From 100 to 250?

[Knowbuddy]

5.0 will usually get better real-world fuel economy than the Ecoboost. I've had both for rentals and frankly dislike the Ecoboost but really like the 5.0. On the pre-aluminum trucks, I could get 20 mpg highway pretty easily with the 5.0. I camped next to another TrailManor owner, who had a 2.7 Ecoboost as his tow rig and claimed 17 mpg towing at 65 mph, which seemed far-fetched to me, but who knows.

Now real world from Sunday. 2013 Ecoboost f150 with hj61 on a trailer. I saw 13mpg with an average speed of 65-70mph driving 100 miles with the Land Cruiser loaded

 

[Rednexus]

Now real world from Sunday. 2013 Ecoboost f150 with hj61 on a trailer. I saw 13mpg with an average speed of 65-70mph driving 100 miles with the Land Cruiser loaded

Awesome set of rigs! Yeah the 17 mpg seemed far-fetched but who knows. The TrailManor is a light, low-profile trailer, getting 13 mpg towing it 65 mph on flat roads and 14 mpg on 55 mph roads is not hard with my GX. I'm presuming you're towing more like 6K pounds total (2X a TrailManor) and the aero of your 60 is probably worse.

 

[Knowbuddy]

Awesome set of rigs! Yeah the 17 mpg seemed far-fetched but who knows. The TrailManor is a light, low-profile trailer, getting 13 mpg towing it 65 mph on flat roads and 14 mpg on 55 mph roads is not hard with my GX. I'm presuming you're towing more like 6K pounds total (2X a TrailManor) and the aero of your 60 is probably worse.

6k is a safe assumption. No clue on the trailer weight. F150 and trailer were both borrowed from my elderly father. I’d say I still wasn’t touching the limits of 12k that it’s rates for.

 

[Jetboy]

I have a 100 series daily driver that is hurting me right now at 13 mpg.

Very interested in this j250 at 27 combined mpg if true.

But can anyone explain why an F150 with a 5.0 V8 can get 24 mpg (hwy) 17 city and a 2.7 hybrid 4 cyl only gets marginally better? How is ford doing it?

FWIW - my inlaws have a 2023 F150 4x4 supercrew short bed 3.5EB that is completely stock other than a 1" front spacer "level" kit installed by the dealer. On a recent 900 mile round trip from Montana to Utah and back (hilly, but not extreme) it returned 26mpg one way and 24 back on the dash and by calculation at the pump. It was generally favorable conditions with good weather, low traffic, etc. It's very fuel efficient. I think the overall average mixed driving so far has been around 19-20mpg. That's about 50% better than my Tundra. And the F150 cabin layout is significantly nicer to use, visibility is great, highway comfort is better, - all around it's a better truck to drive. The hesitation I have is ford build quality and long term reliability. I'll still take my Tundra, but I can't deny that the F150 does a lot of things better.

The secrets I see are a combination of:

Aerodynamics - I think Ford puts a lot more effort into low Cd than Toyota does.
Light weight - a '23 F150 4x4 supercrew weighs 4,752 lbs. <- that's less than a 4Runner by about 50lbs vs a 4x4 4R model. It's ~1300lbs less than a Tundra.
It has light weight low friction powertrain. - The powertrain is closer in size to a Tacoma than a Tundra. The scale of powertrain parts is quite small - for example this is the transfer case drive chains for the 3rd and 2nd gen Tundra vs the F150. The F150 is closer to a Tacoma:

And the other key factor is Ford runs its engine leaner on AFR. The tradeoff is hotter EGTs, hotter turbos, overheating on hot summer days towing is common, and the EB engines have a design life of 150k miles, where Toyota would design for more like 300k miles. Ford opts for better fuel efficiency in trade for shorter engine life. Toyota chooses the opposite.

When you add all of those factors together you can get a pretty significant increase in fuel economy.

I think Toyota took basically a decade off from any meaningful engineering efforts on its BOF models. And it really shows. The current lineup of new products should have been on the market around 2017 and we should be into the next generation after what we are seeing now. I think that's part of why the TTV6 is so inefficient. It hasn't had 15 years to develop and refine like the EB had. And the same for Toyota's v8s. Toyota never put any effort into improving the efficiency.

One interview discussion I found interesting and unfortunate was the discussion of the current Tacoma and its poor drivability. The engine engineer talked about how in the 3rd gen tacoma the design teams had metrics to reach and there was no metric or goal set for actual drivability. So, the engine team chose an engine that, on paper, had the most fuel efficient output for the power needs, and the transmission team had a different goal, etc. The result was an engine and transmission combination that is poorly matched to the vehicle and the engine is so marginally adequate that it has to constantly shift to maintain speeds. Plus it doesn't get very good mileage. It was just poor management at Toyota. There's really no other way around it. The silver lining is that they recognize the failure and have made an effort to correct it in the next generation Tacoma and likely also the LC250 and other products.

At the end of the day - I think a lot of factors add up, but probably the biggest issue is simply that the V35A is not very thermally efficient. The power is great. But it doesn't appear to be a good engine for fuel efficiency in any of the current models.

 

[Land Caesar]

FWIW - my inlaws have a 2023 F150 4x4 supercrew short bed 3.5EB that is completely stock other than a 1" front spacer "level" kit installed by the dealer. On a recent 900 mile round trip from Montana to Utah and back (hilly, but not extreme) it returned 26mpg one way and 24 back on the dash and by calculation at the pump. It was generally favorable conditions with good weather, low traffic, etc. It's very fuel efficient. I think the overall average mixed driving so far has been around 19-20mpg. That's about 50% better than my Tundra. And the F150 cabin layout is significantly nicer to use, visibility is great, highway comfort is better, - all around it's a better truck to drive. The hesitation I have is ford build quality and long term reliability. I'll still take my Tundra, but I can't deny that the F150 does a lot of things better.

The secrets I see are a combination of:

Aerodynamics - I think Ford puts a lot more effort into low Cd than Toyota does.
Light weight - a '23 F150 4x4 supercrew weighs 4,752 lbs. <- that's less than a 4Runner by about 50lbs vs a 4x4 4R model. It's ~1300lbs less than a Tundra.
It has light weight low friction powertrain. - The powertrain is closer in size to a Tacoma than a Tundra. The scale of powertrain parts is quite small - for example this is the transfer case drive chains for the 3rd and 2nd gen Tundra vs the F150. The F150 is closer to a Tacoma:
View attachment 3436456
And the other key factor is Ford runs its engine leaner on AFR. The tradeoff is hotter EGTs, hotter turbos, overheating on hot summer days towing is common, and the EB engines have a design life of 150k miles, where Toyota would design for more like 300k miles. Ford opts for better fuel efficiency in trade for shorter engine life. Toyota chooses the opposite.

When you add all of those factors together you can get a pretty significant increase in fuel economy.

I think Toyota took basically a decade off from any meaningful engineering efforts on its BOF models. And it really shows. The current lineup of new products should have been on the market around 2017 and we should be into the next generation after what we are seeing now. I think that's part of why the TTV6 is so inefficient. It hasn't had 15 years to develop and refine like the EB had. And the same for Toyota's v8s. Toyota never put any effort into improving the efficiency.

One interview discussion I found interesting and unfortunate was the discussion of the current Tacoma and its poor drivability. The engine engineer talked about how in the 3rd gen tacoma the design teams had metrics to reach and there was no metric or goal set for actual drivability. So, the engine team chose an engine that, on paper, had the most fuel efficient output for the power needs, and the transmission team had a different goal, etc. The result was an engine and transmission combination that is poorly matched to the vehicle and the engine is so marginally adequate that it has to constantly shift to maintain speeds. Plus it doesn't get very good mileage. It was just poor management at Toyota. There's really no other way around it. The silver lining is that they recognize the failure and have made an effort to correct it in the next generation Tacoma and likely also the LC250 and other products.

At the end of the day - I think a lot of factors add up, but probably the biggest issue is simply that the V35A is not very thermally efficient. The power is great. But it doesn't appear to be a good engine for fuel efficiency in any of the current models.

Sure… yet it’s a Ford

Reliability
Resale value

I drive at work a 2013 150 eco boost with 320k miles on it.

Still going strong, yet not something I’d ever own

 

[Jetboy]

Sure… yet it’s a Ford

Reliability
Resale value

I drive at work a 2013 150 eco boost with 320k miles on it.

Still going strong, yet not something I’d ever own

My last truck before my Tundra was a powerstroke F250 with 100k miles. It was a gigantic pile of s***. When I think about buying another Ford my PFTSD reminds me not to.

 

[Rednexus]

My last truck before my Tundra was a powerstroke F250 with 100k miles. It was a gigantic pile of s***. When I think about buying another Ford my PFTSD reminds me not to.

Look at the "average" 2007 F150 vs. a 2007 Tacoma, Tundra, 4Runner etc. One's a rusty POS full of check engine lights, one is usually going strong. Ford did do a great job of advancing drivetrain tech, but they aren't and will never be a Toyota for longevity.

On the flipside I really love the 1988-1996/97 Ford trucks.

 

[Phillyd2]

2016 F250 still going strong without issues or drama. But it wouldn't be a daily driver either.

 

[Land Caesar]

Take a 150 from 2015
And a Tundra

Both 150k miles

How much in parts and maintenance, then fuel cost difference….

Now look at resale prices

It’s a no brainer financially

 

[on the rocks]

FWIW - my inlaws have a 2023 F150 4x4 supercrew short bed 3.5EB that is completely stock other than a 1" front spacer "level" kit installed by the dealer. On a recent 900 mile round trip from Montana to Utah and back (hilly, but not extreme) it returned 26mpg one way and 24 back on the dash and by calculation at the pump.

Man, you must have been trying really hard to reach that MPG. I have a 2019 with the Raptor 3.5 and average 18. I'm not sure I could ever see 26 in it. I do tend to mash the skinny as it's just something I have to do since the LC is such a turtle...

 

[Jetboy]

Man, you must have been trying really hard to reach that MPG. I have a 2019 with the Raptor 3.5 and average 18. I'm not sure I could ever see 26 in it. I do tend to mash the skinny as it's just something I have to do since the LC is such a turtle...

Basically just using cruise control letting Ford's software figure out the rest. Speed limits vary between 55 and 80mph. Probably average speed of around 65mph. I think low 20s' is more common on the highway.

TFL does a standardized test loop and the Tundra got 24mpg while the 3.5 EB was only 22. I don't see many other results that match those.

 

[Land Caesar]

TFL does a standardized test loop and the Tundra got 24mpg while the 3.5 EB was only 22. I don't see many other results that match those.

Ha

Ya that’s the most common Mpg I’ve seen on fuelly and other examples ‘/S’

 

[Jetboy]

Ha

Ya that’s the most common Mpg I’ve seen on fuelly and other examples ‘/S’

They said it only got about 18mpg on the highway when it was new. After it was broken in and they ran with premium gas they claimed measured 24 on the standard test loop. It was better mileage than the hybrid model on the same test.

The problem with their test is that it's only 65 miles. So, roughly 2 gallons of gas. A small variation in the fuel pump auto stop can vary the calculation quite a bit.

 

[Land Caesar]

Give me that 250 1958

Some skinny AT 33’s

Aluminum armor and front runner roof rack that I can detach awnings,cargo box, Rtt .

A good trailer for when I need a “truck bed”

21-22 mpg configuration like that and a vehicle that’s bigger than the modern model 4runner… smaller than the 200, 325 hp and Diesel like torque

Oh and a microwave/fridge/freezer all the time.

Ya I’d be happy with that!

Haters….. go ahead and hate as I drive by at the gas stations

 

[Phillyd2]

LOL hopefully either truck will be tougher than the congregation. Not a high bar I admit.

 

[NTTD]

I really hope they downsize the 4R a bit and keep it more true to original size

That would be cool. My 1st gen was my favorite off-roader. Bonus point if the top comes off!

How about Toyota not throwing lackluster materials and build quality in their flagship Land Cruiser nameplate to make a price point?

Taking a step back, it's pretty remarkable to see the diversity of the North American Land Cruiser lineage going forward.

• Land Cruiser 250, in three trims
• GX 550
• LX 600, in five trims

Anchored by the same sturdy, capable platform, these range from a de-contented and efficient $55K tourer to a $132K ultra luxury SUV, with a variety of trims and suspensions offered in between.

This is quite the comeback after Land Cruiser's cancellation a few years ago; never has the North American lineage covered so many use cases.

THIS 100%

People saying these are "all the same" and complaining why we don't have a "stripped down" 300?!

If you look at this range as a whole there ARE many options.

 

[Land Caesar]

That would be cool. My 1st gen was my favorite off-roader. Bonus point if the top comes off!




THIS 100%

People saying these are "all the same" and complaining why we don't have a "stripped down" 300?!

If you look at this range as a whole there ARE many options.

Yep
Can’t make everyone happy

 

[GTV]

I really hope they downsize the 4R a bit and keep it more true to original size like the current Fortuner. I haven't driven a new Fortuner in maybe 10 or so years. But I really liked the size as a complement to the larger LC.

While a smaller body on frame SUV would be cool it's really hard for me to believe Toyota will do that. It makes a lot more financial sense to have the 4Runner be the entry level 250 and share the same chassis and body structure as the other two. It would cost Toyota a mint to give the 4Runner its own unique body and shorter chassis. Also, when that chassis is shortened and/or the f/r overhang is tightened up you'll have a vehicle that's more capable than its off road oriented LC250 brother, just like the FJC was compared to the rest of the 120 series. But then again, Toyota does move a lot of 4Runners so it's not completely out of the question.

 

[Jetboy]

While a smaller body on frame SUV would be cool it's really hard for me to believe Toyota will do that. It makes a lot more financial sense to have the 4Runner be the entry level 250 and share the same chassis and body structure as the other two. It would cost Toyota a mint to give the 4Runner its own unique body and shorter chassis. Also, when that chassis is shortened and/or the f/r overhang is tightened up you'll have a vehicle that's more capable than its off road oriented LC250 brother, just like the FJC was compared to the rest of the 120 series. But then again, Toyota does move a lot of 4Runners so it's not completely out of the question.

Agreed. My only hesitation is the Tacoma. Has a bunch of wheelbases. And they come with different track width as much as 3 inches. And some are even leaf springs. So they're willing to build a dozen variants just of the Tacoma. Why not the SUVs?

 

[GTV]

Agreed. My only hesitation is the Tacoma. Has a bunch of wheelbases. And they come with different track width as much as 3 inches. And some are even leaf springs. So they're willing to build a dozen variants just of the Tacoma. Why not the SUVs?

Tacoma track width unfortunately isn't what it seems and is explained here.

I assume that the reason why the lengths are different is simply because pickups, by nature, are pretty modular. Put this here cab with that there bed on this length chassis and you can have several different trucks with only a few different cabs and beds.