Fuel economy of the 2016 tacoma

As stated before, pV=nRT. Know it. Love it. Live it.

 

Oh, oops.

 

Bingo. The problem is that @StAndrew isn't comprehending, because we know the dimensions, we know the volume. We don't know the mass, or moles because they are directly related, though without knowing more information about pressure and volume. That's why I found his comment funny. You can measure air by volume, you just can't calculate anything to do with moles from that though without knowing temperature and pressure, but that doesn't change that you can still determine the volume of the air.

Anyways, I really am done here. I'm sure anyone here with some university education understands volume is not moles without the ideal gas law, the law which actually is a guess that applies only under fairly normal conditions.

 

Ha, I can picture people taking delivery of their Tacomas with blank EPA boxes. Better release those mpgs soon Toyota! The people wanna know!

 

Exactly. The answer is you can measure the volume of gas but can't measure gasses in volume. There is a correct answer to this question and the unit is Moles. X amount of moles of oxygen is required to burn 1 gallon of fuel.

Exactly.

The initial point was a 4L engine will not always burn more gas than a 3.5L engine. While the size of displacement increases the potential, the limiting factor will be the intake efficiency. Not sure how it got so convoluted but shit, this is the 3rd gen section. It was fun.

 

This ended up pretty Tomato versus Tomato.

Look, I get what you are saying. If you are talking about what is the measurement of gas for scientific calculations, yes, it is moles and not volume. My point is though in a container, like the engine cylinders, you can tell how much volume of air there is even though it's not useful alone for combustion calculations.

Dude this all started because I found it funny that you said air can't be measured in volume, when in contained space it can. It's just not a useful number alone for the calculations you were talking about but it still has a defined volume.

 

So no one won? Damnit, Ill guess we'll have to share the internet cookie...

 

I don't know, but you need one calorie to raise 1 gram of water by 1°C

 

im going to guess and say the 2.7 stays 100% the same as current even with the 6 speed auto.
the new V6 will be 19-27 with an average tested of 22 mpg.

 

1 gram.

 

Shucks lol

 

I like your way better. Desalination becomes a very real way for dry areas to get water if it's 1kg.

 

I thought it was 1 liter.

or is that kcal?

 

wow 4-5 pages of this crap and we still don't know the mpg of the new engine, epic fail by all the math whizzes, now go whiz in a bucket

/sarcasm

 

FTFY.

All the BS in the 3rd gen section isn't going to release MPG's any sooner. They will be better than Colorado's on paper and comparable in real life would be my guess. Don't expect anything ground breaking.

 

Yeah but now we know all about gas/air/volume/moles/etc. Although, I really wouldn't put too much faith in the validity coming from a truck forum....

 

yeah all we need now is some chalk boards spread across the room with a bunch of formula's and lines pointing to a small number 42 in a circle off on a side wall

 

dam dickheads, still don't see a 42 on that board