Toyota Tundra vs Ford F150 Hybrid Fuel Economy Tests

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.