I went for a second test drive and I love the truck, but.......

When comparing similarly equipped trucks (4wd, double cab, V6 engine, similar bells & whistles) the F150 is at least 30% more expensive than the Tacoma.

 

Brand new off the lot yes. Now do a 3 year old used Tacoma and F150 and then a 5 year comparison. Obviously holding value is good if you buy new but if you want the most bang for your buck and not buying new, the F150 wins again.

 

I’ve done a few half cross country trips with the 2014 Tacoma and the 2018 F150. Similar payload of 3400# and 4,800#s respectively. The Tacoma was white knuckle trying to maintain 60-65mph with semis blowing by shifting everything everywhere only getting 11.8mpg IIRC. The F150 cruised at 60-68mph comfortably and getting 11-20mpg depending on which mountain or whatever pass I was going through the trip penciled out at 17.1mpg the last time. C’est la vie.

 

Yeah the Taco definitely is a more weekend warrior truck, not really made for real work and hauling bigger payloads. It doesn't really seem to do anything much better than any full size does. Only reason I got one is because of Toyota reliability. The Tundra had such shit MPG for so long it basically got forgotten in the full-size class.

 

So you drove it twice, looked at a MPG reading from your quick drives on a newer truck and came here to say no.

I say keep your power stroke and keep on strokin’ it

 

Those are EPA estimates ... never been overestimated or underestimated before, right?

Not what Fueleconomy.gov says.

Apples to apples, or at least as close as possible (midsize vs full size will never be perfect apples to apples) is what I'm focusing on.

4WD Compare Side-by-Side (fueleconomy.gov)

2WD Compare Side-by-Side (fueleconomy.gov)

The links are not cooperating so here's what they're supposed to look like

 

If you resell the faster depreciating truck, that extra depreciation should be a factor in your bang for buck equation. If the F150 is a better fit for your needs and you can afford it, then it doesn't make sense to go with the Tacoma whether it gets better or worse fuel economy. If pure fuel economy is your only concern, you're in the wrong section of the automotive world. If you need a truck to do truck duty, and MPG is still a concern, you're not going to find anything that breaks the laws of thermodynamics. Admittedly, the full size heavy duty engines have the thermodynamic advantage over the lighter duty engine when pulling a huge load. Engines are most efficient when producing a little under half of their max power output at high load/mid-low rpm. The heavier duty engine will be in that range more often the lighter duty engine when pulling a heavy load. But when there is no load, the lighter engine and lighter vehicle has the advantage.

 

B.I.N.G.O.!

 

I had a similar experience towing. I had a hard time giving mine up. It fit my life so well 95% of the time. Reluctantly, I went full size. My Ram Hemi 4x4 with 3.92 gears on the same commute only nets 1.5 mpg less, 80% city driving. Towing is effortless now, but I do miss certain things about the Tacoma.

 

The 2014 Tacoma 2.7L is a much cheaper and more antiquated (and probably more reliable, but I won't speak on matters I don't know about) package than the Ecoboost F150. Port injection, lower compression ratio, 4 speed auto (props if you were driving the 5 speed manual), hydraulic power steering. I'm not saying it's excusable that a far slower, lighter truck gets worse MPG than the full size that can tow 3x as much, but it's less apples to apples. It takes a lot of energy to move a lot of mass and push a certain amount of air out of the way. That energy has to come from somewhere. If you make 70 horsepower with an engine makes 160 vs 70 horsepower from an engine than makes 365, you're still making 70 horsepower and you'll consume fuel accordingly. The Ecoboost F150 has thermodynamic and technological advantages that make it slightly more efficient than the Tacoma in your driving scenarios. The F150 was also a lot more expensive, at least when it was new.

Give me both trucks spec'd exactly as yours were/are unladen and I'd bet I could still get better MPG with the Tacoma. I'm a deliberate driver and I always get better economy with the much lighter vehicle. Put a typical driver behind the wheel or connect some weight to the chassis, and all bets are off. That tacoma is too low tech to compete when it comes to doing actual work.

 

Have gotten into it passing farm equipment on the ranch roads I mostly drive, just lay the pedal to the metal…next thing I know it is doing 80. A lot more get up and go than my first Gen….thinking I could get into some trouble with this thing. And gotta laugh when guys complain about the lack of power. Gaaad how much do ya need, this thing is plenty fast for breaking speed limits.

Life sure has gotten easier when I stopped racing around and trying to beat everyone to the next red light. Now I am the guy who pokes along…then rolls up right beside the guys who still do.

 

People on this forum would still bitch about it.



.

 

And it also needs to charge in under 5 hours without blowing up the battery. And not cost $145,000. Those specs, except the 22,000 lbs/14 people/2900 lbs payload part, are 100% doable on pure electric.

 

I hauled some rusty cabinets in mine today with less than 100 miles on the clock. Still alive.

 

New Rangers come with a comfy pair of walking shoes too. So when the 6 turbochargers blow the guts out of the lawn mower engine they put in those things you can walk in circles yelling into your cell phone.



.

 

Has anybody done a good fuel economy test on a Tacoma running pure gasoline? This 10-15-20% corn fuel (depending on where you live) garbage is not going to reflect actual fuel economy because ethanol contains much less energy than gasoline.




.

 

Meanwhile diesel is stills through the roof. While gasoline gets cheaper by the day.
Seems like a wash to me.

 

The fuel efficiency of Tacoma’s is crap, especially the 4 banger considering it’s limited capabilities. However overall cost of ownership in my opinion wins it for the Tacoma, especially for the 4 banger. In my opinion if you can get by with the limited capability of the 2.7 it’s the way to go. Everyone out there makes a full size that beats it in mpg. But what are the long term costs of the tech that gives them that ability these days? At some point they will require more and more costly maintenance than the taco 4. You can accept depreciation loss trading it in before warranty expires or deal with repair costs later. I’ll buy gas.

 

You're saying the ford ranger lacked torque? It makes 310 lb ft at 3000 rpm compared to the tacomas 265 at 4600 rpm.

 

But isn't the Ecoboost turning into one of the most reliable head-gasket blowers and head-crackers Ford has turned out?