12-13 mpg normal with my setup?

I've posted about this before and I've already heard all of the comments about you don't own a truck for the mpg's. I'm getting about 12-13 per gallon with a 1.5 inch leveling kit 265/70/17s and a camper shell with a ladder rack. I carry should 200lbs of tools in the back all of the time. I do mostly country road driving. Not many highways but occasionally I do go for longer drives.

I'm not looking for a miracle just concerned about why it's consuming so much fuel! I would be stoked with 15-16. What are your thoughts. I have changed the spark plugs, run fuel injector cleaner through a few times and gotten a few alignments. It does have a problem holding alignment. I'm pretty sure it's because of the control arm bushings? I ordered new ones but haven't worked up the nerve to put them on lol

Pic for attention

 

A bad alignment will kill fuel mileage, I would look into fixing that first. It will also kill front tires pretty quick with how much weight is on the front end of these cars.

Make sure the air filter is clean/new (preferable an OEM paper filter, none of that oiled filter crap).

Clean the MAF sensor, it's cheap/easy to do and could potentially help out.

I've heard new oxygen sensors can bring back some MPGs, though I haven't tested that out myself yet. OEM or Denso only from a reputable source for oxygen sensors.

 

Your grabbing more wind resistance with the lift, and the ladder rack is eating 1-2 mph easy. Your driving habits also factor in heavily

 

I have a similar setup as you minus the camper shell. I just calculated my mpg, I drove as if fuel wasn't an issue doing 80 on the highway at time, leaving the truck idling while I ran in the store etc. I got 14.5mpg combined. So I think yours pretty normal.

 

4WD and the extra weight are potentially the killer for you. With a very similar truck to yours in drivetrain and body, I'm lucky to average 11-12 in the city with a slightly larger tire (you're @31.6" if I'm not mistaken, I'm at 32.2" with 275/70r17) I'm averaging 11-12mp city driving, and mixed city/hwy is typically mid-13mpg these days. I haven't done a ton of hwy driving since lifting and jumping up two tire sizes, and I'm not sure how far off my speedo/odo is, thus I really have no idea how far out of whack my mpg is in reality. I haven't gone online for a calculator to figure out how much I should be skewing that calculation either.

I did manage to gain nearly 1mpg several months or a year ago now by properly cleaning my MAF. Got a little extra pep out of things also. I would expect a little better than what you're seeing, but maybe no considering your truck has teh 4spd AT, mine has 5spd AT.

 

I picked up ~3 mpg with four new Denso oxygen sensors. I had a bad sensor in bank 1 so I replaced both. Followed shortly after with a bad sensor in bank 2, so again I replaced both. A guy could probably look at the fuel trims and determine if its worth it.

 

That's encouraging. I still need to clean the MAF on mine. And I want to pull the fuel injectors to flow and clean them to see how bad (or good) they are at 200k miles.

 

Dang! I wouldn't expect that much, but I would expect a nice 1mpg-2mpg bump for most people if their upstream were bad. I can totally see how bad upstream sensors would cause extra fuel to dump in the cylinders, and ... I mean, we all know what that means.

I feel really bad for anyone who's bought into the lie that "O2 emissions systems are a big brother thing/ploy by the gov't/unnecessary for a vehicle to operate". Or anyone who sees a CEL for bad O2 sensor or cat and decides, "Ah, it's just an O2 and/or cat ... emissions crap isn't important, I'll ignore it". They actually do serve a legitimate purpose, the upstream O2 sensors at least. If the ECU can't understand whether its air/fuel ratio is producing non-lean/non-rich output, it has no idea how to adjust fuel trims so you're not eating gas, losing power, or prematurely wearing/eating parts.

It sucks when people get brainwashed with facts that hurt their wallet, but that seems to be the norm these days, hell, it's actually lucrative to do the brainwashing.

PS EDIT - if you do clean the MAF, change O2 sensors, clean the throttle body (and be sure to follow advice here for cleaning the throttle body) or anything else related to the air/fuel system, be sure to pull the negative battery cable for 10 minutes so the ECU is forced to do a re-learn! Expect the truck may run like shit for the first 5-15 minutes after... it's worthwile to let it idle for a bit then take on a short drive after so it can adjust itself.

 

I've been meaning to do that also. I bought the cleaner a while back. Pretty easy to do?

 

Mine isn't throwing a check engine light. Did yours?

 

That is very helpful I will do that. Surprisingly enough it was worse and I picked up 1-2 with spark plugs. It's always significantly better in the summer months either way

 

Both times, but that doesn't mean your fuel trims aren't all out of whack due to a failing/almost out of spec sensor.

 

This is copied & pasted from one of my posts in a different thread-

When I got my truck in June of 2021, I got roughly 9mpg, with 80% city and 20% highway driving. Since then, I have:

• kept it clear of CEL codes
• Cleaned MAF sensor every few months (excessive, I know, but it sure feels like it runs better every time)
• Cleaned throttle body
• Regularly checked PCV valve
• Replaced air filter
• Replaced entire exhaust minus manifolds and cats
• Kept tires 1-2psi above rated #
• Replaced stuck thermostat preventing it from warming up
• Run high quality oils/fluids

The o2 sensors and fuel filter are all 10+ years old, I haven’t messed with them. I changed the plugs and coils but this didn't show any MPG difference.

With these things, I’ve gone from 9mpg on average to 14.8, with less than $150 in parts (minus the exhaust and coils). That 5mpg has been huge for me. In strictly city driving, it'll get 12.8-13.2, and on the highway it averages 17.8-18.1 at 70mph. Keep in mind that I have typically less than 200lbs in the bed, and a very light foot, my scangauge rarely shows more than 22 or 23% throttle when accelerating.

A scangauge might be a good investment. Just being able to see my instant MPGs has completely changed the way I drive.

 

I actively avoid instant MPG because of how sad it makes me, lol. But it definitely can affect the way you drive.

Also as an alternative to a scan gauge a cheap phone and a bluetooth OBD2 dongle works pretty well too.

 

I’ve been averaging 15-15.5mpg, had a miss fire so I swapped out all 8 Coils with some Denso from RockAuto along with Denso Twin Tip plugs.

1st tank of fuel after 17.6mpg. It’s been about 1,000 miles and my last tank was 17.8mpg.

I’m 90% highway, but I’m lifted on E-Rated 285’s.



“Toyota” is machined off lol


Old ones letting moisture in.


I also changed the air filter. lol after 90k miles


That reminds me, I need to update my other thread

 

And that hotboy valvecover is still dope. I'm going to have to do mine.

legend has it its good for 2mpg.

 

And 5hp

 

I’ve had this discussion with my cousin before, to paint or not to paint……. Paint looks cool but it isn’t helping with heat rejection off that aluminum….. not that it’s crucial with these but it makes you think

 

I think it's probably negligible. If you had the patience you could polish them. BLING BLING.

 

The lumber rack on the top of my Econoline motovan also eats up a couple mpg...and that's cruising at a steady 60-62mph on the highway. Your larger than stock tires are also eating up the mpg. Keep in mind that the 265/70-17 is just over a smidge 2'' taller than the original stock 245/70-16. You can swap in 4.10 gears to get a little bit of the fuel economy back (the drivetrain will run more efficient). Option A, which rarely anyone will choose, is to swap back to a smaller skinnier sized tire...such as a 205/85/17 (if that size even exists). There really is no option B for fuel economy if you want bigger tires a lift.

 

Holy crap is stock really 245/70r16 (29.5")? Is that just an earlier-year thing? My stock was 265/65r17 (30.6").

 

No shit. My door sticker says 245/70/16. I think the sr5 (trd?)trucks came stock with 265/70/16, but that could be incorrect.

 

Here's the label from my '06 Limited AC:

​

 

I found this

 

Sounds like you are doing good for your setup.

 

Welp, I can confirm row 1, column 3 with my VIN door sticker.

​

 

It might just be an early year thing. My 2000 v8 4wd AC SR5 door sticker shows a lil’ 245/70-16, while my 2004 v8 2wd sticker shows a 265/70-16 on the door...AND a second sticker that shows the air pressures for 245/70-16, 265/70-16, 265/65/17. To throw some more confusion, i just placed an online order with a toyota dealer. I included my VIN on the order form, and it shows that the truck came with 245/70/16. I think my 2004 is a SR5?...but i’m not sure. The truck has been repainted and all the emblems were removed.

I will say this, but a 2000-2004 v8 tundra with those baby 245/70-16 tires would no doubt smoke the same truck that has the larger 265’s...in both towing and empty payload. Plus it should get better fuel economy since the tires are lighter weight.


2000 4wd door jam sticker



2004 2wd door jam sticker



2nd door jam sticker on my 2004 2wd

 

How weird. So you got row 1 columns 1-3 covered with one truck

I was assuming it was an older model vs. newer model thing, like 00-02 was maybe the smaller size, 03+ was larger or something. Now I'm curious just what the hell the distinctions are.

 

And then there’s the 2006 DC dale waltrip that came with the 275/55-18 tires.

 

The only thing i can think of is a marketing ploy specific for the United States. We all like big tires here (whether we need them or not), and if two different manufacturers are selling brand new trucks that are very comparable, then i suppose many consumers would be enticed to look closer at whatever truck came with larger tires? I have absolutely not idea if that’s true or not, but if i was marketing guru, no doubt i would play that card on my potential consumers.