MPG, how to improve?

[Trunk Monkey]

That just tells me Toyota has been making anemic land cruisers for decades. Not impressive.

Nor is it their function - at all. You want a go fast truck, go get a Ford or Chev pickup, big V8, low truck weight. But, let's see who's still running at 300k and compare repair bills to that point. Impressive.

Will my truck go over 100k miles, why can't I get 24mpg, what's this thing on the frame rail . . . I just don't get it.

 

[PoppaWheelie]

For those saying the power / mpg is not great for a modern V8, please realize that this engine was introduced in 1998. What kind of power / mpg can you get out of 1998 Chevy Tahoes or Ford Expeditions with 4x4?

A modern V8 would be the new 4.6 in the GX460 or even the 5.7 from the Tundra.

The engine was really designed in the 80s for the new Lexus flagship the LS400... Modern in 1989

I think the key to MPG (in this pig) is light tires and a really light foot. But that's no fun! And probably doesn't make much difference.

 

[Musky]

Yes, and no. I'm not "worried" about it. I didn't think it was a Prius when I bought it. I just think that the mileage I'm getting seems low considering the weight and shape of the vehicle, and it's pathetically underpowered engine. Coupled with the fact that others may be getting much better mileage and I've heard many comment on the "V-8 power" of the 100's, it makes me think something may be wrong with mine. I never drive fast, but I have tried and I can't stay at 80 on flat ground in top gear. That doesn't seem strange to you in a $50k suv with a modern v-8?

I have new plugs from cdan (awesome no bs guy) and after that, I'm outta ideas.

Pathetically underpowered? The 100 series landcruiser puts out 320 pounds of torque. It has a DOHC 32 valve motor with a bulletproof iron block that produces over 90% of it's torque at less than 2000 rpms with max torque available at only 3400rpms.

Even the 2013 Chevy 5.3 V8 only puts out 335 torque at 4000 rpms and it's a pathetic 16 valve sohv old school motor. The 100 series landcruiser motor (2UZ-FE) in 1997/1998 was and is still higher technology than the pathetic motor chevy makes 15 years later.

You have a lift, bigger tires, roof rack, extra weight and gear and you want a full time 4WD SUV that was built for offroad to tear around the freeways at 80mph? Of course you're going to get crap mileage. Unless you get a current V8 with over 400 foot pounds of torque and 10mpg you're going to need a diesel.

 

[TrekboxX]

I know I shouldn't expect anything else on a 100 forum. I get it. I'm not asking for a go-fast truck. I was just hoping that this very expensive suv would have an engine with more horsepower than my 2002 5 cylinder compact truck. It should not have an engine that was designed in the 80's. It's power and efficiency should at least be on par with other similar sized engines built in the same era. If not, we should get a hefty discount for "last decade's model." Why do you think the headers and such are such a hot topic? Don't be offended. Just my opinion. I really like my 100 and will continue to build/maintain/ drive it.

My interest was also peaked because of some folks reporting up to 50% better mileage than I am getting. You don't think that's worth inquiring about?

 

[TrekboxX]

You have a lift, bigger tires, roof rack, extra weight and gear and you want a full time 4WD SUV that was built for offroad to tear around the freeways at 80mph?

I don't tear around the freeways. But yes, I'd like to be able to keep 75 in 5th gear and keep up with traffic. I bought this 100 based on many opinions that "you can follow a lifted jeep through most trails and cruise at 80 all day long."

Mine must be busted...

 

[Yukon LX]

there aren't a lot of other gas engines that see 350k miles with very little problems either. . .

 

[spressomon]

Toyota has typically designed for reliability rather than cutting edge design. The big difference between the 2UZ-FE and the GM 5.3L variants, displacement and push rods aside, is electronic engine management. Toyota to the best of my knowledge is still using 8-bit technology in their electronics whereas GM is using 32-bit.

I will say the fuel management GM uses in some of their 5.3L V8s (maybe other engine platforms too) is nice. A buddy of mine whom I hunt with occasionally has a GM 1/2 ton with the 5.3L and their cylinder management technology and it consistently gets 20mpg at 65-70mph without the driver ever feeling fuel being cut to some cylinders.

But I think Toyota generally opts for simpler and a supposedly more reliable design center? And in this comparison it comes at the expense of fuel efficiency.

The other thing you've got is a driveline power transfer system in our LCs that changes directions and loses a fair amount of efficiency getting power to the rear wheels...

FWIW: I typically get around 13mpg highway doing 70-75mph. I get a little better if I keep the tach to 2,000rpm which translates to 60mph typically. All in all considering the 4.88s, 35" tires, Columbus RTT and tour mode GVW of around 8,000lbs coupled with a relatively tiny 287 cubes of displacement its downright incredible, in relative terms, I can get 13!

 

[Yukon LX]

and i can cruise at 80 all day long. not sure why you cant. I get about 15 mpg on the highway. That is better than my Yukon that weighed less and had a chevy 350 in it.

 

[TrekboxX]

and i can cruise at 80 all day long. not sure why you cant. I get about 15 mpg on the highway. That is better than my Yukon that weighed less and had a chevy 350 in it.

Exactly my point. Thank you. I can't, and I don't. Don't be offended, guys. I know you love your LC, and it's a LC thing, and all that- but I want to love it too. I had an old jeep and loved it, too, but I didn't pay land cruiser money, either. I'd be very happy with the performance Yukon LX reports. Seems on par with a heavy SUV with oversize tires and all built in 2003.

 

[mgilvan]

Well land cruiser and MPG are the two words that don’t go well together. Well how much gain of gas mileage are you anticipating ? cause the most gain is about few more MGPs
Good luck with your quest

 

[TrekboxX]

Even the 2013 Chevy 5.3 V8 only puts out 335 torque at 4000 rpms and it's a pathetic 16 valve sohv old school motor. The 100 series landcruiser motor (2UZ-FE) in 1997/1998 was and is still higher technology than the pathetic motor chevy makes 15 years later.

Uh, sure.

Toyota has typically designed for reliability rather than cutting edge design. The big difference between the 2UZ-FE and the GM 5.3L variants, displacement and push rods aside, is electronic engine management. Toyota to the best of my knowledge is still using 8-bit technology in their electronics whereas GM is using 32-bit.

I will say the fuel management GM uses in some of their 5.3L V8s (maybe other engine platforms too) is nice. A buddy of mine whom I hunt with occasionally has a GM 1/2 ton with the 5.3L and their cylinder management technology and it consistently gets 20mpg at 65-70mph without the driver ever feeling fuel being cut to some cylinders.

 

[re_guderian]

...
My interest was also peaked because of some folks reporting up to 50% better mileage than I am getting. You don't think that's worth inquiring about?

No. They're full of crap. No one is CONSISTENTLY getting 50% better mileage than you with equivalent set ups. Stop believing everything you read. Sure people get a good tank every now and then...

 

[re_guderian]

and i can cruise at 80 all day long. not sure why you cant. I get about 15 mpg on the highway. That is better than my Yukon that weighed less and had a chevy 350 in it.

just to be clear, you can't cruise at
80 all day long AND get 15 mpg doing it, can you? Set up? I know the stock LX 570 can...

 

[TrekboxX]

No. They're full of crap. No one is CONSISTENTLY getting 50% better mileage than you with equivalent set ups. Stop believing everything you read. Sure people get a good tank every now and then...

I suspected. Thanks.

 

[RobRed]

I created a database app for managing my LC maint. Within that app I built a fuel reporting piece that tracks every single fill up including adjustments for tire size as well as tracking other variables. in the last 226 days of operation I have averaged 11.99 MPG.

I use the tried and true method to calculate the mileage - miles driven / gallons used.

 

[Yukon LX]

^ that seems about right. I only get 14-15 on full tank highway runs. I average about 10-12 per gallon on a normal tank with all types of driving.

 

[Musky]

I know I shouldn't expect anything else on a 100 forum. I get it. I'm not asking for a go-fast truck. I was just hoping that this very expensive suv would have an engine with more horsepower than my 2002 5 cylinder compact truck. It should not have an engine that was designed in the 80's. It's power and efficiency should at least be on par with other similar sized engines built in the same era. If not, we should get a hefty discount for "last decade's model." Why do you think the headers and such are such a hot topic? Don't be offended. Just my opinion. I really like my 100 and will continue to build/maintain/ drive it.

My interest was also peaked because of some folks reporting up to 50% better mileage than I am getting. You don't think that's worth inquiring about?

Horsepower is nothing without torque, especially in a truck or SUV. The 2002 American made 5 cylinder motor only produced 190 torque. My 1990 Nissan pathfinder put out just as much. The engines of the same era weren't even close to the technology or power of the Landcruiser.

Here is the upgraded motor option for the Chevy half ton in 1998.

One of the optional engines in the 1998 Chevy 1500 was a 5.0 L, 305 cubic-inch V-8. The 5.0 L engine produced 230 horsepower at 4,600 rpm and had a torque rating of 285 foot-lb. at 2,800 rpm.
That piece of junk only had 16 valves. Remember that's the old school OHV motors

Ford in 1998? 4.6 liter V8 sohc 266 hp and 302torque @ 4000 RPM. Pathetic! It has more horsepower, yet less torque and cannot reach it until 4000?
And I'm not offended, I just think it's funny coming from one of the worst trucks made in the past 10 years (GMC Canyon 5cyl) to an offroad legend that weighs almost twice as much, one was built on durability and reliability you can't even compare the two.

The Landcruiser 100 was built for 25 years of severe use. The canyon was built to last 5 years before completely falling apart.
I'd get the headers, catback exhaust, air intake etc... if you want more power. Otherwise you have to unload all the weight and go back to stock size tires. Either way 320 pounds of torque is a lot.

 

[Musky]

. Toyota to the best of my knowledge is still using 8-bit technology in their electronics whereas GM is using 32-bit.

!

Powerful 32-bit engine control and effective catalysis, plus Denso top-feed injectors and coil-on-plug ignition, help certify the new 100 series Cruiser as a Low Emission Vehicle (LEV

Read more: http://www.clublexus.com/forums/lx4...y-for-the-100-series-lc-lx.html#ixzz2E6VbYIH5

 

[TrekboxX]

Horsepower is nothing without torque, especially in a truck or SUV. The 2002 American made 5 cylinder motor only produced 190 torque. My 1990 Nissan pathfinder put out just as much.

The engines of the same era weren't even close to the technology or power of the Landcruiser.

Here is the upgraded motor option for the Chevy half ton in 1998.

Remember that's the old school OHV motors
Ford in 1998? 4.6 liter V8 sohc 266 hp and 302torque @ 4000 RPM. Pathetic! It has more horsepower, yet less torque and cannot reach it until 4000?[/COLOR]
And I'm not offended, I just think it's funny coming from one of the worst trucks made in the past 10 years (GMC Canyon 5cyl) to an offroad legend that weighs almost twice as much, one was built on durability and reliability you can't even compare the two.
The Landcruiser 100 was built for 25 years of severe use. The canyon was built to last 5 years before completely falling apart.
I'd get the headers, catback exhaust, air intake etc... if you want more power. Otherwise you have to unload all the weight and go back to stock size tires.Either way 320 pounds of torque is a lot.

My mistake. I had a 2004 canyon as a runabout truck. It had 220 hp. And to say it's not a well- made truck, I don't know. I only had my own experience of 120k miles with only oil changes and shocks at 100k before I moved on. And I missed that little truck.

And very off topic is the comment on the old Ford motor. Actually, the numbers look pretty good when compared to the 100. Pathetic? Slightly less tq but a good gain in hp. Really irrelevant, though.

Thanks Rob. That's close to what I'm getting. And I know your attention to detail, so if something were amiss you'd probably suspect it!

 

[Musky]

Uh, sure.

Don't believe me? Look it up yourself. Chevy.com

BTW- My buddy had a canyon a while back and he took it out ice fishing with us. At the end of the
evening he couldn't get up the hill off the lake. He kept trying to get up the hill and his pathetic traction control system
kept engaging slowing him down and he'd get stuck half way up and then he'd slide back down.

He had to try about 5 times to get up the hill. He still couldn't so he had to get a running start from 100 yards away.
Finally his canyon went jumping up the hill into the parking lot and almost smashed into some
guys truck. It was very dangerous. He was the laughing stock that night at the bar. I noticed he sold his canyon the next week.

I asked him why and he said he'd never drive something like that again and that it was the most embarrased he's been in a while.
Every other truck went right up the hill. I didn't even half to lock the diff.