What is considered BAD Fuel Economy for the 2.7 Liter?

Ahhh that makes sense, loaded down. Ya when I’m towing I definitely get way lower mileage.

 

My truck is the best configuration for gas mileage: 2.7 MT with manual locking hubs. I was always (for the last 22 years and over 260k miles) getting around 20mpg in very good commuting. The only time I got over 21mpg was when I got head gasket leaking on one cylinder and computer went nuts in leaning the mixture to the point when NOx went over 600.

Lower than mine gas mileage has the following contributors:

1. Auto transmission - that sucker drinks gas for breakfast, lunch and dinner
2. Bigger tires - they don't cause significant gas usage but they cheat on measurement: odometer shows lower than actual distance traveled, so indicated gas mileage is lower
3. Auto locking hubs (ADD) spinning that front differential is not free, but is it not significant.

Other factors include driving "heavy foot", running short distances with engine on open loop, stop and go traffic. Increased weight does not contribute to gas mileage unless you are in the stop and go traffic. For cruising it does not matter how much weight you carry as long as your tires are pumped properly to carry the weight.

This is all about "stock truck", custom bumpers, armor, additional lighting etc. add drag and of course eat gas.

 

Thanks-

Somehow I "assumed" that if I got the 4 cyl and drove it very conservatively I would come in around what my Nissan King Cab 4WD (never below mid 20's), though I did not expect what my Mazda B1600 and B2000 did (up to 32mpg) or my Isuzu (28mpg), but never in my wildest dreams would it produce and absolutely dismal sub-16mpg when the 4 cyl is a gutless wonder compared to our son's 2015 Tundra crew cab "1794 Model" with the 5.7 liter engine that gets only 1-2mpg less and he drives like an idiot. True, his cost $58,000 loaded up, but I would have probably bought an earlier Tundra Extra Cab w/ the 4.7 for not much more $$ and have been able to get out of my own way on the road and actually even tow something (a used Scamp 19ft 5th wheel I'm looking for).

I LIKE the little Tacoma, and given its condition will probably make money if I sell it with the way it looks and runs, but other than the handier size, my Ram 3500 Cummins (2WD) is cheaper to operate (23-28mpg max) and other than the fact in-town shifting the 6 spd gets old, it's a very comfortable vehicle as well.

I am sure the Tacoma will outlast the '03 Ram 3500, though it's engine, transmission and driveline have only 45k miles on them, but at my current age of 73 I suspect both trucks will outlive me anyway so it's academic.

Thanks to everyone who posted and opened my eyes on the fuel economy I was kidding myself about.

Bob

I

 

2.7 is actually quite strong engine for Tacoma. Just Auto transmission robs its power from the truck. It is not fuel efficient but that's the cost of amazing realibility.
Modern engines are much more fuel efficient because of EPA requirements. My 300hp 2012 4Runner with 4.0 V6 and auto transmission has better mileage than my 95 Tacoma. But I am not sure it will last 300k miles.

 

My friend has a 2008 4dr 4WD Tacoma w/ the 4 liter V6 (not sure the hp), but I have driven it a lot, and love it. Gets 20mpg around town, plenty of power, 24mpg highway if careful. Trouble is they hold their value so well I couldn't justify buying the newer one like his for $11k-14k I see them selling for-My '98 in the photo was only $4k, which was a "doable" price as the Gen 1s are LOTS cheaper to buy.)

It now has about 330k miles on it, and it still runs like NEW and he says he has never even had a check-engine light on once.
Maybe that's not the norm, but his miles are all local as well, not highway.
He is religious about changing engine oil (uses only LiquiMoly German oil zt 9/qt) but he has never serviced the transmission. At this point
he says it's too late and will gum everything up.

First thing I did when I bought my Tacoma was drain/refill the tranny. Mine "only" has 177k miles and the change did nothing bad. I don't think I ever had a smoother shifting vehicle.

And yes, the 2.7is bulletproof I understand, and in the long run, gas is cheaper than engines. My parts distributor told me they had
a Tacoma that was used for deliveries they sold with it had over pretty 470k miles. They mostly use Priuses for parts deliveries and
the lowest mileage one they have has 300k on it. So YES, Toyotas are reliable!

 

I have a 2007 2.7 auto. With about 100K miles showing, dead empty except for my 190 lbs, on cheap P215/70-15 tires on stock 5 bolt steel wheels, I got about 20 mpg on the highway, as I recall.

Soon after that I added an aluminum work cap with a full roof/ladder rack. Got about 17 mpg after that - I attributed the loss to wind resistance as the cap is 4" higher than the truck roof. And adding a 28' aluminum extension ladder loses exact one mpg.

Changed to LT235/75-15 Michelins - which are about 28.88" tall - almost exactly 2" over stock: 26.85". Local MPG went to about 15. Highway MPG to about 13.

The next set of tires I am going to install either P215/70-15 (26.85") or: LT215/75-15 (27.70") and see what happens to the mpg. <g>

It won't be a truly fair comparison because I have to take a lot of weight out of it to allow the use of the 215 tires. <g>

But I really do suspect the big OD tires are a big factor. I went to the big tires because I thought it might improve the MPH - but apparently; I was wrong about that. <g>

My Jeep got totaled and I used the resulting money to buy a 2005 GMC Savana van - a "full sized" van. 4.3 V6 with automatic. Local mpg is 12.5 - highway mpg 19-20 MPG. I sure can't figure That one out. <g>

But the GMC is more comfortable, has Way more room inside, is quieter, faster, and sometimes gets better MPG. Plus; I generally find a van more practical all around than a pickup. I am not getting rid of the Tacoma but . . . . <g>

 

it depends on how you drive if you drive slower it might not affect you, but for us 4 cyls we tend to hit the gas more for power. Also i was getting 16mpg before my 285s and 16s so. If you want better mpg and power i would regear.

 

I only got 350km (217miles) out of my last full tank of gas. 3.4 v6 manual. Absolutely ridiculous. and I don't drive like an idiot.

 

I got 215 lol. Sometimes I wish I had the 3.4 but honestly it’s not like the v6 is any faster

 

How do you know mpg? You look at the odometer and the gas pump? If so, your mpg is (or was) incorrect. Your odometer shows the number of miles driven calibrated to certain tire diameter. It does not measure the distance traveled but number of turns on your driveshaft. Obviously with bigger tires and the same distance traveled the number of turns on driveshaft is lower, so your odometer shows shorter distance traveled than in fact you did. With that drastic tire size change your calculations should be adjusted by a 7.6% meaning the current mpg calculated from odometer reading needs to be multiplied by 1.076. If you have 15mpg with Michelins it is like 16.14 adjusted for the tire size change.

So of you want to know the real difference in mpg on different tires always adjust the result by change in tire diameter from the stock size, for which the odometer should be calibrated. By the way, the odometer should be calibrated to the stock tires, but in fact, if you compare the speed showed by the dial with the GPS, you will find that Toyota speedo is always higher by 2-3%. I don't know if they do that to cheat EPA to show higher gas mileage than it really is, or it is just the business practice.

For example my truck tire size (on the VIN label) should be 225/75R15, but the speed almost agrees with GPS with 30x9.5R15 which is about 3% taller.

 

I consistently got 17-18 MPG in my 2001 2.7L auto prerunner, mixed city/hwy.

Damn I miss that truck and the 1st gen forum.

 

I’m not calculating it wrong and yea I understand bigger tire but I have a gauge that’s separate for miles I’ve gone

 

Pre runner tho.. all 2wds got pretty good mpg

 

My bone stock '04 2.7 4X4 on stock rims and Michelin LTX all season tires, gets low 20's. Been tracking for many many years. Pen and paper calculations as well as Scangauge reporting. I drive mostly highway with a very light foot.

 

My 2.7 4x4 on 31”s get 16-25mpgs.

 

Thanks-

These really "drive" it home that my mileage around 16 mpg is not at all out of the ordinary. This is around town (no city-just 2 lanes with no traffic lights and 35-50mph. I have an exceptionally light foot and usually get outstanding mileage, like the 23 town, 25-28mpg highway with my '03 3500 Dually Cummins, and 27-29mpg town mileage with a '99 Honda CR-V rated at 20 City, 24 Highway.

Heck, even my carburated Ford F250 4X4 with bias ply tires with a 351W V8 did 15 mpg or a tad better, so I frankly don't understand why this "little" truck can't best that significantly. It's not the gearing (mph per 1000rpm) and it's certainly not the power (it's gutless and even if I ADD an inch of throttle while cruising at 45 or so I can't even FEEL any acceleration (my compression is 200psi all cylinders and the engine is tight). It has the TRD 4 tube headers and a Flowmaster exhaust which may not add power or mileage, but I wouldn't think it would reduce mileage, either.

Frankly I did not know with the 4 cyl my truck was EPA rated at only 16 city/19 highway when I bought it (the 3.4 V6 has the same mpg ratings I believe).

I LOVE the truck, and once I remove the play from the steering (it's got the typical 1/2" play measured at the steering wheel rim all caused by the collapsing steering column slide tube I plan to remedy-many write ups about it here) it rides and handles beautifully, and is as tight as new. It obviously is made to last, with 8 greasable joints in the driveline alone! I switched out to 75-90 synthetic fluid in the rear differential thinking a tad thinner oil would help there, and just installed a new thermostat which DID seed the warm up time (same running temp though) so open-loop would transition to closed loop faster for maybe more minutes of optimum mixture would help the MPG. I KNOW the auto trans is not optimal, but the gear ratios and cruising rpms seem good, with not much torque converter losses (adding throttle in non-lockup conditions only causes a minimal rpm increase).

The transmission torque converter has a very low stall speed, so the slippage is very minimal, with no rpm surge with throttle from a stop-in fact even at 700rpm idle in gear (750 in neutral) the engine is pulling hard enough to require moderate brake pedal to keep it from creeping forward.

As I said, I LIKE the truck, but would like it better if it had more power (for towing- I live in flat country so can deal with the gutless nature around town otherwise). I can't imagine if one could fit a Ford 289/302 in there mileage would be worse (though engine swaps with computer controlled transmissions are tough). My AWD V8 (5 liter HO) in my recent Ford Explorer did 16 local and 22mpg highway (I saw 24mpg average highway in Ariz when I had it there) and was damned quick if I nudged it. It was just a 2 valve OHV pushrod engine no less!

But from all the replies, it's obvious it is what it is. Many said it was an "old school" non-high tech engine, but it wasn't long ago that a Computer EFI DOHC engine WAS considered hi-tech and usually gave good power and fuel economy. Power at 150hp is mediocre, and fuel economy is as well, though reliability is excellent, of course. I've lived with the newer 4.0 liter V6 Tacoma 4X4 crew cab as well, and with 75hp more than the '98 2.7, it has LOTS more power and better MPG (I got around 20 town on the same roads I'm driving my '98 on) and gobs more power. I should probably bite the bullet and get a newer Tacoma, but I do love the size (and looks) of my "vintage" truck. The fellow I bought my Tacoma from had just bought a 2017 1500 4X4 Chevy with a fancy 4-6-8 cylinder 5.3 V8 engine and he gets 24 town (same roads I drive) and 28 hwy with it, though I suspect down the road it won't last like the Tacoma will, but until then he's saving $1250/yr in gasoline (12,000 mi/yr, $2.50/gal gas).

BTW, I am running stock 10.5 X 31 - 15 tires the truck was equipped with, but bought a new set of BF Goodrich T/A 235-75-15 tires (2.6" less tall tires) to see if putting the engine in a more efficient rpm will help the MPG and even help throttle response. Haven't yet installed them.

Decisions, decisions!

 

Yea I just love Toyota’s and live with the mpg. Simplicity is key for me and the Toyota’s are anything but simple

 

My family’s 06’ lbz towing 10,000 lbs got 14.5 mpgs towing!

 

If tire size, pressure and all other misc like driving style, load weight, fuel delivery, intake, exhaust etc.. all seem normal then check your valves if they are out of spec they will most definitely affect mpg. A noticeable amount too like 1-3 range

 

I do all my own work, but these are not the easiest valves to adjust (My local dealer charges $950, and an Indie shop quoted $650), but I guess everything is pricey these days (the Honda dealer replaced two O2 sensors in a neighbor's '97 CR-V and charged $591 for each sensor plus $180 installation + Tax).

I confess I have not checked my valve clearance, though with cranking compression at 200 psi I don't have valves remaining open at least. I guess at least I could check the clearances, and IF some need new shims, I could order them. If they would make a 3mpg difference it would be worth it. On other vehicles I've owned, even exhaust valves with half normal clearance (not good, of course) I haven't yet seen any fuel economy gains, but maybe the architecture of the 2.7 cylinder (valve placement in chamber) is more critical.

If I could gain enough to get 20mpg from my current 16 or so I would be elated. My old '82 Nissan extra cab 4X4 (a near identical clone of the Tacoma) got 24mpg around town and 26 hwy with a 2.4 liter engine, so maybe it's possible for the 2.7 to do 20 at least? Is that an achievable goal?

I increased TP from the recommended to 35psi and noted no mpg gain (though the ride became harsher).