MPG? FYI. Why Your Tacoma Gets What It Gets

I have finally read this thread start to finish. I like your update, I am also at about 20k and have checked my mpg most tanks using the trip and a calculator (17 sr ac 4x4 2.7 5 spd stock) and almost always exceed 25 mpg. Even towing my boat with a bed full of camping gear, never shifting into 5th across the state (mostly flat) I got over 20, which really surprised me. You seem to be getting about sticker advertised, me a bit better but maybe less city driving. Don't know why some others do so much worse.

 

It's all about driving habits and environment. Getting people to understand they are terrible drivers is a different story....

 

To reach 50% efficiency you have to go to extremes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGDJqTDXgtg

I think the Tacoma would be better served with a 2.5ish 4 cylinder turbo engine with a 8 speed transmission. Low end torque & good fuel economy if done correctly. Instead Toyota dropped engine displacement/added a gear & thought good enough LOL.

 

Waiting for it.

 

They increased the power output of the engine too.

 

Did you read the first post?

 

Go from this:


To this:



Less drag equal more MPG!!!

 

Hmmm my 2005 S60 with a 2.5L turbo and 5 speed auto gets the same 25 mpg mileage on my commute as my Taco with less weight and less drag. I would say Toyota did a fairly good job improving the mileage of this truck. To beat its mpg average for the smaller trucks I would have had to buy a diesel Canyon. The gas Canyon gets 1 mpg better on the highway but I would wager if I swapped to the same smaller tires and gearing I might get there too.

One thing to add on cylinder deactivation. While it seemed like a great idea when it came out on the GM products, the option has been nothing but a pain on some of my families older trucks. The rings on the deactivated cylinders have failed sooner than expected resulting in a rebuild job long before the time when the older lower tech trucks needed it. Now we get that option deleted asap when buying a GM truck new or used. The gas saved in no way makes up for the rebuild cost.

Auto shut off seems like a great idea too until you start reading threads about folks who do a lot of city driving complaining about dead or low battery voltage problems brought on by high electrical loads and the constant stop start of city driving. The new Volvos are hitting this all the time. Pass...

The GM 10 speed auto that selects gears based on demand is interesting and almost won me over but I went with the Taco for one simple reason. Toyota built the drivetrain for severe duty. Obviously not severe duty as in 3/4 or 1 ton severe duty but I would put this driveline up against any 1/2 ton for a longevity test under similar loads. That 10 speed is unproven and has an electrical component that might cause problems down the road. The taco should hopefully be bomb proof. One trip to the shop for a modern vehicle eats up a lot of gas savings

 

a turbo would have been nice but a larger rear end would've been the sweet spot for me

 

Honda has issues as well with cyl deactivation. Wife's Pilot rebuilt under warranty after rings on two cyls failed, oil fouling plugs. The Toyota system seems simple by comparison as its just an extreme adjustment in valve timing, and that system exists anyway.

 

Torque gets you going.
HP keeps you going.

Acceleration is the killer of MPG. Which is affected by how much acceleration (torque) is needed to get something going. With everything being the same as far as engine and specs, more mass means more umpfh needed. Umpfh uphill, against headwinds, with less aerodynamics, lead footed, and so on is the changing variable from person to person which is why many will vary. Umpfh eats gas, lowers the mpg. The only way to get the consistent gas mileage advertised is to drive it the way it was driven for the mpg testing and rating by the manufacturer under similar environment, and similar driver style. Couldn’t agree more with the OP. It’s not the vehicle, it’s the driver. But I will admit one thing, mpg testing is done in very unrealistic circumstances to maximize mpg and in return, sales marketing. They do not drive it the way we drive in normal circumstances, on purpose because the manufacturer’s goal is to state “what it COULD get” and try to attain the best numbers for mpg to put out. They won’t sell themselves short by driving it up hill, high altitude, while towing and put out those numbers out.

 

Don't think I agree with that as a general statement. Maybe some manufacturers overstate mpgs, but I don't feel Toyota did, at least on mine. I consistently exceed the highway rating as an average. I also had a Outback that would always get better then the sticker said. I don't trust the computers so figure out the mpgs the old way. Just traded the Outback for a Sienna (needed a new handicap vehicle) and with 1000 miles on it the computer is telling me that I am averaging 25.6 mpg which is about the highway rating. Next tank I'll check the old way but I guess it really doesn't matter, it is what it is.

Your mileage may vary.

 

I know at least some degree efficiency is important. But really folks....a DC 4x4 V6 Taco with at least one person in it and a full tank of gas will exceed 5K lbs in weight all day long. There's only so efficient that's going to be.

Degree of acceleration, cargo, pulling weight (trailer) altitude, aerodynamics, grade of road, etc., etc all impact efficiency.

I think people's expectations are often times not realistic. If you bought a 5K lb brick and think you should be able to hang with a Prius....you made a poor choice in vehicle.

 

Fair enough, but what's your city stop 'n' go like? Many can achieve or exceed manufacturer's highway ratings by putting cruise control on at 55-60 mph. However, the speed limits are almost always higher, and if not towing, would one want to be in the slow lane? I would have to wager most wouldn't.

 

chiming in with a 2.7 that was getting 23.3 mpg with me driving for 5k miles .wife driving local for last 2500 miles she get 18.8 (her car is a g37 x infiniti she seems to be hammering the gas from start up to shut off( phucking winen ruin shit.) the g37 get 20.7 with her in it my poor truck.

 

Ford makes Aluminuim frames.

 

Great post and very good (factual) info.

However, some people must be lead footed because the attached pic is my truck at half tank with lift, armor, winch, bigger heavier tires, OVtune etc.

 

I’m betting less than half the audience knows how much wood is in a cord, myself included.

 

But, a hogsheads and a buttload are (were) real units of measure also.

I like measuring by the half barrel, myself.

 

I owned a 1980 Toyota Hilux, 2WD, standard cab, standard length bed, 20R engine, carburated, and 4 speed manual transmission. I owned it from 1986 - 1996, put around 110,000 miles on it, and checked my fuel economy by hand at every fill up. I averaged 18 +/- 0.5 MPG over all those miles. Hardly ever hauled anything, never towed anything, bone stock, including tires.

You can see in my .sig what my 2017 Off Road gets after 25K miles, V6, 6 speed manual trans, bone stock including tires, never hauled or towed anything yet.

Our neighbor in Los Angeles when I was a kid, in the very early 1980's, had a Dodge Colt, which was really a Japanese car from one of the manufacturers (I don't know which), little 3 or 4 cylinder engine. He drove to Portland, OR all the time for work in that car. He always claimed he got 40 - 42 MPG. I have no way to verify that, or course.

I just wish for the lack of fuel economy, we would at least get some serious power out of these engines