No gas mileage difference after trying these mods

Today on the way home, car going well under 55mph on the highway which is fine if that's the speed you want to travel. Then on the surface road they are the 1st car to come to the light and stop well over a car length before the stop line. Looking at their phone took priority over positioning their vehicle where it should be.

 

If you are caught operating a handheld device/ smartphone while driving, you should be given a choice between having your car impounded, or your phone impounded.

 

Free or discounted gas for not using your phone while driving.

 

Your '85 was considerably lighter

 

I concur. My old 86 Mazda with its 2.0l and 5 speed got better mileage. So how far have we progressed in 40 years? Granted, way more safety, convenience & emissions improvements. But that extra 800-1000lbs the 2.7l has to schlep around negates any real mpg improvements.

The second mod I did on my Taco was a 2" lift in the front. That was 10% hit on my mpgs.

I added a Afe dry filter (not cold intake). Maybe a touch better on throttle response, and about .3 mpg increase on mileage.

 

Or your skull pounded perhaps..infuriates me especially at night when you can tell at a distance from the light cast.

 

True..though our trucks do have the composite bed which has to spare weight in that area.

I'm not lifted and run stock tires etc. I did use the AFE as well, not sure re mileage gains per se but I figure it as a long term thing so even a slight increase would be a bonus.

It's funny because I have compared my 84 Camaro 5.0 4 barrel to my 10 Tacoma 2.7 fuelie. Granted 2 different kinds of vehicle and such, and not sure off my head what weights are on both. BUT, my Camaro would get high teens to 20MPG even with my heavy foot back then. Not horrible for a V8..and off the assembly line was about 170-180 HP, though I know mine was modified. My Tacoma gets 20-23 with roughly half the displacement and is 160-something HP.

 

I'm curious as to how light the composite bed actually is. My wife and I took the bed off my 2004 Ranger a few times to fix or install things (fuel pump, air bags, camper tie downs) and it was not too heavy for both of us to lift comfortably.
I replaced my fuel pump in the Tacoma this past summer and I swear to Dog it was at least twice as heavy!

 

Disagree with 2 & 4.
Run your max sidewall pressure.
And leave that downshifting, mother hunching, cruise control off. Pay attention to the road and and your right food.
I'll guarantee you. You can knock off at least 1 to 2 more mpg.

I can average over 21 mpg combined city/hwy with my foot. And that's with 32" tires and the factory lift.
I use cruise. It'll be below 19 mpg.

 

Good question, I know mine had to be replaced a few years ago and my brother in law said it was simple for him and one other guy to lift/move/etc

 

Interesting regarding weight and specs. From 1984. 21/29 mpg, but speed limits were slower.

 

I agree with all of that accept the part about winter/,summer gas. There is only a 1.7% difference between them. If you get 300 miles on a tank in the summer, you'll drop to 295 miles with winter gas based on the fuel alone. The rest of the mileage loss is due to the cold air.

Air density alone can differ by 15% between summer and winter. This is especially bad at highway speeds. Don't blame the winter gas, that 1.7% means nothing.

 

That is an interesting reference. I'm glad the trucks are larger now, and find the modest fuel economy penalty well worth it. I noticed the '4 speed', which must mean manual, as there's a separate column for the automatic - shows (if I'm reading it right) 28/37mpg while the 5 speed shows only 24/32mpg. Doesn't seem right. Either way, very high numbers even for a compact truck. Still, IMO the Tacoma with the 2.7L gets very good fuel economy for it's size.

I saw a similar document for a Honda Accord of the same era - very impressive fuel economy stats. Maybe because of less strict emissions requirements, the vehicles were smaller, and as noted, lower speed limits.

Ironically, I've gone 2 work days longer (7 total) than I would have with my former Honda CR-V. Of course the Honda got better miles per gallon, but it had a relatively small (15.3 gallon) fuel tank for it's engine (2.4L) and size. I like that the Tacoma has a 21(?) gallon tank, probably chosen for use with the V6.

 

The best mileage car we had was a 1982 Datsun 210. RWD, A13 (1300cc), 5 Speed. I bought it for my son, fine for getting to school and work. He would get 45 mpg on the freeway keeping it at 65 mph. It took forever to get up to speed. It had to think about merging and watching the gap. Sadly it was rear-ended. He was okay but ended the vehicle. Super lightweight, low rolling resistance, small engine, tiny Hitachi 2 barrel. Looked at the spec, 56 hp, 1905 pounds. You tossed four people in it and barely made it up the hill.

I'm running about in a Honda HRV, while my wife's CRV is waiting for a transmission. The HRV is rough riding, but I am enjoying the handling and noise dampening. It's a 1800cc Honda Civic Platform. 2000 miles on it, so I've hit max rev getting onto our 85 mph Toll Road. It feels stable at speed. Fun car to drive. 145 hp, 2900 pounds. All those options add weight, but body and crash ratings are much better than something built 40 years ago. Take it easy, keep the speed down, and I'm getting about 35 mpg.

 

I remember my father having a 310GX, even as small kids we complained about the backseat. During Hurricane Gloria a tree fell across the driveway from the top of the wall to the flat side flush with the driveway. Mom's station wagon couldn't fit under, my dad's Datsun zipped right under. He had a good laugh at us.

That low HP was one thing back then but at least most other cars around were similar, try driving that now!

 

Those old small cars did well, 45 mpg is a rarity for a gas only car these days. Interesting that 56 hp is a lot less than an engine in a typical hybrid vehicle.

I've heard the HRVs don't ride as well as the CRV, but that's decent fuel economy. Ride isn't a huge priority for me, I find the Tacoma's ride fine while Consumer Reports criticizes it big time. I wonder if your wife's is a 2015(?) or newer with the CVT. What I like about the HRVs is a manual transmission was available with FWD models, at least a few years ago. I really like the gearing with the Tacoma's 5 speed manual, tall for one with a 4 cylinder. I don't plan on towing so it's fine - I know others may re-gear.

 

45 mpg is not that common, but 49MPG is the CAFE fleet average for 2026. People seem to be turned off by small cars, mostly due to advertising telling them they need to drive around in a massive fuel disposal unit, and that big trucks are manly. I had a 2015 Nissan Micra (not sold in the US, as it was deemed "too small to sell in the US market") that regularly got close to 50mpg and was a blast to drive. I like small cars;easy to park, parts are inexpensive (tires, etc.), and it really is more fun to drive a slow car fast than vice versa. For a lot of hauling, just attach a trailer and or roof racks. Now, if they only sold the Suzuki Jimny here...

 

If I didn't have my truck and have a use for it fairly often I'd rather have a small/midsize car anyways.

When my truck first went in April 2021 for the frame job the rental agency my dealer subs out to didn't have any truck so they gave me a 2019 or 2020 Chevy Malibu..I hate GM but that's another story. Told me they ought to be able to pull in a truck in a week or so..ended up keeping it a few weeks by choice, the heated seats were great for my wife being she was getting ready for spinal surgery so she drove it.

I have to say though, getting 40mpg city out of a straight gasser ain't so bad for sure..was more like 45 when I had to drive to Boston 2 days in a row to drop her off and pick her up from the surgery.