Post your '16 MPG

That's promising (unless he was downhill and downwind). My test was back and forth on the same road with cruise at 65.

I was wondering... going 65 you run 1675 rpms. Maybe it just can't 'atkinson' with that load at that rpm. Wonder if you downshift if it could 'atkinson' and actually give better mileage? It would be 1993 rpms in 5th. (That's still 7% less than my Gen 1 rpms)

Edit: exactified the rpms; added 5th gear stats.

 

Actually, the more I think about it, what you are getting is great (for you) but kind of irrelevant to a discussion about overall fuel economy improvement (I know this thread is "post your mpg."), because it's based on an average. So people complaining that they expected better mpg still make a valid point. If it has to due with driving habits, it would be fair to say that you can probably get 20-22 city with a 4R also, right?

 

Pulling a Levo here with quoting myself but, pretty sad that the manual OR has lower estimated highway mpg than the 4runner considering the more advanced engine tech, extra gear (4runner is auto) and lower weight.

 

I've alluded to this before; when the load (i.e. throttle setting) is high, it's on the Otto cycle cam lobes, but throttle losses are lower. When load is low, it's on the Atkinson cam lobes (so it fully expands the power stroke), but throttle/intake losses are higher. It's entirely possible with this engine that the highest-possible gear isn't necessarily the most efficient for a given driving regime.

It's easy enough to check, just stay on cruise control on a level stretch of road and compare 5th vs 6th gear instantaneous consumption.

 

I am guessing the reason so many people get shit mileage is because they do not drive conservatively. As for me, I am not concerned about hauling ass to a destination. I go the speed limit, and gentle on the throttle and only pass when there is a car struggling ahead of me. Kick back, enjoy some tunes, enjoy the drive and get better MPG as the same time. Going 85 mph is not gonna get you optimal MPG.

 

Yea, I agree, but the point is compared to other vehicles. If someone wants to "haul ass" to their destination, I think it's fair to have expected better mpg with the 3rd gen, than the 2nd or the Runner, while they are hauling ass.

 

Fair point.

 

My work commute is only about 5 miles so not really a good test but does seem to be on par and sometimes better than the 2012 TRD Off Road I had previously. With the 2012, I was getting 16-18.5mpg using an Ultragauge. With the 2016 TRD Off Road, I'm seeing 16.5 to just over 20.

 

Can you guys make the tires squeal if you floor it from a dead stop?

 

I have entered a Utah Zip code and an Oregon zip code in Toyotas build page. They give two different mpg's for the TRD sport A/T. It changes due to zip code. Oddly enough Utah got better mpg than Oregon which is at sea level.

 

FYI on the engine: They are the same lobes, the VVT-iW delays the closing of the intake valves by changing the cam angle (up to 80°; from 25° ABDC to 105° ABDC). Power stroke is unchanged. Throttling is reduced in Atkinson.

 

Higher elevation will get better mpg. Regardless, that seems screwed up to have different mpg estimates in the specs based on zip code.

 

Hot Air = Thin air and Higher elevation also = Thinner air.

Air molecules expand when it warms (becomes thinner). Similarly at higher elevations, less atmospheric pressure, air is less dense. This means that every gulp of air your car is taking during combustion has less oxygen in it at warmer temperatures (or higher elevation), and if there's less oxygen, the engine compensates by using less fuel.

This is bad from a power perspective, but good for economy. The engine is combusting less fuel due to the warm air, improving fuel economy. During winter, the reverse is true--denser air encourages the engine to chuck in more fuel, boosting performance and harming economy.

This is also why aircraft can be grounded if the mercury rises enough. Aerodynamics are impacted as well as engine performance. Aircraft may take longer roll to generate enough lift for rotation.

 

Please post an image where you see this difference.
I tried 4 different zip codes, UT,AZ, FL and, OR. All showed the same mpg for the 4 different trucks I had selected. Sport 4X4 in auto and man, OR 4X4 in auto and man. All showed (hwy) 20 for the OR man, 21 for the sport man and, 23 for the OR and sport auto. I think I am going to stop replying to these posts where someone thinks the Toyota website is showing wrong or different mpg info. It just isn't the case. People just don't know how to use the internet.

 

Interesting that the manual sport and OR show different mpg but the auto versions show the same. This suggests they tested each trim and not just each drive train config. And it suggests in those tests the auto OR and Sport got similar results.

 

I entered zip code 97420 and 84405. Both with A/T. Unless the stock picture for the 97420 (Oregon) picture for the trim type in the Toyota build screen is default to M/T. then that's their fault haha.

 

The fact that the prices are different doesn't make you suspicious the trims are different? One is 4X4, one is 4X2. Like I said.

 

Then it's their website not updating. The fact that all I do is enter a different zip code and they come with different price and mpg without updating from my configure of 4X4 for both. The suspicious part is the simple change of a zip code does this.

 

Yes. People act like this engine is worse than the front bumper lip. Lol the engine has more than enough power. The issue is the way the transmission settings shift at low rpms to save gas. Making it "feel" under powered. Stomp on the gas and you'll rip it up. No problem. Or just turn ETC on and drive it like a normal V6 and lose maybe 1 mpg.

 

use the Et cetera button ! who'd have thought Toyota would integrate Latin into their platform