[BedfordForrest]

whats the reason? Less cost up front?

 

[2004TundraDC]

whats the reason? Less cost up front?

IMO, it makes no sense to go with the 4.7L instead of the monster 5.7L> Cost wise it's only about a $2000 difference between the two. MPG's are almost the same or even better for the 5.7L. But I guess it comes down to a personal decision.

I love my 5.7L. Coming from an early '04 DC with the 4.7L V8 and 245HP Motor, this 5.7L is awesome.

 

[ncj01]

curious if ya'll are comparing window sticker mpg or real mpg.

I've owned an 04 and 06 4.7L. I got as high as 18 in gentle freeway driving, but never lower than the upper 14's in mixed and aggressive use.

I hear people on here cryin' for a whaaaam-bulance over 11-12mpg on thier 5.7's.

I'm still on my first tank on my new '07 4.7, so I look forward to seeing how the mpg are on it (same motor/tranny, different everything else).

So, my position (with what I have experienced on the 4.7's and read on the 5.7's) is that there is a real-world mpg difference.

That said: The reason I didn't get the 5.7 was becuase I couldn't afford it...not the mpg differences (real or perceived).

Divorced and simplifying my life and payments...

 

[Tchapin]

Not sure how others are getting 11-12? Must really be enjoying the 5.7! Mine has 20's w/275/55 and 4.3 rear and I am getting 15-16 rural and 17-18 highway and still romping on it some. I am getting a least the same if not better milage than my 4.7 '04 with 4 speed and 4.10 rear.

Hey the new Tundra is an awesome truck with the 4.7 which is good because there seems to be more of them for sale than the 5.7, at least at the dealerships in Houston and Austin I have been to. When I was shopping prices it was more like 1200.00 more for the 5.7 6speed and 4.3 gears. I am not rich, but I'll find the extra $20.00 month. Depending on the driver, I think the claim that the 5.7 gets the same or better milage over the 4.7 is valid.

 

[bgil]

Not sure how others are getting 11-12? Must really be enjoying the 5.7! Mine has 20's w/275/55 and 4.3 rear and I am getting 15-16 rural and 17-18 highway and still romping on it some. I am getting a least the same if not better milage than my 4.7 '04 with 4 speed and 4.10 rear.

Hey the new Tundra is an awesome truck with the 4.7 which is good because there seems to be more of them for sale than the 5.7, at least at the dealerships in Houston and Austin I have been to. When I was shopping prices it was more like 1200.00 more for the 5.7 6speed and 4.3 gears. I am not rich, but I'll find the extra $20.00 month. Depending on the driver, I think the claim that the 5.7 gets the same or better milage over the 4.7 is valid.

My 4.7 consistantly gets in the mid to high 16s...not 14s. For my needs, it has plenty of zip. I paid 30, 300 for my sr5 double cab and the way my dealer ordered and optioned other vehicles with the 5.7 the cost was well over 2000k difference.... not worth it for me to get less mileage. I had a 2000 4.7 and it did about the same as my 2007, with less horsepower and one less gear.

I completely respect the 5.7, but in equal 4.x4 configurations, you will never sell the idea that the 5.7 is overall more economical. (I will never drag race you, however)

 

[bbfirebird]

Like ncj01 said, theres a big difference between sticker MPG and actual MPG. I highly doubt that on average the 5.7 will be getting better MPG than the 4.7. Even with an extra overdrive gear, the 5.7 has an additional liter of engine displacement. The "...since it's a bigger engine it doesn't have to work as hard" argument only goes so far. That might be true for a small V6 vs a V8 in a big truck, but both V8s in the Tundra are more than capable of moving the vehicle around easily. Not to mention so many people here being so excited with their 381 HP and wanting to do burnouts is gonna cause some seriously low MPG. My LS1 Camaro and Firebird would get 17+ MPG in the city easily, but a few full throttle runs will drop it pretty quickly. I imagine that's only worse in a 5k pound truck.

 

[awesomebase]

I'm not saying that I would get the 4.7, but the 4.7 is a proven engine and those that are looking for a more reliable carryover from the previous model may be looking for that engine. The 5.7 -- as great as it is -- still needs to prove itself in the minds of customers even if actual testing involved millions of miles.

 

[Tchapin]

All valid points. Guess I got a great deal! It all comes down to buying what is best for each individual. We will see further down the road more milage comparisions.

 

[geneowens]

My 5.7 got 18.2 on the first tank.

 

[jliltd]

Gene:

Maybe it's a 5.7L longbed 4x4 Dcab thing. Mine got the same mileage on the first tank and did better on the second. Hasn't done that good since I decided it was broken-in enough to really enjoy the acceleration and power. Yee ha.

It's nice to get a confirmation that similar configurations of the 5.7L Tundra are matching mileage well unless they are operated in Vermont.

 

[dillinja666]

i got the 4.7 but kinda wish now i had gotten the 5.7. im getting decent gas mileage, but i tend to romp on the gas a lil cause i had a silverado regular cab that i put the 6.0 in :devil: . i gothe 4.7 cause i didnt want a first year motor, and i know the 4.7's are pretty bullet proof. thinking now, the5.7 would have been nice thoug

 

[TSK]

I'm thinking Toyota will have big incentives on the 4.7 this fall. We've got about 20 that nobody seems to want, while the 5.7s don't last more than a day or 2 on the lot.

At $1500 difference, the 4.7 really doesn't make much sense. At $3-4K difference I think it would sell.