Why all threads over MPG ???

Who cares. You're talking about Ridgeline vs Tacoma. You should just buy the Ridgeline and be happy.

 

Yeah. Your snarling reply captures Toyota's attitude precisely. I mean, why improve your products at all when you can just slightly facelift your 2nd generation truck and call it the all new 3rd generation? Know who else acted the same way? GM, back in the day when they ran the whole show. Well, that's long gone, and it'll be Toyota's turn, too.

 

Not sure where you got that number. Their long term test Ridgeline has averaged 20mpg over 30,000+ miles. They did say they were able to get 28mpg on a strictly highway trip, but nowhere near 33mpg.

 

We've heard that before and yet the Tacoma keeps outselling everyone by huge margins. Guess Toyota will never learn.....

 

I think he got it from this. “During our 200-mile highway fuel-economy test, the Ridgeline exceeded its highway rating by a significant 3 mpg.” From here https://www.caranddriver.com/honda/ridgeline. But that would put it at around 28mpg Highway, still a good number.

 

Better than the 16mpg my taco got on the Highway.

The whole thing about mpg, in my opinion isn't so much the cost of fuel savings. It's the blatant lying about hwy fuel economy.

If you're on a highway where the limit is 55mph, perfect! 25-27 mpg all day long on the flat.

Minor headwind? Wanna go 70mph? 16-17mpg if you're lucky. Erratic shifting to boot. And holy fuck that makes a difference when gas is 4.88/GALLON where i live. (Usually 4.20ish)

There should be a class action, Ford is up against one right now:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.detroitnews.com/amp/1131809001

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.detroitnews.com/amp/1131809001

 

That is not true, with stock tires I was getting great highway mpg at even 75mph, iy was very common for me to get 23-25.

Even got 25.5mpg on a 100 mile trip and 23.5mpg on the way back, and 22.5mpg on a trip to florida with 500 pounds on the bed.

Once I got bigger and heavier 265 70 17 falken tires, it went down 1-2mpg.

If you live in a place with lots of hills and larger, heavier tires with more rolling resistance it's gonna go down obviously. Then some have a heavier foot than others.

 

Driving style and driving environment will always equal your mpg. Your description of driving conditions describes perfectly what you should expect. Instead of unrealistically expecting great mpg no matter what the conditions are, you should research how mpg estimates are arrived at.
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/ratings.shtml

 

Excuse me? My description of driving conditions?

You mean the conditions that everyone who commutes anywhere drives everyday? 55-70mph on the hwy?

I drove as light on the gas as possible, in stock tires with the only addition to my vehicle being 80lbs of aluminum bed rack and tonneau cover.

Its not unrealistic to expect a truck with a sixth goddamn gear to get the same economy at 65-70 as it did at 55.

My 2003 4runner gets the same economy as the tacoma did, with one less gear to boot. And got 1.5mpg difference in economy between 55-70mph.

 

The Ridgeline, Pilot, (Now) Passport, and Odyssey are the same platform. The Tacoma is a true ladder frame Truck, whereas the Ridgeline is a unibody crossover with a bed.. Apples to Oranges. Car & Drive and all of the yuppie (I went there) magazine editors slam the Tacoma because it rides like a truck and praises the Ridgeline because it rides like a crossover.. Well the Ridgeline is a crossover and the Tacoma is a truck. So what's your point? Same goes for MPG. The Tacoma gets truck MPG and the Ridgeline gets crossover MPG. Even Ford is under investigation over the Ranger because of MPG numbers, no one is getting any where near where it's rated. If you want a truck that gets good MPG sell your Taco and buy a GM twin with the baby Duramax. But then you'll have issues because it's a new engine and also maintenance costs of a diesel. Bottom line, don't buy a midsized truck expecting it to pull 6000+ lbs without hesitation while getting 30+ mpg.

 

Guess you didn't bother to look into how mpg ratings are estimated. Expecting the same fuel economy at 65-70 as at 55 is unrealistic. Ignorance and being uninformed is one thing, choosing to stay so is another.

 

That's still $1,100 more a year tho.

 

Happy to report that I get better mpg then the sticker said I would. I average a little over 25 with 2.7 manual 4x4 AC. Happy Happy Happy. My Toyota mini van only does 23 or so.

 

FYI Ridgeline is a FWD/AWD drivetrain and lower to the ground. Much different than RWD/4WD with 4LO

Harder to compare them other than similar price and have a bed in the back.

BTW C&D said 200 mile highway test showed 3mpg better than sticker that is 28 mpg not 33 or 32...

I actually did consider getting that Ridgeline 2018/19 until I bought my Taco. It just doesn't drive as well, very vague feeling and for a small cartruck it feels huge I could never figure out where the corners were. Super nice inside though roomy and lots of cool gadgets.

 

Yup, drag is proportional to the velocity squared. Generally speaking you'll be 17% less efficient at 70mph compared to 55mph.

 

Quick test for you. Stick your head out of the window at 55, now do it at 70 mph and tell me you can go at 70 while not using any more energy than at 55...

If your logic worked I could put in a 12 speed transmission and drive at 140mph and get 30mpg...

 

Can you direct me to some of the research pages you visited? I always used to lane split when I rode.

 

Yeah, and a modern Corolla gets ~ 31/40, so even more.

OP, it makes sense to me why people worry about fuel economy, especially with $4 gas where I live in SoCal and the issue of air quality, etc. There’s plenty of information in other threads as to why we don’t get better economy — aerodynamics, driving style, drivetrain design, and so forth. And I would have bought a hybrid or, better yet, a plug-in hybrid Tacoma if it were offered. Toyota knows how to build long-lasting hybrids.

 

I'll second that, would have considered a hybrid or plug in Taco for sure.

Helping a 40mpg car get to 50mpg only saves a little actual gas, but helping a 20mpg truck get to 30mpg... now that is some real world CO2 reduction.

 

Dude, that was a long time ago and I was talking about multiple articles and discussions with people on various forums. I’m sure if you google it you’ll be off to a good start.

Here is just a snippet of what I found after the first search I went to:

“Proponents of lane splitting state the Hurt Report of 1981 reached the conclusion that lane splitting improves motorcycle safetyby reducing rear end crashes.[19] Lane splitting supporters also state that the US DOT FARS database shows that fatalities from rear-end collisions into motorcycles are 30% lower in California than in Florida or Texas, states with similar riding seasons and populations but which do not lane split.[20] No specifics are given about where this conclusion is found in the FARS system. The database is available online to the public.[21] The NHTSA does say, based on the Hurt Report, that lane splitting "slightly reduces" rear-end accidents, and is worthy of further study due to the possible congestion reduction benefits.[2]”