Best mods to increase Mileage?

There's some good information in this post. However, some not so right.

One of these days I'm gonna figure out what derp means. That word exists not in the north.
I don't know "derp" either.

As for evidence, I'm no automotive engineer so I can't give qualitative reports to what I posted, but I can elaborate on the logic of it.

First, basics on the way the MAF sensor operates. As most here know, ours uses a heated wire that the air going through the sensor passes over, the temperature of that wire is measured and regulated by the circuitry in the sensor, and the voltage needed to keep it at that temperature is the info sent to the ECU. It then calculates airflow from that data.

The problem is that it doesn't pass all the air over the wire - that's not practical. The essential part is that the ECU uses known variables to guess what's really going on.
Correct so far. These next statements not so.

The first thing to consider is the design of it. If you look at the sensor carefully, it holds the meter wires way up inside the tube. The motion of air in the intake pushes it up one side of the meter to the wires and back down again. However, the intake system is hardly a place of smooth airflow. The cycle of the engine inevitably causes pulses (read: start and stop) within the air motion that as long as they interfere with each other in a known manner don't affect the operation of the MAF. When the system is changed in any way, these waves no longer behave in a known fashion, and can cause calibration issues that the ECU will have to compensate for. I believe this is what caused fairly substantial "dead zones" in my truck's acceleration under certain conditions when the carbon trap was first removed that later disappeared. This is what I refer to when I stated it was possible for air to be metered multiple times, or to amend that, also possible for metering to nearly stop and lose accuracy, if the condition exists when the harmonic disruptions within the intake also disrupting flow within the sensor do so in a way not originally programmed to be compensated for.
MAF design is made to place the sensor in an air stream of equal distribution across the tube area. Including the flow "straightener" before the sensor. The MAF is calibrated for the factory mounting. However, changing components to relieve flow restrictions that are not associated with the MAF and its immediate surrounding will not affect the air measurement.
Throttle body restriction and manifold designs do not allow pulses from the engine to enter the duct.
Removing the carbon filter should not create "dead zones".

Under low load conditions the airspeed passing the sensor is far less and it is much more prone to eddies and such interfering with its operation. If you want to test this out for yourself, just pull the air straightener screen in the airbox under the carbon trap and see how poorly the truck drives.

It's going to have interference; the ECU is going to compensate when it happens; however, if you can watch your long term fuel trims (like on a UG) in live time you'd see them changing with minute changes in rpm, much more so with the intake in something other than stock form (just a K&N drop in doubled its typical daily range). When this happens, it means the fuel tables Toyota put in don't match what the o2 sensors are spitting out and it constantly has to change the multipliers. This gives minor inefficiency in throttle tip-in enrichment and the initial fuel delivery at new engine speeds.
Everyday driving is typically in the part throttle, closed loop mode. The ECU compensates anyway.
If you want to talk aftermarket intakes, an additional concern is whether they matched the diameter of the original tube exactly, but the same calibration issues as above exist.

Next part, skipping to the plugged filter...

Air restriction works both ways across a filter. If it can't get in, it can't get out either. That means it will dampen pressure waves up the intake that reflect back down the tube once they hit the big plenum we call the atmosphere. Ever wonder why a K&N filter "makes" so much noise? It simply lets those pressure waves have all kinds of fun bouncing from one end of the intake system to the other and back again. The more dampening you have, the less this happens, and the fewer inconsistencies in the flow across the MAF you get. Therefore, the more plugged the filter, the quieter the intake, the smoother the airflow.
Restriction does work both ways. Again there is no need for damping in this system. The noise is from the velocity. The plugged filter creates a pressure differential and lowers the mass air flow by lowering air pressure. Typically, pressure has a greater influence on air density than temperature.
Back to the second point...

Speed density systems rely on a MAP sensor (and IAT) to determine fuel use. This means the ECU's readings are at the mercy of vacuum fluctuations in the manifold. Stock intakes often have 2 or 3 resonators with at least one in close proximity to the throttle plate to give good throttle response and quiet operation. Two things normally happen when it is changed over to a tube intake: the extra "plenum" on the other side of the throttle plate is gone, and the flow becomes more laminar in the tube. It becomes a long helmholz resonator. On some cars, the tuning of the tube can be beneficial to the point of balancing vacuum across the throttle plate at certain cruising speeds; on others, it does more harm than good if the original intake is well-designed enough or the manifold plenum big enough.
Resonators close to the intake side of the throttle body???
Duct size changes create the Helmholtz effect. Laminar flow does not.
The reverse happens with a shorty stack intake. Even though it is exposed to hot air, a speed density regulated engine with a cone filter on the throttle body often returns worse mileage than with any other type of system.
???
***

Summary for us, on the stock box, as long as it's relatively unmolested, filter choice and presence (or lack thereof) of the carbon trap should fall within the capability of adjustment of the ECU so mileage difference would be very minimal. Other factors such as resistance to air draw into the engine are so insignificant compared to the energy needed to actually push the truck down the road that they really don't even matter.
This last sentence confuses me. The energy needed to draw air in is indeed low compared to moving the trauck. However, it is critical to combustion. More air in, more energy out.

Regarding the OP. Maintain the truck and drive conservatively.

 

All can, most don't.

 

I definitely don't beleive you. I paid under $20K for my dc 4x4, with no financing charges.

 

I used to get 13 mph in my automatic 08 AC on 31's.

Getting 10 mpg better in the same exact truck seems ludicrous to me, but then again that's because I have never achieved it, even when I was bone stock.

 

A low rolling resistance tire can improve about 2 MPGs on a Tacoma.

 

This is true, about 1.5 to 2 mpg improvement over even stock tires, Grandtrek AT-20, with Michelin X radial stock size.

 

Light foot mod it works to a point. its just no fun

 

You buggers, coming up with a way to make me spend MORE money on my truck

 

If I had to guess its the retards way on here to call someone a dumbass? They are the ones that seldom have any useful information to contribute. They think they are funny with their "DERP" crap but you have to understand they are just retarded teenagers.

 

10mpg? How do you calculate your gas mileage?

 

You're at about my average mpg now, 19.7- 20.4 mpg average this time of year with winter gas and colder temperatures, may 0.5 mpg more on average in summer.

 

If your offended by some assholes comment (me) on the web you need thicker skin....it wasn't aimed at you - just these type of threads.

BTW your full of poop - I can find no where that states a V6 Sport should get 18mpg in the city besides what the manufacturer claims on it's fed mandated window sticker. We all know these type of tests are 100% incorrect and not done in real life situations. They don't even drive the car for those tests and have been wrong since their inception in 06' .

Here is a link to the way they "Estimate MPG" http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/regulations.htm#test

Next time you "research" try Consumer reports who used to state 15 mpg city.

I even found an EPA rating stating 15 city
Gas Mileage (EPA Estimated)

The figures below show what the EPA estimates drivers will experience for fuel economy in "real world" driving situations. This version of the Toyota Tacoma 4WD gets up to 18 MPG on the highway, 15 MPG under city driving conditions, and an estimated combined rating of 16 MPG. Highway fuel economy is a full 20% better than city fuel economy.
Highway18 MPG
Combined16 MPG
City15 MPG

Engine

Cylinders:

6 Valves Per Cylinder:

4 Displacement:

4.0 Liters Guzzler:

No Turbo:

No Supercharged:

No Fuel Type:

Regular

The wrong way....or he has serious issues with his thermostat or engine. OP have you ever pulled your plugs and checked them? What mods are you running?

 

Oh and here is my window sticker that clearly states 16mpg city with a range of 13 - 19 for MOST drivers not all.

 

The V6 gets decent mileage going 35-45 mph. 30+ on flat ground isn't hard. Just a slight downhill and you're talking 40-50 mpg. Its the pulling the two tons of bulk up hills and up to speed that kills city mpg. As long as you know how to control how much you burn when you accelerate, only accelerate when you have to, and gain as much back as you can on downhill coasts or coasts to a stop, high teen averages frankly are quite easy to get.

Of course if you succumb to the rat race you should accept the added fuel cost.

 

Here's a few tricks ive found with my 4.0L

Light acceleration, but not so slow that it takes a long time to get up to speed, theres a fine line there.. too slow and you will burn more fuel than if you got up to speed a bit quicker.

On a cold start turn the climate control dial all the way over to cold, turn the windshield defrost off as the A/C compressor runs when it is on. I wait till my truck is up to full temperature before turning my heat on.

If you frequently cold start your truck, and make short trips only, forget about good MPG. But if that's all you are doing why even keep track, I fill my truck every 3.5 weeks or so.

Its a truck. If fuel economy was really important you should have bought a 2wd, 2.7L, 5spd. I still think about trading mine in on a brand new 5lug and buying an ATV with the savings, then I wont miss 4wd at all and I will have a nice brand new daily driver that I can still use for work.

 

Here in Alberta i get decent km's to a tank going Edmonton to cowtown but i like to coast as i drive manual it halps a little but seriously you didnt buy a truck for gas saveing? your best bet is CAI and a exhaust but really only helps with power, i also find i get a bit more km's when running 91 but i dont save any money doing so haha

 

How do you get away with filling every 3.5 weeks? i burn threw 2 tanks in 5 days haha by my #'s for me this is anywhere between $120-300 depending on what i do? even when i had my 4 danger 5 spd car i filled up min once a week with driving to work and doing running around...... so unless you drive your truck down the block and back once or twice a week i question the 3.5weeks between fill ups.

 

I do the same on cold starts, but I've found that selecting the center position with the arrow pointed down to your feet actually provides significant air flow to the windshield so that's all I use for defrost.

The 2wd 2.7l 5spd can get crazy good mpg. 60 mph yields well over 30 mpg.

I gas up every 5 weeks or so, usually 500 miles winter, 600+ summer.

 

For those with oversize tires, don't forget the impact of those.

Moving from a base 5-lugger stocker... 215/70-15... to a 31x9:00, introduces a speedo error of about 16%.
Not only does this impact your speedometer, but also the odometer.
For every 100 miles showing on the odometer, you actually went 116 miles.

So when you calculate your fuel usage, you went 200 miles on 16 gallons and you calculate 12.5, but in actuality you went 232 miles and your MPG was actually 14.5.

Of course, taller tires will absolutely slam fuel economy around town, and will help on the highway like having an extra overdrive.

 

Depends on how far you drive.

My daily commute is 45 miles each way, so I normally fill up every 3 or 4 days.