Why not a Tundra???

Apples to apples fuel comparison over a few trucks:



So about 1.5-2 mpg difference which is about 10% higher fuel consumption with a Tundra over an F150 Ecoboost. Obviously a 2.7 L would be even better. Again, not a total knock on the Tundra but Toyota could do better if they would try. Reliability has nothing to do with it, Toyota makes plenty of Turbo engines globally for heavy vehicles. They just choose to limit them here to the Lexus lineup.

 

I used to love the dumb commercials where GM would claim they used the same steel and transmission as in the M1 Abrams and Ford would claim they use the same Aluminum as the Virginia class attack submarine lol.

 

GM uses hardened steel for its body panels LOL! I am pretty sure the M1 Abrams transmission is hooked up to a GE Turbo shaft engine the T700 type, and is probably ALOT beefier than the tranny in a pick up truck that weighs a fraction of what a tank weighs lol. I have changed/replaced GM Allison fuel control coordinators on the T56 though when I used to work on P-3s.

Maybe what they ment to say is "we use the same manufacture and material types as the M1 Abrams and Virginia class attack submarines... That doesn't sound as bad ass though.

 

I didn't say the aluminum was more prone to dents I just said it felt flimsy. My last Tacoma had 244k on trade and zero dents or dings so seemingly that is not a good judge of structural integrity.

 

There’s lots of YouTube videos showing the difference between an aluminum and steel body panel for impact and deformation resistance. Toyota often uses aluminum panels on the Lexus lineup but not the cheaper Toyota line. It’s just a feature. It would be nice if it was on the Tacoma and Tundra too.

 

I tried youtube and honestly could not find anything too compelling to support this. Coming from a mechanical engineering background I will say this, being equal in dimension, steel is always stronger than aluminum in every manner. That is not to say that you can't properly support or form aluminum in a manner that makes it more impact resistant, but it is to say that a steel panel of equal form and support will definitely be stronger and more dent resistant. I will add to this as well, aluminum has a much lower tensile strength than steel, so it is actually much more prone to denting, and if you do get a dent it the likelihood that the metal will deform in a manner that is harder to repair is much more likely. Steel bodies are definitely cheaper and easier to repair than aluminum. That is not to say that I do not commend Ford for using them in efforts to improve fuel economy. Aluminum is still subject to corrosion like steel when exposed to the elements. I recently found this our the hard way on my teardrop camper. I suspect you will see those aluminum beds 10 years from now in the rust belts with rot in the wheel well seams just like their steel counterparts. All other things equal I do believe the aluminum trucks are equally as safe.

So should Toyota give aluminum a whirl? I don't know. I do know that from a sustainability standpoint aluminum requires roughly 10 times more energy to produce so there is that. I also suspect that Ford employed said aluminum to shave weight because that turbo 6 drinks more fuel than a 8cyl naturally aspirated in boost mode. The more weight they shed the less likely they need to boost.

Regardless of how you slice it, you cannot beat physics. Fuel is combined with air in a combustion engine to create rotational energy. It will take X many gallons of fuel to produce X many joules of energy regardless of the engine as there is a finite limit to the efficiency of a combustion engine. Slapping two turbos on a smaller displacement does not overcome that because you still need enough fuel mixed with the additional forced induction air to maintain a safe operating A/F ratio. Where the turbo Ford and the cylinder deactivation rivals do make better MPG is when there is little to no load on the engine IE downhill, idling, cruising flats without a headwind. That represents a very small portion of real world driving hence why they are not obtaining twice the mileage. Combine that aspect with a reduction in weight and now you know why the Ford gets a couple MPG better. Honestly for a luxohauler the turbo 6 probably does make better MPG across the board, but under load, in mountains, towing, hauling etc you are most likely going to see better MPG with a naturally aspirated V8.

 

I get the same MPGs in my Tundra than I did with my Tacoma. Both are stock.
I just returned from a 3000 mile road trip and got consistent 20 mpg on the road, and 17 overall, including city driving. Tacoma on similar trip was 19/16.

 

Wall of text right there. Edmunds and a few other reviews have videos show impact damage from hitting the box side with a sledge hammer comparing 2014 and 2015 long term test vehicles. It’s subjective though in every test the reviewers are surprised how strong the box side is.

Aluminum repair costs had a lot to do with shops needing to upgrade their equipment and training to work with aluminum. Now that the most produced half ton is covered in aluminum that issue has gone away for the most part, which is why insurance cost on a F150 is similar to a Tundra.

Your statement about aluminum denting easier is misleading. Speaking metallurgy, aluminum is a softer metal that deforms easily but does not hold a shape as well as steel for the same reason. It’s more ductile. Basically, easier to bend but more likely to bend back from stored energy which is why you saw aluminum used in items like bats and hockey sticks long before carbon fiber was available. Weight is only one part of the decision making process.

As for safety that’s a dead argument. Both trucks have steel frames and steel crash bars in the wheel wells and doors. The aluminum is just the shell. It could be plastic for all it matters to safety. Rust has a lot do with design. GM beds here rust out fast because there are sealed channels that water gets trapped in with a bit of air. Design is just as important as material selection.

Aluminum takes more energy than steel to process from mined material but less to recycle. As our recycling methods get more efficient the advantages can be significant.

On fuel economy you’re right. The Tundra is missing active grill shutters, air flow diverters for the wheel wells, and weighs 800 lbs more fully fueled. The engine in the ford is 100 lbs lighter and the body is around 700 lbs lighter. That’s where the savings are.

If you want to explain something try to figure out how a 5.0 L Coyote makes more power than a 5.3 L GM, but doesn’t need cylinder deactivation to achieve better MPGs. It’s all science but there is a lot more to engine design than simply calculating displacement based fuel consumption off a 14.5 AFR.

I’m glad you enjoy your Tundra. I’m not knocking your choice at all. Toyota could do better on fuel economy with a few simple fixes. They’re rumoured to be doing that soon with a new generation coming for the Tundra.

 

I’m glad I finished, you know, actually working on my Tacoma and enjoying it today before replying to that lol. I have no problem with people who decide to upgrade from a Tacoma to a Tundra or any other truck. Toyota isn’t known as a class leader in 1/2 tons. Even when Toyota talks about the Tundra it’s presented as an alternative choice over a statistical one.

The rear window feature on the Tundra is really the cats ass. My new work F150 on the way only has the tiny slider. My 2016 F150 is getting retired two weeks from now at 140k. It never needed anything beyond oil changes and new tires. Stock tires on everything suck for field work. I doubt I’ll ever see a Tundra again on a work order sheet. Last time I saw one I was in operations with Agrium and the price difference was over 7k over 2 years of lease through a 3rd party “all in” type commercial lease company. That’s the reason you never see them in large company fleets. They’re not economical to run unless you’re going to maybe run them into the ground. There again though the stats on trucks over 200k is all luck especially under tough working conditions.

 

Gen I Tundra Access Cab 2005-2006 vvt-I was the only version I considered and bought one. Comparable size to a Tacoma, good trail runner. Gen 2 Tundra no way if you go on tight trails. Wide turning radius, and Gen I Tundra Double Cabs had a wide turning radius, 47' turning circle.

Gen I Tundra Access Cab 4.7l has nearly identical dimensions to a Tacoma DCLB, nice truck if you can find one with low miles, but they've proven to have longevity. Gen I Tundras don't have A-Trac, just the basic 4WD open differentials but did have an optional clutch-type LSD rear differential. My '05 had the rear clutch-type LSD, did well offroad.

Gen I Tundra 4.7l tows better than a Tacoma, doesn't have the annoying Tacoma driveline vibrations, silky smooth. I would have kept that silky smooth '05 Tundra 4WD Access Cab but figured the '07 4Runner 4.7l with A-Trac would do OK.

 

What I was trying to convey is that aluminum has a lower tensile strength and is therefore more malleable. When it is dented the chances of it growing in surface area are much higher than steel. When this occurs there is no way to pull it back to it's original shape. Go talk to some body guys and get their opinion on it. It is very hard to weld body gauge aluminum without warping because aluminum transfers heat so faster your weld pool must be a higher temperature. It is also nearly impossible to reshape with common practice of dollying because it is so malleable. Most all reshaping of aluminum requires strategic pulling and heating because it work hardens very easily. This easily doubles the repair time or the manpower to accomplish pulling an equal dent. The sales pitch that aluminum is less dent prone is definitely misleading, both can be dented, under certain circumstances each may perform better or worse. The aluminum is employed for weight reduction, that is the bottom line. While the Edmunds video shows them hitting the aluminum truck with the sledge hammer they do not show the same exact steel panel hit the same way. Perhaps the steel would have deflected more, this we do not know. Even if it did odds are pretty good that it could be reshaped in the shop in much less time. Not all, but plenty of body shops do aluminum panels, aluminum panels have been around a long time. They are simply more time consuming to work with given their properties. I'd surmise most panels are replaced not repaired when possible due to the labor intensiveness. I like the use of aluminum for it's weight savings but that is it's only real advantage in body panel applications.

Chrysler states that active grille louvers increase efficiency UP to 0.5% on their Ram trucks. I understand every bit counts, but in general scheme that is some 20 gallons of fuel over 100k miles, which is largely insignificant. Decreasing weight isn't necessarily a good thing either depending what you are using the truck for. If you are towing, a heavier truck is most always beneficial. What I keep hearing is it would be better if it still looked like a truck but functionally was more like a car which essentially diminishes many of the truck capabilities. I guess Ford marketing has been banking on that right there, most 1500 owners really just want a car that looks like a truck. Logically there is no other reason to put a smaller displacement twin turbo into a truck since a forced induction motor is almost always less efficient under load than natural aspiration making similar power.

 

We’re starting to tilt at windmills lol. Keep in mind they don’t keep the depth the same on the panels when they switch to aluminum to give a similar yet different strength. Given the thicker panels, the performance of aluminum is at least advantageous for weight saving and at best a bit more resilient than most would think. I’ll leave it there since if you really are a family man like myself you probably don’t need to write another essay.

A F150 is more capable than a Tundra in almost every metric. I only say almost because I don’t have time to check everything on every spec sheet. Properly equipped a F150 can out tow, out payload, and out range a Tundra. It’s as simple as that. It’s not more car like in any sense lol. As for the logic of he turbos jut watch tow tests between a 6.2 L Ford and a 3.5 L Ecoboost. With the tune Ford is running that low end power matters to get heavy shit moving, a key attribute of any truck. The “more car like,” discussion never goes anywhere because it’s extremely subjective. What is car like to someone could be a necessity to someone else. For example, safety systems could said to be car like and the Tacoma has them in spades. That being said those gadgets are becoming pretty standard to most people now.

Ford doesn’t make a 1500. Why are you lumping the big three together? Lol.

As for the shutters and etc, explain why the fuelly average is about 10% difference between a 3.5 L Ecoboost and a 5.7 L UZ? We aren’t talking about loaded data or random statements. Fuelly is random people logging their mileage which evens out most of the possible discrepancies. I’d say it’s exactly that every little bit counts. Back to the point though, if you don’t care about the higher initial cost and higher fuel costs but care about the name on the badge and the reputation of that brand then good on you. You don’t need to spend your time proving it to me .

 

Sorry for the edits btw. I’m helping out with the kids while posting and one of them loves to climb up my legs while I’m walking around texting lol.

 

Damn ankle biters!

 

The funny thing is they rarely ride in either truck. When it comes to family vehicles, trucks are not really the ideal choice. I mean they’re perfectly capable of it, but between having a shorter wife and a 3 year old who likes to climb in all by herself, our CUV probably pulls 90% of the family duty. The Tacoma does suck with carrier seats for the baby. You need either a CUV or a full sized truck for those seats to usually sit right without the front seat all the way forward.

 

I got a very basic 2008 regular cab 4cyl 4wd 5sp Tacoma. It didn't cost a lot (I think $19K new) but it went from 0-60 in about 20 minutes, had no cruise control making it tiring to drive on long road trips, and with the very short wheel base kind of bounced around. I drove a 1000 mile day in it once and was beat! But still, kind of a cool little truck. In 2011, however, I decided I needed something bigger for a project I was undertaking and which lasted all of 2012, so I bought a Tundra and drove it for 6 years. It was great for that year I really did need a bigger truck, and it had a lot more creature comforts than the Taco, but once 2012 was behind me, I wished I had a Tacoma again, just maybe one with a few more features. Last year I traded in the Tundra and got my 2017 DCLB TRD OR, fairly loaded, and have never regretted it for a nanosecond. And I will say that I did very well (I thought) when I traded in both the first Taco, and the Tundra, no regrets there either.

The Tundra was a good truck. It was just too big and bloated for my liking. Hard to park, used more gas, I always felt like I was going to sideswipe something. I doubt I'll ever own or need to own a big truck again. That's okay with me.

 

Tundras are fine trucks, but they are BIG. The Tacoma is about as big a vehicle as I am willing to drive on a daily basis.

I am not fond of the handling and fuel economy of the Tundra/F150/1500 class of pickups for daily driving. They are great for hauling and towing, but I find them too ungainly to drive everywhere. Whenever I drive a big truck, I always feel like I'm going to bump into or sideswipe something.

I do love a good V8, though.

 

I agree with you, and in I never meant to get that far into the weeds. In my personal defense I did make an initial post that never delved into those details, nor did I bash the other brands. I purchased a Tundra after 3 Tacomas. I was expecting roughly 15mpg and have been pleasantly surprised that I have seen on average more than that. In defense of that I do not do a lot of stop and go. I drove those 3 Tacomas a total of nearly 600k miles combined. I had no major component failures on any of them. I replaced a couple ball joints, a set of wheel bearings in each, one u-joint. Aside from that just standard maintenance, oil, front brakes, tires, plugs etc. That is why I bought a Tundra. Maybe it won't be as dependable, time will tell. My limited experience driving Ford vehicles was not that fruitful, my experience with my friends and families vehicles dictate that same pattern comparing Toyota and Honda to the American brands. I have a 40x60 garage I built at my house. I see a lot of friends and family when they need to work on their cars.

For background so you don't think I am just some jackhammer typing out the side of my mouth, I do have a Masters Degree in Mechanical Engineering. One of the biggest projects at my university when I attended was trying different things to get the most efficiency out of an old S10 pickup. It was basically a hands on learning experience in Physics. By the time I left the truck had been converted to a DC powered drivetrain with a solar array on the tonneau cover.

Here are some facts regarding limits on fuel efficiencies in full size trucks

Weight, less weight is easier to move down the road. Full size trucks are heavy. Reducing weight will always increase efficiency but small reductions do not yield much for gains. You would need reductions of like 20,30+% to see noticeable fuel savings.

Aerodynamics, trucks are not aerodynamic. This is by far their single largest issue in gaining efficiency. The average full size truck has a tall profile maybe 6ft tall. They all have some level of ground clearance maybe 8-12". They are wide, some 5ft or more. In total they have a high profile, some 25+sq/ft of vertical surface area up front and they have a large envelope underneath them (this makes a huge difference). The function of drag placed on the vehicle is a square function. As speed increases the resistance increases as a square function. The faster you go the more power you will need and the more energy you will consume. Manufactures have made trucks lower but they haven't really made huge strides here because it would require changing the profile of the vehicle entirely. Active grille shutters, it something, but nothing to really write home about, you still have the envelope underneath and 25+sq/ft of vertical surface area that is a greater issue. The most innovative thing I have seen from any manufacturer regarding this is Dodge, with their air ride suspensions, they actually reduce the envelope underneath and the height profile at highway speeds by lowering the vehicle. Its only a couple inches but I suspect it has a much larger effect on drag than active grille shutters.

The internal combustion engine is not all that efficient at converting the energy from fuel to rotational energy to move a vehicle down the road. Combustion engines are rated thermally. The most efficient internal combustion gasoline engines are something like 20% efficient, meaning 80% of the energy is lost to heat. Diesels generally run closer to 40% thermal efficiency with reports of some 2-stroke diesels achieving close to 50%. I would guess nearly all automakers today are in the 20% efficiency range for gasoline engines. Simply placing a turbo charger on a gasoline engine does not make it more efficient. It is actually the opposite under boost because a higher air to fuel ratio is required to mitigate detonation and reduce heat. Where a turbo can make up for that is on a smaller displacement engine. Think of it this way, under lesser load situations you are running a much smaller displacement engine which equals less fuel. When more power is required you build boost which for lack of a full explanation this increases displacement (the amount of air in each cylinder) to increase power. Volvo, SAAB, Volkswagen were all doing this way back in the 70s. Ford purchased Volvo, since then we have seen a number of Turbo Fords. Employing this in aerodynamic vehicle can yield huge gains. I do not recall the exact number but perhaps 20-40% MPG increases on say sedan styles. This is why the Ford Escape has gone from a V6 powered box to a 1.6 turbo charged curvy looking thing. At that brings me to my last point, the F150. The F150 profile still looks like everybody else truck, and until it does not, the efficiency gains of placing a small displacement turbo charged engine in it will not be huge. So to answer your question, the 8-10% gain in fuel economy is largely attributed to the small displacement turbo charged engine and nothing more. Chevy and Dodge report similar gains by actively shutting off fuel to half the cylinders when not under load. Toyota, well thus far Toyota has done nothing and trails in MPG by 8-10%, that is undeniable. The Toyota however is more than likely much more reliable, and it really would not take much for repairs to consume the lifetime fuel savings on the competition. It is a gamble at best, and quite frankly, there have been plenty of ecoboost issues, issues with turbo failures, inter-cooler leaks, exhaust leaks, rod failures. A quick internet search turns up a lot, at that is not even the chassis issues reported.

And here is one thing for sure a Tundra can do and an F150 cannot, carry a snowplow. Actually, neither a Ford, a Chevy, or a Dodge 1500 can do this thanks to the addition of electric power steering. Actually, until very recently a F150 couldn't even carry a license plate centered on the front of the vehicle. Okay, that was low but it is funny.

And it is funny you bring up towing because the devil is always in the details. There are F-150s rated to tow like 13k pounds, that is a 2wd, 8 ft bed. The "consumer" truck, the crew cab 4wd ecoboost tops out at 8k, the 4wd Tundra Crew Max 9,800.

 

Wow. Another wall lol.

Two things. That’s all I’ll say and I’m out. Full disclosure I didn’t read your full post. Almost no one will. Make your point then get out. This is the internet, and not a college level course. I’m also college educated in flow mechanics. Don’t peddle those details. There’s no accountability on TW so they don’t matter. I say that out of complete respect for your hard earned degrees. I can tell you have the education, but you simply disagree that the 10% fuel consumption difference is important. To some, it’s more important than the name badge. To some it’s not.

First, thermal efficiency is not hit or miss. Toyota is just reluctant to put turbo engines in their main line vehicles. A perfect example is what Honda is doing. Honda towed the same line in public that Toyota does right now, that they couldn’t consistently get better mileage out of small turbo engines than they could out of larger naturally aspirated ones. They also hid behind reliability and other claims. However, in the last 5 years, Honda has almost gone completely turbo. That should tell you something. Especially since they had the same opinion as Toyota and changed their mind fairly quickly. GM is also putting an I4 turbo in their trucks, so no it’s not just Ford. No it’s not just 25 sq ft and what can push it. It’s all about CAFE and how to game the system the best for those sweet EPA numbers. It’s years of testing and R&D. No offense to Toyota, I love my Tacoma, but Toyota can’t spend that money on the Tundra at its sales level.

Secondly, no. Stop using a ton of text then talk out of your ass about tow ratings. Look at a chart. F150s can come with many drive ratios unlike Tundras. I used to be in fleet operations so I know this cold. Check out one of the last pages. It’s missing the Ecoboost (correction updated with the chart including the Ecoboost) but the 5.0 L is always within 500 lbs of the V8. A F150 crew can tow anywhere from 8,000 to almost 12,000 pounds all dependent on drive and gearing. https://www.ford.ca/cmslibs/content...uides/pdf/RV_Trailer_Towing_Guide_EN_2018.PDF