My 17 Taco gas mileage sucks!

That would be my expectation for a stock Sport.

 

I get 19 - 19.5 at those speeds. Before my truck was fully broken in I got about 3 mpgs less so I was probably close to 16. My mileage definitely improved up to 5k. A service writer at the dealer said a buddy had a Tundra and it went up to 10k. Of course if you get to 19 then you are not better than the 4.0. With not significant MPG improvement I will take the 4.0 versus the 3.5

 

I'm in transit right now- 1,700 miles from Montana to Ohio. First leg Helena to Billings, all high speed 80mph, no load- 14 mpg

 

Either you have very aggressive tires, something is fucking wrong with your truck and you should take it to a dealer, or you don't know how to drive. I'm sure you're a good driver so..... ?

I just went to Ocotillo wells back to back weekends, 1,000lb total load (dirtbike, gas, food, people, dogs), and I got 16mpg my truck isn't even broken in, I have a 4x4 offroad doesn't get worst for stock mpg, and I do not drive slow as proven by the speeding ticket I got on the way back

Yes I'm disappointed I'm not getting 25mpg average but I went from 16mpg average in my gen1 and gen2 to an 18mpg average in my gen3. I'll take it

 

Chrysler products can "disable" active cylinders from firing thus increasing MPG.

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-Displacement_System

 

4x4 sport and im getting 23.5 at 60mph and at 80mph i consistently get around 20.8.

Give it some time.

 

Yes, use everything to get up to speed then cut back to maintain, kind of like what we should do to get better mpgs

 

Yeah but that Hemi also has cylinder shut down doesn't it? And a lot more torque and horsepower. And a different transmission, and, and...

 

You got the offroad not the sr5 right?? Again its about doing research, if MPG was important to you you would've avoided the offroad. EPA standards don't dictate separate tests for different trim levels so not really Toyotas fault for not doing something that is not required of them. But a little research would tell you the SR5 has a lower/more aerodynamic ride height, less aggressive/more mpg efficient tires, and it has a front air dam instead of a skid plate which helps highway mileage. All of these things put together and the result is in the REAL WORLD the SR5 will get better mileage than the TRD Off Road ESPECIALLY on the freeway.

Common sense when you lift a truck, add offroad tires, and remove aerodynamic improvements your MPG is going to suffer.... that's the exact difference between an SR5 and Offroad. Yes Toyota doesn't go around advertising that because legally you don't have to and no other company does, they also don't advertise the fact that an Toneau cover improves MPG and a roof rack hurts it.... If they advertised every little difference with every trim and accessory not only would it cost Millions of dollars in testing but almost every truck would have a different sticker including ones with dealer added accessories.... it would be chaos.

 

Some people are never satisfied, go trade the SOB in

 

Reported for aggressive language.

 

Have any idea what that does to wear and tear?? No thank you, I'll take the 1mpg penalty and keep my engines running well into the 200k range.

Same with the stupid "start-stop" features at idle. You know BMW spent millions on R&D to design special laser/etched/special coated blah blah blah on the lower bearings to prevent premature wear from the start-stop feature??? Even then they're STILL seeing early wear on cars with this feature. You think Hyundai/Kia/Nissan mainstream MFGs went out of their way to do the same?? Doubt it....

 

Oh I believe you man, but this could explain why he was getting better MPG on his Ram vs the new Tacoma also.

 

Your comment makes so much more sense in context, I just blindly replied when I saw a post about Chrysler (which I hate) and cylinder deactivation (which I dislike), I didn't think or look into context I just responded lol

 

New 2017 SR5 Access cab 4x4 and I'm on my first tank. I'm getting the advertised 21mpg combined. I took it to our cabin near Yosemite last week and have been driving freeway at 70 and around town. My tranny has none of the 2016 tranny issues I've read about. In the mountains I shift it manually and it works great. The trannies shift points are perfect in my truck. If you have one of the hunting trannies that could effect mileage ,shifting around too much.

 

2017 TRD/ORAC here....solid 20 mph ...800 mi so far on the truck . My commute to work is 12 mi each way ,not too many lights under 50 mph. I don't get out much. I can't afford it.

 

I wonder how much of this is "Flat vs Hill/aggressive pitch" driving. When you post your MPH can you describe the type of driving you do? I live in socal at the beach and where I am its kinda hilly and stop and go traffic, I believe these trucks are not great on hills, maybe that loss of low end torque has us hitting the gas just to stay at constant speed killing our mpg. I have got 13.5 ish mpg on about 2400 miles since I got the truck. some highway driving too

 

"Highway" driving isn't what most of us do on the highway. Highway driving is 60 mph, on a flat road, no wind, and no slowing down and speeding up in traffic. Just because you are physically on a highway, don't think you are going to get anywhere close to the highway ratings. You need to be going a constant speed below most highway limits without an incline. This is why they now give you a combined MPG estimate on the windshield. I view the highway rating like I view Big Foot. I know it exists, I just haven't seen one YET. And don't tell me they don't exist. If they didn't exist, why would the "History Channel" run finding bigfoot shows?