in I didn't take many highway trips before I switched... I had a lot more shorter trips and around town. I've had a few tanks where nearly all of it was driving back and forth to a test venue, about half in town and half on secondary roads at < 60 mph. Also going back and forth to the nearest "big" town, that is ~2500 ft lower in elevation, where the speed is mostly in the 50-65 mph range. 18+ MPG typically in both those situations, and it was never that high with the Bridgestones. On the freeway going 75-80 it seems to average ~16, and I think it was slightly better before.

 

First fill up on mine, 14 mpg reported, 14 mpg calculated. Put ~24.5 gal into it. I improved my mileage in the second half and mostly last quarter of the tank. Too much trying to see how the thing performed. lol

 

Wow you clearly don't know physics then.

You really REALLY think you got better mileage adding 40lbs to each tire? God damn that is the dumbest thing I have EVER read in my life.
You say you get worse on the freeway and better in city... thus again contradicting yourself. Bruh whatever you're smoking I want some.

EDIT: Just to clarify with you, at those speed ranges I am in the low 20s for mpg.

You're the first person in the history of man that has broken physics and somehow managed to get better mpg by adding unsprung weight to a vehicle. Simply amazing.
Better go hook up my trailer yall, I can get better MPG!

 

I guess toyota screwed up. They should have put 40s on it and got the best gas mileage ever.

 

At the end of the day one thing is certain (so far). My 22 has not seen 18-24 like advertised, it been more like 16-17mpg

 

All these people reporting mileage should be taken with a grain of salt. You never know where/how they are driving to report the mileage shown. I can get 23 mpg(I really do) in my V8 and snap a pic but you wouldnt know that I just drove 90 miles downhill from the top of a mountain then 65-70 mph on an open, flat highway without any traffic.

 

I've been getting 16-17 average

 

I got over 30 MPG once on a 75 mile trip. 3500 ft elevation drop and 30 mph tailwind. Got < 10 MPG on the way back though.

 

Yup, the same scenario i mentioned going up the mountain i got like 12.5 lol.

 

Best I get is 16.9. In 4 wheel drive I get little over 12. I was in 4 for almost two weeks last month. Tundra now my daily till my new car shows up. Filling up every week

 

Pretty sure this thread is for 2022 Mileage reports…..

 

The sad part is.. you can't really tell 2022 posts and gen 2 posts apart LOL

 

I would have to agree with that. I never question what gen someone has. What’s funny is most MPG trash talk has come from the old bodies. All I’ve been saying about my 3rd GEN is the mpg isn’t what is expected

 

Out of curiosity what were you expecting?

I wouldn't mind having a 3rd gen--but I can't justify the jump coming from a 20.
At first I didn't like it, saw it in person and was on the fence. Now I like it LOL

 

Not to mention Altitude, naturally aspirated loose 3% power for every 1000 ft of elevation... my 5.7 really sucks it trying to climb around say Vail area...

 

Im not mad about it and I love the truck, but I was at least expecting the minimum EPA for daily driving and I’m about two under that. Who knows how much more it’ll drop once the leveling kit is installed (hopefully later today)

 

As a snapshot to date and without people actually inputting numbers in Fuelly

https://www.fuelly.com/car/toyota/tundra

The impressions that I have gotten solely from the responses here is that;

If the 2022 Tundra is driven without boost - like highway cruising - speed limit -lightly - the 2022 Tundra gets mileage like other 3.5 liter NA engine vehicles. But as soon as the heavy truck is pushed enough and boost is used it is around 16-17 mpg. About 15 L/100kms.

Yes this is winter for many, colder temps, but this would also mean, that you are not loaded up, pulling a boat or trailer to a summer lake or campground...Yet ?

Fair assumption?

*************************************************************************

Again for comparison only, from Fuelly, the previous Tundras average was 15 mpg.

 

also keep in mind winter blend, that totally blows and kills the MPG