11-12mpg on hwy (stock rig with no additional weight) (1 Viewer)

[Heritage 2020]

I live in West TN (flatlands/occasional hill) and get approx 14.7 mpg (per the onboard computer as of yesterday) with mixed suburb/rural/highway. We have our windy days but nothing crazy like the plains.

My LC is weighed down quite a bit with front bumper/rear tire carrier/LRA 24gsl/accessories/roof rack and has LT285/65-18 Terra Grappler G2s running 46psi F/R.

Agree with others about wind drag. I typically set cruise at 65-70 mph on the highway as I am never in a rush to get anywhere. On rural roads I’m cruising along at 45-50mph and am never in bumper-bumper traffic either (thankfully due to where we live).

If we go into the city where stop/go traffic is a thing—we take one of our other vehicles.

 

[PDoyle]

Just my 2 cents .Are you going by the dash gauge? Are you sure it’s 11 mpg? I know there is a way to change those figures in the computer. Also has the PC V been changed? Pretty cheap to do. And how old is the air filter ?

 

[CharlieS]

l

He's in Los Angeles area. aka The Valley.

I've never been there, but I imagine lots of traffic. If so, stop and go of any sort is going to result in a lot poorer fuel economy numbers than driving at steady speeds on secondary roads.

 

[MCtree]

The rack kills mileage for sure, 1 or 2 mpg I would think.

Has anybody seen (or done) a good study on the effects of racks or gear stored up there on MPG?
1 to 2 from just a rack seems excessive in my opinion. Like a rack shouldn’t affect aerodynamics of our giant trucks by 8% or so. But I truly have no clue… hence my interest in a scientific(ish) test.
Seems like most tests I see are pretty loosely controlled.

(And yes, given what we choose to drive, we shouldn’t care about MPG too much but all the same, I’m trying to decide between a roof box of some sort or just cramming more into the inside of the vehicle.)

 

[linuxgod]

This was the first tank, so the dealer had filled it and I'm not sure what fuel they used. Most have been on flat ground, and I have been going pretty easy on it, a lot of 50-70 mph speeds. Good point about the brakes, I'll check those and the tire pressure.

Mileage is very dependent on how you drive with the 200 in my experience. Speed, terrain, and acceleration play a surprisingly large part. With your setup I'd expect 14-15, maybe even a bit more.

FWIW my truck is heavy with big tires and awful aero but if I drive 60-65 consistently on the highway our here in IL and avoid stomping on the gas even I can get 14-15mpg. Most of the time I drive 75-80 and get somewhere around 12 on the highway though

 

[Fisher23]

I don't really care about mpg.. I care about range. My test was average mileage before rack, and then with rack. Yes it was that much. It was way way worst on my Chevy pickup with a ladder rack.

The manufactures do wind drag testing with racks, but I'm not aware of mpg testing.

 

[bloc]

Has anybody seen (or done) a good study on the effects of racks or gear stored up there on MPG?
1 to 2 from just a rack seems excessive in my opinion. Like a rack shouldn’t affect aerodynamics of our giant trucks by 8% or so. But I truly have no clue… hence my interest in a scientific(ish) test.
Seems like most tests I see are pretty loosely controlled.

(And yes, given what we choose to drive, we shouldn’t care about MPG too much but all the same, I’m trying to decide between a roof box of some sort or just cramming more into the inside of the vehicle.)

I think you underestimate how much Toyota has done to make these as slick as possible. One example, to me, is the fact that cross winds impact my mileage more than headwinds, and others say they have observed the same. To me this says there is a lot going on to manage airflow over and around the vehicle, with it not making much lateral flow to disturb that carefully orchestrated situation, and get a disproportionate increase in fuel usage.

Look closely at your side view mirrors, specifically the black plastic trim around the outside of the glass. The outermost edge has a bevel molded in to make the transition smooth as air flowing across the mirror glass rejoins the airflow around the outside of the mirror housing. That bevel increases housing size, meaning the glass has to be smaller than it could be otherwise, or the housing bigger.. but they did this anyway. That is just one small example.

From this perspective, sticking an object on the roof with a dozen cross bars making that airflow very, very turbulent, as opposed to how smoothly it would flow over the roof without.. to me it totally makes sense. More drag, more cruising horsepower needed to deal with drag, more fuel burned.

Not that I believe this alone could explain dropping from 17-18 expected when stock to 11.. but OP hasn’t been scientific about things at all either.

 

[AnyMal]

I think you underestimate how much Toyota has done to make these as slick as possible. One example, to me, is the fact that cross winds impact my mileage more than headwinds, and others say they have observed the same. To me this says there is a lot going on to manage airflow over and around the vehicle, with it not making much lateral flow to disturb that carefully orchestrated situation, and get a disproportionate increase in fuel usage.

Look closely at your side view mirrors, specifically the black plastic trim around the outside of the glass. The outermost edge has a bevel molded in to make the transition smooth as air flowing across the mirror glass rejoins the airflow around the outside of the mirror housing. That bevel increases housing size, meaning the glass has to be smaller than it could be otherwise, or the housing bigger.. but they did this anyway. That is just one small example.

From this perspective, sticking an object on the roof with a dozen cross bars making that airflow very, very turbulent, as opposed to how smoothly it would flow over the roof without.. to me it totally makes sense. More drag, more cruising horsepower needed to deal with drag, more fuel burned.

Not that I believe this alone could explain dropping from 17-18 expected when stock to 11.. but OP hasn’t been scientific about things at all either.

Yes, def notice the same. But how best to address the massive negative pocket turbulence at the rear? Is that just an inherent effect of the size displacement? @TeCKis300?

 

[Artie]

11-12mpg… stop bragging!

Real talk, something seems amiss. The rack and tires may account for a couple MPG’s, air filter worth a check and I’d calculate next tank by hand and not the on board computer.

 

[40Man]

I had a rack on 4Runner, and took a big hit to mileage, even with a good fairing. From that experience, I'm going to avoid adding a rack in the future. I'm sure some racks are better than others, but with the hit I took with the 4Runner, I don't desire to try again.

I have a roof box that covers most of the needs when I need it. I also have a hitch basket with a riser.

I don't have a huge care for mileage, other than getting good distance, which the stock tank barely gives. With sliders, bull bar and full under armor, I still average close to 15 mpg with the majority in mixed city driving.

 

[LCH21]

Has anybody seen (or done) a good study on the effects of racks or gear stored up there on MPG?
1 to 2 from just a rack seems excessive in my opinion. Like a rack shouldn’t affect aerodynamics of our giant trucks by 8% or so. But I truly have no clue… hence my interest in a scientific(ish) test.
Seems like most tests I see are pretty loosely controlled.

(And yes, given what we choose to drive, we shouldn’t care about MPG too much but all the same, I’m trying to decide between a roof box of some sort or just cramming more into the inside of the vehicle.)

Tested: How Much Do Roof Racks Affect Fuel Economy?

We found a 3-mpg increase in fuel economy at 75 mph after removing the factory crossbars from our long-term Kia Carnival.

www.caranddriver.com

How Rooftop Carriers Affect Fuel Economy for Cars and SUVs

Consumer Reports tested the fuel economy on cars and SUVs to see how rooftop carriers affect fuel economy.

www.consumerreports.org

Study: That Roof Rack Is Killing Your Fuel Economy

Berkeley Lab says that roof racks cause as much as a 25 percent loss in fuel economy, and accounted for almost 1 percent of national consumption in 2015.

www.motortrend.com

I have thought about even removing the cross bars until I need them.

I am still wondering if anyone else has noticed an increase in MPG with the addition of skids? I did find this article from Van Camping Life: "Skid plates will improve your fuel economy, but not by much. Smoothing out the surfaces underneath your vehicle will reduce drag and improve airflow: after all, manufacturers often use belly pans to improve mileage. However, skid plates will also add weight to your vehicle, and off-road vehicles are not usually designed with fuel economy in mind. Based on our research, you can expect an improvement of 1 to 3 miles per gallon with some skid plates, but your mileage may vary."

 

[AnyMal]

Tested: How Much Do Roof Racks Affect Fuel Economy?

We found a 3-mpg increase in fuel economy at 75 mph after removing the factory crossbars from our long-term Kia Carnival.

www.caranddriver.com

How Rooftop Carriers Affect Fuel Economy for Cars and SUVs

Consumer Reports tested the fuel economy on cars and SUVs to see how rooftop carriers affect fuel economy.

www.consumerreports.org

Study: That Roof Rack Is Killing Your Fuel Economy

Berkeley Lab says that roof racks cause as much as a 25 percent loss in fuel economy, and accounted for almost 1 percent of national consumption in 2015.

www.motortrend.com

I have thought about even removing the cross bars until I need them.

I am still wondering if anyone else has noticed an increase in MPG with the addition of skids? I did find this article from Van Camping Life: "Skid plates will improve your fuel economy, but not by much. Smoothing out the surfaces underneath your vehicle will reduce drag and improve airflow: after all, manufacturers often use belly pans to improve mileage. However, skid plates will also add weight to your vehicle, and off-road vehicles are not usually designed with fuel economy in mind. Based on our research, you can expect an improvement of 1 to 3 miles per gallon with some skid plates, but your mileage may vary."

Nice! Bout to put slee skids. It does make sense, all monocoques have a flat smooth belly.

I will report back.

 

[lx200inAR]

Hi,
I recently bought a 2013 land cruiser with 85K miles on it and on my first tank I got around 11.5 average mpg. I was expecting the cruiser to drink a lot of gas but not by this much. Doing some research, seems like most folks are getting around 15mpg. The truck is almost stock. It has 285/65/r18 AT tires on it and a frontrunner rack but no other additional weight. Is this normal? Where should I start looking?

Also, in case this is your first Toyota (at least BOF truck/suv), when you are on E and the light is on, you still have 4-5 gallons of gas in the tank. In case you were extrapolating any mileage based on 24.5 gallons instead of the 19-20 used when the light comes on.

As far as racks, I feel like I lose about 1.5-3 mpg if I leave my kayak racks on my OEM roof rack (2 pairs of folding J Hooks). I was pretty regularly only getting14-16mpg on highway over the summer when i left them on. After taking them off in the fall my mileage creaped back up to 16-18mpg on highway.

 

[MCtree]

If we lose 1 - 3 MPG for roof racks, what must we lose with a much larger Yakima cargo box up there?
I wish I had paid more attention last time I had mine mounted.
Next time I go on a road trip I will take the box and track my MPG.

And while I am an engineer, sadly I’m not an aerospace engineer so I can’t say if the aerodynamic shape of the box makes up for the much larger cross section vs that of cross bars. I would think not, but who knows?

 

[40Man]

I surprisingly only lose 1 mpg with my Skybox 16, probably because of the closed aerodynamic design compared to a open rack.

If we lose 1 - 3 MPG for roof racks, what must we lose with a much larger Yakima cargo box up there?
I wish I had paid more attention last time I had mine mounted.
Next time I go on a road trip I will take the box and track my MPG.

And while I am an engineer, sadly I’m not an aerospace engineer so I can’t say if the aerodynamic shape of the box makes up for the much larger cross section vs that of cross bars. I would think not, but who knows?

 

[sdnative]

I have a Front Runner rack with full fairing, small lift and slightly larger tires (Michelin LTX Trail 265/70R18) and I am averaging ~14 mpg mixed hwy/city. Before the rack I was averaging about 15 mpg.

Fuel blend / alcohol content will contribute largely to mileage as well. I noticed a significant difference on a recent road trip between CA and OR.

 

[AZLX570]

Anyone ever thought of removing the stock roof rack or at least cross bars for an increase in mileage?

The only time I've ever used my roof rack is to carry a Christmas tree home. Everything else I need to do can fit in the back or I'll get a trailer for the day.

 

[lx200inAR]

Anyone ever thought of removing the stock roof rack or at least cross bars for an increase in mileage?

The only time I've ever used my roof rack is to carry a Christmas tree home. Everything else I need to do can fit in the back or I'll get a trailer for the day.

Some have definitely removed the rack. It looks pretty sharp if you really have no use for it. You can get kits on eBay, or probably ask around here for leftover parts from aftermarket racks to get the filler pieces for the rack mounts. You only have one set from the factory and need 4 sets of filler plates total to remove the rack.

I don't think it's a situation where you'd want to remove and add them regularly. I think Rhino rack might make some mounts where the feet/bars can be taken off and installed without redoing the roof mounts. As in, they have a piece that you install one time to the roof, then the feet/bars can be freely added/removed.

 

[40Man]

Anyone ever thought of removing the stock roof rack or at least cross bars for an increase in mileage?

The only time I've ever used my roof rack is to carry a Christmas tree home. Everything else I need to do can fit in the back or I'll get a trailer for the day.

It is kind of a pain with this factory rack to do it a lot. If I went that route, I'd go for a Thule clamp on rack when I actually need cross bars. I'd be surprised if the aero style factory bars have a big negative impact on mileage.

 

[AZLX570]

Some have definitely removed the rack. It looks pretty sharp if you really have no use for it. You can get kits on eBay, or probably ask around here for leftover parts from aftermarket racks to get the filler pieces for the rack mounts. You only have one set from the factory and need 4 sets of filler plates total to remove the rack.

I don't think it's a situation where you'd want to remove and add them regularly. I think Rhino rack might make some mounts where the feet/bars can be taken off and installed without redoing the roof mounts. As in, they have a piece that you install one time to the roof, then the feet/bars can be freely added/removed.

Any downside to not running the "Filler plates?" Do they serve a purpose other than just aesthetics?

I've never had the rack off some I'm wondering if there's a difference between the filler plates and the trim piece(s) in front of the rack that run along the rails.