Fuel economy of the 2016 tacoma

Sorry guys, you're all wrong on mpg numbers...

Compare the 4.0L to the 3.5L

The "L" stands for liters of air the engine consumes each cycle, which in turn means that it will use .125 or 12.5% less air than the 4.0. Air used is directly proportionate to the combustion rate. You will automatically be combusting 12.5% less gasoline in the 3.5 than you would in the 4.0.
So, already we are at 2.5mpg better than the 4.0 (assuming the 4.0 gets 20mpg combined average)

So + 2.5mpg improvement so far...

Then consider the better aerodynamics from the rear aerodynamic spoiler of the tailgate , lack of antenna drag, lower wind valance etc. +1mpg (Highway Only...but will reflect in combined)

So, 3.5mpgs better so far...

Then consider the truck weighs less than the 2nd gen...I think the dude from Toyota said 200lbs less...for every 100lbs loaded in your car, you get 2% less mpg (FACT). So, 2% of 20mpg is a 0.4% improvement of mpg (or 0.8 / one mpg ... I'll round up to play nice to Toyota...+1 mpg)

So, 4.5 mpg improvement thus far...

Then consider a six speed transmission upgrade from a shitty 4 speed ... Let's just say +1 mpg, because I don't know how this would affect mpg accurately enough. It's probably much higher than just 1mpg (especially for highway)

So, +5mpg thus far now

Then consider the fact the engine is "Direct Injection & Fuel Injection" We already know that direct injection vehicles on average get about 2.5mpg better than fuel injection. I'll play fair and say a flat +2mpgs better.

So finally, we reach 7mpgs better roughly for the 3.5 Atkinsin's Cycle Tacoma setup vs. the 4.0 Tacoma setup.

My honest mpg guess for V6 automatic 2016 Tacomas' are:

V6 2wd double cab = 22city/26highway & 23combined

V6 4wd double cab = 20city/25highway & 22combined


... Oh BTW I absolutely despise the appearance of the 2016. They got rid of the driver's side A pillar off road handle...you can't fix stupid...

 

what will the Atkinson cycle do for mpgs?

 

Improve them. The atkinson cycle is more efficient at speed but produces less HP. That's why this engine is going to switch between the two cycles depending on load and throttle input.

 

Then why didn't squatcher include that in his report? It should make the mpg higher

 

19/22

 

21/24

 

Similar to engines that shut down cylinders under light loads to save gas. The 3.5 litre engine will switch to the Atkinson cycle to save fuel and switch back to the Otto cycle when more power is needed.

 

I wouldn't compare it to that. Just my opinion but cylinder deactivation has been pretty meh on engines for fuel efficiency. My ex wifes GM pickup rarely ever went into V4 except at exactly 100 kph or downhill and even then it might have given another couple of percent fuel economy. A perfect example would be Ford 5.0L V8 against GM's 5.3L V8. The Ford posts better numbers with the same rear axle ratio and doesn't use cylinder deactivation.

Atkinson actually does have a good boost to fuel economy. Hopefylly we see better IRL gains than cylinder deactivation or else I won't care.

 

Those cylinder turn offs were a joke. The piston and valves are still dragging along. You need some kind of crank disconnect to make it save gas

 

That's one of the reasons they decided against cylinder deactivation. That and problems with oil consumption. Harshness. Uneven wear. Hopefully the Atkinson cycle has better real world results.

 

You lost me at "Sorry guys"...jk I applaud you for your effort lets just hope its somewhat true

 

too big of a jump from the 2015 imo,

 

I can dream

 

too big of a jump from the 2015 imo,

19/22 is a 5%/5% jump compared to the 15%/13% jump your numbers are posing.

 

I think people are also missing the IRL compared to EPA estimate factor. The Colorado is rated well into the 20's but see's 18 or 19 mpg IRL. I'm sure the Tacoma might rate a 21/24 and actually get a 18/21 in a similar fashion. I'd expect though a 5-10% increase over the Colorado due to the Toyota being lighter and using a more advanced engine. So I think 19 to 20 mpg combined is reasonable.

 

Not exactly. Smaller displacement engine doesn't yield better MPG's on the merits of it being smaller. Additionally, 4.0/3.5L denotes the internal area of the cylinders, not how much air it sucks in. Depending on a lot of things -RPM's, valves, etc... the actual amount of air pulled in can very greatly. Besides, you really can't "measure" air in volume.

A car/truck needs x amount of energy to move from point A to point B. The energy requirement is based of a whole crap load of factors that mostly fall under "friction." You engine comes into play on the "efficiency" scale, and your drive train (trans, gears, etc...) have in affect based on the ability to keep the engine running at its max efficient RPM. Weather you have a small engine or big engine (assuming size of engine doenst change energy requirement), you still need to burn the same amount of gas (energy) to move your car/truck. When strictly talking engines, the biggest factor is how efficiently one engine is able to convert gasoline to usable mechanical energy vs another; not necessarily how big or small they are.

Really, in the grand scheme of things, the only benefit a smaller engine has is weight reduction which really only helps in city driving. The number of cylinders can effect the friction factor. If you want to really dissect it, a different bore and stroke can make a difference even between two similar displacement/size/weight engines.

Modern engine improvements include lower friction coatings and efficiency improvements (including but not limited to variable timing valves, direct injection, Atkinson cycle, etc...). Most engines have a ~30% thermal efficiency rating. Toyota has developed two new gasoline engines approaching 40% efficiency. The new Toyota GD diesel has a 44% thermal efficiency rating which is among the highest in the world.

 

Damn, I just got slapped with knowledge.

 

This made me laugh. Actually your whole post makes me laugh.

3.5 L has less surface area per volume than a 4.0 L, and therefore less friction and more volumetric efficiency. That's all that can be said without knowing more about the truck than we do.

 

Laugh in a good way or laugh in a "you dumb" way