1. Welcome to Tacoma World!

    You are currently viewing as a guest! To get full-access, you need to register for a FREE account.

    As a registered member, you’ll be able to:
    • Participate in all Tacoma discussion topics
    • Communicate privately with other Tacoma owners from around the world
    • Post your own photos in our Members Gallery
    • Access all special features of the site

Aerodynamic mod to improve fuel economy

Discussion in '1st Gen. Tacomas (1995-2004)' started by aemsfactory, Dec 9, 2020.

  1. Dec 12, 2020 at 9:18 PM
    #41
    earlyberd

    earlyberd Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2016
    Member:
    #203770
    Messages:
    37
    Vehicle:
    1996 Tacoma 4x4 V6 MT
    Sippery lines are only helpful for highway speed on flat road. If you spend most of your driving time in or around cities, or up and down mountain passes, then you'll see diminishing returns, especially if said aero mods are adding weight.

    For instance if you look at EPA estimates on the 95 Tacoma, you had a maximum of 26 mpg highway with 2wd, versus 20 mpg highway just by switching to 4wd with the same motor and transmission. The city mileage shows a much smaller difference, with maximum 19 mpg on a 2wd versus 16 on a 4wd.

    Case in point, you can save 6mpg just by losing all the 4wd bits. That's a roughly 23% fuel savings, and the truck is cheaper anyway. But this also assumes all highway driving, refer to my first point.

    Aero mods are cool, but just do some simple math and you'll find more often the best money solution is to just choose a simpler vehicle.
     
    crazytacoman likes this.
  2. Dec 12, 2020 at 9:44 PM
    #42
    Dubiousveracity

    Dubiousveracity Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2018
    Member:
    #261489
    Messages:
    358
    Vehicle:
    2018 TRDOR DCSB MT
    none
    A 95 tacoma 2wd has better aero than the 4wd, smaller tires, and lower. Are the final drive ratios the same? A ≈25% difference just for 2wd vs 4wd is significantly higher than other vehicles I've seen where it's usually less than 10% for otherwise identical vehicles.
     
    0xDEADBEEF likes this.
  3. Dec 12, 2020 at 9:59 PM
    #43
    Greatdane01

    Greatdane01 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2019
    Member:
    #278232
    Messages:
    278
    Gender:
    Male
    Vehicle:
    3rd Gen TRD Sport Tacoma
    3” lift, XD Wheels, BFG Tires, GT momentum cold air intake
  4. Dec 13, 2020 at 7:28 AM
    #44
    [KD]

    [KD] Used Import

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2019
    Member:
    #282461
    Messages:
    462
    Gender:
    Male
    First Name:
    Dan
    Halifax, NS
    Vehicle:
    06 DCSB 6MT
    That's a really interesting point. As far as I understand it, the two main factors in fuel consumption are aero and weight. Since the effect of aero increases with speed and the effect of weight is more noticeable with start/stop driving, can we take the city/hwy numbers as representative of weight/aero respectively? In that case it would seem in the comparison between the 2wd and the 4wd 1995 Tacoma the aero component has a greater effect on fuel consumption than the added weight.
     
    0xDEADBEEF and Thatbassguy like this.
  5. Dec 13, 2020 at 10:42 AM
    #45
    earlyberd

    earlyberd Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2016
    Member:
    #203770
    Messages:
    37
    Vehicle:
    1996 Tacoma 4x4 V6 MT
    The 4wd 95 Tacoma sits approximately 4" higher and has wheels that are 5" larger in diameter. That's a huge difference in body roll and wheel inertia, which is why the mileage drops so much. It's not uncommon to lose 5-8 mpg when you lift and increase the wheel size, especially when offroad tires have higher rolling resistance from the larger treads. Lots of forces fighting you when you optimize for offroad.
     
  6. Dec 15, 2020 at 3:09 PM
    #46
    '14RC

    '14RC WA State

    Joined:
    May 18, 2016
    Member:
    #187279
    Messages:
    261
    Gender:
    Male
    Seattle
    Vehicle:
    2014 4x4 Regular Cab 5MT
    2" Lift & 32" tires w/ Camping Setup (see details) Suspension: Dobinson 2" Coils (PN: C59-316) 4x Bilstein 5100's (base setting) SPC Upper Control Arms Deaver J66 Leaf Springs Ride-Rite Airbags Archive Garage Hammer Hangers Poly Leaf Spring Bushing Camping: SnugTop Canopy ARB awning Built a Camping Shelf in the Bed Yakima Mega Warrior Roof Basket Interior: Bucket Seat Conversion Acoustically Insulated Interior Added Cruise Control Rear Storage Organizers Traction: Yellow Wire Mod Alloy's with 265/75/16 Towing: Aftermarket Class III Tow Hitch Trailer Wiring Brake Controller (wired, not installed) Misc: ECGS Bearing NH Oil Undercoating
    ^^ This. Lately I've been driving 61 mph on hwy and achieving 21 mpg vs 17-18 mpg at 65 mph. 2" lift with a rooftop basket and canopy.
     
  7. Dec 15, 2020 at 6:38 PM
    #47
    latchlock8111

    latchlock8111 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2019
    Member:
    #314468
    Messages:
    214
    Gender:
    Male
    Tire pressure . A few extra P.S.I. ... a good tire pressure gauge in the glovebox.
     
  8. Dec 15, 2020 at 7:01 PM
    #48
    jbrandt

    jbrandt Made you look

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2011
    Member:
    #51038
    Messages:
    17,612
    Gender:
    Male
    First Name:
    Justin
    El Dorado, CA (NOT El Dorado Hills)
    Vehicle:
    '04 TRD Tacoma 4x4 DC
    Kings, J59's Total Chaos UCAs Custom skids Sticker mod
    I'd say "proper" tire pressure, not "a few extra PSI"

    under inflated tires are obviously bad, but that doesn't mean over inflated tires are good. Over inflating your tires creates handling and tire wear issues.
     
    crazytacoman and Thatbassguy like this.

Products Discussed in

To Top