MPG? FYI. Why Your Tacoma Gets What It Gets

Well said OP, I’m hip!

The one thing I don’t understand about all these mpg complaint posts…Didn’t these posters read the big estimated mpg statement attached to the window before they bought the truck???

I mean, really! I really don’t get it.

The truck easily meets or exceeds (my case) those estimates. What were they thinking or expecting?? Double the mileage somehow?? lol!!

Oh well, another FuN day here @TW



Enjoy!
Cheers!

 

Ya meet the nicest people on a Honda...

 

Well, as a person who's started an MPG thread (looking for tire recommendations), one that OP spent a good amount of time on, no less, I feel a need to come to my own defense.

I can't argue with physics, I don't disagree with the major points of OP's post, but I feel that there is a significant element missing from his equation. I don't know what it is, but I suspect it's the 'smart' transmission.

Here's where my frustration lies. I had an '08 tacoma and now I have a '17 tacoma. The '08 was 2wd manual and the '17 is 4wd auto. I knew I was adding weight, but I read the sticker on the window and it looked like it was going to largely work out.

I got 24mpg combo in the '08. And that was as a 25 year-old who got regular speeding tickets and raced through the mountains all day. I get 17mpg highway in my '17. 17! If I got 21 like OP described I'd feel great. The most significant potential difference between my truck and OP's would be, of course, driving habits, and mine very well might not be as fastidious as Mr Flow's, but I feel that if I could get high-sticker out of my '08 when I was younger, dumber and in way more of a hurry all day, they can't be that much worse now.

So I'm frustrated. There's something screwy going on here. Physics are physics, but something else is lurking in these numbers.

 

yea...just as fake as iHOB vs iHOP

 

This depends on what the actual overall ratio is when cruising, or more specifically, what the engine RPM is when cruising. My MT Taco is around 2k at 60mph. If the overall ratio of these 10 gear wonders is not better than that, then . . .

Outside of MPG discussions, these many gear ATs tend to be very annoying to the driver. Constant hunting and large delays when downshifting for power.

 

In my experience, I can hit or exceed the MPG ratings with MT cars while driving them harder than the test methods. AT ratings seems to be an elusive target that never really happens unless on a long road trip using only cruise control.

 

One final note from me.

MPG threads pop up more during times of rising fuel costs. My best advice, esp if you feel the Taco could use a small boost, fill up at freaking Costco. Just buying gas there is worth the cost of the Executive Membership ($130/yr?). Get the Costco Citi card **, get 4% back on fuel no matter where you buy it. Right now, regular gas in my area is $3.50/gal. Costco is $3.05. Add in the percent back. . . Not only are you saving, but I'm on target to get more than the membership price back and I drive / ride only about 12k/yr.

Just some thoughts.

** Another nice thing with this card is that it is also the membership card to get you in the door. So, it eliminates one card from your wallet.

 

I was hoping for better MPGs but my wife weighs 550lbs. Suggestions?

 

Not a particular Ridgeline advocate. And lets set the whole 'looks' thing aside a moment.

The Ridgeline would likely meet the needs of 60% of new Tacoma owners. People, pavement, snow, HD mulch, bikes, gravel camping.

In fact a Sienna or Oddesy in AWD trim would do the same, some of it even better. Add in a budget friendly utility trailer and you're all set.

So for those who fret over what the Tacoma doesn't do, do you really need it for what you do do? Leather, moonroofs, glitzy paint, dual AC, all nice 'features', but are they really required in a truck?

Yes they are choices. I get it. Enjoy what you chose, or pick other options. Some folks run multiple purposeful vehicles (sedan, small truck, sports car) used, for less than one new compromised something.

As @hiPSI says, every choice in a vehicle is a compromise to something else. Choose well.

@hiPSI thanks for some practical perspective on actual design operation.

 

Yup. Lifes too short to drive too slow.

 

Mine only gets 18-19. I got 20 on a tank one time because the majority of the road trip was 70mph and i didnt use cruise.
2.7 DCSB Prerunner
265/65-17 tires

 

All those "tricks" cost money. When you go full size, you are paying for more MPG tech. Auto companies don't like the thought of a less profitable smaller truck being the bread-earner for their company so they punish you on MPG's.

 

Have you driven a 10 speed truck? never experienced the hunting or rapid downshifting.

 

Don’t sweat it, just drive it. If all conditions were equal, you would get better MPGs, but they’re almost never equal. I enjoy my truck when I’m burning the max amount of fuel it seems, so that’s what I do.

 

I just have to weigh in here . I did drive a Ford 10 Spd , before I bought the 16 Tacoma . One might think the Ford 10 spd starts at 0mph and shifts thru all 10 gears . From what I felt , it does not . I depends on how much gas pedal is used as it seems to skip gears as needed on the way up and down .
It also has at least 3 different driving modes , eco, towing and sport if I remember correctly , and each depended on how the gas was used . It , to me seemed smooth at the time for a 10 min. drive. If programed correctly a 10 spd trans seems the way to go as compared to the Tacoma's 4spd with 2 overdrives .
Also , one big problem for truck makers for the USA is the macho look of the truck . We seem to need a flat square manly mean looking front end , and this is NOT what better mpg's needs lol. Ford tried a rounder front end some years back and went back to square . The Hilux is a rounded front , the new Ranger is rounded etc.
Is it time for USA truck makers offer the kickass macho square front version truck , and the aerodynamic version for the gas mileage conscious drivers that need a truck but do not want to pay for extra gas for the ego trip ? I bet every business or fleet owner would opt for the rounded ugly .I have to admit we bought the Tacoma for mostly the cult reputation and resale , but also because it looked good. Even the wife likes the look and says it looks mean .
Lastly , OP @hiPSI did not mention as far as I read , a little extra air pressure in the tires can make a big difference in mpg. Do the chalk test and maybe add a bit extra for the highway .

 

You went from a two wheel drive to a four, your going to lose mpgs right there. Was the 08 a four cylinder?

 

It's been a while for me too. College was ten years ago for me. But that's something that stuck out in my mind. That when we calculated the output of an engine based on how much air and fuel was being burned, you could throw out the fuel part of the equation and still get the right answer.

While some things burn hotter than others, this is because they consume more oxygen. Just like how you can deny a fire oxygen and it becomes small, but blow more oxygen onto it and it get's much bigger. You are right that not ALL the energy comes from oxygen, just that the amount coming from the fuel is so small as to be negligible.

Yes, turbos also require more fuel to be added, but I suppose my point (and I guess this wasn't clearly stated), is that to get enough air to make a difference, you need to bolt on a huge air pump, whereas the overhead in the fuel pump/injectors is fine (up until a point of course).

As far as burning hydrogen for water.... hooooo boy that would be an energy intensive process for an incredibly small amount of water. My mother taught high school chemistry and one of her demonstrations was just that. You get a huge explosion and the vessel is a little damp. Definitely impresses the kids.

 

I knew I was going to lose MPG, as I said in my post, I had done my homework before buying the truck and knew exactly what I was supposed to get. My frustration is that I'm missing the sticker ratings, and fellow identical tacoma owner ratings, by so darn much when I was able to nail the max ratings on my previous truck (of the same model and with (I'd hoped) 9 years less engineering) without trying.

**Edit** I guess I didn't explicitly say I knew I was going to lose MPG, I meant to imply it when I said I knew I was adding weight**

 

I'd like to get 17 mpg average.