Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Toyota Sienna Gas Mileage

1234579

Comments

  • kjokjo Posts: 24
    We have a 2005 LE purchased new in July of 05. For the first 3 months, I was very careful about how we drove it and I took great pains to accurately compute the mpg. It was so close to the on board computer, I stopped doing it manually. During that first 3 month period, it got 22/23 city and 27/28 highway pretty consistently. I have never reset the mpg computer on board and it now reads 22.1 with 49k miles. We do a LOT of city driving and when we drive on the highway, we are in the fast lane doing 70-75mph. If the 3.5l gets as good or better, thats great, I'm pretty happy with the 3.3l.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Around town we've been getting around 22mpg, but I finally took a road trip and saw 27+ again. :shades:
  • vinijinvinijin Posts: 28
    I am wondering if there will be any difference of MPG between base model CE as compared to fully loaded Limited. All wheel drive, 17" aluminum wheels, Power sliding doors, power hatchback, and other accessories all add weight to the vehicle. I checked edmunds.com and it lists gross weight of 5690 lb for all the models. But I guess gross wt will be different between these models (and accessories) and will eventually impact MPG.

    RAV4 uses same engine (3.5 L) but rated 19/27. The gross weight of RAV4 is 4720 lbs. I am ready to buy new Sienna and trying to figure out how to keep Gross weight minimum. Most importantly, will there be any impact of this low weight on MPG ?
  • LuzerLuzer Posts: 119
    Around 17 - 18 city
    20 - 22 Hwy at 70 - 85 miles per hour.

    WARNING - These numbers are a little off as my GPS reads about 2 to 3 mph less at 75. (GPS = 73 and Van says 75; GPS says 77 and van is at 80) This translate into about 2.6%to 3% less. So the numbers are about 0.5 mpg too many, best case.

    My Garmin 650 GPS and my Pontiac Vibe are dead on.
    Wheels are original wheels with the XLE.

    Can anyone share GPS mph experience?
    A few post before notes a slight diff.

    This also affects odometer reading for selling the van, or your lease values....100K miles is really closer to 97,000 miles.....

    This was not the intent when I started writing this post, but can anyone say "class action suit?"
  • vinijinvinijin Posts: 28
    What model do you have ?
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    2007 LE FWD, package 3.

    Basically a mid-level model.

    The Limited are heavier, and I have seen a tendency for the lighter models (CE, LE) to get better gas mileage.

    This is purely empirical data. EPA says they're the same.
  • vinijinvinijin Posts: 28
    Does anyone knows the weight difference between regular 16" steel wheels and 16" alloy wheels ?
    Thanks
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Probably a little lighter, though OE alloys are not usually ultra-light. I bet it saves 2-3 pounds.

    I will weigh mine (tires and all) next time I rotate my tires. I have the alloys. We'll have to ask someone else to weigh their steelies.

    For reference, the 15" steelies on my Forester weighed 44 lbs with tires mounted, and the 16" alloys that replaced them weighed the same. The alloys were an inch bigger, of course, so more metal was offset by the lighter weight of the metal.
  • vinijinvinijin Posts: 28
    That's interesting. It means I can go for 16" alloy wheels without increasing curb weight. I am trying to buy the lightest possible Sienna. CE-7 passenger and LE-8 passenger are lightest (4177 lbs) in base models. Unfortunately, I can't buy a LE-8 passenger without options in my area. I have to buy minimum of RL and Option package 1. I am trying to determine how much extra weight will be added with these options. Any help on this will be appreciated.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Why is weight so critical?

    I get great fuel efficiency with my LE, and it has package 3. I get 22-24 around town, and 27-30+ on trips.
  • vinijinvinijin Posts: 28
    I strongly believe weight is critical to get best fuel efficiency.

    RAV4 has the same engine (3.5 L) as Sienna and curb weight of base model (3.5 L) RAV4 is 3527 lbs - about 15% less than base model of Sienna.
    Based upon EPA estimates, RAV4 is estimated as 19/27 MPG - about 17-18% better fuel efficiency as compared to Sienna.

    My objective is to get MPG as close to RAV4 as practically possible. To achieve this, I am trying to get the curb weight of Sienna as low as possible.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Fair enough.

    Toyota lists curb weight for the 2007 CE and LE as the same - 4270 lbs. Wonder if it really is the same?

    Some add-ons are indeed lighter - for instance the CE has an antennae while the LE models with the JBL sound have an in-glass antennae. Not only does it weigh less, it would also produce no drag at all.

    You also want the most narrow tires, so stick with the 215mm section width on the 16" rims, which models you're considering all have.

    Remove roof rack cross bars if you get those. My LE has them.

    There may be other trade-offs to consider. You could remove the antennae from the CE model while the radio is not in use, but to me that's too inconvenient.

    The XLE is 4310, so 40 lbs worth of options. I don't think that's very significant given the RAV4 drops some 700 lbs. So you'll only see 6% of the fuel savings the RAV4 would give you.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Another idea - you can remove the 3rd row. I've seen someone do that and build a custom shaped piece of wood as a cover for the cargo well. That's surely lighter than the entire 3rd row seat.
  • bearcrkrdbearcrkrd Posts: 167
    Hi. My 2006 Sienna CE got great gas mileage. See my previous posts. 18 months, 36,000 miles. What a fine ride for a bare-bones trim level!!! I do not have a family, drive alone 99% of the time, don't tow or haul, and love to drive, Gas in Seattle is $4.11 for regular, 30 cents higher for premium. Always used premium. I went to mid-grade 3 weeks ago, regular last week, and gave up today. :sick: Got hit hard on my trade-in value, but it was the closest to KBB value (way under NADA or Edmunds), but it was the Edmunds number for that Zip Code I used to get the 2008 Honda Civic LX I just brought home an hour ago. Once at the table, they started at almost $3,000 over MSRP. :confuse: It's a tinny rice burner in a fancy overcoat. Base model. I think I can get 40 on the Interstate with my conservative driving style, so I justified it. After I unloaded the van, which has never been smoked in, driven on dirt except once, or even eaten in (honest), I patted the drivers door a couple times and walked away. First new car I bought was a Toyota in 2001, at 44 years old. Bought 4 more new Toyotas since. I'll miss that Sienna. I'll also miss ateixeira's posts. So Long.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Thanks for the update.

    Congrats and good luck with the Civic!

    I read that Honda may increase production to keep up with demand for the fuel efficient sedan.
  • honshuhonshu Posts: 11
    I have a new 2008 CE Sienna but having a head ache of keeping up with all the gas it consumes, sometimes it costs me $60 to fill from half tank and sometimes just $40, the price of gas would be +/- .04 cents. When I was driving my 2005 Corolla CE (Bless her little engine) :shades: , I would slap it down to neutral and let her cruise to the red light. I calculated it saved me an extra 30% of gas, I wonder if is the same with the Sienna, any one has experimented with this yet? :confuse:
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    I would leave it in gear.

    Think about it - in neutral, it needs fuel to idle and not stall.

    Coasting to a stop, it can cut off fuel completely and coast, yet the alternator is still spinning so it will not stall.
  • sf_siennasf_sienna Posts: 13
    That's very good mileage and somewhat better than what I've seen with our 2004 XLE FWD. In just under 5 yrs and 51K miles our trip computer tells us that we've averaged 22.7 mpg. Our miles are more city than highway, maybe 60/40 split. I had been checking the mileage in the early days and found it to be pretty reliable. Recently we completed a San Jose to Los Angeles roundtrip. This included approximately 800 highway miles and 150 city miles. The mileage driving south was 25.5 mpg and the mileage driving north was 23.1 mpg. The biggest difference was that we had 1 1/2 hrs of traffic delays heading north. Our average highway speed in both directions was 70 mph (cruise control) and we had the A/C on the entire time due to 90-100 degree temps through the central valley and LA area. We had 3 adults and 2 children in the car along with a full load of luggage.
  • kjokjo Posts: 24
    05 LE, package #8. It has 35K on it right now and new Yokohama Avid TRZ's (very sweet tires). We just got back from a week long trip to Cooperstown, NY from Columbus, Ohio. Total milage from driveway to driveway, 1367.2. Total fuel used, 53.872 gallons. Total MPG for the trip, 25.38mpg. Fully loaded both ways, family of 4, lots of luggage, I removed one of the middle captain chairs, I usually do for trips. I also removed my luggage rack cross bars a while ago, as they are never used. My tires always stay at 41 lbs. For the trip there, I went from 57 to 64 mph most of the way, there was a spell when I was going around 72-74 for about 40 miles. While in Cooperstown for the week, I averaged 21 mpg. The most impressive part of the trip was the return. I gassed up just after I got on I-90 and went 495.5 miles on 17.36 gallons = 28.54 mpg. On this part of the trip I was on CC at 63 mph for 90% of the time. Some things I noticed about going a bit slower than I normally have in the past, you will see many of the same vehicles pass you more than a couple times in a big hurry. I was not nearly as fatigued as I was relaxed watching cars pass me all the way instead of hurrying and always trying to find the open lane to keep moving at speed to my destination. Also, you never have to constantly look ahead for cops taking radar. I rather like going between 60 and 65, it still gets you there in good time and these Sienna's just love that speed for efficiency. I'm sure I could get over 30 mpg going a steady 55, but that is just anti-social and kind of dangerous as well.
    I forgot to add, that AC was used for about half of the trip. AC was used every day while in Cooperstown, city driving and most of the second half of the drive back to Columbus. All in all, I'm very impressed with Sienna's performance. It delivers a quiet ride , lots of room for "stuff", entertainment for the kids, (never heard a peep out of them, well except for the laughter while watching movies), just a very balanced vehicle and I'm glad this one is mine.
  • dnbqeednbqee Posts: 7
    hi new to the forum. Our trip computer consistently shows about 2 mpg above what the actual mileage really is by doing the math. Speedo is GPS verified as accurate for both speed and distance. The trip computer seems to be "programmed"to always show the "optimistic" old EPA numbers. Anyone else have the same problem? Thanks
  • kermiekermie Posts: 4
    We have an 04 Seinna and the milage on the overhead display is 2-3 mpg higher that what we get. I wonder if they can be reprogrammed?

    JR
  • dnbqeednbqee Posts: 7
    Thanks, yea I wonder. Interesting thing is the miles to empty (usually round 300 for a full tank) is always dead on; ie. the trip computer "knows" the actual fuel mileage but displays 2 mpg more. is this deliberate ? so consumers dont have to see the awful truth of 16 mpg? ours is a awd 04 Sienna is this just a AWD problem ?
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    My trip computer is accurate (2007 LE FWD). I've measured on my own (miles for the tank/gallons to full) and it's only been off by 0.1 or 0.2 mpg, and not always reading high, either.

    Just FYI.

    Loaned the van to my lead-footed brother and he "discovered" the 266hp V6. :D 23.3 mpg.
  • We just bought the car this last saturday. We are getting, based on the mileage display in the car, 22mpg in 50/50 mixed driving. How close is the display to actual mileage anyways? I should probably try the search feature... :)
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Mine is pretty accurate, usually within 1/10th of an MPG.

    Just got 24.9 mpg in mine doing about 50/50 city highway.

    So far this tank it says 25.6mpg from mostly highway, but I was stuck on the Chesapeake Bay Bridge last night in that traffic since that tractor trailer drove in to the water (wild).
  • yatesjoyatesjo Posts: 186
    My family and I just returned to San Jose, CA from visiting family in Arizona in our new 2008 Sienna LE. I took along our new Garmin Streetpilot C580 to help us along our way.

    One finding was that the odometer read 4.5% less than the GPS. This was confirmed in two ways. First it was noticed that in the "next turn" estimates that the turn would come up sooner that I expected looking at the odometer so I started marking the odometer readings with the next turn at 100 or 150 miles. This method indicated that the odometer read 95.6% of the GPS distance Later I discovered the trip meter function on the GPS and reset it and one trip odometer for the leg home. Over a GPS indicated distance of 1075.4 miles, the odometer read 1025.1, or 95.4% of the GPS.

    Because of this disparity I have three estimates of the MPG.
    Odometer: 24.7
    GPS: 25.9
    Trip computer: 25.3

    This is 2056 miles of driving on a van that only had 330 miles at the start of the trip. It is about 90% highway and 2 or 3% unpaved roads. Most of the time we were running 75 MPH through 100+oF desert (as high as 112o at one point) with the A/C running full blast. For a vehicle with this much weight and power I am impressed by even the lowest MPG estimate. The A/C can make the whole van cold in those conditions while the engine barely notices and still has a lot of passing power even while going up a 5.5% grade.

    And before anyone asks what I was doing in Arizona in August... my dad has an in-hold in the middle of the national forest in the Dragoon mountains (1.5 hrs southeast of Tucson) and it is not nearly as hot as Phoenix or Tucson. July and August are the monsoon season there and just as the day is getting to it's hottest point the rains roll through and cool the place down. We had thunderstorms most days we were there. Very nice.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Very interesting, because I would consider the GPS distance to be the most accurate.

    We have a c340, which is less accurate than yours, yet it can tell when I'm in local lanes on the highway. That means it can sense a distance of just a few yards.

    Perhaps the odometer is conservative since some people will mount bigger tires?

    The tires are new so it could not be tire wear.
  • yatesjoyatesjo Posts: 186
    I'm seeing the mileage on the odometer showing less than the actual so my odometer will become closer to accurate as the tires wear down/become smaller in circumference. One thing I must keep in mind too is that my actual speed is actually a little bit higher than the speedometer reading- when my needle pointed to 75mph, the GPS put my speed at 76 or 77mph and the speed signs that flash the actual speed tended to agree with the GPS.

    I agree that the GPS is probably the most reliable measure. The GPS closely agreed with the highway signage distances and is supposed to be accurate to within a few yards. It may miss lane changes or not recognize the differences between the inside and the outside of a curve, but overall those are quite small compared to the length of straight roads I traveled.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Here's the funny thing - mine is just the opposite.

    When I set cruise control at 65mph on the speedo, my GPS' dash board function usually reads 64mph.

    My Nuvi 200W is not as accurate as your c series, which has a better antennae.
  • yatesjoyatesjo Posts: 186
    Do you have the 16" rims or the 17"? I have the 17" rims and was wondering if small differences in the tire sizing may contribute.

    I chose the C series because of the strong reception. I love this GPS. It made traveling so much less stressful around the big cities and helped me plan where to stop by looking at where rest areas, gas stations and motels ahead of us along our route. Ours also has the MSN service that tells us the traffic, weather and gas prices around the big cities. Going through Phoenix they were working on 101 and the Garmin knew the detour route even before we got there.

    One glitch in the Garmin was that in a remote area it was wanting to send us down unpaved roads- including one that is not maintained and I knew to be impassable without a serious 4-wheel drive truck. I took the route I knew and it kept telling me to turn off on every gravel road I came to. Strangely enough when I turned off the unpaved road avoidance it plotted the most correct (and paved) route. I would guess that the map people coded the paved and unpaved roads backwards in the areas around Dragoon/Cochise/Pearce, AZ.
This discussion has been closed.