Got 25mpg the other day on the freeway...

Yep, gas is incredibly cheap right now. But what's interesting is the amount of threads pertaining to MPG. Why is this an issue? Because the numbers are so wide-spread and generally disappointing when compared to toyota-claimed MPG numbers. If you think we have a lot of threads now, at $1-$2 a gallon, wait until we see $3-$5 again and this board will be freaking out. There's a lot of v6 owners on here burying their heads in the sand on miserable efficiency, but that won't last once gas rises it starts really hurting you at the pump.

To me this claimed vs. real efficiency is a serious problem for the new tacoma. How can such a large portion of owners be getting 12-16mpg on their stock truck that should be making 19-22mpg?! That's a serious discrepancy. Is it because of engine build-tolerances, i.e. quality control issues? Did toyota lie similarly to VW in their efficiency ratings? It raises a lot of concerns and many questions to me.

Again, not because of the poor mpg, but because of the discrepancy between owners of the same vehicles and the discrepancy from posted mpgs.

 

He or she is just a hater! Probably drives a Chevrolet, Dodge, or Ford!

 

yah at least, and there aint no damn traffic...

 

Negative, Victoria BC. Loaded with old people. And everyone else is high on pot. Even 21 year old men are going 39 in a 50 zone. When I was 21 I was on 2 wheels the whole time. Nothing to do but slow down and relax. I was an aggressive driver when I lived in Vancouver, now after 5 years in Vic, when I head back to visit, people are passing me like I'm standing still.

Oh, and gas has finally come down to $1 per litre. (That's $3.78 a gallon for you Yankees)

 

Gulp....

 

I've averaged over 20mpg 80/20 hwy/city for 3000 miles. Frequently top 25mpg on my commute averaging about 65mph.

 

I got an average of 25.0 from Visalia to San Diego; 302 miles. I have a 2wd dclb SR5. I normally get 21.5 combined and 23-24 on flat freeway. This was the highest I've ever seen.

 

That's pretty good considering you had to go over the grapevine and through LA.

 

I've been testing highway fuel economy for the past 3k miles, and I've ranged on the highway between 15mg and 30mg on a 4x4 limited. Here's what I've concluded has the greatest impact on highway fuel economy: (in order of most important to least important)

1) Driving habits - best fuel economy is achieved driving 50-60 mph at constant THROTTLE. (meaning you slow down on the uphills and speed up on the downhills but keep throttle position constant as much as possible) In my mind this is the biggest factor. Also: Utilize engine braking as much as possible: When approaching a red light or heavy traffic, briefly brake early and then coast to a stop - this maximizes your coasting time and save gas.
2) Outside air temperature - So far, I've driven in Houston with temperatures ranging between ~35F and ~80F. I've never been able to get over 20-21 highway mpg on cold days because the engine loses a lot of heat which would otherwise be used to power the wheels. Nothing you can do in cold climates.
3) Terrain - granted my experience so far has mostly been mostly flat highways, but when going up steep inclines I've always gotten shitty mpg's. For those of you climbing up and down hills on your daily commute, you probably won't ever get the EPA tested fuel economy.

just my 2 cents

 

The cold air is much more dense and causes significantly higher aero drag - this has a much larger affect than the engine heat loss. The engine heat is somewhat regulated by the thermostat in the cooling system.

 

You are correct. The difference in air density at 32F vs 80F is about 10%. This is a pretty dramatic loss (~2mpg). I stand corrected.

 

No worries, the main place I see this is on the aircraft engines I dyno test at work. Sometimes we see a large change in temperatures between the morning and the afternoon. The air density has a much larger effect on the propeller than it does on the engine. You would think the engine would make more power with better air (it does) and it would cancel out somewhat - but the drag wins every time.

 

arrrrg. why do I live in Missouri?? big snow here today, blah.

 

must be nice. I'm averaging 17.2 mi/gal. so far. Same as my ol 2013 4.0L taco.

 

Spark's fuel mileage is better due to improved aerodynamics because of his tonneau cover over the bed. The Undercover people claim 1 - 1 1/5 mpg improvement. Should be the same if the tailgate is down. Larger tires/offroad tires and lifts will also decrease expected milage. I get 18-19 around town and 23 at 55-60 mph on the freeway. DCORSB V6 AT with stock size 265/70 16 Cooper AT3's. Just my thoughts. Cheers.

 

Shit. If we're complaining about fuel economy. Albeit we are getting 2-3mpgs less than advertised.

What about the twins?
They're rated at 27 mpg but they are getting 20.

 

It's all about driving habits and conditions. I've gotten 23 MPG going from Santa Cruz to Pismo at 65-70MPH in 2nd gen with 285s
...then only got 19 MPG on the way back

 

Since buying my DCSB OR 4X4, I couldn't break 20 mpg highway. I then added the front air dam and air my tires to 34.5 psi, now I'm able to get 23 mpg highway.

 

Looking at Fuelly numbers (lots of data/statistically reasonable results), people on average are getting 18.5 mpg across all 2016 platforms. That is people who drive hills/flats/lifted/stock etc. If everyone left their truck stock and never used ECT, and drove conservatively you would expect this to be right about 20. The fact that lots of people have modded/drive aggressively/it's winter/tires/etc. etc. and they are on average getting 18.5 shows that only a few are getting 12-16 on average.

It is unfortunate to be one that is getting low numbers, but statistically it is a minority. In some cases, elevation, winter, and local traffic/roads just don't add up to good mileage. In other cases, your particular truck is on the low end of the spectrum, but there really doesn't seem to be a serious discrepancy despite some people posting low numbers. Notice how many are getting 19+ right in this thread.

 

I see what you're saying, but your overall 18.5 fuelly reference is flawed as a counter-argument to my point since it's based off of the averages. For example, if one person is getting 16 and another 22, the average will be an acceptable 19. My issue is not with the average (which is still technically lower than advertised by 15%+), but rather with the broad range in reported efficiency. It's a concerning reflection of this new motor to me. You're seeing it all over this site with some people getting 12-16 and some getting 20-24. There's a significant amount of threads and posts on this topic because of it.