Ask the Car People.SM


Poor mileage acceptable to Toyota - READ ONLY

69 messages,  Last post on Jun 24, 2003 at 5:04 AM

You are in the Pickups - Archived Discussions Forum.

This discussion is ARCHIVED. To reactivate the discussion, post a request in the Javascript runtime error--TypeError: obj has no properties-- see logJsError347.html for a stack trace discussion.

What is this discussion about? Toyota Tacoma, Fuel Efficiency (MPG), Truck

Messages Page 3 of 7

#20 of 69 Nissan by yurian44

Mar 14, 2003 (9:15 am)

I'm driving a '97 Nissan pick-up with a 5 speed manual and the 2.4 litre 4 cyl. engine. I usually carry about 1,000 pounds of payload in it and regularly get 24-25 mpg in city driving. In highway driving if i keep my speeds down to 65 mph or below I usually get 28-29, sometimes as high as 30 when it's unloaded except for the shell. This is my 3rd Nissan truck and all have gotten about the same mileage. EPA estimates are never that accurate which is why YMMV (your mileage may vary) has become such a cliche in the American language nowadays.

#21 of 69 yurian44 by rlafaver

Mar 14, 2003 (9:54 am)

You know, I test drove a Frontier, and it rode really rough, but now I wonder if the tires weren't over-inflated. My Tacoma was. Wish I had bought the Frontier, or the Chevy, or the Ford, or even the Yugo, if they make a truck.

#22 of 69 MPG figures on sticker by toyotaken

Mar 14, 2003 (12:17 pm)

If you read the smaller print under the large numbers, the EPA gives a range. This is usually 5-7 mpg over and under the large number on the window sticker. Remember, these are machines with literally thousands of different parts and no two will be absolutely identical. Also, no two drivers will drive absolutely identically either. So there is going to be a range for milage. I know people who get in the very low teens for their MPG and know others who get in the low to mid 20's. All Toyota seems to be saying is that it is well within the range of normal for your particular model of truck.
 
Sorry I can't help more, but hope it helps.
 
Ken

#23 of 69 4x4 mileage by oregonboy

Mar 14, 2003 (3:09 pm)

I think the tires, weight, gearing, and aero-disadvantages of a 4x4 make a huge difference vs 2wd. I bought a used 4x2 1996 V-6, 5-spd, Tacoma extended cab because I had no plans to go off road and wanted better fuel economy and handling.
 
I was hoping to get at least 20 mpg since (unlike Yurian) my 2.4 liter standard-cab Nissan was only getting about 22 mpg. I was astounded to find that I get 25 on the freeway (at 75 or so) and never less than 21 around town. EPA estimates are 19/23. I'm happy.
 
-james

#24 of 69 I haven't read all the posts by saddaddy

Mar 14, 2003 (4:22 pm)

here but, IMO you guys complaining about mileage on 2003 model trucks need to lighten up a bit. Ever heard of break-in?
 
I have never heard of a vehicle getting great mileage straight off the lot. My tacoma 3.4L got pretty dismal mileage for the first 10k miles and then really started to get better. Was I surprised - not at all. Im at 26k miles now on my 2000 model truck and mileage is anywhere from 18 to 23.5 depending on how and where I drive. Good luck.

#25 of 69 RLA by sonjaab

Mar 14, 2003 (8:30 pm)

What area are you in ? Flat and long Texas or going up and down hills in Colorado ?..Maybe working it too hard.
My dad has a new 02 Chevy s-10x cab, 4.3 v-6, auto., 4wd loaded out. Will have to ask about his
mpgs....His 99 s-10 4 cyl., reg cab, auto., 2wd got over 20 plus puttin' around. Read that GEEZER
at the wheel mpg.!............lol..........

#26 of 69 saddaddy by rlafaver

Mar 15, 2003 (7:59 am)

Since 1986 I have bought 10 new cars for my family. I am familiar with the term "break-in". All of these vehicles achieved EPA average before the 500 mile mark. Reps at two Toyota service departments told me that a Tacoma is broken in at 1000 miles and that my mpg is maxed out for current conditions. You say 10K. Who do I believe? My son's 2002 V6 PreRunner was getting within one mpg of my I4 performance at 1000 miles on his truck, so I tend to believe those service departments. I hope you are right and they are wrong.

#27 of 69 sonjaab by rlafaver

Mar 15, 2003 (8:06 am)

I'm in Lafayette, Louisiana. The only hills are actually bridges. I made a 200 mile test keeping the revs below 2200 during accelleration, and at most times I was able to keep it below 2000. On a 4 cylinder engine this is slow. For that 200 mile test I got 0.8 mpg better than my average, but I was in constant danger of getting plowed over by big SUVs and pickups. I cannot drive that way all the time, but I wanted to find out just how bad this thing is.

#28 of 69 rla by bess

Mar 15, 2003 (1:53 pm)

I didn't know your truck was 'that' new. On my last new truck (Ford), MPG's didn't maximize until around 5k to 7k miles on it..
 
The increases will be gradual, and you probably won't even notice the difference from tank to tank. But I bet in 6months the MPG's will be right at the numbers on the sticker.
 
Also remember that some trucks will take more or less fuel in the tank depending on the angle the truck is sitting at the pump. This can skew the mpg calculation for a tank, but will be made up on the next tank and average out over time.
 
Just have fun with your truck.

#29 of 69 rla by oldharry

Mar 15, 2003 (8:41 pm)

Maybe you baby it too much. With automatic transmission, if you are driving like there is a egg between your foot and the pedal, you do not get to the speeds that the trans shifts up soon enough, and you use more fuel. I have a neighbor (older than me) that drives that slow. Everyone else hates to get behind him heading to town, takes him over a half mile to get up to fifty. He gets terrible milage because he is most often not in high gear, and the converter lockup doesn't get used.
 
Harry

Messages Page 3 of 7

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement