My 17 Taco gas mileage sucks!

No truck, or car gets the MPG that's rated on the window sticker at 70-80 miles per hour. Those are based on 60 miles per hour. The only exception would be a diesel powered rig. With a gas motor, you will loose 30% of your fuel economy at 80 miles per hour. It does suck that a Tacoma gets about the same mileage as a full sized truck, but other than an Eco-diesel Ram or Diesel Colorado, nobody gets good mileage.

 

I don't get QUITE that bad, but it's really close. Stock 16' Sport AC 6spd, and on the longest 600+ mile all highway trips I average just over 20, and in town, I'm lucky to get 15. I'm pretty easy on the gas as well. Not really impressed with the MPG, love my truck though.

*This is with 6k+ miles on the truck. I haven't seen any improvement what so ever since I bought it

 

I have a similar setup as you with Ko's and I get 14-15. I'm in constant traffic speeding up and slowing down all the time. I'd love to get 17, but I'm too impatient, and I know it's MY FAULT.

 

That's a fact........

 

Him ignoring you is a fact. Modern vehicles being designed for mpgs around 80mph? BS. Take some physics courses and see what wind resistance does relative to surface area and mass does relative to inertia.

 

My Ram was a regular cab R/T with the Hemi, 2 wheel drive. I drove it back and forth to work for over a year, average spped on the interstate was 79mph. a few city miles here and there and I averaged 17mpg on every tank, so no BS, proven fact of ownership!

 

Then it would have gotten much better mileage at 60. People complaining that they aren't getting the mileage promised, but are driving 80 miles per hour is as old as EPA mileage estimates. No vehicle gets close to the same mileage at 60 and 80. The more aerodynamic the car is (Corvette) the smaller the difference.

 

No, that is not a fact.

That's you're opinion...

Show me detailed evidence that shows the EPA estimated Tacoma numbers (or any numbers for that matter) are tested for 80mph and above.

 

Here are the test conditions the EPA uses.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml

 

Is this for real? Compares full size, v8s, suv, and cars to a v6 mid size? Granted a DC tacoma isn't too much smaller than some full sizes, but your driving style is not going to get you near 20+mpgs. You also have to realize that this 3.5, like you said, is a smaller engine making less power with all of the torque up top. Full size trucks with the v8 are making more power to push a truck that is pretty close to the same size we have for our mid size. Get the fuck over yourself with that bull shit you are posting. You will not get the rated 20 driving at 80 on the highway. It's hilarious that you are saying Toyota is lying and is shit. You come up here with less than 10 posts and compare apples to oranges. Oh and before you pull the me being a fanboy card, I'm actually going to be trading mine in within the next year if not sooner to a full size due to needs changing. It will be a Silverado so that rules out the fanboy card. I think, and I'm sure many will agree, you are the one full of shit, not Toyota.

 

Well this thread is a mess!

Anyway, yes milage isn't that good over 60 MPH, yes it doesn't have much low end torque, yes it has to downshift a lot. Yes a V8 full size can be more efficient by making more power and not working as hard.

I average about 17.5 on any given trip over the last few months. My fuelly badge shows every fill up this year from March to now though I haven't driven it in two weeks since it's been at the dealer. I can hit mid 20's with a tailwind going 55, or 14 on the highway going 80. Just how it is.

On the other hand my 2002 Camaro SS with a 5.7L LS1 gets low 20's combined average and can hit mid 20's going 80 MPH down the turnpike no problem. It's also very aerodynamic and has a much better power to weight ratio than the Taco does. It'll also hit 162 MPH but don't ask about that one.

Now if only I could just combine the two, but such a thing doesn't really exist. Unless someone shoved a new EcoBoost engine in the Tacoma then you'd probably be fine. But that's not happening so we just have to deal with what we have.

All that being said. My 2009 Tundra with the 5.7L averaged 14.7 combined. And in city driving I could see as low as 12.5 MPG and the highest I ever recorded was a 300 mile highway trip and I got 16.7 MPG. So in that case, I do get better milage than my full size. But that's the Tundra which is pretty bad on gas. My dads Suburban (V8) did 21 MPG over 2,000 miles in Colorado and back into Kansas. To me that was pretty impressive.

 

Yep. Says right there at the top right "average speed = 80 MPH, maximum speed = 80 MPH."

Totes.

 

My 2014 Stingray gets 34.7mpg at 75mph. I don't set the cruise to 80 very often so I am not sure about the mpg at that speed. My 4Runner only gets 20mpg running down the freeway at 70 or 75. Live is too short to run around Texas at lower speeds.

 

I see a wide difference in similar 2016 /17 tacomas for MPGs. . I am in the middle . Best is 23 at 60mph with air off and 19.5 at 70+ mph. For those at much lower , maybe an alignment check and brake drag check may show some problems ? I use 87 octane 10 %ethanol top tier fuel , have a DCLB , auto ,with a shell , and have 2 people in when tested . I have not matched my mileage to freeway mile markers or external gps . I have stock 265 70 16 tires on my OR . These are all factors to consider .
I will check my odometer to an external Garmin GPS to see if there is a difference . P
Anyone with only 14 or 15 on highway driving at 60 mph must have another problem causing it ?

 

It's all about the tire pressure! Pump them UP!

 

Good point ! another variable to compare .
I am taking a known 120 round trip mile route tomorrow but now have 17.3 gallons of non ethanol fuel topped off in the tank for the first time . I do not want to add another variable to check it to my trip .
One thing that bothers me is that on down hills ( very hilly area ), my truck gains much more speed in N as compared to leaving it in auto. I would think Toyota would use this to their advantage for advertised MPG's .

 

I drive mostly city with a little interstate and after 3 fill ups (800 miles or so) I'm averaging 21.x mpg.

 

When I baby it I get 17.5 city driving. Get 16 hauling ass. I stop worrying about gas mileage in this truck because it doesn't get much better.

 

I have a bar of soap for you young immature mouth! Post your opinion, that's fine, but really! Is the language necessary? Grow up!

 

Nope. Can't even imagine the source of such dis-information.

They are designed to sync up max results with EPA standards (your tax dollars at work). Since fleet MPG is a driving design force, that's even simple logic for anyone that ever looks at a trade pub or even a newspaper. And you are a salesman? Maybe that's the issue?

Anyway, so what are those standards you might ask? 60mph top speed for the hwy portion, with an average of 48 or so mph. (click on the test details tab)

After you are broken in, try running at 60 and see how you fare, compared to the EPA numbers.