2013 Tundra vs 2013 Ford

[fordmantpw]

deerefan,

congrats & enjoy your truck! sorry we got a bit carried away with new trucks, but you gotta admit this is pretty interesting stuff!

have fun!

Agreed! I think the next 5-10 years is going to be really exciting for the light truck market. Fuel economy is going to become even more important with the pending CAFE changes, and it will be interesting to see what each manufacturer does to make the grade.

On a side note, Ram outsold Silverado in March for the first time in who knows how many years. Ram sold a couple hundred more trucks in February than Chevy did...42k or so compared to Ford's 70k. The battle for second place is on, and it's going to be exciting to watch!

 

[TSO]

Well since I started the thread and have now owned the Tundra for over 6 months, let me provide an update that may help. Overall, we are averaging 17mpg. This is the 5.7l, 4.30 gears 2wd crew max. It is the quickest 1/2 ton I have owned or ridden in. To be clear, I have not ridden in a new hemi. We have 9200 miles on it. It has been in the shop once for a sticking radio button. It tows very well, handles the load well. I pulled my 97 F150 ext cab 4x4 to the shop to get the spark plug blowout issue resolved. With trailer and truck, I was near 7k pounds (this includes fuel and tool box with tools on the F150). When shopping, it came down to this truck and a F150 CC with the 5.0. Really no comparison on power. The Tundra felt bigger, stronger and frankly looked better imo. They also made me a better deal on price and trade in.

Congrats! That 5.7 is a great motor.

 

[Spindifferent]

Well since I started the thread and have now owned the Tundra for over 6 months, let me provide an update that may help. Overall, we are averaging 17mpg. This is the 5.7l, 4.30 gears 2wd crew max. It is the quickest 1/2 ton I have owned or ridden in. To be clear, I have not ridden in a new hemi. We have 9200 miles on it. It has been in the shop once for a sticking radio button. It tows very well, handles the load well. I pulled my 97 F150 ext cab 4x4 to the shop to get the spark plug blowout issue resolved. With trailer and truck, I was near 7k pounds (this includes fuel and tool box with tools on the F150). When shopping, it came down to this truck and a F150 CC with the 5.0. Really no comparison on power. The Tundra felt bigger, stronger and frankly looked better imo. They also made me a better deal on price and trade in.

Excellent mpg! My 2013 Tacoma with the 4.0l v6 averages 20mpg.

Toyota should take care of you. Been very happy with the Tacoma.

 

[jejeosborne]

Sure, I concur & understand, as Mechanical Engineer.

But that's also why I can't understand how a spark-ignited, stoichiometric combustion engine can produce that torque (read: high cylinder pressure & temperature) at low rpm without detonating. Defies thermodynamics. Is it GDI that injects fuel just prior to spark?

That is the beauty of direct injection. It doesn't rely on the intake valve to determine when fuel is introduced into the chamber. Fuel timing, duration , and even multiple injections per burn cycle open up new opportunities not otherwise possible.

Yes cylinder pressures are high but no different than a high compression turbo diesel. Just have to design it to take the stress a diesel sees.

 

[jejeosborne]

Thanks Bullitt.

Alright, well we can see the baseline for the other graph was lifted from this one from Ford, which is reported to be an engine dyno. What's the source and standard for the other three makes.

From that Article we can also see that the wheel dyno profile does not look anything like the numbers Ford supplies, driveline losses aside.

<img src="http://www.tractorbynet.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=368466"/>

Maybe this will be helpful describing the difficulties of using a chassis dyno with turbo charged engines. Read the geek techie notes. Loads added to the engine are met with more boost but with a lag. If a constant load that doesn't have to be chased is applied, then you will be real output values. I think of it as climbing a long hill with the turbos spooled up.

http://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/track-tests/2011-mercedes-benz-s63-amg-dyno-tested.html

 

[DeereMann]

That is the beauty of direct injection. It doesn't rely on the intake valve to determine when fuel is introduced into the chamber. Fuel timing, duration , and even multiple injections per burn cycle open up new opportunities not otherwise possible.

Yes cylinder pressures are high but no different than a high compression turbo diesel. Just have to design it to take the stress a diesel sees.

I hear ya - GDI solves a lot of sparky issues. What I find difficult to believe is building a gasoline engine as heavy as a diesel engine for diesel cylinder pressures, and still being "thousands" of dollars less costly than a diesel engine.

 

[DeereMann]

Agreed! I think the next 5-10 years is going to be really exciting for the light truck market. Fuel economy is going to become even more important with the pending CAFE changes, and it will be interesting to see what each manufacturer does to make the grade.

On a side note, Ram outsold Silverado in March for the first time in who knows how many years. Ram sold a couple hundred more trucks in February than Chevy did...42k or so compared to Ford's 70k. The battle for second place is on, and it's going to be exciting to watch!

Yup - and I'm one of those that converted from Chevy to Ram....no contest.

P.S. - yes, I owned Fords, too. Hence my interest in this EB engine.

 

[aczlan]

I hear ya - GDI solves a lot of sparky issues. What I find difficult to believe is building a gasoline engine as heavy as a diesel engine for diesel cylinder pressures, and still being "thousands" of dollars less costly than a diesel engine.

Probably has to do with the cost of the emissions system on the diesel and the fact that big diesels are more spendy, so buyers are conditioned to thing that a diesel should cost more.

Aaron Z

 

[Diamondpilot]

I hear ya - GDI solves a lot of sparky issues. What I find difficult to believe is building a gasoline engine as heavy as a diesel engine for diesel cylinder pressures, and still being "thousands" of dollars less costly than a diesel engine.

It's less costly because of mass production vs diesel counterparts are still relatively built in small numbers plus the emissions stuff.

Also they can just charge more for something that is seen as a premium.

Chris

 

[DeereMann]

It's less costly because of mass production vs diesel counterparts are still relatively built in small numbers plus the emissions stuff.

Also they can just charge more for something that is seen as a premium.

Chris

Good point, DP -

So I guess it's EB vs. the light diesels. Watching with great interest.

For me, I'm pretty satisfied with the HEMI. It's got enough torque for moderate towing, and good mileage empty. And 'cost thousands less' than EB.

 

[fordmantpw]

Good point, DP -

So I guess it's EB vs. the light diesels. Watching with great interest.

For me, I'm pretty satisfied with the HEMI. It's got enough torque for moderate towing, and good mileage empty. And 'cost thousands less' than EB.

If you look at the cost premium of the Hemi over the base V6 and the cost premium of the EB over the base V6, I don't think you will see that the EB 'costs thousands less' than the EB. Somewhere around $1k is more like it. Glad you are happy with your Hemi. It would be boring if we all drove the same trucks. I'd get tired of seeing nothing but Ford's everywhere!

 

[DeereMann]

If you look at the cost premium of the Hemi over the base V6 and the cost premium of the EB over the base V6, I don't think you will see that the EB 'costs thousands less' than the EB. Somewhere around $1k is more like it. Glad you are happy with your Hemi. It would be boring if we all drove the same trucks. I'd get tired of seeing nothing but Ford's everywhere!

Hah! If memory serves (always suspect), when I was shopping 2-3 years ago, EB was $1650 over HEMI presuming I did the compares right. Didn't pay for itself, plus being newer, suspect reliability & durability at the time.

For heavy / routine towing (contractor use), that is where the true debate & interest lies, & it may well be better than light diesel. I think the advent of GDI, together with EPA zero emission diesel exhaust, has change the dyanmic greatly.

 

[fordmantpw]

Hah! If memory serves (always suspect), when I was shopping 2-3 years ago, EB was $1650 over HEMI presuming I did the compares right. Didn't pay for itself, plus being newer, suspect reliability & durability at the time.

It is tough to compare prices from one brand to another. Sometimes one comes with required features where the other doesn't, some require axle ratio changes, etc. So, yeah, it's tough. To go from the 5.0 to the 3.5 EB in the Ford is a $1250 option IIRC.

For heavy / routine towing (contractor use), that is where the true debate & interest lies, & it may well be better than light diesel. I think the advent of GDI, together with EPA zero emission diesel exhaust, has change the dyanmic greatly.

I agree. It's really hard to tell without having a true comparison. I think we will see that soon with RAM's EcoDiesel compared against Ford's EB. Prior to '07 when emissions were tightened on diesels, it was a no-brainer. But, now, with the stricter emissions, it's a tougher call. I think the manufacturers have the kinks worked out, but there is still the cost penalty. I currently drive a diesel (2008 Ford F250), but if Ford were to offer an EB V8 in the F250, it would be hard to pay the extra $5k+ for the diesel over an EB V8 due to the amount of towing I do. Now, if I towed 10k miles per year, yeah, I'd still probably go diesel. But I tow probably 1-2k / year, so I don't really need the diesel. It tows like a dream, but if I could have similar towing ability with a gasser and still get decent fuel economy, I'd be all over it. Plus, I really don't need near the 440 HP and 860 ft-lbs of torque that comes with the new 6.7L diesel from Ford. That's just insane for a 3/4 ton truck!

It's definitely exciting for truck lovers, no matter which brand you like (well, unless you like GM, of course! ).

 

[DeereMann]

Chrysler sent me an ecodiesel announcement.....with no availability date. I wish those Marketing guys would stop this pre-sale demand building hype.

Besides, my dad's rule was always to never buy the first model year of anything. So many times he's been proven right!

But still would be fun to test drive - problem is, you need a load behind you to truly get the feel for it.

 

[tcartwri]

Chrysler sent me an ecodiesel announcement.....with no availability date. I wish those Marketing guys would stop this pre-sale demand building hype.

They're at the dealers right now. People started taking delivery last week.

 

[tcartwri]

Maybe this will be helpful describing the difficulties of using a chassis dyno with turbo charged engines. Read the geek techie notes. Loads added to the engine are met with more boost but with a lag. If a constant load that doesn't have to be chased is applied, then you will be real output values. I think of it as climbing a long hill with the turbos spooled up.

2011 Mercedes-Benz S63 AMG: Dyno Tested

I totally understand the difference between a chassis dyno and an engine brake dyno, that's why I'm saying the plots from your graph are comparing data using two different techniques which is not relevant.

 

[Diamondpilot]

Hah! If memory serves (always suspect), when I was shopping 2-3 years ago, EB was $1650 over HEMI presuming I did the compares right. Didn't pay for itself, plus being newer, suspect reliability & durability at the time.

For heavy / routine towing (contractor use), that is where the true debate & interest lies, & it may well be better than light diesel. I think the advent of GDI, together with EPA zero emission diesel exhaust, has change the dyanmic greatly.

When we bought our EB it was $650 over the 5.0L V8. The truck is my dad's and he would not look at anything else so no comparison between brands.

By the way I drove it last Saturday. 27,XXX miles and no issues. 18.2 mpg since new all on 87 octane gas. It's a Super Crew 4x4 with the HD package and 3.73 gears.

Chris

 

[fordmantpw]

I totally understand the difference between a chassis dyno and an engine brake dyno, that's why I'm saying the plots from your graph are comparing data using two different techniques which is not relevant.

But I don't think they are. Otherwise the peaks wouldn't match with what the manufacturers claim as peaks, would they?

 

[DeereMann]

When we bought our EB it was $650 over the 5.0L V8. The truck is my dad's and he would not look at anything else so no comparison between brands.

By the way I drove it last Saturday. 27,XXX miles and no issues. 18.2 mpg since new all on 87 octane gas. It's a Super Crew 4x4 with the HD package and 3.73 gears.

Chris

That's it? No driveability report? Come on! Did you tow with it? Does your dad tow with it? What does your dad say? :drool:

I wonder what the price delta is today? My buddy bought the V8 5.0L a couple years ago because of te cost delta & newness reliability concern. He has been very happy with his V8. He is like me, occasional moderate tower.

 

[tcartwri]

But I don't think they are. Otherwise the peaks wouldn't match with what the manufacturers claim as peaks, would they?

You are correct, they should not. However the shape of the plots tells me they are from a chassis dyno and the peak values should be down by 20 to 25% from advertised numbers from driveline losses. Do you see where I'm going with this..