2006 Tacoma - MPG Expectations

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: 2006 Tacoma - MPG Expectations 

On 20 Apr 2006 18:07:47 -0700, doyle.steve RemoveThis @comcast.net wrote:

>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.

Fuel economy: deplorable
Premium fuel: required
 >> Stay informed about: 2006 Tacoma - MPG Expectations 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: 2006 Tacoma - MPG Expectations 

On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 11:54:01 GMT, Bonehenge
wrote:

>On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 03:05:54 -0400, Viperkiller
>wrote:
>
>>
>>Fuel economy: deplorable
>>Premium fuel: required
>
>As an actual owner, I totally disagree. In fact, I'll call Bullshit!
>
Very eloquently put.

>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.
>
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.

>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.

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.


>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.

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.
 >> Stay informed about: 2006 Tacoma - MPG Expectations 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: 2006 Tacoma - MPG Expectations 

On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 22:41:08 GMT, Bonehenge
wrote:

>On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 15:35:08 -0400, Viperkiller
>wrote:
>>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.
>
>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.

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.
 >> Stay informed about: 2006 Tacoma - MPG Expectations 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: 2006 Tacoma - MPG Expectations 

On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 22:01:32 GMT, Bonehenge
wrote:

>On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 17:10:29 -0400, Viperkiller
>wrote:
>
>>
>>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.
>
>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.

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.
>
>
>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.

Exactly my point. I don't need to haul wood so a sedan is all I need
to carry my wife and two children.
 >> Stay informed about: 2006 Tacoma - MPG Expectations 

05 Tacoma Xrunner, 4.0 engine, 6 speed manual. I routinely get just over 22 mpg at 72 mph with cruise set, and about 17 to 18 in town.
Mick
 >> Stay informed about: 2006 Tacoma - MPG Expectations