2007 Tundra continues gas-hog trend

When I bought my Tundra, I could have had a crew cab, V-8, 4x4, with a slush-o-matic, and leather seats at an obscene price, but opted instead for the V-6, 2wd, regular cab, with manual gear box. FWIW, its supposed to do

8.5 sec 0-60, but thats not why I bought this truck. I bought it for a 3/4 ton work truck, put a camper shell on it, loaded it down with tools and equipment, and occasionally tow a trailer with it. It has all the creature comforts that I need(A/C, cloth seat, and CD player), and is comfortable to drive. I don't mind that I average 18 mpg with it either(the customer pays for *everything*). I think that if more folks bought vehicles to fit their *NEEDS* and not just for status symbols, we would be a lot better off.

That would probably chop the truck & SUV market by two thirds. Perfect.

I couldn't agree more. The culture of ego and excess has worn out its welcome in many areas.

Ed

One point to bring out with the Tacoma. If you compare the fuel economy specs between a 4 cyl. extra cab 4x4, manual transmission. The older design

2004 model was 18 city, 21 highway. The newer upsized '06 model is rated at 19 city, 23 highway. I heard this was achieved by cutting weight, such as with the composite bed. Strangely enough, the new model's max payload dropped from 1630 lbs. to 1480 lbs.

For the most part, need isn't a factor and gas mileage isn't a consideration to certain people. There must be 20 4WD Suburbans in my neighborhood. Most are heavy duty with towing hitch receivers. Most don't use them for tow vehicles, the furthest off road they get is their own driveway and I've never seen one evey half full of people. Some people just have to have the largest, most powerfull, most trendy,etc. Hummers seem to be replacing some of them - very trendy.

Skip

That's funny, because I get 17.2 all-around average with my V8 Tundra Access Cab!

-jeff

The most popular fable I hear from people like that is "I need the ground clearance for when there's 2 feet of snow on the ground". That's a crock of shit, because first of all, this city and county have the most efficient snow plowing system imaginable, and second, most of these soccer mommies would never leave the house with that much snow on the roads.

Run it loaded with 1000lbs of camper shell/parts/tools/equipment in it all the time, and tell me what it does.

That's true, but in your obvious distaste for those of us who own Tundra's, please do keep in mind that there ARE some people who just plain need, and use, a truck. Personally, I do need the clearance, etc. I've gotten my '06 Tundra stuck twice in the first year of owning it, and I was NOT recreationally wheelin'. I just live out in the woods and use it as a truck. Since we are not made of money, most of us, compromises must be made and you end up with a Tundra that gets used for a significant amount of non-truck stuff, too.

-jeff

I have no distaste as you describe. I have problems with people who buy gigantic vehicles and never use them for anything but driving to work. They never tow, never put anything but groceries in the bed, never have more than one passenger. You know what I mean.

average 18 mpg with it

I bet it wouldn't be a whole lot different.

Not trying to start a fight, just think it's a little silly to use 18 mpg as some sort of bragging point in this debate! 2 mpg this way or that way is irrelevant to the planet, if that's your point, and to your wallet too.

What I wish is that Toyota offered, in the US market, a car you can get in Europe. It's one of those sort of minivan/wagon crosses, like a bigger Prius sort of. Seats up to 7 people, and gets 45.6 combined MPG! Has a small turbo-diesel engine.

-jeff

-jeff

I don't hear that around here, probably because the last time we got snow here was 1988.

That could be a reason. We also hear the "They handle better in snow" thing. Heh. No. The NY State Police say they visit just as many SUVs in ditches as regular cars. Maybe it's because so many SUVs come with off road tires that suck in snow. Or, they're driven by soccer mom twits talking on the cell phone and putting on makeup, driving with their knees.

There's that old pesky freedom of choice again. Someone needs to do something about that!!!

In the '90's, I lived in the Denver Metro area for 6 years. Many's the time I would be driving along, minding my own business in my 1988 2WD Toyota pickup, often in a long line of other vehicles, at about 25 MPH, in the snow, when some numbskull in a 4X4 would pass the line of cars, probably doing about 50 or 60 MPH (wow, long sentence!). Often as not, I'd see him, spun out, off the road, a ways up the road. It seems that some 4X4 drivers forget that when they hit the brakes, they also have

4X4 brakes, just like the unwashed minions they just drove past...

At least you didn't continue that last thought all the way to the really dumb one that some people do. :-)

My Toyota Land Cruiser, 1995, with BFG AT's on 'er is the best-handling vehicle I've ever driven on snow and ice. Period. That includes many vehicles and a lot of driving on snowy roads (I'm a ski bum). Just a data point.

Look, I'm probably more on an enviro-whacko than ANY of ya'll here, if you want to have that debate. But folks need to realize... SUV's are not what's destroying the planet. Or to put it better, Prius's are not going to save the planet! For example, a quick Google on USA energy usage will show you that if every american switched to a Prius, thus tripling the efficiency of our passenger fleet, the net result would be to take America back to about 2001 energy usage levels! Think about that. 2001 energy usage levels were/are taking us to HELL in a handbasket! The reason is that passenger vehicles use about 12% of the total energy we use, so even if something drastic happens (we squarsh the SUV's and all drive a Prius with appropriate bumber stickers ), all you've done is increase the efficiency of a small part of of the pie, so to speak.

If you live in a house, do American things, drive around, buy the stuff we all have, just sort of live the American lifestyle, it's pretty irrelevant what car you are driving. People getting 35 mpg in a Civic are HARDLY "saving the world". They are just wrecking it slightly slower.

-jeff

Then, you are not in the category of "someone who has no use for an SUV", right? This doesn't change the fact that you know the type of owner I'm talking.

The subjects of global warming and oil consumption have blinded people to one fact about bigger cars that cannot be debated. You know what that is.

While the type of owner you have in your head certainly exists, I think it's also true that you are making assumptions that may not be valid a lot of the time. For example, you just said that I'm not in your "evil" category, but what would you thing if you saw my wife taking my girls to a soccer game in that same Land Cruiser? You'd think, there's another soccer mom in an SUV. Same SUV!! And yet... it's also our camping and skiing and adventure mobile. You simply could not do some of things we like to do in a (much) lessor vehicle, or at least not safely or without abusing the vehicle.

Uuummm.... that we drive generally bigger cars than absolutely necessary? OK, I'll give you that. But you ignored my point. It does not matter what we drive. You need to start seeing the end game, here. We (humanity) will burn every drop of petroleum in the next 40 or 80 years. If we Americans don't, someone else will. And it doesn't matter if we all drive a Prius and make it last 10 years longer- global warming is an event on a geological scale in magnitude and time frame, and the point is we will still burn it. 10 years is nothing.

Is that depressing and pessimistic? Yeah... Is it true? You KNOW it is.

You are drawing false value judgements. You have created an artificial scale in your mind in which SUV drivers are destroying the planet while the good Camry drivers are saving it. They are both destroying it. Whatever the consequences are of burning it all, we are going to find out.

-jeff