why are we getting v8 gas mileage with v6's

It would take over 400k miles for a GM diesel to pay for itself on fuel costs alone. And that's not even factoring in the increased maintenance costs or a diesel

 

there are several trucks on the market that get great mpg. And thats the point..........................

 

I think we're too often fooled my marketing ploys. If Toyota tested their truck with a 308 rear end, advertised 25mpg, and then sold most of them with the optional 390 or 430, getting real world numbers in the high teens to low 20s, how would you feel?

 

It is disappointing that Toyota went with a smaller motor and billed it as being some significant improvement for fuel economy when the numbers coming out on Fuelly for the 3.5L are about the same as much of the data for prior years with the 4.0L. I will say that the 3.5L motor is quieter of course some of that could be attributed to better sound deadening and insulation on the 3rd gen but also the 3.5L with this trans setup is a very "busy" combination ....hunting for gears, high revs to get going, etc. Sure you can drive like a Blue Hair with a glass of wine on the dash but how many people actually drive their vehicles that way? How annoying is it when the guy in front of you takes 25+ seconds to go from a Stop Light up to the 35 or 45 mph speed limit?

 

Thats not the issue. There are several trucks on the market today, that ARE getting MPG much greater than the Tacos. False advertisement is one thing, getting beat by other brands is another.

 

Blind allegiance? Please elaborate. Let me know one other truck that's not a diesel that get's better than 18/23 and we'll break it down, it's very simple.

 

Name one and I'll show you the facts.

 

Maybe in your state, diesel was $0.10 a litre (so close to $0.40/gallon) cheaper than gas where I live. I know eco diesels getting 7L/100km going 55 mph (most of my secondary roads I travel) So it's not unrealistic for a 4 cyl colorado diesel to get 7l/100km or less. (33.6 US mpg)

Tacoma Sales are high, fuel economy is decent (not great) but look at the tundra sales, not even close to the big 3. The I force likes gas, a lot more than the other 3 brands. It also has nothing to do with reliability, had plenty of trucks (GM) at my last employer with over 500,000 Miles and original drive-line.

 

You win. Can't argue with that haha.

 

A good friend of mine had two of them a while back, both of them 1.7 gassers and he pulled 25-30 consistently around town.

 

Yeah but could it do this and still get 25mpg?? WHY IS TOYOTA GETTING BEAT?? EVERYONE ELSE IS BETTER!!!

 

Probably. The payload is 1100 lbs, probably close to what that chevy is rated for. I'm thinking 1500 or so.

 

2000 miles and around town I get 15 to 18. Just went on a road trip 500 miles high way miles and 20-22
I am a Gramp Pa to

 

I'm getting better MPG than my 2015. But if one steps into the truck the fuel economy falls off a cliff. The driver can control the fuel use rate by how they drive , stop, and go. The truck is capable of 24 MPG but people don't want to take the time and make an effort to get the best fuel economy. Lots of heavy foot acceleration.

My Fuelly avg should drop next fill up as I have been doing much more spirited driving on this tank.

 

the twins, the F-150, the ram.... the only one it doesn't beat is the frontier. seriously surprised I have to even list those. You have to be pretty oblivious to the world not to know that.

 

The twins? The V6 4wd is rated at 17/24/20 and the Tacoma is 18/23/20. How is that even better? It's well within the margin of error of the testing parameters.

The F150 and Ram offer different rear axle ratios. Look up what the standard equipment ratios are, those are the ones installed in the truck that gets tested. Ford then sells real rear ends as "optional" equipment, and those fuel economy ratings no longer apply. The real truck a person would actually want to buy and tow with, gets the same shitty gas mileage the tundra gets. Toyota doesn't have optional rear axles so they can't play that game.

 

oh the wool is covering your eyes so badly.... Do you believe everything on the interwebs?

Thousands of Taco owners are reporting/complaining a lot about MPG (hint this thread?!?!). And the twins are posting the estimated MPG numbers. not many complaints on MPG for the twins. Every major site using REAL world drivers, Taco is getting 17-18... and the twins are getting 20-21 (yes even the V6 4x4). Believe it or not.. .when it comes to MPG GM is winning... (oh.. no, how dare I?!?!) The taco doesnt win every category when it comes to mid-size trucks anymore.

You are nit picking gear ratios to death. The very MILD differences that come with the factory options dont effect it as much as you are trying to led people to believe. Yes they do somewhat, but not much at all.

 

I don't believe things on the interwebz. I work in the car business and just go by my own experience. Toyota's have very high expectations, there's going to be a whole lot more complaints when things are not perfect, GM owners are just thrilled their trucks haven't burnt to the ground yet. Caring about gas mileage seems to be a Toyota thing. Commenting that gm is "winning" is arbitrary at best. You don't know what a Colorado is getting for MPG unless you own one, so I think honestly you are the victim of interweb trolling. The group I work for, there's a Chevy store with a Toyota store directly across the street. I have not encountered an unhappy Tacoma or Colorado customer yet.

Yeah, if you think the differences are mild between a rear end ratios you are just uneducated. Could be talking about several miles per gallon.

 

Using your logic, how do you know the MPG's of full size trucks unless you own one?