13 MPG??

I'm at 13.8 mpg, here's my truck:
2001
Xcab
2.7L
4x4
6" lift
285/75/r16
K&N cold air intake
Flowmaster

I'm bummed on my gas milage too, but considering the tires and lift, I can't complain all that much. I did expect better better mpg with a 4banger. At this point however, I figured I didn't get a 4x4 for the mpg, so turbo, sas, all the bells and whistles are on the way. But if you figure out any tricks to increasing the mpg....keep us posted!

Great thread, thank you

 

like said something not right!!

i have a v6 Double cab short bed TRD off road 4wd and a heavy foot and get around 18 or 20 mpg.

 

Alright, I promised an update so here it goes (for anyone that still cares ):


Went away this past weekend. About a 170mi trip to Bridgewater, MA, on a full tank of gas. Topped it off when i got there and it took 8.5 gallons. So it looks like i got around 20mpg. Good enough for me.

So I guess it looks like my 13-14mpg I'm getting around town, is attributed to my local driving conditions (living on a hill, driving 6mi total, to work and back, stop and go all of the way, etc).

Thanks guys!!

 

when i brought my 2012 4x4 r/c w/ 5 speed manual tranny, the sticker said 18 city and 22 hiway. if you getting 20 on the hiway your right there. here's the kicker, i have a 07 fjc/4.0L engine, it gets 18.4 mpg. the best i've gotten was 22.6. you would think that the 4 bangers would get alot better mpg then i'm seeing. i'm getting 20 on my new truck.

 

I average almost 21 with the same set up. diff year.

 

13? I wish my mpg was that high..

 

So odd. The 4-cyl must just guzzle gas on short trips as compared to the V6, because I live in the mountains, in a cold climate, about 50% of my trips are 5 miles or less, and 90% 10 miles or less, and I routinely get 17-19mpg on a tank. With a lot of highway driving, I do over 20.

PS .. thanks for the update.

 

No hippies I know are happy about ethanol, no one is fooled that it is green.

 

True that. Not the way it's currently made (starch ethanol made from corn). Now if it was cellulosic ethanol...

 

i have exactly the same truck. in white. the first tank, the day i drove it off the lot it got 20.5 mpg mixed driving including a day in 4x4. next tank with the same driving 21.5 mpg.

given your driving you should expect 18 mpg. however, you have LTs on there that even at 245/75s could be 50 pounds a piece. that will KILL your mpgs. now drag that up a hil every day? you might as well be towing. its a 4 banger not a v6. so that may get you in the 17s.

however. if you are not really on that big and long of a hill you should be getting WAY better gas mileage. take that thing to the dealer and say ok, let me test drive another i4 on the same drive and lets compare mpg used. it will cost you a tank and some time and some convincing, and then you will have your answer. find one used or whatever they will let you put 25 miles on.

lastly, are you down shifting on the hills and letting your motor breath? if you have it in 4th, pedal down and its not shifted to a lower gear, you might as well just grab a gas tank and pour it out the window.

i would almost guarantee if i drove my truck on your route in the winter, it would get 18 mpg minimum. i would take it in and say fix it.

 

i get 19.5 average with city and some freeway. I have larger wheels and tires. So I accept that.

 

In my experience, driving the blended fuel in cold weather folks will experience a 15% decrease in Fuel Economy in winter. Cold weather has the more significant effect as far as I can tell. On warm days in early March, you can see a rebound in FE and lose it again the next day. I live in the NE, so winters can be bad, but nowhere near the 'frozen spit' season in the northern midwest. I suppose MPGs would be even worse there and FE losses greater than 15%. Cold engines that can't warm up burn more fuel. Block heaters can help there, but warm ups just burn fuel as it sits in the driveway.

For piece of mind, you might explore with your dealer why your FE is off even after exercising the tips offered here by the other members. If you get the clean bill of health, then you can eliminate a variable.

Good luck!

 

I finally put a scan guage on my truck.

I take back everything i said in previous posts.

I am in carmel right now and i have been driving in pretty much only hilly conditions, none of which i would consider steep. I get around 14 mpg on average here driving normal. Mostly because when i do find a hill, i have the convince the truck to go up it. My truck is very underpowered in my opinion. It hasnt been a problem living in the bay area, but if i move back home to monterey, i will likely be very unhappy with the i4. It has some power, but nothing like my wifes 4 cyl mazda. That thing is turboed and it rocks. 29 mpg freeway on an suv with i would guess 80-100 more horsepower than our i4. And it is a 4 cyl.

After this trip i would say i would be much happier with either a URD kit or a v6.

 

Although, i am seeing mpgs in the 20s driving normal in te bay area. Thats hard to argue with from a truck.

BUT i wonder what i would get for mpgs supercharged. Anyone know?

 

It's possible to find a balance of power and economy in a 4 cylinder. However, this has to be the mission of the builder/manufacturer. Most manufacturers tend to focus on V6 powerplants for larger/heavier vehicles like trucks and SUVs. However, there are consumers who need the functionality of a larger vehicle but target fuel economy. It's hard to find this in a truck. Ford and Toyota have done reasonably well in targeting this segment of the population. Ford probably has the edge when it comes to FE, but I think Toyota has done a better job in creating the total package; style, functionality, fuel economy.

Finding more HP in the 4 cylinder is a tough chore. Turbos and supercharging are the fastest way perhaps to get this done. So most reside to the fact that they wont win races...but will enjoy spending less for total ownership.

With gas prices going up, more effort and money will be spent to develop 4 cylinders and alternate power plants. And the demand for increased power without sacrificing MPGs will remain, so savvy manufacturers will find a way to deliver. It's been done already and as this becomes more mainstream, the public will be wondering why we had to wait so long.

 

Raider fan, I'm having the same problems as you a couple of years later in 2013 with around 500 miles on it. I'm getting around 14 miles per gallon or around 300 miles out of a a fill up. Sad. I bought this little tacoma to save gas, and it's not happening.

 

This seems to be the norm with this vehicle. Google is showing a lot of the same stuff.

 

Glad to see there was improvement. I'm gonna head down to Foxwoods Friday and get some miles on her and see. I may try Sunoco gas and see if there is an improvement as well.

Any other updates on your truck? How are you doing now with MPG?

 

Same here. For daily driving on the highways I get about 22 mpg but when I moved into Atlanta, I found short trips around the city kill my mileage, its ridiculous.

 

Still the same. I stopped keeping track of it for a bit, but then decided to a month or so ago after a fill up. Ran the truck to a 1/2 tank from fill up and still ended up 13 and change.

Ironically, I am taking the same trip to Bridgewater, MA today, as I reported a year ago. If I end up driving my truck there, I'll have to check again, for the hell of it.