So why can't we have 30mpg?

A stock tacoma does better offroad but a sidekick holds its own stock as well.

 

My wifes 08 4Runner has the 4.0 V6, is also way faster than my Tacoma (still stock, no mods at all) but it gets 22.5mpg.

 

Worst thing I ever did was trade my '07 standard cab 2.7, 5 speed for the about the same thing (an '11 though and not an SR5) with the 4 speed automatic. Did it so my wife would drive it...Also, I never was crazy about the clutch engagement feel on the 5 speed.
My mileage dropped, and with a 200 lb. topper on it, my acceleration was fairly poor, too. I didn't buy a truck to race around on the pavement, but highway passing was kind difficult with the automatic.

 

For all you butt-nutters posting the "I bought a midsized truck and didn't get 30mpg" pictures, I wasn't complaining I was simply asking a legitimate question to generate some discussion. There's SUVs out there with bigger engines and bigger bodies making what I make (and sometimes more) so I personally think it begs the question. Plus, this is the year 2012 and I figured technology would be on our side for this one :/

 

You can, its called a 5-lug and driving habits.

 

In part, you're comparing your actual numbers to EPA or marketing numbers... or God forbid... numbers thrown out on an internet forum that really have little basis in reality.

That's why we have Fuelly, and a couple of threads here with active participation of how to drive more efficiently, and sharing actual numbers.

I see it time and again on forums. People bragging about "##mpg", and it's obvious to someone familiar with the vehicle, that they took their best tank out of the last 10 and said "that's what I get".

It's not always out of deceit... we simply remember our extremes. I'm guilty of it too. I was throwing out "I get 26mpg, but on a road trip at 80mph I only got 22"
I joined Fuelly, and the truth is, I average close to 25. I get a few tanks near 26, and an occasional tank down in the 23 range.
But I remembered my best tanks and my worst tanks.

This was a HUGE thing on the Diesel forums. Guys were reporting incredible numbers that there was no way they were getting consistently (and the worst offenders were the Ford guys trying to show how the Powerstroke was better than the Duramax).


Trucks are a brick in the wind. "Larger" SUVs don't always translate to heavier, and they would be more aerodynamic, so they will hold better MPG at highway speeds, where the pickups get their best economy in the 60mph range.

 

My friends Chevy Equinox got 30mpg consistently and as much as 33.

 

Next to my little pickup it's bigger. Front wheel drive, yes. Would that have a lot to do with it?

 

I drove pretty conservative in my 99' 2wd and still only managed to get 22 mpg combined. The weight, inefficient aerodynamics and truck engine/gearing just suck the gas. Then I got the 4wd and gave up any hope at reasonable mpg.

 

The 4Runner for one

Aside from that, i'm not sure what Nissan's Pathfinder the Exploder or Chevy's comparable get (Terrain maybe?).

 

I had an '08 4 Runner (company car).

Never got better than 18.

 

^ Key words, "company car".

You'd do better if you owned it, right?

 

Nope.

I drive the way I drive and I've driven that way for over 30 years.

 

Ok, good for you.

I only hypermile my vehicle.

I hope you've improved you skills in 30 years.

 

lulz

 

I'm not talking about the first 5

 

'69 Camaro and '67 Chevelle.

Need I say more?

 

So did I... but I got stuck with grandma's hand-me-down 283 2bbl 4-door after I blew the trans in the Camaro.


Okay... so my coolness factor just took a turn toward.... BAZINGA!

 

I don't hypermile my 70 Challenger convertible either.

 

Powerglide FTW