Are you shopping for a new vehicle and having trouble finding one, or have you been waiting a long time for a factory order? A reporter would like to speak with you; please reach out to [email protected] by Tues. 5/11 for more details.

Fuel Economy Update For January - Initial Observations - 2016 Toyota Tacoma Long-Term Road Test

Edmunds.comEdmunds.com Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 10,130
edited February 2016 in Toyota
imageFuel Economy Update For January - Initial Observations - 2016 Toyota Tacoma Long-Term Road Test

We tally up the fuel economy report on our 2016 Toyota Tacoma for January.

Read the full story here


Comments

  • daryleasondaryleason TexasMember Posts: 501
    And this is my problem with Mid-Size trucks. They're just as bad on fuel economy as a full-size truck. I get it that it's just getting broke in. The fuel economy SHOULD improve. But when the price point is only 3-5 grand cheaper than a full size, within typically 6 inches of a full-size, and doesn't have the towing capacity of a full-size, why go with a mid-size?

    The thing that has hurt the mid-size & small-truck market the most is the price point and power train of these vehicles. I WANT to be a able to consider a mid-size or smaller truck as a viable alternative. But it's got to offer more than 2 mpg average and less space. It needs to be small, nimble, and great on fuel economy at a reasonable price.
  • jeepsrtjeepsrt Member Posts: 88
    You have the TRD off road, not the TRD Pro.
  • dougnutsdougnuts Member Posts: 26
    That is disappointing. Given my experience with an AWD Highlander (company car) a few years back, and Toyota's history of being conservative on the EPA estimates, I expected an average in the low-20s. Fuelly.com isn't bearing that out, although the models with a front air dam and on-road tires are getting a solid 1 mpg over the off-road package trucks.
  • kreuzerkreuzer Member Posts: 131
    I'm really surprised/disappointed that Toyota didn't do more with the Tacoma's 2.7l engine. I wish they would work on it to achieve better hp/torque/mileage. Maybe I'm asking/wishing for too much, but if any manufacturer could do it, I would think they could. Along with those improvements, I wish they'd come back with a front bench seat and gear shift on the column. I'm just old school, I guess.
  • daryleasondaryleason TexasMember Posts: 501
    @kreuzer : It's hard to get an engine to have HP/Torque & better fuel mileage. For me, I think the "sweet spot" for a small truck, or the huge mid-sizers they have today, would be about 24 or 25 MPG (combined). For those that have read my posts in the past, I predominately complain about two things. 1, FCA Build Quality/resale value (particularly the PT Cruiser) & 2, how there is no such thing really as a small or mid-size truck in the North American Market that's cost competitive compared to a full size truck, gets good fuel economy, or is truly mid-size or small.
  • jklag11jklag11 Member Posts: 3

    @kreuzer : It's hard to get an engine to have HP/Torque & better fuel mileage. For me, I think the "sweet spot" for a small truck, or the huge mid-sizers they have today, would be about 24 or 25 MPG (combined). For those that have read my posts in the past, I predominately complain about two things. 1, FCA Build Quality/resale value (particularly the PT Cruiser) & 2, how there is no such thing really as a small or mid-size truck in the North American Market that's cost competitive compared to a full size truck, gets good fuel economy, or is truly mid-size or small.

    It's true that it requires some engineering to get more out of an engine, but I don't agree with your assertion that Toyota couldn't get more competitive power out of the 2.7L. It only makes about 160 hp now, and contemporary 2.4 and 2.5L I4s have outputs on the order of 200 hp. I've always liked the Tacoma 2.7L, but I agree it needs more guts to be competitive. I think the correct argument is that Toyota probably didn't have much incentive to redesign now that they dropped that engine for their midsize crossovers. The Tacoma I4 take rate likely doesn't justify the cost of updating the engine design.
  • dougnutsdougnuts Member Posts: 26
    jklag11 said:


    It's true that it requires some engineering to get more out of an engine, but I don't agree with your assertion that Toyota couldn't get more competitive power out of the 2.7L. It only makes about 160 hp now, and contemporary 2.4 and 2.5L I4s have outputs on the order of 200 hp. I've always liked the Tacoma 2.7L, but I agree it needs more guts to be competitive. I think the correct argument is that Toyota probably didn't have much incentive to redesign now that they dropped that engine for their midsize crossovers. The Tacoma I4 take rate likely doesn't justify the cost of updating the engine design.

    HP is largely a function of RPM, and where the engine components are designed to make power. For example, the 2.5L in the Camry does make 19 more HP, but it's 800 RPM higher in the rev range. Conversely, the Tacoma's 2.7L makes 10 more ft-lb at 300 fewer RPM. That's just the nature of a truck engine vs. a car engine.

    Regarding the 3.5L, I've always been impressed with the power and economy of a 3.5L Highlander. How they can add Atkinson cycle and still not break 20mpg combined is beyond me. They even added another cog to the transmission and are only getting about 1mpg better than the previous 4.0/5 speed auto combination. Weird.
  • daryleasondaryleason TexasMember Posts: 501
    @dougnuts : The issue with the "extra" gears in the modern iterations of the automatics doesn't surprise me. Most of these transmissions that use 6, 7, 8, and whatever gears are actually programmed to skip gears. My 2013 F-150 has a six-speed automatic, but 5th and 6th are both over-drive. 5th gear is .86 & 6th gear is .69. So while a transmission may HAVE all these options, the computer is programmed to seek out only the gear that returns the best result for what it's programmed for. I'd be willing to bet that most drivers end up driving in a manner that means their automatic transmission may be acting like a 3 speed.
  • 5vzfe5vzfe Member Posts: 161
    Does the EPA treat the TRD off-road to it's own individual fuel economy test? Maybe the other trims with their less-aggressive tires and chin spoilers actually meet their estimates, but this one might be at a slight disadvantage if it's being compared to the rest of the lineup.
  • thepropergripthepropergrip Member Posts: 1
    I have 1200 miles on my 2016 Tacoma TRD 4x4 with double cab and long bed. I am getting an average of about 19.2 so far. On the freeway the other day with some traffic (going about 55) for 10 miles, with 8 miles of city streets (Speed limit 45) I got 26.1 with the high point about 2/3 through the trip of 28 mpg. Driving early in the morning with a mix of freeway speeds of 65-70 and 8 miles of city streets I am doing 23-24 mpg. I am not driving like a hypermiler but I am not gunning it at every chance either.

    On a 200 mile rounds trip from the Phoenix area to the Mogollon Rim above Payson, AZ (mix of steep grades both up and down, speed limit 65) I got an average of over 20 mpg. This was with a large dog and kennel in the back, 3 adults, and 2 kids in the cab.
  • kreuzerkreuzer Member Posts: 131
    @ daryleason : Not saying it's easy to do but how did Chevy/GMC do it with a smaller I4 (2.5l) with 200hp/190torque? I'd even be happy for a combined average for mileage to be that 24/25mpg.
  • crbennecrbenne Member Posts: 1
    Thats disappointing. I was looking at the Tacoma but ended up getting a F150 (V6 Ecoboost). I am averaging 21 city and highway. All highway i have gotten 25+. I would hope the Tacoma would get better due to it be smaller.
  • tomslick2tomslick2 Member Posts: 4
    Middling fuel economy like this is an issue with these "small/midsize" trucks. There is also a price premium. My dad was looking for a Colorado but they are pulling in a preimum. He ended up leasing a v6 Silverado for 208/month.
Sign In or Register to comment.