Turbo V6 vs. 5.7 mileage

The Gen 3 might have gotten better mileage bone stock during the EPA tests but after a little over 2,000 miles I get the same mileage as my Gen 2.5. I didn't expect good mileage out of this brick but I thought maybe I'd get one or two mpg.

Any aerodynamics the Gen 3 had I have removed and I did add 20# to the unsprung weight but I did the same to my 2016.

Same mods on both trucks. Camper shell, roof rack, winch bumper and Duratracs in stock size (+/-). Both speedometers read accurately compared to GPS on flat ground.

2,0000 miles highway at about 75mph with maybe 200 miles of local driving.

 

I had this argument with a buddy of mine, if you use all 400hp out of an engine, it will use a lot of fuel. The only way these fandangled new age engines work is if you hypermile them, but, you bought 450hp, use all of it!!

 

Not to be argumentative but I never understood being concerned about the mileage from a truck. I mean, it's a truck. A workhorse. It's not designed or intended to get great fuel economy. IMHO, if one bought a truck with an eye towards fuel economy, one bought the incorrect vehicle.

 

I get 20mpg going 75mph with a 200 pound Smartcap on the back

 

I have no issues using the skinny pedal. We won't talk about mileage when I do. I'm surprised that there was no improvement in my real world highway mileage. I'd think the turbos would offer some gain after getting the truck up to speed. Shows what I know.

 

I'm surprised there was no change. Not mad about it. Mad I couldn't buy a new Tundra with a V8 but that's another conversation. Surprised that with the change to V6 obviously driven by the need to meet government mpg standards that I personally see no real world change from my Gen 2.5 (which i still own).

In the last 25 years I've owned nothing but V8's except this Tundra and my wife's current Gen 5 4 Runner. I buy vehicles based on intended use and how long I think they will last. Mpg doesn't make my list.

 

Downhill? Tailwind?

Seriously though, do you have a roof rack? Street tires? Do you still have the active air dam?

 

I was getting 19-20 mpg on summer blend mostly stock (camper shell and bed boxes only) in my trd pro until I put heavy tires and a rack on the cap. Now I get 17-18 on summer blend and 16 on winter blend.

 

Straight on interstate, no roof rack, AT tires, active air dam still used - I don't use Turbos

 

i only do this for the stats, we really dont care about the mpg. i mean 1/2 the year we are running remote start due to the temp in ND, so it will kill the mpg really bad. sometimes we can barely get above single digits per tank depending on how much we remote start. i blanked out the time based stats on the 2018 since the app continues to count days even when i retire the vehicle

2023 tundra platinum 4x4 5.5ft




2018 tundra platinum 4x4 5.5ft

 

I usually get by far terrible MPG on all the cars I have ever owned (led foot) compared to what they are supposed to. In our 2010 Sequia Platinum it was about 13 mpg. In my Tundra usually in sport mode I have been sitting at 16.7 mpg.

 

I see your point, but to be fair, MPG in theory at least, should be a major selling point, if the consumer has to pay $60-80k to "upgrade" to the new model truck. Otherwise what's all that money going towards besides the new car smell?

And if someone needs a truck for X/Y/Z reasons, and there's let's say 3-4 suitable options on the market, operating costs (AKA fuel mileage) will likely be a factor in deciding which to pick

 

No disrespect intended, and you are entitled to your opinion, but I believe you actually missed my point.

It is total geekdom to care about or debate fuel economy from a truck.

 

Fuel range has always been a major factor in my buying decisions, one of the reasons a TRX or Raptor R wouldn't work for me out West is cutting my DTE from 600+ to around 300-350 miles. My diesel will often go 650-700 miles on tank, which swayed me from buying a 7.3L gas truck.

 

Fair enough. I mean no disrespect here either but I think you missed my point too. Let me use an example to try and state it more clearly.

Let's say I have 3 kids and a travel trailer, and I tow it once a month (for family camping trips). And let's say I buy a Chevy Silverado with the 3.0L Babymax engine, so I can get 25+ mpg all week long while commuting and taking my kids everywhere they need to go, but also tow my camper once a month, without owning a separate tow vehicle and a prius or other economy car for daily commuting.

Choosing that Chevy or any other truck that boasts better than average (for its class) MPG would seem sensible and not make the buyer a fuel economy geek.

Disclaimer: FWIW I drive a 2018 Crewmax Platinum 4WD Tundra, get 13 MPG (am fine with that), and wouldn't recommend anybody buy a GM product.

 

And I have never understood comments like yours. Whether it be a sports car or a truck, people say “I did not buy it for gas mileage”.

Just because people like sports cars or pickup trucks does not mean they are rich. Saving money is saving money. I have owned several pickup trucks, all of them for towing either boats or a travel trailer. Other than that I would never buy one.

Gas mileage does go into my buying decision both for cost and for range on a tankful of gas. Finding a gas station every 140 miles that has enough open space to maneuver a 34’ trailer behind a 20’ long truck is a pain in the ass. The further I can go the less I have to worry about it. The 140 miles is my current situation with our Expedition.

 

2,000 miles isn't even broken in yet. Give the engine time to break in and then compare the two trucks.

 

2000 total trip. 5000 on the truck

 

My bad on the mile misquote but even at 5k it's not broken in yet.

 

I got just over 20 driving to work and back, nearly all highway. Now I am retired and mostly city driving short trips, getting around 17.5.

 

I'm getting 22-24mpg on my most common 5 mile trip (to the grocery store and back). My first gen with its 4.7L V8 would get 13mpg highway or city. The only external mod I've made so far is the Tonneau cover.

 

I get 17-18mpg combined in my 2025 Tundra. On highway i get 19-20mpg. On my 2012 Armada with a V8, over the life i averaged 14.8mpg from the day i bought it.

 

If you’d had taken a road trip back around 2021 through parts of california where some fuels were $7.99 a gallon, you might have taken a closer peek at your truck’s MPGs.

 

Makes me wonder, what was the point in replacing the 5.7L, Toyota spending all that money to design and develop a V6 with similar output, passing that cost on to the consumer in the way of an hugely inflated sticker price, ... to gain almost nothing in fuel economy.
I'd rather have the 5.7L in my 2025 and have it cost $5000 less.

 

*ahem*...bureaucracy...

 

When cruising on the highway, the turbos are very likely not going into boost, but still are being spun by the exhaust gasses so they are doing something. Whether it’s anything noticeable is up to someone smarter than me to figure out, but I’ve seen more than a couple posts like this. I’m curious to see how it changes over the next 5-10k miles.

 

So who is getting the least MPG? Mine is marked at 11.5. Maybe i need another K&N filter!!!!

 

I am a broken record on this topic, but if you look at the real-world fuel economy of an entire tank of fuel (not just highway trips), you’ll see about 3.x mpg better with the V35A/10sp vs the 3UR/6sp.

The national average fuel price is currently $2.87.
At 13.8mpg (the average of the ‘18-‘21 years on Fuelly) for the 3UR, that’s $0.208/mile, or $3,120 for 15,000 miles.
At 16.5mpg for the V35A (the average of the ‘22-‘25 years on Fuelly), that’s $0.174/mile, or $2,609.09 for 15,000 miles.

At 15,000 miles per year at the average fuel cost, you would save $42.58 per month with the V35A over the 3UR.
(Your mileage will vary depending on fuel prices in your area.)

People who get a brand new truck and are wowed by the MPG are often conveniently forgetting that the v8 guzzler they traded in had 35s, a 2” level, skids, etc. A brand new stock Tundra with the ttV6 and tiny factory tires—smaller than what came factory on the 2nd gens!—is going to skew your perspective.

The only way a ttV6 gets measurably better economy is by keeping it out of boost. This is where the 20+mpg reports for highway cruising trips come from.

I can get 19mpg on 35s with a lift, skids, a similar cap, and a dual battery setup with the v8 if I aim for maximum fuel economy and keep it at 65mph.

Yes and no. For example, according to Edmunds, the 2nd gen Tundra enjoyed the lowest cost of ownership over 5 years of the entire segment because you never had to spend money on repairs, and the advertised fuel economy numbers of the other manufacturers were nearly impossible to attain over an entire tank of gas (where it really counts).

So if you have to pay for repairs on an objectively less reliable truck (which I would say is true of all current new offerings compared to the 2nd gen Tundra), you’re saving $42 a month on gas but not saving money over the long term.

 

Summer gas, I get 20-21 all day long.

Winter gas, I am getting 16-17.

Gotta be easy on the pedal and learn to coast.

 

Who the fuck does that? I'm an American with a 5.7l in my truck and I drive it like I stole it.