Wondering what the actual MPG is for the late model Tacomas with the V6
extended cab. Trying to decide between a Taco and a Tundra and the MPG
difference may help make up my mind.
Thanks!
30
Jan
Tacoma vs. Tundra MPG?
I have a new 2001 Tacoma V6 with about 1000 miles on it now. I am getting a
steady 17mpg.
Kevin
I have a stock tundra 2001 and am getting 14.5 – 15 mpg
Wes
"vjb" <vjbut…@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6nBl7.20$5d5.14525@news.abs.net…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Wondering what the actual MPG is for the late model Tacomas with the V6
> extended cab. Trying to decide between a Taco and a Tundra and the MPG
> difference may help make up my mind.
> Thanks!
2001 Tundra, V8 4*2 – 16 MPG on the commute, 17.5 on the highway, no shell
or cover on the bed…
Tim
"sixbakers" <sixbaker…@msn.com> wrote in message
news:l7Vl7.140$KT.6595@eagle.america.net…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> I have a stock tundra 2001 and am getting 14.5 – 15 mpg
> Wes
> "vjb" <vjbut…@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:6nBl7.20$5d5.14525@news.abs.net…
> > Wondering what the actual MPG is for the late model Tacomas with the V6
> > extended cab. Trying to decide between a Taco and a Tundra and the MPG
> > difference may help make up my mind.
> > Thanks!
2001, V8, tailgate up, A/C on, 17.1-18.3 highway (two laners, fair amount
of stop and go). YMMV!
pr
Kevin,
Your mileage will improve, my 2001 4×4 v6 auto is getting 21 MPG very
consistantly. This is my second Tacoma, my first 99 Prerunner went from 18
new to just over 20 MPG. This 4×4 climbed from 17 MPG to a steady 21 MPG at
about 2500 miles(now I have 10k miles).
I know there are people who discount the benifits, but I use 5-30W Mobil 1
synthetic. I think it has given my MPG a boost.
Stephen
"Atlantic Associates, Inc./Kevin St.Gelais" <atlanticas…@prodigy.net>
wrote in message
news:l_Pl7.26431$YC4.3836985503@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> I have a new 2001 Tacoma V6 with about 1000 miles on it now. I am getting
a
> steady 17mpg.
> Kevin
Stephen, I had a ’99 Volvo S80 T6 and took it on a round trip from Fla to
NJ, about 2500 mi, on Dino oil and avg’d 26.5 mpg for the trip. Then I
changed to 10-30 Synthetic and the next time we made the trip the avg went
up to 28 mpg. Both of these figures were from the trip computer.
Ron(Fla)
Also from a previous post about our present 4R, we owned the Volvo between
the ’95 & 2K 4R:
—————————————————————————
After we bought this 4Runner, after owning the ’95 and using Premium grade
instead of Reg gas, we used Premium in this one too. We took a trip to El
Paso from Fla and got 21-22 mpg, except for 1 tank of 90 oct where we got 14
mpg. Bad gas probably.
When we returned we started using Reg and was getting around 19 mpg, but I
thought this was probably because it was local driving, even though
everything but the grocery store requires 10-20 miles of I95 driving. And
after a few months I was adding injector cleaner more often.
Last week we drove to NJ for a wedding so I put in a can of injector cleaner
and filled it with Reg and started driving. The first tank got 19.4 and the
2nd tank got 19.8. The next tank we filled up with Prem and the mileage
jumped to 21.29. The rest of the trip we used Prem and averaged 21.6 for
the Prem. The average for the Reg was 19.6. The round-trip mileage was ~
2200 miles.
The cost per mile for the reg was 8.9 cents, and for the prem was 8.5 cents.
The truck now runs like it did when we bought it and the power is back. Now
that we know that it cost less per mile overall to use premium gas and the
truck also runs better and has more power, it will be premium from now on.
Even if it will run on reg without pinging………..
—————————————————————————-
—
"Stephen" <stephend@delete_me.uswest.net> wrote in message
news:um3m7.12$Wa4.46960@news.uswest.net…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Kevin,
> I know there are people who discount the benifits, but I use 5-30W Mobil 1
> synthetic. I think it has given my MPG a boost.
> Stephen
tailgate should always be up. down lowers mileage and looks stupid
"Pat Roddy" <pro…@charter.net> wrote in message
news:tph6c79ckucef9@corp.supernews.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> 2001, V8, tailgate up, A/C on, 17.1-18.3 highway (two laners, fair
amount
> of stop and go). YMMV!
> pr
I have a V6 Tundra access cab with standard shift,4WD and an over the cab
cap. At 55-60 mph I can get 21 mph. I use 87 octane gas and have no
modifications. This is with the windows up and no air conditioning.
vjb <vjbut…@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6nBl7.20$5d5.14525@news.abs.net…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Wondering what the actual MPG is for the late model Tacomas with the V6
> extended cab. Trying to decide between a Taco and a Tundra and the MPG
> difference may help make up my mind.
> Thanks!
Ummm…. nope….. Tailgate down actually reduces drag:
http://mars.acnet.wnec.edu/~ehaffner/did.htm
Now as far as looks go, you’re right. It does look stupid.
Side note: If people want to drive with their tailgate down, so be it.
What amazes me is people that actually put something in the back of the
truck and STILL keep the damn tailgate down. I tend to change lanes when
behind one these types.
"Nospamtoday" <Nospamto…@spamfree.com> wrote in message
news:bn7m7.1988$5l6.269915@news1.rdc1.az.home.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> tailgate should always be up. down lowers mileage and looks stupid
> "Pat Roddy" <pro…@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:tph6c79ckucef9@corp.supernews.com…
> > 2001, V8, tailgate up, A/C on, 17.1-18.3 highway (two laners, fair
> amount
> > of stop and go). YMMV!
> > pr
nope sorry wrong this is an old debate
http://cartalk.cars.com/Columns/Archive/1997/October/05.html
So my source, which explains exactly how drag was tested AND gives exact
numbers is wrong, whereas your source, which sites an unnamed engineer and
gives NO numbers or specifications on how it was tested is right?
I stand by my source until someone can give me something more convincing.
"Nospamtoday" <Nospamto…@spamfree.com> wrote in message
news:Vm4o7.8502$aZ6.1784823@news1.rdc1.az.home.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> nope sorry wrong this is an old debate
> http://cartalk.cars.com/Columns/Archive/1997/October/05.html
I didn’t say it was wrong. Its veracity is questionable at best. If you
want to drive around with your tailgate dragging on the ground then fine, go
ahead and do it. Now go ahead and stand………… BTW the so-called
mileage "gains" in your questionable survey are so minuscule as to be
meaningless.
"name" <m…@mail.com> wrote in message
news:RO8o7.5644$s97.574463@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> So my source, which explains exactly how drag was tested AND gives exact
> numbers is wrong, whereas your source, which sites an unnamed engineer and
> gives NO numbers or specifications on how it was tested is right?
> I stand by my source until someone can give me something more convincing.
> "Nospamtoday" <Nospamto…@spamfree.com> wrote in message
> news:Vm4o7.8502$aZ6.1784823@news1.rdc1.az.home.com…
> > nope sorry wrong this is an old debate
> > http://cartalk.cars.com/Columns/Archive/1997/October/05.html
First, let me state I am not trying to start any kind of flame war.
Anything I say is purely intended as helpful information. That being
said…
I do agree that any benefits will be small. Maybe a half a mile more per
gallon. I have owned a couple of pick ups. I didn’t leave the tailgate
down on either.
My main complaint with your statement below is that it’s veracity is not at
all questionable. You could easily reproduce his results. He states
exactly what he did, and gave very specific numbers. If you had access to a
wind tunnel (ok, I admit that’s the hard part) you could run your own
numbers.
The web page you point to is a letter of repsonse from an unnamed person
claiming to be an engineer that presented no numbers or methods what so
ever. Other than say so, there were no actual, reproducible numbers in his
statement.
Obviuosly, both of us have been around a while. I’ve heard every myth
concerning this issue. The "dead spot" in the bed that is helpful, the
tailgate acts as wind break, a lowered tailgate acts as a spoiler, etc. I’m
sure you have also. This is the first (and only) study I have seen where
someone systematicly conducted tests to find out whats real and whats myth.
Everything I had heard until reading this was along the lines of "I heard
from this guy…", "My dealer told me…", "Bubba at the truck stop
said…", "I ran my own tests on the way to work and….", etc. So, like I
said before, until someone comes up with something better, I think these
numbers are the best out there.
"Nospamtoday" <Nospamto…@spamfree.com> wrote in message
news:ek9o7.9443$aZ6.1971427@news1.rdc1.az.home.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> I didn’t say it was wrong. Its veracity is questionable at best. If you
> want to drive around with your tailgate dragging on the ground then fine,
go
> ahead and do it. Now go ahead and stand………… BTW the so-called
> mileage "gains" in your questionable survey are so minuscule as to be
> meaningless.
> "name" <m…@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:RO8o7.5644$s97.574463@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net…
> > So my source, which explains exactly how drag was tested AND gives exact
> > numbers is wrong, whereas your source, which sites an unnamed engineer
and
> > gives NO numbers or specifications on how it was tested is right?
> > I stand by my source until someone can give me something more
convincing.
> > "Nospamtoday" <Nospamto…@spamfree.com> wrote in message
> > news:Vm4o7.8502$aZ6.1784823@news1.rdc1.az.home.com…
> > > nope sorry wrong this is an old debate
> > > http://cartalk.cars.com/Columns/Archive/1997/October/05.html
See :
http://www.caller.com/autoconv/bizlocal98/bizlocal85.html
http://www.bedrack.com/tailgate.htm
http://www.westernwheel.com/000607/news-science-fair.html
The veracity of your cited test is indeed questionable, or no more valid
than the above cited references.
Obviously the reproduction of "numbers" is to you the most important thing.
Fellas, I hate to start a fight between my fellow Toyota owners, but
putting the tailgate down is NOT GOOD FOR ANYTHING BUT LOWERING GAS
MILEAGE SLIGHTLY AND COMPROMISING THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF YOUR
TRUCK. Common sense tells us to put it down, but I have seen much
research PROVING otherwise. With the gate up, the laws of aerodynamics
and wind tunnel testing shows that the bed will actually hold a bubble
of stagnant air. The air you cut through flows over the front of your
truck and over this stagnant "bubble". Also, if you get in an accident,
your three sided truck bed will buckle like your uneducated brain.
Have a nice day.
WaveBreak
"Nospamtoday" <Nospamto…@spamfree.com> wrote in message
news:ek9o7.9443$aZ6.1971427@news1.rdc1.az.home.com…
> I didn’t say it was wrong. Its veracity is questionable at best. If you
> want to drive around with your tailgate dragging on the ground then fine,
go
> ahead and do it. Now go ahead and stand………… BTW the so-called
> mileage "gains" in your questionable survey are so minuscule as to be
> meaningless.
I personally think that driving with the tailgate down should be illegal.
In a collision, the tailgate is not secure and it’s unclear as to what will
happen to it. I also think that bed extenders are dangerous. I own a truck
and a car, and a truck-to-truck collision (which should be bumper to bumper)
will now be bumper to dropped-down tailgate. Even at low speeds, this is
going to cause extensive damage. I’d hate to think what would happen to my
car or me in a collision with a truck that has its tailgate down.
good point about structural integrity. I notice that when researching the
subject. lowering the tail gate can cause the welds to fail
<WaveBr…@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:22739-3BA145F9-44@storefull-613.iap.bryant.webtv.net…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Fellas, I hate to start a fight between my fellow Toyota owners, but
> putting the tailgate down is NOT GOOD FOR ANYTHING BUT LOWERING GAS
> MILEAGE SLIGHTLY AND COMPROMISING THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF YOUR
> TRUCK. Common sense tells us to put it down, but I have seen much
> research PROVING otherwise. With the gate up, the laws of aerodynamics
> and wind tunnel testing shows that the bed will actually hold a bubble
> of stagnant air. The air you cut through flows over the front of your
> truck and over this stagnant "bubble". Also, if you get in an accident,
> your three sided truck bed will buckle like your uneducated brain.
> Have a nice day.
> WaveBreak
Well, I read all of your articles, and not one of them mentioned any
figures. I stand by my source until something better comes along. An
article on a 14 Y/O winning a science fair won’t sway me just yet. I have
said all I have to say on the matter as this is (predictably) degrading into
a flame war. For those still interested in this topic, I have stated my
source, his are below. I invite you to decide for yourselves.
"Nospamtoday" <Nospamto…@spamfree.com> wrote in message
news:gqbo7.9536$aZ6.2053824@news1.rdc1.az.home.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> See :
> http://www.caller.com/autoconv/bizlocal98/bizlocal85.html
> http://www.bedrack.com/tailgate.htm
> http://www.westernwheel.com/000607/news-science-fair.html
> The veracity of your cited test is indeed questionable, or no more valid
> than the above cited references.
> Obviously the reproduction of "numbers" is to you the most important
thing.
you are sure hung up on figures here’s some for you: 36 24 36
obviously you aren’t impressed by known automotive columnists or Lockheed or
even <gasp> a student who basically did the same thing as your source did.
Have a happy day.
P.S. The earth isn’t flat, either
"name" <m…@mail.com> wrote in message
news:14so7.7476$lE3.826325@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Well, I read all of your articles, and not one of them mentioned any
> figures. I stand by my source until something better comes along. An
> article on a 14 Y/O winning a science fair won’t sway me just yet. I have
> said all I have to say on the matter as this is (predictably) degrading
into
> a flame war. For those still interested in this topic, I have stated my
> source, his are below. I invite you to decide for yourselves.
> "Nospamtoday" <Nospamto…@spamfree.com> wrote in message
> news:gqbo7.9536$aZ6.2053824@news1.rdc1.az.home.com…
> > See :
> > http://www.caller.com/autoconv/bizlocal98/bizlocal85.html
> > http://www.bedrack.com/tailgate.htm
> > http://www.westernwheel.com/000607/news-science-fair.html
> > The veracity of your cited test is indeed questionable, or no more valid
> > than the above cited references.
> > Obviously the reproduction of "numbers" is to you the most important
> thing.
The study by the young engineer won an award from the ASME(being an M.E. I
respect that). His numbers are valid, they may not be universal, but at
least work for a full sized RAM under his test conditions.
I suspect the Lockhead study may be more conclusive, but is http://www.bedrack.com
a reliable source?
What the kid did sounds impressive and ambitious. I’d like to see the
results, and how the 8th grader performed his scaled down experiment. I’ll
bet the biggest lesson the 8th grader learned had nothing to do with fluid
dynamics. His own theory aside, he did not let prejudice interfere with
science, and in the process was enlightened.
"Nospamtoday" <Nospamto…@spamfree.com> wrote in message
news:1vuo7.13465$aZ6.3056253@news1.rdc1.az.home.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> you are sure hung up on figures here’s some for you: 36 24 36
> obviously you aren’t impressed by known automotive columnists or Lockheed
or
> even <gasp> a student who basically did the same thing as your source did.
> Have a happy day.
> P.S. The earth isn’t flat, either
> "name" <m…@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:14so7.7476$lE3.826325@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net…
> > Well, I read all of your articles, and not one of them mentioned any
> > figures. I stand by my source until something better comes along. An
> > article on a 14 Y/O winning a science fair won’t sway me just yet. I
have
> > said all I have to say on the matter as this is (predictably) degrading
> into
> > a flame war. For those still interested in this topic, I have stated
my
> > source, his are below. I invite you to decide for yourselves.
> > "Nospamtoday" <Nospamto…@spamfree.com> wrote in message
> > news:gqbo7.9536$aZ6.2053824@news1.rdc1.az.home.com…
> > > See :
> > > http://www.caller.com/autoconv/bizlocal98/bizlocal85.html
> > > http://www.bedrack.com/tailgate.htm
> > > http://www.westernwheel.com/000607/news-science-fair.html
> > > The veracity of your cited test is indeed questionable, or no more
valid
> > > than the above cited references.
> > > Obviously the reproduction of "numbers" is to you the most important
> > thing.