Unexpected Fuel Economy and Max Range

I get 11 MPG in my old Volvo hauling just my ass. 93 gas, too.

 

The hybrid setup Toyota has used extremely successfully in the Prius, Corolla, Rav4, Camry, etc. uses an eCVT with a planetary/Sun gear setup controlled by a motor/generator and an Atkinson cycle ICE engine. This setup just doesn't seem to work for me in anything larger than the RAV4 as you gotta live with a CVT type transmission #1, then #2 the scale up to make it work towing 11k lbs just doesn't seem like it would work at all, much less save on gas since you would still be trying to push a brick through the air but now with an extra 1k lbs of motors and batteries.

Making a "one off" setup with an Atkinson cycle V6 and sizing up all the electrical stuff would likely make it a $100k truck that still has the aero of a brick likely negating much of the MPG effect and alienating all the V8 guys PLUS 80% of everyone else looking for a truck to do truck stuff.

A smallish 3-5 liter turbo diesel would have been ideal if the EPA didn't kill diesels with ultra low sulfur, DEF, particulate filters, etc.

 

You perhaps forgot or simply don't have any first-hand experience with living in a place full of older diesel engines. Nothing truly old, just before DEF and particulate filters were mandatory. Diesel stench everywhere, always. And it takes a few years off your life expectancy. I'm no way an EPA acolyte, but old diesels and human beings don't get along well.

 

Sorry, my comment was poorly worded. I am all for clean air, its just the way the regulations were implemented kept companies like Toyota getting into the market with every changing regulations and very difficult to meet standards which unfortunately kept us from potentially getting some really cool diesel small trucks. EGR, DEF and particulate filters turned out to be just really poor work arounds to get to clean standards.

How cool would a clean burning turbo diesel with electric hybrid iForce Max type setup be. Maybe its just me.

 

Expensive for sure. Very complex, granted. Fuel savings meager. Repair bills exorbitant. With simpler everything you maybe spending more on fuel, but earn back on repairs (absence of).

IMO diesel makes sense in truly rural setups, where huge range is required. But that should be an old school, simple and reliable stinky diesel.

 

My goal was to get the additional range the advertised mileage posted plus the larger 32 gallon tank and torque provided by the electric motor when needed. My 2004 Tundra would leave a little over a quarter tank to travel my common 250 mile trip without towing and get near empty when towing a 3000 lb trailer. The older pickup always accomplished the trip on a 26 gallon tank towing or not. We would on occasion get some harrowing winds in the Columbia George and usually cruise at 65 mph. I was hoping to do the drive round trip without towing and without refueling. That means I will have to average around 17 mpg. I'll see what happens in the next couple weeks. It needs to be known that I am totally Toyota indoctrinated presently owning a 2018 Hybrid Rav4, 2011 V6 Rav, 2004 Tundra and now this 2024 Tundra. My two older daughters families own all Toyota and we have only one renegade that owns none. My past cars include a Camry and 4X4 pickup and their dependability and service convinced me to buy Toyota.

 

Goodluck with the decision.

If the savings in gas money over x number of years is greater than than the hit you’ll take when you sell/trade-in the tundra, then it would make sense.

 

that was old toyota. They've all been fiat/chrysler since the mid aughts to mid teens. Gotta' get that dolla'. Spend $20k on the 1gt and end up with a 3/4 ton one off thats easy to park & doesnt have to be plastic. You wanna push 80mph against 30mph headwinds, maybe $30k for a rowdier engine and trans to handle it.

 

A bigger gas tank option would be satisfactory at this writing.

 

They make em that mount along the front of the bed. Transfer tanks & you can find several capacities in the right size. I think my pick was 27 gallon, but that fit the 4' walls my cap's interior will have.

 

reads like AI.

 

Pulling fuel economy is never going change much. Vehicle cannot stay in overdrive and pull any type of load. But it can in a 1 to 1 gear ratio in a transmission. Which is lowest gear just below overdrive.


Mine is a 22 hybird. Tank range is around 550-575 most of time. Short highway trip into town and around town tank average is around 22. If I go deer camp which is around 90 miles one way tank average is around 23.5 -24.

 

That’s because trucks never had problems with gas mileage loaded down. When the engine is close to WOT is when it’s most efficient. They were already doing about as good as they could even in the 1990’s.

Your comment about getting 14 mpg unloaded is why they went to small turbo motors and displacement on demand V8’s. The small turbo motors were never meant to improve towing miles and, in-fact, probably do worse because they have so much torque and power. My 5.7L was struggling to hold 60 mph towing in a 30 mph headwind a few weeks ago. I could have fairly easily been doing 70 mph in my F150 Ecoboost in those same conditions and getting worse mpg.

And that was the point of my post. You can’t brag about getting 14 mpg when no one even knows what conditions you are driving in. For all we know he was towing a flat bed trailer with steel sheets on it with almost no aerodynamic drag while doing 55 mph with a tail wind. I’d invite him to come to Utah and tow a travel trailer into a 30 mph headwind and see what it gets for MPG. Probably won’t do half bad since it would only be making 190hp at wot and barely able to hold 50 mph without being floored the whole time.

I’m not sure why he can’t tow at 80. Thats the legal limit in Utah at least, although Idaho may be 75. When I tow at 70 here in Utah I have dudes passing me towing 5th wheel toy haulers like I’m standing still.

 

Very perceptive.
My experience in the last three weeks has been around 15 MPG driving around town, and a few 40 mile trips. Still have to do the 250 RT unloaded to see what I come up with. I have since added a180 lb canopy which I think should help a bit in reducing drag. Should know more about the long range soon.

 

Drag coefficient actually goes up.

 

I do enjoy the power which I never lacked under the towing conditions. I was hoping for more range but this first long trip 0f 2300 miles was an eye opener. I should be blogging some more info on range experienced in the next couple weeks.

 

Last couple thousand miles (btwn 8 and 10K) I’ve been getting 21 to 22 mpg at 65mph. Had the oil changed this week at the free 10K mark and now getting 23 mpg @ 65mph for the first time. Keep climbing baby!! (That’s probably going to be it actually)

 

That indeed is encouraging.

 

I had that happened to me once. Paid to change the oil and noticed MPG improvement, along with more metallic engine sound. Drained whatever they put it, filled with a proper grade oil, MPG dropped to usual numbers.

 

Fuel consumption boils down to simple physics, running unloaded, little things we see on newer vehicles all add up such as light weight materials such as the plastic and aluminum body panels and suspension components, high gear ratios, auto stop systems, light weight interior components, smaller high compression engines using boost to make up the resulting power deficit, aerodynamic tricks such as active spoilers and grille shutters, etc, etc... all add up to get that extra 4-5 MPG. BUT when we load, tow, modify, etc these tricks are defeated. Bottom line, you need to burn a lot of fuel to make a lot of power.

 

Toyota didn’t help themselves with the front end only a Peterbuilt could love. My F150 Eco?boost got about 17.5mpg with a 3.55 rear end for towing. My Tundra gets about 1mpg less. Does it bother me? Sure. Would it make me pause and but another F150 for 1mpg? Nope.

 

Far too many MPG conversations on this forum. Maybe try here: https://www.priusforum.com/

 

I thought the fuel line recall was about bad MPG, no?

 

You're just funnin' with us to see people's heads explode in the replies, right?

What sort of MPG's were you expecting doing 80 MPH into a 30 MPH headwind pulling a parachute behind you?!

Soooo, on the way home when you were going a little slower, or had a headwind, mileage improved... Hmmmm, I think we might be onto something here.

 

He paid $70k and was expecting to see a super-duper MPG as seen on TV. Turned out a $0 old Tundra pulls a parachute with not worse MPG. Because real world physics does not watch TV ads.

 

So having spent my life in aviation as a pilot and mechanic I am pretty well versed in drag and power although I would never claim to be a expert. Aerodynamic drag and weight plus tire pressure all require energy to overcome and you think it would be the same requirement under those same conditions. But as we are considering fossil fuels here, you would think perhaps that gaining energy from a specific unit of fuel would have been improved over the decades. It is also recognized that improvements if extracting energy from the differing fuels have been somewhat mitigated by gov requirements on emissions which somewhat strangle the engine efficiency while the fuel additives additionally reduce fuel energy per unit. I am also aware that hybrids don't do much good when you rolling down a highway for long distances at constant speeds. However, the weight I was loaded with and the aerodynamics of the trailer were not considerably ominous. 80 MPH indeed creates much drag and add the 30 MPH headwind for a net 110 on you nose and you have a considerable force to plow into. If you are ever unlucky enough to get into this just stick your hand out the window and turn your palm vertical. Good arm exercise if you don't lose it. But I still did not expect to get almost a quarter of the mileage Toyota advertises for hwy mileage. In the end, I could live with this but I would like to extend the range without putting a fuel tank in the bed. They make a bigger tank for the older Tundra but I have not found one available for the shortbed gen 3.

 

the 2nd gen also lasted 14 years. the 3rd gen is very far behind in everything aftermarket but should catch up in 3-5 years as normal for a new generation of Toyota

 

It seems the error—and this is by no means uncommon in the 3rd gen fuel economy threads—is thinking that boosted small engines are still substantially more efficient under a load than older, simpler drivetrains, especially if aided by a hybrid.

With trucks doing truck things, this is absolutely not the case.

The truth is, your hybrid TTv6 is only fuel efficient under specific conditions:

• hybrid takeoff,
• shutting the engine off at a stop instead of idling,
• cruising unloaded at a constant speed without significant increased wind resistance at high speeds.

Once you depart from those very specific and controlled conditions it is chugging fuel like a college junior doing a keg stand at a frat party.

If Toyota had compromised elsewhere in the truck (more aluminum, smaller components, etc) making it weigh what a non-hybrid weighs, it would probably be more efficient. But as it is, the hybrids weigh north of 6k, which is heavier than my 5.7 crewmax.

 

My MPG went up after getting the temp fix. I must have been leaking 50% of my fuel onto the ground and now it all goes into the making power!

But seriously, the engine is getting more hours and is breaking in so I am seeing a slight increase.

 

First fill up today after 9 days of ownership. Wanted to act to get the $3.04/gal stuff even though still had 1/4 tank left. Measured 17.72 mpg with about 2/3 highway miles. Very pleased. Not something that worries me.