Help me decide, 2.7 i4 AT 4x4 or 4.0 AT V6 RWD

Here is an MPG comparison taken from Toyota.com of the following trucks-

4.0 V6 PreRunner Access Cab AT- 17/21
2.7 I4 4x4 Access Cab AT- 18/21
2.7 I4 4x4 Access Cab MT- 18/20
As you can see, basically no difference.

I remember seeing the 0-60 times on all the Toyota models in some kind of PDF file fact sheet on this site. Wish I could find it again. Anyway, the 4.0 blows the 2.7 with either tranny out of the water, and the 2.7 manual was like 2 full seconds or more, faster than the 2.7 auto if I remember right. I was thinking about trading my 5-speed reg cab 4x4 for the auto version, but once I saw that, there was no way I was going to do it. The 5 speed barely has enough power IMO.

Do you need 4x4? If so, get a 2.7 if its all you can afford (not hating, I have a reg cab 4x4 because it's all I could afford). I would REALLY encourage you to get the manual if you do go with the 2.7 for the power reasons though.

Do you not need 4x4? If so, and especially if you need to tow, get the V6. I've honestly been looking to trade my 4x4 regular cab for a V6 access cab PreRunner. The 09s and newer PreRunners can handle snow and light offroading just fine in my opinion.

Want more honest answers, and not just someone supporting THEIR truck, PM me.

 

2.7 4x4 MANUAL FTW
Just had this massive debate for 2 months and picked mine and love it. Would I rather the V6? Fuck yes, but for the price? No sir
Im getting 23-24 mpg also with a new engine. Once my AFE filter comes in and it breaks in I should be 25-26 easy

 

^ My sentiments exactly. . .

 

Dude, MT is definitely worth learning if not just for the mpg gain, fun, and better offroad and speed capabilities. 2.7 4x4 ftw

 

DHK, I was a little surprised the MPGs were all so close, but just because the Canadian website has different numbers, the Toyota USA website must be lying to us all? lolol.

My guess is that the two countries just use different testing procedures, and as a result got different...results. Actual mileage will vary by each driver. I get 18.5 city and 22 or so highway with my 2.7. I'm very happy with it.

DHK, no offense, but I don't care to debate it with you. Myself and the OP are American's, so to me, it makes sense to use the American estimates. You are from Canada, you can use their estimates.

Anyway, good luck OP!

 

It's strange how the mpg rating for the 4 cylinder changed for 2011. Earlier years were 17/22 for the manual. I find my truck has no issue meeting those numbers.

 

I have no problem exceeding the EPA standards for my truck.

 

Care to explain which parts are wrong?

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/mpg/fetrends/420r10023-appx-a.pdf

EPA's methodology is to use statistical analyses to "even out" the plethora of variables that influence real world fuel economy. This is mainly to protect the uninformed consumer from making a vehicle purchase partly based on fuel economy, only to find out that the claims were far from real-world observations. It also helps to protect manufacturers from lawsuits over what some would claim is false advertising.

You're saying that Canada's projections are correct and US projections are wrong. Both, in fact, are correct, but the observed difference is reflective of the intent in producing those numbers. EPA doesn't just come up with methods on a whim. They collect large amounts of data, spend countless hours on research, have complex QA procedures in place, and most importantly, they rely heavily on input from the very entities they're regulating, including vehicle manufacturers. I'm sure that the Canadian authorities responsible for regulating posted fuel economy figures have comparable provisions in place also, but they're focus may be totally different and therefore have different methods and variables.

 

They are not accurate because it simply doesnt tell you what truck it is. Access cab? Reg cab? Double cab? All are hundreds of lbs more/less then one another and would get different number. Thats how I know they are wrong, also because they base it on the gas some people use which others dont (ethanol in it). I have had about 1000kms on my new Tacoma and have no problem getting consistent 24+ mpg if that helps

 

V6

 

I have owned 2 2.7 L with auto's. A 1997 and a 2002. Both got good mileage and I just didnt like shifting all the time. I drive a FL70 Freightliner with a 6 speed all day and want something auto. I like the 2.7 for being buleltproof. I never had any problem with either truck with the motor. As for speed I have a motorcycle if I want to go fast. Speically with gas going up I like the 2.7L. But then again I got a new truck with a 4.0 V6 and love the power and I have been getting pretty good mileage with it so far and it's not that muc off from the 2.7L . I was getting about 17-19 in the city and got over 21 on the highway.

 

Yea,.....the AT pulls less RPM's than the MT on the highway,so,guess what...better mileage with the AT.

 

Same truck...hmmm,I wonder if Canada has strict non-sense EPA regs as the US has...they are not the same.

 

There's more to it than that. Show me anyone on here with an AT that averages better than 26.4 MPG, or has driven over 500 miles on a tank, or has achieved 30-31 MPG on FULL tanks. (All things I have done with my MT.)

 

Yes.