MPG (again, I know, sorry!): hand calculated results for stock(ish) LC200s? (1 Viewer)

[Mawgie]

Folks,

Sorry if I am straining people's patience with another MPG thread. I have scoured the threads here, and also looked far and wide on the Internet.
I am shopping for an LC 200 (possibly LX570), 2010-2014 (pre 8 speed). Mine will be a daily driver/utility rig/mild overland build. Stock sized tires
(or pizza cutters); no rack or, if any rack, something ultra low profile. 3rd row seats permanently removed.

I have seen the threads of the trip computer reporting 18 or even 19mpg and (no disrespect to the posters) have my doubts. Hand calculation of mileage at fill ups are the numbers I am interested in.

I currently drive a 2020 Hemi Ram quad cab 4x4 , so I am realistic about truck fuel economy. (My Ram averages around 16.5, mostly around town.)

For the LC200, when conservatively driven, I am hoping for 13-14 around town, 15-16mpg highway at 70mph cruise in non-mountainous/non-heavy headwind conditions. I see some posts of people doing that on the forum here, then I see many posts of people getting 11-13. Wes Siler (a member here and columnist for OutsideOnline) posted about his LC200 and noted he is averaging 10mpg overall on a stock 8 speed, late model LC200. That's brutal.

If anyone has the patience, I'd like some feedback for hand calculated mpg in stock(ish) LC200s.
Thanks in advance.

 

[canyonrider]

For the LC200, when conservatively driven, I am hoping for 13-14 around town, 15-16mpg highway at 70mph cruise in non-mountainous/non-heavy headwind conditions.

Lots of variables to consider, but around town will be lower than 13-14 and highway should be around 15-16 mpg. Possibly higher if traveling light and you go easy on the pedal.

 

[rscoleman]

I have 8 speed and I like to use math and pencil and paper to figure mileage by tank. I work from home so my weekly run around it grocery store or out eat or out to pick up and bring home. About every 3 to 4 week I run a round trip of about 600 miles from Austin to Beaumont TX to go fishing with my dad. All that being said. I see 14 to 15 for around town. Note I am not Ricky speed racers. I accelerate at moderate to slow pace and I start braking or lift off gas early. I see 15.5 to 17 on highway running between 70 and 85 variance is tail of head wind. If I am pulling my boat I am at 12 to 13 3500lbs. I would image the numbers for a 6 speed are at best .5 off from my numbers. Note if you drive it like you stole it your not going to get those numbers.

 

[Itsky]

I have 2013 LC with OME and 285/70/17 BFG Load range C, third row removed with KISS drawers. I work from home so many of my miles are camping trips with a family of 4 and north shore rack loaded with mountain bikes, goal zero lithium 1000 and packed 100% full. Many of the winter month tanks are day trips skiing up in tahoe (lots of elevation).

With my setup, I’ve noted the ODO says 100 miles when I’ve traveled 105 via gps tracking, the speedometer says 70 when I’m going 72-73 and the MPG and range computer are pretty accurate.

i run 91 octane and don’t baby it.

I made an App for my iPhone that takes ODO miles multiplies by 1.05 and records gallons used and mpg. I don’t record every tank, as my wife often drives it and I just don’t.


Here is that log:

MPG Log



- 8/13/19, M: 272.58, G: 18.6, MPG: 14.65

- 8/23/19, M: 266.7, G: 19.4, MPG: 13.75

- 8/29/19, M: 116.865, G: 8.1, MPG: 14.43



Sedona Trip

- 8/30/19, M: 233.31, G: 14.7, MPG: 15.87

- 8/30/19, M: 363.195, G: 23, MPG: 15.79 *(stopped to get +3 gallons)

- 8/30/19, M: 212.52, G: 13.9, MPG: 15.29

- 9/4/19, M: 184.065, G: 19.06, MPG: 9.66 (4LO wheeling)

- 9/4/19, M: 188.895, G: 10.6, MPG: 17.82

- 9/4/19, M: 164.115, G: 11.8, MPG: 13.91

- 9/4/19, M: 315.63, G: 18.69, MPG: 16.89



Normal driving

- 9/12/19, M: 202.755, G: 14.6, MPG: 13.89



Switch to 91 octane

Mammoth trip

- 9/13/19, M: 237.195, G: 14.9, MPG: 15.92

- 9/15/19, M: 148.575, G: 8.539, MPG: 17.40

- 9/17/19, M: 213.465, G: 10.82, MPG: 19.73



Normal driving

- 9/24/19, M: 248.64, G: 16.47, MPG: 15.10

- 9/27/19, M: 124.53, G: 6.278, MPG: 19.84

- 10/1/19, M: 234.045, G: 14.79, MPG: 15.82

- 10/1/19, M: 226.695, G: 12.26, MPG: 18.49; edh to Marin and back

- 11/17/19, M: 234.15, G: 18.1, MPG: 12.94 all city



87 octane

- 12/7/19, M: 283.5, G: 18.86, MPG: 15.03

- 12/31/19, M: 200.55, G: 14.09, MPG: 14.23 (mountains)

- 1/9/20, M: 288.645, G: 17.4, MPG: 16.59

- 1/14/20, M: 241.185, G: 17.167, MPG: 14.05

- 1/25/20, M: 269.01, G: 18.3, MPG: 14.70

- 2/1/20, M: 193.935, G: 13.9, MPG: 13.95

- 2/8/20, M: 252, G: 17.7, MPG: 14.24

- 2/28/20, M: 551.775, G: 36.2, MPG: 15.24 (two tanks of 87)



Switch to 91



- 3/7/20, M: 282.135, G: 19.2, MPG: 14.69

- 3/21/20, M: 249.9, G: 17.2, MPG: 14.53

- 5/1/20, M: 248.325, G: 18.9, MPG: 13.14



Trip to Oregon - roof kayak and rack

- 7/16/20, M: 259.35, G: 17.35, MPG: 14.95

- 7/17/20, M: 277.095, G: 16.9, MPG: 16.40

- 7/19/20, M: 194.25, G: 15.1, MPG: 12.86 (in bend 4x4)

- 7/19/20, M: 325.5, G: 18.09, MPG: 17.99



Trip to monache meadows

- 7/31/20, M: 265.65, G: 16.2, MPG: 16.40

- 8/2/20, M: 175.455, G: 14, MPG: 12.53

 

[bloc]

@Mawgie go to Fuelly.com and search by vehicle/year. There are two ways to enter the data that it uses to calculate mpg and neither of them use the in-vehicle calculation. From 08-15 (end of the 6spd) the combined mileage is closer to 14, for 16-current it looks about a mpg higher.

Over the 50k miles/2.5yrs I’ve owned mine the overall average is 14.4 mpg combined, and that is with straight odometer entry, no adjustment for my larger tires. I prefer to enter it as an odometer readout vs trip odo readout, so technically my number should be better, but just by a small amount. Thing is I have had a daily driver for all but 8 months of that so it is weighted toward freeway driving/road trips, I'm not sure how much that cancels out the overall efficiency vs the larger tires.

Other details: mostly stock suspension, just the 10mm spacer in front, third row out, stock bumpers, nothing on the roof, for long trips I remove the second row, don't pack heavy, and generally keep it under 75mph. Around town I drive pretty hard though... Trip weight is around 6300lb.

One important note if mileage is a concern for you.. avoid LT tires and stick with P-metric construction. This will constrain your tire size and model choices a lot, but they can handle the load, the right tire is still good off-road (though ultimately not as aggressive tread or puncture resistant).. but it makes a large FE difference. Oh, and ride quality will be MUCH better, between the lower required inflation pressures and much decreased weight.

For example:
The above vehicle with stock tires.. easy 17-18mpg cruising ~74mph on the freeway
Add strut spacer & LT285/65R18 KO2s @42psi, I had trouble getting above 15mpg at the same speeds. Again, not adjusting for increased tire diameter, but it wouldn't have cancelled out that FE hit.
Ditch the KO2s, and install 17" rock warriors so I can run P285/70R17 Toyo ATIIs, which are even taller... mpg went right back up to the previous numbers. Not adjusting, which means my hand calculated mileage is actually better than stock running a significantly taller tire. Now I do tend to set them to 40psi for road trips to improve mileage, and they stay closer to 33-34 around town. But even with the higher pressure they ride significantly better than the KO2s did, and obviously are much more efficient.

If you want to see all the data on my individual vehicle on Fuelly here's the link:

J200 (Toyota Land Cruiser) | Fuelly

And here is mileage charted since the day I got it. You can pretty clearly see where my freeway tanks vs around-town tanks are. KO2s were July of 2018, Toyos were March of 2019. If you look closely the peaks of those freeway tanks are higher after the toyos.

http://www.fuelly.com/car/toyota/land_cruiser/2013/bloc/786195/fuelchart

My gut is that Wes's mileage is worse than most people's. But there are plenty of vehicles on the site to give you a good idea of what to expect.

For everyone.. use fuelly! It's super easy to just enter the numbers and it does the math for you, with all the above database and charting features built in. I don't even use the app, since I sometimes don't have cellular data service out in the sticks.. there is an option to enter the data via SMS. This also avoids whatever metadata collection everyone is trying to load into their apps these days.

 

[Mawgie]

Thanks, all.

@Itsky, that is hugely informative. Thanks. Interestingly, your stats suggest that 91 octane does not appreciably improve MPG.

@bloc, thanks. I am familiar with and have been to fuelly. The results there, for unknown reasons, have not matched up all that well with my hand calculated results for various SUVs and trucks I have owned through the years, so I take it with a grain of salt. Thanks re: tip to avoid LT/E load rated/hefty tires. I knew about that and am going to run lightweight rims and tires, because I believe rotational weight savings can be meaningful at the pump. (I have seen some spirited disagreement break out over that point, and I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, so I avoided mentioning it above....)

 

[cc1999]

I almost trust the computer more then my hand calculations. Largely do to all the variables involved in filling the vehicle and such a small sample of 20-25 gal there is air in the tank, variables in the pumps at different stations, hoses etc, etc. In such a small 20 gal or so sample where .5 to 1 gallon variance would through the whole calculation off. I think the computer monitoring the fule that is going to the injectors is likely more accurate. Years ago vehicles were not controlled as much by computers as they are today. Which back then when trip computers were coming out on vehicles, there were some significant variances. Now I think the computers likely more accurate then my hand calculations. Sometime I am right inline with the computer, others I am off a mpg or so.

IE. If I want to set there and mess with it at the pump, I can quite often get 1-2 more gallons in there without overflowing the tank.

 

[Itsky]

Good info! I’d use Fuelly but it doesn’t account for adjustments due to larger tires so it’s always wrong by at least 5% in my case.

 

[afgman786]

When I was stock on stock size street tires I was getting 18mpg or so on road trips. Averaging around 80mph. Trip computer was actually really close to doing the math my self, maybe .5 off sometimes.

I've always been using 93octane if you care for that info. Best I had seen on half a tank was 23mpg that was averaging 65mph for the trip.

 

[Itsky]

Thanks, all.

@Itsky, that is hugely informative. Thanks. Interestingly, your stats suggest that 91 octane does not appreciably improve MPG.

@bloc, thanks. I am familiar with and have been to fuelly. The results there, for unknown reasons, have not matched up all that well with my hand calculated results for various SUVs and trucks I have owned through the years, so I take it with a grain of salt. Thanks re: tip to avoid LT/E load rated/hefty tires. I knew about that and am going to run lightweight rims and tires, because I believe rotational weight savings can be meaningful at the pump. (I have seen some spirited disagreement break out over that point, and I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, so I avoided mentioning it above....)

@Mawgie it’s debatable, but I think it does, I think my top range numbers were all with 91. I actually used 91 on that Sedona trip as well, but its not there on my notes, so I can’t claim to remember 100%

 

[bloc]

Thanks, all.

@Itsky, that is hugely informative. Thanks. Interestingly, your stats suggest that 91 octane does not appreciably improve MPG.

@bloc, thanks. I am familiar with and have been to fuelly. The results there, for unknown reasons, have not matched up all that well with my hand calculated results for various SUVs and trucks I have owned through the years, so I take it with a grain of salt. Thanks re: tip to avoid LT/E load rated/hefty tires. I knew about that and am going to run lightweight rims and tires, because I believe rotational weight savings can be meaningful at the pump. (I have seen some spirited disagreement break out over that point, and I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, so I avoided mentioning it above....)

I can only attribute your difference in numbers to driving styles. You already know this, but fuelly bases the calculation on user entry of gallons pumped and miles driven. I don't know of a way to more accurately report a vehicle's MPG. Yes, I guess there could be odd behavioral stuff in the data where people are more likely to enter it on road trips, or people driving for mileage more likely to have an account in the first place (this is true, but then you'd fall into that group as well so it applies.)

But.. what it reports in general for my generation of vehicle is spot-on to my own experience.

I almost trust the computer more then my hand calculations. Largely do to all the variables involved in filling the vehicle and such a small sample of 20-25 gal there is air in the tank, variables in the pumps at different stations, hoses etc, etc. In such a small 20 gal or so sample where .5 to 1 gallon variance would through the whole calculation off. I think the computer monitoring the fule that is going to the injectors is likely more accurate. Years ago vehicles were not controlled as much by computers as they are today. Which back then when trip computers were coming out on vehicles, there were some significant variances. Now I think the computers likely more accurate then my hand calculations. Sometime I am right inline with the computer, others I am off a mpg or so.

IE. If I want to set there and mess with it at the pump, I can quite often get 1-2 more gallons in there without overflowing the tank.

If you were just checking one tank in isolation this would apply, but if you do so consistently every tank or even over a few consecutive ones any variances in filling volume would quickly average out.

 

[bloc]

Oh and I've experimented with higher octane fuel over few-tank periods to give the ECU time to trim timing to the increased knock avoidance. Didn't make a an appreciable difference for me.

Also yes, my trip computer is typically quite accurate, though the only time I seem to use it is when I'm marveling at how a cross-wind crushes my mileage.. more than an equal headwind.

 

[Mawgie]

@afgman786, thanks. "18mpg or so on road trips. Averaging around 80mph." That is astonishingly good. Beyond the 93 octane, were you running pizza cutters, hard compund rubber, high tire psi, a pedal commander (I have doubts about this gadget, but some say it helps...), or anything special to try and improve mpg?

 

[M1911]

My 2013 LC has BudBuilt rock sliders and 285/65-18 KO2s. Otherwise it is stock.

You can see all of my fillups here: Land Cruiser (Toyota Land Cruiser) | Fuelly

I get 14 mpg overall. In stop and go rush hour city driving, I get 12 mpg (11 mpg in the winter). Highway is around 17-18 mpg depending on speed, terrain, etc.

I use 87 octane.

offroad mpg can be single digits.

 

[afgman786]

@afgman786, thanks. "18mpg or so on road trips. Averaging around 80mph." That is astonishingly good. Beyond the 93 octane, were you running pizza cutters, hard compund rubber, high tire psi, a pedal commander (I have doubts about this gadget, but some say it helps...), or anything special to try and improve mpg?

Tires that were on the 200 when I bought it were Michelin Defender P265/65/18. Came out to stock height but skinnier, they are light which helped. But nothing special, ran em at 36psi. All pedal commander will do is trick the system to think you are applying more or less throttle than you are depending on the setting you're running, so I don't see the point in having it. Rather have true full range of the throttle instead of having something trick the computer to think I'm applying different pressure.

 

[MikeVpdx503]

My 2013 LC has been used for several road trips, mostly between PacNW, SoCal, Utah and Idaho. On stock tires/wheels, highway mileage is in 17-19 MPG range depending on driving style, traffic and top speed (better at 65-70 and much worse above 75 MPH). I now run LT285/70R17 KO2’s with Rock Warrior wheels. Highway mileage for the same trips is now 15-17 MPG. I don’t keep manual calculations for in town driving, but if I had to estimate, generally around 12-14 MPG, closer to 12 with lots of stop and go.

 

[Mawgie]

Thanks to all. Based on all this + fuelly, I think it's reasonable to hope for 12-14mpg in town, 15- maybe 17mpg highway with a stock-ish setup.

 

[bloc]

Thanks to all. Based on all this + fuelly, I think it's reasonable to hope for 12-14mpg in town, 15- maybe 17mpg highway with a stock-ish setup.

Sounds about right. If you get one post up!

 

[04UZJ100]

I have seen as low as 10-11 city and as high as 17ish on the highway around 80mph on both my stock 200s.

If you’re looking for good fuel efficiency, you’re looking at the wrong vehicle.

 

[kcjaz]

Running non-ethanol makes a 15 a 20% for me. Where I’m at you generally need to buy premium gas to get no ethanol so it doesn’t always make economic sense. For me, it’s more the pathetic range of the 200 with stock tank that is the issue. 20% more range is sometimes worth it to me. It’s like having a jerrycan with having to carry it.