Post your '16 MPG

I own physics, bro

 

Exactly!
Would be very happy with a 17 mpg combined, time will tell.

 

Wouldn't be complaining of 14.5 mpg when towing with the Tacoma. I'm barely hitting 16 mpg in town unloaded.

 

Is there a setting to show real time mpg? I can only find the tank mpg and the little moving bar from 0-15-30 mpg scale.

 

Eco screen on Entune. I think.

 

Nope, that bat is the real time readout. Wife's Corolla has the option and an eco light.

 

17.4 with a mix of Highway/Street
Still on the first tank of gas.
DC 4x4

 

About right, maybe a bit better then what I'm getting.

 

I have a limited. Been trying very hard to drive it to get the best fuel mileage. Cannot seem to do any better than 19mpg

Quite honestly I am disappointed. I thought we would be looking at closer to 24.

 

24? That was highly optimistic. I've never gotten within ~20% of EPA estimates, and EPA is no higher then 23 on the Tacoma.

 

EPA estimates can be improved by using straight unleaded (no ethanol) and a manual transmission

 

You're suggesting the EPA doesn't account for a MT?

 

No, they don't. They don't drive the vehicle. They measure emissions and extrapolate from that. The computerized program they use for shifting, accel and decel are based on auto trans and don't take into account that manuals are driven differently.

 

Historically there's always been different EPA estimates for auto vs stick. Not sure what they're doing now, but I'm quite certain it's taken into account. Of course, it's an impossible thing to estimate with much degree of accuracy.

 

Yes, they are measured separately and reported that way. What they don't do is to drive them differently, so the decel and accel rates are matched, which is not how most owners drive them. They also idle for 18% of the total time tested which gives hybrids and diesels quite an advantage over standard gas units. They use pure gasoline, not the ethanol blends that much of the West and Midwest is nearly forced to use (another 15% or so disadvantage)

 

Not sure why they'd drive them "differently". The goal is to create a consistent number that's supposed to mimic reality and give the consumer some idea what they can expect. Whether that is the end result is certainly open for interpretation, because I've never gotten close to EPA. Historically however, MT's have out performed AT's. This is no longer the case. AT's get better fuel economy and performance. Even high end Italian super cars are using AT's for this reason and it's just reality now. MT's are obsolete. This is reflected in EPA estimates.

 

MT's are obsolete? Maybe if your only use for a truck is mall crawlin. Many of us drive MT's by choice because we believe they have benefits over an AT.

 

Not to derail the conversation from mpg, but in the past 5 years or so automatic transmissions have surpassed manual transmissions in almost all regards.

A quick Google search will show many hits, this Edmunds article tends to be at the top of the list.

http://www.edmunds.com/fuel-economy/five-myths-about-stick-shifts.html

 

I had this argument not too long ago with a younger friend who was buying his first car, his dad argued the benefits of manual transmissions to the point where the kid went out and got one. Maybe it was his father being a poor teacher but the kid ended up selling that car and getting one with an automatic transmission.

 

I'll refrain from highjacking this thread. I'll post some MPG numbers on my 2016 MT after I pick it up tomorrow. Should have 1000 mile on it by the end of the week.