Good Sam Club Open Roads Forum: Toyota Tundra vs Ford F150 Hybrid Fuel Economy Tests
Open Roads Forum Already a member? Login here.   If not, Register Today!  |  Help

Newest  |  Active  |  Popular  |  RVing FAQ Forum Rules  |  Forum Posting Help and Support  |  Contact  

Search:   Advanced Search

Search only in Tow Vehicles

Open Roads Forum  >  Tow Vehicles

 > Toyota Tundra vs Ford F150 Hybrid Fuel Economy Tests

Reply to Topic  |  Subscribe  |  Print Topic  |  Post New Topic  | 
Page of 4  
Prev
valhalla360

No paticular place.

Senior Member

Joined: 08/19/2009

View Profile



Good Sam RV Club Member


Posted: 02/04/22 05:32am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

n0arp wrote:

RoyJ wrote:

I should've stated it this way: all things being equal, why not pick the truck with better fuel economy.


I never said anywhere that if all other things we equal, fuel economy wouldn't be the deciding factor. I said it's a distant priority, after many other things.

I just don't think most truck buyers, especially in the 2500+ segment, are shopping with fuel economy at the top of their priority list. It's in there, sure, just not at the top.


Good thing this is a thread about 1500+ segment trucks...

Also, I bet a lot of 2500+ segment trucks give it a lot of thought as a large percentage of those go into commercial service. If you are buying dozens of trucks and running them lots of miles, MPG savings is something they take serious.


Tammy & Mike
Ford F250 V10
2021 Gray Wolf
Gemini Catamaran 34'
Full Time spliting time between boat and RV


blt2ski

Kirkland, Wa

Moderator

Joined: 03/15/2001

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 02/04/22 08:35am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

Even class 8 OTR truck companies worry about mpg. A tenth per gallon can be around 100 gals of fuel per vehicle per year. If you 100 rigs going 100k Mike's per year, that's a 30-40,000 cost savings per year for many fleets this size. Eve a dime per gallon if fuel can add up
May not seen like a lit if money in some comparison s, over time it can be

Marty


92 Navistar dump truck, 7.3L 7 sp, 4.33 gears with a Detroit no spin
2014 Chevy 1500 Dual cab 4x4
92 Red-e-haul 12K equipment trailer

BackOfThePack

Fort Worth

Full Member

Joined: 08/03/2020

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 02/10/22 02:20pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

blt2ski wrote:

Even class 8 OTR truck companies worry about mpg. A tenth per gallon can be around 100 gals of fuel per vehicle per year. If you 100 rigs going 100k Mike's per year, that's a 30-40,000 cost savings per year for many fleets this size. Eve a dime per gallon if fuel can add up
May not seen like a lit if money in some comparison s, over time it can be

Marty



It pretty much drives the industry. One doesn’t master that in his segment of the business, he’s sunk.

Todays diesel pickups aren’t at all tuned for MPG. And plenty of owners screw them up farther.
I’ve seen claims of 14-mpg highway in current 1-ton diesels.


So let’s take my Kenworth which (bobtail, no trailer), is:

— Twice as heavy.
— Twice as tall.
— Twice as many tires.
— Twice the engine size


And at a slightly slower highway speed (and no adverse winds) I’ve seen 14-mpg on the readout for many, many miles.

A dozen years ago this wouldn’t be so. It would also be down on power (not just size).
15-L Cummins of today is much more efficient than those of a dozen years ago.

Which we cannot say about Detroit diesel pickups. They’re tuned for power (which you mainly can’t use), and there’s no attempt at fuel economy in any serious sense.

Was reading a Cummins brochure at a dealership yesterday on the 6.7L. Can be had in a wide range of power ratings.

Think the 2021 Ram might be just a tad more fuel efficient if it was tuned for about 300HP/600TQ? It won’t do less work . . I was grossing 32k plus for hotshot oilfield in ‘05-‘08 CTD back then.

My 555TQ 5.9L returns no less than 24-MPG highway solo at the same speed as I was operating the KW. Pickup is 2,100-lbs above factory published curb weight. 48,000-miles of records over that same region.

The KW averages into the nines with lighter loads (loads to 30k). Would have been sevens back in ‘08. At $4/gl it’s past $8k savings per truck, per year. (Goes straight to profit).

Why are these $100k pickups so poor?


2004 555 CTD QC LB NV-5600
1990 35’ Silver Streak

BackOfThePack

Fort Worth

Full Member

Joined: 08/03/2020

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 02/10/22 03:24pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

agesilaus wrote:

Who buys a p/u for it's fuel economy?


That it would pay back any price premium if so incurred.


Ran into a man had exact same truck as I, save for gasser V8. He’d kept good records. And though my FE is far above the pitiful average, his fuel burn numbers were good enough that where we’d expect him at 200k to install a re-man engine and keep his truck able to work to original spec . .

. . . I’d be hard-pressed to make back my engine premium if I DIDN’T get it past the B50 350k mark and then some more. With no engine repairs. (A new set of injectors is pretty much the throat-cut).

Once the energetic price of fuel flipped circa 2007, diesel was no longer economical for Joe Sixpack. Diesel wasn’t 50-cents per gallon lower, it became 50-cents higher. A gallon of diesel has 1/3 greater energy content than gasoline. Anytime diesel is one-third higher cost per gallon it’s FE magic goes away.

Choosing a truck based on FE is more about same-to-same. Choosing a Dodge over GM or Ford was easy. Their engines didn’t last long — 225k life — and FE was never as good.

If FE matters, you plan for it. Goals. Changes to driving habits. Changes to use.

Records & Discipline. Soon becomes habit.

How long will you keep it? How many miles will it accumulate?

.

* This post was edited 02/10/22 04:16pm by BackOfThePack *

Grit dog

Black Diamond, WA

Senior Member

Joined: 05/06/2013

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 02/10/22 04:15pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

BackOfThePack wrote:

blt2ski wrote:

Even class 8 OTR truck companies worry about mpg. A tenth per gallon can be around 100 gals of fuel per vehicle per year. If you 100 rigs going 100k Mike's per year, that's a 30-40,000 cost savings per year for many fleets this size. Eve a dime per gallon if fuel can add up
May not seen like a lit if money in some comparison s, over time it can be

Marty



It pretty much drives the industry. One doesn’t master that in his segment of the business, he’s sunk.

Todays diesel pickups aren’t at all tuned for MPG. And plenty of owners screw them up farther.
I’ve seen claims of 14-mpg highway in current 1-ton diesels.


So let’s take my Kenworth which (bobtail, no trailer), is:

— Twice as heavy.
— Twice as tall.
— Twice as many tires.
— Twice the engine size


And at a slightly slower highway speed (and no adverse winds) I’ve seen 14-mpg on the readout for many, many miles.

A dozen years ago this wouldn’t be so. It would also be down on power (not just size).
15-L Cummins of today is much more efficient than those of a dozen years ago.

Which we cannot say about Detroit diesel pickups. They’re tuned for power (which you mainly can’t use), and there’s no attempt at fuel economy in any serious sense.

Was reading a Cummins brochure at a dealership yesterday on the 6.7L. Can be had in a wide range of power ratings.

Think the 2021 Ram might be just a tad more fuel efficient if it was tuned for about 300HP/600TQ? It won’t do less work . . I was grossing 32k plus for hotshot oilfield in ‘05-‘08 CTD back then.

My 555TQ 5.9L returns no less than 24-MPG highway solo at the same speed as I was operating the KW. Pickup is 2,100-lbs above factory published curb weight. 48,000-miles of records over that same region.

The KW averages into the nines with lighter loads (loads to 30k). Would have been sevens back in ‘08. At $4/gl it’s past $8k savings per truck, per year. (Goes straight to profit).

Why are these $100k pickups so poor?


So we get it...
You're pretty much obsessed with fuel mileage. (Nothing wrong with that) AND, you've discovered...that driving slower uses less fuel.
That's great. And also something most everyone already knows, whether you post the (basically) same thing every time your fingers do the walking on rvnet.
Considering your livelihood revolves around how much fuel costs you (personally I presume. Owner Op?) that is great, and I'm sure it saves you money.
And if you have the time and inclination to drive 56mph all the way across Texas and back, to get 24mpg in your pickup, good for you. (If you're actually averaging that mileage on flat ground no wind, you're hypermiling like a pro. You are not getting that mpg driving the speed limit on the freeway, you are in the right lane, even getting in the way of your brothers in the big rigs.)
To what end?
I commute a 300+ mile one way commute about once a week, most of it open freeway in the middle of nowhere. I do 90+mph wherever I can and it's about a 4hour trip. Driving your speed (I used 60 mph), it's a 6 hour trip and I would save about $24 in gas. If your time is worth less than $12/hour when you're accomplishing nothing else but staring at a windshield, then have at it.
For me, I'd rather get home at 10pm from "work", than midnight and not even be able to get 6 hours of sleep before heading to work the next morning. (Locally, not 300mi one way daily commute.)

Bottom line, the fuel mileage diatribe about how everyone is wasteful except you, is sounding like a broken record.

And none of the pickup mfgs have Detroit diesels in them...I presume you meant the "Big 3, from Detroit".
What I don't understand is how you say it's mostly not useable power.
Yes I understand well how these vehicles operate and torque management programing etc. But you and I both know, you're mostly just beating your chest by making a comment like that.


2016 Ram 2500, MotorOps.ca EFIlive tuned, 5” turbo back, 6" lift on 37s
2017 Heartland Torque T29 - Sold.
Couple of Arctic Fox TCs - Sold

blt2ski

Kirkland, Wa

Moderator

Joined: 03/15/2001

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 02/10/22 04:55pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

Grit

You have at least one thing going for you and your drive that back of the pack has to deal with. That's a commercial driver log book. Electric would be really bad for you and him if you both were to drive 90 mph. Both having to stop a scale house, both having to show electric log book. BOTH getting retro tickets for driving 90 mph in a 60 or 70 mph speed zone. This does happen to peeps.
This issue can happen, be it if the driver is an owner operator, or an employee.
Fortunetly, you in your pickumup don't have to stop at the 3-5 scale houses you would pass in your twice daily 300 mile commute.
You might also have to stop on return trip, sleep at wieght scale in you back seat or equal. As you will have been on the road with out showing proper rest if your electronic log book was checked!
MPG is part of a given issue for all of us.

Marty

RoyJ

Vancouver, BC

Senior Member

Joined: 10/19/2006

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 02/10/22 05:27pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

Personally if I had to commute 300 miles @ 90 mph, a pickup truck would be dead last of my list. Both my cars can cruise at that speed getting 30 mpg+, and out brake any of my trucks.

specta

utah

Senior Member

Joined: 06/18/2001

View Profile



Posted: 02/10/22 06:57pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

Grit dog wrote:

PS, Ford rates the F150 hybrid at 23-25mpg. You think if it actually got 36mpg or whatever those 2 ding dongs in Colorado are claiming that Ford wouldn’t claim that?


That is quite a difference in mileage.

I would have to think that manufactures post what most mileage conscience drivers are capable of getting rather than what the vehicle is actually capable of getting.

If Ford advertised what the truck is capable of getting rather than real world numbers they would have more poor mileage warranty claims than they would know what to do with.

If I was to buy a new truck today gas mileage would be way down on the list of things that were important to me.


Kenny
2011 Chevy 2500 HD 6.0L 4wd
1976 Ford F-250 6.4L 4wd
1995 Lance 945 Onan QG 2500 LP
Regular cab. The best looking trucks.


Reply to Topic  |  Subscribe  |  Print Topic  |  Post New Topic  | 
Page of 4  
Prev

Open Roads Forum  >  Tow Vehicles

 > Toyota Tundra vs Ford F150 Hybrid Fuel Economy Tests
Search:   Advanced Search

Search only in Tow Vehicles


New posts No new posts
Closed, new posts Closed, no new posts
Moved, new posts Moved, no new posts

Adjust text size:




© 2022 CWI, Inc. © 2022 Good Sam Enterprises, LLC. All Rights Reserved.