The Tundra is built for towing, plain and simple. The rear ends they put in those things make it impossible to get good gas mileage. I need a truck bed, but never haul anything more than around 4,000 lbs. I wish they made a Tundra with 3.08 gears that could get 22 mpg on the highway. I'd buy that thing in a heartbeat. But the way Toyota does it, you really don't have the choice of buying a truck that fits your needs in my situation.

4x4 5.7 tundra gets about 14-15mpg unloaded

my 4x4 5.0 FX4 gets 16-18 mpg unloaded


the Toyota is bigger displacement so it uses more fuel...I have the 3:73's and a 6speed tranny and at 75 mph I'm turning 2000 rpms.

my 5.4 with a 4 speed OD with 3:73's I was turning 2200-2300 rpm's

So what stops anyone from taking their Toy to a transmission and rear end shop and getting whatever gears they want put in? Answer, nothing but money and warranty.

The 2013 4X4 Crewmax I have is averaging 15.4 mpg combined hand calculated....best on hwy was 17.4 between Round Rock and Ellis County....2000 rpm is right at 74 mph............

Yes, but the only benefit of having different gears put in is to save money. So spending money to save money doesn't make much sense, when every other manufacturer offers lower gears from the factory for just such people.

I'm not beating up on Toyota. I think they make a great truck. But not offering a lower gear set on their pickups creates a hole in their lineup IMHO.

Best post I've seen in a long time. The rear axle is only part of the equation. You sir, get a cyber cookie.

Sure gearing in the transmission makes a difference I don't know what they gear break down in the chevy or yota is, but I know in my 2011 chevy 5.3 with 3.42 rear end I had to run 85 mph to get to 2k rpm in 6th gear. 70 mph in 5th gear was about 2200 rpm. For a motor that only makes power on the top end they sure like to lug the heck out of it.

redchevy, that 6-speed auto that Chevy puts in their pickups is great. It's a crime that they put the 4-speed in so many of the mid-2000s models. My 2004 had it, and I never had any trouble with it. But the engine would have done much less work over its life if I'd had the 6-speed.

And FWIW, that 5.3 is an underrated engine. I don't care what the specs say. It's an excellent motor. Never given us a lick of trouble and pulls anything we ask. Would get decent hwy mileage if I'd gotten the 6-speed. But when you're buying used and cheap, you don't always get the choice.

Im with you, I had no complaints with my 5.3/6-speed chevy. I wish it would have come with a 3.73 gear option but they didn't offer it when I bought mine. It got 18-19 back and forth to work 19-21 on strict hwy trips between 17-18 running 85 between the ranch and home. I towed our 20-foot fiberglass boat several times back and forth from san Antonio to choke canyon 100% towing miles and got over 15 mpg at 65 mph and even got over 16 mpg a time or two. Towed our flatbed to the ranch loaded with 2x12's and plywood, about 4k on the trailer plus whatever a 16-foot tandem trailer 1000lbs of feed in the bed of the truck and 4 people and clothes for the weekend weigh and got 14 mpg on a 100% towing trip. All hand calculated.

In 43k miles I had some kind of relay in the alternator go bad and sometimes it would charge correctly and sometimes it would over charge. It was replaced under warranty and they gave me a nicer truck than mine for a loaner vehicle. I sold the truck to my uncle and its still doing great.

I had no complaints with the truck I did abuse it on occasion but it did everything I asked of it. I will say I dont have the ricky bobby I gotta go fast disorder... especially when Im towing. In hind sight, if the ecoboost wasn't in its first year of production I would have bought one of them.

chevy has always made 1/2 pickups, not trucks.

for whatever reason, once they went to the new body style in 99' they felt the need to neuter them.

I guess for their market, rideability and fuel mileage was more important than tow capacity and ruggedness.


for the life of me, I cannot understand why they still feel the need to put IFS on their 3/4 and 1 ton trucks.

Well you last sentence there just contradicted your point to my original post. The Tundra burns more fuel than the others. As I said before, the Tundra 5.7L V8 is a LITTLE more thirsty than the others. The only gearing you can get in that engine model is the 4:30, so when you get down to the brass tax and compare what you can actually buy, the Tundra looses our on fuel economy as the Ford has different rear end gearing options to choose from, be it either the bigger displacement or lower gearing.

However, the Ford has shown to get better fuel economy but I bet the Tundra may pull better than the 5.0 Ford. The Ecoboost beats both of them in my opinion for power and fuel economy.

I don't see how any of that hurts the Chevy's tow capacity or ruggedness. It has the same comparable capacity as the Ford or Dodge with a little better ride. Well, that last part my not be true anymore. My dad had a 2012 3/4 Chevy and it ride was terrible.

The point I was trying to make was if all things being equal except for displacement shouldnt a larger displacement burn more fuel?I agree with the ecoboost,It was my first choice but could not get the pricing I wanted.

Since 99' they have had the smallest and lowest powered engine of the big 3, the highest geared which affects tow power.

And also the one with the best gas mileage and by far the best reliability. It's all a trade-off.

I agree that the 5.3L is the weakest of the big engines. What do you really trade off though? You can only tow 8,000 lbs instead of 10,000 lbs? How many people own stuff that's in that gap? Not many. On the other hand, how many people benefit from the gas mileage and reliability? Everyone.