Love my 2016 but

My 16 has 800 miles it's a dbl trd off road 4x4 it's averageing 18 that's mostly city with some interstate. I do believe it would be alot better if it did not down shift at the least bit of a grade. I can be running 2000rpm and the next second 3500 there goes the gas.

 

Well it makes no power/torque down low so that's what it's going to do. If you want decent mileage go buy a TDI not so clean diesel.

 

The gasoline it's sipping at 2000rpm out weighs the other. You could change to shift mode in 4th or 5th and eliminate many down shifts.

 

I would say 18 city is phenomenal. If it is rated at 18 city and you drive only city I would expect 16 mpg or less. Mixed driving 1/2 city 1/2 highway I would expect 20. All highway....whole tank I would expect 23.

I would say you are right on where you are at. My tundra is rated 16/20. I get 13 city, 20 highway and 16 miced.

Wife's honda oddyssey is rated 18/27. She gets 14 city, 28 highway, and 18 mixed with 4 cylinder deactivation.

 

lovemy2016, could you please tell us what you love about your 2016? You only stated non-love

 

May I direct you here:
https://www.tacomaworld.com/threads/buyers-remorse-i-didnt-find-___-to-be-that-impressive.395064/

 

18 city is far from wonderful, my lifted 15 with 285s gets 17-18 city.

 

If it's rated 18 city and that's what you get I don't see how it can not be awesome. If it was rated 22 and you get 18 the I could understand a little. Sticker says 18 and I get 18. How is that bad?

 

No one said it was bad, but its not wonderful either. The point I was making for a truck that is supposed to be better in MPG, a lifted older truck with heavier tires get the same mpg? Don't take it personal dude.

 

Everyone has different driving styles, so you cannot compare when different drivers are driving different vehicles. The new truck gets slightly better MPGs than the old truck.

 

Really? News to me.

 

I'm not sure we will see much better mpg's with midsized trucks increasing in size. I am willing to bet the new honda ridgeline will be around the mpg's everyone expected, but it will not tow more than 5000 lbs and will be for street duty soccer moms. I doubt you could really reach the ridgeline with it.

 

Oh I agree same for fullsize, time will tell.

 

I will say the way toyota was all hush hush about releasing mpg #rs and saying it would beat the competition was not needed. As we all know......that never happened. If I had any confidence the new colorado would be reliable it would be an option.

Will be interesting to see what nissan does. This is their chance to steal some market share

 

I would entertain a Ford option as well. I had 2 rangers in high school and college great trucks, with a few minor faults and ford has improved since then as well. My dad's raptor is solid and my mom's explorer (im the outsider with the Toyotas).

 

I really wanted an f150 living in a salt zone. But from what I've read (not on this forum) mpg of the 2.7 isn't exactly as advertised, which would be on par with tacoma.

I am excited to see what they bring to the table, but I have a feeling it will not be the same size as the previous rangers. I don't like the global truck design. Looks like a minivan. To me the Hilux does also

 

Drove both of those while deployed overseas, the hilux was a minivan Tacoma, the global ranger actually wasn't so bad. I actually was thinking the same as you! I almost test drove a 2015 F150 the other day, but they are just so big.

 

So is there room under the hood for the 4.6 V8 in 2018????

 

The problem with Nissan is very little aftermarket support. My mom had a supercharged frontier and one of the headers rusted out along one of the casting seams. Not only was it a pain to get to, but come to find out nobody made headers for it without being a full custom job. couldn't even get the parts from Nissan

 

Not much tire clearance either, suffers same fate as the colorado. No 1 up tires allowed