Gas mileage

yeah, hoping once I convert to 6 lug in the rear with E-locker and 4:10's I gain back those couple mpg's lost. Went from a truck with 13 mpg prior tho, so this mpg is stellar for me; even with load E and bigger tires

 

honestly I wouldn't expect much if any going to 6-lug. is there a reason or just or the heck of it?

 

From my 3.58 to 4.10's u don't expect improvement in mpg's? I've always heard otherwise with better regearing

Reason being would be the housing is stronger, if I can find a part-out/junkyard 6 lug rear with the e-locker I can save $ versus doing locker and re-gear separately, and I want to go 31's-32's with next set of tires.

The 3.58's do fine with my current 29 inch tires, but I want the truck to be useable when I got bigger.

 

I would regularly get 25 in my manual 5-lug w/ V6. When I had my manual 3RZ 4x4 w/33's I could get 20 pretty easy. I'm real light footed and keep the RPMs below 3K. It was regeared to 4.56 though.

 

Not 4x4 though

 

That's prolly why my mpg's are the way they are then haha. 3K is where the "fun zone" starts with the 4 cyls. I mean I was only getting 2-3 more mpg with the 205's prior.

Not too mad, but interesting to see the variability with other's trucks

 

That's actually a horrible idea. 29 is already going bigger than needed, adding weight. if you put 32's on (easy 6-10lbs or more per tire) and spend the money re-welding the axle perches (5-lug is Spring Under Axle, 6-lug is Spring Over Axle, different perch seat for the leaf springs) your benefit loses out. going to a larger gear helps with power but not mpg, you'll be spinning up the rpms more causing more fuel to burn, not less. the 2.4 is a good engine, but it's designed to be used with the components it has, which is why people get 25-28 on average roads (45-60 mph). you'll aslo need to redo the front suspension unless you like the massive rake look, simple lift won't get you to where you would need to be to match the rear.

this is one of those "should just buy and 6-lug 5 spd and be done with it" with all the trouble you're going through to piece together the final product. also, you'll need to buy all the electronic pieces that go with the E-locker, not to mention the ECU for the 2.4 more than likely is not compatible for it (someone know for sure?).

 

U realize u can still weld the rear as sua, no? 31's and 32's have been ran by peeps with no issues with their 5 lug. I bought the truck back in January last year and still have 3 years minimum left of financing. If I have the truck 8 years like my last ram, I'm going to send it. (which I plan on keeping this damn thing until I have to give it up or it dies)

All of what I have said has been done before, I know what I'm getting myself into with this fun lol.
Here's a guy with the 4:10 6 lug rear, and another who fit ~32's with only moog v6 coils and a spacer lift lmao. My plan is for spindles and the spacer, Ive got a ways to go

https://www.tacomaworld.com/threads/5-lug-long-travel-baby-truck-build.578578/

https://www.tacomaworld.com/threads/oh-boy-let-me-tell-ya-bout-my-1995-toyota-tacoma.599854/

 

I have been tracking my mileage for many years. I do it the old fashioned way, calculated at each fill up. If you can see in my tracking the numbers always go up in the summer vs. winter. There may be an anomaly or two but in general I have always been in the low 20’s. FWIW, my ScanGauge is spot on with my calculations too.
My rig is a 2003 ext cab 2.7 5 speed 4X4. All original. I mostly drive it like the grandpa that I am, 70 freeway at 65 mph.

 

I never said it "couldn't" be done. But you are posting in a thread about mpg and wanting to "get some back" yet are moving towards "losing more"

Hey man, whatever floats your boat, you do you, but don't expect any better mpg from those mods.

myself I like the lower stance of the 5-lug for a DD

 

2003 2.4 MT AC

I get roughly 24.

 

That’s a great system you have going. What size tires are you using?

 

I still use my pocket slide calculator

 

265/70 R16, stock size tire. Michelin LTX.

 

All these people stuck in the stone age. Google sheets FTW. Sorry, old screenshot.

 

remember to account for the differences in revolutions per mile on the tire sizes if you want to be accurate, your speedometer is still set for the 31" tire and not the 32" thus giving you less number of miles but same fuel burned

https://www.tacomaworld.com/tirecalc?tires=265-70r16-265-75r16 looks like 3.3% difference

 

Yes, I am old fashioned with the sheets, but keep them on a clipboard in my truck. I also keep track using Fuelly on my phone. Have three vehicles in that app.

 

Best mpg I ever got was 19 on my 4x4 auto 4cylinder that was 75% city 25% highway, but I only really do city driving 15mpg atm got mud terrains atm

 

Neat! I love old practical things like this.

 

I know this is an old thread but I'm in shock after reading all the averages here! Could there be something off with my truck? According to my calculations, I'm getting only 8.7MPG average. I do occasionally push the pedal to the metal for the usual merging needs and maybe ~5 times during the period if I'm feeling the urges to just send it would this justify the horrible consumption or even with that in mind there must be something going on?

Here are my specs:

• 03' V6 double cab 4*4, but 99% of the time used in 2WD
• Tires are 265/70/R16 at 30 PSI
• Tires are D rated for load capacity (if that even matters)
• Wheels are properly aligned