2016 manual MPG

Hello!
I want a manual truck again, but I've been doing my research and the EPA has all the MPG figures on manual Tacoma's as less than their auto counter parts. I should mention I am comparing only the 4x4 models.
The 2.7 4 cylinder gets 19/21 compared to 19/22 (not killer but I've heard this isn't the engine to get)
the 3.5 v6 manual gets 17/20 vs the automatic 19/24. That's a solid hit in the fuel mileage dept.

I read some article that the EPA rating on these manuals isn't really reliable, so I decided to ask if the manuals are worst for the MPG or not.

The Tacoma seems to be the only manual available on the market, and I'd personally would love to own another manual. I had a manual Ford Ranger, and loved it, till it died.

Thank you ahead of time for any and all input.

 

Here you go:

http://www.fuelly.com/car/toyota/tacoma/2016

If you start actually sifting thru it you can find some pretty boneheaded user errors, but on the whole it's the best aggregate you're going to find and far better than the n=1 anecdotal BS that makes up 90% of the responses every time this question is posed.

 

Remember that the manual has 4.30's gears in the back compared to the 3.90's in the auto. The 4.30's really work well in this truck and I suspect a lot of the problems the auto are known for with the 3rd gen trucks would be helped with 4.30s. My point is, I doubt you would notice much difference in mpg with the auto vs. manual but the drivability is vastly different and would be a better basis for you to make a decision.

 

Around town I average 17MPG, 19MPG at 70-75MPH on the freeway, I can get 21-22 on rural highways at 55MPH. I do not run fuel with any ethanol (unless the pumps are mislabeled) and I only have 1600 miles on the truck currently. It may improve as it breaks in more but I do not anticipate a significant leap in fuel economy. IMHO the economy is good for what the truck is. I did not expect to average in the low 20s anyway and it is better than the 10MPG my other truck gets. If fuel economy is important on your Pugh matrix I would look at other vehicle options.
Just to be clear mine is a 6-speed manual trans.

 

I average exactly the same, stop and go around 17-18, highway @ 70 18-19 and 55mph back roads (mostly where I live) around 21mpg.

overall not too bad....I have a TRD OR 4x4 V6 6spd manual.

 

^^^^ That 100%

I have a manual tranny TRD Sport with the 3.5L I get a solid 17mpg average around town driving. The difference @ $2.50/gal of gas to the automatic is $7.50 per TANK (3 gal) of gas x 52 weeks (1 tank/week) = $390.00 extra cost per YEAR.

Not what I call a deal breaker for the manual tranny. Then consider the fun factor and I'm WAY ahead.

The MPG did improve steadily as I learned how to drive it with the MPG heads up display on the dash to help me with driving efficiency/shift points. Basically with the lower gear ratio - get it to 4th and then 5th even around town and you will get 17+ mpg average. Not bad for a truck and I haul stuff around too.

 

Fuelly illogically doesn't allow filtering by transmission, just engine and body style.

 

Automatics ratings have been catching, matching and exceeding manuals on MPG for years now, across all marquees. Many improvements in drive line losses, additional OD ratios, taller rear gears allowed because of deeper low gears on 6 speed autos, etc.

Pick a manual if you want a manual and you want a lower long term maintenance cost. Not for MPG.

In fact, if MPG is that critical, a truck isn't where you are going to find it.

 

Yes, but you can scroll down the list and see transmission is almost always listed in the vehicle summary.

 

Short trips around town (SoCal) for me are not as good as everyone else here apparently (15-17 mpg), but my usual highway commute to and from work I get 21-23 mpg around 70 mph. That is mostly flat with a couple hills. If there was a highway where the speed limit was 55, I bet it would be even better.

I don't mind, the difference in mpg between an auto and manual was a wash for me. It's my first manual transmission and I'm having fun. Will probably choose manual over auto in later vehicles as well if they are still around.

 

Thanks so much for the replies.

I should address the "You may not want a truck" statements. I mentioned my Ford Ranger and even though it was listed as getting only 20, I was easily pulling 24 mpg.

Can I get more information on the gearing between the auto and man, I will not pretend to know how the gearing works differently in the vehicle.

Also can I get some more explanation on this statement
"I have a manual tranny TRD Sport with the 3.5L I get a solid 17mpg average around town driving. The difference @ $2.50/gal of gas to the automatic is $7.50 per TANK (3 gal) of gas x 52 weeks (1 tank/week) = $390.00 extra cost per YEAR. "

Is the gas tank smaller, is that what you mean?

 

I drive 70-75 mph (posted speeds) for most of my 40 mile commute and average 19.3 by the truck and 19.7 by hand calculation with my manual TRD OR. I don't baby the truck either. There is about 3 miles of city driving in my commute so can't really give you that figure.

 

Seems like the manual guys have been bettering the EPA estimates while those of us with autos get less(especially the Off Road) than the EPA estimates. I say go with the manual if fuel milage is your only concern...Everyone with the manual seems happier with the truck as well

 

I should also mention MPG isn't my only concern, it was just something that I wanted to know.
Not so much interested in figures, I was just curious of the overall consensus of the community was that the new manual had worst gas mileage than the autos.

Thanks for the info guys! Part of me wishes there was still a stripped down truck on the market still. Oh well.

 

Have you looked at an SR they are pretty bare bones.

 

The difference in cost between a manual transmission and an automatic transmission cost of gasoline used for a year @ 1 tank of gas per week = $390 more for a manual.

You mentioned cost difference between the 2 and this is what it would cost for me = $390 more to drive my manual in fuel per year compared to the average around town driving in an automatic.

It's WAY more fun - easily worth the $390 again FOR ME.

The gearing is lower in the manual. Meaning the engine is going to rev higher in the RPM range in a manual compared to the automatic for the same speed. So for example I'm going 70mph in 6th gear my rpms in my manual might be 2200 rpms - in the auto it may only be 1900 rpms - that's going to save you gas and get better MPG with the automatic.

On the other hand, in first gear pulling out of a big ass mud puddle my manual transmission is going to get more torque to the wheels/tires for the same amount of RPM as the automatic.

HTH

 

That was in a v6 4wd?

I understand. I bought my '13 5 lug base for pretty much that reason. I get great MPG, but of course don't have towing capacity or 4wd. However, I don't need either one, and the truck does exactly what I need it to.

I prefer a bit smaller truck, like the Gen I, Ranger, Sonoma size. When shopping in late '14, the '11 Rangers in 2wd supercabs were only 3-4k less than what I bought, and only came with the 4.0, which I did not want.

Anyway, if you want a '16, look at the SR as someone suggested. The work truck model.

 

2016 TRDORDCSB 4x4 with a manual -- I hand calculate every tank and with mixed driving (80/20 highway, generally running 75+ mph), I'm getting ~20.5 MPG. That is pretty consistent across all fuel types, etc... Overall I'm very happy with just over 14,000 miles on the clock.

 

2.7 MT 4x4 SR UTILITY PACKAGE. Mixed city highway usually 19.5-20.5, hwy only at 75 mph (2600 rpm) is about 22mpg. Hills and flat land mix here in MO. Just wanted a basic truck for hunting and work AND DOES GOOD. HIGH GEARED, COULD USE A 6 spd MT FOR BETTER PASING AND DRIVING. Still happy with nearly 9200 miles.

 

So you 3.5 guys are getting the same MPG as my 4.0.....and we get 9 cup holders!