So why can't we have 30mpg?

.... valid question.

I know we "lose" when it comes to mpg compared to cars like the Camry... but why? Is it the weight? Aerodynamics? Gearing? We've got Rav4's and CR-V's that get better mileage than us and are considered "SUV" (more or less), so at what point does the BASEST of the BASE 4 cylinder Tacoma kiss 30mpgs goodbye?

 

All about the gearing. MPG or pulling POWA! Take your pick

 

I think it's a combination of all of the things you've said plus the fact that truck engines are set up more for torgue.

 

Heavier. Higher. Bigger Tires. Lower Gears. 4wd parasitic power loss. Shitty aerodynamics. 6 cylinders. Etc.

Rav4s and CR-Vs are Corollas and Civics in disguise. Please don't pretend they're trucks. Like most "SUVs" (that are really CUVs) built today, they are cars designed to look big enough that men won't feel emasculated driving them but practical enough their wives will let them buy them.

The Explorer and its ilk have replaced the minivan, in other words.

 

if you gave a truck a unibody like the rav4 or crv the mileage would go up cuz of the weight. of course then you wouldn't have testicles so who knows

 

rav4's are fun to drive

and also the fastest vehicle toyota offers right now IIRC

 

i almost bought a rav4 but it was an auto and super boring so i did not. prolly would have gotten it with a manny

 

My guess is that the weight is probably the major factor. I just sold a Suzuki Sidekick that got 33 mpg, but still had offroad capabilities competitive with a stock Tacoma.

 

Aerodynamics.

Pickups are a brick in the wind and no amount of "swoopy" front end treatment is going to change the fact that we are driving what is effectively a shoebox with the lid folded forward.

Look at a '76, '86, '96, and '06 and tell me there is any significant aerodynamic difference in any of them except perhaps the X-Runner.
Any slight improvements in the sheetmetal has been offset by increases in ride height, tire width, and overall size (2nd Gen is simply bigger than 1st Gen... 1st Gen could swap sheetmetal with a '93).

We have a few here who apply some of the "hypermiling" ideas and regularly approach, and occasionally surpass, 30mpg.

But you aren't going to do that at 70+mph.

See the Fuelly link in my sig...

 

With the new mpg CAFE in 2016 coming up, you can be assured that the real new model trucks will start hitting the market then. Nearly every manufacturer has a model coming up to meet the requirements and my guess is that the Gen 3 Tacoma will be released then as well..."The truck standard has to rise from 23.5 mpg to 28.8." - Car and Driver.

Let the flames begin...

 

A chick I work with has a V6 first gen that gets 30+, idk how it is possible, but she must have to drive it like grandma Moses in order to make that. Best I've gotten is 24 which I am happy with, anything above 20 is damn good for a truck, idc what anyone says. They are not designed for mileage period, they are made to haul and tow shit, lots of people tend to forget trucks are made to work.

 

It's all because the oil and gas companies stifle more effecient gasoline engine technologies to keep people suckled on the tittie of the gas pump. Keep their profits up.

:wileyC:

 

No diesel offered would be my guess. And I am also a believer in BrokenTusk's theory.

 

True. But I chose my pickup with the best of both worlds in mind: mpg and utility, because it is my daily driver and while I'm budget conscience I am utility conscience as well

 

I was speaking mostly in jest. But theres a lot of things that simply don't add up. When I started researching new cutting edge engine designs I was amazed when I found out that all the "new" crazy tech was anything but new. Most of the same concepts and principles of making machines more efficient have been the industry standards for decades. Examples: Heat regeneration tech, seperating the compression and combustion portions of the engine to incorporate intercoolers, etc.

These things have been done in power generation plants and oilsands processing & upgrading since long before I've been alive. Downsizing the tech to fit in a car shouldn't be that difficult with the resources of these major vehicle manufacturers. I honestly see no reason our vehicles don't hit 35+ Mpg's standard.

Explore:

http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&sugexp=...pw.r_qf.&fp=94153c134533c8d3&biw=1080&bih=650

 

30 mpg? I raise the BS flag.

 

I run an X-runner, I get aprox. 22 mpg's and I drive like a bat out of hell most days. But when I'm driving efficiently, cruising in 6th gear at 75. I've seen my Torque App read out 32-35mpg's.

 

I hope she's pretty because she is not going to make it in the real world with math skills like that

 

Because 30+ mpg is nice

And everyone knows you can't have nice things