Post your '16 MPG

I would enjoy that

 

Yeah we got an 80 mph speed limit here in Wyoming in some sections. Nice and all but come winter a bunch of idiots think its okay to do 85 on black ice.

 

I'm not sure that would be the case. I think most of the gains came from taller gearing and atkinson cycle. If you are flogging it, it'll downshift and go back to otto cycle, and you are effectively running the same drivetrain as a Gen2 (i.e. Otto cycle and shorter gearing).

My Tundra could actually get better mpgs (up to 21) than my Tacoma (up to 20) if I set the cruise control on a flat highway at 65, simply from a taller 6th. But if you got on the throttle at all, forget it (Tundra = 15 vs Tacoma = 18).

 

Many* vehicles will show you "E" or Empty and still have a few gallons in reserve. It's about 2-3 Gal in my '99. So your calculation is incorrect because you assume 21.1 gallons, when it is probably...18.5 gal used.

Edited: "Most" changed to "many" (not all) to be more correct-ish.

 

TRD Sport, Prerunner, DCSB V6

Just over 1000 miles logged, half at 70+ MPH - average 21.5 MPG.

Made a similar trip with 80 MPH speeds for 200 miles of travel in my 2011 (same model style), and the MPG was about 1.2 lower than in the '16 (about a 5% increase). I'll have to see what things look like after a few "regular" tanks.

 

Math is hard

 

Never would have seen this coming. It's still a truck, if you use and mod it like one, the variables are endless. But it's something to talk about.

 

Ok so I totally forgot to get you the figures yesterday, but here's what I have. I have driven 182 miles so far, averaging 19.6, with 234 miles to go and a bit more than half a tank left. (Truck's telemetry) Based on this reading I should get 416 miles out of this tank. And that's 90% city driving. Honestly I'm impressed.
(Note: the truck had 92 miles on it when I got it so the 274 isn't all my driving.)

 

Gas turbines will never make it as a effective solution for car vehicles for one reason fuel economy. Gas turbine are great for horsepower to weight ratio, for the size and weight, they put out a hell of a lot of power but burn a Sh...t load of fuel doing so. Piston powered engine are be best at extracting power vs fuel burn.

I fly Jet, Turbo Prop and Piston aircraft. The big airplanes use jet/turboprop engine because they are light weight and the the rest of the weight savings can be used for fuel capacity.

The smaller aircraft use piston engine because they have the best fuel vs weight vs fuel burn capacity.

The piston aircraft industry is in a real dilemma right now because the EPA (the agency that cut the testicles of out trucks) wants to outright ban 100LL aviation fuel. As a side note 100LL aviation fuel is not the same as unleaded auto fuel, in fact 100LL aviation fuel has twice the lead content that the old leaded "regular" auto gas had. Do not use that in a modern car engine.

The problem is in smaller aircraft they haven't been able to develop a engine (jet/turboprop) that gets the same or better fuel economy vs power. So they are focusing on turbo diesel engines that run Jet A which is basically a very refined grade of diesel fuel. The issue they are having is that in the 300 H.P range is the weight of the engine is significantly higher than the avgas counter part which basically makes it a worthless option. They have tried light weight diesel engines only to have them tear apart do to the power pulses tearing the engines apart. They have been tring for 15 years and still are. They have had success in the 200 H.P and lower range.

As for cars and trucks piston engines are hear to stay.

The actual Toyota 4 and 6 cylinder engines can put out significantly more power than the ECU allows.

In the motorcycle world, they have the same issues with neutered engines and terrible power output since they went all electronic fuel injection and ignition. But there is a bunch of add on Fuel mod systems and even ECU mods to regain the HP.

 

So uh, what's your mpg?

 

MPG on the High and around town is getting into the 20's

 

I notice most of the people posting are from the southern part of the country where it is warmer. My guess is break in period plus AC use is creating a delta from EPA estimates. Keep in mind that Toyota probably tested these with the tonneau covers so if you don't have one please say so in your feedback.

 

I've owned 3 Toyotas (2010 4Runner, 2012 Prius v, 2014 RAV4). All 4 of them still have the reserve tank remaining when they tick over to 0. In Toyotas, the range readout isn't how far you can go before you run out of gas. It is how far you can go before you should refill the tank. My 2007 VW GTI was basically dead empty if you let it get to zero. Just a different way of doing things.

 

My first gen has gotten 22mpg before

 

Yeah, so this is all anecdotal stuff. We can solve this in five seconds.
.
.
.
Right from page 512 in the '16 Tacoma Owner's manual. 3.2 gallons of reserve fuel when the low fuel light illuminates:

 

Tunnel Cover + Front Air Dam = +.5MPG

Fake Hood Skewp creates parasitic drag, please subtract .25 MPG for hood skewp.

 

But I like anecdotal stories. Facts suck.

 

I don't doubt it. The curb weight is about the same as a VW Golf, and their diminutive size makes them more aerodynamic.

And they have a cassette player!

 

They can be so inconvenient for my worldview and maths!

Edit: Boss, this snarky comment is not a shot at you btw. Just a shot at the way TW is overall.

 

Back on topic please