Best balance of mileage and capability?

[Martinjmpr]

^^ Exactly. I am always amazed at the number of people that dump a clean, paid-off 18 MPG SUV for a new 25 MPG car. That new car costs several thousand dollars in sales tax alone, has terrible depreciation, increased insurance and registration premiums, and if that wasn't bad enough, throw your loan payment plus interest into the equation and see where you end up. (You can buy a lot of fuel with that money.)

That's why we only buy used and let the original sucker - er, I mean owner - take the depreciation hit.

 

[Martinjmpr]

Here's the official EPA fuel economy ratings for a 2000 Frontier Crew 4x4 and a 2001 Tacoma Double Cab 4x4:

View attachment 179006

4 mpg better would represent a 22% increase over the official highway rating

Also note that the MPG figures given in that graph are for the MT version. But all 1st gen DC's have the A340 slushbox which will - based on my my personal experience - suck up about 2 - 3 MPG and a fair amount of power.

I was used to getting 19 MPG around town in my MT equipped 2004 Taco, even with the bed full of my carpet kit and usual crap. Then I switched to a 1999 4runner and I was lucky to get 16. Same engine, but the 4runner had an automatic.

 

[Ozarker]

Agreed! Average age of vehicles on the road was mentioned on the news, 9.3 years old! Rolled over to 77,000 miles on my '99, still worth more to me than what it would sell for. Been thinking of biting the bullet for a newer or even new one, then exactly what Martinjmpr surfaces in my mind and he's right, it's not a good deal for mpg. Since I have no snob appeal required for my ego, I don't need a new one.

There is peace of mind with a new warranty, that's worth something too, but only if something breaks, on the new or the old vehicle.

Well, mine still shines like it did the first day, think I'll just go buy some new car smell in a bottle and keep it.