My dealer said it was because the turbo was spooled up it was using more fuel. What is crazy is I traded off my 22 3.5TT Tundra for a 5.7 Tundra and I'm getting better mileage in every type of driving (towing, highway, city).
Sequoia vs LC
- Thread starter MCtree
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
There's some complexity here. In general, physically larger diffs will have more load, heat, and cooling capacities. Yes, aluminum finned covers are nice, but durability is probably the more important trait to the LC. All else equal, a lower ratio ring and pinion will have larger and stronger gear features. Higher ratio diffs by design have smaller and smaller pinions, teeth, and teeth overlap. Another way to say inherently a 3.9 diff is generally stronger than say a 4.88.
For Brakes they have a traditional (Bosch) system with fluid. But with regenerative braking components are much longer lived. In my Teslas I do a fluid flush every other year just like my other cars. But on the original pads with >4 years and 55k miles I haven’t even lost 1mm on the fronts and the rears measure 9mm which is what they spec to new. Very different driving (tesla is mostly in town, LX is mostly long trips towing and off road) but on my LX at 80k miles I’m on my 4th set of pads and 3rd set of rotors.
For violent. There is no radiator, no water pump, no belts. Just a fairly basic PEG bath
That's like saying 'I stepped on the gas so I burned more fuel'. As power demand increases the turbo will deliver higher intake pressure. Same as opening the throttle body. The turbo is only responding to demand. The efficiency of a small displacement turbo really isn't something that can be debated.
Your experience isn't typical. 2022 Toyota Tundra Hybrid Beats Old V-8 by 7 MPG - https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a38735361/2022-toyota-tundra-hybrid-fuel-economy-announced/
Ive heard both sides, but altitude plays a big role too. Not an expert or anything, curious mostly.
There's really no sides. Manufacturers didn't go smaller displacement + turbo to save cost. It's for fuel savings. Much easier to simply add displacement.
The only reason altitude plays a role is because the turbo can achieve sea level performance up high. So it's not that you're burning fuel less efficiently at altitude, it's that the ability to flow air/fuel doesn't drop off as you climb. At 8,000 ft there is only 10.9 psi available to a NA engine (vs. 14.7 at sea level).
I think the other thing that affects the turbo fuel econ perception is a lead foot; they're fun to drive.
bloc
SILVER Star
The issue is as charge pressure goes up to provide the horsepower the mixture generally needs to be richened and the timing retarded compared to similar increase in output for a NA engine, which will negatively impact BSFC (brake specific fuel consumption, basically how much fuel is required to make a given amount of horsepower.)
And before anyone equates this to a diesel turbo gas engines are quite different than turbodiesels as the chemistry and physics of diesel actually has an inherent benefit at higher cylinder pressures, as I understand it. Inconveniently this also increases NOx and therefore smog, but that’s why we get all those super complex and expensive emissions components.
I haven’t looked very hard but if pulling a large trailer with a bad aero profile or heavy trailer up a pass I’m betting these new engines are probably worse on fuel than the 5.7.. though the huge unloaded mileage benefit should overcome that through the life of the vehicle. Which is a key distinction. Overall you’ll save a lot of fuel unless you are towing big/heavy very frequently (edit: or have a lead foot.)
Also a physically larger R&P effectively reduces the point pressure on the individual gear teeth for a given amount of torque at the wheel hub. But you lose ground clearance. (Edit2: the teeth are also physically larger with obvious benefit.)
And before anyone equates this to a diesel turbo gas engines are quite different than turbodiesels as the chemistry and physics of diesel actually has an inherent benefit at higher cylinder pressures, as I understand it. Inconveniently this also increases NOx and therefore smog, but that’s why we get all those super complex and expensive emissions components.
I haven’t looked very hard but if pulling a large trailer with a bad aero profile or heavy trailer up a pass I’m betting these new engines are probably worse on fuel than the 5.7.. though the huge unloaded mileage benefit should overcome that through the life of the vehicle. Which is a key distinction. Overall you’ll save a lot of fuel unless you are towing big/heavy very frequently (edit: or have a lead foot.)
Also a physically larger R&P effectively reduces the point pressure on the individual gear teeth for a given amount of torque at the wheel hub. But you lose ground clearance. (Edit2: the teeth are also physically larger with obvious benefit.)
Last edited:
Actually my experience is pretty typical in Idaho. Most of the 22s are getting around 10-12 mpg. And mine was not a hybrid. I think elevation has a lot to do with it as well. I'm at 3600 feet. The problem is that at 80 mph the engine is working too hard. Maybe it could be fixed with gearing? But with the 10 speed I think the gearing shouldn't be a problem. Toyota directly (not the dealer) told me to expect 2 mpg drop for every mile per hour over 70mph. My best was less than 16 mpg. Even on a trip to Oregon with lower elevation and lower speed limits it never did better than 15 mpg. And that was with no mods. I can tell you that a small displacement turbo is not efficient in this application. I have a friend with a new Sequoia and he is doing worse than my 22 Tundra was, granted he has a roof rack and 35s. But the 3.5 TT is not efficient at speed.
I guess since we haven't seen David (yes, i have learned his name, no longer auto press tv asian guy) chime in yet on this thread somehow:
Yes, the LX is the LC unfortunately. Or is the sequoia the LC? Hmmmmmmm
Sequoia infotainment better? Probably.
Yes, the LX is the LC unfortunately. Or is the sequoia the LC? Hmmmmmmm
Sequoia infotainment better? Probably.
And as for the lead foot comments. That isn't true at all. I stared at that freaking mpg meter trying to do the best I could. It became a contest for me to see how well I could do. Toyota even awarded me great economical driver awards on the app.The 3.5 TT has plenty of power and it tows well aside from the squishy coil springs. The transmission is amazing.
bloc
SILVER Star
This highlights a great point. Ultimately it’s about efficiency at a given horsepower. The new trucks with slicker aero and a smaller lower friction engine can reduce fuel consumption at low speeds.. but as the power demands go up with speed or other drag (towing) that can overcome the savings of the slippery aero or small engine.
Lead foot was in jest, but gets the point across.
Your data is interesting and I don’t dispute it.
Then again other than the Prius Toyota has never led the pack on fuel efficiency, and IMO this has to do with conservative long-term-reliability oriented tuning.
I have a spreadsheet of all my mileage with conditions noted. I totally messed up. I sold a beautiful LX570 and my Cummins to get the 22 Tundra and was severely underwhelmed. It is not a J Vin Toyota that is for sure. Highlights, I loved the Pano roof, transmission, and the 14" screen (which I totally thought I would hate), and ride quality and ease of driving. Downsides: mpgs, quality, dealer experiences, and driving with a warning light on 80% of the miles I put on the truck (louvres, air dam, and start stop failure). I think the long term reliability of a turbo engine will be less. There is just more stuff to break and you are adding heat to the engine bay.
big oof
Fellow millennial here. There are a few factors that make me less than thrilled with the direction vehicles are going.The whole "new vehicles have computers and computers are unreliable" thing is such a weird concern. Maybe it's because I'm an avocado-toast eating millennial
It’s not that they’re necessarily less reliable; it’s that they’re more complicated by an order of magnitude with more points of failure, and the planned obsolescence and connectivity of the mobile device world seem to be creeping into vehicles as they turn into smartphones on wheels. Want to unlock your seat heaters on a vehicle you own? Just pay $X/month to use them!
Also, the never ending push toward more and more efficient (and complicated) engines or longer and longer range batteries is not driven by innovation alone but by ever-tightening regulations that seem to be wildly ahead of what we will be able to support in the near-term.
I think we’re going to see (and are already seeing) our ideas of what it means for a vehicle to be reliable over the long term shifting in a significant way.
You're on the right track. The elephant in the room is the concept of ownership, and you have little to none of that with the vast majority of EVs.
Oh, and then there are little details like this: Switzerland could ban electric vehicle use during energy crisis: reports - https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/switzerland-could-ban-electric-vehicle-use-during-energy-crisis-reports (Apologies for linking to Fox "news".) Yeah, I'll stick with my ICE dinosaur for now, thank you very much.
Imagine a vehicle with the 50s electronic technology and 2022 mechanical quality and production capability. It would run for 200 years
Ha. I like it. But I’m not sure I see the current mechanical quality of most vehicles to be particularly amazing. Look underneath a Kia, for example. Those CV joints and bearings, ect, are meant to last a minimum amount of time outside of the warranty. Look at the 1st gen EcoBoost. They hung the turbos on the exhaust manifolds, lol. That “lifter tick” is actually an exhaust leak from a broken manifold bolt because it wasn’t meant to carry all that weight. That didn’t stop Ford from selling a bajillion of them. The general tactic seems to be (a) make a good first impression on the test drive, (b) be the first to make some new untested feature standard, (c) make sure the car acts its age within a handful of years so your customer will be tempted to squander what equity they’ve got left on trading it in. They can “keep the same payment”. Lol. I do think this will be changing as the interest on a $1k note is starting to knock some sense into some people…
Not to stray too far off topic, but I hear something like this often: “It’s 2022! Everyone makes a reliable car by now. Everyone has figured it out.” I agree that there are no longer any mysteries, and I’d go so far as to agree that we’ve milked a gallon of gas for every bit of usable energy to be had in an ICE platform. That does not mean, however, that all the parts used to make modern vehicles are built to last forever. There is a specific, targeted service life for everything, and while I agree the average vehicle is built better, it’s still built for the end purpose of receiving a profit for the manufacturer. The only company who seems to build vehicles with no regard to getting their customers into a new one in the next 3-5 years is Toyota. And even some of their new stuff seems to be very un-Toyotalike in terms of QC and problems. That’s my two cents, anyway.
I’m just glad I can still buy a Lexus and a Toyota that were designed 15 years ago.
"15,000 mile oil change intervals" and "lifetime fluids" have entered the chat.
Glad to see you show up.
My only real sadness is that we are being forced into "solutions" that are not real solutions.
With our lovely governments steering the boat of heavy industry.
Meanwhile, no nuclear power... But buy an EV?
They think were dumb, and most people are.
TBH about reliability, Toyota, i don't think has no engineering secrets others don't, they just are great at manufacturing. Always have been.
Only difference between them and germans are conservative values. Thats why Toyotas suck in every way outside of reliability vs the competition.
What makes these trucks special and last a long time is that they take extra care in design and manufacturing.
But, they still share a lot of parts/materials with way cheaper models. Thats how all car companies work, or else they'd be out of business.
Outside the LCs, Toyota still wins big, but has the least features, and least efficiency out of the lot.
You cant have it all, and im still a big fan of German cars, their govs are pushing them harder than anyone else though, and it shows.
They have problems sure, but they are pushing power into ridiculous levels in basic sedans because they are ego competing with each other.
If it weren't for plastic and cost cutting, modern BMWs and Mercs would have a lot less issues too.
Those parts are also designed to blow up on purpose. (plastic down-pipe N54 for example)
The 90s and 2000s vehicles ive been in, most buttons work, most motorized features work.
Some screens went out, but that was the best display tech there was at the time.
Idk about the current fleet out there. But i almost bought an X3M.. It was shockingly good at everything.
Exactly, precision manufacturing is what we owe all this to. Before that, it was hand made, lasted a life time.
Then there was a lull, where industrialization brought scale, and things got outsourced, stuff all became garbage, then they got better as machinery and technology improved it again. The rise and fall of Toyota will be in the end, within this valley where they couldnt compete in the areas outside of reliability.
Im not long Toyota at all.
Yes, another millennial checking, I got the corporate Toyota manufacturing spiel at multiple places. LOL
Last edited:
