3.5 vs 4.0 Engines MPG.

I know this subject has been touched on already but wanted to revisited the issue.

Ive had my 2019 tacoma for close to a month now and just hit 1500 miles.

So far I havent matched the mpg's of the 2 second generation tacomas I owned. From what Ive read the main reasoning for Toyota going with the 3.5 engine was to increase mpg. If that was the case it seems to be a failure in that regard.

I kmow that trucks in general are the best vehicles for getting good mpg but they have been getting slightly more effcient over time.

Im thinking Toyota may have been better off keeping the 4.0 engine, adding the dual variable valve timing, which would increased hp and torque to 270/278 and then add the 6 speed auto to it. Mpg would have likely been 1-2 higher that the 2nd gen. With a better power curve overall.

Toyota must have had something like this in mind back in 2010 when they added the dual vvt to the fj and 4runner but not the tacoma. But for some reason decided to go with the 3.5 instead.

 

I averaged 17-19 with my 4.0. I’m typically over 20 with the 3.5.

 

My 3rd Gen is definitely better on gas than my previous 2nd Gens, get anywhere from 1 or 2 more.

 

No comparison. 3.5L gets great mileage for what it is. My 4.0L buddies burn about 1/4 more fuel on an average trip. Having the Auto helps.

 

3rd gens are better...
and driving will help more on the 3rd gens.

33" 3" lift bunch of performance tweaks... 2nd gen getting 16 mpg in WI... Will get 17 with 32".... got 19 stock....

 

Real world user data.

 

My 13 FJ consistently got 19-20 mpg highway depending on my driving style (typically cruise at 75-80 using 89octane). My Taco is struggling to average 20mpg (and struggles to maintain constant 75-80 mph without constantly adding throttle). Very disappointed with the 3.5 performance and fuel consumption. Hope it can tow as strong as the 4.0 I incorrectly assumed a lighter vehicle with a smaller engine, extra overdrive gear with better fuel economy ratings would get better mileage! Love my Taco.... powertrain performance not so much.

 

I believe Toyota missed the mark on the 3rd gen and let me tell you why (I enjoy my 2019 OR but that's because I wanted dependability and resale).

Let's use the above data and say the 3rd gen gets 1 mpg better than the 2nd gen. To achieve that, Toyota:

1. Added a more complex valve system
2. Added 6 more direct injectors
3. Added a high pressure fuel pump
4. Added a cleaning cycle for the injectors
5. Tuned the transmission so the vehicle, under normal driving, feels like it's an old man with COPD that can't breathe
6. Increased the likelihood of carbon fouling on the valves due to direct injection

To me, that's not a smart trade to get +1 mpg.

On average, a 3rd gen owner will use 667 gallons of gas a year.
On average, a 2nd gen owner will use 705 gallons of gas a year.

Assuming a $2.80 gallon per gas, that's a $107 a typical owner saves. The average car owner in the US keeps their vehicle six years.

Therefore, the average owner will save $642 over the life of the vehicle for all of this more expensive, more complex and therefore less reliable technology (one can say that as a general rule, more complex engines and transmissions cost more in the lifetime of ownership that a less complex one).

Furthermore, I do doubt that the target market for Tacoma drivers are fuel-efficiency minded or at the very least cares about the difference between 17mpg and 18mpg.

For comparison purposes, I owned a 2017 Dodge Challenger Scat Pack with a 6.4l pushrod old school V8 with 485 horsepower. Over 12k miles, almost always in Sport Mode and with city driving, I averaged 17.1 lifetime. With my Taco, same driving/daily commute, my current average is a little over 15mpg. Both vehicles weighed the same (with different aerodynamics of course).

Ultimately I feel as if for as sluggish as the Taco feels under normal driving conditions (ie I am giving up power and response) my gas mileage should be significantly better or it's just not worth all the new, added, complexity.

 

These threads always make me so happy that I have a 4-cyl.

 

There's no question that the 3rd Gen 3.5 gets better fuel economy. But dang I miss the pep my 2005 had with that 4.0 motor. Having said that, I can live with the 3.5 just fine. It does what I need it to do, and it does get better mpg's.

 

I have owned one 4 cyl Toyota pickup over the years. It was great, but NO WAY you can tow a 20 foot boat. Jon boat, sure.

 

Man, y'all really keep missing the mark on this stuff.
It isnt about OUR average fuel economy.
Accept that.
All MFRs have to deal with CAFE( corporate average fuel economy).
So, as a whole, the increase between 2nd gen(19mpg combined) vs 3rd gen, (21.25mpg combined) is 2.25mpg....

These numbers also help offset the Tundra's MPG.

They sold 245,XXX Tacomas last year. Lets assume 200,000 had the v6/auto
Figure average miles, at 12000
12000 X 200,000 =2.4b miles
@ 21.25mpg that is 112,941,176gals
@ 19mpg that is 126,315,789gals
Results in a theoretical net reduction of 13,374,613 gallons of gas. PER YEAR.

Disclaimer, double check my math, I am doing this between several tasks, and keep coming back to it...

 

Nice job with the MATH there buddy. Very impressive.

 

stock 2017 sr5 4wd access cab. 30k miles. I average around 20 mpg. Summer better than winter. The mpg increased as I put more miles on it. I had a 2011 and 2015. Averaged around 17 after the first 10k miles.

 

Gotta love it when someone comes on and disses the 3rd Gen and is either ignoring the data or simply dismisses it and argues their point with feelings rather than their own documented data.

I'd rather they keep their feelings to themselves because in the end, no one cares.

OP, if you're not getting the mpgs on your 3rd Gen, it's your driving and environment (plus whatever suspension/tire mods you've added).

 

The current 4-cyl 2TR-FE is a very different beast from what you had in the 80's, 90's, or right up until 2004. This 4-cyl is strong enough to do anything you can safely do with this chassis (which is the same as the 6-cyl). A 20 foot boat is.. basically nothing. Try 2 skids of paving stones (the guys who loaded it said 3000# per skid, the internet says 3500#) AND a bed full of screening (another #1500), and don't forget the weight of the actual trailer (haven't weighed it, probably about 2000#). I was honestly anticipating a difficult time getting it rolling, but it actually went really easy. No, of course I wasn't going to be doing a quarter mile in 10 seconds, but who the hell cares? It got the work done without protest of any sort.

I think that a lot of the people who pick the 6-cyl just aren't aware of how capable these 4-cyl engines actually are.

 

You forgot about the port injectors which reduce the likelihood of this happening.

 

These threads always make me so happy I know how to drive my truck to get 4cyl mpg with much more power.

Air temperature, winter fuel and how heavy your right foot is are the biggest factors in achieving sticker or better numbers.

 

The 3rd gen gets better fuel economy when tested the specific EPA way. That's all that matters, not real world numbers that you or I may get. Toyota is playing the same game all other manufacturers have to, to reach federal mandated fuel economy standards. Fact is the 4.0 was at the end of its life cycle & Toyota already had the 3.5 in use so it was easy decision to put it in the Tacoma rather than redesign a new 4.0. Blam the bean counters & the federal government for the 3.5 in your Tacoma.

 

#5 get TSB reflash of ECU for hunting gears.. basically holds gears longer, and helps fuel economy..
#6 its dual injection, meaning you have direct injectors, as well as port injectors. the port injectors will clean the top of your valves off(mostly).. reducing the likelyhood they will gum up like a turbo'd BMW, or mini cooper with DI only.. a small catch can will suffice in reducing the likelyhood of this happening.

my 2016 during a test (driving from my house in Midcoast maine to boston and back) did this monday truck has 26000miles on it DCSB OR 4x4.

driving south ON RT 1 AND 295/95 in high winds 25-30MPH gusts(was pushing the truck around on the highway quite a bit) driving 70-75MPH, approximately 40degrees F, no weight in the bed, just me and my wife approx (400lbs including her luggage) I fueled up and left the shell gas station in waldaboro at 3:30pm arrived in boston @1908hrs after a 15-20 minute stop in Kenebunkport rest area. according to the trip computer I averaged around 17.4mph.. still had slightly more than a half tank of 89..

ON THE WAY BACK

driving by myself minus the wife, and luggage.. I drove a little more conservatively winds had lessened a bit 10-15 gusts driving anywhere from 65-72mph, temps had dropped to around 36 degrees F, stopped in Portland at buffalo wild wings for some dinner before heading home. I also stopped in Brunswick to grab some Mucinex, and Advil as I felt a nasty cold/flu coming on, and had no meds at home. I made it to Wiscassett before my fuel light came on w/ 26 miles left. I knew I could make it back to my original fuel up to make this accurate. in the end the display fuel rating was 18.4mpg for that tank. not too bad for not being gentle with the throttle, and a few high speeds passes. I'm headed down to pick the wife up next tuesday so I'll post up the results of that run was roughly 356miles round trip was 18.438 gallons meaning 19.3mpg..

not too shabby considering the weight of the vehicle, high winds, high speed passing, hills, and cold air working against the MPG's