@carboncycles and @M1911 Can we stop the back and forth please!
Toyota Quoting Only 23 MPG on 250 Series (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter mappable
- Start date
-
- Tags
- efficiency fuel
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
I don’t really know never had any experience with one and I don’t have any Uber wealthy friends who have one lol.
I’ll need to search the forums to see what people experiences are
turbo8
Supporting Vendor
I'm pretty skeptical. All 4x4 trims advertise the same MPG, which I find hard to believe.
there's a sequoia mpg thread on ,, maybe toyota nation. lots of info there + towing at 10mpg. Best nanny driving city stop and go got 18mpg.
17.x gallon tank and sub 20mpg. Sounds super. Mud members called, they want their 200s back. I'm ashamed and embarrassed for toyota.
17.x gallon tank and sub 20mpg. Sounds super. Mud members called, they want their 200s back. I'm ashamed and embarrassed for toyota.
Someone mentioned it: the comparison is vs 200 or 100. The 250 is not a 4runner. The GX is / was not a 4runner.
Then, vs 200 13 or so mpg, the still good 9 or so more mpg improved LC250 ain't bad. It is not the 13 mpg better I originally thought when first we saw it... But 9 still good !
Then, vs 200 13 or so mpg, the still good 9 or so more mpg improved LC250 ain't bad. It is not the 13 mpg better I originally thought when first we saw it... But 9 still good !
FWIW,
The limited 4Runner probably uses the same exact vf4bm transfer case as the LC250.
The 4Runner gets the same rating with AWD and part time. But there's a few differences. The limited has lower plastics and narrower tires 245s vs other trims 265/70/17 tires.
I think it's likely that the AWD costs some mpg and the amount is less than 5%. Less than 1mpg in this mpg range. And the difference is made up by the tires.
More than zero, but not much.
23mpg is okay with me if it's real. The Tundra is getting well below EPA in most real world results I've seen. Overall the new Tundra isn't a very good product. If the LC is really 20, that's not good enough. Not for the 4cyl. Not for a hybrid. My 4Runner averaged well over 19 before lifting. I think my long term average was 21 before lifting. If that relationship holds it's a pretty big improvement. If it's overstated like the tundra - not so much. I'm holding my judgement until we see some real world results.
The limited 4Runner probably uses the same exact vf4bm transfer case as the LC250.
The 4Runner gets the same rating with AWD and part time. But there's a few differences. The limited has lower plastics and narrower tires 245s vs other trims 265/70/17 tires.
I think it's likely that the AWD costs some mpg and the amount is less than 5%. Less than 1mpg in this mpg range. And the difference is made up by the tires.
More than zero, but not much.
23mpg is okay with me if it's real. The Tundra is getting well below EPA in most real world results I've seen. Overall the new Tundra isn't a very good product. If the LC is really 20, that's not good enough. Not for the 4cyl. Not for a hybrid. My 4Runner averaged well over 19 before lifting. I think my long term average was 21 before lifting. If that relationship holds it's a pretty big improvement. If it's overstated like the tundra - not so much. I'm holding my judgement until we see some real world results.
Last edited:
Below-EPA mileage seems pretty typical for turbocharged vehicles, especially when towing. Ford Ecoboost V6 engines have the same reputation. It's not surprising that Toyota would be in the same bucket. Also, pretty much any hybrid will get worse MPG in cold weather - our Highlander certainly does. So a lot of things seem to need to go perfect (driving style, temperature) to hit those EPA numbers.
Since all of these small-displacement turbo engines are due to a quagmire of government regulations (EPA emissions, CAFE fuel economy, NHTSA crash regulations), I'd be curious to know the the overall fleet gains are "on paper" or actually real. We're consuming oil at about the same rate as 2018.....so CAFE really hasn't "moved the needle" very much on CO2 emissions.
Since all of these small-displacement turbo engines are due to a quagmire of government regulations (EPA emissions, CAFE fuel economy, NHTSA crash regulations), I'd be curious to know the the overall fleet gains are "on paper" or actually real. We're consuming oil at about the same rate as 2018.....so CAFE really hasn't "moved the needle" very much on CO2 emissions.
Last edited:
If I'm used to getting 18-19 in my old vehicle and the new one that is a similar size and weight is getting 23-25, that's a 25% improvement. That's pretty good, especially if there is an increase in power/torque too. I went from an '87 FJ60 to a '99 UZJ100 and got a significant bump in power while maintaining the same MPG numbers. That impressed me too (the bigger, heavier vehicle with more power getting the same MPG).
My LC 200 (2021) gets 14 mpg.
Okay
I wonder how many more cars are on the road vs. 2018 if any?
Google has answers.
I had 3 in 2018 and have 2 in 2024
. Two Subarus and a Mazda, down to two Toyotas.I don't google anything.
