[Guest]

I love my Tundra but would like to get a more fuel efficient truck. I am
getting about 18 mpg highway driving - how does the Tacoma mpg compare?
thanks.

 

[Guest]

Dan-o wrote:
> I love my Tundra but would like to get a more fuel efficient truck. I am
> getting about 18 mpg highway driving - how does the Tacoma mpg compare?
> thanks.
>

My '05 V6 6 speed 4x4 Access Cab is only good for 19-20 on the highway.
You won't save much!

 

[Guest]

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 16:42:28 GMT, B a r r y
<[email protected]> found these unused words
floating about:

>Dan-o wrote:
>> I love my Tundra but would like to get a more fuel efficient truck. I am
>> getting about 18 mpg highway driving - how does the Tacoma mpg compare?
>> thanks.
>>
>
>My '05 V6 6 speed 4x4 Access Cab is only good for 19-20 on the highway.
> You won't save much!

Get larger, get lower mpg.

My 02 Tacoma DC, finally 'broken in', is running 22 mpg at 70 highway.

 

[Guest]

"Dan-o" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>I love my Tundra but would like to get a more fuel efficient truck. I am
> getting about 18 mpg highway driving - how does the Tacoma mpg compare?
> thanks.
>
>

2002 Tacoma 6 cylinder: On relatively flat roads (NYS Thruway), 65mph, I've
gotten about 21-22. Measured on repeated, identical trips and averaged. 20
mpg on roads with significant hills. I use 89 octane gas. Around town:
17-19, depending on whether a couple of nearby nursing homes have let the
residents out for the day. Hard to get good mileage behind a bunch of Crown
Victorias doing 9 miles per hour.

If you use cruise control with big hills, everything goes to hell, but you
probably knew that already.

 

[Guest]

"Dan-o" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>I love my Tundra but would like to get a more fuel efficient truck. I am
> getting about 18 mpg highway driving - how does the Tacoma mpg compare?
> thanks.
>
>

if you do a cost analysis, the amount of money you would potentially lose on
a car switch would not off set your fuel prices savings... unless gas goes
really through the roof... like at around 6 or so a gallon...

 

[Guest]

J. A. Mc. wrote:

>
> Get larger, get lower mpg.
>
> My 02 Tacoma DC, finally 'broken in', is running 22 mpg at 70 highway.

Of course.

I wonder what the '05 would do for MPG with the old 190 HP V6?

Of course, it wouldn't tow 6500 pounds then, either.

 

[Guest]

"B a r r y" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> J. A. Mc. wrote:
>
>>
>> Get larger, get lower mpg.
>>
>> My 02 Tacoma DC, finally 'broken in', is running 22 mpg at 70 highway.
>
> Of course.
>
> I wonder what the '05 would do for MPG with the old 190 HP V6?
>
> Of course, it wouldn't tow 6500 pounds then, either.
>

Different suspension with less horsepower, or the same as before?

 

[Guest]

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 19:10:24 GMT, B a r r y
<[email protected]> found these unused words
floating about:

>J. A. Mc. wrote:
>
>>
>> Get larger, get lower mpg.
>>
>> My 02 Tacoma DC, finally 'broken in', is running 22 mpg at 70 highway.
>
>Of course.
>
>I wonder what the '05 would do for MPG with the old 190 HP V6?
>
>Of course, it wouldn't tow 6500 pounds then, either.

Less, it's heavier and more windy.

Since my average tow is 2500-3500, why would I care about some 'maximum'
rating?? I'm set for 5500 as it is!

Do your tow ALL the time? Why buy larger than you really need ... Oh yes, I
remember, where Yugo, ego Toyblota's new motto.

 

[Guest]

J. A. Mc. wrote:

> Do your tow ALL the time? Why buy larger than you really need ...

Here we go again... Is someone going to bring up how many empty pickups
they see on the road? <G>

FWIW, I bought a Tacoma over an F150 and a Dakota. The new F150 is too
big, and the Dakota is, well... a Chrysler, like my Jeep. 8^(

Remember what's bigger to you just might be smaller to someone else.

 

[Guest]

J. A. Mc. wrote:

>
> So that's a justification for the previous poster snapping about losing gas
> milage while gaining 1000 pounds tow capacity to fit a macho ego?

The other poster was me.

I love the truck far more than my older Toyotas and Nissans.

Since you have no idea what I use my vehicle for, I'll just suggest you
have a sparkling day, and I'll move on... Ta-ta! <G>

 

[Guest]

"B a r r y" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> J. A. Mc. wrote:
>
>>
>> So that's a justification for the previous poster snapping about losing
>> gas
>> milage while gaining 1000 pounds tow capacity to fit a macho ego?
>
> The other poster was me.
>
> I love the truck far more than my older Toyotas and Nissans.
>
> Since you have no idea what I use my vehicle for, I'll just suggest you
> have a sparkling day, and I'll move on... Ta-ta! <G>

What *do* you use it for?

 

[Guest]

Doug Kanter wrote:

>
> What *do* you use it for?

Towing an enclosed 6x12 trailer. The trailer is used to move tools,
like 600 pound table saws, thickness planers, and jointers. When the
tools aren't in the trailer it's usually used to move furniture grade
hardwoods, $100-$200 per sheet plywoods, furniture, and finished
cabinetry. The materials I move need to be _inside_, away from dirt and
weather, and some of the sheets and most of the lumber is 12 feet long,
so I have no use for an 8 foot bed.

Sometimes, the rig needs to go over unpaved surfaces to get to where the
contents need to go. I've installed a second hitch receiver on the
front of the Taco for easy manipulation of the trailer.

I've found that towing 3000-4000 pounds on a regular basis with a
vehicle rated at 3000-4000 pounds usually results in an early demise of
the vehicle. The new Taco comfortably tows the trailer, and provides
the perfect balance of size and power for my taste, without having to
deal with the size of an F150, Silverado, or Ram. Getting similar
performance from a Dakota would require a V8.

Last, but not least, the 2005 F150 is not available with my preference
of transmission, a manual.

Back to the size is relative stuff, most of the other folks that do what
I do drive 350 HP full-size pickups and SUV's.

 

[Guest]

My '05 Tundra 4WD Access Cab with 4.7L V8 always gives between 19.8 and
21.0 mpg on highways at 55-67mph. (We don't have any Interstates in
north central Idaho). The '05 Tundra has more smarts in its
computerized control of engine and automatic transmission. As a
result, it loafs along at surprisingly low rpms until you need to pass,
then take off, then drop back to low rpms as soon as you're finished
passing. It behaves very differently from any vehicle I've driven
before. For its weight and payload capacity, I'm very happy with its
fuel economy.

 

[Guest]

I'm not sure what my '04 Tacoma Double cab gas mileage is.....
but I'm absolutely sure it's alot better than the big pickups with dual
wheels
and 100 gallon gas tanks.
Damn, that must suck.
Congratulations goes to the few remaining companies who still make
mini-trucks with 4 cylinder engines. The others are showing no/little
forethought.

 

[Guest]

FWIW,

If you drive a pre runner or 4wd, there is around a 5.5% odometer
discrepancy in your favor. So when you drive 100 miles, the odo ticks
off 93. Tus you are likely getting about 1.055X the gas mileage you
report. See my post:

May 24 2004, 9:21 pm

I have a 2003 Tacoma Doulecab Prerunner V6 TRD (larger tires) and have been
following the mileage thread. I just got back from a trip to Florida and
have some interesting data.


I set my trip odo at the Georgia border today and when I saw the mile
marker
for 99 miles, my trip ODO read 93.6 miles. I logged again in South
Carolina
79 miles by markers and 74.9 miles by ODO. Then one last time on I77 85
miles by markers and 81 miles by ODO. If you do the math:


99/93.6 = 1.057
79/74.9 = 1.054
85/81 = 1.049


The average ratio of Actual/ODO = 1.054


I tried to check the speedo, but without instantaneous measurements it is
hard to do. Over about a 10 minute average, when the needle was on 65, I
calculated a speed of 66.7. However, I'm not very confident in that
number.


I also logged two fill ups for gas mileage:


344.8 miles 15.147 gallons = 22.764 mpg
282.8 miles 12.222 gallons = 23.128 mpg


However, if you adjust the mpg for the 5.4% difference in actual and ODO
miles, then


363.398 miles 15.147 gallons = 24.387 mpg
298.054 miles 12.222 gallons = 23.991 mpg


My old 97 V6 2WD 4Runner got consistently 24mpg on the highway so this is
not that far off. As a side note, I did also keep the speed down at 65 mph
and below. I have found that driving above 65 tends to burn the gas
faster.
Also, keeping the truck out of passing gear helps too. If the cruise is
set
and you come to a grade, my Taco jumps into passing gear and that tends to
drink gas.


I hope this helps the discussion on Taco mileage. I'm going to run come
calculations to see if the 5.4% difference makes sense for the larger tire
size.


Enjoy,


Brian







studio wrote:
> I'm not sure what my '04 Tacoma Double cab gas mileage is.....
> but I'm absolutely sure it's alot better than the big pickups with dual
> wheels
> and 100 gallon gas tanks.
> Damn, that must suck.
> Congratulations goes to the few remaining companies who still make
> mini-trucks with 4 cylinder engines. The others are showing no/little
> forethought.
>

 

[RalphW]

I love my Tundra but would like to get a more fuel efficient truck. I am
getting about 18 mpg highway driving - how does the Tacoma mpg compare?
thanks.

 

[RalphW]

Tacoma mileage

I have a new 07 Tacoma, Access, 2.7L automatic. City mileage is 22.5 and highway 28.6. I'm pleased, particularly with the highway results, but hope to do a bit better by using 5W-20 motor oil instead of the 5W-30 I believe is in the truck now. I also plan to purchase a Tonneau cover which is supposed to improve mileage around 10%.