A 4.30 rear ratio is included with the 5.7 V8 tow package on the new Tundra.

That should be great for real world MPG, six speed or otherwise. (NOT!)

I can hear the gas gulping already.

 

So? Why is it bad to offer such ratios? Is it better that GM offers "only" a 4.10 ratio on the 2007 Silverado with the 6.0L engine and towing package? Consider that the Tundra carries a 0.58:1 6th gear ratio, which means that the overall ratio is approximately 14% taller than that of the Silverado.

Also note that both trucks are equipped with 32" tires (at least when fitted with 20" wheels and 275/55/20 tires), which makes comparison to "traditional" ratios somewhat difficult.

Knee-jerking of this intensity cannot be good for your joints

 

There's nothing wrong with offering it, and I never said there was. I'm just pointing out that with 4.30's, regardless of the sixth gear's ratio, this truck is going to be a gas swilling machine, which goes against the Mr. Green Jeans image of Toyota.

It's also comical when you spew information without knowing reality.

4.10 isn't the "only" rear end ratio available with the 6.0 in a half ton 900. You can also get a 3.73 with it, AND a trailer package, just not the Max. If a person wants the Vortec Max Trailering package, then, in 4x4 models, you are required 4.10 OR 3.73 gearing for 4x2 models.

But you don't have to get 4.10's if you don't want to in a Chevy.

 

4:10's in the silverado's since 99 have gotten better mileage than 3:73's mostly because of transmissions

I don't see why Toyota couldn't engineer a 4.3 axle to get better mileage yet with a 6 speed tranny

 

You're not very good at math, are you?

3.73 x 0.7 4th ratio = 2.61 final drive ratio

4.30 x 0.58 6th ratio = 2.49 final drive ratio

It may well stink at fuel economy, but it won't be because of the final drive ratio.

 

As a matter of fact, I'm excellent at math, thank you.

As evidenced by your jab, you must not realize what anyone who deals with trucks on a large scale already knows; in real world driving (which is more than the overall final drive on a highway) such as city etc., running through the gears with a rear such a 4.10 or 4.30 will have the tendancy to make your engine run higher rpm through all situations and not just the freeway. The Tundra, like other trucks with a higher rear gear, with be winding faster and higher in every gear and situation, using more fuel.

I do see where you're coming from. However, dealing with hundreds of trucks has shown this scenario to be true versus calculating mathmatics for an overall final highway drive ratio for fuel economy.

Toyota says it will be getting 18 mpg highway with their 5.7, I'll believe it when I see it in real world driving with real customers that aren't jaded.

Time will tell, but so far I'm sceptical.

 

Its a pickup. If you want gas mileage get a metro. What do you think about 0-60 in 6.x sec with a 4 door truck. If it had a bowtie on the grill you chevy guys will be climbing over eachother to get that sissy lookin pos.

 

Here's some math:

1990 Turbo Grand Prix = * 2

And he's still backpedaling for some ground to stand proud on.

 

The quotation marks around the word "only" in my post were not meant to state that it is the exclusive offering, but rather were sarcastically implying that it's oh-so-much taller than the Toyota's tree-killing 4.30.

Explain to me how the Tundra's transmission gearing - especially the long-legged 6th gear - doesn't impact fuel economy. Are you saying that my fuel economy would be unchanged in my Impala if I swapped out the T56 for, say, a Tremec TKO? Actually, that does appear to be what you're saying. God help your customers.

 

As a Chiropractic student I must agree.

 

You cannot know that without actually driving it (or being the engineer who set up the transmission PCM). Early lock up of the converter, shift points (can be much earlier with less gear spread), etc- you cannot know that it will always run higher -> more fuel consumed. Wait and see.

I don't expect that the mileage will be that great, because it's a big-***, not very aero pickup truck. People who really give a crap about mileage don't buy pickups that see bed/hitch use 2x/year like most suburbanites.

 

Data point.....



2003 Silverado 2500HD 6.0L - A4 - 4.10 gears

Truck weighs just shy of 6000 lbs, figure nearly 7000lb loaded for a weekend of racing with driver and passenger.

The car and trailer together weigh somewhere around 5800 lbs total, figure 6000 lbs loaded for a weekend of racing.

So a good estimate would be somewhere around 13,000 lbs for the combo.

I get 12.0 - 12.5 mpg towing.

13.5 - 14.5 mpg unloaded around town

14.5 - 15.5 mpg unloaded on the highway

 

Has anyone seen the new Toyota commercials for the half-ton series? They are basically comparing their rear end gear to the competitors, which is a larger diameter and also the size of their brake rotors to the competitors half-tons. If definitely looks like they are looking for the "bigger is better" image to compete with the American counterparts.

 

Does the Tundra only run in the "long-legged" sixth gear? Hate to remind you that the rear end will affect in all cases, not just top gear hi-way cruising. We'll see how well they got it right when real owners have them. God help the people you give automotive advise to....

Backpedaling? Hardly.

Why don't you talk when we start getting real world comparitive mpg results.

I'm only stating what real people get from real world trucks and real world situations/products (i.e. rear end ratios). Mind you, the information doesn't come from know-it-all blog sitters or college students......



Like I said, we'll see. But for those who think mileage is not a concern of customers for full size trucks, it just shows how little you are out of touch with the real world.

 

And I hate to remind you that the deep low-end gear can easily be countered by the tranmission shift schedule, and in fact that lower ratio can actually help with the fuel economy because of the advantage it provides upon standing-stop launches. This, in fact, is consistant with what just about every manufacturer is doing - deepening the overall ratio in lower transmission gear ranges, and making the upper ranges taller.

You're just digging a deeper hole with every post, but that's what happens when someone tries to latch onto a single number - one that, by itself, is nearly meaningless - and then tries to use it to talk sh*t about an entire vehicle. There are several valid criticisms that could be launched against the Tundra; you didn't pick one of them

The Big 3, the transplants, the military, and agricultural equipment manufacturers don't have an issue with my advice. I'm sure you know more than all of them, however.

Chewbacca,

FWIW, I get about 12 MPG around town, 13-14 MPG on the highway, and about 11.5-12 MPG towing a 7000lb car/trailer combo with my '96 K2500 (same transmission and gearing as yours). That's with the 35" H2 wheel/tire combo, which doesn't help matters, but my truck is probably also about 750 lbs lighter than yours. Give it up for your GenIII.