Mpg vs smiles per gallon

Which do you prefer?

 

One leads to the other.

 

At my age, and financial situation, I have the "luxury" of caring far more about smiles per gallon. In the 37 years I have owned vehicles, the only 3 I have ever owned that got >20 miles per gallon were my motorcycles and my VW Passat TDI. I don't expect I will ever see the day the U.S. will allow sales of truly efficient internal combustion engine powered vehicles.

If someone offered me the keys to a 2023 Prius for free, or a Dodge Challenger Demon with a $500/month payment, I would not even consider the Prius. I can make more money for gas, car payment, insurance.... but I can't make with a Prius or any other Energizer Bunny powered toy.

This is purely my perspective. Others' mileage may vary.

 

Smiles per Gallon. Otherwise we might all be in cybertrucks soon. Those things are awful... It is also the reason I had a Camaro rather than a Subaru Legacy prior to my Tacoma! A smile on the ride in and out of work Makes for a better transition on either end!

 

Smiles per gallon are easily attained on motorcycles and several sports cars. That being said, I enjoy driving my Tacoma because it’s a manual transmission. I don’t buy a truck for mpg concern. It is a tool for a purpose.

 

I am confused I have no idea what smiles per gallon are.

So I defer to miles per gallon.

 

Driving is one of the few things I do for my own enjoyment - as long as I enjoy what I'm driving I don't really worry about mpg.

 

With the price of gas here being 5$ to 8$ per gallon. I am left with these choices, smile and drive or try to pinch every penny.

 

MPGs all day long. No question. I need the tank range living in the west.

More people need to understand this chart:

 

Get KDMax then you can have both

 

Range has been pretty standard across the board for ICE engines for some time. Most folks do not need to understand that chart as they can get in most full tanked vehicles and expect around 300 miles with reasonable variance for type of vehicle. Range isn't a metric that is advertised. That is now changing and absolutely everyone is worried about range on an electric vehicle.

 

Especially when companies like Tesla inflate the range on the dash for the first half of your reserve then, magically, revert back to more realistic projections on your way down to zero. Or the "range" of your front tires on a Rivian when put in economy mode, whatever that is - well, it shuts off the rear drive motors and only uses the fronts and reduces the "range" of your front tires to around six thousand miles. And these are just the stories in the news in the last two weeks.

Shockingly to me, well, not really, last week when we had to detour through Yosemite on our way home to L.A. from the eastern Sierras, and climbing over Tioga Pass, climbing out of Yosemite Valley and finally over the Grapevine on Interstate 5 all while driving mostly between 40 and 50 mph to avoid hydroplaning on the heavily soaked highways, the DCLB loaded with photo gear and weighing well over 5000 pounds got just a tick over 28 mpg on the trip home. That's the best I've seen from this truck so far and I don't normally drive that slow but it's good to know that if you do slow down the number really do go up.

 

Tank range matters where I go, deep in the middle of nowhere. It always has and probably always will. It has nothing to do with electric vehicles.

Also your math is incorrect. The Tacoma can easily be brought below 300 mi range.

14 mpg range: 294 mi
18 mpg range: 378 mi

MPG makes a difference. I swear some of you need to visit Wyoming more.

 

At 35k miles per year and gas prices the way they are, MPG is preferred.

 

I bought a stick, so that intrinsically made my choice for me.

But on the road the Tacoma is not a fun vehicle. It’s driving dynamics are fine, but it’s not an inspiring or communicative vehicle to be behind the wheel of. It’s also big and long. The stick just kind of makes it bearable.

This purchase for me was about where it could take me and how it could get me there without destroying my back, not about the emotions evoked by pedaling it.

I have a heavily modded twin turbo bmw for when I want smiles per gallon. And for the record, that car making 450hp on ethanol gets better fuel economy than the Tacoma.

 

I prioritize "smiles." I bought the 4Runner (and 2 previous 4Runners and Tacoma) for camping, towing, hauling, and off-roading. I have always been fine with the fuel economy.

That said, if I can get better mileage without sacrificing other things, I'll gladly take it. This is why I will often take a scenic route on 55 MPH highways instead of the freeway if I'm not in a hurry. Taking the scenic route is generally more relaxing and enjoyable overall, so this actually increases both factors.

 

All on the Taco? That adds up fast!

I put about 22-23K on my 4Runner, and about 25K on my work truck. Thankfully, fuel is provided for the work truck! I occasionally estimate how much I've spent on fuel for the 4Runner, and then I suddenly need a drink.

 

My mileage in every vehicle I drive tends to be between 7mpg and at best 14mpg with a very strong tail wind.

For the last 25 years.