MPG for 3rd Gen Tacomas???

well I was comparing it to an off road truck. I've seen many people claim they get 15 mpg as where I've seen my cousin get 18 mpg in his tundra. I'm not talking about a little commuter truck..... I would definitely pass up 24 mpg commuter truck as it would not benefit my life at all. My point to my statement was they can make V6's more efficient. It was to start a flame war. k Thanks

 

I'm not trying to make a flame war either...I'm just not following your logic at all. If you compare EPA ratings this IS the most efficient V6...and it's a pretty potent 4.0 liter V6 at that. I think Toyota's done a very good job with it..but that's my opinion.

Yes, they could put a smaller V6 in it but I doubt they will do that. (In fact, I'd look to Ford putting a super-efficient V6 in their F150 and position that against the Tacoma when they kill the Ranger.)

What would be really cool is if they brought us the hilux...the diesel's not likely...and put a nicely packaged 3.0 V6 in it. That would be nice. But unlikely.

Not sure what you mean by an off-road truck...my 24mpg V6 Tacoma 4x4 is pretty off-road capable right now. And yes, I CAN get 24mpg with it...probably like 6.2l Raptors make 15MPG...on a good day.

 

Simple answer would be to look at what the new Gen 4 Runner gets and voila, thaere's your answer. The next Gen Tacoma is supposed to be based of the current Gen 4 Runner, with same Power Plants.

 

Not true. I'm one of those people who have a hard time calling anything post '05 a second gen. The 95.5-2000 and 2001-2004 have different frames. That's why the buy back for perforated frames was done differently. 95.5-2000 owners had their trucks crushed, 2001-2004 had a new frame installed.

The double cab also showed up with the 2001 model year. Another indicator that it's a different generation to me.

 

That's exactly what I was going to say. Just look at the new 4.0L with the dual VVT-I.

Compare old and new FJ's and see what the difference is and you should have your answer to a degree.

You can't compare the old and new 4Runners cause the size difference is enormous so any comparison will be completely skewed via power to weight ratio (Which will obviously have an impact on MPG). The FJ which as retained it's same chassis/body is a more reliable source.

However that being said, we know that with the 2012 Tacoma will probably come new body styling courtesy of the 4Runner.


Either way, ask the magic 8 ball.

 

In '09 they changed the grille to the silvery version. That's 4th gen.

In '11 they changed the grille to honeycomb. That's 5th gen.

 

Your tacoma is a 4.0 4x4 getting 24mpg? I said off road because I thought you were saying you had a 4cyl but looked at your specs. I've never heard anyone getting 24mpg for a dc 4.0. I guess there is hope Thats awesome mileage. I think Ford was smart with the eco-boost but its an extra 2k add on (not crazy) to the which ever model you get (fx4, xlt, etc).

Also I wish we could get the diesel. They were everywhere when I was in Panama and were awesome.

 

No! Its stupid to call it a new gen. when they only changed some cosmetic things. TW's view on it is way better!!

 

I said I've done it...not that it does it. There's a difference. I had to do a little hyper-mileing to get that. My usual mileage is 20-22 pure hi-way cruising 60-65, in town/mixed I'm around 18 or 19. I never do it, but I imagine all in-town would be around 17.

I never measure putting around the hills, that's just crazy.

But the point is: 15 for a 6.2L is probably as exceptional as my 24...comparing one specific vehicle to another, or one DRIVER to another even for same vehicle, is an exercise for idiots...and hypermilers. That's what EPA makes those gas mileage charts for.

 

i realized that after my post lol

 

Our 4.0 is not the most efficient V6 on the market. The 3.7 in the mustang puts out 305hp/280lb-ft and gives 19/31 mpg. In the new F150 ford will have an ecoboost that's a 3.5 twin turbo with 365hp/420 lb-ft (at 2500rpm)

 

Yeah, I have some reputable sources that say 2012 or 2013 is the scheduled redesign on the Tacoma. But I think it'll likely be 2013 or maybe pushed to 2014.. sales of Tacoma are stagnant compared to lighter more fuel efficient SUVs and full size trucks (Tundra) offer many more features and comparable MPG for less money.. Further, Ford hasn't redesigned the Ranger essentially since 1998, Nissan is reported to be considering stopping production of the Frontier at the end of this design cycle. Also, Toyota is still recovering from the recession, and they are having many recalls to deal with.

InsideLine said this year in an article here that the redesign would be the 2012 model year.

 

Well I do. I'm from the future.

And the 2013 Tacoma is totally amazing. You wouldn't believe it if I told you. Seriously, people never believe... sigh. I bet you're even having trouble believing I am from the future. See, so why tell you about how the 2013 Tacoma body is made out of carbon fiber nano tubes, and the ceramic engine made by Corning is actually a small nuclear fussion reactor capable of around a million miles before the core melts down. The truck only weighs around 800 pounds, but since people have become so obese in the future the actual truck weight with occupants is about the same as it is here in your time.

Well, my time portal is closing now.. gotta run. See you all in a few years... keep on truckin

 

Ahhh, that's simple whippersnapper. Carbon credits.

I'm here to get in on a ground floor opportunity. I'm printing up some now and will have my Amazon storefront up shortly here.

I'm here to ride my damn bicycle around and grow my own food, and compost , and all that stuff, all so you can drive your Tacoma guilt free by paying me

Sweet plan right! Right now I'm freezing in my house with no power or heat so I can sell you the energy savings.. good thing my laptop of the future runs on urine.

 

LOL

 

Mustang's a vastly different vehicle with equally different purposes...you know, aerodynamics, weight, gearing, torque curve all that stuff. Can't compare like that, it's really not a good idea. I'd only compare trucks to trucks.

Still, have been hearing a lot about Ford's new engine offerings in the F150 that will let it compete with the other mid-size trucks. Will be interesting.

 

Ford has definitely caught my eye lately. Especially considering i just took two 300 mile trips this weekend and averaged 13.5 mpg from my taco.

The ecoboost looks very promising. But i hate to buy a BRAND NEW engine. Lots of kinks to be worked out yet im afraid. But 22/28 mpg sounds great on a full size.

 

Just looked at an article about Ford's Ecoboost engine. It's really awesome...turbo-charged and direct injection. Like any turbo'd motor, the only way you'll get 28mpg is if you can keep the turbo unspooled.

I'm sure that pushing it as hard as you must have the Tacoma to get 13.5mpg you'll get at least as bad, if not worse, with it. I've never gotten 13.5 even when throwing it around in city driving. You must have been towing, hauling, sporting a camper or something.

This Ecoboost will be equally demanding when pushed as hard, I'm sure. But when you can be gentle it should reward you too!

VW's been doing this for quite some time with their 2.0 TSI four banger, and they found that out really quick. GTI will get better mileage than a 2.5 Rabbit driven 'sanely. But push it and things change quickly (and ohhh...but GTI's do beg to be pushed!) A Rabbit pushed hard, conversely, doesn't get that much worse.

 

I was running 80 - 85 the whole way trying to make good time. I was sleepy and late and needed to go pretty fast. Plus it was up some pretty decent mountains. Had to fill up before i left, when i got home and then when i got back from the 2nd trip. Got around 218 miles out of the tank. It had more gas left in, but not much.

And your saying if i would push the ecoboost hard like that, it would get crappy mileage too? Maybe even worse?

Because im really in the market for a full size. And its a toss up right now between the tundra and the f150. The tundra is a beast, but i need decent gas mileage. And the Ecoboost is very appealing in that aspect.

Oh yeah...What is Unspooled? I know nothing about turbo's.

 

Turbo-chargers...they use exhaust gas pressure acting on a turbine to pack a denser fuel/air charge in the cylinder to get more power out of smaller displacement. As exhaust gas pressure builds at higher RPM's the turbine speed increases, or 'spools up' and generates more power when you need it most.

The idea is, when you don't need the power you are operating in lower gears, lower RPM so not spooling up and the small(er) displacement engine can give great economy.

But it's highly addictive, like 4 barrel carburetors of old when you lived for the rush when the secondaries kick open and it takes off. With modern turbos the rush is much more gradual but incredibly seductive...if there's road, you just want to keep your foot in as it pulls..and pulls...and pulls...

And drinks...and drinks...and drinks (gas). So yes, it could easily be much worse than the Tacoma if pushed hard. But then we have no idea as it's all speculation right now.