FUEL ECONOMY-2.7 L

Well yes, I agree with what you stated but the MPG and power difference wasn't my reasoning on my purchase. I went with what I have because of cost. I don't trailer anyrhing of any significant weight, maybe 2000lbs at the most, same with weight in the bed and at the time I only hauled me around. So I chose the cheapest 4x4 I could get which was $20k brand new. To get a V6 4x4 it was at least another $8k which I just couldn't justify the increase in a payment for something I didn't really need.

 

Here ya go

2006-2008 models. Reg cab, 2.7, 5 speed, 2wd daily drivers

This is about 6 years of every single gallon of fuel burned, around ~125000 miles' worth

http://www.fuelly.com/driver/xaks

 

Shift points, cruising rpm, tire pressure, etc. I had a commute where I cruised around 50-60 mph in light traffic on the freeway and managed to average 28+ that whole month.

 

Yup. I stayed at 60 MPH while cruising religiously. Still was screaming up grades, and passing when needing to, which was pretty much always.

 

Unless you are buying the 2.7 l to save money on the initial purchase then there is no reason to buy it. If you look at the EPA fuel economy for anything past 2012 then the V6 = the 2.7 l on highway fuel economy and is only marginally worst than the 2.7 l in the city. That's for the 4WD

 

I get 18mpg average with my 2.7L 2WD auto tranny. I've tried driving slow and easy, then on later tanks like I stole it. There was very little difference in fuel economy. I don't understand why some folks are getting such good mpgs.

 

Manual transmission makes all the difference

 

I don't know if the MT is all of it... if you don't know what you're doing with an MT, you can easily get worse gas mileage than an auto.

 

I have a heavy config with 2.7 auto and banged out great MPGs stock.
Manual seems to be worse for MPG, at least on 6 lug trucks.

 

I know you are looking for 2.7 mpgs
But I average 17 in my 4.0 dclb bone stock. Mainly city driving.

I've seen 20 once and its was on a trip to Palm springs.

That is also driving like an old person.

If my foot is on the floor I see somewhere around 15.5-16.5.

I had a 2.7 double cab before this one and it was just so weak and the mpgs weren't that much better. I would recommend getting a v6. It will still be better mpgs than your tundra. Plus I'm sure you'd hate the significant drop in hp.

 

Perhaps, but many posts in other threads here say the MT gets the same mpg or slightly worse. I dunno. I'm hauling 450# of toolboxes and tools now, but this mpg was what I got before this was added, and my truck had a hard tonneau cover. The mpg has basically remained the same.

 

*shrug*

I've got hard data ...years worth...that says otherwise. And there's other guys in here with similar trucks and similar numbers.

Free country and all, you can believe whatever you want.

 

I'm glad it's a free country too. I'm not trying to be argumentative, just trying to post my experience. My hard data is coming from a 1986 Jeep Comanche 4 cyl 4sp MT that I drove from new until the 1st of this year. It had no trip ODO so I recorded and calculated mpg at every fillup. The average mpg was... 18mpg. Maybe that is way way I drive? Again, I dunno.

I've always thought that MT should get better mpg than AT, but also thought more modern AT did much better.

Anyway, my truck gets what it gets, and I sure do like my truck.

 

Bah! I compleatly disagree. If I was going to shell out that kind $ for a truck that gets about the same MPG as a V8, yes I'd get the V8 truck. A Tundra or an F150.

What tires, 2WD or 4WD? My AC 2.7 4 speed Auto Trany gets 24 MPG with a full load in the bed, loaded AC AND.......the passenger seat packed to the roof, going up and over mountains. The return trip with an empty truck haul'n but I got 26 MPG. When I get bigger and wider tires, I suspect this to change.

 

Get the 4.0 instead. 20 to 22 if you don't drive like a moron and keep your tire size normal.

 

Edit: Not so, IMHO. I would also ad that it is the driver (You) that is operating the MT that is making the difference.

 

Please don't post here to say 4.0 is better. OP clearly states 2.7 MPG, and anything 4.0 isn't relevant and will be removed by mods if posted again.

There are 50 2.7 vs 4.0 threads, if that's what posts will be about take them there instead.

 

'13 base (5 lug) auto, stock suspension/driveline. Every tank recorded in a spreadsheet.

21.9, all city, AC on.

Haven't really had a road trip yet, just a couple 50 mile expressway runs, so no tank calculations that way. However, the scan gauge does show 28-30 mpg on those runs..........

EPA rating is 19/24, so I'd expect that the 28 to be real close running speed limits on cruise.

 

There are also 500 threads about fuel mileage on this forum too for both engines.

Not saying its better but the Op should research both before making a desicion. The difference between the two is small. Or wait and see what 2016 brings

 

On my 2012 4cyl manual I usually get 24-26mpg freeway and 21 or so in town. Driving through Oregon - with the sweet 55/65mph speed limits, I have gotten over 30mpg. No joke.

That was the reason I bought the 4cyl actually...That & I wanted a manual, and I only need enough power to tow a drift boat.