Fuel economy of the 2016 tacoma

I don't think I can trust the EPA ratings anymore. Seems that since they changed how they test in 2008 their estimates have been out of whack on a lot of vehicles. The way they test is supposed to lower the ratings but they seem too high on some vehicles when compared to the real world results

 

Thank man! its also made for apple.

 

Mike sweers said in an interview on autoline tv about the 2014 tundra that Toyota tries to ensure that consumers get what the EPA gets. They don't want the customers to be disappointed that their real world economy is much lower than advertised. In my limited experience of 1 truck, it actually did better than it was rated.

Heres the interview if anyone is interested and has a lot of free time. its all about the tundra and its a couple years old but I found it interesting to get some insight into his design decisions. interview

 

Mike Sweers just has an answer for every criticism. There isn't any way to get past the fact that in independent reviews the Tundra gets at least 2 mpg worse than anything else the competition has on the road. Toyota just doesn't want to waste money redesigning their V8 so it gets to wither on the vine.

 

I don't know exactly how mpgs are calculated now; but the previous hwy test averaged only 45 mph. (I know they somehow average in a higher speed test now.) So, if you're going 70 the epa hwy number is useless. I think the bigger air plow you drive, the more useless it is. I wouldn't be surprised if the 3.5 beat epa hwy going 70.
My 02 trd v6 4x4 (19 epa hwy) got 22 mpg for a vacation from houston through colorado and back (calibrated scan gauge II). I wasn't in a hurry.

 

"Vehicles are driven on a dynamometer (a device similar to a treadmill) using five standardized driving patterns or test cycles. These test cycles represent a variety of driving conditions including speed, acceleration, braking, air conditioning use, and ambient temperatures. The test results from the five driving cycles are combined to yield individual “city” and “highway” values, and a “combined” fuel economy value that assumes a 55% city/45% highway split."

"EPA utilizes five test cycles to represent real-world driving conditions. While it’s true that the test cycle historically labeled as the “highway” test has a top speed of 60 mph, this test is currently meant to represent driving on lower speed highways as well as rural and suburban driving. EPA’s highway mpg estimates are primarily derived from a separate “high speed” test cycle, which has a top speed of 80 mph. The remaining three tests are designed to simulate stop-and-go city driving, high air conditioning use, and driving in cold temperatures. For more information on the five test cycles and how EPA calculates its mpg estimates, go to epa.gov/fueleconomy."

http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/documents/420f14015.pdf

http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/index.htm

 

"Primarily derived from high speed".
So what is it 60/40 high speed / old school? I searched recently but didn't find. (Didn't read links.)

 

I average 20. Set the cruise at the speed limit...and don't race from stop to stop.

Long trips I can eek out 22-23...so even if the '16 was able to achieve 24-25 hwy consistently....not a huge improvement for what I already have.

 

Mike Sweers wil be making a cameo for the TFL guys. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HisHDanpp3o

 

Whatever you get with the current V6 you should be able to get 20% better with the new V6.

I read somewhere that toyotas atkinson engine gives a theoretical 17% improvement in efficiency over a straight otto. I don't remember where I read that but it's in line with the 15% claimed here for a Ford. Since the improvement only happens at partial load and the new engine is overall newer and more efficient, 10-15% overall improvement in brake specific fuel consumption seems reasonable. You'll see the most benefit if you drive easy around town. An extra gear in the transmission should be good for 5 or 6% improvement, mostly on the highway, and aero improvements will give 1 or 2% on the highway.

 

Not for you, but for me coming from 18 mpg, it would be a lot! Of course, the payments would negate the savings...

 

That is what I always come back to, sure I could use a new truck, it be nice to get a little better emm pee gees, but I won't be saving any money....it could burn gas, diesel, or unicorn farts....still gonna cost me. That and nothing out there is saying to me "omg, I just have to have it!"

 

http://bcove.me/74dtr4oo

19/24

Nice bump. Not enough to get most of the people here rushing into a dealer but if you need a new truck those are very good numbers for the HP (278) and torque (265) you get with a nearly flat curve according to the reviewer.

 

^^^ Whats the linky for?

Doesnt seem to work

 

Its a video - it requires Adobe Flash. Will not work if you block or do not have flash (iOS does not). he quotes the numbers being thrown around in this thread as the '16 4x4 V6 mpg numbers

 

It was a Tacoma leak that stated everything. It was removed shortly after it was leaked.

Basically the new Tacoma impresses with 278 HP/265 ftlbs, a flat torque curve that makes the truck fast, and 19 city/24 highway mpg.

The interior is at least as quiet as the Colorado too.

 

Can't use link on phone but where did 19/24 come from? Is that official?

 

Came from a leaked review at the Washington Tacoma event. It was taken down soon after another member posted it and I shared it. It is legit.

 

Meh. How does everyone feel about those numbers?

 

Good. Sounds like the torque curve is great and with the 4.10 rear end the truck seems to have more than enough jam but still gives excellent mpg's.