You guys are missing the point. My point was not that the Tundra gets better mileage - my point is this article is misleading based on selective specs.

Let me give you another example:

What if I were to write an article that said.

Well, what other facts are we missing between my spoofed selective article and the real selective article in the original post?

Based entirely on the new 2008 ratings:

-GM's 4.3L V6 is actually half a mpg worse than its 5.3L V8 in average economy.

-Toyota's weaker and smaller 4.7L V8 gets worse mileage than the 5.7L does. Similarly, GM's 4.8L also gets worse mileage than its 5.3L does.

-GM's 5.3L V8 averages 1mpg better in both 4x4 and 4x2 forms (though it does come in with significantly less power), than the Tundra's 5.7L V8

-GM's 6.0L V8 comes fairly close to Toyota's 5.7L's power and in 4x4 flavor is rated at 13/17, which matches the Tundra's 5.7L economy, and in 4x2 flavor is rated at 13/18 which is 0.5mpg average worse than the 4x2 Tundra's economy.

-Both 6-cylinder models from GM and Toyota offer 15/19 mpg in 4x2 form. The Tundra offers more power, though.

Etc, etc.


Looking over ALL of the facts I wouldn't say that GM or Toyota offer significant advantages in economy over one another, OR over the majority of the rest of the competition for that matter.

Despite what the real article or my 'spoof' article might otherwise lead somebody to believe.

 

I was just posting it because GM got some good press...

 

I'm not saying you were wrong for doing that.

I'm simply saying the 'good press' isn't very accurate if you look at the real numbers.

Then again I will say I do see Toyota getting regarded by the press as a very fuel efficient company when they're, in reality, no better than GM with the exception of possibly their Prius hybrid, compact Corolla, and subcompact Yaris. Oh, and the hybrid Camry too. Wait... maybe they are a little greener in some regards...

 

The picture of the tacoma is a TRD 4x4 which gets no better than a fullsize truck. The prerunner quad cab gets no better either. We drove our 05 prerunner to FL and back and averaged 19.6 mpg which was all highway. The speed was 70-75 mph. I get 18 out of my silverado at 75mph. The tacoma picture they should have been showing was a regular cab 2wd with a 4 banger. There will be some people who now think a TuRD 4x4 ex cab tacoma gets 26mpg

Good for GM Anyone noticed GM has been getting some pretty positive press the last year or so?

 

Chevy Silverado has the most fuel efficient V8 and it is on par or better than many V6 trucks, based the #'s I've seen that is pretty damn accurate.

4.3L is good for just two things, being cheap and reliable. It cost its owners very little in maintenance over the 250K-300K miles they should be good for. Just a solid old school engine.

4.8L needs DoD/AFM and Toyota's 4.7L needs to be replaced.

 

I suggest reading the article again. It's fairly obvious that they're trying to leverage the 5.3 V8 as being 'ultra efficient' because it's as efficient as Honda's V6.

When the reality of things is that:
-The 5.3L is barely more efficient than the competition's V8s, while in many cases providing less power.
-As a general rule of thumb V6s in big/heavy vehicles don't tend to get much, if any, better mileage than the V8 counterparts - mainly because they have to struggle quite a bit more to pull the weight around.

 

I think you are reading to much into it. I agree with you though about the V6's. V6 doesn't really get you anything over a V8.

Don't forget 1mpg = 5-7% in the truck world.

 

That wasn't true 3-5 years ago. If you wanted fuel mileage from a full-size, although weaker, you got a V-6.

 

Threxx haven't you learned your lesson about posting anything by now.

 

2002 Chevy Silverado EPA rated mileage:
4.3L V6: 15/20
4.8L V8: 15/20
5.3L V8: 15/19

Nope.

 

I know I went to school with a guy who had a 2x4 F150 with the V6, standard cab and bed, he said he would consistently get at least 20mpg.

 

EPA ratings aren't worth crap, they're only a guide. I know people who consistently average 19-20 with a 4.3L fullsize GM truck, and some guys that can't seem to get better than 16-17 highway with their 5.3's.

Go back even further to the 88-98 trucks that came with the 4.3L and 5 speed.

In real world driving they got similar mileage to the newer ones (the 4.3), but the 5.7/700R4 was only good for 13-14 city and 16-17 highway in 2wd trim. 4x4's were lucky to get 15 highway.

Smart ***

 

EPA ratings are generally good enough for general relative measurement. In other words you may not get the rated mileage, but you will still typically experience the 'difference' in mileage between one and the other.

I think the anomaly exists in the fact that a person with a 4.3L V6 is more likely to take it easy - they're not going to have much fun by mashing the pedal - they're not going to impress anybody including themselves, and really, if they BOUGHT the V6 in the first place, then they're most likely a conservative driver anyway. The guys buying the V8s probably buy them because they enjoy the power - and they intend to use it.

The EPA ratings are given by requiring all of the vehicles to accelerate at the same leisurely pace. So if the V8 drivers can't resist using the extra power on tap then they're going to get worse mileage.

 

FWIW, my 2004 Silverado (2wd, ext. cab, 5.3, auto) gets virtually the same day-to-day mileage that my 1996 C1500 (2wd, reg. cab, 5.7, auto) did, maybe a tiny bit better. My '96 would pull down 18 mpg week in and week out. My '04 gets closer to 19 under the same driving routines. I'm guessing the '04 is a bit heavier since it's an extended cab and the '96 wasn't. I do know, however, that the 5.7 "Vortec" in the '96 had significantly better low-end feel. I drove a 2001 reg cab 4.3 auto once as a loaner and it struggled to maintain 70 mph into a 20 mph headwind.

 

On the highway and with 3.08 gears, I can see that. In the city, that thing won't get out of it's own way, which means squat for MPGs.

Unfortunately, that makes that particular F-truck a glorified car that tows less than a 4 cylinder Ranger.