Best balance of mileage and capability?

[wvazq]

Nissan Frontier

If you are looking at Tacomas, you should also look at the Nissan Frontier. They are very similar trucks, but the Frontiers are way cheaper. I traded in my 2000 Outback for a 2013 Frontier crew cab and have been very happy with it. I get around 20 mpg with the manual transmission, but I have a higher-than-the-cab topper (leer 180) which probably robs 1 mpg.


The 2nd gen Frontiers (2005+) have more room than the previous generation, just be careful for the SMOD in pre 2009 automatics. In those it is possible for the transmission fluid to be contaminated and ruin the transmission. There are lots of posts about SMOD in frontier forums and how to avoid/fix it.

 

[jluck]

If you are looking at Tacomas, you should also look at the Nissan Frontier. They are very similar trucks, but the Frontiers are way cheaper. I traded in my 2000 Outback for a 2013 Frontier crew cab and have been very happy with it. I get around 20 mpg with the manual transmission, but I have a higher-than-the-cab topper (leer 180) which probably robs 1 mpg.
View attachment 178070

The 2nd gen Frontiers (2005+) have more room than the previous generation, just be careful for the SMOD in pre 2009 automatics. In those it is possible for the transmission fluid to be contaminated and ruin the transmission. There are lots of posts about SMOD in frontier forums and how to avoid/fix it.

Good call! +1 for frontier.

 

[rxinhed]

Monty Python moment: "And now, for something completely different."



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consolidated_PBY_Catalina

:Wow1:

 

[eatboulders]

Just to be that young guy with a 12v CTD...

I've managed 26mpg hand calculated at the pump with my 96 reg cab 2500, 4x4, 5 speed, with a topper on. All stock [tires too, so my sensor's on] except for a 4" MBRP turbo back w/ muffler. I drive extremely conservatively, rarely ever get to hear my turbo whistle, and am always in the right lane. Haven't driven another full tank on the highway so can't comment on whether it was just luck. But I average 22mpg combined without much trouble. I'm headed on a 3500 mile road trip in a week so I'll report back from the pump...

But I'm certainly not saying its the right truck for the OP. The CC 2012 Nissan Frontier Pro-4x that my father has probably is though. I get better mileage though...

 

[ArmchairRacer]

I'd check into a Liberty CRD, I know OME makes a lift for them and I've heard of 24 mpg on the average. But a frontier would also be a good choice.

 

[Martinjmpr]

I have a really light foot. I tend to get 2-4 mpg better than the average person out of a vehicle. I have seen a lot of 19 mpg reports, hence the 22.

If you drive like an old man on the highway (set the cruise at 60) NEVER pull a trailer, NEVER drive in the city, you might eke out 21 or 22 once or twice.

However, your daily MPG will be closer to 16-18. I had a 99 4runner with the exact same running gear as the DC tacomas (3.4. auto, 4x4) and keep in mind my 4runner probably weighed a bit less than a Tacoma would (the Taco is at least a foot longer.) I kept meticulous records and my overall average was 18 and some change. In 2 1/2 years and 32,000 miles in my 4runner I was able to break 22mpg maybe 3 times, all under absolutely ideal conditions.

If you want the 1st gen DC, get it, but don't kid yourself into thinking it gets decent MPG, it really doesn't when you consider the undersized fuel tank (18.5 gallons) and the underpowered engine (underpowered compared to more modern vehicles.) It's fine if you never plan to tow anything, but even a light trailer will make your MPG plummet like a rock. I got rid of my 99 for that very reason - we have a small teardrop trailer, about 1100lbs, and our MPG on the first long trip was dismal - 11 to 14, and that was with me trying to keep my speed down. The piss-poor MPG and small fuel tank caused me to run out of gas in Oregon last year, and that was pretty much the last straw for me.

Personally, I blame the slushbox. The 3.4 is a decent engine but that 4 speed automatic just robs power from it. It's too bad you could never get a 5 speed in the 1st gen Taco DC. The 05+ Tacos with the 4.0 and the 5 speed auto would do much, much better in terms of both MPG and power and they have a bigger gas tank to boot.

 

[Ryanmb21]

I get 17.5 - 20mpg combined in my 06 lifted v6 4runner on 32" tires. On highway runs if I keep it at 67-70mph I get 20mpg.

4runners are quality vehicles, owned it since new, ~87k miles, only changed oil, filters, front pads once and this week a dash light burnt out and a battery in one TPMS unit died. Not a lot of maintenance, no dealer visits.

Good payload compared to competition (even land cruiser and pickups)

 

[SoCalMonty]

It seems most mid-sized trucks and SUV's over the last 15 years or so are pretty similar in fuel economy. I'd say 85% of the 6-cyl variety are between 14-17 mpg avg.

2 trucks ago, I had a 2001 XJ Cherokee 4.0 auto. You'd think it would get decent mileage considering it weighs the same as a VW hatchback (~3125 lbs). Once I put 33's on it, with the 3.55:1 ratio, I was daily driving to the tune of 11 min - 14 max mpg. It was brutal.

I was a hypermiling nerd in a past life, so I tracked my fuel mileage accurately for a while in my current truck (95 Montero). The highest I was able to get, mostly freeway @ 70, was a tank averaging 16.8 mpg (DOHC 3.5L, 33's, lift, curb wt 4600 lbs empty, aerodynamics of a brick).

Mostly city, the worst I've ever gotten was a hair over 13mpg.

I was really struggling trying to figure out what to buy when I bought this truck...was space more important to me, meaning a larger vehicle with a bigger engine and bigger thirst? Or was economy more important, meaning a smaller vehicle and/or less power and cargo room? I was *REALLY* close to getting a Samurai or Sidekick. It would have received a 2.0 8V gas VW engine (ABA motor, from 93-98 generation) which would have yielded very close to 30mpg highway.

In the end, though, I realized that unless I was spending a ton of cash on importing some rare diesel model, or buying a brand new car with some crazy efficient engine, then it seemed that mid-teens was pretty much par for the course no matter what I ended up with (in my price range and size/capability requirements).

It seems like not much has changed. Generally speaking, a used ~2-ton vehicle with a 3.0L-4.5L gas engine probably isn't going to break 20mpg except for rarities or anomalies. Once you get to vehicles that are fairly new (current or previous generation, maybe 7 years old or so), then this does start to change slightly. But even then, it's best case scenario usually.

 

[justfred]

Monty Python moment: "And now, for something completely different."

View attachment 178075

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consolidated_PBY_Catalina

:Wow1:

Switching from miles-per-gallon to gallons-per-hour doesn't save money. Especially when you're talking 150gph and 125 knots.

I'd still choose a Grumman Albatross as the ultimate off-roader!

 

[Plannerman]

FWIW, I have almost 65000 miles on my 2010 double cab. I have kept track of every single fill up (I know, I'm crazy). My current overall average is 18.5. It was 18.9 before I lifted the truck 20k miles ago, so I will probably end up at 18.1 if do no more modifications.


Sent via fat thumb

 

[Keanan]

https://www.fuelly.com/

Not only can you use this website and smartphone app to track you mileage, you can use it to research real world mileage numbers from average people.

The Outback will get you a lot of places. Depending on how much you drive each year you might want to just consider buying the cheapest most capable vehicle you can. Use it for weekend adventures the drive the commuter during the week.

 

[Ozarker]

Well, I was hoping for a definitive answer to the OP but I know there isn't one. As mentioned, they are all about the same in each class/size. I agree too that the Taco is spiced by a cool reputation that may not be fully warranted in reality and you are paying more for it. I've heard much talk about the Eco-boost F-150 getting great mpg for it's size. The Nissan is an excellent choice as well, I'd go with that before the Toyota. But really, for 2/3 mpg difference between a Frontier or the Taco and my F-150 (at it's prime) I'll keep the F-150. Off road capable must be better defined too, turning radius, wheel size/tires, your stomping grounds, etc. each will be different in different conditions, so it's hard to compare apples and oranges.

It does sound like the OP is wanting an acknowledgment for his selection more than objective opinions, if you want the Taco, by all means, they are very nice trucks, a buddy has a 2012 I think and he's nuts over it, the pride of vehicle ownership is food for the ego and the id, if you can afford the meal.

I'm not a hard core off roader, although I use to race decades ago, but driving technique will get you further than a certain brand or engine within a similar class/size. If a 1/2 ton Ford or Chevy isn't too big, I suggest you look at bigger ones as the mpg isn't that much different and there is a big difference inside, hauling and towing or to say the "capabilities" have a greater bandwidth.

I've seen folks in forums fudge on all kinds of claims as well so take it all with a grain of salt.

I agree with the suggestion of having a dedicated vehicle too, if you're going out on some trails, 4 up and taking camping gear and a small pop-up or tent, get an old Pathfinder or Jeep Cherokee, although you'll have more in taxes, insurance and maintenance of multiple vehicles it would be less than the difference of a new truck and your Outback. I've been vehicle poor too, this one is to drive to work and out to eat, this is the wife's chasing around car, this one is to pull my boat, this one is for fun on trails , this one is for the need for speed.....it never ends.....wish I had my insurance premiums back I never made a claim on!

Have a great time with your Toyota to be! LOL

 

[Martinjmpr]

It seems like not much has changed. Generally speaking, a used ~2-ton vehicle with a 3.0L-4.5L gas engine probably isn't going to break 20mpg except for rarities or anomalies. Once you get to vehicles that are fairly new (current or previous generation, maybe 7 years old or so), then this does start to change slightly. But even then, it's best case scenario usually.

:iagree:

When it comes to vehicles there seem to be some fairly well defined "generational breaks." Starting in the mid 1980's, almost all vehicles got EFI (whereas my 85 Toyota 4x4 pickup had the carbureted 22r engine - the EFI 22RE would have required me to upgrade to a more expensive model.) My last carbureted 4 wheeled vehicle was an 84 Mazda pickup. So the early EFI vehicles were about 1985 to ~ 1990 or so. This would include the 1st gen 4runners, the 84-89 pickups, XJ Cherokees (although I think the early XJ's actually had carbureted engines) and so on. Next generation were the somewhat improved EFI vehicles from about 1990 - 2003 which would include the 2nd and 3rd gen 4runners, early Tacomas, R50 Pathfinders, ZJ and WJ Grand Cherokees, TJ Wranglers, etc. There was also a definite "generational break" in about 1994-96 when airbags became mandatory. You'll notice that a bunch of companies introduced new models in this time period, I assume because the inclusion of airbags required pretty much a complete redesign of the interior (in fact, the Jeep XJ is the only vehicle I can think of off the top of my head that stayed more or less the same after it was upgraded to use airbags.)

The thing to remember about these 1st and 2nd gen EFI vehicles is that gas was cheap when they were being built, so fuel economy simply wasn't a factor. In the mid 80's, people still worried about gas prices (because the big gas crises of the late 70's and early 80's were still on people's minds.) But by the mid 90's gas prices had stayed right around $1.00/gallon even as incomes increased and the economy boomed. In that time frame, it was power that sold, not economy. So the car companies started doing what they could to boost power (usually by putting in a bigger engine) and said "who cares about economy? Gas is cheap!" It should be noted that it was during this period of relatively cheap gas (the cheapest gas our country has ever seen, when compared to the cost of living) that the SUV boom hit its peak. Big V8's and body-on-frame construction became the way to go.

Then came 2001, the economy crashed again, and gas prices shot up after 2003-2005 and all of a sudden the car companies had been cranking out big gas-guzzling vehicles were left holding the bag, so they finally started applying techonological advances like VVTI and other techniques to squeeze more MPG out of vehicles. IMO that's why we have the likes of the 4.0 V6 that not only has more power than the 3.4, it generally gets about the same (or better) MPG despite hauling a significantly heavier vehicle (just for an example, my 3rd gen 4runner weighed ~3800lbs, while my 4th tips the scales around 4500. Despite being longer, wider and quite a bit heavier, my 4th gen actually gets slightly better MPG when not towing and significantly better MPG when towing.)

 

[p nut]

If you drive like an old man on the highway (set the cruise at 60) NEVER pull a trailer, NEVER drive in the city, you might eke out 21 or 22 once or twice.

I disagree with a couple points here. First, 100% stock, with 80% highway and 20% city, I was consistently at 21MPG. All highway, 22-23MPG was not a problem at 70MPH. This was with both a 3rd gen 4Runner V6 and 1st gen Tacoma double cab. Once mods started, the mileage dropped. Biggest drop was with 32" tires (265/75/16) to about 19MPG highway.

I had a 99 4runner with the exact same running gear as the DC tacomas (3.4. auto, 4x4) and keep in mind my 4runner probably weighed a bit less than a Tacoma would (the Taco is at least a foot longer.) I kept meticulous records and my overall average was 18 and some change. In 2 1/2 years and 32,000 miles in my 4runner I was able to break 22mpg maybe 3 times, all under absolutely ideal conditions.

Why would a truck weigh more than an SUV counterpart? Instead of a big hatch, it's got a lighter truck bed. 2013 LONG BED Double cab = 4220lbs, 2013 4Runner = 4,700lbs. 2001 4Runner 4WD = 4,000lbs, 2001 Double Cab = 3,700lbs. Despite this, I got almost the exact same mileage on both platforms. I also keep a spreadsheet of every fill up, and with a combined total of over 100k miles, the results were as I noted above.

Back on topic, the best balance is a moving target. Just depends on your needs, available funds, etc. And those change as time passes.

 

[madmax718]

Actually it was the mandate for obd2 as well as some new crash safety standards (side impact primarily, but many others) that made the switch to newer computer operations of engines.

one of the main reasons the chevy's of 87+ didn't need new motors every 100k (because with electronic fuel control, cylinder washing from excess fuel was minimized.

Carb<throttle body injection(tbi)-<port fuel injection or electronic fuel injection (EFI)< and now high pressure direct injection. Im sure I've forgotten some advancements in the middle over there.

The bigger part of this thing is the crash safety. 1980's jeeps were several hundred pounds lighter and smaller than current jeeps. Even with engine advancements, we keep adding weight.

Throw one of these new direct injected motors into an old car, and watch the mileage soar!