What to do?

[p nut]

Ok, that's more like it. Pretty nice set up. But yeah, $12k...and that's just for the base price. Oof. Those options don't seem cheap, either. That'd add up quick. But things are just getting more expensive, period. My father just picked up an Airstream 25'. $72k, I think. I could think of a lot I could do with $72k than drag an overgrown beer can behind my truck all over the country. (admittedly, it's pretty nice).

 

[Clutch]

But things are just getting more expensive, period.

Man, aren't they!?

Just seems nutz...awful lot of money to spend to live like a homeless person.

It is nice...dunno...think we have come full circle full circle. All my crap is paid for, and works fine. Only difference is, a new truck/camper will only drain the bank the account...as they say, it is only new until you drive it off the lot.

Think we have beat several dead horses over this subject.

 

[Chili]

You posted this in the Full Size forum, so of course the answer was to keep the truck!

I just downsized from a 2005 Suburban Z71 to a JKU in September, and couldn't be happier. Of course, I already had a trailer, which helped make the decision.

If I were in your shoes I would probably get an early 2000's Silverado (assuming a 1/2 ton is sufficient) for the 'truck' work and DD a Jeep. But it all comes down to personal preference and I don't think there is really a wrong answer.

 

[Dalko43]

My info is obtained from first hand experience from friend/family/company trucks (not that that has a lot of weight...). Tests on the net seem to back it up as well. Here is a test from Edmunds on a 5.0 F150. They netted close to 20MPG.
https://www.edmunds.com/ford/f-150/...my-test-27-liter-ecoboost-vs-50-liter-v8.html

Edmunds also says that they got 16.6 MPG with the Tundra. (4.3 gearing probably hurts them here).
https://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/top-10/fuel-economy-for-2015-full-size-4wd-trucks.html

I don't know how credible those results are, but it seems like they've at least eliminated most variables by conducting that test in a more or less controlled environment.
_
Again, I drove my father's 4WD Tahoe (5.3L V8)--600 mile trip, 4 adults, 2 kids loaded with cargo, going 65-75MPH (avg of 70mph most of the way), and we were at 22mpg. I haven't seen a single test for the Tundra getting anything close to that. Have you? Three Tundra 5.7's I've been around for a while have never broken 17mpg, and typically average 15-16mpg (hwy). A friend also has a GX460 getting 12-13mpg avg, and 16mpg highway (I know, different engine and FT 4WD, but thought I'd throw it in). Again, small sample size, but that's what I've seen.
_
BTW: The link you posted--You've got a HD Payload pkg picked out for the F150. Regular F150 (comparable to the Tundra) comes in at 15/21.
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=36810&id=36546&id=37052&id=37050

From reading that edmunds article, I'm not sure where you're getting 22mpg for the Coyote V8. In their testing, which was biased towards highway driving, the Ford averaged 19 mpg. And when you load it up, tow, starting going up and down hills, I've no doubt that the mpg will tank quickly from there.

Your experiences may be different, but from what most people discuss on truck-specific forums and post on fuelly.com, 22mpg is not normal for those domestic v8's. 18-19mpg seems to be on the high side, and slightly under that seems to be more normal. I know the Tundra is rated a bit below that, but it's not much of a difference.

 

[b9ev]

My observation from people that have gas half tons is that the American trucks make mid to high teens and the Tundra makes low to mid teens.

 

[Clutch]

From reading that edmunds article, I'm not sure where you're getting 22mpg for the Coyote V8. In their testing, which was biased towards highway driving, the Ford averaged 19 mpg. And when you load it up, tow, starting going up and down hills, I've no doubt that the mpg will tank quickly from there.

Your experiences may be different, but from what most people discuss on truck-specific forums and post on fuelly.com, 22mpg is not normal for those domestic v8's. 18-19mpg seems to be on the high side, and slightly under that seems to be more normal. I know the Tundra is rated a bit below that, but it's not much of a difference.

My old '76 F250 with a 390 barely got 8 mpg, believe the 5.0 puts out more power and is much cleaner burning while doing it. MPG hovering around 20 mpg is pretty good for a fullsize 4WD truck that can tow 10K#. IIRC my old F250 was around 7K#.

 

[p nut]

...My info is obtained from first hand experience from friend/family/company trucks (not that that has a lot of weight...). Tests on the net seem to back it up as well. Here is a test from Edmunds on a 5.0 F150. They netted close to 20MPG.
https://www.edmunds.com/ford/f-150/...my-test-27-liter-ecoboost-vs-50-liter-v8.html

...

From reading that edmunds article, I'm not sure where you're getting 22mpg for the Coyote V8. In their testing, which was biased towards highway driving, the Ford averaged 19 mpg. And when you load it up, tow, starting going up and down hills, I've no doubt that the mpg will tank quickly from there.

Your experiences may be different, but from what most people discuss on truck-specific forums and post on fuelly.com, 22mpg is not normal for those domestic v8's. 18-19mpg seems to be on the high side, and slightly under that seems to be more normal. I know the Tundra is rated a bit below that, but it's not much of a difference.

Speed reading is tough, isn't it? :elkgrin: There are instances of people getting over 20MPG with the 5.0. Tundra's just don't get anything close to that (noted on Edmund's site--16.6mpg). Also, Highway testing is much better comparison vs mixed or city mileage. There are too many variables. Do you think there would be any variance in city mileage in NYC and Boone, NC? IMO, Fuelly may be a source of data, but not particular good, for that fact alone. Way too many variables.

 

[p nut]

Man, aren't they!?

Just seems nutz...awful lot of money to spend to live like a homeless person.

It is nice...dunno...think we have come full circle full circle. All my crap is paid for, and works fine. Only difference is, a new truck/camper will only drain the bank the account...as they say, it is only new until you drive it off the lot.

Think we have beat several dead horses over this subject.

We sure get nowhere fast, but it's still fun, right.

 

[Clutch]

We sure get nowhere fast, but it's still fun, right.

********! Sure is!

 

[Clutch]

From reading that edmunds article, I'm not sure where you're getting 22mpg for the Coyote V8. In their testing, which was biased towards highway driving, the Ford averaged 19 mpg. And when you load it up, tow, starting going up and down hills, I've no doubt that the mpg will tank quickly from there.

Your experiences may be different, but from what most people discuss on truck-specific forums and post on fuelly.com, 22mpg is not normal for those domestic v8's. 18-19mpg seems to be on the high side, and slightly under that seems to be more normal. I know the Tundra is rated a bit below that, but it's not much of a difference.

Speed reading is tough, isn't it? :elkgrin: There are instances of people getting over 20MPG with the 5.0. Tundra's just don't get anything close to that (noted on Edmund's site--16.6mpg). Also, Highway testing is much better comparison vs mixed or city mileage. There are too many variables. Do you think there would be any variance in city mileage in NYC and Boone, NC? IMO, Fuelly may be a source of data, but not particular good, for that fact alone. Way too many variables.

Remember the days when we didn't care about mpg, only cared about how many horses were under the hood? May not have to worry any longer, some big changes are a coming, of course the places where we want to drive to will be destroyed but hey...

 

[Dalko43]

Speed reading is tough, isn't it? :elkgrin:

You had made two separate references to domestic v8's, including the coyote 5.0 and Hemi, getting 22mpg:

Again, I drove my father's 4WD Tahoe (5.3L V8)--600 mile trip, 4 adults, 2 kids loaded with cargo, going 65-75MPH (avg of 70mph most of the way), and we were at 22mpg. I haven't seen a single test for the Tundra getting anything close to that. Have you? Three Tundra 5.7's I've been around for a while have never broken 17mpg, and typically average 15-16mpg (hwy). A friend also has a GX460 getting 12-13mpg avg, and 16mpg highway (I know, different engine and FT 4WD, but thought I'd throw it in). Again, small sample size, but that's what I've seen.

_
As for domestic V8's, both Ford and Ram V8's get much better MPG. By that site's own calculation, cost to run the Ford on an annual basis is 10% cheaper and 20% for the Ram. Having said that, I don't value those MPG figures, as it includes city miles. Too many variables there. Highway MPG is what I'd focus on. I have yet to see a Tundra get anything close to 20MPG. Yet domestics do it quite easily. My father's Tahoe gets 22MPG. That's a heavy beast, too (fully loaded LTZ). Plenty of folks with 5.0 Coyote and 5.7 Hemi get that as well. Part of confusion is that all of these manufacturers have same access to talent (engineers, designers, etc). Toyota is a big time player and could probably recruit any top level talent, but can't come up with something a bit more efficient?

I don't think your own results and the ones you are referencing form other people's supposed experiences are representative of the mpg that is typical for these truck/engine combo's.

There are instances of people getting over 20MPG with the 5.0. Tundra's just don't get anything close to that (noted on Edmund's site--16.6mpg). Also, Highway testing is much better comparison vs mixed or city mileage. There are too many variables. Do you think there would be any variance in city mileage in NYC and Boone, NC? IMO, Fuelly may be a source of data, but not particular good, for that fact alone. Way too many variables.

Like I said earlier, getting 20mpg on a 60mph highway cruise, with little to no load and a favorable wind sounds feasible. But in realistic conditions, where 70-75mph is the norm, and more acceleration, hilly terrain, weather, ect..... hopefully you get my drift that 19-20mpg is more of a theoretical efficiency mark than it is a realistic benchmark for day-to-day driving.

Any fuelly.com is by no means perfect. But it is a data point, and I certainly have a bit more confidence in those results than I do the anecdotal mpg stories that come out of internet forums. It's kind of like big fish stories; there is always that internet guy who gets absurdly high mpg results that no one else is able to match for some odd reason.

 

[p nut]

Remember the days when we didn't care about mpg, only cared about how many horses were under the hood? May not have to worry any longer, some big changes are a coming, of course the places where we want to drive to will be destroyed but hey...

That's a whoooole 'nother discussion--hopefully we make it through the next 4 years ok.

You had made two separate references to domestic v8's, including the coyote 5.0 and Hemi, getting 22mpg:






I don't think your own results and the ones you are referencing form other people's supposed experiences are representative of the mpg that is typical for these truck/engine combo's.





Like I said earlier, getting 20mpg on a 60mph highway cruise, with little to no load and a favorable wind sounds feasible. But in realistic conditions, where 70-75mph is the norm, and more acceleration, hilly terrain, weather, ect..... hopefully you get my drift that 19-20mpg is more of a theoretical efficiency mark than it is a realistic benchmark for day-to-day driving.

Any fuelly.com is by no means perfect. But it is a data point, and I certainly have a bit more confidence in those results than I do the anecdotal mpg stories that come out of internet forums. It's kind of like big fish stories; there is always that internet guy who gets absurdly high mpg results that no one else is able to match for some odd reason.

22MPG was mainly for the GM engine, but look on any Ford or Ram forums (as you suggested)--there are lots getting that MPG, and some higher. It would be one thing if it were an anomaly with only a few reporting those numbers, but that's not the case. Anecdotal or not, I don't see any Tundra getting anywhere near that. Simple as that. Trust me, if they were, I would have bought that instead. MPG was the ONLY thing that kept me from going with the Tundra when I bought my new truck last year.

 

[kmcoop7]

truck

Definitely keep the truck.

1. you can throw any dirty crap you want I the bed of a truck
2. you can throw way more dirty crap in the bed of a truck
3. cab space is way better in the truck.
4. towing and payload!
5. you can take that truck anywhere you want to go and LOTS of places you don't. Trust me, I have had my 14 and 16' rams in some ****ty spots.
6. you will never be lacking in power.
7. Cummins vs pentastar......hm. I have several of both in my fleet. I have never had a cummins engine (or emissions) issue. LOTS of issues with the pentastar, cracked heads, bad cam shaft, radiator leaking @ 70k, and they run HOT which is never good for longevity.


The only reason I could ever see trading a cummins truck for a jeep is to build a rock crawler. There is just SO much more you can do with the truck.

Oh.....they both get ****ty gas milage. Why do so many on this forum driving modified off road vehicles worry about 1-2mpg?

 

[mkitchen]

I too, lean towards the truck choice

I recently went through the same dilemma between my well modified and very functional Tacoma or getting a bigger truck (I have never been swayed much by the Jeep line). I ended up going with a new Tundra and am very happy with it. I am now retired and travel a lot more and enjoy the comfort of the bigger truck. I also tow a Jayco Baja with a deck that carries two motorbikes that I do a lot of my overlanding with now. With the Tacoma, I had an AT Horizon trailer, which is a very quality unit and will go pretty much anywhere you point your vehicle. I certainly can't say that about the Jayco but at least it has some good ground clearance to get me out into the desert or woods.

I am thinking that the OP was leaning towards the pickup to begin with or he would not have posted in the full size section. Keeping the pickup should keep you happy especially if you travel a lot. I don't worry too much about mileage but I do look for fuel capacity. My Tundra has a 38 gallon tank and my 71 Ford F250 carries 52 gallons in it's three tanks. I don't see myself going back to a smaller vehicle.
Mikey

 

[gunpainter]

I know i'm just adding to the beating of a dead horse here, but i'll do it anyway.

I've never owned a jeep, so my thoughts aren't qualified, but i've looked at, and sat in, a few jeeps and here are my notes:

I'll take my 21' long couch on wheels anyday. It may not be as capable as a Jeep, but it'll go 90% of the places a jeep can go. I can recline the back seats and watch a movie with my kids, or fold the back seat down, blow up an air mattress, and sleep in the back with my kids. I have a 10,100lbs GVWR, which means I can carry about 2600lbs of passengers, and gear. I get 600 highway miles or more between fuelings, and if I want to do 85mph across Utah I can do it going UP any hill I want, even the steep ones.

I won't be taking it on the Rubicon, but then again I don't really want to do that trail anyway.

Branden