Manual transmission Fan Club and BS thread (All Generations Welcome)

I just averaged 21-22 mpg over 600 miles at 70 mph this past weekend

 

That's no different with the AT. It is the shape of the truck at that speed. I would bet on 1mpg difference on average, stock to stock.

 

Finally got around to lubing the spring on the clutch pedal. Holy hell it is so much nicer without that damn squeaking. There's a little bit left on and off that I can't seem to pinpoint though. It was still there after greasing it last night but gone this morning so we'll see. I also hit the rubber dust seal that the rod goes through, not sure if that helped or not. Didn't hit the actual pivot point since I was a few beers deep and it didn't look too accessible

 

Those long wooden Q-Tips and a little disc brake grease is about the easiest way. I also found pushing the clutch pedal in and out with my left hand allows better access too.

 

Thanks for the tip about the Q-tips! And I did push the clutch several times to get the grease in there and get access but damn that pivot is up there.

 

Even 1 MPG is a 4-5% difference which to me is significant. That's 20 miles on a full tank.

Math wise, with a final drive of 2.27:1 in the automatic vs the manual at 3.053:1, the engine is going to spin significantly faster and work quite a bit harder at a higher speed in the manual version of our truck. Based on the math, EPA numbers and just general reading around here, it doesn't seem farfetched that an AT truck gets 2-3 MPGs more than the MT.

 

My real world numbers say otherwise. I get 2-3 more mpg in my MT than my auto did. This motor likes to rev. If I run around 2500 rpm, that seems to be the sweet spot.

the 3.5 doesn’t make enough power for the AT trying to run at 1800 rpm

 

I said within.

It is not all math though. The AT struggles to stay in 6th stock. A lot of folks report general running in 4th. They're often running numerically lower just to keep chugging with the 3.909 gears. Peeps who go to 5.29s are just under our gearing, report better MPGs, and actually see 6th.

Sure, our 6th could be a touch taller, but there is some real goodness in our MT ratios and 4.30 gears.

 

I get the same mpgs as my buddys 19 AT OR.

In the city mine is a bit better sometimes but in general its pretty much the same. We both drive pretty aggresively at times.

 

I actually like 6th as it is; a bit lower than the autos. Even with 285/70/17 it still has some passing power at highway speeds and I don't need to downshift until I hit a decent hill or need to get moving quicker.

 

Mpg's.... Gearing.... Meh.... All I know is my 2020 MT drives better then the 2018 AT I traded in.

 

The 285s would probably put it where I would think it is ideal. Still with 265/70R17s, 60 at 2k is nothing to sneeze at.

Between @Shellshock, @Mrtacoman88, and you, I'd call that confirmed.

 

It just seems that in threads like this...

https://www.tacomaworld.com/threads/3rd-gen-gas-mileage-sweet-spot.528533/page-5

that autos are getting consistently higher numbers.

MY tC was the same way. Amazing gas mileage at 45MPH. 5th gear screamed like a banshee down the highway at 60-70MPH.

 

You will see MPGs scattered all over the 3rd Gen section. ATs and MTs will see 15 to 22 average. Way too many variables.

I keep hoping that fuelly would split out the transmissions for admittedly more concrete data.


Just as an example, here's my MPGs since new. There's a story behind every tank and every trend. In the end, I am liking my current situation.

 

Also 4 cylinder, different ratios right? I think I read that somewhere. I sometimes wonder what mileage we'd see with an I4 MT AC all leaned out? They sold 3rd gens like that for a year or two? Or am I totally making that up. I test drove a 2020 I4 SR w AT, it was quite underwhelming, but I think with MT it wouldn't have been half bad.

 

Gearing linked below.

Yep. In 2016 and 2017, you could get an SR 2.7l 5MT. The final drive ratios were swapped compared to the 3.5l.

 

Ah, that's right, 5MT. So with a 6 MT gearbox, at 70-75MPH for a long highway trip, one wonders how it'd compare MPG-wise to the v6.

 

Sorry, but feeling a bit lazy about punching in the specifics at the ratio site:
http://www.grimmjeeper.com/gears.html

I've only messed with the 3.5l numbers when thinking about tires and such.

I know some folks that are really happy with the 2.7l MTs but are also hoping for a bit of OVT love.