MPG? FYI. Why Your Tacoma Gets What It Gets

Close to the same mpg, but not quite. 2.7 has better mpg.

 

Let's not forget the electric power steering pump and (vaporware) electric A/C compressor while we're at it.

 

You have some interesting points that I have been thinking about also.

-- Electric fan. I love these on smaller cars with smaller coolant systems. From folks that did conversions on Tacos, they are a big power draw (additional load on the engine) and are not effective in low speed conditions (off road) esp with our larger tow package. Also, I only ever hear my fan just after starting the motor. I'm assuming the fluid gets to temp quickly? I think the fan clutch might be more effective than we give it credit?

-- Active Aero. I think it would be great to close off the grille and such. I'm not sure how it would hold up long term though? Many moving parts and controls. This would be very effective in the NW given that the coolant system is engineered for desert conditions.

-- Cylinder Deactivation. I've heard mixed reviews. Never owned or drove a car that had it.

-- Engine Stop / Start. Something that seems like a good idea. The increased weight for the generator and batteries has me thinking that it isn't worth it? Esp if one of the components fails?

-- Al Body. Oh hell yes. That would be a great thing IMHO.

-- I'd add A/C as a stand alone option. I just don't need / want it.

 

Gawd, please no! I really like that the Taco has an old school hydraulic rack.

Sorry!

 

Come on, you'd love it!

 

Ah, but the DID choose. They chose passive aero and Atkinson cycle. Reliability and durability.
Every single thing vehicle designers do is a compromise. Everything. Again, I posted a pic in the original post of an optimized truck. Everyone thinks it's funny but that is what an efficient truck looks like.
Low, aerodynamic, light(er) + the tricky tech. The difference between these two is summarized in this quote:


"According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Ridgeline returns 18 miles per gallon in the city, 25 mpg on the highway and 21 mpg in combined driving. That's with optional all-wheel drive, which differs from the driver selectable 4-wheel-drive (4WD) system found in the Tacoma. Another point of difference is the unique, standard front-wheel drive that returns an extra mpg in each driving cycle.

The Tacoma comes standard with a 4-cylinder engine, but let's focus on the more popular V6, since its fuel economy is essentially equal, and its power aligns more closely with the Ridgeline. A manual transmission is also standard, but choosing it essentially lowers your fuel economy by 2 mpg. With the V6, an automatic and 4WD, the 2017 Tacoma returns an EPA-estimated 18 mpg city/23 mpg hwy/20 mpg combined. Opting for rear-wheel drive tacks on an extra mpg in each cycle."

So, with a fully "optimized" truck (Ridgeline) you only pick up a few mpgs.
I only use it for comparison. I am not advocating the Ridgeline. Again, weight is a big penalty in the physics of efficiency and at the end of the day, you just can't break those laws. Even a few hundred pounds is measurable in the mpg game.
I do think they could design a 30 mpg truck though. Unfortunately, it would make the Ridgeline look rugged by comparison.

 

Toyota is currently getting 40% thermal efficiency with its new 4 cylinder in the Camry. They will be offering the technology eventually to its V6 and V8 engines as well. I expect the new Tundra to get this and the Tacoma to get the upgrade after the Ranger comes out.
https://www.motortrend.com/news/toyotas-dynamic-force-engine-tech-will-spread-models/

 

I didn't notice any mention of final differential gear ratios affecting MPG's. I certainly noticed a huge MPG decrease when I switched from 3.23:1 to 4.11:1 on my 1968 Roadrunner. I was the fastest muscle car between gas stations!! Great write up with typical smart-ass remarks that should be expected.

 

Just sayin':

 

i consistently get 27-28 mpg with occas 29. 20 mile drive one way. im not bitchin.

 

too add,2016 dcsb with the 6

 

My 3.5L gets better mpg than the 2.7L I had in my lighter, 1st Gen. About 10% better. Both 4WD access cabs, though the 1st gen gen was a manual transmission. I would suspect the newer ones are more efficient but I have my doubts they get better mpg in comparably equipped 3rd gens. My last 5 tanks have all been 25mpg or higher. 23.3avg over the 30k+ miles I've tracked it.

 

My 2.7 gets better gas mileage than my 01 2.7. The V6 does not get better gas mileage than the I4 in this gen vs this gen. The 3.4 is not a magic engine. It gets good mpgs, close to the 2.7... by sacrificing something else. Wanna guess what that is?

 

It has great aero but the Ridgeline is realllly far from optimized. Honda has powertrain thirst issues of their own. Compare the Tacoma to domestic 1/2 tons and it actually gets worse mpg despite being smaller and lighter.

Let's face it, nothing beats turbo-direct-injected (IE Ford ecoboost) for efficient motors, even if we're talking real-world driving where they drop off from the ratings more than naturally-aspirated motors do. And I don't think you could argue that turbos make an engine any less reliable in 2018. Look at diesels.

You could definitely make a 30mpg Tacoma with the same capabilities, it would just have to cost $5k more.

 

When my 2.7 5speed was stock I was averaging 22mpg, 1 better than the EPA highway estimate. Even got 25 for a tank on a long highway trip. Now my average is about 20 with heavier AT tires, no air dam and a bed rack.

Seems like the 4 banger is more consistent, some 6cyl guys getting 25+ stock and others getting <18 stock, pretty wide range.

 

What's the biggest tire I can fit in my Ridgeline with a 3"lift?

 

Just a for funsies point:

You mentioned only getting 20-25% of the energy stored in a gallon of gas. The energy that pushes the car forward isn't actually in the gas, it is in the air. The fuel provides the carbon for the oxygen to latch onto, but it's the oxygen itself that has the energy. In fact, when performing the calculations to find out how much energy is going to be created from the gasoline/oxygen interaction, the energy from the gasoline can safely be completely left out as it is smaller than the error bars for the energy coming from the oxygen! This is why turbo chargers and superchargers compress more air into the cylinder to create more power from the same displacement.

Again, not trying to argue, just a neat thing I learned in thermodynamics that I wanted to share.

 

So the energy is.... everywhere!

 

Where did you hear this?