gas mileage

[Devils Paw 80]

I found a website that had some data on US Landcruiser wagon fuel consumption.
The tested value for the 60 was 11MPG combined, while the 62 was 12MPG.
As you can see below, things haven't improved much over the years. Looks like the 100 series is the winner. I've heard rumor that the 200 is a backslider to higher fuel consumption.



1997 TOYOTA LAND CRUISER WAGON 4WD City 11 mpg (21.4 litres/100km)
Hwy 14 mpg (16.8 litres/100km)
Combined 12 mpg (19.6 litres/100km)


1998 TOYOTA LAND CRUISER WAGON 4WD City 12 mpg (19.6 litres/100km)
Hwy 15 mpg (15.7 litres/100km)
Combined 13 mpg (18.1 litres/100km)

 

[Tinkerer]

That is some amazing mileage! What year? 03+? What rubber?

99 LX, stock type rubber (Michelin LTX M/S).

Keep in mind that to get the highway mileage I get, I cruise at 55 (20 mpg) to 65 mph (18 mpg), even where the speed limit is 70. Very few people can stand to drive that slowly while others are tailgating you, charging up behind you very fast as if they are going to ram you and waiting until the last split-second to change lanes so that they almost clip your rearend, cutting back in front of you way too close as a form of "communication", needlessly blowing their horns at you, and generally being hostile, aggressive, and bellicose.

I believe that most Americans feel that a slower moving vehicle is a sign that the driver is defective, sick, old, or otherwise a piece of poop worthy of only contempt.

Plus, on longer trips the trip length difference is around 10-20% longer, which few people can stomach in this day and age of "hurry up, we are racing".

On shorter trips and around town, its a different story: There is very little difference in overall trip length of racing hare vs. tortoise, because of the intersections, traffic signals etc. that are the primary equalizers regardless of how fast you drive between red lights.

 

[bamachem]

99 LX, stock type rubber (Michelin LTX M/S).

Keep in mind that to get the highway mileage I get, I cruise at 55 (20 mpg) to 65 mph (18 mpg), even where the speed limit is 70. Very few people can stand to drive that slowly while others are tailgating you, charging up behind you very fast as if they are going to ram you and waiting until the last split-second to change lanes so that they almost clip your rearend, cutting back in front of you way too close as a form of "communication", needlessly blowing their horns at you, and generally being hostile, aggressive, and bellicose.

PERFECT description of Alabama drivers... PERFECT. LOL.

 

[re_guderian]

99 LX, stock type rubber (Michelin LTX M/S).

Keep in mind that to get the highway mileage I get, I cruise at 55 (20 mpg) to 65 mph (18 mpg), even where the speed limit is 70. Very few people can stand to drive that slowly while others are tailgating you, charging up behind you very fast as if they are going to ram you and waiting until the last split-second to change lanes so that they almost clip your rearend, cutting back in front of you way too close as a form of "communication", needlessly blowing their horns at you, and generally being hostile, aggressive, and bellicose.

I believe that most Americans feel that a slower moving vehicle is a sign that the driver is defective, sick, old, or otherwise a piece of poop worthy of only contempt.

Plus, on longer trips the trip length difference is around 10-20% longer, which few people can stomach in this day and age of "hurry up, we are racing".

On shorter trips and around town, its a different story: There is very little difference in overall trip length of racing hare vs. tortoise, because of the intersections, traffic signals etc. that are the primary equalizers regardless of how fast you drive between red lights.

On a lonely highway, nothing wrong with your driving style. On a busy interstate, it's dangerous, impedes the flow of traffic, and causes needless delays so you can maximize your personal economy. That is the reason many states have minimum speed limits on interstates and/or mandatory pullovers for delaying X number of vehicles. Its not an "ugly American" thing, its a safety and courtesy thing. If you can't, or choose not to, afford to drive your car at the typical speeds the roads were designed for, you shouldn't be driving that car. If your still convinced that its contemptuous American thing, try doing it on the Autobahn...

 

[hoser]

55 in a 70 zone is fine by me as long as you reserve the #1 lane for passing and faster traffic.

 

[spressomon]

55 in a 70 zone is fine by me as long as you reserve the #1 lane for passing and faster traffic.

The law in most states, Nevada and California for sure, is to stay in the right hand most lanes except when passing.

Unfortunately you don't have to know this to get and maintain a driver's license

 

[re_guderian]

The law in most states, Nevada and California for sure, is to stay in the right hand most lanes except when passing.

Unfortunately you don't have to know this to get and maintain a driver's license

Unfortunately, typical traffic loads on most interstates nationwide these days make that law a practical impossibility. That, and the fact that in NY people think that going 0.00004 MPH faster than the car in front of them is considered "passing". On rural interstates, it works fine.

As to impeding traffic, in Oregon for example, the delay of more than 5 vehicles is prohibited, and enforced. It varies by state, but the principle is the same.

Here in AZ, if you are doing 50 in a 65 MPH zone on a moderately congested freeway, you will have between 1/2 and 1 mile of traffic bumper to bumper behind you as individual cars try to safely change lanes and pass you in the #1 lane. That's not "rude", or "ugly" driving on the part of those lined up on your bumper, its just the laws of physics. It is your right to drive that slow to save $400 in gas per year, but it is terribly inconsiderate driving to those who just want to go the speed limit (not even over the speed limit). No, there is no justification for them honking at you, but in my opinion it's no less rude than if you were to back up 1/2 mile of traffic behind you by going 20% under the speed limit.



Having said all that, my DD is a "old-man car", a Toyota Avalon. when I can, I drive it as such, and get significantly better MPG. When I traffic, I keep up with the flow. The LC on the other hand, is kinda fun to romp on the pedal...

 

[re_guderian]

...I've heard rumor that the 200 is a backslider to higher fuel consumption...

Friend's LX570 gets significantly better highway MPG than my mildly modded 100, and even respectably better than a stock 100. Without extreme driving techniques. Fueleconomy.gov agrees.

As to your comment about "haven't improved over the years" I guess it depends on your expectations and way of measuring. Given that each successive generation is more powerful (sometimes siginficantly so), weighs more, can seat more people, can haul more cargo, and can tow more than the previous one, all while delivering better fuel economy, I think that yes, things have improved. All the extra benefits of a 200 series compared to a 62 series while still delivering 16% better fuel economy is a pretty decent engineering accomplishment.

 

[TheFuzz]

Keep in mind that to get the highway mileage I get, I cruise at 55 (20 mpg) to 65 mph (18 mpg), even where the speed limit is 70. Very few people can stand to drive that slowly while others are tailgating you, charging up behind you very fast as if they are going to ram you and waiting until the last split-second to change lanes so that they almost clip your rearend, cutting back in front of you way too close as a form of "communication", needlessly blowing their horns at you, and generally being hostile, aggressive, and bellicose.

On a lonely highway, nothing wrong with your driving style. On a busy interstate, it's dangerous, impedes the flow of traffic, and causes needless delays so you can maximize your personal economy. That is the reason many states have minimum speed limits on interstates and/or mandatory pullovers for delaying X number of vehicles. Its not an "ugly American" thing, its a safety and courtesy thing. If you can't, or choose not to, afford to drive your car at the typical speeds the roads were designed for, you shouldn't be driving that car. If your still convinced that its contemptuous American thing, try doing it on the Autobahn...

Tinkerer, I'm going to agree with re_guiderian about your driving style. I think that on an open highway without much traffic, there is nothing wrong with it. In fact, I have been known to do that myself on occasion.

However, as mentioned, on a busier thoroughfare this type of driving isn't appropriate. In my slightly younger days (I'm only 27 so I use this phrase carefully), I have been known to exhibit the type of "communication" that you referred to. Not so much anymore after becoming both a father of two and a cop...but nothing chaps my @ss more than planning a route to get somewhere at the posted limit plus a few extra minutes for traffic, only to get stuck behind a hyper-miler going 35 in a two-lane 55mph state highway where both the congestion AND attempting to pass are dangerous.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that this is what you do - I'm just illustrating that there is a time and a place to squeeze every last drop of mileage you can out of your vehicle, and there are other times where you have to suck it up, go the speed limit, and pay the price for driving a three ton tank with wheels.

On the flip side, that is VERY impressive gas mileage.

 

[OregonLC]

For those with non-stock tires, have you normalized your data to account for the additional tire circumference? If you're going off straight ODO numbers I would think this would be trending your data negative to the tune of 5-10%. 295/75's, for example, should yield a true range that is 7% farther than shown on the ODO.

 

[Tinkerer]

There are a few subjects that will really bring out bellicosity in people. Driving is one of them, especially when pitting those who want to race against those who drive moderately.

Its not a race, folks.

On the legal aspects:

(1) As far as I am aware, the law generally provides for slower moving traffic to keep right, where practicable and unless conditions warrant otherwise. What does that mean? For example, if vehicles are merging from the right, it may be advisable to get in the left lane even if moving slower than the left-lane-racers want to race. Or, if one is maneuvering to a left turn location or looking for something on the left. There is no ironclad law that says slower-moving vehicles must absolutely and 100% always stay in the right lane - this seems to be a major point of misunderstanding by most people, especially people who want to shove everybody else aside so they can drive as fast as they like without any impedance whatsoever. (Sorry, that is not possible on public roadways, not even for police/fire/ambulance/etc with flashing lights and sirens.)

(2) On the minimum speed requirements: Unless there are signs posted with minimum speed for a road, there really isn't a minimum speed. Not even on an interstate.

So, what do (1) + (2) = ? It is perfectly legal to drive at or below the speed limit, cruising in the left lane, on most every road in the country. Then who is breaking the law when impatient drivers tailgate, cut too closely back in front of tortoise, needlessly blow horns, etc? The impatient drivers doing such are the lawbreakers. (Following Too Closely, Reckless Driving, etc.)

What about the moral imperative to "do the right thing and not cause delay to others"? Real delays caused by slow drivers to others range from maybe zero to 15 seconds, because the red lights etc. equalize everything over the total trip time. Might as well complain about people who delay you in the aisle at the grocery store because they take 15 seconds to read a label on a can of beans (its nothing compared to the wait at the checkout line).

I might be more inclined to put more wear and tear on my vehicle and use more fuel to make impatient drivers feel better, if they would contribute to the increased costs I incur by doing so - but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

What about safety? Well, I suggest that people pay attention to what lies in front (and not just their own shiny admirable hood) and around them, and put away their distractions, so that they can focus on driving safely regardless of conditions. There are no guarantees that sudden hazards will not appear when driving. Drivers should not expect a nice even flow of traffic all moving at the same speed - that is an ideal situation but rarely manifested for long in the real world.

Did I leave anything out?

(End of soapbox)

 

[re_guderian]

For those with non-stock tires, have you normalized your data to account for the additional tire circumference? If you're going off straight ODO numbers I would think this would be trending your data negative to the tune of 5-10%. 295/75's, for example, should yield a true range that is 7% farther than shown on the ODO.

GPS helps tremendously, since nominal corrections are rarely correct. My 295's in their current state are only off by ~4%.

...

Did I leave anything out?

(End of soapbox)

Yes, volumes.

 

[OregonLC]

GPS helps tremendously, since nominal corrections are rarely correct. My 295's in their current state are only off by ~4%.



Yes, volumes.

Dang, my spedo must be really off then! At 61 indicated GPS is showing 65. And I have 265/75/16's that the PO had on it! ~6.5% pessimistic on the spedo, haven't checked the ODO, but it sounds like I should!

 

[re_guderian]

Dang, my spedo must be really off then! At 61 indicated GPS is showing 65. And I have 265/75/16's that the PO had on it! ~6.5% pessimistic on the spedo, haven't checked the ODO, but it sounds like I should!

Keep in mind if you wear 6mm off the tread, you've reduced the diameter of the tire by 1/2". Inflation PSI will also have an effect.

 

[bamachem]

It is perfectly legal to drive at or below the speed limit, cruising in the left lane, on most every road in the country.

FYI: State "keep right" laws

 

[Devils Paw 80]

..
As to your comment about "haven't improved over the years" I guess it depends on your expectations and way of measuring. Given that each successive generation is more powerful (sometimes siginficantly so), weighs more, can seat more people, can haul more cargo, and can tow more than the previous one, all while delivering better fuel economy, I think that yes, things have improved. All the extra benefits of a 200 series compared to a 62 series while still delivering 16% better fuel economy is a pretty decent engineering accomplishment.

I said "hadn't improved much". The 62 has equivalent, maybe more, cargo space than an 80 or 100 without the 3rd row seating deployed. Otherwise, you make a good point.

 

[Devils Paw 80]

FYI: State "keep right" laws

I wasn't aware that the Alaska law was an exception in allowing drivers traveling at the speed limit to use the left lane. How quaint!
I'm with you Tinkerer. If you're in the right lane, anyone giving you crap for driving at the speed limit, or a little below provided you're within the law, is simply an uptight jerk.

 

[OregonLC]

Keep in mind if you wear 6mm off the tread, you've reduced the diameter of the tire by 1/2". Inflation PSI will also have an effect.

Yes, but wouldn't tire wear present the opposite problem - actual speed slower than indicated? If the spedo is just a dumb rev counter then the more revs, the higher the speed (and presumably the higher the ODO count). So small tires = more revs per minute per GPS indicated MPH, right?

 

[bamachem]

Yes, but wouldn't tire wear present the opposite problem - actual speed slower than indicated? If the spedo is just a dumb rev counter then the more revs, the higher the speed (and presumably the higher the ODO count). So small tires = more revs per minute per GPS indicated MPH, right?

Kinda... as the larger tire wears down, then the vehicle will be traveling slower than it did before the wear, even though the speedometer will be reading the same. The actual speed may or may not be what is indicated by the gauge on the dash, though.

However, there are two factors to consider.

1. The UZJ speedo is all over the place as far as accuracy goes. When comparing mine to GPS, it can be off by 10% in some speed bands and dead on in others, and I have 285/60-18's.

2. Your rotational diameter. Depending on how stiff your sidewalls are and the operating (not cold) pressure of the tire, your rotational diameter of your tire is going to be specific to your vehicle. You simply cannot take the number from a website and determine the difference between two tires. You need to measure from the ground up to the center of the hub on one tire and then do the same with the replacement tires to determine the actual impact to the speedo/odo.

Best thing to do is just use a GPS and don't worry about it. Most tires have at least 3/8" of usable wear in the tread. That's a 3/4" difference in diameter between "new" and "worn out". 3/4" diameter changes is a LOT when it comes to rotational distances for tires.

 

[99toylc]

Friend's LX570 gets significantly better highway MPG than my mildly modded 100, and even respectably better than a stock 100. Without extreme driving techniques. Fueleconomy.gov agrees.

As to your comment about "haven't improved over the years" I guess it depends on your expectations and way of measuring. Given that each successive generation is more powerful (sometimes siginficantly so), weighs more, can seat more people, can haul more cargo, and can tow more than the previous one, all while delivering better fuel economy, I think that yes, things have improved. All the extra benefits of a 200 series compared to a 62 series while still delivering 16% better fuel economy is a pretty decent engineering accomplishment.

Funny, that table shows premium gas used for the 200 series and regular gas for 100 whats up????
Even on my '99 the label asks for premium and we all know using regular may/does decrease milage by 1-2 miles per gallon.
So 100 gets regular and 200 premium to prove that 200 has better milage ?
What would happen if the vehicles were treated with the same gas ?