Toyota Tundra 3.5L I-Force V6 Engine FUEL ECONOMY Test | Better then FORD F150 3.5L EcoBoost??

[@GettysGarage]

Both these trucks come with 10 speed transmissions and 3.31 gears. So the drivelines are also very similar.

[@dima-nabut]

@@redrider7730 these things would matter and explain the difference within 0.5 litre but not over 2.2 litre difference. Absolutely irrelevant here.

[@Back_door_bandit_98]

What happened to the last video you posted I saved it to watch later and now it’s gone what a bummer.

[@chadedwards6643]

Drive the same route in normal mode. I bet it's better.

[@user-kq7gi7eh1s]

@@redrider7730🙄

[@scottmcgehee2933]

Better fuel economy in the warmer months. In parts of US, maybe Canada too, different grade of fuel used in winter months. Worse fuel economy because of extra butane added in fuel in winter months

[@logicalrationalfishing7481]

As a driver of a hooptie with no money coming in the future, I would gladly pick either. Good content, and though I will never be able to buy a truck like this, it is still fun to watch!

[@trackpackgt877]

Don't say that buddy you never know I've been driving 1998 Ford Ranger for 10 years it's an old worn-out truck but a good truck. I have never had a nice truck. But I just bought a 2018 2.7 EcoBoost 4x4 80k Miles on it for 22k!! Truck prices are coming down dealers are sitting with hundreds of trucks on the lot they can't move there's deals out there to be had and banks are more lenient on loaning. I did put a some cash down but I didn't have to and my payment is $300 a month. Point is I never thought I would be in a position to buy a nice pickup truck but prices are coming down lots are desperate to sell and banks are desperate to loan. i wish u all the best and hope u can get one someday brother

[@YerBoyTroy]

F150 is a lighter truck by a noticeable margin, also the ecoboost is over-squared vs under-squared in the tundra. This should mean longer and heavier piston rods and crank pins in the Tundra which adds to more rotating mass in the block. I think these things would give the f150 an advantage in efficiency. Trans tuning could also be a factor. Also no one mentions the aerodynamics of the vehicle, tundra front end looks more boxy with a larger grill which should equate to more drag. Great channel love the video

[@tylough]

Yeah Tundra is about 500lbs heavier than an equivalent F-150. That's about 10% heavier.

[@dmandman9]

All of those could be viable explanations. I’m sure you already know this. I’m just stating the obvious 😅At the end of the day, If fuel economy is a major consideration, the customer doesn’t care WHY one gets better economy than the other. They just want to know WHICH gets better economy.

[@JamesMcLaren1000]

I think you’re right. I was just looking at the thumbnail and the Ford has a significantly lower air dam at the front. That would make a big difference to the aerodynamics.

[@ZishanMalik]

Google says tundra 5390 and Ecoboost 4200 ish. Almost 1,000 pound difference.

[@imnotusingmyrealname4566]

Weight only matters for stop-and-go city traffic. The F-150 was more efficient by a greater margin on country roads and the highway than the Tundra. On the highway it's about engine efficiency, rolling resistance and aerodynamics.

[@poppyneese1811]

I now have my 2nd 2.7 Ecoboost powered F150, the first I traded in at 94,000 miles and not the first problem, life of the truck in the mountains of Southern West Virginia got 20.4 mpg and my second truck it getting the exact same thing with the 10 speed and 3.73 rear compared to the 3.55. I Love the Ford’s, but you know the Toyota is going to be a great truck too, if it doesn’t rust away like past Toyota’s, had two Tacoma’s that rusted really bad. I’m going to say there ain’t a bad full-size pickup out there no matter what you buy because that’s where the manufacturers profits come from. I’m 61 and my next truck will probably be a Maverick, as you age you ain’t as limber as you use to be!

[@jesse.e.martin]

While the Ecoboost has been around awhile, it has also been through several iterations of design changes, so technically the current engine just as modern and likely more refined than the I-Force.

[@RedWingsninetyone]

It's definitely more refined. Although this engine isn't new for Toyota though. But definitely new in this application.

[@joseeduardo4327]

the ford is better for sure

[@scottbet4504]

I like your videos. You are a very knowledgeable person. My 2019 3.5 eco has gotten close to 790 miles to the tank on long vacation trips. Your numbers are on par with mine. Like 22.5, 22.6 per gallon. 👍

[@kevingeezy5176]

I've got a 2013 f150 and on long trips I avg about 22mpg. She's still kicking at 288k miles

[@josephcetar9202]

Have the 3.5 eco boost in our Expedition. Good fuel economy and fast, best purchase ever!

[@kb9oak749]

Ford may have had the Ecoboost since 2011, but they have continued to update/upgrade both the 3.5 and 2.7 throughout. I've had mixed luck with Fords over the years, but my current 2.7 F150 is pretty good.

[@mickeybrumfield764]

Your right on target, poor fuel economy hasn't stopped people from buying an otherwise good vehicle. Just take a look at the success of the 4Runner. To me, 15% difference is very close to being a deal breaker if they are sold at about the same price.

[@corradettimotorsports360]

I just did a Fuel Economy Test on my 2023 Tundra SR with stock wheels and winter tires, it was snowy, icy and cold (but not brutally cold) I averaged 11.7L per 100km on a 500+KM road trip from Pincher Creek Alberta to Edmonton Alberta! good reviews!

[@GuyonaMoose]

Good test dude. My 23 3.0L duramax rst will get 6.6l-7.5L/100 driving on the hanwell. At 110 it raises up to around 8-9L. Around the city it will do high 10s low 11s. Your very right when the engine is on the turbo the economy goes down allot faster than an n/a engine. Absolutely loving my minimax. The milage is insane.

[@Syringe666]

Had the same experience with the older V8s. We had a couple of half tons - the Toyota had the 5.7L, and the F-150 the 5.4L. On the same trips the Toyota would return 16 - 18 mpg [at best & rare], while the F-150 would be 19 - 21 mpg, and sometimes better than that. Similar rear end ratios. The F-150 had an 8 ft bed - Tundra had the 6.5', both crew cabs like this test.

[@martinlebreton6391]

They dont make an f150 crew cab with an 8ft bed. Nobody does. Gotta get a 3/4 to get that.

[@chrismills4213]

Loving the Tundra series…awesome work👍

[@993mike]

I personally would bet driving 100K plus miles with both these trucks that the Toyota will have way less issues with both the engine and the truck itself over the long term. I have several friends with newer F150's, and it's just one recall and repair after another.

[@pwgrmi]

@@993mike that might be a bad bet. The NHTSA web site has some years of the Tundra as the most recalled vehicle sold in the US.

[@michaelpopp6340]

I could get 25 mpg rhighway when my crew cab 3.5 eb 4x4 9:50 f150 was stock. I am amazed at how powerful and fuel efficient the 3.5 ecoboost is. I loved my old 5.7 tundras, but the fuel economy sucked. I expected crappy ecoboost fuel economy towing a camp trailer, but I get the same 10 mpg that I've got out of every other gas powered truck, and have much more power than any other half ton that I have towed with.

[@J_S_246]

The perfect video before I pull the trigger in April 😊

[@garyhunchak1857]

you'll love your ecoboost.

[@jw8578]

@getty thanks for this review.... rated at 18 and 22 I'm averaging 14 mpg in my Ram. Disappointed. These other trucks were on my list. Huge difference between these two. F150 weighs 400 or so pounds less but that shouldn't matter much on highway.

[@GlenMcGuire-j8r]

Great video, always informative. Quick point on the MPG though, you seem to be converting L/100km to US MPG, not Imperial / Canadian. If Toyota is quoting 23mpg in Cdn terms, that 12.3L/100km is pretty bang on. I have a 2019 F150 3.5 Ecoboost with 3.55 gears, and can confirm it runs daily driving town / country in the 22-24mpg Imperial, and longer highway trips in the 100-105km/hr range in the 25-26mpg range. All depends on that right foot, and cruising speed.

[@paultruesdale7680]

Kudos to Toyota on delivering on improved efficiency and power output. So far it has been a bumpy start for the new Turbo motor. I’m sure many of the iforce 5.7 owners are agonizing leaving the reliability, though very thirsty V8. Ford should be proud of making the investment into the high aluminum content, not to mention its 10 speed transmission. 4 mpg difference is substantial. Top marks Ford. Toyota is moving away from simplistic designs and into the opposite. The turbo location defies common sense for long term ownership, and the overall design is overly complicated. Great review without any bias. 👍

[@playanddisplay3636]

My 2013 EcoBoost took 60,000miles to fully break in and get over 20mpg consistently in mixed driving conditions on the continental divide and 80mph interstate speed limits.

[@jayt620]

i’ve got a 2018 with the 3.3 non turbo and i’m not quite getting 20 .

[@CJColvin]

What job do you have and how much money do you make to afford that Ecoboost F150?

[@playanddisplay3636]

@@CJColvin Independent contractor and so far as how much I make. What are you an IRS agent? I have two EcoBoost F-1shitties(2x4 and 4x4), a 91 Dodge 3/4 ton Cummins 5speed 4x4, Studebaker 1 ton DRW 2wd, 62 International 1600 dump truck 2wd, 81 F-1shitty with the 300 and 4 speed. 99 F-3shitty 7.3 6spd 4x4, 2000 Ford F-2shitty 7.3 automatic 4x4. I move a lot of dirt, gravel, and building materials with the little fleet I got. Have a great day.

[@CJColvin]

@@playanddisplay3636 Nice

[@playanddisplay3636]

@@jayt620 If it is a 4x4 they do weigh about 6,000lbs. That is a good amount of truck for a N/A v-6 to move around. The elevation, terrain, and driving style can really affect MPG. Ie. When I let my 2014 Ecoboost warm up on a -20 -30-degree F morning the mileage goes from about 18 on winter fuel to about 15-16mpg.

[@pementerprises7706]

They both have 10 speeds transmissions however, after having a ford 2.7 for a number of years the trans sits in overdrive gears far more often. Ford is in 7th-8th gear at 33-40 mph. The new Tundra is in 4th to 5th gear for a comparison at the same speed…

[@imnotusingmyrealname4566]

As long as it downshifts quickly that should be no problem.

[@offthewallsurfer1]

I’m a Toyota guy, but what I like about in Ford is that they give you options! If and that’s a big if, I were to buy a Ford, I’d choose the 4 cam, 32 valve and all the Bald Eagles 🦅 🇺🇸 5.0L V8 💪

[@mrjim1973]

My naturally aspirated 3.7 F-150 is getting 18 MPG on E85!

[@alanschmidt3460]

So with that, your F150 is a 2011?

[@TS-ic1ol]

I have the base ‘23 F150 Raptor and am more than happy with the 16.8 I got going on😂

[@Costanza009]

I got 22mpg in my 23 f150 with the 5.0 and 3.73 gears on a 2.5 hour trip.

[@vegasfordguy]

I own a 2012 F150 super crew platinum 5.0 liter V-8 with the 6 speed automatic transmission. I have no problem achieving 19.7 mpg both small town/highway driving at 65 mph. If I slow down to 60 mph then I can actually achieve 22-24 mpg. I keep my tires correctly aired up and maintain my vehicles. I drive with a light foot and use cruise control. Most people don't drive easy and seem to waste a lot of fuel. My numbers are calculated every time I fuel up doing the actual math. These new turbocharged mpg numbers aren't very impressive compared to a 12 year old V-8.

[@jerryjeromehawkins1712]

Same here, Vegas. '17 F150 5.0 6spd 4x4 Supercab 3.55 gears. 19+ in town is common for me... 22 on the highway is no problem at all to achieve. MPG is calculated at the pump. Like you, I'm pretty easy on the throttle and the brakes, gentle starts off the lights... but I do give her an "Italian Tune-up" from time to time, lol. Just a fantastic truck... zero issues since new. 🇺🇸 👍🏾 🇨🇦 Edit: This channel is quickly becoming one of my favorite YT subscriptions!

[@jeffreygoss8109]

I think this a benefit to your driving. I would guess you would get better than the top end of the turbo’s mpg range. Most truck drivers are full throttle to slam on the brakes.

[@19xtrip]

depends on the weather too, during canadia winter, with 18 winter tires, my 2016 5.0, 3.55 ..with mix driving 50/50 i get about 15-16 mpg, normal driving ..only highway at 70-75 mph, I get 17-18 mpg

[@techsing3037]

Add another '17 supercrew 4x4 5.0 to the mix. Taking it easy on the highway I can pull high 23mpg runs. With the 32 gal tank, i feel like I can go forever between fill-ups. Ford is good at this game and this comparison video proves it, eco-boost or otherwise.

[@GettysGarage]

You don't have to argue with me sir. the 5L is one of the best 1500 engines in my books, partly exactly for that reason, it gets incredible fuel economy for being a N/A v8. not to mention it puts down some nice power when you need it to.

[@whitelancery]

Alex, I can't express enough how amazing your videos are! They are so informative and to the point. Thank you for your reviews and information! I would also love to see a review and comparison of the hybrid I-Force Max if you can find one of those around. I'm especially interested in how they drive (torque curve) and whether they do add any better mileage, even though they are tuned for "performance". Seems like they have to add a little bit of efficiency somewhere, and the lifespan extension of the starter seems a useful benefit, if the technology is sufficiently bulletproof.

[@drunkinmaster1]

My 2019 3.5 ecoboost will average 23 mpg across Washington state to Oregon coast. With 34” tires i average 17 mpg highway

[@Johnsmith46392]

Ford is 16% more fuel efficient than tundra. Wow!

[@pauldickson1495]

Makes no difference in cost of ownership. The Ford will eat the savings in gas up with parts .And there is no resale on a ford . I’ve had both trucks . Dodge as well . I’m not brand specific. Stating the facts . Drive what you all like . They all suck and are a poor investment

[@Terminxman]

@@pauldickson1495 We'll see how the new Tundra holds it's value, I highly doubt it'll be as good as the old Tundra or even 2nd gen Tacoma. I've owned 3 Toyotas, a camry, 4runner, and 3rd gen Tacoma. My newest vehicle now is a '21 f150 with the 5.0 at 46k miles. I would trust Ford's ecoboosts at this point though just as much as I would the Toyota engine. What I don't understand is the switch to a tt v6 for such little gain. The fuel economy is still not very good. twin turbo gassers get awful fuel economy loaded down too, the 5.0 does better on fuel while towing than any of them but obviously has a less desirable torque curve being naturally aspirated. Regardless, I haven't owned any Fords that killed me in costs. The value of some of the toyota models is purely based on perception and fanboyism and not reality. People have this impression that a Toyota with 400k miles on it is somehow magically going to go forever, any more so than any other mfg. Toyota does make better cars, but I don't think their Trucks are that great anymore and the reputation seems to be dropping.

[@Johnsmith46392]

Assuming $4 gas it’s almost $2,900 every 100,000 miles.

[@ryane6719]

@@pauldickson1495you’re drunk, these tundras are crap. Not only is the Ford more efficient it feels 20% more powerful when towing. I drove both, the tundra felt dead. The Ford felt like you couldn’t put enough weight on it. I’m on my second eco boost.. I traded my last one in with 146,000 miles, it used zero oil and had zero issues. My current one is 40,000 miles while I’ve had a few recalls that are annoying as all hell, it has been just as reliable.

[@pauldickson1495]

@@ryane6719 sorry I don’t drink ford boy . You’re sensitive like the rest of the ford fan boys . Drive your fords . I’ll drive what I want . 😂😂😂 you guys are so predictable.

[@agerardomp]

Greetings Alex. Gorgeous performance and MPG at FORD. Performance and achievement of energy in FORD is better, weight and yield in turbo, stoichiometric blend, ... is really I think could be the difference. Good job Alex!! Big HUG from CDMX! 😮

[@GettysGarage]

Could very well be true! Appreciate it sir!

[@patl9364]

My 24 Tundra I-Force Max get 18mpg around town 23mpg on hwy runs. But I got it for heavy towing. My 2013 Ram 1500 got to 170k before the rear end needed a rebuild. I've had the old Tundra's in the past 5.7 12mg but very reliable. Couple of Ford guy friends who have had F150's are now going with the Silverado 1500 Diesel & reporting 22/33mpg. One has to tow horse trailers the other construction equipment.

[@limestonelizard]

As an owner of a Tacoma, I am not surprised at all by this result.

[@1kukini]

It’s nice to see testing trucks on Irving fuel for a change.

[@GettysGarage]

that stop is close to my shop and the highway. makes it almost perfect for this time of stuff.

[@yxz91]

It'd be interesting to see the the hybrid version in the mix.

[@CTECH-REVIEW]

Great video! I love the MPG LOOP comparison! Ford still leading the pack for fuel economy!

[@12B0692]

Tailwind and headwind make a huge difference. My Ridgeline in Eco mode got 25.9 mpg recently on a 700+ mile drive, but headwinds on the return trip lowered that to 25.4. In both cases, exceeding the 24 mpg highway rating. I find that open road mpg is fantastic in Ridgeline. City tends to be much worse...18.2-19mpg is the norm.

[@Saku19]

What happened to the "3.5 I-Force issues" video?

[@2packs4sure]

If I was out there shopping right now I think I'd take the Ford I've heard some weird stuff going on with a new Tundra's. Need to give Toyota a couple years to straighten it all out...

[@joseeduardo4327]

Where’d the video go about the negatives of the tundra powertrain?

[@christianmonteith8568]

Been watching for a while, great stuff! Suddenly I just realized you're out the Hanwell road haha nice! Mind blown. Cheers from Mactaquac!

[@christianmonteith8568]

Let me know if you ever need an old gen 1 tundra for a comparing video or something haha

[@jeffreygoss8109]

Still love my 5.7. 13 mpg no matter how I drive it. 300k and never an issue. Never left me stranded so I can easily budget for the atrocious mpg

[@GettysGarage]

can't argue with that sir!

[@steveweiss8920]

As a Toyota guy, it's disappointing to see the new Tundra only gets about 19mpg. My gen 1 - 2006 Tundra with the 4.7 averages 18.5 on the interstate.

[@chadhaire1711]

3.5 is for towing only. If you are not towing the 2.7 is a far better motor, and actually quicker to 60 mph too.

[@tacticalbacon5551]

I drove my 2017-1794 tundra from Georgia to Elkader Iowa 17 hrs same route each way on the way up I averaged 19 mpg on way back 21 mpg for an average of 20 mpg I was very surprised and pleased. I bought my Toyota for its reliability not its mpg’s.

[@revistadearmas]

I got the V8 Trd pro The real deal Interested in the V8 raptor R now

[@CTECH-REVIEW]

Raptor R FTW!

[@Chris-ut6eq]

Correct me if I'm wrong but this video did not test the engine, but tested the whole drive train (with the engine as only one component) for the given vehicle weight & tire rolling resistance. A few years ago, was looking for a new truck and quickly dropped looking at tundra because it's not as efficient as other trucks on the market.

[@LindsayPeters987]

So knowledgeable!

[@leemorgan9670]

Ford has been at this a long time, they figured out mpg, however Toyota has always been reliable. That remains to be seen with the new twin turbo tundra. I have heard mixed reviews in terms of engine issues.

[@ejshelby5460]

Had a 2022 F150 with the V8, gas overall is great, not amazing, but here’s the fine print: it is VERY sensitive to driving style. As soon as I got on the highway, at 60-80/hr, the mpg started to improve, the more I’m on the highway the longer the range is! Very interesting, like my Volvo Inline 6 made by Ford. Toyota, not sensitive at all, just bad mpg. But I still choose the Toyota for far better power delivery and transmission

[@andrewest9791]

Summer will get you better mileage. Upping tire pressure to the max will improve mileage as well.

[@cliffh8486]

I like them both. But I would get the blue oval because I like the styling better

[@mikedebear]

I'd like to see a towing fuel economy comparison between these two trucks.

[@colingoldthorpe5918]

Was this in IMP Gallons or US Gallons. My Ecoboost 2.7 gets close to the 3.5 Ecoboost maybe a little better but not by that much. I have Driven long term the 5.4 Triton the 5.0 Coyote the 3.5 eco and the 2.7 eco. The 2.7 eco runs the smoothest and better fuel economy than the rest. I had a Ram 1500 with the Hemi it was the same MPG over 200,000 km as the 5.4 Triton. In total about 700,000 km on them all combined. So i guess i would be a good benchmark. Never towed with any of them, they were all work trucks and all highway miles in Western Canada.

[@brianaustin1328]

I have a 2024 Tundra SR. I get 23 mpg on the highways without a load. With my RV towed behind me, I get about 16 mpg.

[@channelnamehere4065]

@The Getty Adventures You should throw both trucks on the lift and compare each component, from brakes to prop shaft, to see just how overbuilt a typical Tundra really is. And those are just components you can see. That's where there's a weight difference, attributing to MPG.

[@AK_Ray]

That's hilarious, have you actually been underneath a Toyota and an F-150 for yourself? All the components are pretty much the same exact size and if anything a slight edge goes to Ford as far as just total beef.

[@channelnamehere4065]

@@AK_Ray Then you haven't been under either. Typical Ford buyers take the outside and don't consider how things are built together from the inside. The only F150 with components comparable to typical Tundra is the Raptor.

[@AK_Ray]

@@channelnamehere4065 ya dude, I'm the biased one... Coming from a guy with a clapped out Toyota as his profile picture 👌

[@channelnamehere4065]

@@AK_Ray just speaking facts. You claim Ford had bigger components when they really don't. Toyota is used by special forces around the world cus nothing else will do. Fact.

[@channelnamehere4065]

@@AK_Ray you are biased by saying f150 has bigger components when it actually doesn't. Even raptor don't have as big of components but it comes closest. Just stating facts. Toyota is used by special forces around the world in shit countries cus nothing else will do. Fact.

[@lpdg3438]

I have a new 2024 hybrid tundra and only averaging below 17 mpg. Not unless I need to accelerate quickly I am usually very easy on accelerator to save gas.

[@dalea4350]

For about 5 to 7 years, then the Toyota wins hands down simce it will still be running for 20 years.

[@hphillips7425]

Interesting 👍🏻. New to the channel and subscribed

[@bobf.]

Combined my 2024 Tundra is getting 19.4 mpg, the F150 with the 3.5 ecoboost was getting me 18.3.

[@bobf.]

Sorry...i should have said that the F150 ecoboost was a 2012 with 170k miles.

[@lukestoyz]

Tires , air pressure in tires, vehicle weight differences also factor in

[@gregoryjames7976]

Absolutely. With the stock tires on my 2018 f150 was getting over 20 mpg. Got sick of the flats and went to a more aggressive E-rated tire and mileage dropped to 17-18

[@seaneastman6323]

Tire pressure and temp outside will be the thing that most people don't consider. However nice video.

[@Johnson13210]

My 2021 4x4 Tundra has factory 4:30 gears in the pumpkin which hurt fuel mileage but pulls like a mule. That is probably what we are seeing here. The 3rd gen. Tundra may have lower gears vs the ford. Better fuel mileage doesn't mean a better truck or truck engine, but simply gearing. I have seen mid-size trucks with better towing capacity that some full size because of gearing. Hope this helps.

[@nicholasvaughn2386]

I would have hoped for better fuel economy on the tundra. I have gotten 18.5 on trips with my 17 TRD Pro tundra and its only got a 6 speed and 4.30 rear gears. I have 295-70-18 LT tires too (metric 35's). Normally get 16 in mixed driving.

[@jameszeiger8533]

it would be interesting to see the fuel numbers when both are towing, say, 5K or 8k lbs. We know from your prior testing that the eco boost, which pulls hard like a beast even under severe loading, does drink fuel like crazy. As well, how Toyota approaches their cooling of forced air induction (low temp liquid cooling) verses Fords more conventional air cooling exchanger, how Toyota uses an explicit and separate cooling circuit for turbo/intercooler, may reveal they don’t need to retard timing under severe loading to keep EGTs down, as Ford does, thus, it drinks a lot of fuel. I am not a zealot and think both are great trucks. But, it would be interesting to see how the new approaches by Toyota and others recently in turbo cooling and intercoolers perform under severe loading. Cheers!

[@jimmoseley2983]

I have the 2022 Tundra and I get 20.1 mpg on interstate driving with cruise control set at 72 mph and I also have a Leer camper shell on the truck. I run the truck in the ECO mode. I have no complaints about gas mileage. But I do think the Infotainment center sucks.

[@weegeemike]

Turbos, less cylinders, higher price, more components to break...my dads '16 Denali 5.3 2wd will do 21-23 mpg all day on the highway. Maybe 18 or 19mpg in town which is to be expected and is pretty solid as well. Ill take the v8. Thanks

[@CJColvin]

Agreed, I'll stick to my 2011 Ford F150 with a 5.0L Coyote V8 in it

[@jeremyloewen4071]

Like to see the same comparison but towing 7000lb through the mountains. My 2018 3.5 eco boost gets about 25-26 l/100km in that scenario

[@McBurger29]

Once you wrap this series up. You gotta compare the Hybrid models. Im going to pick the Ford Power Boost.

[@GettysGarage]

the hybrid battle would be pretty cool.

[@ThunderRunner]

Pretty closely mirrors my experience having owned both…comparably equipped there was about a 10% difference in weight of the trucks, my tundra coming in just over 6,000lbs, and I saw about 10% better fuel economy in the 3.5 EB. The transmission gearing does feel a lot different and wanted to rapidly upshift in my f150 at all times which greatly reduced the enjoyment of the drive, so there’s that as well.

[@danielcull5054]

My tremor gets about 14L/100K with the 3.5EB on a highway. Those tires make a big difference it seems.

[@Mustang-Mike]

F150 aluminum body vs Tundra steel body . What was the curb weight of both trucks?

[@mll7674]

The 3.5 has been around since 2011. But the engine has seen changes since. IE hp and torque ratings and much better all around since the original release. I personally owned 3 and 2 5.0L F150. The past year I’ve been on the powerboost. By far my favorite platform for me. Just like any other product it’s not for everyone. But it fits my lifestyle. I don’t tow anything. But I do need a truck. For me as long as they continue to offer the powerboost it will be my choice. They ever change and remove it. I will go back to the standard 3.5L. Better hp and torque rating than the 5.0. And better fuel efficiency. Powerboost houses the 435 hp and 570 lb ft of torque. Truck is quick. Not raptor r or TRX quick. But no slouch. The other fact of the F150 10 speed is the self learn. You can’t judge the truck until you’ve put a couple hundred miles of your driving habits . The truck will shift better judging your everyday commute. Hence you’ll see better mileage due to learned patterns.

[@javienj.2535]

Can you make a vid on the best truck to buy or that you would buy on a budget? Maybe 10k or 15k whatever you choose

[@jeanlarose2343]

Do you have snow tires on ? What is the differential gear ratio on these trucks ?

[@mtbtrailbuilding6813]

Something to consider, turbo in colder weather generates more power due to the density of the air coming in. As a result, more fuel is added.

[@mtbtrailbuilding6813]

Also, did the ford having towing package or no? I ask because I had a 3.5 ford out 2 weekends ago from Wood motors and it was 15.2-15.6 over 500km. I ordered a Tundra that same weekend.

[@GettysGarage]

No it didn't have the towing package. the towing package I believe comes with 3.73 gears which would make a difference. especially in the city.

[@jayzb7701]

O2 sensor should adjust to right ratio

[@jasonbrushett2005]

​@@GettysGarage the max tow package on the F150 3.5 Ecoboost comes with 3:55 rear axle.I have one

[@sprint2648]

Gonna be hard to beat fords 3.5 ecoboost. They have been around since 2011 and the current one is pretty darn good!

[@GettysGarage]

If you drive them easy they will be good to you. but once you lay into the pedal the fuel economy is gone. depends so much on how you drive them I find.

[@carholic-sz3qv]

who told you that! you forget one thing the ford body is entirely alumnium much lighter than the tundra.

[@CJColvin]

​@carholic-sz3qv Yet the Aluminum body will be more expensive to replace once it gets dented.

[@mikecoyen4944]

In my f150 on eco and locked in at 100 km I ran almost a full tank 138L went 900 km and ended with 9.0L/km

[@leje-zj4dr]

A few issues with the tundra content so far: - the first 2.7 gen eco boost did not have a single timing chain, it’s always had two - if the tundra has a GPF, and you’re a mechanic, put it on a lift and show it to us - the eco boost has been around since 2010, or the 2011 model year. How is that 11 years? - the 3.5 eco boost has been either completely redesigned or revised multiple times in its 14 model years. Why would this lead to an expected lower fuel efficiency than a newly designed engine?

[@joshc606]

genius

[@enzop.3227]

Not to mention no tow hooks.

[@vitkobylka6432]

As a 23 Tundra owner it’s very disappointing that Ford can get such better fuel efficiency ratings. I wonder if this could somehow be fixed with a re-flash of the computer? It would be interesting to see fuel efficiency while towing.

[@Lakikano]

To be fair, Ford has been making this engine for a long time and they’ve ironed out all the kinks. They’ve also matched it to a 10 speed transmission they’ve been making for a long time and stuck it in a truck with a lightweight aluminum body. It’s hard for Toyota or anyone else to compete.

[@jakerton97]

Toyota never made the engine for fuel economy, hell even the hybrid is designed more for performance. It’s honestly a waste of time on their part making a turbo engine that gets the same fuel economy of a v8. Might as well just put a v8 in the damn thing. Personally I think this would have sold like crazy if they had at least a v8 option.

[@H2ODiver_Down]

When we start seeing these with 300k miles I will be impressed. This 6 cylinder has some big shoes to fill if it's going to live up to the reputation of the Tundra's V8. I sure wouldn't run out and buy a new one. I'd go for an older V8 Tundra.

[@vitkobylka6432]

@@jakerton97 I agree, I think if they put the 10 speed transmission and same new rear end on the V8 the fuel economy would be very similar to the new V6

[@RedWingsninetyone]

​@@H2ODiver_Downit'll be a long time before that happens. Not because of reliability necessarily but just time in general. I remember hearing the same things for the 3rd gen Tacoma V6: "well how many have 200k+ miles?!" "Umm, very few because the average American drives just over 10k miles per year while extreme examples can be 30k+. There simply hasn't been enough time to even get most of these to 200k+"

[@kevinoreilly9222]

I've been driving a 22' Tundra (4wd, crewman) for about 2 yrs now. The fuel economy numbers show here are not surprising. The Tundra can get 22 MPG (or more) under certain conditions, like driving 65 mph, not up and down hills, and not on winter gas. I can't help but notice it's winter when this was recorded and winter gas fuel additives decrease fuel economy. When driving on a hilly highway at 75 mph on winter gas, yes 19mpg is about right. I average about 17-18 mpg around town. Still much better than the 5.7L but apparently not as good as the ecoboost.

[@markf8256]

@kevinoreilly9222, I noticed the same issue with winter gas in NW VA. Across our Toyotas we notice a 1.5 - 2 MPG drop in fuel economy tank to tank. I have 22 Tundra 1794 STD bed and can get over 24 hwy in the summer but struggle to get over 21 in the winter. It seems to be more impacted than our older Toyotas, maybe the turbos, not sure.

[@robertwotring7318]

Were the tires the same between the 2? The tires on the Tundra looked more aggressive.

[@parrott350]

How the mighty have fallen. sad. Good informative video though. Best regards, chuck

[@brucemacdonald4672]

Need to do a test with pulling a trailer with both. ☃️👍👍

[@theepanvr]

Do either of these trucks have cylinder deactivation systems? I love my 2nd Gen Tundra, but mileage is definitely a consideration for next purchase.

[@pmbboc]

No they do not have cylinder deactivation

[@aaronstefan4450]

I am running a 2023 F150 Lariat with the 2.7 Ecoboost which is at least 500 lbs heavier than the XLT 3.5 Ecoboost tested in this video, it gets similar mpg to the Toyota in this video - I might have a heavier foot than our host….

[@khonesavanhchandara7044]

I very like to see you talk about f250 with 6.2. If you have a chance

[@DakotaDave17]

My beef with fuel milage tests is that there are so many variables that it's hard to compare two vehicles exactly the same. Unless the tests are performed in a lab. When you tested the Tundra The tires could have been 2-3 psi low. When you tested both vehicles the time of day could have been different meaning if you tested the Tundra first it could have been colder out effecting the fuel economy for better or worse. I have experienced it personally that the tire choice really effects fuel economy. How aggressive the tread is on a tire and even the weight of the tire since it is rotating mass has drastic effect on fuel economy. Even if they were both P rated tires I have seen 10 pound difference per tire in P rated tires that are different brands. So to be fair, testing with the exact same tires with the factory recommended psi, with the exact same weather, driving the exact same route with the same number of stop lights ensuring the same amount of idle time would be the fairest test. However everything I said probably wouldn't make much of a difference and I am sure the Ford would still win. You did an excellent job with your test and had more attention to the details than most other people. Keep up the good work!

[@georgeversluis8442]

My 22 Tundra is getting 20 mpg mixed Keeping it below 65 mph it reads 30 mpg on the graph

[@Shorby99EK]

Winter time and winter fuel sucks down MPG as well. I always beat the EPA mpg on my vehicles.

[@DH-hp7nv]

That 5.7 in the 2nd gen tundra was a boss. I had one, loved it, and didn’t give a dam about its fuel consumption… it was fun to drive. The new tundra imo is weak. Toyota should have stuck to doing what they did well. Ford has done pretty well at ironing out the issues the ecoboost started with years ago. I have one of those now, and it also has been a dang good engine.

[@Wittyusername82]

I’m surprised actually. Unloaded my tuned gen one 3.5 with the 6 speed sits around 20 mpg in the summer, towing (doesn’t seem to matter the load) is around 15. I expected these new trucks to be better.

[@GettysGarage]

you would like to think the 10 speed would make a big difference but maybe not.

[@jasonbrushett2005]

F150 Ecoboost for the win😊

[@seaneastman6323]

No sorry your ford is aluminum and the tundra is a real truck,that is steel lol .Let's see Ford pull it off with a steel body 😂

[@jasonbrushett2005]

@@seaneastman6323 lol

[@紫苑瞹绫]

Strange. Mine is 6.5ft Platinum. I drove from Niagara to Chicago and came back. The average is 11.8L/100KM. In the summer.

[@shivpatel9724]

Will you make a video on a nissan titan?

[@dustinclark8946]

Well, the test is what it is but simply the resale of the Toyota puts it ahead

[@19xtrip]

Now...can you do a coyote (ur fav Ford engine) comparison vs borh the trucks you had here?

[@TheRealEarlLeeRiser]

My ‘22 Ram 5.7 crew cab 4wd averages 18.5-19mpg on 33’s mixed driving including the hills in Alabama…didn’t see too many hills there in Canada. So I don’t see much benefit in a turbo v6

[@24cupsandcounting]

Wow, it's a lot better than any of the Rams I have driven. 15 mpgs was the best they could do.

[@TheRealEarlLeeRiser]

@@24cupsandcounting that’s where I was at with this same truck but 34” load E tires….switched down to an SL load like oem in a 33” and made a big difference.

[@michaelpopp6340]

4 mpg roughly better from similar 2014 hemi ram (8 sp) and 2023 3.5 eb f150 ( 10 sp). Huge difference in acceleration too. The hemi is outclassed in every way other than the exhaust note.

[@TheRealEarlLeeRiser]

@@michaelpopp6340 my only point is in 2024, if you can get a v8 with same or very very close gas mileage as a v6 turbo then what’s the point or appeal of a v6 turbo.

[@BrandonAgpaoa]

You should have compared it to the I-Force Max instead of the standards V6 twin turbo

[@aesho46]

I have a 23 tundra TRD off road package. I can’t get more than 16 mpg. 12k miles

[@GettysGarage]

I believe the TRD off-road and the TRD pro do have different fuel economy ratings.

[@beexiong2995]

Toyota should be sued for false advertisement of fuel ratings lol

[@Pantelifts10]

That's what I get on my 2016 V8 Tundra. Crazy.

[@dougreed736]

My 2022 tundra is not good on fuel. It also has turbo lag that has left me terrified in traffic as vehicles were headed at me and I couldn't move. The entertainment system is annoying and often doesn't work as it should. I'm going to trade it in for a new one, and if it has similar issues, I'm actually gonna purchase a domestic 😢

[@dr._breens_beard]

I think its something other than turbo lag if ur truck refuses to move.

[@beexiong2995]

​@@dr._breens_beardmaybe a broken foot 😂

[@dcooper91g]

Not hook a 5k lb trailer to em both and see what’s better. Can buy a little car for cheap fuel but most truck owners wanna know what the trucks will do being used as a truck