2.7L MPG

As noted, speed kills MPGs. EPA testing is done much lower, perhaps around 50 MPH (you can do a browse and find the EPA test specifications pretty easily). 55 MPH in my MDX will yield about 24 MPGs while 65 MPH yields around 21. It's much harder to pull great numbers in a V6, but some folks, especially those with manual transmissions and 6 speed automatics get nice numbers...even with a V8.

54 minutes savings at 80+ MPH isn't worth the risk to life and limb in my opinion. I would also say that driving those speeds (especially if you are loaded up) puts others at risk as well. I'm familiar with your traffic there in Cali and the speeds people drive; you are hanging in the mix of speedy commuters. It doesn't make it right but I'm not here to lecture you.

The 4 cylinder offers decent power for normal commuting and around town driving. For sure you wont break any speed records, but under normal acceleration, I've found the 4 cylinder is fine. I never really think about it until pulling out of a hairpin turn on an on-ramp where I have only a couple hundred feet to get up to highway speeds. But for the few times that it mattered, I found slipping in where it was safe to do so only slowed my commute down by a minute. When considering that, the tradeoff for decent MPGs is a no brainer for me.

That being said, my S2000 gives me both: power and economy. So 4 cylinder engines can be mass produced to achieve both. But I have to think that there are reasons why the 4 cylinders in trucks are designed the way they are; just don't know what they could be. I'd appreciate a 4 cylinder solution where it was more matched like the S2000 to be fitted in a truck. I've spent a bunch of time researching the possible aftermarket solutions that could help achieve that aim. Sadly, unless you are willing to supercharge or turbo your engine, anything else is lumped amongst the marketing gimmics and wishful thinking. I'm certain that there are a few folks out there with the mechanical and engineering aptitude to tear down an engine, optimize it (e.g. port/polish, gasket match, tune, etc.) and produce better power and efficiency from a stock engine, but the cost justification wouldn't be there; but one neat project that would have alot of us reading it!!!

If you are hoping to produce better MPGs, the members here are offering tips that could help. Driving habits of a stock vehicle has the greatest impact on improving MPGs. Overinflated tires will help improve FE, but is a risk you should read up on and be comfortable with. Overinflation with the loads you are carrying might prove fatal...so do your homework!!!! I recommend you stop by CleanMPG.com and read up on some hypermiling techniques you can practice. I place emphasis on the legal techniques rather than the extreme techniques also mentioned there.

My guess is that the 2nd Generation Tacomas should beat 1st Generation Tacomas in the FE challenge. Over the years, Toyota has tweaked the engine to get better power and economy. I was originally looking to find a right priced 2nd Gen, but landed my 2004 Extracab. If the wife didn't need to drive it, I would have gotten the manual transmission to be able to coast. Coasting really helps to pick up MPGs and keeps you engine running for emergency situations.

Back to the group...

Kevin

 

Wow. 520 miles to do some riding. I feel for you there. There's always a point where a V-6 takes over the mpg. Usually I've associated it with heavy loads. I guess the wind resistance is winning the battle over the 2.7 at 80 MPH.

My neighbor just bought a brand new Ford full size pickup with a V-6 twin turbo. He's claiming he's getting almost as good of MPG as I am with my Toyota 2.7. He claims 19 city and 24 freeway (I'm 22 & 26). He's quit driving his wife's car to town to save fuel. (his "before" truck was a one year older Ford V-8 gas guzzler).

To bad it's not a Toyota.

But the point I was going to make is, at 80 MPG a turbo should give you a boost in MPG, especially up hills, and more power. It might be something you want to research.

 

My worst was 19mpg, with winter gas, using 4x4

Addition to other hints: grease the drive shaft.
Change rear and front differential fluids.

I do try:
keep it under 70.
Ride steady and at 2000 rpm as much as possible.
Coast toward stops.

I don't:
Air up the tires; i put aggressive AT and I don't want to wear them out.

 

First pic taken when I got to work this morning
Second when I got home tonight

 

I agree with most of what you just said but I dont understand the power deficiency in the 2.7L.. If the torque numbers were a tad higher i could understand this, but the numbers just really aren't there.. For the displacement of the engine and fact of it being a DOHC with VVTI the numbers should be a bit better.. Dont get me wrong, I absolutely love my Taco because it does do what I need it to do, but the fuel consumption doesn't match the power its returning.. I keep thinking the engine in the Tacos are some how under tuned for durability or something.. Im getting an average of about 18/20 but I really don't watch how I drive at all..

 

Hi Miguel - you might be right about being under tuned. My Ranger was the same way - low torque and hp output. The 2.7 has more torque and HP than the 2.5 in my Ranger, but it also gets lower MPGs. The 4 cylinder configuration in compact trucks might be centered about the vehicles being more Commuter friendly than Enthusiast friendly. It's pretty consistent along most compact truck owners: they wish the torque and HP numbers were better, and not necessarily by a wide margin. 4 cylinder owners appreciate fewer trips to the pump and being better on the environment. And to your point...getting decent mpg numbers doesn't require the attention of a heart surgeon.

That being said, wouldn't it be nice if manufacturers offered a better engine selection with a 4 cylinder that produces more of both while not compromising fuel efficiency. The notion that it can't be done within reasonable cost to the manufacturer is flimsy at best.

 

My last 5 tanks have been over 400 miles and over 23mpg each, with a lot of 70-80mph interstate in there to bring down the mileage. Lots of hills also.
The one thing I have really noticed is that unless the road is dead flat the cruise control will absolutely kill the gas mileage. Part of it may be the combination of 5spd/4cyl, but it just seems to feed more gas than necessary and it doesn't do the speed up downhill/ slow down uphill tradeoff that lets you reduce some throttle input.
I also love the summer gas. I just wish the pure stuff was cheaper and more readily available.

 

PS - I wonder if anyone has data on a 2.7L that they've tuned (torque/hp) along with the performance numbers. I've seen tuners online for the V6s in the Ranger, but not for the 4. I've not checked to see if there is one for the 2.7L.

 

ODOMETER = 300 miles



GPS = 291.1



speedo shows 74 mph?



gps shows 69mph

 

Your observations are consistent with the general population. CC is great for a long highway trip where you are likely to develop a cramp in the leg. Otherwise, try driving with a level foot and gas pedal load for part of the ride and CC were its level...er. Tougher to use CC I suppose as the manual shifting on steep grades might be inevitable (rather than a kickdown in an automatic). But you are posting respectable numbers nonetheless...along with most of the folks in this thread.

Kevin

 

There are none for either engine that work for fuel economy.

The URD unit works, but only when the ECU is in open loop... which is pretty much limited to WOT.

The tuners will give more power, but they are not even active when driving for economy.

 

Cool beans.

So 300 vs 291.1 = 3% error on the odometer
74 vs 69mph = 6.8% error on the speedometer

So take your calculated MPG and adjust downward by 3%.

 

Likewise, the CC on the 2.7 is a mileage killer on hills.

I've got a grade on the way to and from work rising out of Pomona in the morning, and the other side of the same hill coming out of San Dimas on the way home.

If I set the cruise at 70 and let it ride, it's a constant back and forth from 2300rpm to 5000rpm and back as the CC reaches and then overshoots the target speed.
Yet I can maintain CLOSE to 70 without exceeding 4000 by letting off the gas when it kicks down the first time and "eat" a slight speed loss on the hills.

 

Sounds like the problem is the automatic. Leaving Boulder is a pretty good grade and if I'm in 5th and 60 it will gradually slow to about 55 on the steepest grade which then reduces and it will try to climb back to 60 but I instead bump the CC back a few mph and hit the top at 57.

On the way back I hit the top and shut the motor off at 60 and pop into neutral and coast around 1.5 miles depending on the wind.

 

22.4 mpg new best
and went 99 miles after my reserve light came on

 

I figured you might have a better commute in one direction over the other. Looks like your ride to work is more forgiving (mine is the ride home). I recall trips to Aurora and the highway speeds on the plains there. Much higher than the speeds here in CT (at that time, most highways were still at 55 mph). Top posted speeds in CT are 65 MPH which I try to establish as my top highway speed. I'll mainly hover around 60 traffic permitting.

 

Terrain, it's pretty much comparable in gain/drop both ways.
When I go in for night or weekend work with comparable traffic in both directions, my SRT MPG on the Ultragauge is also comparable.

Now... last Thursday..

When I got to work, the display was comparable to the day before. My morning drive had negated the losses from the previous day's trip home:




Avg (tank) was again back up to 26.4, and SRT was slightly lower but still above 27.

Trip home? Took me over 2 hours to make the 43 miles...
That killed it. I ended up pulling the average down to 23.9 for that tank...
Friday morning hit the road for Vegas. Did pretty well overall, but what you lose on the uphill you never fully recover on the downhill... but even so, we rolled into Vegas with a tank average close to 26.

After farting around taking care of wedding things all weekend (put over 100 miles on driving between the rental in Paradise, suppliers and places to eat in Henderson, and the actual wedding and reception near LV Blvd and Sahara)... ended up averaging only 24.1 on that tank.
Right now, I'm looking at around 24.5... still have another 2 trips to work to go on this tank so hopefully I can bring it back up.

 

Rich - I know what you mean regarding the hills. My ride in usually yields 22.5 to 23.5 mpgs and the ride home around 26.5 mpg on srt mpg. But the average mpg's hangs around 23.1. It'll be interesting to see what I can pull with highway trips. So far, I've not had the occasion to take a roadtrip.

Difference for me is that I'm dealing with hills while you were tackling mountains.

Kevin

 

23.1 MPG last week

 

18.5 with at least one bad O2 sensor. Lift, tires, sliders, and full of stuff for work. Oh and I drive 2.5 miles round trip everyday for work in town.