MPG, how to improve?
- Thread starter watchknut
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
FWIW: I went from a 2011 GMC Sierra half ton 4wd 5.3l to my old Land Cruiser.
Prior to the Land Cruiser, I also have had a 2000 4Runner Highlander Ed., 2002 ext. cab Silerado Z71 and 2005 quad cab Dodge Ram 1500 5.7 4wd.
The Silverado got 17-18mpg all day. The Dodge was 14-15mpg. The GMC got 17mpg around town and 19-20mpg on the interstate. It also had the fuel deactivation system (that I've read has problems, mine didn't).
It's interesting to me because my old domestics of the same era consistently got about equal or better mileage than my old 4runner. Yet the 4Runner was so much smaller, had less power and could tow way less.
I also have an old LS400 that's be in the family since new that gets a consistent 22ish mpg. It also gets worse mileage than a comparable Mercedes or BMW of the same time. It's the same thing for a comparable GS430/300 and IS300. Coincedentally, my wife had an IS300 and now has IS250. The IS250 gets surprising gas mileage for what it is, but I had to pay to have carbon buildup removed from the intake manifold at 90k miles. Never had any problems with the old 300. But it didn't have direct injection or other lean burn tech in the new 250.
IMO, I guess Toyotas of the 90s and early 2000s focused a little more on overbuilt/understressed engines for better reliability than producing the best mileage possible because fuel prices were less of a concern.
Anyway, I'm only through a 1/4 of tank so far since removing the crossbars, rearseats, sunroof and rear wind deflectors. Mileage looks good so far.
About as often as I drive around 3400 rpm- I try not to. As far as the canyon- it's off topic, but it's a lightweight rear drive pickup, and hp is not related to your buddy driving up a hill... I actually got rid of the Canyon after getting stuck. It was 2wd though.
I don't know about "superclean." I just stop at Chevron or Shell and fill up. It is what it is.
I don't know about "superclean." I just stop at Chevron or Shell and fill up. It is what it is.
Speaking of modern GM engines, I recently moved from Las Vegas to Denver and sold most of my stuff to avoid getting a Uhaul (and because I wanted to buy new stuff!). I rented a 2013 GMC Suburban one way from a rental car agency, folded down all the seats and packed it from bottom to top, side to side with the stuff I wanted to take with me. I had a passenger and we cranked the music and heated seats the whole way, with the cruise set between 78 and 84 the entire trip up I-15 then I-70 through the mountains and I got 22.5 mpg on the first tank and when I filled it up as I dropped it off the second tank (most of the big passes) I still got 20.1 mpg. I find that extremely impressive due to the heavy load and high average speed over the elevations we encountered. It was also very comfy and rode very nice too. All that said, I was still happy to hop back in the LC when it was all over!
To sum up the OPs question. Yes. It seems like something is wrong if you're getting that kind of mileage and poor performance.
Start replacing things to figure out what's causing it or get a new truck.
I think we all wish our trucks could be retrofitted with direct injection, 8spd transmission, selectable 2WD,cylinder deactivation etc.
I wish someone would hurry up and make a diesel generator powered electric version with an electric motor at each wheel. It's make for great mpg and awesome an awesome traction control system.
Start replacing things to figure out what's causing it or get a new truck.
I think we all wish our trucks could be retrofitted with direct injection, 8spd transmission, selectable 2WD,cylinder deactivation etc.
I wish someone would hurry up and make a diesel generator powered electric version with an electric motor at each wheel. It's make for great mpg and awesome an awesome traction control system.
Why, because the vehicle is performing as advertised? It's not like this was a secret they were hiding. What we have is quality and durability. This equals mass - both spinning and static - which requires fuel to move. Take the transfer case for example. We have a mechanic pump in ours which does a better job than splash of keeping the case lubricated and happy. It takes energy to make this happen.
When in the middle of nowhere I'm very impressed by Toyota engineering. I you want 4 mpg better buy a 4runner.
It was the 1500 with the 5.3 V8 not the 2500 with the 6.0. I have heard the latter gets atrocious mpg. I was pretty impressed and would not have believed it had I not driven and calculated it myself.
Well, since I bought a 9 year old truck, the only " advertising" available to me were internet forums. Where some are reporting 15mpg and better! And yes, I am dissappointed in the lack of efficiency. Just wanting to make sure I'm getting the best I can. Don't get all bent. I will trade the efficiency for the durability, you bet. I'm just saying we shouldn't have to. We put a man on the moon 40 years ago...
What? www.fueleconomy.gov 12 city and 16 hwy, 13 MPG overall. People LOVE to overstate their mileage, they ignore long term tank averages because the math is too difficult and instead report single tank results that stand out in their memory, and everyone has a different definition of "city" and "hwy". You may not agree with the EPA's definitions, but at least they're defined and consistent.
You didn't pay near what NASA did, and besides, there's laws of physics to contend with around efficiency of the internal combustion engine, the energy density of gasoline, aerodynamics of a lifted SUV, rotating weight of off-road tires, full-time 4WD and driveline inefficiencies, etc. etc. Based on all that, for any given apples-to-apples comparison of a 5500 lb, full-time 4WD vehicle who's development was finalized in 1995, it's right where it should be.
If you utilize it correctly, the Passenger-Miles-Per-Gallon can be very competetive. This weekend I just did 250 miles, including 50 miles of dirt, 10 miles of that in 4WD low, pulling an nM716 trailer full of crap, and had 7 people in the car. I got 11 MPG overall for the trip. It would have taken 3 Prius' to carry that much cargo and passengers, and even then they would have been destroyed on the roads. That's about 13 MPG for the Prius', IF they could have made it at all...
What? www.fueleconomy.gov 12 city and 16 hwy, 13 MPG overall. People LOVE to overstate their mileage, they ignore long term tank averages because the math is too difficult and instead report single tank results that stand out in their memory, and everyone has a different definition of "city" and "hwy". You may not agree with the EPA's definitions, but at least they're defined and consistent.
I didn't know this. I assumed people would be helping each other, not making them think there is something wrong with their vehicle. And there is the crux of my part of the conversation. 16mpg hwy. I'm nowhere close. At the speed limit (65) I'm about 12, at 75 I get about 10.5 or so.
You didn't pay near what NASA did, and besides, there's laws of physics to contend with around efficiency of the internal combustion engine, the energy density of gasoline, aerodynamics of a lifted SUV, rotating weight of off-road tires, full-time 4WD and driveline inefficiencies, etc. etc. Based on all that, for any given apples-to-apples comparison of a 5500 lb, full-time 4WD vehicle who's development was finalized in 1995, it's right where it should be.
I agree it is where it is, but not where it should be.
If you utilize it correctly, the Passenger-Miles-Per-Gallon can be very competetive. This weekend I just did 250 miles, including 50 miles of dirt, 10 miles of that in 4WD low, pulling an nM716 trailer full of crap, and had 7 people in the car. I got 11 MPG overall for the trip. It would have taken 3 Prius' to carry that much cargo and passengers, and even then they would have been destroyed on the roads. That's about 13 MPG for the Prius', IF they could have made it at all...
Touche! Unfortunately, I've been averaging that with just me and no gear!
Rest of response in quote. Iphone is a pain to deal w formatting.
And back to the topic- any other ideas on ways to make her run a bit smoother? Other than "buy a new truck"? I was going to do O2 sensors, but they looked shiny and new (the front ones) and while speaking to cdan he recommended not to bother. Said they'll throw a code if bad. Idk- this is new to me. Maybe I'll put her on a flatbed and tow her with a "pos" chevy pickup, the one with the outdated unreliable motor, getting 16 mpg uphill both ways. Then at the campsite I can jump in the drivers seat and make vroom vroom sound effects.
Just kidding! Don't shoot!
Just kidding! Don't shoot!
Tune up, tire pressure, driving habits, lower expectations. Replacing things like O2 sensors as PM is dumb. And when you do a tune up, do a comprehensive one. Replacing your air filter and calling it good it not going to net you any change in mpg. If you don't use the rack all the time, take it off.
Lower expectations, 10-4. On the tune up what would you include in a comprehensive one? I've done all fluids, maf and throttle body, seafoam, brakes, bearings, air filter, and soon plugs. What am I missing? If I have done everything I can do and 12mpg is what I get, cool. But folks need to stop talking about how they got 2mpg from this or that. Load of BS, it looks like.
I would guess that your 2.5 inch lift is causing you about 1mpg loss in mileage. The 285's mud terrain size Trail Grapplers are probably another 1mpg loss. Then the amount of weight, blueberry bumper, winch, skids and sliders are causing another 1mpg loss. Your roof rack could be up a 1mpg loss.
I can get 17 mpg in the summer all the time but like I said I have stock size tires, no roof rack, the 3rd row seats are gone and I have hardly any weight in the back. I use superclean unleaded\no ethanol and full synthetic oil. Otherwise I just drive it.
If I were you and I know this is hard (because they look so bad a$$)but I would switch from the trail grappler to the terra grappler next set. I would assume this easily gets you 1mpg back. Even if you stick with the 285's the rolling resistance of an all terrain has to be exponentially better than mud terrain.
I wouldn't try to many things unless they need it. I bet your landcruiser is running good it's just the height\weight mud tire, full time 4WD that's chewing up your mileage.
I can get 17 mpg in the summer all the time but like I said I have stock size tires, no roof rack, the 3rd row seats are gone and I have hardly any weight in the back. I use superclean unleaded\no ethanol and full synthetic oil. Otherwise I just drive it.
If I were you and I know this is hard (because they look so bad a$$)but I would switch from the trail grappler to the terra grappler next set. I would assume this easily gets you 1mpg back. Even if you stick with the 285's the rolling resistance of an all terrain has to be exponentially better than mud terrain.
I wouldn't try to many things unless they need it. I bet your landcruiser is running good it's just the height\weight mud tire, full time 4WD that's chewing up your mileage.
Last edited:
This I'm sure has good merit. I guess I was just hoping I would only lose 2 mpg or so total like I did with my last "build," and considering weights and motors were similar I would get similar mileage. I would prefer an all terrain, but I like the peace of mind of the 10-ply rated mudders when far from the road. Almost all the trails here have some pretty sharp rocks... Really hard on tires.
First of all, I'm not the OP, but yeah- I'm complaining about it. You said "This weekend I just did 250 miles, including 50 miles of dirt, 10 miles of that in 4WD low, pulling an nM716 trailer full of ****, and had 7 people in the car. I got 11 MPG overall for the trip."
I'm getting 11 with one bumper, winch, rack with fairing, lift, and 33's. No passengers, on the highway. So either I'm getting a raw deal or you are also full of ####. Last time I did 70 miles of trails I got 8mpg.
I'm getting 11 with one bumper, winch, rack with fairing, lift, and 33's. No passengers, on the highway. So either I'm getting a raw deal or you are also full of ####. Last time I did 70 miles of trails I got 8mpg.
Are you sure you calculated your 33" correctly?