[BedfordForrest]

I want a 4WD but only need a 2WD. Since I drive alot, I am trying to justify it. The sticker for the 2wd limited crewmax says 16city and 20hwy. 14/18 for 4wd. What do you guys think?

 

[Mr. Creosote]

This is believable and historically accurate. You have more weight to lug around with the 4x4, plus more shafts and stuff to turn, so it is bound to soak up a little of the power. I am not sure what kinds of winters you have in your area, but up here if the 4x4 gets you unstuck just once, it pays for the extra fuel for a long time to come.

 

[StatCoder]

Sounds like about 2 cents more per mile or 300 dollars per year of extra fuel cost (if you drive 15K miles per year) plus the cost of the 4WD vs 2WD.

 

[Joe T]

Subscribing for some real world calculations..

FWIW, I love the tundra and only need 2wd too, but it sure would be nice to have a 4x4 for hunting trips etc..

The chevy with 5.3 liter gets 22mpg hwy in the 2wd and the 4x4 gets 21 mpg from the literature I've read. If I get a 4wd I'll probably get the chevy.

I don't care too much about city MPG since that will vary so greatly from driver to driver.

 

[BedfordForrest]

i read a review where the chevy got the worse l,ileage in real world on edmonds

 

[Joe T]

i read a review where the chevy got the worse l,ileage in real world on edmonds

Which engine?

The 367 hp 6.0 or the 315hp 5.3?

 

[stubblejumper]

i read a review where the chevy got the worse l,ileage in real world on edmonds

The GMC engines with the fuel management systems have been a big disappointment mileage wise in actual driving despite higher mileage ratings.Check any of the various magazine comparisons and this will be quite evident.

 

[Joe T]

Hmm, maybe I should start reading some mags then.

I'm going off the EPA and believe it or not they are usually right when it comes to hwy mpg.. City mpg is going to vary greatly between drivers.

I just posted about my dodge Hemi in another thread about how when it hit 4,000 miles, 10,000 miles and 24,000 miles I actually noticed the differences in trips I took. My truck didn't hit the EPA estimates until it got 24,000 miles on it believe it or not and has stayed there pretty much ever since. Right after the warrantee went out I checked it again and was getting around 20-21 absolutely babying it and no head wind but this isn't realistic. Anyway the 18 mpg I get now is significantly better than what I was getting when it was new... I guess I should read up on it, but keep in mind most mags are american haters LOL.

Anyway, I'm not bashing the tundra, just pointing out what the epa estimates are. I drove both back to back this weekend except the chevy had a 5.3 liter which doesn't compare in power to the tundra 5.7 and the Tundra was noticablly nicer and would be my first choice unless I go 4x4. If I go 4x4 I'm going to really think it over since 2 mpg is a pretty big decrease.

 

[stubblejumper]

Check edmunds,Car and driver and others and the tundra with the 5.7 produced higher mpg numbers than the GMC despite having a lower EPA estimate.

 

[Mr. Creosote]

It would be interesting to see what sort of figure Toyota could attain, using cylinder deactivation with their more modern (non pushrod) engine technology.

 

[Scorpion210]

I beleive gearing is the reason for the difference. 2wd has 4.10 and 4wd has 4.30, then add the weight difference.

 

[stubblejumper]

It would be interesting to see what sort of figure Toyota could attain, using cylinder deactivation with their more modern (non pushrod) engine technology.

If the result is sluggish engine response as with the GMC engines using cylinder deactivation,I can live without the extra mpg or two.

 

[Joe T]

I beleive gearing is the reason for the difference. 2wd has 4.10 and 4wd has 4.30, then add the weight difference.

The 2wd's I looked at this weekend had 4.30 gears.. Pretty impressive to get 20mpg with 4.30 gears.. The 6 speed helps I'd imagine.

 

[Joe T]

If the result is sluggish engine response as with the GMC engines using cylinder deactivation,I can live without the extra mpg or two.

The cylinder deactivation is supposed to help economy out by 10% from what I read on both the GM and chrysler. It would be nice to see the 381hp tundra get 22mpg if they can make it work right.

 

[Joe T]

It would be interesting to see what sort of figure Toyota could attain, using cylinder deactivation with their more modern (non pushrod) engine technology.

The non pushrod technology you speak of isn't modern. It's been around for a long time... Just not utilized like it has been in the last 2 decades.

Toyota wanted to get licensing from GM to use their LS motor design but GM said no. I read this in Motor Trend a long time ago. GM's LS motors are super, just ask anyone out there driving an LS1 F-body... Or me .. Great MPG and not to be dealt with on the street or strip. GM just chooses to use pushrod technology and they get good results with it.

Ford uses it's modular motor and they suck horribly compared to GM.

 

[stubblejumper]

The cylinder deactivation is supposed to help economy out by 10% from what I read on both the GM and chrysler.

You are missing two key words in your statement.Those words being "up to".The cylinder deactivation can only achieve the advertised figures on level roads,while at constant speeds.Unless you live on an absolutely flat prairie and never accelerate or deaccelerate,those figures simply aren't possible.if you drive in normal traffic or in normal terrain,the possible gains will decrease substancially.Just check out some of the online or magazine tests and you will see that the GMC engines with this system produce less fuel mileage than comparable sized engines without this system in normal all around driving.

 

[Mr. Creosote]

You are missing two key words in your statement.Those words being "up to".The cylinder deactivation can only achieve the advertised figures on level roads,while at constant speeds.Unless you live on an absolutely flat prairie and never accelerate or deaccelerate,those figures simply aren't possible.if you drive in normal traffic or in normal terrain,the possible gains will decrease substancially.Just check out some of the online or magazine tests and you will see that the GMC engines with this system produce less fuel mileage than comparable sized engines without this system in normal all around driving.

You must need all eight cylinders to race to find a place to live up at McMurray?

 

[stubblejumper]

You must need all eight cylinders to race to find a place to live up at McMurray?

Actially I have owned my home in Fort Mcmurray for 16 years and I am pleased that it has increased in value to over 4 times the original purchase price.

 

[DL]

What City and Highway mpg can I expect on a 07 Tundra Crewmax Limited 5.7L 4x2?

thanks

 

[BedfordForrest]

bump for more info