I think they switched to a thiner oil and maybe something different with the intake or exhaust. 26 still seems like a big claim though.

 

different gearing would be huge. 2200 rpms on the highway going 70 is too high in 6th gear. i'd be getting much better mileage with a taller 6th gear. blargh.

 

I just saw a 07 Access cab TRD Offroad 4x4 V6 on a lot yesterday. The window sticker said 16/20. Mine (Sport instead of OR) said 18/21. I put my first tank in last week, mostly in-town driving and slow, winding highway (less than 50 mph and rather variable speed), and I ended up with around 23 mpg.

 

i did a test to see the worst mpg i could get, and the lowest was 14...

 

I get 18-19 city, and it's constant. My friends with 2wd. get 20-21 city. I figure I'm donign damn good.v Friend just paid 25000 for new jeep not the rubicon and he only get 11.
I feel so good when he told me that. I think 26 is a big load of crap. My opinion.

 

No way they're getting 26 out of a 4x4. That's more like the mpg for the 4 cyl 2wd model.

 

just saw a tacoma commercial and it said the new taco gets 26 mpg on the freeway,it looked like a 4x4 too, this cant be right can it?

maby they were talking about the 4cyl.....

 

I'm getting an avg. of 23.5 highway.......running 260 miles a day and putting a little over 11 gallons a day.

 

Did they say whether it was REG, Access, or DC?
I get 23 on highway without AC on in my DC.
I can see the possibility of 26 in a reg cab under ideal conditions.
Particularly if "highway" driving were at 60-65mph.

 

Read the fine print my friend.

It says 4x2 with a 4cyl in fine print. :thumbup:

 

^Exactly. The reg cab 4x2 manual tranny Tacomas will pull 25-30 mpg on the highway. I very much doubt the 4x4s will pull that MPG though.
The taller stance, bigger tires and different gearing really hurt them in terms of fuel economy.

 

maybe.

Two of us get 23 in DC, mine is a prerunner, same stance, Crusty has 4x4.
It's not impossible to imagine 26 in a reg cab.

Got only 14 towing a BA UHAUL. Of course, beside all the extra weight, I was towing a 5 x 6 sail behind me.

 

My 4x4 consistantly gets 24-28 mpg on the highway




But it has the 4-cyl.

 

ummm....wow...I have a 05 2wd prerunner....I get 15????

 

ummm....wow...I have a 05 2wd prerunner....I get 15????

No lift, but I have dual exaust, and 32" mud terrain tires, but that should not be costing me 5mpg, right?

 

msibille, don't be an idiot.

READ THE FINE PRINT ON THE DAMN COMMERCIAL!

 

ummm....wow...I have a 05 2wd prerunner....I get 15????

I'm sure the commericla is for a regular cab 2wd. The prerunner has the bigger tires/suspension and would get very similar ro a 4wd...

My 2wd sonoma got about 26-27 mpg o nthe highway while a buddy of mine got 20 or less with his 4x4 sonoma...height and tire size (not to mention weight) makes a big difference.

 

I wonder why everyone else with the exact truck as mine gets atleast 4-5 MPG more? Its not like im hauling a load, or drive like nascar :ugh3: this is upsetting.

 

msibille, don't be an idiot.

READ THE FINE PRINT ON THE DAMN COMMERCIAL!

Sorry, Genius - I'm too much of an idiot to figure out what provoked that response.
I merely pointed out the possibilities, given that two of us achieve 23 with DC.
I am also an idiot because I don't watch enough TV to have seen the commercial -if it even airs here in Alberta right now.

Not sure why you felt a need to call me an idiot, but if it makes you feel better, fine.
There's plenty more e-space below this msg.

 

I wonder why everyone else with the exact truck as mine gets atleast 4-5 MPG more? Its not like im hauling a load, or drive like nascar :ugh3: this is upsetting.

I don't know. You say you get 15 on hwy, or average for your driving?
I get 16/17 in town, 22/23 on hiway in my 05 DC.

Perhaps you accelerate too softly?
I/C engines are mechanically more efficient with large throttle openings.
(The throttle is a restriction on the air flow, the engine works as a compressor before burning fuel to expand and extract energy. The throttle is a restriction to pulling air in and the work to do move the air volume over that resistance is parasitic to the engine output. (Before I get jumped by the intuitives, obviously running with a larger throttle setting than needed to maintain speed will accelerate the vehicle, higher speeds of the engine and drivetrain increase energy lost to friction, and higher vehicle speeds increase aerodynamic drag forces in proportion to the square of the velocity. That's why the fuel use goes down in overdrive and why higher highway speeds burn more fuel. You also gain if you gear to operate the engine at the peak of it's efficiency curve.)

In any event, moderate acceleration will get you up to speed with the engine at a better efficiency (though flooring it is usually not the most efficient). Slowly accelerating doesn't take advantage of the higher efficiency of the engine at larger throttle openings to get the work done of accelerating the vehicle.

Just a thought.

OTOH, I would think that only really tough driving -which is not your case, or something wrong would cause you to get 15mpg highway when the rest of us get it in the low 20s. Are you driving 80-85mph highway or something? (Remember, aero drag is proportional to the square of your velocity. at 10mph, rolling resistance of tires and friction in the drivetrain are the greatest drains on energy. at 80mph, your aero drag is 64 times what it is at 10mph, and 78% HIGHER than at 60mph. Even at 65mph, your aero drag is only 2/3 of what it would be at 80mph. (of course, this is simplified, you can have different flow patterns of air and change the relationship some, so it's not a "fixed" quadratic equation in that sense, but you'll find the results are as dramatic as the above would indicate.)

 

I don't know. You say you get 15 on hwy, or average for your driving?
I get 16/17 in town, 22/23 on hiway in my 05 DC.

Perhaps you accelerate too softly?
I/C engines are mechanically more efficient with large throttle openings.
(The throttle is a restriction on the air flow, the engine works as a compressor before burning fuel to expand and extract energy. The throttle is a restriction to pulling air in and the work to do move the air volume over that resistance is parasitic to the engine output. (Before I get jumped by the intuitives, obviously running with a larger throttle setting than needed to maintain speed will accelerate the vehicle, higher speeds of the engine and drivetrain increase energy lost to friction, and higher vehicle speeds increase aerodynamic drag forces in proportion to the square of the velocity. That's why the fuel use goes down in overdrive and why higher highway speeds burn more fuel. You also gain if you gear to operate the engine at the peak of it's efficiency curve.)

In any event, moderate acceleration will get you up to speed with the engine at a better efficiency (though flooring it is usually not the most efficient). Slowly accelerating doesn't take advantage of the higher efficiency of the engine at larger throttle openings to get the work done of accelerating the vehicle.

Just a thought.

OTOH, I would think that only really tough driving -which is not your case, or something wrong would cause you to get 15mpg highway when the rest of us get it in the low 20s. Are you driving 80-85mph highway or something? (Remember, aero drag is proportional to the square of your velocity. at 10mph, rolling resistance of tires and friction in the drivetrain are the greatest drains on energy. at 80mph, your aero drag is 64 times what it is at 10mph, and 78% HIGHER than at 60mph. Even at 65mph, your aero drag is only 2/3 of what it would be at 80mph. (of course, this is simplified, you can have different flow patterns of air and change the relationship some, so it's not a "fixed" quadratic equation in that sense, but you'll find the results are as dramatic as the above would indicate.)

Definetly logical, and makes perfect sense...I will have to fill up and test it out...I do though, however tend to drive about 80 MPH on the highway...Ill try driving like an old lady on a tank, and see what it gets me :ugh3:

 

Definetly logical, and makes perfect sense...I will have to fill up and test it out...I do though, however tend to drive about 80 MPH on the highway...Ill try driving like an old lady on a tank, and see what it gets me :ugh3:

Let us know. It'll be good to see what difference you get btwn the 80mph and 65mph mileage.

 

Definetly logical, and makes perfect sense...I will have to fill up and test it out...I do though, however tend to drive about 80 MPH on the highway...Ill try driving like an old lady on a tank, and see what it gets me :ugh3:

Hey Tone, I drive like the old lady on a tank, I set the cruse at 65 and go.

 

Perhaps you accelerate too softly?
I/C engines are mechanically more efficient with large throttle openings.
(The throttle is a restriction on the air flow, the engine works as a compressor before burning fuel to expand and extract energy. The throttle is a restriction to pulling air in and the work to do move the air volume over that resistance is parasitic to the engine output.

In any event, moderate acceleration will get you up to speed with the engine at a better efficiency (though flooring it is usually not the most efficient). Slowly accelerating doesn't take advantage of the higher efficiency of the engine at larger throttle openings to get the work done of accelerating the vehicle.

Just a thought.

From my testing using a scangauge I've concluded that the slower the acceleration the better for fuel economy. I have a 10 mile commute at with some 55 mph but mostly 45 with a few stops and some hills. I did 3 days in a row with essentially equal temperatures.

Results
Gentle throttle 1-2-3-4-5 shifting 2500 or less 33.4 mpg.
3/4 throttle shifting at 4000 1-2-5 shifting. 28.8 mpg.
WOT shifting at 5000 1-2-5 shifting 27.8 mpg

The obvious variable was red lights I hit, and I had 6 stops during the 3/4 throttle test and therefore I had 6 accelerations.

The WOT test was even worse than the 27.8 reflects as I only had 5 stops.

The gentle throttle test was how I normally drive and I had 6 stops along the way.

I'm convinced slow acceleration is better for fuel economy.

 

From my testing using a scangauge I've concluded that the slower the acceleration the better for fuel economy. I have a 10 mile commute at with some 55 mph but mostly 45 with a few stops and some hills. I did 3 days in a row with essentially equal temperatures.

Results
Gentle throttle 1-2-3-4-5 shifting 2500 or less 33.4 mpg.
3/4 throttle shifting at 4000 1-2-5 shifting. 28.8 mpg.
WOT shifting at 5000 1-2-5 shifting 27.8 mpg

The obvious variable was red lights I hit, and I had 6 stops during the 3/4 throttle test and therefore I had 6 accelerations.

The WOT test was even worse than the 27.8 reflects as I only had 5 stops.

The gentle throttle test was how I normally drive and I had 6 stops along the way.

I'm convinced slow acceleration is better for fuel economy.

No doubt that you're going to use fuel at a higher rpm. Also, the difference you are looking for isn't instantaneous fuel economy, but trip-cycle. Again, the point is not to run at high engine speeds, quite the opposite, but to run at large throttle openings. Higher rpms requires more pumping (you've got to fill and empty each cylinder more times per minute), so opening the throttle doesn't help if you have to run more air thru to fill the cylinders. Plus you have add'l frictional losses, and pumping losses thru the exhaust system at higher rpm. The goal is to have large throttle openings at moderate rpms -you achieve that with optimum gear selection.
The auto trans will do that unless you stomp on it, at which time it will leave the optimum efficiency part of the program and jump into the higher HP / higher torque part of the program.

If you're going to do it w/ a manual tranny, you need to think in terms of fairly large throttle openings, but shifting at the same time you would "granny style".

The test you would need to run would be at various throttle openings, but shifting at exactly the same rpm. I think you'll find that the drop in efficiency above is more related to the combination of later shifting (higher engine rpm) with high fuel consumption.

That's why the suggestion is moderate acceleration, not granny slow, not racing.
You still want to control rpm to moderate levels -the point is not to have a lot of air going thru a small throttle plate opening -or thru the restriction of the valves and exhaust. And, the sooner you get to speed, the sooner you can get out of acceleration mode and merely use hp requ'd to maintain speed.