Smaller gas tank? Wow

Damn, only 18 gallons? What a shame. I might just have to keep my Tundra that has the 32 gallon tank, which I can stretch out to 600 miles on the hwy.

 

Love that the diff is already starting to rust

 

This time of year with winter blend gas and a loss of an mpg or two the range is going to be pretty bad. Under 300 miles before the fuel light comes on sucks.

 

Fortunately for me the GX I'm trading for gets 15 mpg. To add to the savings, it uses premium grade fuel. And it doesn't have or need stop/start to achieve these levels of efficiency. No feature compromises either because even with all these advancements they managed to retain the CD player.

 

Maybe spec'ing a small gas tank is Toyota's way of getting us used to short EV ranges. ;-). But really, this is a bad thing... the most negative thing I have seen in this roll out so far. But it might be enough to put me off of the Gen 4. It also seems totally unnecessary since the TNGA platform frame should have ample room for a larger tank. Wouldn't need to be 32 gallons like Tundra, but maybe 25 would be a good sweet spot.

 

Does the improved mpg balance out with the smaller tank, so range is similar or even improved? I do agree though that a larger tank is more convenient for owners and if there is space for one, use it. The cost of the extra tank metal is minimal.

 

I've actually considered the Long Range America 33 gallon tank but the price is crazy; I think it's over $2k to buy it and then you have to get it installed. But it sure would be nice to have the 33 gallon tank. One other problem I've read about in the thread about it is that the gas gauge doesn't reflect the added 12 gallons; once it reads empty you still have like 100 miles to go.

 

In defense of that, when my stock gas gauge says low fuel I only can get 17-18 gallons in too, implying another 45-75 miles to go!

 

From what I have read the data from the other vehicles where Toyota swapped the NA V-6 for a turbo 4 didn't show significant gains in real world MPG. Maybe Tacoma will do better? IDK. And the tanks are plastic, so are cheap and easy to mold in any shape.

 

I'm holding out hope that the MT will see significant real world mpg gains on the highway. Driving 75 I struggle to hit 18 mpg and I'm essentially stock.

The new gear ratios will bring the RPMs down a bit in top gear and maybe the aerodynamics are better.

18 mpg old vs 21 mpg new would pretty much be a wash range wise.

Edit: lol, of course they'd be a wash those mpg numbers are also the tank capacities

 

Interesting, I just drove my TRD Sport 6MT between the DC area and New Hampshire, not exactly the best place for a fuel economy run what with all of the metropolitan areas between the two; I drove ~75 for as much of the trip as I could, hitting 80 upon occasion, and slogging through traffic for maybe 50 of those miles, and still ended up with just over 21 mpg for the trip; I even got 410 miles out of the tank between Aberdeen, MD and Manchester, NH.

 

I was thinking this yesterday. I drove from Nashville to eastern Oklahoma (~500 miles) and at times mpg was below 16 going 70-75. Ended up averaging 16.9 over 500 miles. For comparison my 3.0 Duramax would get 24mpg going 75. Add in the fuel cost difference and it’s not that different. But my dads 6.2 Sierra gets 21 and has 400/450 which is mildly infuriating!

 

The designers probably thought they were going to get better fuel economy with the turbo 4 cylinder so they could get away with a smaller fuel tank. It seems like real world mpgs are producing little to no gains though over the previous motor though.

 

The 5.0 has a rubber belt located inside the oil pan that runs the oil pump. Pretty critical flaw in the design. The 2.7 ecoboost uses a chain. Just an FYI for anyone who thinks the V8 means reliability.

 

This is black magic to me. I distinctly remember getting below 14 MPG westbound on I80 in Wyoming. That was 80 mph, slight upgrade and a hell of a headwind. I was honestly impressed at how low it was. I've never hit 20 MPG when going 70 or higher.

 

LOL, I bet you would have hit upwards of 25 if you'd been going eastbound on I-80.

 

No real world gains on efficiency and lower max towing. More complication and less benefit in my eyes. Only upside of this truck for me is that I could get one and tune for more boost and blow it up WRX/ecoboost mustang style.

 

Look more closely at the towing thing. The 4wd trucks have the same rating as 3rd gens. The change was in the 2wd low trim trucks.

 

Thanks for the info, that is a little scary on the 5.O

 

The hybrid Max towing is 6000 lbs., looses 500 lbs vs the non.

Low trim wasn’t that much of a change. Base SR NA 4 cylinder always had 3500 lbs.

Wait until guys throw 35s on and blast down the interstate at 90. How many threads in the 3rd Gen section complaining about poor mpg? And now with less range.

Seems like people have been screaming for better mileage for decades, and Toyota fails to deliver (again)