2006 Tacoma - MPG Expectations

I'm thinking about buying a '06 Tacoma 4x4 Double Cab. I have a long
commute, all highway, and need to know what I can expect for MPG. I
know what the sticker says but that seldom reflects real-world
experience. Also, is premium unleaded REQUIRED or just recommended?

Thanks in advance to anyone who can help.

[email]doyle.steve@comcast.net[/email] wrote:
[color=blue]
>I'm thinking about buying a '06 Tacoma 4x4 Double Cab. I have a long
>commute, all highway, and need to know what I can expect for MPG. I
>know what the sticker says but that seldom reflects real-world
>experience. Also, is premium unleaded REQUIRED or just recommended?
>
>Thanks in advance to anyone who can help.[/color]

My take on this is that if the manufacturer specifies premium
(likely 92 Octane - check handbook) then that's what you need.

If you use a lower Octane then the engine will likely detonate
(ping), if it pings then the ping detector will retard the timing
till the pinging stops and hold it there (roughly). THIS WILL
REDUCE YOUR MPG because the engine is now operating less
efficiently than it was designed to do.

PLUS, if the detector fails then the spark will advance into the
ping range and your engine will likely be damaged by the
detonation...YMMV...

--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

[email]doyle.steve@comcast.net[/email] wrote:[color=blue]
>
> I'm thinking about buying a '06 Tacoma 4x4 Double Cab. I have a long
> commute, all highway, and need to know what I can expect for MPG. I
> know what the sticker says but that seldom reflects real-world
> experience. Also, is premium unleaded REQUIRED or just recommended?
>
> Thanks in advance to anyone who can help.[/color]

Howdy Steve,

I don't actually own one of them but let me pass on what those on the
Yahoo groups Toy_Coma list have concluded about the truck that you are
looking at:

Last things first, per the owners' manual premium unleaded is not
*required*. You will take a MPG penalty of between 1 and 3 MPG by
running a lower octane, depending on driving style, air temperature etc;
there is also a slight performance penalty which may or may not be of
concern to you. Currently the price difference between 89 and 91 octane
is small enough that the consensus is generally that the higher octane
is overall cheaper in the long run. Your own cost-benefit analysis may
vary.

First things last, the EPA estimate on the label is fiction. You might
get something close to that under the most ideal of circumstances, but
the fruit of the EPA's requirements are most definitely unreal. That
said, there may be some benefit in comparing plastic apples with plastic
apples and wax oranges to wax oranges - a truck that lists an EPA
mileage 2 MPG better than another may really get 2 MPG better mileage,
regardless of what the real mileage numbers actually are.

As for *actual* mileage, I can only speak from personal experience with
a truck that is more than ten years older. Firstly, I drive like a
complete fool - like it was stolen as the saying goes, and have from day
one. (just shy of 190K on the clock to date - Toyotas are tough). The
truck was originally purchased in Lost Angeles and was used in the
usual, 100 miles per day, up the sidewalk, across the lawn, down the
alley, any shortcut is valid, full throttle or full brake, bumper to
bumper at 8 MPH or 80 MPH, commuting style familiar to anyone who's ever
had the pleasure of commuting through that smog-choked circle of Hades.
I could easily shave 15% off of the EPA town mileage estimates and
sometimes as much as 25% - but rarely, and no lower. On the rare
occasions I could drive the highways LIKE highways (between 3 and 4 AM
Sunday/Monday) I could get within 2-3 MPG of the EPA hwy estimate.

Of course, you might could do better - I assume for example that you
really need the double cab, 4WD etc and not getting it to be handy the
three times a year you actually use these features, else you would be
asking about Celicas or some such. You may not drive as aggressively as
I do - I crush Piuseses under the fenderwells of my jacked up, high
performance (2wd, 4cyl) Tacoma to compensate for my inadequate manhood,
or something <VBG>; you may not do that (see Prius Rage thread if that
joke makes no sense).

If you really want to be a bean counter you'd factor in depreciation
compared to other models - I know you're looking at buying but comparing
the residual value numbers (for the same lease terms) of various
makes/models is very instructive as to what Toyota Motor Credit (or
whoever) believes the truck will be worth after you've driven it for a
few years. You'd also compare insurance rates, maintenance costs, etc
etc etc. In short, cost of ownership ain't all mileage and as a bean
counter myself I can tell you that what you pour into the tank each week
will *NOT* be the expensive part of owning that truck! <G>

Got a Tacoma? Join psam-free
[url]http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/Toy_Coma/[/url]
Got a Corolla? Join psam-free
[url]http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/Toy_Corolla/[/url]
--
Mike Harris
Austin, TX

On 20 Apr 2006 18:07:47 -0700, [email]doyle.steve@comcast.net[/email] wrote:
[color=blue]
>I'm thinking about buying a '06 Tacoma 4x4 Double Cab. I have a long
>commute, all highway, and need to know what I can expect for MPG. I
>know what the sticker says but that seldom reflects real-world
>experience. Also, is premium unleaded REQUIRED or just recommended?[/color]

I have an Access Cab, 6 speed manual. The sticker honestly states the
range I typically see.

Premium is recommended, not required, per the manual.

I don't see a noticeable difference in either performance or MPG using
87 octane gas.

On 20 Apr 2006 18:07:47 -0700, [email]doyle.steve@comcast.net[/email] wrote:
[color=blue]
>I'm thinking about buying a '06 Tacoma 4x4 Double Cab. I have a long
>commute, all highway, and need to know what I can expect for MPG. I
>know what the sticker says but that seldom reflects real-world
>experience. Also, is premium unleaded REQUIRED or just recommended?
>
>Thanks in advance to anyone who can help.[/color]

Fuel economy: deplorable
Premium fuel: required

On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 03:05:54 -0400, Viperkiller <nothing@nothing.net>
wrote:
[color=blue]
>
>Fuel economy: deplorable
>Premium fuel: required[/color]

As an actual owner, I totally disagree. In fact, I'll call Bullshit!

Deplorable MPG? Compared to what? A Corolla? How about an apples to
apples, real-world comparison? What vehicle has the same capability
set and does so much better? <G>

My 2005 V6, 4x4, 6 speed window sticker Toyota says 16-20 MPG. That's
_exactly_ what I get! More towards the low end in all city driving,
80 MPH highway driving, or towing, and 21+ on 55-65 MPH long trips on
87 octane, REGULAR gas. I typically see 17-18, in my general use,
which includes an awful lot of cold started, 5-7 mile trips with tools
or materials in the back. The bottom line is that I get what's
advertised.

I also have a Thule Xsporter ladder / boat rack that is frequently in
the up position and loaded, adding even more drag.

Premium fuel? The actual owner's manual in my glove box states it's
"recommended". I used premium for the first 3-4 tanks. After
switching, I can't see a difference in driveability or MPG, so I never
went back. I have the MPG numbers for *every* tank the truck has ever
seen.

My Tacoma is a tall 4 wheel drive vehicle, with a LOT of wind drag,
4400 pound truck rated to tow 6500 pounds. Drive it hard or fast, the
mileage goes down quickly, just as any other tall, powerful vehicle
would. Highway speed makes a huge difference in MPG on draggy trucks,
as it does on my Jeep Wrangler, or the hi-cubes I use for business.
SLOW DOWN to the speed limit on the interstate, and the mileage gets a
lot better! FWIW, the Tacoma's automatic tranny gets ~1 MPG better
than the manual, due to gearing differences.

If mileage is all that important, do you really need 4WD? Do you
really need a truck at all? Remember, the Tacoma Pose(Pre)Runner is
a 2WD with the same ride height as the 4WD, none of the benefits, and
exactly the same highway MPG damage.

On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 11:54:01 GMT, Bonehenge
<DwightSchrute@DunderMifflin.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 03:05:54 -0400, Viperkiller <nothing@nothing.net>
>wrote:
>[color=green]
>>
>>Fuel economy: deplorable
>>Premium fuel: required[/color]
>
>As an actual owner, I totally disagree. In fact, I'll call Bullshit!
>[/color]
Very eloquently put.
[color=blue]
>Deplorable MPG? Compared to what? A Corolla? How about an apples to
>apples, real-world comparison? What vehicle has the same capability
>set and does so much better? <G>
>
>My 2005 V6, 4x4, 6 speed window sticker Toyota says 16-20 MPG. That's
>_exactly_ what I get! More towards the low end in all city driving,
>80 MPH highway driving, or towing, and 21+ on 55-65 MPH long trips on
>87 octane, REGULAR gas. I typically see 17-18, in my general use,
>which includes an awful lot of cold started, 5-7 mile trips with tools
>or materials in the back. The bottom line is that I get what's
>advertised.
>[/color]
Fuel economy is a matter of opinion. 16 city and 20 highway is
deplorable to me, even if it meets what EPA has advertised. If you're
perfectly okay with it, so be it.
[color=blue]
>I also have a Thule Xsporter ladder / boat rack that is frequently in
>the up position and loaded, adding even more drag.
>
>Premium fuel? The actual owner's manual in my glove box states it's
>"recommended". I used premium for the first 3-4 tanks. After
>switching, I can't see a difference in driveability or MPG, so I never
>went back. I have the MPG numbers for *every* tank the truck has ever
>seen.[/color]

It is scientific and not subjective that these vehicles do run better
with premium fuel regardless if one can subjectively notice the
difference.

Since the engine has to work harder, however miniscule, I theorize
that it would eventually lead to more wear as the vehicle accumulates
more miles. This, in my opinion, makes premium fuel required. I also
believe that people who use 87 octane when the manual specifically
recommends premium are being cheap. They're certainly allowed that as
they do own the vehicle.

Let's put it in a hypothetical situation. There are two of the same
trucks for sale for the same price. They're exactly the same and have
been driven and maintained exactly the same. The only difference is
that one has always used premium fuel and the other one has always
been run on 87 octane. Knowing this, buyers would inexorably purchase
the one run on premium fuel. Why? Don't try to dissuade me. Just
think about it.

[color=blue]
>My Tacoma is a tall 4 wheel drive vehicle, with a LOT of wind drag,
>4400 pound truck rated to tow 6500 pounds. Drive it hard or fast, the
>mileage goes down quickly, just as any other tall, powerful vehicle
>would. Highway speed makes a huge difference in MPG on draggy trucks,
>as it does on my Jeep Wrangler, or the hi-cubes I use for business.
>SLOW DOWN to the speed limit on the interstate, and the mileage gets a
>lot better! FWIW, the Tacoma's automatic tranny gets ~1 MPG better
>than the manual, due to gearing differences.
>
>If mileage is all that important, do you really need 4WD? Do you
>really need a truck at all? Remember, the Tacoma Pose(Pre)Runner is
>a 2WD with the same ride height as the 4WD, none of the benefits, and
>exactly the same highway MPG damage.[/color]

Lastly, let me say that Tacomas are good trucks. If I had to purchase
another, I certainly would buy one. I wouldn't even consider any of
it's competiion...unless I need a Tundra instead.

On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 15:35:08 -0400, Viperkiller <nothing@nothing.net>
wrote:[color=blue]
>Fuel economy is a matter of opinion. 16 city and 20 highway is
>deplorable to me, even if it meets what EPA has advertised. If you're
>perfectly okay with it, so be it.[/color]

Show me a vehicle with the same capabilities that does better.

Remember, that means 6500 pounds in towing, 1000+ pounds in a rust
proof 6 foot bed, outstanding off-road capability (4wd LOW is
required) and turning circle, fantastic resale value, great
reliability, and still averages 18 MPG.

My Mitsubishi hi-cubes are get 6-7 MPG on diesel, but what else can
carry a 16' hardwood plank, an entire kitchen of assembled cabinets,
or fully assembled, custom large entertainment centers on different
days? <G>

Apples to apples, Bud...

I'll wait.

On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 22:41:08 GMT, Bonehenge
<DwightSchrute@DunderMifflin.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 15:35:08 -0400, Viperkiller <nothing@nothing.net>
>wrote:[color=green]
>>Fuel economy is a matter of opinion. 16 city and 20 highway is
>>deplorable to me, even if it meets what EPA has advertised. If you're
>>perfectly okay with it, so be it.[/color]
>
>Show me a vehicle with the same capabilities that does better.
>
>Remember, that means 6500 pounds in towing, 1000+ pounds in a rust
>proof 6 foot bed, outstanding off-road capability (4wd LOW is
>required) and turning circle, fantastic resale value, great
>reliability, and still averages 18 MPG.
>
>My Mitsubishi hi-cubes are get 6-7 MPG on diesel, but what else can
>carry a 16' hardwood plank, an entire kitchen of assembled cabinets,
>or fully assembled, custom large entertainment centers on different
>days? <G>
>
>Apples to apples, Bud...
>
>I'll wait.[/color]

The Tundra has good gas mileage for its capability. There's no
argument in that. I did have an old Nissan truck V6, Kingcab, 2WD.
I average 20mpg mixed but it can only pull 5000 lbs.


But I don't need to tow 6500 lbs nor do I go off road. I get 24 mpg
mixed driving on my Lexus GS. To me, 18 mpg is deplorable. It may
not be apples to apples, but I need an orange not an apple.

On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 17:10:29 -0400, Viperkiller <nothing@nothing.net>
wrote:
[color=blue]
>
>The Tundra has good gas mileage for its capability. There's no
>argument in that. I did have an old Nissan truck V6, Kingcab, 2WD.
>I average 20mpg mixed but it can only pull 5000 lbs.[/color]

You realize the Nissan would probably get about 18 overall, if it were
4WD, right? It would, I had a 4WD '96 King Cab... <G> Your 2WD,
enjoyed a lower ride height, less weight, and a simpler, more
efficient drive train, but still only managed 20.
[color=blue]
> To me, 18 mpg is deplorable. It may
>not be apples to apples, but I need an orange not an apple.[/color]

So, you would simply use a Star Trek transporter to beam the stuff to
the destination? Or would you make 10 trips with the stuff in the
back seat of your GS? My woodworking customers would be pretty pissed
if I cut my work in small enough parts to fit in your car. I'm sure
you wouldn't want the moldings or handrails in your home pieced from 3
and 4 foot sections. <G>

What would you suggest those of us who really need and use the
capabilities of the Tacoma do?

Alternatively, I can get a Hemi Ram 1500, and get 10-12 MPG, or a
Tundra, which is V8 only with 4WD, and get 13-14. Or, should I drive
a hi-cube to get one sheet of plywood or drywall?

Heck, my favorite go-get-it-down-the-street vehicle is my Trek XO1
cyclocross bicycle with panniers and Niterider HID light, but it
struggles a tad with a table saw strapped to it.

Now, as a commuter or family grocery getter vehicle, a 4WD truck is
stupid and wasteful, but I don't think anyone asked that question.

On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 22:01:32 GMT, Bonehenge
<DwightSchrute@DunderMifflin.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 17:10:29 -0400, Viperkiller <nothing@nothing.net>
>wrote:
>[color=green]
>>
>>The Tundra has good gas mileage for its capability. There's no
>>argument in that. I did have an old Nissan truck V6, Kingcab, 2WD.
>>I average 20mpg mixed but it can only pull 5000 lbs.[/color]
>
>You realize the Nissan would probably get about 18 overall, if it were
>4WD, right? It would, I had a 4WD '96 King Cab... <G> Your 2WD,
>enjoyed a lower ride height, less weight, and a simpler, more
>efficient drive train, but still only managed 20.[/color]

I suspect that it would have been worse than 18 mpg. Hence, my
statement that the Tundra does get better gas mileage than its
competition. Just to let you know, my old truck did have big tires
and was high off the ground like it was a 4WD. 20 mpg is still poor.[color=blue]
>
>
>Now, as a commuter or family grocery getter vehicle, a 4WD truck is
>stupid and wasteful, but I don't think anyone asked that question.[/color]

Exactly my point. I don't need to haul wood so a sedan is all I need
to carry my wife and two children.