Will there ever be a more mpg efficient Tundra?

I don’t need to tow. I just need to haul my family around so I’d like to see a Tundra more focused on mpg. Do you think Toyota will improve the Tundra’s MPG over the course of the current generation? The current hybrid powertrain is disappointing from a mpg perspective.

 

It still needs to be a truck.
Plenty of vehicle choices besides a truck that will accommodate family travel and be relatively fuel efficient.

 

Yea, buy a Corolla it gets great gas mileage.

the tundra is a big heavy truck, not meant to get great fuel mileage.

 

The hybrid is not for mileage but power . My state charges me extra $80 a year for tag , because it’s an hybrid.
My mileage is better than my 6.2 gmc denali pick up around town , but worse on highway.
I run 75-80 on highway the hybrid make a difference around town when you learn how to us it so that the electric motor kicks in more

 

More specific to the question, I don't see current combustion engines getting much more efficient than they currently are.
Auto manufacturers are extremely competitive and they spend more money than you can count on R&D and squeaking out every ounce of horsepower and .01 mpg. They will be advancing in microscopic increments from here on out. No more leaps and bounds. In my opinion anyway.
Unless someone invents an entirely new way/design for an ICE to operate and they invent some revolutionary new alloys, lubricants and fuels. Or they release the alien tech they have at area 51 to the public domain.

 

Do you have a hybrid? What kind of mileage are you getting?

You can easily exceed the EPA ratings by slowing down on the highway. 60-65 mph burns a lot less gas than 75-80 mph. In town is tough no matter what because it just takes a lot of energy to get a 6000lb truck moving from frequent stops.

 

Well I am not complaining about my mpg . I was just responding to forum questions. I can’t/ won’t drive 65-70 on highway, if I was concerned mostly about
Mpg I would buy a Prius.
I have duramax for heavy work

 

Sorry man, all mfg main focus, is on towing and payload capacity for trucks.

This is like going on a prius forum and asking, when Toyota will improve the towing and hauling capacity on the prius.

 

My Chevy and ford 1500’s all got better mileage than the tundra, unloaded or towing, and with all of the “mileage improving” technologies removed. My diesels all got better mileage than the tundra, unloaded or towing. Haven’t ever put my finger on why the tundra is such a gas hog but it’s the biggest pit fall of the truck. It really is pretty pathetic.

Point of reference, my tundra unloaded gets 12ish (haven’t done a tank with the new gears yet) and all my half tons would get 10-11 towing 6-7k and easily did over 20 running 75-80. All crew cab short bed 4wd’s and with a whole lot more amenities than this sr5 of mine.

 

Leveled and 35’s…. I see lots of forum members complaining about mileage on their truck that’s been modified and has bigger, heavier tires.

My tundra gets better mileage than any of my domestic trucks or SUV’s did while doing pretty much everything.

 

I sold a 2020 RAM 3500 to purchase a new 2023 Tundra (didn't need the heavy duty truck any longer). Running empty on the freeway the RAM would get 20+MPG. I don't get that out of the Tundra.......

 

All of my half tons were leveled on 35’s. My 5.7 awd Durango can knock 25mpg at 70mph and that’s hand calculated.

 

I had a 2015 DCLB 4wd with an 8' fiberglass cap, bed loaded with tools/gear 24/7, heavy E tires a hair larger than stock and pulled 9000 lbs a bunch the last year I had it.
Steady 14.4 mpg average over 4 yrs.
And I didn't drive it gingerly.
If you average 12 mpg, it's not the truck.

 

It very much is the truck. My driving style hasn’t changed and if anything has gotten more conservative because of the mileage.

 

It seems to me that people like to compare those highway trips on their domestic half tons that got 20+mpg to the full tank average of the Tundra that is around 14. But that is not a fair comparison. Tank averages according to Fuelly for GM 5.3 v8s and EcoBoost F150s are still around 16-17mpg.

In reality, tank average to tank average, the 2nd gen Tundra only does 3mpg worse. 2nd gen Tundra is high 13s/low 14s vs high16s/low 17s for the 3rd gen.

You know what costs a LOT more than a few mpg? Repairs. Depreciation. Time without your vehicle. Arguing with the service manager who can't seem to recreate the problem you're having.

I wish we had a repairs and depreciation counter on the dash staring us in the face. "You saved $XXXX on repairs this year because you're not in a Ram"

 

I only speak to my experiences.

I will say that none of my domestics had squeaking doors, groaning ac compressors, popping front ends, or trim falling off after 59k miles like my tundra does. But hey, it’s Toyota reliability right?

 

No, and quit asking for it. Go buy a fuel efficient vehicle if that's what you want. Leave the trucks alone and quit giving the manufacturers the idea that people buying trucks just want the image of a truck with the performance of a minivan. You're ruining it for everyone that actually does want to tow, haul or have anything more than an underpowered, undersized, anemic engine that is useless without turbos or a big fat battery to try and compensate for the weakness.


That's hyperbole for comedic effect, but asking for better fuel economy will get you broken shit like cylinder deactivation or a loss of capability like a Ridgeling or Maverick. You have to choose; do you want a truck or not?

 

I used to own a couple of French cars (yeah, yeah, I have repented from my sins. ), they were cheap to buy, good for hauling the family, they made great workhorses and returned 42mpg (yeah, you read that right, sounds even better in uk speak - 50mpg mf'ers).
Maybe it's time for people to think outside the box and start to buying stuff that suits their needs rather than buy the biggest brick on the block because they can't rely on their driving skills to keep themselves and their family safe on the roads.

 

Was that UK MPGs or US MPGs?

 

Edited for shits and giggles.

 

Conversely my first vehicle had a 2 1/4 liter engine, under 100hp, would shake your fillings out at anything over 40mph and got a paltry 9.9mpg (US) but it was a Series IIa Landy and if I could afford the exorbitant amount they sell for in the US I'd trade both my trucks in for it.

 

I noticed you didn't mention any tank averages of your domestics; just what they were capable of getting on the highway or towing. That's exactly what I'm talking about.

This is a highway mileage quote.

Again, specific use quote. But then when you mention the Tundra mpg...

...it's just a tank average, which as we know is always lower than a trip average at highway speeds.

I'm just saying...these are not apples to apples comparisons.

Also, if you're frustrated by all the issues your truck has (which are far from the norm), why did you dump money into regearing it?

I'm over 50k miles in my '21. Dead silent, no weird noises, no popping or groaning, no trim falling off. I'm on TRD Fox suspension (+2" up front) with skinny 35s and I can get 19 on the hilly highways of Tennessee if I keep it under 65. This is a 2006 drivetrain, and it performs most efficiently at 2006 speed limits.

 

Fortuitous typo! I love it

 

Short answer is no. The alleged 23 or so mpg Chevy & Dodge get come at a heavy reliability cost. DOD or AFM means extra mechanical parts that are prone to braking then falling onto moving pistons thus destroying the motors. there are simple plug n play ways to bypass this system but then you go back to a 16mpg V8.
For perspective my 09 Taco 2.7L longbox
4 spd auto got 22-23 mog actual hwy and 19 mpg in town at 3600lbs dry weight.
Unless they get smaller or lighter Pickup trucks are not gonna be at the top of the mpg list. The only reason I was able to aquire a used 11 crewmax 5.7 was cause I landed a job 12 miles from home vs a previous 70 mile one way job site gig.

 

My life is fairly consistent so averaging is not an issue. Try and poke holes all you want but after putting a couple hundred thousand miles on my vehicles, I’m very well aware of their fuel mileages. The tundra flat out sucks on mileage and gets garbage compared to anything else I’ve ever owned. Hell my previous 1984 blazer with a carbureted 350 and 3 spd auto with 37’s averaged 12mpg.

I bought the Toyota based on its reliability and cab size and not mileage but the argument is still true that the mileage sucks on these trucks. The tundra is the 6th pick up I’ve owned and the only one with a 38gal tank that I’m doing good to get 350 miles out of 3/4 of the capacity.

Not sure what the “2006 speed limits” comment is about but where I live that was still 70mph. And again, every other truck I’ve owned does better than the tundra on mileage.

 

Leaving it. LOL

 

Averaging lifetime on mine 19.8. I’ll take it. 28k

 

I’ve deleted that crap on every Chevy and dodge and have seen no change in mileage on any of them.

 

Gonna call BS there. A v8 with cylinder deactivation removed will not get the same as one that has it intact. Who are you kidding here?