Fuel economy

[2020LCHeritage]

Fellow LC Drivers,
I purchased a 2020 LC Heritage edition 2 years ago. Love the LC save one feature - M1 Abrams tank fuel “economy.” Does anyone know of any mods that can be done that actually work, e.g. cold air intakes, Performance chips, etc.?? My 2015 Z51 Corvette Stingray with 465 and 470 ft-lbs could muster 28 mpg while cruising on the highway!! ( vette can shift to 4 cylinders when in highway mode). Appreciate any good ideas. Thanks. JD

 

[bloc]

I am of the same mind.

I’d like a simple reliable diesel that gets good fuel economy due to tall gears and lots of torque…but in order to get one I have to sacrifice all the modern safety equipment.

If you get a modern diesel with modern safety features, you get a nightmare for reliability…and as soon as you start having to replace all the random odds and ends, the money you saved on fuel dissipates.

The one counterpoint I would make applies to my post above too, I forgot to include it.. hard-working engines with lots of hours near their rated horsepower. For that a diesel just can't be beat.. they happily cruise along like that. And partly due to how they were designed the emissions equipment often does better in that environment. So for OTR trucks, yes.

Even a HD pickup dragging a travel trailer.. they tow SO well, but IMO part of the reliability issues with those are the power and torque numbers they are squeezing out of them. Many of the same engine families are derated significantly when in true work truck applications like a 7500.

My wife drives a 2015 Porsche Cayenne diesel. As I knock on wood, that thing has been totally reliable, not a single issue with the motor. A few hiccups with the DEF heater that were fixed under warranty and that's it

I'm well acquainted with that same powertrain in a VW.. terrible intake clogging, thirsty for the DEF after the emissions "fix", common timing chain issues. Of course we can find reliable examples, but I doubt many people hold that engine in the same regard as a 2UZ or 3UR, at least in terms of dependability over the long haul.

I agree. So much of it has to be considered as a system as diesels have compromises in themselves, that the idea of them is really rosier than reality. Diesel emissions and DEF, yuk! 286HP for a heavier than stock gasser would never deliver the performance American's demand on the open highways of the US.

None of this is going to fix the 200-series as built. The 5.7L was the right motor, and great motor still, save for efficiency.

Toyota went the right direction with their future products (except for the elimination of the LC). The new hybrid V6 drivetrain in the current products is the architecture that delivers on the diesel dream. Stump pulling torque. High power output. Efficiency that rivals anything before it. With unmatched refinement.

I'm still a Cruiser junkie and the Sequoia will never supplant it, but for the typical Toyota SUV buyer, it's the right rig with the right drivetrain.

I agree with your appraisal of the sequoia and list of TTV6 adjectives, but will note that the word Reliability wasn't included. And yeah, we've debated this plenty before.. I think the V35A-FTS will be a fantastic engine, but objectively it adds a ton of complexity over the 3UR. This may end up lasting just as long, we don't know yet. But we can acknowledge that these vehicles have hit a bit of an inflection point.. either they remain as dependable and simple and tough as a sledge hammer.. oh and inefficient as one too... or they add complexity in the name of efficiency and environmental responsibility.

Sadly I think we have to acknowledge that we just can't have both.

The cost to go on my trips has risen, but the 200 is still the best machine available for those trips.

 

[TeCKis300]

The one counterpoint I would make applies to my post above too, I forgot to include it.. hard-working engines with lots of hours near their rated horsepower. For that a diesel just can't be beat.. they happily cruise along like that. And partly due to how they were designed the emissions equipment often does better in that environment. So for OTR trucks, yes.

Even a HD pickup dragging a travel trailer.. they tow SO well, but IMO part of the reliability issues with those are the power and torque numbers they are squeezing out of them. Many of the same engine families are derated significantly when in true work truck applications like a 7500.



I'm well acquainted with that same powertrain in a VW.. terrible intake clogging, thirsty for the DEF after the emissions "fix", common timing chain issues. Of course we can find reliable examples, but I doubt many people hold that engine in the same regard as a 2UZ or 3UR, at least in terms of dependability over the long haul.



I agree with your appraisal of the sequoia and list of TTV6 adjectives, but will note that the word Reliability wasn't included. And yeah, we've debated this plenty before.. I think the V35A-FTS will be a fantastic engine, but objectively it adds a ton of complexity over the 3UR. This may end up lasting just as long, we don't know yet. But we can acknowledge that these vehicles have hit a bit of an inflection point.. either they remain as dependable and simple and tough as a sledge hammer.. oh and inefficient as one too... or they add complexity in the name of efficiency and environmental responsibility.

Sadly I think we have to acknowledge that we just can't have both.

The cost to go on my trips has risen, but the 200 is still the best machine available for those trips.

I guess I have more faith in Toyota than most.

After all, this isn't their first rodeo.

Prius hybrids, introduced in 1997, a full 25 yrs ago, have proven long term reliable. Glory days of turbo Toyotas, even my modified 2JZ-GTE, ran like a tank, outputting a full 50% more power than stock.

No doubt they will be more complex and less long term user fixable and durable on account of that complexity (for the average owner). I do love that our 3UR can be had any day of the week from mass produced nameplates. Engine drop/replacements, probably in a single weekend.

As long as it's not German. It's a love/hate working on German cars.

 

[FULL T1ME]

Did anyone actually find any magical solutions? Or are our 200s just stuck with bad gas mileage forever?

 

[MikeVpdx503]

Did anyone actually find any magical solutions? Or are our 200s just stuck with bad gas mileage forever?

I believe Sandroad did with his graph below, just have to drive 10 MPH to get 25 MPG

Here is a graph of data from my 100 (4.7L) that shows the dramatic, non-linear effect of mph on mpg. This was collected under reasonably controlled conditions and I consider it both valid and reliable for a well-maintained 2004 LC with 59K miles at 60F on a windless, flat stretch of deserted Interstate with stock size Michelin AT/2 tires and 2 people, no cargo. Each 10 mph increment was held steady for a minute to read mpg off the computer. Repeated runs for reliability.

So, as I noted above, slow down if you want better range and mpg.

View attachment 2953155

 

[FULL T1ME]

I believe Sandroad did with his graph below, just have to drive 10 MPH to get 25 MPG

Noted.

 

[bloc]

Stick with stock or only slightly oversized highway-oriented P-metric tires.
Run to the upper limit of air pressure in them.
Develop a part-time 4WD kit.
Go slow.
0w-20 and stick with factory spec 75w transfer and 75w-85 fluids, don’t run thicker than recommended.
Go slow.
Absolutely nothing on the roof.
Stock front bumper.
No lift, not even the OE spacer.
Go slow.

 

[Itsky]

Define good.

How good is your gas mileage?!

Yesterday, I drove from Mammoth Lakes, CA to my home in El Dorado Hills, a 213 mile route. The route follows the 395 north and includes driving up mountain passes including the monitor pass up through tahoe. I was generally going the speed limit +5 mph. Other facts: - family of four - 5 days...

forum.ih8mud.com

 

[UnFadeable21]

Reading this thread made me LOL for sure.

My Sequoia was able to get 15-16 a gallon.

The LC is lucky to get 13 mpg but I wouldn’t trade it for anything. It’s a tank and I feel like Batman driving the tumbler when I’m in it and love it. The combination of speed and force is a thing of beauty.

 

[sedonut]

You don't buy a Landcruiser for the gas mileage. I've owned a lot of vehicles, it's my long term favorite out of about 50 vehicles I have owned. Yea I'm old.

 

[CharlieS]

My magic 8-ball tells me that we're going to see a lot of posts like this going forward from the raft of people that just had to have a land cruiser before they stopped making them. It shouldn't be any surprise that the 200 is a gas hog, especially if you either bought new and saw the window sticker or look online at any review of the 200 ever.

 

[Docwyte]

Another thing Toyota could've done to help mpg's on this rig is give it selectable 2wd. Doesn't have to be awd/4wd....

 

[bloc]

Another thing Toyota could've done to help mpg's on this rig is give it selectable 2wd. Doesn't have to be awd/4wd....

The recent sequoia thread saw a healthy debate about part-time vs full-time, with a clear preference for AWD from people who regularly drive in adverse conditions.

I’ve driven mine in the rain in 2wd while diagnosing a failing axle bearing. Between the power and short wheelbase it was quite sketchy.

Add that to our system being more mechanically simple.. Again I feel toyota made the right move.

 

[manofthewoods]

Another thing Toyota could've done to help mpg's on this rig is give it selectable 2wd. Doesn't have to be awd/4wd....

Personally I 100% agree, but I understand why they did what they did. In '94 I ordered a Ford (gasp!) Explorer with lock out hubs - for the above reason. That beast is long gone, now I DD a '97 LX450; a beast I love with just under 400k miles. However, it never met a gas pump it didn't/does love.

I have one word for you son...
"tradeoffs"

 

[coleAK]

Another thing Toyota could've done to help mpg's on this rig is give it selectable 2wd. Doesn't have to be awd/4wd....

Oh yes it has to be. If you are questioning AWD, from a practical standpoint probably shouldn't be driving a cruiser.

If I didn’t need the capacity no way I would own one.

If you are dead set on a cruiser, sell it and get a new LX600? Order it without AHC and with 18” wheels it will be like a more modern heritage, well one with a massive grill

 

[CanadianRockyCruiser]

I'll bet there's room to drop a 4 cylinder chevy spark engine in the bay...

 

[MikeVpdx503]

The recent sequoia thread saw a healthy debate about part-time vs full-time, with a clear preference for AWD from people who regularly drive in adverse conditions.

I’ve driven mine in the rain in 2wd while diagnosing a failing axle bearing. Between the power and short wheelbase it was quite sketchy.

Add that to our system being more mechanically simple.. Again I feel toyota made the right move.

Is it really true that a selectable 2WD would net a better MPG? I was under the impression that some Sequoia had a 2WD/AWD selection option, but owners reported that there was really no difference with MPG between 2WD/AWD…

 

[manofthewoods]

Is it really true that a selectable 2WD would net a better MPG? I was under the impression that some Sequoia had a 2WD/AWD selection option, but owners reported that there was really no difference with MPG between 2WD/AWD…

getting off topic, but the above is true, the exception is front manual locking/unlocking hubs which completely disconnect the front diff and driveshaft from moving. Making the vehicle a 2WD until the hubs are engaged (manually). Our 200's w/Torsen CD are fantastic in practically every situation without having to do anything, but, we pay a price at the pump, again, it's all about tradeoffs.

 

[bloc]

Is it really true that a selectable 2WD would net a better MPG? I was under the impression that some Sequoia had a 2WD/AWD selection option, but owners reported that there was really no difference with MPG between 2WD/AWD…

It depends on the way it is implemented. Almost no non-HD-pickup 4x4 systems have selectable hubs anymore, which is how you can shut down the entire front drivetrain. The sequoia still has the front CV's turning, even if the ADD system prevents the front driveshaft and front diff turning.. just the spider gears inside it. Even the CVs turning is friction.

Realistically even with locking hubs and part-time it will be a marginal difference. Much more of our drag at freeway speeds is aero and tire.

By the way, no locking hubs, no ADD, just a center diff that can be locked is much more simple mechanically, to @manofthewoods point. Tradeoffs.

 

[doru]

After initial shock of ownership last year, I now relaxed and accepted the mpg. I do use the mentioned ways of saving gas, but if I need to step on it I do not second guess it.
I plan to just run my truck for years.
When they'll build the hydrogen fuel stations around Seattle (don't know what keeps them for getting it done) I plan to get a fuel cell car as a daily driver.
The technology is already available commercially for sedans - Mirai, and Toyota is working on it for semi trucks in CA with very impressive results.
That means in less than 10 years we'll hopefully have a fuel cell LC with 400+ miles range. That is enough for roaming the PNW even if the fuel stations are only in larger cities.

 

[PDXLX]

I saw a gain of 1-2 mpgs using the pedal commander in its most detuned eco mode. It makes the truck SLOOOOOOW but saves a bit around town. Keep in mind eco mode makes the truck dangerously underpowered for highway travel but its easy enough to switch the PC into any of the more well suited modes.