AutoMechanic
Site Donor 2025
Please don’t Jim. That thing is as ugly as the new Maverick. If they had it in manual I might consider but they don’t unfortunately.
2022 Tundra Crew Max
- Thread starter Zee09
- Start date
Zee09
$200 Site Donor 2023
- Joined
- May 5, 2018
- Messages
- 20,852
You badmouthed my Arteon and now this.... Enough Chinese chicken pow boy..
AutoMechanic
Site Donor 2025
That’s cause I know my cars LOL. Just kidding if you like it Jim then have at it but it’s not for me. I guarantee it has push button start as well which makes me want to run.You badmouthed my Arteon and now this.... Enough Chinese chicken pow boy..
Zee09
$200 Site Donor 2023
- Joined
- May 5, 2018
- Messages
- 20,852
So did everything I owned before you were born...if you can find me a Mazda truck with keys I will buy that Kung Pao
Zee09
$200 Site Donor 2023
- Joined
- May 5, 2018
- Messages
- 20,852
My toilet has a push button too.
unless it catches on fire you’re not losing money
I'd have a hard time getting anything else at this stage.
Take the names off the just look at the numbers
479Lb FT at 2400/ ten speed- can make these #'s at any altitude or temp.
410Lb FT @ 3950 (4800?) / 8 speed- suffers greatly at heat and altitude.
True-But I can tell you my 5.3 in my Silverado will pull my 5,000 foot trailer up 8,000 foot passes (on a regular basis BTW-based on where I live) in the summer with no issues. Yes-it revs like crazy in lower gears but is built to do so. I pull at 65mph on a level highway at 2,000 rpm to get 12mpg. Anything more than that speed and gas mpg further declines. Based on what I have read the Ford 3.5 doesn't do much better under the same level highway situation.
https://www.f150ecoboost.net/threads/towing-fuel-economy.18049/
Last edited:
The Rams literally never show below 4.7 mpg. In fact no FCA products do, apparently. The TRX, the regular Ram 1500, the Durango, the Gladiator. They all showed 4.7mpg using different trailers on different days. Their computers clearly dont display any lower so literally any FCA IKE mpg results from the last few years should just be thrown in the garbage.
And they did a second IKE run with the Tundra more recently with the same trailer and matched the rams fake 4.7.
And just because Ecoboosts run hot, doesnt mean the tundra will. Compare the cooling systems from an F150 and Tundra and you’ll see what I mean. Ecoboosts cooling systems and intercooler are pathetic. And I am an ecoboost owner who tows year round at 6500’ or more.
Last edited:
I’m genuinely excited for the Tundra. I really like the GTDI concept for trucks and I think Toyota is the one who is actually going to execute it well.
My only gripe is the payload is lackluster at best. Ive been following the payload thread at Tundras.com and so far the highest sticker anyone has seen was 1555 lbs in a Doublecab 2x4 SR5. The original claims of 1800-1900 lbs seem to be some unicorn truck.
It's interesting to see the different thoughts on this new body style. I've not been a big fan of the Tundra until now. I keep looking at those but that's the last thing I need.
Is this true? I recall watching a TFL video where they took same trailer up Ike behind a Pentastar and a Hemi, and both got 4.7mpg. IIRC this was brought up then too, but I think we all disregarded it—just too odd.
FWIW, quick run of the numbers shows 4.7mpg = 50L per 100km. Which is a nice round number in metric, so that makes me wonder if it’s possibly true. Perhaps everything in the ECU is done in metric, including this bit of conditional checking.
I’m not too surprised—at anything under WOT each engine should be holding some amount of reserve, and IIRC you pull a nice large trailer, which sets the wind drag. Turbo’s can run richer at WOT (to keep from melting things) but otherwise… each hp is not that different in what it needs to eat.
[I still marvel over how far GM has taken 2 valve OHV. IMO it’s been quite impressive.]
I saw a new Tundra last week on the road for the first time. Only from the back and side. Looked nice to me.
It's hard to gauge reliability on some of these vehicles. I'd expect the Toyota to be a bit better in terms of overall quality across the board compared to GM/Ford/Dodge offerings.
It's hard to gauge reliability on some of these vehicles. I'd expect the Toyota to be a bit better in terms of overall quality across the board compared to GM/Ford/Dodge offerings.
^^^^^^True of MANY vehicles these days, not just this one. 
While each HP needs to eat about the same, the key point in discussing turbos is the effect of altitude.
Normally Aspirated engines simply can’t eat at altitude, because their ability to ingest air, and thus burn fuel, declines with air density.
Turbos can, and do, compensate for the density change and can often make full rated HP while NA engines take a big loss.
Used to make me smile when I had my Volvo turbo wagon up in the mountain passes of Colorado (e.g. Eisenhower Tunnel) and watch ‘Vettes, Porsches, and BMWs fail to keep up as the Volvo made up for the altitude and made full HP, while they were off by 40% or so.
I like the idea of a twin turbo truck, compensating for altitude.
I‘ve admired the performance of my Buddy’s Super Duty for that same reason. The turbo diesel makes impressive power over the passes.
