MPG 2024 Tacoma Pro

The tundra is a full thousand pounds heavier

 

It's .3L larger but still a 4 cylinder. Actually puts out less hp/L than the iForce but way more torque.

 

They do not spare the adjectives. Turbo Max High Output. Mostest turboification torque berserker pig killer.

 

I wonder if the 136Tq/L vs 159Tq/L is due to engine design or Toyota just being conservative with their tuning.

 

Close to same stroke (99.5 vs 102mm) so I’d imagine mostly the latter. But rod length and other shit could contribute quite a bit

 

I lump all the turbo 4s together as they are close in power. I'm saying they all have to work to move these heavy trucks and that will come at the cost of fuel economy. The T4s are enough for their applications.

 

In conclusion:

1) People use more power when they pay for more power.
2) More power uses more fuel.
3) Somewhat more power uses slightly more fuel than a lot more power. You could have a lot more power, but then you would use it, but it wouldn't use more fuel.
4) We don't want to talk about weight, even though all of that extra weight is offsetting the extra power and using more fuel with no benefit.

 

Phew...

1. That depends, but maybe.
2. Duh. That's physics. At least when we're talking about making power at the same thermal efficiency and moving about the same mass objects with the same cross-sectional areas over the same terrain with the same weather conditions.
3. That's not true at all and I challenge you to cite your source. There's a ton of factors that influence how much power an engine makes using a particular mass of fuel and most of them are unrelated to cylinder count.
4. This is absolutely true.

 

What about a 7.3 Godzilla V8 compared to a 6.7 Powerstroke turbo diesel. That V8 is going to burn more fuel than the diesel and the diesel has less displacement and a turbo and weighs more. The only thing I can say for certain is the diesel is at least a $10k option.

 

Diesel is more energy dense than gasoline. That combined with differences in how the engines are designed with vastly different design cylinder pressures, it cannot be not a direct comparison.

 

I cited Fuelly on page 2. 405HP Raptor: 16.3MPG. Tacoma Hybrid: 16.1MPG.

 

Yeah not much of comparison being different fuel. I don't what I would be trying to prove or disprove with that comparison. Only that both engines are offered on Super Duties and there are many differences. I think Ford has a super charged 7.3 crate motor that can be purchased.

Take the 2.7 in my Tacoma and compare it to the 2.4 t, the 2.7 should get better fuel economy but the 2.4t is going to be way quicker and only slightly worse on fuel.

 

2) Where is that power coming from?
4) Extra weight

I'll start with the extra weight. Hybrid weighs 400lb more. DOE.GOV says an extra 100lb reduces fuel economy by 1-2%. Obviously 400lb extra in a 3,000lb would have more of an effect than 400lb in a 4,600ln Tacoma. Using 1.1% gives us a nice round 1.0mpg difference for the Tacoma.

Now the power. Ever had to push a vehicle? Getting it moving requires the most work, then it gets easier. How much gas is the ICE using for that initial movement vs a hybrid? Tooling around the parking lot looking for an open space, how much gas is the hybrid burning? If your "butt dyno" thinks normal city acceleration to 45mph is 10 seconds (I'm sure it can do it faster, but I'm talking normal driving) and that takes, I don't know, 200hp. If you can accelerate at the same rate using 152hp from the ICE and 48hp from the motor, you're going to use less gas.

 

My girls 24 off road gets roughly 15-16, I am blaming it on tire size but we will wait and see since its still a new truck and lots of things are under question. We will going to trade it in for 4runner 2 years from now on

 

Let me try again: The 326 HP Tacoma Hybrid gets worse MPG in the real world than the 405HP, non-hybrid Ranger Raptor. The Tacoma Pro Hybrid is also 900lbs heavier than the 2023 3G model, so that explains why it gets worse MPG than the outgoing model. Sad.

From C&D:
"With our test equipment installed, the TRD Off-Road model ambled to 60 mph in 7.6 seconds, with the TRD Pro behind it by 0.1 second. The TRD twins' times trail those of the quickest nonhybrid 2024 Tacoma we tested by nearly a second, and they lag behind Chevy's Colorado ZR2 models as well. The 405-hp Ford Ranger Raptor, with its 5.3-second sprint to 60 mph, is a rocket by comparison."

So you pay extra for slower, heavier, worse MPG.

 

Hopefully a little better when summer gas comes back

2024 Tacoma Off-road I-Force Max (Hybrid) 275/70/18 K02, no air dam

 

I’ve dropped to 18.2 in my truck since I got it tuned but I’ve increased smiles/gallon to compensate.

 

Are the same people driving the Raptors and the Tacoma Hybrids? No, so "real world" isn't standardized. Even if it was the same drivers, they may enjoy the hybrid torque so much they drive with a heavier foot. Which leads to why does everyone who drives the Hybrid say the extra torque is so awesome. It feels faster but isn't faster? Toyota doesn't put out 0-60 numbers and C&D (I believe) tested the same day and with the same drivers/standards so I'm inclined to believe them but clearly it doesn't make sense.

Tell us then, why does the Hybrid get less mpg? Did Toyota lie?

 

Already answered: it weighs HUNDREDS of pounds more than the non-hybrid version, and 900 lbs more than the previous model.

 

I'm pretty sure Toyota knew how much it weighed when they did the EPA testing.