maximizing MPG - My experience with manual Tacoma

[Pablo]

I rented a car in Baker City, OR last March. The car owner was fine, but I will not use Turo again.

We’ve had two bad experiences with Turo. The one above and one in HI. This one I swear dude was making extra money with scratches he could cover so no show in renter pictures and magically uncover after turn in.
Plus we’ve had 6-7 perfect experiences

We did Sixtfth the trip in DC that was ok no issues

 

[02SE]

I wish I could get another 10 mpg!!

If you only count the MPG while going downhill, you'll get there.

 

[supton]

As I understand it, ATs multiply torque at the cost of power=less efficient.

When the TC is in a high slip region, it can multiple torque. As input and output speeds match up, any multiplication goes away. As they say, there's no such thing as a free lunch.

That said, slip makes heat, and any heat that is going out a heat exchanger = heat not being used to drive the wheels. Lock up TC's weren't needed until final drives got really steep, then engine rpm dropped down to where the TC wasn't above the stall speed. That made heat and translated into loss, thus the lockup (made worse with overdrive working against tall rearends).

So unlocked TC's cost mpg. But even then... the engine still has to drive the pump that the AT needs in order to do all its shifting and stuff. There's no winning.

Back when MT and AT's kinda coexisted, it seems to me that MT's had one more gear than the AT's had. 2 speed autos with 3 speed manuals. Then 3 speed autos and a move towards 4 on the floor. Eventually 4 speed autos and 5 speed manuals. Give or take, that is. The MT needed an extra gear as that TC slip & torque multiply feature was pretty big. Today's automatics are just trying to get wide spread but tight ratios so as to mimic a CVT.

 

[Legs4Arms]

It got enough range for me.
Seems like you're saying I should have spent a whole lot more money on a bunch of range I don't need or use.

Nah, I think if you lived in an actual city, got hemmed up in an hour traffic jam you had't planned on, ran out of juice and plugged up a lane of a main thouroughfare you'd feel it more.
Peeps misjudge every day. Cheap fuel is your friend...until it's not.
Tow trucks stay busy in our downtown core...

 

[burbguy82]

When the TC is in a high slip region, it can multiple torque. As input and output speeds match up, any multiplication goes away. As they say, there's no such thing as a free lunch.

That said, slip makes heat, and any heat that is going out a heat exchanger = heat not being used to drive the wheels. Lock up TC's weren't needed until final drives got really steep, then engine rpm dropped down to where the TC wasn't above the stall speed. That made heat and translated into loss, thus the lockup (made worse with overdrive working against tall rearends).

So unlocked TC's cost mpg. But even then... the engine still has to drive the pump that the AT needs in order to do all its shifting and stuff. There's no winning.

Back when MT and AT's kinda coexisted, it seems to me that MT's had one more gear than the AT's had. 2 speed autos with 3 speed manuals. Then 3 speed autos and a move towards 4 on the floor. Eventually 4 speed autos and 5 speed manuals. Give or take, that is. The MT needed an extra gear as that TC slip & torque multiply feature was pretty big. Today's automatics are just trying to get wide spread but tight ratios so as to mimic a CVT.

so you agree?

 

[PMT133]

On my colorado there is for sure a happy place between too light throttle for acceleration and too heavy for acceleration to obtain decent MPG. Back when I was working in the lab and was consistently doing 6-700 miles a week I did play around with any and everything possible for weeks on end to get better MPG. Came to the conclusion the other people on the road drive too inconsistently to ever have usable data. Turns out you get cut off by just as many jerkoffs who'll slam the brakes as they hop into your lane when you are doing 75 as when you do 55...

My take aways were keeping it 75 or less. Going to a less aggressive tread pattern on the tire and keeping throttle input to about 2200 rpm on acceleration as thats where you get the most vvt action to be in a good area on the VE table for my engine. Anything else just fell into the noise.

Under some awesome atmospheric conditions I can near 30 mpg under the right circumstances on the road... but that's not realistic 90% of the time. Only other thing I've found that can help sometimes is going in and cleaning up the tune a little bit. For dollars spent I don't know if you'd ever see a good ROI on that though. Or if there is that much on the table. Some I've gotten quite a bit some no change.

 

[Patman]

To me it seems people love to post their best MPG they got one time, or maybe few times and make it seem like that's their normal MPG.

Personally, I can usually get city MPG pretty much in line with EPA numbers, maybe sometimes better. But highway MPG is usually worse for me because I like to drive pretty fast on the highway and I hate staying below 65mph when the road is almost empty.

I often post screenshots of the MPG that I get in my Civics on drives that give me over 55 MPG but I also post screenshots of the long term averages that show that I’m able to average way above what my car is rated for, such as this:

 

[Patman]

City: Driving style and lots of coasting
Highway: slow down, keep it at 72mph or less.

I started only driving 72 on the highway for short trips(2-4hours). Where i live the speed limit is 75 and most are going 80-85 mph. Stay in the right lane, let everyone pass, slow down even more to lets turcks around you, save my MPG vs 5-10 minutes per hour of driving.

I do a lot of coasting in my Civic and that’s what helps me a lot. Instead of waiting for the very last second to brake I let the car slow down on it’s own most of the way, and that also helps the brakes and tires last longer too.

On the highway I stick to the speed limit in the Civic because I do see a big drop off in MPG if I go faster. Interestingly enough my Corvette doesn’t see that big drop when I go faster, it also doesn’t seem like using the AC hurts it much either. Using the AC in the Civic kills the MPG by about 10%

 

[Patman]

Nah, I think if you lived in an actual city, got hemmed up in an hour traffic jam you had't planned on, ran out of juice and plugged up a lane of a main thouroughfare you'd feel it more.
Peeps misjudge every day. Cheap fuel is your friend...until it's not.
Tow trucks stay busy in our downtown core...

The one thing that is great about EVs in bad traffic is that sitting there stopped isn’t really using much battery, even with the AC running. I’ve sat in my tour company EV with the AC going for an hour and saw the range only drop by a couple of percent. EVs are actually perfect for bad traffic areas. Stop and go traffic doesn’t affect the range as much as driving fast on the highway does.

 

[JHZR2]

Im jealous of wife getting 38 mpg

More of commentary on variables that control MPG. Maybe someone will make a list. Three categories

There are a million things that cause marginal gains.

From my experience the biggest factors in non-hybrid vehicles are:

- go slower, there’s a cubic type relationship between speed and power required. And that power demands fuel. Appreciate physics and conserve the momentum you have. Coast!
- avoid idling. This means also avoiding traffic. You can be doing great and spoil the whole tank average with not too much time wasted in traffic.
-avoid pig engines. Nobody really needs more than about 75-90 hp unless hauling heavy loads. The effect is more pronounced at lower loads and idling as the specific fuel consumption tends to be worse. As cool as it sounds to have that extra cylinder count or displacement just eats more fuel for generally the same work
- drive gently. It’s better for everything. Don’t be the idiot accelerating into a red light, rocketing off unnecessarily fast, or using their brakes on the highway.

Sure, getting to higher gears sooner yields better economy. GM did those skip shift manuals in their v8 cars in the late 90s because of that. Saab and others quantified back when the value of riding the lower side of the torque curve, nearly lugging.

But nothing beats slowing down.

 

[panthermike]

I mostly drive quite conservatively these days, aiming for mpg more than speed.

The Corolla of course is quite efficient. Have seen around 50mpg in near perfect conditions. Don't drive the Ram 6.4 regularly but have seen just over 20 on the highway with again, nice conditions. As mentioned above, idling really hurts the mileage, which is impossible to avoid in Phoenix summers.

Will be interesting to see how the new Carnival Hybrid performs. I have already noticed that it doesn't go into EV mode a whole lot, likely due to the excessive heat and full blast air conditioner at all times.

@Pablo at first I was thinking wow that's only ok mileage for your Tacoma, but gears make quite a difference!

 

[Pablo]

I mostly drive quite conservatively these days, aiming for mpg more than speed.

The Corolla of course is quite efficient. Have seen around 50mpg in near perfect conditions. Don't drive the Ram 6.4 regularly but have seen just over 20 on the highway with again, nice conditions. As mentioned above, idling really hurts the mileage, which is impossible to avoid in Phoenix summers.

Will be interesting to see how the new Carnival Hybrid performs. I have already noticed that it doesn't go into EV mode a whole lot, likely due to the excessive heat and full blast air conditioner at all times.

@Pablo at first I was thinking wow that's only ok mileage for your Tacoma, but gears make quite a difference!

What are people getting with Gen 3 Tacoma non open freeway?

 

[RDY4WAR]

I drive 550-600 miles a week so I monitor fuel economy closely. The F150 averages 22.0-23.5 mpg on 93 while the Mustang averages 30-32 mpg on 87. I've been driving the Mustang more lately with higher gas prices.

The Mustang is less sensitive to speed than the F150 but still noticeable. The difference in fuel economy between 65 mph and 75 mph in the Mustang is ~1.5 mpg. In the truck, it's ~3 mpg. When driving in the hills around here, I rarely use cruise control. I will vary speed up and down the hills, when safe to do so out of traffic, to get better mpg. I can usually get 3-4 mpg better than the cruise control that way.

On long trips, it depends on the family situation. Driving South Carolina to Illinois, I make one stop in Lexington, KY to refuel, use the bathroom, and back on the road. If I'm off the road more than 10 minutes, something's wrong. I tend to drive the speed limit, blast music, and just enjoy the drive. When the family is with me, we're having to make a lot of stops. Aside from the kids' needs, my wife is the kind who likes to stop and hemorrhage money at every tourist trap we pass. She also doesn't like being on the road more than 6 or so hours a day so the 12 hour drive ends up taking 2 days with a hotel stay. Just by myself, I drove Texas to Maryland 23 hours straight just stopping for fuel, food, and bathroom.

 

[Pablo]

What are people getting with Gen 3 Tacoma non open freeway?

 

[panthermike]

View attachment 351982

Yes makes sense. That Gen Tacoma has never been considered "great" from people I've talked to that own one. Had one friend who would get around 16-18 mixed City driving and about 22-23 on the highway driving conservatively.

 

[supton]

so you agree?

Maybe? All transmissions multiply torque. Or decrease torque if used in overdrive. So if the statement was simply, AT's multiple torque thus inefficient, then no. Or, if what was meant, AT's are inefficient when using the TC to multiply torque, then yes. Or, AT's can be less efficient due to the extra parasitic elements inside the transmission (pump, extra loss through planetaries) then yes.

Technically there have been some vehicles where the automatic got better mpg's due to taller gearing. Less efficient transmission but a more efficient vehicle. If I'm not mistaken, CVT's have even higher losses yet get more mpg, due to rpm optimization. [Been a while but I want to say the belt has some level of friction higher than gears meshing.]

 

[edyvw]

Let's say you have a car/truck. You/I can't just change to a new vehicle (in this case just for the hypothetical discussion below)

There are quite a list of variables that impact MPG - many in maybe three categories, let's just say those you can control, can't control and maybe some control. I mean oil, drive lubes, tires, pressure, wax job, load, RH, weather (AP, temperature), engine tune, fuel, driving style, roads, traffic, and a whole of other variables. I can't control the weather, but I can choose my oil. Fuel is a huge one and somewhat controllable. I can choose where I live, but I'm not moving for MPG impact, because I love hills, for example.

What I will say though for most every road situation, I can control my driving style. No secret sauce there, not sciency or mystery based.. Now breaking that down to the next level, let's say no lead footing it. Duh obvious. I mean in most ATs just drive with a raw egg under the go juice pedal. Again - DUH.

SOOO?

With my MT Tacoma the one main thing the gets me up to 21 MPG (normal 18-19-20 mpg maybe) is getting into 6th gear as soon as reasonably possible without lugging it. Sometimes skipping a gear. No dawdling in 3-4 for sure. Yes I have seen a delta seasonal fuel. I've been doing this many tanks now, quite repeatable, for a few years. I don't see it with oil, that's for sure!! Hahaha

Warmed up engine? Merging? Third to 7,000rpms then 6th.

 

[ripcord]

Maybe? All transmissions multiply torque. Or decrease torque if used in overdrive. So if the statement was simply, AT's multiple torque thus inefficient, then no. Or, if what was meant, AT's are inefficient when using the TC to multiply torque, then yes. Or, AT's can be less efficient due to the extra parasitic elements inside the transmission (pump, extra loss through planetaries) then yes.

Technically there have been some vehicles where the automatic got better mpg's due to taller gearing. Less efficient transmission but a more efficient vehicle. If I'm not mistaken, CVT's have even higher losses yet get more mpg, due to rpm optimization. [Been a while but I want to say the belt has some level of friction higher than gears meshing.]

Plus, automatic transmissions for the past 25 years or so have used strategies to greatly minimize the time the torque converter is doing torque multiplication. During cruise conditions, the torque converter and input shaft are locked to the crankshaft.