Tacoma Fuel Economy

I think it's achievable, but it's rather conditional (terrain, temperature, blend, driving style, etc.). If folks drive blindly (not paying very close attention to any of the key variables and without a feedback monitor like a Scan/Ultraguage), then I suppose you would be right most of the time. But with careful, deliberate driving...it's achievable.

I have the 4 cylinder and getting numbers routinely above 25 mpgs takes lots of concentration. However, in my wife's MDX, I was able to get 24 MPGs on my way to Niagra Falls (uphill) and 26 MPGs on the way back (downhill). Speeds maintained around 62 MPH but entirely highway driving over long distances.

 

V6 Prerunners should be able to pull 25+ at 55 mpg pretty easy.

X-runners could as well.

 

Maybe downhill with a tailwind! LOL

 

My 02 ext cab v6 4wd trd 5spd with 152k gets about 20ish. Running avg for the past 5500 miles is 19.6mpg. That's mostly hwy and some city. The highest I've ever seen on one tank was 20.7 I think and that was 95% hwy.

 

Anyone who owns any trunk, and complains about the gas mileage , needs to trade it in for a Smart car , and never drive a truck again , get over it and stop complaining , if you like to drive a truck it's the price you pay !

 

It's not always a matter of "like"... it is generally a matter of "need", whether that "need" is for work, hobby, or recreation like offroading.

Buying a 2nd car that gets better economy (and the Smart really does NOT get good economy considering it's size) ends up being far more costly through duplication of expenses... registration (significant in some states), insurance, plus availability of parking facilities at home.

 

No complains here. Yup, it's a truck. Averaging in the lower 20's.

 

Got the best tank ever, 23.3mpg. Was 45-55 mph for a lil over 120 miles. 65+ really kill mileage on first gens, well at least in mine.

 

Here's to you all 4Cylinder drivers.

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2012/12/top-ten-most-fuel-efficient-2013-pickups.html

 

I'm not surprised.

 

I suppose that I've always held that truck manufacturers could produce better 4 cylinder engines that produce better power and fuel economy. While folks here have been able to beat the EPA numbers routinely, most folks probably get the estimated FE because of inefficient driving habits.

Can't help but compare the power/economy of my Tacoma against my S2000. Sure enough the aerodynamics and gearing have something to do with it, but it seems possible that truck manufacturers could improve the power/efficiency of the I4s to perhaps make truck owners more apt to buy more fuel efficient configurations.

Just thinking...

 

It's not so much about the engine itself, but about the overall setup of the popular trucks. Can't find the drag coefficient on the tacoma again but I remember there being a large increase between the 5-lug and the 6-lugs that are iirc over 4 inches taller with relatively inefficient tires and poorer gearing.

If you want an efficient I4 it's available, but most truck buyers aren't just buying a utility vehicle that the 5-lug is, which is all I need.

 

You're right on the point of vehicle configuration - I suppose that manufacturers pay attention to customer/prospective customer needs (or should be) when they establish the various vehicle offerings. True enough that all the customers needs can be met 100% of the time, so some concession must be made by the customer. As for the Japanese auto manufacturers (Korean?), they aim to minimize the gaps and tailor vehicles to meet an expanded majority of the customerbase moreso than Western auto manufactures.

My S2000 has an advertised EPA of 20/25 MPGs. Honestly, even when driven harder, I've not done worse than 27 MPGs in mixed driving. But the vehicle sits very low, manual tranny, and is more aerodynamic so better MPGs are to be expected. Around town driving I'm around 30 MPGs, highway around 34. I wonder though if that engine sat in my Tacoma, would the drag of the truck drop my MPGs by 50%?

Folks have often compared our trucks to pushing bricks through the air. The taller the truck and bigger the tires - more resistance. Folks who like the higher rides and aftermarket modifications are generally aware that they will give up MPGs for aesthetic appeal. But as Rich points out, there is a segment that require the functionality of the truck along with the economy of ownership. These are the folks who probably find themselves in the tougher spot and would generally benefit with improved engine performance. And so long as they make this known, prudent truck manufacturers will need to respond to the changing market demands. The price of fuel alone might drive this point as Ford is doing with their Ecoboost engines. The gap between full size, mid size, and compact trucks is shrinking as a result, so I4 solutions will need to improve on their performance numbers...or slip away.

 

Toyota needs to look else where of the ford ecoshit. Diesel if done correctly will net the fuel economy that people want. I still really don't see why people complain, a lot of it is in driving style and where you drive.

 

I think you'll find that most of the complaints come when the fuel prices start stretching upward. Folks will buy a vehicle with an expectation to spend a certain amount on fuel but when the vehicle doesn't perform to the EPA and price of fuel goes up, they start to feel it. This was a huge problem for Chrysler a few years back and even more recently. Folks loved the look of the Durango and Rams, but let them sit in the driveway when they weren't getting 15 MPGs.

Another segment of complaints come from folks who unwittingly drop their MPGs with various modifications. Some even with the idea of improving their MPGs with an aftermarket gadget that supposed to deliver better FE. Again, this hits them in the pocket on initial outlay and the ongoing reminder each time you fill up. But as you note, driving habits, terrain, weather conditions all factor into the FE equation.

Anyway, it isn't a bad thing to want 'it all'. FE and power are not mutually exclusive, but require engineering and technology to deliver on. So, as long as the complaining isn't inappropriate, it's fair to share an opinion openly in the hopes a manufacturer will respond. It's an evolutionary process happening.

 

My truck's rated 18/25 gets exactly what you are describing.

Around town summer driving 32+, winter 28 or less. Highway at 60 32-36 all day.

I imagine a high strung 2L Honda swap wouldn't privide me the mpg I'm getting. But who knows with a 6th gear.

 

6th gear - runs about 3500 RPM@65 MPH. I think with your polished HM skills, you'd be running in the 40+ MPG range. I haven't done extensive HMing in the S2000, but the few studies I've done have really surprised me thus enforcing the fact that you can get a nice balance of power and economy out of a small I4. Without much effort, folks should be able to get 30+ MPGs in mixed driving.

For this reason, I started reading up on the Ranger 2.5L and the Tacoma 2.7L, what if anything could be done to improve power and performance. Bolt on accessories proved to be pointless for the most part. As discussed here and in threads across the internet, the tonneau cover is probably the most practical accessory. As noted at CleanMPG.com and other sources of information, the best way to improve the MPGs is with refined driving habits. But the challenge of optimizing ones vehicle will always be alluring...at least to me. Many years ago I owned a Buick Skyhawk with the 3.8L V6 (1980). I went to college in Atlanta GA and just southeast of the city was the headquarters for Ruggles Performance. Back in the day, they took stock 3.8L and 3.8L Turbo engines and performed various tweaks to get more out of the small V6 (for that time period anyway). They did some pretty amazing stuff. You might recall the Skoal Bandit car that ran the Ruggles performance V6 Turbos against the V8s of the day and were winning. Back then, you could get detailed instructions on how you could take your stock 3.8L/115 hp engine and do a series of small, low cost activities (and a pair of headers/dual exhaust and a 4bbl) to squeeze out another 50 hp. By buying a few accessories from the Ruggles folks, you could get 230 hp out of a 231 ci engine. Of course, you needed to be a pretty good shadetree mechanic to get this done. I never did get the chance to Ruggle my Skyhawk, but a classmate Ruggled his Sunbird and believe me, that was a very quick little car!

Today's vehicles/engines are very advanced in comparison, so those days may be in the rearview mirror. Yet it is likely that any engine could be 'ruggled' to get better performance. It would take more theory and experience than I currently have...or more than most of us have. That being said, the Ruggles instructions remain a glowing ember in my brain...these folks had the theory and expertise and did impressive things.

So....can the 2.4L/2.7L engine, with their notable longevity be optimized to improve power and economy? You would think that the engineers at Toyota could improve upon the engine. And in fact they do. The question for me if the speed to refine the workhorse engine meets the customer demand. Frankly speaking, the Western hemisphere has hardly driven this cause being the largest consumers of wasteful SUV configurations. But elsewhere, economy is superior, but folks still want a bit of hop in their vehicles. Redneck raises the need for a diesel engine configuration. I agree that this would make a growing segment in the small truck ownership world very happy. Government regulation here in the USA at this point has made it an unviable business venture for here. But I'm guessing it won't be long before one or two make the leap. Until then, what will they do (if anything) to further optimize the gas I4 solutions? And given the longevity of the Toyota I4s, is there a market for 'ruggle-izing' the engines already out there?? An interesting thought.

Back to the group....

PS Redneck...it is very possible that the Ecoboost engines by Ford will force the other major manufacturers to raise their own bars. It's still early to make any longterm statements about this new family of engines, but by the industry accounts, it is already gaining broader appreciation. We will have to wait and see.

 

I might have misunderstood the original comment. Was it being said that the ford EcoBoost make its way into the Tacoma or that Toyota make the own twin turbo v6. I will give the EcoBoost credit but I have never been a fan of ford and will never support having a ford engine in a Tacoma. That and I jut can't see Toyota doing that, it would be much easier to engineer a turbo package for the 4.0 than trying to package an EcoBoost in the Tacoma. I have seen the EcoBoost and it is not a small package at all, there's a reason it's in a full size truck. Granted most components can be downsized but why not start with existing Toyota products.

I do wish that Toyota would pursue the diesel option but I fear it will not get much better economy that the gas counterpart due to the fact the EPA has sandy vaginas about emissions. Today's diesel can be stupid efficient with modifications but the good ole gov won't allow it. The technology is there it's just not being put to use.

 

Sorry for the confusion Chris. To your comment, my thoughts were that Toyota (or any manufacturer) could build an I4 engine that provided better performance (power and efficiency) similar to what Honda has done with their VTEC engines.

Here is a link to Wikipedia on the Ecoboost engines for those interested - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_EcoBoost_engine

One of the great things about innovation is that it generally fuels additional innovation. Competing manufacturers generally need to respond in order to maintain marketshare with the upside being that the consumers generally benefit as a result. I've owned three Ford products in the past: I liked them all and really the only domestic automanufacturer I would consider buying today. But presently, I have Honda and Toyota products in the driveway and enjoy them thoroughly.

Diesel engines in small trucks are used worldwide...just not so much here. I think that small changes in government regulation that would step up to the current level of present legislation would probably facilitate the introduction of the existing diesel technologies. Perhaps a 5 year plan. The diesel engines of today are leaps above where they were less than 10 years ago, so the compromise might make sense.

As for mixing makes...I guess that it always bothered me when hot rodders would take Chevy engines and fit them into Ford chassis. Of course, building up Chevy engines was faster and cheaper, so this helped to fuel some of the retrofitting. But I like keeping things pure myself.