Is anyone accounting for the change in tire size in their MPG calcs, or is this like the GX group where no one accounts for the tire diameter difference like its a point of pride? Going to 35's is a 10% difference in size so someone getting 12 on the dash is actually getting in the 13's, which isnt a whole lot worse than the averages on Fuelly.com.
Anyone miss their stock 200? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter remoguy55
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
I am. I get 12-12.5 corrected on the highway at 75-80. Above 80 that drops down into the 11s.
35” tires are a bit over 8% error, as the stock tire size runs a bit high on the Speedo. I’ve confirmed against GPS speed, it’s not quite 10%
Yes I do
Oh, my bad. I haven't been taking the change in tire size into account. This makes me feel better!
I get on average 14.5 mpg. I actually check mileage to gallons on each fill up. It's weird for me to see some people saying they get 19 mpg but I am running a 2009 with 230k
Every truck I've ever owned has had a suspension lift of some sort. The LX570 is the first one that I've kept the suspension pretty much stock and have no real plans to change it other than minor tinkering. It's nice to at least have no compromises in that department.
:edit: 35x12.5 and averaging 12.5-13.5mpg but the sort of drives I do in the truck are not really conducive to good mpg.
:edit: 35x12.5 and averaging 12.5-13.5mpg but the sort of drives I do in the truck are not really conducive to good mpg.
same here. Im in ruralish UT and its 55mph roads in all directions from my house with almost no stops.
I still am averaging 16 in my stock 2018. My F150 on 35's was doing 17.5 in the same conditions. These 5.7L really do suck gas.
Good point and I don't think everyone is. Often attributing loss in MPG to increased "weight" of the tire.
I'm getting a corrected 11 MPG city and 15-16 mpg on highway. Stock rated at 12 city 18 fwy.
bloc
SILVER Star
IMO the big drivers of poor mileage are ones that increase drag. Front bumpers that uncover a bunch of wheel well and tire, roof racks that add a bunch of non-aerodynamic cross bars, traction boards or fuel cans on the roof 24/7, stuff like that. All of this upsets what is actually pretty significant aerodynamic engineering for a vehicle of this size and format, which increases the horsepower requirements to maintain a given speed, which means more fuel burned.
I and others actually reported a slight but repeatable mileage gain by installing a skid system. Not that it’ll ever pay for the skids. But we get the under body protection too. Just have to strike a balance between all of that and too much heat trapped under the vehicle..
I and others actually reported a slight but repeatable mileage gain by installing a skid system. Not that it’ll ever pay for the skids. But we get the under body protection too. Just have to strike a balance between all of that and too much heat trapped under the vehicle..
In my experience with my F150, tire width had more to do with the tire related MPG hit than anything else. My 275/60R20 Duratracs, and my skinny 315/70R17 Territory MTs(which run more like a 285 but still close to 35" diameter), both got very close to the stock MPG's. My Territory's were getting 17.5-18 on average around my house vs maybe just over 18 on the stock tires. My 315/70 KO2's were a true 315 width and were probably 1.5 mpg lower getting around 16 mpg.
My truck was stock height with the stock body throughout its existence. So any changes in mpg were directly related to tires.
My bull bar did not have a huge impact for me, about 1 mpg. I only did a moderate lift and love the ride compared to stock. No nose dives, and still comfortable. And love my RW wheels, makes a Land Cruiser look great. In addition to going offroad, I drive a lot in rural locations, and having hit deer in the past, having the front end protection gives me peace of mind. I still run 33s though, as I have run bigger tires and they kill mpg.
With a lift, bull bar, sliders and skids I still average a little over 15 mpg, which is about two less than my wife's stock 4Runner. Running a roof box drops that about a mpg, but I usually run a Yakima Exo box system on the back.
My stock 23 Tundra TRD Pro is averaging 19mpg on summer blend and with a larger tank, it is nice to take on road trips.
kcjaz
SILVER Star
How you drive (lead foot or Grampa) makes a big difference with mpg. When my rig was stock, I would see 19.1 after fill up for the first 30 miles of my way back home from the lake which was 55 mph highway. At 85 mph, it would drop to 15s. Built up, 15 mph (yes corrected for tire diameter) is about as good as it gets but that drops to 11 in a heart beat at 80 or 85 mph. Non-ethanol gas makes about a 20% improvement for me. Not always worth the cost but it really isn't about fuel cost if your in a built 200. Its about range.
Totally agree on 100 series. No
Offense but looks wise 100 series beats 200 everytime…still has iconic look. I jst added brush guard up front subtle slee offroad sliders n biggest bfg ta/ at ko tires that fit jt and it looks so classic!
Before my LX I had a 2016 Tacoma. In the 2.5 years I owned it, I sunk at least ~$25k into modifications. All said and done, it was a worse vehicle than stock. I should have stopped when I installed sliders, a canopy, and 31" (vs. 30" stock) tires. That was the perfect state for that truck. Capable, practical, reliable.
I learned that lesson and didn't do as much with my LX. 33" tires, some storage items, an air compressor under the hood, done. When these tires wear out, I'll likely go back to OEM size altogether. The truck does everything I need, and then some. Mods often introduce unnecessary complexity, expenses, decrease reliability and practicality. In some cases those downsides are worth the upsides (capability), in my case they are not.
If I had excess money, I'd add an auxiliary fuel tank. If I had excess time, I'd DIY the Tundra front brake upgrade.
bloc
SILVER Star
I went from an average of 17.5mpg @ 73mph on stock dunlops to 15mpg at the same speed by switching to 285/65R18 KO2s @ 41psi. Switching to P-metric 285/70R17s came within .5mpg of stock mpg, despite the increased diameter, but much lower rolling resistance. Adding ~2.5” front lift kings and switching to LT-metric AT3s dropped that back down to 15. And yes I adjusted all of this for tire diameter.
I do live and do a lot of my freeway mileage near sea level where my observation is the mileage hit is worse. I usually improve mileage by 1-2mpg when I get up to Colorado, NM, or even Utah altitude.
Bolstering my belief about aero drag is my observation that cross winds impact my mileage similarly if not more so than headwinds. Having to drive across Texas 4-5 times per year provides something of a laboratory environment for this. To me this suggests Toyota put a lot of work into managing the airflow around the vehicle and anything that disturbs it will increase fuel consumption.
I do live and do a lot of my freeway mileage near sea level where my observation is the mileage hit is worse. I usually improve mileage by 1-2mpg when I get up to Colorado, NM, or even Utah altitude.
Bolstering my belief about aero drag is my observation that cross winds impact my mileage similarly if not more so than headwinds. Having to drive across Texas 4-5 times per year provides something of a laboratory environment for this. To me this suggests Toyota put a lot of work into managing the airflow around the vehicle and anything that disturbs it will increase fuel consumption.
The problem with the 4th Gen Tacoma is that atrocious V6 has no torque below 3500 rpm. I can’t imagine how 285/70’s would be on one when I know it was pretty noticable even on my GX460 with the V8.
I test drove a 2017 back to back with a V6 Canyon and V6 Frontier and even between those V6 mid sized trucks, the Tacoma felt weak
All great points.
To add.
Tire size certainly has an impact, but just as important if not moreso is the rolling resistance of said tire model. A/T tires already have significantly more rolling resistance, with some worse than others. I've resisted the urge to go further into R/Ts because they invite another big hit to rolling resistance.
Offset of tires can be a big impact too, especially low offsets that cause the tire sidewall to protrude beyond the aero profile of the fenders. That can be a bigger hit to aero than expected.
To add.
Tire size certainly has an impact, but just as important if not moreso is the rolling resistance of said tire model. A/T tires already have significantly more rolling resistance, with some worse than others. I've resisted the urge to go further into R/Ts because they invite another big hit to rolling resistance.
Offset of tires can be a big impact too, especially low offsets that cause the tire sidewall to protrude beyond the aero profile of the fenders. That can be a bigger hit to aero than expected.
I’d consider removing the brush guard. In my 100 days I remember a thread about a 100 with a brush guard like that being totaled by insurance after what could have been a fixable fender bender in a parking lot. The brush guard was pushed back into the hood, both lights, both fenders as well as grill and bumper plus other expensive parts. Since those brush guards are for looks and don’t help with brush, it was a sad tale.
bloc
SILVER Star
Great point, I did keep my ARB Twin compressor on a slee mount, and I'm very happy with the 16+ front brake upgrade on my 2013. Both are mods that have a lot of upside with no downside.. other than cost in the case of the compressor.
I guess I do also still have some lighting upgrades.. 30" rigid bar in the grille and yellow DD fogs in the stock spots. If I'm not gonna have a cow-deflector I need to be able to see well at night, and these do that job fantastically. But again, no downsides to as-designed balance of performance.
