My 17 Taco gas mileage sucks!

I have around 2000 miles on my TRD PRO and I'm not too happy with gas mileage either.
Love the truck but there are a few definite disappointments with it.

 

Stop bringing logic into this

 

Not really. I can get a Canyon diesel right at $41,000 with incentives. That's less than $4,000 price difference from my new Tacoma. The Tacoma has more 'whiz bang' features, but the GMC has the diesel.

Based on my average mpg of 16, given 24,000 miles driven per year and a est. fuel cost (in Montana) of 2.30 p/gal for unleaded= $3,450 in fuel costs.

Canyon diesel at 26 avg mpg assuming $2.75 in fuel cost is $2,538 in fuel cost.

That's a fuel cost difference of $912 annually (approx).

Break even at 4 years.

Those numbers will tilt farther against the Tacoma if I really look hard at the highway mpg here in the Western states. It is apparent my trucks mpg literally falls off the cliff over 70mph. From what I'm reading over on the Colorado forums, there is some degradation at high speeds with the diesel, but not nearly as bad as the Tacoma. A large part of that is due to the drivetrain- The Baby-max will cruise at 75mph plus at 2,000-ish rpm, regardless.

There is no doubt GM has a really, really good combination with the Baby-max. No one knows the long term yet though. It really makes we wish Toyota would have developed a diesel for us.

 

and that 98.5 3/4 ton weighed 8,500 lbs (twice what my Tacoma weighs), sat higher and had worse aerodynamics.

I mean if we're talking physics and all...

 

I disagree on the price difference, but you will loose quote a bit to trade, I don't think you will get 26, and when you figure in the resale and proven longevity of the Toyota, the case is much better for a Tacoma. I just traded in a GM diesel in my 2014 Cruze and had issues with it. The motor is great, but today's diesel engines are very complicated compared to yesterdays. I lease cars every day, know what I can buy these things for, and really wanted a GM twin, especially the diesel for the MPG's, but at the end of the day, the total cost of ownership on the Tacoma, wasn't even close to the GM diesel. A lot of that cost comes in the ridiculous resale value they have over any vehicle made.

To each his own, but if you aren't getting the EPA rated mileage in a Tacoma, you won't get it in the Colorado. You can get over 20 in a Tacoma, if you are willing to drive at 60-65 on a road with no traffic. I could get much better than the 14-15 I am getting now, but I drive in stop and go traffic, and drive 80 when I can. I also have a lift with bigger tires. I got 36mpg in the diesel Cruze, and that was pretty well below the EPA said I should get. If you want to trade the Tacoma, knock yourself out and do it.

 

Mine has almost 5000 on it now. While it was round 18mph initially, it has continued to get better. In a recent trip I ran it at 75 for 1.5 hours to my destination, then back, and the average was 22.3mph. So at least in my experience, it will improve, depending on how you drive the vehicle.

 

I'm aware of what you illustrated, it's all in my equation. Certainly the Baby-max is 'complicated', but so too is the 3.5 powerplant. It's not like I can do any real repair work on either.

However one thing I am not- willingness to assume the new Tacoma is gold based Toyota's 'proven' longevity/quality. Tacoma's have had their share of major f-ups. Honestly after 12,000 miles I am not impressed with the engineering of this drive train. Everything else is great, but boy could they have done better than this abortion of a combination.

 

Maintaining the emissions system will take it right back. I had the same outlook when I purchased my Jetta TDi in 2010, it has been very expensive to maintain. Although, to be fair ... the new 3.5L might also have higher maintenance costs than a traditional gas engine. This is one huge reason I went for the 2TR-FE.

 

You forgot the cost of maintenance in a newer diesel... and assuming gas prices will still stay the same in 4 years. Also you took a 30% hit on mpgs with the tacoma so you should do the same with the Colorado. Over 60 mph mpg is driven from drag and the tacoma and colorado have the same front square area if comparing apples to apples. I would argue about prices but its different from location. TRD OR 4x4 was 34K out the door but in Houston.

 

From all reports I've read the Baby-max (out here on open highway) is averaging 29mpg, or about 10% less than the stated 31mpg.

Last week I was averaging 14-14.5 mpg on my roadtrip at posted highway speeds- or 40% less than the stated mpg. If I was running stock tires I'd assume maybe 16-16.5 or 30% difference.

That's an enormous difference either way you slice it.

The big kicker on the diesel is there is virtually no downshifting on the highway. Slow, steady, consistent highway cruise, headwind, hills- doesn't matter.

Honestly not too sure what you are referring to as additional maintenance on the diesel. A little more oil and filter costs- some DEF is about it. Most of it can be done in my shop..

I'll say this- if Cummins develops a power plant for a mid-size truck I will own that hands down. I hated that Dodge for a lot of reasons, but that 24v Cummins was a bullet proof motor. I had NO mechanical issues, NO failed injectors, absolutely ZERO issues with over 250,000K. Amazing power plant.

 

OK, how much force was that DIESEL putting out? versus how much is the Taco putting out? How was the mpg figured out? What kind of gas where you using? Lots of variables here.

 

Well there is something wrong with your truck or you are neglected to mention something. I have 3" lift with 285/75/16 with around 300-400 lbs of gear and can still get 17 mpg going 80-85 including 7% conversion of tire OD.

I'll admit Ive only achieve 23 mpg on 2 separate occasions going 65 stock.

 

Seriously want to try and handicap a midsize Toyota V-6 pick-up truck just to prove that it SHOULD get WORSE mpg than 3/4 ton truck?

This is planet Earth, right?

 

I dont know about handicap but a diesel engine is designed in general to run a constant work load with little change in acceleration while the gas engine is designed or rather have traits to change RPM quickly rather than optimized to run at a constant velocity.

 

Nope. Been this way since I drove it home. Had the tranny flashed, I don't have a lead foot.. Tried in D mode, manual sport mode... Stock tires, ST/Maxx tires.. 1.5" lift..

Another poster in WY sold his 3rd gen for the same reasons. He seems to think our elevation, terrain and posted speeds could be a triple whammy for this power-train.

 

Don't disagree at all. This truck constantly downshifts with the slightest of variable. However even at a constant highway speed, relatively flat ground (like when I was driving through Iowa/Nebraska)- 14.5mpg.

 

I got 20mpg freeway in my 2013 Tacoma DCSB V6 Prerunner. I watched for months the reports on the 3rd gen mileage and you are right, it was all across the board. But so were the mods and geographic locations. My conclusion was that mileage with the new V6 and auto tranny wasn't much if any better.

 

I'll agree with the constant gear shifting even in texas flat lands its bad. I also notice any type of head wind kills the mpg driving around the coast but over all the mpg is pretty stable in texas.

 

I just put the stock rims and tires on last night. I'm heading out Thursday for a 10day bird hunt/mule deer hunt in Eastern Montana. I'm anticipating 1,500 miles roundtrip. The truck will be loaded, both my dogs and towing a small pop-up camper or an 18ft boat.

This ought to be fun.

 

Well I see your not going to add to this discussion, your only going to throw mud.

I'm done trying to have a conversation with you about this. So please continue to believe what you want, and I will do the same.