Toyota Tundra vs Ford F150 Hybrid Fuel Economy Tests

[FishOnOne]

Towing weight: 8,100 lbs

Tundra
Empty: 24 mpg
Towing: 12.4 mpg

F150 Hybrid
Empty: 36 mpg
Towing: 11.8 mpg

Link

[specta]

Grit dog wrote:
PS, Ford rates the F150 hybrid at 23-25mpg. You think if it actually got 36mpg or whatever those 2 ding dongs in Colorado are claiming that Ford wouldn’t claim that?

That is quite a difference in mileage.

I would have to think that manufactures post what most mileage conscience drivers are capable of getting rather than what the vehicle is actually capable of getting.

If Ford advertised what the truck is capable of getting rather than real world numbers they would have more poor mileage warranty claims than they would know what to do with.

If I was to buy a new truck today gas mileage would be way down on the list of things that were important to me.

[RoyJ]

Personally if I had to commute 300 miles @ 90 mph, a pickup truck would be dead last of my list. Both my cars can cruise at that speed getting 30 mpg+, and out brake any of my trucks.

[blt2ski]

Grit

You have at least one thing going for you and your drive that back of the pack has to deal with. That's a commercial driver log book. Electric would be really bad for you and him if you both were to drive 90 mph. Both having to stop a scale house, both having to show electric log book. BOTH getting retro tickets for driving 90 mph in a 60 or 70 mph speed zone. This does happen to peeps.
This issue can happen, be it if the driver is an owner operator, or an employee.
Fortunetly, you in your pickumup don't have to stop at the 3-5 scale houses you would pass in your twice daily 300 mile commute.
You might also have to stop on return trip, sleep at wieght scale in you back seat or equal. As you will have been on the road with out showing proper rest if your electronic log book was checked!
MPG is part of a given issue for all of us.

Marty

[Grit_dog]

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.

[BackOfThePack]

agesilaus wrote:
Who buys a p/u for it's fuel economy?

That it would pay back any price premium if so incurred.


Ran into a man had exact same truck as I, save for gasser V8. He’d kept good records. And though my FE is far above the pitiful average, his fuel burn numbers were good enough that where we’d expect him at 200k to install a re-man engine and keep his truck able to work to original spec . .

. . . I’d be hard-pressed to make back my engine premium if I DIDN’T get it past the B50 350k mark and then some more. With no engine repairs. (A new set of injectors is pretty much the throat-cut).

Once the energetic price of fuel flipped circa 2007, diesel was no longer economical for Joe Sixpack. Diesel wasn’t 50-cents per gallon lower, it became 50-cents higher. A gallon of diesel has 1/3 greater energy content than gasoline. Anytime diesel is one-third higher cost per gallon it’s FE magic goes away.

Choosing a truck based on FE is more about same-to-same. Choosing a Dodge over GM or Ford was easy. Their engines didn’t last long — 225k life — and FE was never as good.

If FE matters, you plan for it. Goals. Changes to driving habits. Changes to use.

Records & Discipline. Soon becomes habit.

How long will you keep it? How many miles will it accumulate?

.

[BackOfThePack]

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?

[blt2ski]

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

[valhalla360]

n0arp wrote:

RoyJ wrote:
I should've stated it this way: all things being equal, why not pick the truck with better fuel economy.

I never said anywhere that if all other things we equal, fuel economy wouldn't be the deciding factor. I said it's a distant priority, after many other things.

I just don't think most truck buyers, especially in the 2500+ segment, are shopping with fuel economy at the top of their priority list. It's in there, sure, just not at the top.

Good thing this is a thread about 1500+ segment trucks...

Also, I bet a lot of 2500+ segment trucks give it a lot of thought as a large percentage of those go into commercial service. If you are buying dozens of trucks and running them lots of miles, MPG savings is something they take serious.

[n0arp]

RoyJ wrote:
I should've stated it this way: all things being equal, why not pick the truck with better fuel economy.

I never said anywhere that if all other things we equal, fuel economy wouldn't be the deciding factor. I said it's a distant priority, after many other things.

I just don't think most truck buyers, especially in the 2500+ segment, are shopping with fuel economy at the top of their priority list. It's in there, sure, just not at the top.

[valhalla360]

Grit dog wrote:
Yes you're correct the baby diesels do appear to get significantly better mileage than their gas engine counterparts, although it appears most all of your mileage knowledge is from the internet...but I digress.

I've had the 15MPG trucks and I've had a truck that got 27MPG. Not had a 30+ truck yet but I'm sure you are the internet source who knows better.

[RoyJ]

I should've stated it this way: all things being equal, why not pick the truck with better fuel economy.

Tundra vs F150 powerboost: both half tons, both 3.5ish V6 turbo, both hybrid, both 10 spd auto, similar tow rating, GCW, payload (not counting HD payload pkg), pretty equal IMO.

Toyota may have better reliability historically, but this is a new powertrain, so until proven, it's only a perceived win over Ford.

[n0arp]

RoyJ wrote:
If Ram modified a Hellcat/TRX engine for commercial duty (extensive cooling, etc.), shoved it in a 5500, and upped GCW to 50k lbs. Gets 1.7 mpg towing uphill. What's the take rate? I bet less than 5% would pick that over a lower performance Cummins.

I would argue there are other, more significant, reasons for a low take rate with that, but sure, fuel economy would be one of them.

[RoyJ]

n0arp wrote:

RoyJ wrote:
I'd say for the vast majority of truck buyers, from light duty to heavy duty (Class 8), fuel consumption is the number 1 priority.

If that wasn't the case all OEMs would stick a supercharged big block crate engine and call it a day...

Fuel economy is a very distant priority for me, and always has been. I buy trucks for performance and capability, first and foremost. I wouldn't say I don't care, but it's barely on my radar... and the same goes for most people I know. The last few trucks I've bought don't even provide EPA estimates, and I'm sure that goes for a lot of people's trucks on here.

Most HD pickup diesels are already optimized for fuel economy, and fairly even across the 3. It's reasonable to use capability / comfort as the next metric.

I use extreme examples to illustrate a point:

If Ram modified a Hellcat/TRX engine for commercial duty (extensive cooling, etc.), shoved it in a 5500, and upped GCW to 50k lbs. Gets 1.7 mpg towing uphill. What's the take rate? I bet less than 5% would pick that over a lower performance Cummins.

[Grit_dog]

valhalla360 wrote:


I don't know about you but I can recall the trucks that got 15MPG and several of the new ones are getting 25MPG.

If you don't have heavy duty towing needs, I believe the dodge with the small diesel is rated at 33MPG highway.

So that's a much bigger range than 1-2MPG

Yes you're correct the baby diesels do appear to get significantly better mileage than their gas engine counterparts, although it appears most all of your mileage knowledge is from the internet...but I digress.
(And I thought we were comparing a Ford Gas/Energizer bunny combo and Tundra....maybe I'm all wacked out and in the wrong thread again! lol)

Actually neither of my current trucks even get 15mpg, except maybe on their best day lol. 2020 5.3 Chevy p/u and and 2016 Dodge diesel.
Granted that is largely due to my driving style and big tires, but it's all relative.
Don't know how many different vehicles you drive or have driven in recent years, while tooling around in the ole V10 (great truck btw!) or catamaran, but I end up behind the wheel of quite a few different vehciles, trucks and cars. And ya know what, save for diesels, 1/2 ton gasser 4x4s still get closer to 15mpg than 25 and there aint a full size truck out there that averages 33mpg. Not even close. Not even if you grampa'd that thing across Kansas with a tail wind...well maybe if the tailwind was strong enough.
It's all relative.
20 years ago, I used to average say 10-11mpg in a half ton 4x4 with a "big" V8. Now, granted they have more power and more gears, I can average 14+ mpg in a similar truck, still driving like I'm late to a fire.
But you figure it however you want. There is still no free lunches out there. And no 35mpg pickup trucks!