Why all threads over MPG ???

I do too

 

The majority of my driving is my 52.4mi round trip to work and back 5 days a week. The trip to work is a climb in elevation and mostly 70mph, and my trip mpg is usually between 16.5-18mpg. The trip home is usually 25-27.3mpg. Tank averages lately have been in the 19s thanks to the summer blend. I can't complain, 1-2mpg better than my Ram 1500 average. Although, my Ram was able to get really good mpg on longer trips, upwards of 24mpg a tank.
If my route was 55-65mph I'm sure I would get over 20mpg for a tank average. So far Tacoma has been driven with ECT off.

 

Not a fan of cylinder deactivation. A Honda Accord my wife drove awhile back had that and the engine bay was always covered in soot. I took it into Honda to check out and they told me that was normal caused by dead cylinders being dragged around. Not sure that's accurate but it's what they told me. Traded it in on an Avalon which is a great vehicle and even in sports mode will get you 24+ around town and close to 30 on the highway.

 

I've been Lane Splitting for over 47 years on some of the busiest SoCal Freeways. I have over 360,000 miles (most of it commuting 125 miles a day) on the bikes I ride now in the last 13.5 years. I have yet had an accident Lane Splitting. I've seen plenty of bikes go down, most of them are going WAY TOO FAST! Lane Splitting is not dangerous when doing it properly!

 

I used to think lane splitting was dangerous until I did the research and now wish every state would legalize it. Most people who are against it are that way due to ignorance. Like many things, there is more to the issue than what it appears to be on the surface.

 

Add to that the fact that Jeeps and Rams have been selling like crazy for the past 5 or so years, and half of them are now lining up to get repair work done at their nearest dealership.

I was a loyal Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep customer for 30 years. But their service bays are now seriously overwhelmed, and the customer treatment by their service depts. has gone to absolute sh*t.

That was the last straw that finally drove me away.

 

My son bought a late model 2500 Ram diesel. Had it overheat on him driving through northern Utah. Dodge fixed it...but he has been having trouble with it ever since!

I've owned three Plymouth/Dodges (mid to late 70s) over the years. They had the pluses and minuses, but I would never buy another one.

 

Tripmeter shows 368.5 and gas gauge at about 1/4. Filled up at 395.6 miles, with 16.89 gallons which equates to 23.42 mpg. This is very typical for me. Travel was mostly highway, but did include some around-town and even some gravel road driving.

 

I picked up my 2019 Taco 4x4 w/2.7 and Auto for $4,500 under MSRP back in November, 2018. It gets me from Maine to my brother's farm in Tennessee in exactly the same time as my 2nd Gen w/6cyl did but at 25 mpg instead of 17

 

The newer Ram's and Jeeps are built quite a bit better than those from 10-15 years ago IMHO. Even so, FCA has a lot of work to do to truly prove that their brand's reliability is the equal of others....and I still hear plenty of dealership and warranty-denial horror stories.

I remember reading a forum discussion on Ram forum where a fellow wrote about how his drive shaft literally snapped into two pieces; he was driving up an old dirt road that had mediocre traction due to snow. Some of the first responses from other forum-goers basically put the blame on him for not greasing his drive shafts or for driving too fast. He ended up paying for the repair out of pocket (vehicle was under warranty) because FCA's investigation was taking too long.

You can also go watch videos, from avid Jeep fans I might add, showing how brand new Jeep JL's have build quality issues within the first few months of ownership:

Plenty of stories and examples like that which just don't inspire confidence about the brand or the company/dealership network which supports it.

 

Who are you to question it? Just because someone can or can't afford it doesn't mean they want to afford it. Maybe there is something else going on here? Maybe people just think this truck should get better mileage when a larger/heavier truck can. Maybe people actually care about carbon emissions. Maybe they think Toyota should try harder.


If I'm being direct, it's because of all the dumbasses who say stupid stuff like "If you wanted mileage, you shouldn't have bought a truck."

 

I was just curious and trying to learn what they were thinking . It is a forum and everyone has opinions and they go from one extreme to another . I am not going to judge you so have a great day .

 

I didn't think you were. My comment was really directed at the other people who want Toyota to put a diesel in the Tacoma so they can roll coal or some other silliness.

 

SMH. A diesel in a Tacoma is absurd.

 

I find it absurd that people assign such stigma's with diesel engines.

The rest of the world heavily prefers diesel engines for trucks due to the torque delivery and efficiency.

And believe it or not, there are more than a few here in North America who want diesel vehicles for the same reasons....not everyone wants to roll coal or act like an idiot.

 

The rest of the world doesn’t require the management systems our epa requires.

Some places require SOME, but not at the depth and complexity we experience. What that means is an atrocious amount of down time, and high cost in parts replacement.

At the end of the day, it leaves people wondering why they needed a diesel in the first place.


I assign a stigma because I am a diesel tech, master heavy. Currently typing with greasy hands.

 

If only

If only we could go back to the good ole emission testingless days

 

Diesels in Europe (which are still the preferred engine choice for most trucks and many cars) have pretty much all of the same emissions control systems as do diesels in North America (EGR, SCR, DPF, ultra-low sulfur fuel). The emissions standards for the two regions aren't identical, but they're pretty damn close, especially in the wake of the VW scandal.

The idea that it is impossible to make long-lasting and reliable emissions-compliant diesels is flawed. OEM's have been doing that in plenty of places outside of North America, and that trend will continue as more and more countries start to adopt stricter regulations.

The problem is that OEM's in North America initially put out cruddy products with piss-poor engineering and quality control. That's starting to change as of late; the current emissions-compliant diesels are leaps-and-bounds ahead of those early variants that came out in 2007.

As well gasoline engines are increasingly becoming just as complex, in some cases adopting similar technologies (EGR, direct-injection, HCCI, turbo-charging). Plenty of examples of ecoboost's going into the shop for premature failures.

Bottom-line is: if you want better engine performance and efficiency all while putting out less emissions, you're going to have to accept more complexity. Doesn't matter which engine type you're talking about.

 

Then it would be on till the break of dawn. Swear to god.