Torque #'s Finally Here

Not to clutter up the derp and I-attacks, but has anyone seen a HP/TQ curve yet? Or just max numbers so far?

 

Nothing yet from Toyota. Even the max numbers are from a half filled out order sheet.

 

Welcome to 3rd Gen Forum, we love you.

 

Apparently you dont know what Daily driver means... That is not it....

 

No curve yet... That's why it's funny to see all these complaints about the peak HP/TQ numbers and the RPM's they're peaking at

 

dont forget snow as well. I laugh at snow storms and go for joyrides in the tacoma while everyone else panics

 

A truck driven daily lol. Which is what she does.

BTW, you also missed the statement I made that she is returning to work and will be bringing the kid to her parents. Both are in the nearest city 58 km away.

 

I get 14 mpg in the city and 17 on the highway going downhill with a tailwind. "real world" reports suggest the colorado gets around 16city and 22 highway. The base ford f150 which is bigger and heavier with a 3.5 goes 18/23. The Full sized chevy sierra puts up better numbers with 2 extra cylinders. I'm blaming an 11-year old motor. It's great, but it shows its age when compared to more modern power plants **at least in terms of MPG.**

 

Lol. You dudes are a trip. You guy want to sit tall, have more safety (which is not a bad thing to desire in a truck at all) be comfortable AND get Civic economy all in the same package.

Hey I hear that Best Buy is having a sale on a LG stackable washer dryer combo. It also cleans you everytime you use the restroom and washes your dishes for you as well.

 

You do realize that most motors had reached maximum efficiency that can be gained from that design. The only things that can help is trying to save energy lost to things like exhaust (So Ford went with Turbo but Toyota went with Atkinson cycle)
Turbo would be nice even if Atkinson provides better savings under 1000 Rpms so you save during idle, but people should not idle too long anyway.
Not much else can be done at this point that will not create overly complex and expensive engine.

 

There's where you're going sideways. I don't need civic like mpg. I do want 18 mpg though on a vehicle that gets used every day. That's not much to ask for especially since every truck on the market except the Tundra can hit that mark.

BTW the difference between 13 mpg and 18 mpg is HUGE on the bill at the end of the month. It wasn't a hard decision to not even look at the Tundra once we had decided to go with a full sized offering.

If your trucks don't offer decent mpg you will lose marketshare in this market.

 

No one expects 40 MPG. We did expect BETTER mpg though. As does the EPA, and so they are mandating it. C'mon, saying MPG doesn't matter in trucks is just silly. Ask anyone who owns a trucking business.

 

/\ This
What also people dont realize all the safety futures, and electronic gizmos use more energy and add weight. Remove all and you will gain couple MPGs on every new vehicle.

 

Right, understandable, but how exactly do you drive in order to obtain those numbers? How are they driving those vehicles in order to obtain those numbers? What elevation were they at? How were they driving it? What conditions? There are too many variables there to be able to say that those numbers are set in stone, because the reality is that they will never be because no two drivers are alike or equal in their habits.

 

Ok you all have a problem if you guys can make a new page within less than an hour and include as much BS as you did. GTFO and go run or something around the block.

 

Wanting improved MPG and wanting MPGs similar to a car are very different requests.

Following your logic (that trucks are meant for truck-like things, hauling, towing, and aren't daily drivers) to its ultimate conclusion suggests we all bought the wrong trucks because they are inferior for towing and hauling when compared to their bigger counterparts, particularly since (again by your logic) they shouldn't be DDs either. I don't agree with any of that.

I bought my truck to get up into the hills and go shooting and camping, and to throw some shooting steel in the back where it wont rip up anyone's interior on the drive back. I couldn't care less about hauling or towing. If I did care about hauling or towing, I wouldn't be debating the merits of a mid-sized truck to do so, I'd be staring down my nose at the mid-sizes from a full sized option.

 

What's your point?

That we should be taking airbags out of our trucks because it'd give us better HP/lbs?

I bet every little safety and electronic device in the truck weighs less than the average recovery bag most of us throw in our 4WD's. Also, the materials used in modern vehicles like aluminum and high strength steel more than make up for any weight gained from ABS, VSC, airbags, and the radio.

 

In this case, remove the driver and gain mpg and safety. Win Win

 

..
TW AT ITS BEST

 

Oh Tundra has shit for economy, which is why I didn't even bat an eye towards it. It was also too large in itself to be able to use practically in the city/suburban areas that I frequent regularly which is why I opted for this truck as I also obtained similar mileage out of my V8 GTO and several other V6 cars I previously owned. 18 mpg is not a lot to ask for you are right, but when you are talking about trying to initially move a 4500lb+ slug with a relatively underpowered engine initially from the getgo in city traffic during deadlock, that is quite taxing on the engine, gearing, transmission and tires. That is why these trucks are not necessarily capable of obtaining higher mileage than what they are rated at.