denpacc

To the skeptics all I can say is believe what you want. I know what I get and as Cackalak said above it's not rocket science to calculate.

Some people accelerate hard, some are off and on the gas and brakes more than others, some are calculating city/highway combined, some people have extremely poor driving habits, some people live in poor traffic flow or windy regions, etc., who knows. I've got 4.10 gears and a 5 speed with a high mileage (150+K) 3.4 litre and I posted what I got. My mileage was all 100% highway with a couple of slow downs where the highway goes through a town or something of the like.

I know what I got and it was calculated over multiple 400+ mile trips pulling my tent trailer. As for Man4God, what kind of method are you asking me to post? Let's see here, fill up and drive a bunch of miles, fill up and calculate. Repeat that numerous times and vioala, you get your average mileage. Plus I use a slide rule mileage calculator with number of gallons/number of miles and it gives me the mpg's. Simple. I've checked the accuracy of the slide rule numerous times and it's spot on perfect (government issued calculator). Again this is not rocket science. I've seen posts where people get good mileage and bad mileage with the same brand and make and year/motor of vehicle. Does that mean the people with good mileage are lying? My brother gets phenomenol fuel mileage with his Dodge one ton Cummins, the next guy gets crummy mileage with the same truck/motor and complains to the dealer. Maybe I'm lucky, I don't know. I welcome your skepticism, but I can assure you my calculations are correct.

Just cause your vehicles can't get the same mileage doesn't mean it isn't possible for others.

Cheers

jjrgr21

call BS all you want, it's a fact. using regular 85 octane from grand junction CO to cisco UT, i got 23 mpg w/245/75/16 cooper ST-C's, 10w30 mobil 1 syn, and royal purple in the diffs. i towed throughout a 10,000 mile trip my M-416 trailer loaded with all of our supplies, and had a drawer system in the bed with the dogs. my average while west of the mississippi river was 21.5 mpg, and ocasionally got a bit better. my average speed was 63 miles per hour.

the reason i'm regearing is towing up hills the 3.4 was screaming. and i'm running 255/85's now.

i think the altitude help, and having a lower octane, my average here in MD with the coopers was 19-20mpg all day long on the highway

Whitey13

You're talking apples and oranges. A 4Runner and a Tacoma are not the same vehicle.

Man4God

I agree, it is hard to compare the Taco to the Runner.

My real question is this: Can Toyota really build engines that are so out of spec from each other that some 4Runners get better fuel mileage than others?

Perhaps this is one of those things like what happened to Ford in the 80s with the 5.0 and 4.6 in the 90s. Maybe certain engine builders degreed cams different than others?

Gerdo

I know that my mileage has dropped in the last 6-9 months. I'm not sure if it is thined out gas, needing a tune-up, or what. I used to get 20-22 MPG going 65-70 mph with a big load (600#+) inside the 4runner thru the mountains from Denver to Aspen. I did just take a trip to Arizona towing a 2800# trailer and had about 500# inside. Driving 70-80 mph I was getting about 18 mpg. We did hit some huge head winds and only got 12 mpg. I' now getting around 18 mpg unloaded with a mix of city and highway. I have another long towing trip comming up, I'll check again. I'm going to do a seafoam and sparkplugs before the trip.

cackalak han

Man4God - I agree that I don't think Toyota engines are built with consistency. Main reason I believe that is, because all of mine from 3 different years have all gotten the same mileage. So has my other friends' 4Runners/Tacomas around here.

How is it apples and oranges? 4Runners and Tacomas share many same parts. Engines are EXACTLY the same. Transmissions, the same. Front suspension, the same. Etc. It's Apples to Apples---Washington Apples to Fuji Apples.

And either way, I've had both and got the same results.

BTW, no one claimed 400 miles out of a tank, as we'd need ~20 gallon tank to do so.

Do you people really think I'm on here making up stuff to impress you guys or to rile up a debate or something? You guys think what you like. I put on a lot of miles. My miles are logged consistently. The numbers are correct (in fact, verified by GPS, they were about 3-5 miles off each time). Don't care what anybody thinks. I was posting them up merely for FYI. I'm done with this thread.

Whitey13

It's apples to oranges because some stock 3rd gen. 4Runners can weigh as much as 900+lbs. more than same years Tacomas.

This is a horrible contradiction. Everyone here that says they are getting 20+MPG would obviously be getting 400 miles out of a tank of gas...for which I am thoroughly jealous.

This is a totally harmless thread about fuel economy and as soon as you don't get your way you act like a child stomping their feet. Feel free to rejoin us after your time-out is over.

cackalak han

Ok, will do.

Still don't get your logic as to why this is apples to oranges. Just because of the weight issue?
2001 Tacoma Single Cab 4x4 weighs 3300lbs. 2001 4Runner Limited 4x4 weighs 3900. My 2001 Double Cab weighs 3700. Do the math, nowhere near your 900+lb claim. Also, you need to learn how to use the term, "apples to oranges." Comparing a 350Z to the 4Runner = apples to oranges. Tacoma to 4Runner = fair comparison. And to repeat myself, I'VE HAD BOTH AND HAVE GOTTEN THE EXACT SAME MILEAGE! Plenty of others have gotten the same mileage as well. Is this getting through?

Did you fail at math? We've got 18.5 gallon tanks. 18.5*20 = 370, and that's IF you run it completely dry. That's what I was pointing out.

Seems like you're the one that's crying and kicking his feet about not getting 20MPG. Even the window stickers all said 17/20.

Whitey13

Fair enough. Although greater discrepancies can be found, I don't think 600 lbs. is negligible.
I think we can all agree that the phrase "per tank" is a generally accepted industry term that auto manufacturers use in reference to fuel economy. No?
It is along that idea that I made the 400 miles per tank reference.
Thats about 416/tank.

Same numbers...
So thats ~397/tank
I've never believed those. Now you're telling me people typically beat those #'s!
Here's some good reading:

Fuel Economy
"Real World" Fuel Economy vs. EPA Estimates
By editors at Edmunds.com
Email
Date Posted 05-11-2005

Consumers tend to think that the large black numbers on a car's window sticker, which list the EPA estimated fuel economy rating, are what they will actually get while driving that car. Unfortunately, this is another situation covered by the saying, "Read the fine print." The fine print says, in essence, actual mileage may vary depending on a whole lot of things.

What you as a car shopper need to know is that the gas mileage you get could be less. A lot less. Before you begin hatching some conspiracy theory involving oil companies, the U.S. government and carmakers, you should take a look at where these mileage estimates come from...
http://www.edmunds.com/advice/fuelec...3/article.html

cackalak han

So at what point does the orange become an apple? 500lbs? 400? Again, study up on the use of your phrases.

No, I have rarely heard dealerships and mags talking about "miles per tank." It is useless. Means nothing. Most cars are calibrated to go ~300-400 per tank (barring the outliers, such as the hybrids), so saying "I get XXX miles per tank" tells me nothing. I got 400 miles per tank in my old Civic. I get 370 miles per tank in my Tacoma. So what's that tell me? That my Taco is as efficient as my Civic?

Miles per GALLON is what matters and is used frequently. When is the last time you've heard the term "miles per tank" in a car commercial?

Yes, I did read the fine print. If you read it, it will give you a range (in the case of the 4Runner, it states that your mileage will vary between 17 to 23 MPG on the highway). All of the cars I've owned (15+), I have always been right at, if not beaten, those figures. Always.

Maybe you should polish up your driving techniques to get better mileage. You can't expect to go 9/10th's all the time and expect good MPG's. My S2000 got up to 30MPG on the highway, but 8MPG on the tracks.

Whitey13

Was it not you who commented of the significance weight has on fuel economy? Now your telling me it doesn't make a considerable difference.

cackalak han

Towing is a whole different story. If you've ever towed, you'd know this.

Funny how you're now just trying to find fault in my words instead of actually trying to figure out what's could be wrong with your vehicle or your driving habits.

Man4God

No, you are simply not telling the truth. 370 miles per tank of fuel on a Taco? You expect a 4Runner to get the same? or even remotely close? I would venture to say that 250 to a tank is about average for 4Runners with the 3.4 auto. With a stick they might make 300 with normal driving. Still, not very likely. 600lbs if not more, makes a huge difference. Towing or not, weight is weight.

I think what is funny that you are backed into a corner and just want to blame others for either maintenance issues or poor driving habbits. I have illustrated to you that my truck is in good running condition. I rarely let it go above 2500 RPM while accellerating and cruise between 62-75 on the freeway. My driving mix is 40 town and 60 highway yet I always manage to get between 15-16 MPG. On the highway, the very best I got while driving 65-70 on cruise control was 313 per tank. It came out to be roughly 18.2 MPG.

cackalak han

Are you even reading the whole thread? I've already stated I've had TWO 4Runners, and this Tacoma. They have all gotten the same mileage. If you're not getting the same, I guess it sucks to be you. Just for what it's worth, my gas light always came on about at 300 - 325 miles. 15 gallons at each time. That was 80% highway.

BTW, how am I backed into a corner when I am the only one that posted detailed charts, had THREE 3.4L's (all auto's, BTW), and most in this thread have confirmed the 20mpg?

Lastly, my Tacoma is 3700lbs (3850 with the shell). Get your facts straight.

sharrack

I can understand the whole drive slower to get better mileage, but driving 68
or slower on any major hwy in AZ will cause a major back up.
I've driven past the 65 miles per hour crowd and there's always a somewhat dangerous
dynamic when everyone is going around one car in the right lane..

The mileage game seems like a financial magic trick as well.
Spend 100's of dollars and countless hours working while driving slow to save
a few bucks a tank.
Not sure it will ever even out especially in a year when many of the tune up,
foam this, ad magic elixer mods will need to be done again.

Again..........I'm referring to a well driven vehicle , not a garaged show vehicle.

I drive alot here in AZ and I don't think I could drive with every car looking over at me as if I'm breaking down or as if I should have my hazards on.
My 99 runner is stock with most air related mods reversed, a new tune up, auto , clean sensor etc. 17-18.5 will have to do.
I could not imagine the 20's.............or driving 65 Kenny S>

denpacc

Cackalak, no matter how much we try to convince the skeptics they won't believe us. No big deal. But I must reply:

Whitey, don't use my quotes out of context. My posted best mileage pulling my tent trailer was a shade under 22.5mpg. You fail to quote the part about it was 100% highway driving at 55-60mph (with stops only for gas), and that makes a HUGE difference in fuel economy. For example, when I opened it up to 80+mph pulling my tent trailer, often slowing down for slower vehicles and generally poor traffic flow, my mpg dropped to 13ishmpg. That's what happens when I talk about traffic flow and driving fast.

Man4God, you stated you got 18.2 on the highway driving 65-70mph. Don't you think driving 55-60 for the ENTIRE trip on a highway with excellent traffic flow could possibly make a difference in your fuel mileage? I've experimented with this for years and there is quite a difference between driving 55 vs. 65+ on a 4runner for the entire trip. Remember the faster you drive the more drag there is, and considering we are talking about a 4runner speed will severely impact fuel consumption.

You guys are entitled to not believe our numbers, but until you've duplicated our driving habits/style, weather environments, traffic (flow), trailer set-up, altitude, vehicle, etc. you won't know for sure.

I generally get very different mileage consumption depending on the highways I choose, my driving style on a particular day, summer vs. winter gas, direction I head from the city I live in, wind speed. I've gotten significantly WORSE mileage driving the highways near my house WITHOUT pulling my trailer than I do pulling my trailer in a different part of the country.
All I am asking is that you are open to the possibility of people like me or Cackalak getting 20+mpg pulling a trailer. Rather than chalk it up to BS or something like that why not be open to the possibility that our numbers are true? It can be done in the right conditions consistently. There is no reason for us to make up the numbers we post.

Not only that, I got very similar numbers pulling our tent trailer with my wife's 1993 4.0 heep cherokee sport a few years earlier on the same stretch of highways. How's that for comparing apples to oranges? LOL

Cheers

Matt16

Leave the Seadoo at home, you don't need it.

Man4God

I get what you are saying. I really do: These trucks under the most ideal of conditions can get better than 20 MPG. Ok, fair enough. If you live in the sticks where you drive 100 miles a day to work with no one, even a moose on the road, yeah, 20 MPG is feasible. But real world for almost all these truks is more like 15-18 mixed, USA driving. As the gentleman from AZ stated, less than 65 there is tantamount to death and it's practically the same here in Southern California. Short of asking everyone on the planet to slow down so I can get 20 MPG on my way to work, it is just not a reality.

But 3 years with 3 different 3.4 Auto equipped trucks/4Runners and averaging almost 21 MPG? Get out. You drive in a dream world.

denpacc

If you read the OP's post you'd understand that I was responding to it:

"I am trying to get 20 mpg in the 98 4runner while towing the super jet and the blaster. I think if we are driving the speed limit (60) I think we can pull it off."

He was simply asking if it's possible to get 20mpg pulling a trailer that has his super jet and blaster (apprx. 1000#'s) with his 98 runner. I told him yes it is POSSIBLE under the right conditions doing 55-60mph. I didn't say he'd get it everywhere he'd drive pulling the trailer doing whatever speed he chose. I also mentioned in my post you quoted that my mpg's varied depending on numerous traffic, environment, highway factors. And where does it say I drove 3 different 3.4 Auto equipped trucks/runners???? My runner is a 5spd. Keep your yotatechers straight.

And yes I'd agree that regular "real world" day to day driving in these vehicles does average 15-18mpg. That is true, especially if you drive in the city or 70+miles per hour on highways. I never said it didn't. But as I said, occassionally real world driving can be ideal and you CAN get 20+mpg pulling a trailer of approximately 1000#'s on a secondary highway where the posted speed limit is 55mph. That's all.

You are the one calling BS and stating I "live in a dream world". Nice!



Cheers

Man4God

I apologize for not making it more clear, but the last statement (separated) that I made was directed at cackalak han, not you.

I understand under these very specific conditions, it is possible. Not likely, but possible.

No big deal. I don't have beef with you and really I don't have beef with the other guy either. But I will call BS when someone states that they are constantly getting that fuel mileage, day in and day out. If he does, it isn't even remotely under the same conditions and I think it is incredibly dishonest to pass it off as some casual thing.

Rant over.