Every Day I Complain About My Gas Mileage........

"jkm7680" (jkm7680) 06/15/2018 at 22:33 • Filed to: None

2

43

Then I realize I could drive a 2008, I mean 2018 Toyota Sequoia and get 13 city, 17 highway and am thankful for my 16 city, 20 highway in my Tacoma. Like, you literally could get a 2018 Suburban and get like 17 city, 23 highway and have a much better all around product.

When I was driving a 2018 Sierra, I somehow was getting 20-21 city with a 2wd truck with the 5.3 and no AC running. Probably getting a Sierra as my next truck though.

DipodomysDeserti > jkm7680 06/15/2018 at 22:40

1

Or you could drive a Jeep and get 17 mpg no matter what type road you’re on and only have 200 ponies on tap.

jkm7680 > DipodomysDeserti 06/15/2018 at 22:41

0

Haha, how does that even work?

I also think that’s an excuse for a 5.7 swap.

HammerheadFistpunch > jkm7680 06/15/2018 at 22:50

3

jkm7680 > HammerheadFistpunch 06/15/2018 at 22:52

0

I’m guessing you’re in the 12-14 club.

Nibby > jkm7680 06/15/2018 at 22:52

3

we had a 2014 sequoia and i’d get around 14 city, 17-18 highway

similar size engine in my ram 1500 (both were 5.7L V8s) and i’d get 15-16mpg city, 21-23 highway

HammerheadFistpunch > jkm7680 06/15/2018 at 22:53

2

13. ALWAYS 13. unless im in low range, then always 9

Shift24 > jkm7680 06/15/2018 at 22:56

0

Ha what? My 96 k1500 gets an average of 17mpg.

So here is the other thing is how do they even compete in the category? The Tahoe/Yukon start at 16mpg and get 23 mpg highway. Probably closer to 20 mpg but still

If only EssExTee could be so grossly incandescent > DipodomysDeserti 06/15/2018 at 22:57

1

I have gotten 4.7mpg in our YJ.

jkm7680 > Shift24 06/15/2018 at 22:59

1

Good question, haha. Plus Toyota overestimates gas mileage. Even when I drive my Tacoma super liberally I still struggle to get what they say it will.

HammerheadFistpunch > Shift24 06/15/2018 at 23:00

1

gearing. For some reason Toyota likes a short final and it takes its toll.

jkm7680 > HammerheadFistpunch 06/15/2018 at 23:00

0

Haha, sometimes for me it’s “out of sight out of mind” because I don’t have a trip computer.

HammerheadFistpunch > jkm7680 06/15/2018 at 23:04

1

My trip meter broke. Best thing that ever happened

Shift24 > HammerheadFistpunch 06/15/2018 at 23:10

0

Wonder why, might help on towing but seems uncalled for engine strain

jkm7680 > HammerheadFistpunch 06/15/2018 at 23:15

0

The worst is taking a short drive and visibly having less gas after.

Shift24 > jkm7680 06/15/2018 at 23:16

2

Just seems like the polar opposite of what the do with their prius/hybrids. And I understand Toyota goes with tried and true but at what point do they adapt

DipodomysDeserti > jkm7680 06/15/2018 at 23:18

0

Air resistance.

I have a spare cammed and carbureted SBC 350 I’m tempted to throw in.

jkm7680 > DipodomysDeserti 06/15/2018 at 23:25

0

How hard are those swaps? Also I can almost guarantee you’d be getting that single digit mileage life hah

jkm7680 > Shift24 06/15/2018 at 23:25

0

They could have done so much better on the sequoia in that regard

camarov6rs > jkm7680 06/15/2018 at 23:26

2

According to the government you could save around $700 a year just in fuel getting the Suburban. Idk that the Toyota is going to be $700 more reliable a year.

415s30 W123TSXWaggoIIIIIIo ( •_•))°) > jkm7680 06/15/2018 at 23:27

3

It should have a Toyota diesel.... like every Toyota truck and SUV should. I was mumbling something like that when I was in Australia everywhere I went...

Dr. Zoidberg - RIP Oppo > jkm7680 06/15/2018 at 23:32

0

Sequoia is a good vehicle tho

My pickup gets 17, 17, 17. Mostly because the bed is usually full. Also it’s old.

jkm7680 > 415s30 W123TSXWaggoIIIIIIo ( •_•))°) 06/15/2018 at 23:35

1

I wish

fintail > jkm7680 06/15/2018 at 23:36

1

Barely better than a G-Wagen, hilarious.

jkm7680 > Dr. Zoidberg - RIP Oppo 06/15/2018 at 23:36

0

It is. My aunt used to have one in that red purple color.

Dr. Zoidberg - RIP Oppo > HammerheadFistpunch 06/15/2018 at 23:39

0

I get 17% better mileage for 87% less utility 

wafflesnfalafel > jkm7680 06/16/2018 at 00:04

1

Toyotas are fabulous trucks, but I think they just never have focused on MPGs as much. My old 2.4 12 valve Nissan hardbody would get 20 mixed, 23-24 hwy.

DipodomysDeserti > jkm7680 06/16/2018 at 00:05

0

It would be a totally custom deal. I have a ‘66 GMC with a cammed 350 and it struggles for 10mpg.

jkm7680 > DipodomysDeserti 06/16/2018 at 00:25

0

That would be awesome though, lots of custom stuff for sure. I’d imagine that’s a heavier engine than the stock one, plus the trans and ECU. I’d imagine that swap would be way easier with an older Jeep.

Long-Voyager > HammerheadFistpunch 06/16/2018 at 07:24

1

Lack of engine torque made up for with gearing.

HammerheadFistpunch > Long-Voyager 06/16/2018 at 10:47

0

I don’t think that’s it. Toyota engines favor a meaty torque curve over horsepower almost always, but especially in their trucks

Long-Voyager > HammerheadFistpunch 06/16/2018 at 11:04

0

Peak torque on the 5.7L hits just below 4k?

Hell it comes in at almost 5k on the V6s, I wouldn’t exactly call that a meaty torque curve.

HammerheadFistpunch > Long-Voyager 06/16/2018 at 11:29

0

3600 rpms isn’t a good place for torque to peak?

plus it starts at over 300 lbs-ft and ramps up pretty steadily to its peak.

its got more than 380 lbs-ft from 2800 to 5000. Meaty.

same story with the 3.5

Though it has a funky shape on account of its strange dual cycle system. Still 250 lbs-ft+ from 2000 - 5500. Peak numbers don’t tell much of a story.

Under_Score > jkm7680 06/17/2018 at 19:00

0

New Sequoia still doesn’t have push button start, no matter how many option boxes you tick. The Highlander does a better job at everything for a lower price.

Long-Voyager > HammerheadFistpunch 06/18/2018 at 07:06

0

3600 rpms isn’t a good place for torque to peak?

In a truck engine, NO. Peak torque should come in around 2500. Especially on an engine that seems to be falling on it’s face around 5800rpms.

The 3.5 lacks that torque graph at anything outside of 3/4+ throttle, thanks to it’s dual cycle system, which leads to it being a gutless pig for daily use.

HammerheadFistpunch > Long-Voyager 06/18/2018 at 09:57

0

Find me ANY modern NA truck engine that peaks at 2500.

Chevy peaks around 4100

Ram peaks at 4000

Fired at 3850

Toyota at 3600

Long-Voyager > HammerheadFistpunch 06/18/2018 at 10:07

0

Trucks used to:

Which IMO is why trucks used to get better mileage in the 90s as well.

HammerheadFistpunch > Long-Voyager 06/18/2018 at 11:29

0

Well, for a kickoff, no...trucks didn’t get better mileage then than now. The WORST truck on the market today gets 18 highway. I never got 18 highway from any of the GM trucks we had. I mean you could EEEK out better than 18, but apples to apples new trucks are way better. not to mention they do it quieter, with more hp and capability on tap.

Second, while that stump pulling torque is great on paper, it doesn’t translate to a lot better engine. I mean hp is the motive force and its rate. so 1,000 lbs-ft at 1000 rpm is only 190 hp. Its a lot at that rpm, but its not ACTUALLY a lot oh power. What I mean to say is that the old school moving the curve is, well, old thinking for a better engine. New engines that peak higher actually have more average power in the mid and high range, and frankly just as much in the low range on account of variable camming.

Here is the thing, in 2014 a smaller motor is nearly as powerful in the low revs, but more powerful everywhere else. But the torque peak is higher so it seems like it has less low down grunt. It don’t. I mean the Tundra 5.7 has MORE power at 2500 than the LT1 does, but it peaks higher in the rev range because you want the power curve to keep bending up as you get more revs to it keeps climbing.

New engines good.

Long-Voyager > HammerheadFistpunch 06/18/2018 at 12:06

0

Counterpoint: Old engines with torque down low don’t need to rev to make their power, resulting in longer engine life and better efficiency. The majority of driving is done in the low rpm range (unless you drive like an asshat everywhere), so having more power/torque lower leads to better efficiency.

You gotta remember those old engines were getting that efficiency with 3 and 4 speed autos. These days it takes 8-10 speeds to get the same mileage we were accomplishing 20+ years ago. That is laughable at best.

People are too caught up on how much HP things have these days without realizing, Torque is a far more important metric.

HammerheadFistpunch > Long-Voyager 06/18/2018 at 15:27

0

counter- counterpoint - I originally wrote many words but this chart sums it up

Red - Tundra Torque curve

Light green - Tundra HP

Orange - LT torque curve

Dark Green - LT1 HP

You can see for the same displacement the new engine has more torque down low, in the mid and up high. You’ll also not how little difference in power it makes to have more torque at lower rpms, the big differences happen above 3000...which shouldn’t be shocking given that HP = (torque x rpm)/5252 meaning rpm is going to increase power more effectively than torque since you can gain it more easily.

“People are too caught up on how much HP things have these days without realizing, Torque is a far more important metric.”

This is just untrue completely. I mean I agree that looking at peak hp number is a terrible way to comparison shop, but torque isn’t an important metric...at all. Torque is just a means to power and power is what matters.

As painful as these guys are to watch they have all the real world data

Diesel trucks (with their mighty torque) are slower towing uphill than gas trucks. Power wins, everytime. The only reason diesel is great for towing is because high power at low rpm means better economy.  

I mean, I love my low revving stump pulling 1FZ, 240 lbs-ft at 1200 rpm and peaking at 2900 at 275. its great. You know what’s not great? That it is completely out of steam at 3600 rpm. The 4.7 in the GX is SOOOOO much better of a motor, it has all the same low down grunt (more) BUT it still can rev to get power, AND its just as long lived.

This one’s done a million miles!

At the end of the day, modern engines start with more torque and hold onto it longer in the rev range.

Pack on point, Toyota favors low revs and broad torque over outright HP for all the reasons you mention - more tractable, better engine life, etc. That being said, it looks less impressive on paper.

Long-Voyager > HammerheadFistpunch 06/18/2018 at 16:10

0

What exactly does how fast something can tow have to do with how well it tows?

Speed isn’t really a concern to me when towing. Ease of use and lack of having to scream the engine to do so is.

Let’s just agree to disagree.

HammerheadFistpunch > Long-Voyager 06/18/2018 at 18:45

0

I just I’m just seeking to understand. What you’re saying is “steak is best” and what im saying is “but a bigger steak with sides is probably better, right?” and you are saying “No, small steak please.”

I mean if an engine’s job is to do work (apply a force a distance), then it can either do more of it, do it faster or both...so I would say speed up a mountain under load is a fair test of an engine. The towing speed example I used was to illustrate that 555 lbs-ft down low is a motor than does less work than 394 lbs-ft over a larger range. Which is why torque is a terrible metric for measuring an engine.

Don’t get me wrong, more power down low is great...more POWER. Not force.

If we’re talking diesel vs gas there are pros and cons - Gas has more power and does more work, diesel produces more relative power compared to engine speed with offers an economy advantage.

but its really all about power. Even with 925 lbs-ft of torque at 1700 rpm like the best diesels are doing, you are still only getting 300 hp worth of work, just at lower engine speeds.

If we are talking gas to gas (which we are)...I guess I just don’t understand why anyone would want a one note engine versus one that also plays that that same note...but plays others too.

I guess thats what Im saying - new truck engines have all the low rev grunt they used to, more even, its just now they can also rev when you need more.

How you use that is up to you. Lug and chug? Your option. Scream and move? hey...have it your way. We have a choice now, which I, frankly, am grateful for. That plus Torque needs to die as a meaningful engine metric. The HP curve tells the entire story, it doesn’t even require the torque curve to matter. Now if marketers would USE HP better...Im thinking average power, or something.

Long-Voyager > HammerheadFistpunch 06/19/2018 at 07:03

0

1: Let me spin it this way:

Vehicle 1: 250hp, 320ft-lbs from say 1500-4500rpms.

Vehicle 2: 300hp, 250ft-lbs @ 4600rpms.

I would go with vehicle 1 every time. It’s going to be easier, smoother, quieter, and more efficient for daily use. Will it be as fast, not likely, but it will be quicker and feel faster due to the broad torqueband.

2: Gas to diesel comparisons are laughable. They leave out gearing, transmissions, etc. Diesels are designed to pull your house off it’s foundation not race another truck while towing (which they also do very well if you keep them in the torque band instead of trying to scream them like a gas truck, the point all these tests fail).

I want more from a diesel, I drop 1 gear into the torque band instead of 2-3 gears on a gas engine. I use the torque to accelerate. It doesn’t need to downshift to maintain speed up hills, it doesn’t need to be screaming revs to tow/haul loads.

I prefer that usable, livable torque right off idle with some trail off in the upper revs. I don’t need to be that douche screaming 5-6k everywhere I go because I need that power. I prefer revving 2-2500rpms and pulling away from pretty much everyone at stoplights, being able to roll on throttle to pass and not needing to downshift, being able to idle along down the highway at 2k or less.

HammerheadFistpunch > Long-Voyager 06/19/2018 at 11:37

0

1. of course you would choose 1, its BY FAR the more POWERful engine, (btw, 320 lbs-ft @ 4500 rpm = 274 hp). The other engine is only making 219 hp at its torque peak and would need to rev (realistically) to 8000 rpm to reach its 300 hp power peak. It’s BY FAR a less POWERful engine averaged out.

I understand what you are telling me, you want a POWERful engine in the daily driving band...so does everyone else which is why anyone NOT building a sports car engine tunes them that way. Average POWER is what you want. I get it. It’s called area under the curve and daily drivers and racers want it equally.

2. No. See this is where I don’t think you quite understand what HP and torque are and their relationship to each other. Using electricity as an analogy; the thing that turns the machine around is WATTS, not Volts, not Amps. 100 milliamp at 110 volts is not dangerous. 10 amps at 1 volt is similarly benign. There are some details lost in the analogy but suffice it to say that Torque = Volts (amount), Amps (rate)= RPM and Watt = horsepower (because its actually interchangeable as a unit of work done at a rate).

That’s all. POWER turns the light on, POWER moves the trailer. Torque is the force(volt), RPM is the rate(amps). More rate, more power more moving the trailer. More force at less rate = similar power generated differently. It’s all a song and dance. 1000 lbs-ft at 1000 rpm is 500 lbs-ft at 2000 rpm. The point is that its POWER, the rate at which a force is applied, that matters to anything. Towing, pulling housing, anything...its POWER (torque is just a means to make power happen). Now its TRUE to say that for best economy you want to be in the torque band because that represents best thermal efficiency. Again all reasons diesels are great tow vehicles because their torque band. Same story with electricity. High voltage is more efficient at transmitting power than high amps...but the same power gets sent.

Gearing is a red herring. It exists to keep the engine in a usable work range, ideally the POWER band. NO OTHER REASON. Axle regearing just shifts the rate around a little.

Look, the simple math is this: “ The same amount of work is done when carrying a load up a flight of stairs whether the person carrying it walks or runs, but more power is needed for running because the work is done in a shorter amount of time .” So you can walk up the stairs or run. Or put another way, you can carry a light load walking up the stairs, or a heavier one at the same speed. The later requires more power.

So saying a diesel is slower than a gas says 1 thing and 1 thing alone - Diesel engines generate less POWER but more efficiently at their power peak.

To your last point. I know. we all want that. This is exactly my point that Toyota tunes its truck engines as much as it is possible to meet this requirement along with durability and emissions compliance first. Peak power for bragging rights be damned. Case in point the Tacoma engine and the 3.6 in the colorado share VERY similar power curves right up until redline where the tacoma redlines at 6000 rpm and 278 hp and the Colorado continues on to 6800 rpm and 303. If you carried the Tacoma’s curve to 6800 rpm it would be right there with it...but they preference low rpm for prolonged engine life. The colorado, to the consumer, has WAY more power than the Tacoma...only in the last 800 rpm. Marketing wank. The Toyota 5.7 starts at a high level of torque and peaks relatively low (not as low as old engine but the actual numbers are so much higher its moot), then it carries it further.

Again this is why I think the way marketing is missing the ball. Just give us the power curve and we’d have everything we need to know, including where the torque band is.

Im with you completely, that in a truck I want an engine with a high average power, which means lots of power in the low to mid register. It makes driving and working with that vehicle substantially easier. that being said its possible today to have both high average and high peak power. There is no need to say you want high average power but no peak power. To sum up - if I had a choice between the 4.5 tank in my cruiser which is old school lazy power, or the 4.7 tank im my GX which is new school power. I would take the GX 10/10. more power down low, more power in the mid, a LOT more power up high. Yes please. I would even so far as to say that even if the 4.7 had slightly lower torque to about 3500 than the 4.5 I would STILL take it 10/10.