Good mpg!

[keizersosa]

Originally Posted by ninrocket

Try turning off the traction control and vehicle stability system. You'll need to shift manually but it works great. Press the traction control button and hold it for 3-4 seconds while parked and you'll see 2 lights pop up on the dash rather than 1.

It seems to have added about 3 MPG for me!

PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS........the "traction control" light has been off on my dash since day one........is that what you mean?

[joshp]

Originally Posted by ninrocket

I was gonna start a new thread but since your talking gas mileage I will post it here.

I found that if I switch off all the traction control stuff(press the traction control button and HOLD it until the lights pop up on the dash while in PARK) and manually shift into 6 on the highway I am now averaging 19-20MPG and I've only got 570 miles on the truck!!!!!!!!!!! And I'm driving about 75MPH!!!!!!!!!!!! SWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEETTTTTTTTTTTNESS!!!!

Most of you have probably realized that if you KICK the beast she responds quite nicely...but at the cost of a TREMENDOUS amount of fuel.

I love this truck!!! Best of both worlds!!! Drive like a granny(in Tundra terms that means flowing with traffic) and 20MPG...or fly it like a bat outta hell for a little bit of gas money!!!!!!!!

Not true! Drive it in real traffic. Those of you that don't live in Los Angeles or the Bay Area don't realize what traffic is. I bought gas a chevron and it seems to be holding at 15 mpg with premium. And believe me I don't floor it at all. I'm easy on the pedal. And mine is 2wd. I won't name names but I think there is either BS going down or seriously the definition of traffic is different in CA.

[AlaskaCub]

I feel for you for living in CA period. I get road rage when I am the 5th car in line from the street light at an intersection! Gotta love Alaska!

[Thomask9590]

18- 20- 15 what! I can barely break 13.2........But I am beating every fricken thing off the line.........Seriously I did try to drive like an old man and I still only get 13.8 in town. I will have to try the traction thing.

Any more theories on tire PSI???

[93cruiser]

I started off getting 14 from 0-500miles. Went up to about 18 from 1000-5000, and now I am at 15mpg and 6500miles. I drive the same routes everyday, and use the same gas. i dont know why it fluctuates.

[Alan760]

I got 18 MPG tank going from San Diego to Tahoe. A 21 MPg tank going from Tahoe to Napa to Santa Cruz, and a 19 MPG tank driving from Big Sur to Paso Robles to Borrego Springs.
Before my latest 1700 mile California Tour my Average MPG was 16.1 MPG, and now it has raised to 17.9. nice

[los211]

when I bought my truck it had 40 miles on the odometer and was getting 11.5 for the first 3 tanks. Since then it has improved from 11.5 to 13.5. Now I have just over 1100 miles on it and I am getting 17 mpg. My commute of 5 miles to work is 90% highway. Also I live in the SF bay area but traffic is not an issue since I work at night. If I spend too much time going from red light to red light the mpg drops off big time.

[geneowens]

I had the computer MPG thing on my 06 F350 but it was 2MPG higher than actual. I understand the Tundra is more accurate but mine does not have this feature.
I wonder if turning off traction control, etc. is a good idea - is it less safe?
I'm getting around 18 with mostly highway 60 to 65 MPH driving and some stop and go. I good with that but would love to raise it to 20. Mine is 4X4 and LB so it weighs more than most others and weight affects MPG.
Also, for the guy driving from MN to ND - I always seem to hit headwinds when driving west across the plains and this would cause a great reduction in MPG.

[Sdenning]

Getting 15 mpg on on 300 mile interstate trip, no stops, mostly flat. Drive w/cruise 80 MPH,, 2500 miles on 5.7 liter.

[Gunner Tundra]

Does anyone think there is a difference in gas mileage due to rear end gearing? Mine is 4.30 and I've noticed my RPMs on 20" alloys at 70MPH is at 1800-1850 RPMs. I've read in other threads that people are rating lower RPMs at the same speed, possibly yielding better MPG?

[islanderfan]

So far 15.9 mpg (mixed hwy & local) w/ 600 miles on odometer.5.7 reg cab, long bed, 4x4 SR5 pkg. I'll be putting 5,000 miles on in the next 2 weeks (Kansas to Olympic National Park and back). I'll post the mileage for that trip when I get back. Traded in a 2001 Mountaineer for this truck and already have better mileage than that ever had. Very happy so far, hoping for 17-18mpg on this run.

[ninrocket]

Originally Posted by joshp

Not true! Drive it in real traffic. Those of you that don't live in Los Angeles or the Bay Area don't realize what traffic is. I bought gas a chevron and it seems to be holding at 15 mpg with premium. And believe me I don't floor it at all. I'm easy on the pedal. And mine is 2wd. I won't name names but I think there is either BS going down or seriously the definition of traffic is different in CA.

I go to LA and the Bay area at least 10 times a year...for the last 7 years...business mostly.

I have YET to figure out why you think you have the worst traffic. Come to Atlanta and you will see what bad traffic really is. I don't care who ranks the traffic in those online surveys. I have driven in all of the above and Atlanta rush hour is the worst PERIOD...no exceptions(although if you beat the rush hour it is probably one of the fastest as well...probably why we do better in the rankings). Atlanta is what it is...the city with the most traffic cutting through the center and around the perimeter...in all of North America.

Find ONE stretch of road in either of those Cali cities where you have 16 lanes of traffic........ONE! And all 16 of them come to a CRAWL about 3:30 every Friday. From my house to my old job in Norcross took an average of 1:45 minutes every day...ONE WAY...and its only a hair over 30 miles away...ALL EXPRESSWAY. Fridays...3 hours...minimum...if there aren't a few wrecks thrown in.

Now...I must confess...I changed jobs mainly because of the horrible commute. I am now 17 miles North of my job and I don't see any traffic since my job is North of Marietta/Atlanta.

I would classify your driving as City driving...since you can't drive at highway speeds.

The classifications are based on the speed you can drive and the amount of starting stopping you do...not the actual road you're on.

Later!

PS...if people are that worried about fuel then why the heck did you buy a 6000lb truck. DUH!!!! Ya' should have bought a Prius.

By the way...it is the most fuel efficient full size gasoline truck in production. GM claims they have better but if you Google the review sites you'll find out the Tundra beats it by a mile or two....and without that silly half on half off crap.

If you want better fuel economy then you could buy a Dodge with a Cummings and the manual tranny. Start off in 2 and shift to 6 when you get rolling. I've heard people getting 25+ with this setup.

[j4x4ar3]

Originally Posted by metrictundra

Ethanol will yield less mpg. Here is how it worked in my chevy flex fuel saburban. Ethanol has a higher octane rating than unleaded. You would think that it would help the power and mpg being higher octane. Wrong, the trucks computer senses higher octane and then retards the timing to compensate. there for loss of power and mpg. This mite just be the reason for some of the Toyota's getting less mpg. I live in Idaho. We do not have Ethanol yet. I burn 85 octane only and get some pretty good mpg.

Not true.. Ethanol based fuels actually have "issues" not because of octane but because of the way they burn. One gallon of ethanol doesn't produce as much energy as 1 gallon of gasoline. That's because ethanol and gasoline burn at different rates. It takes more ethanol to go 100 miles than is does gasoline. It's a known fact and is something that has been debated in the fuel circles for a long time. If vehicles were setup to run more on ethanol then we would all have to fill up more often.

"The other negative aspect of this inefficient fuel is that numerous studies have found that ethanol creates less energy than is required to make it. Other studies have found that ethanol creates "slightly" more energy than is used in its production. Yet not one of these studies takes into account that when E85 is used, the vehicle's fuel efficiency drops by at least 25% -- and possibly by as much as 40%. Using any of the accredited studies as a baseline in an energy-efficiency equation, ethanol when used as a fuel is a net energy waste." -- Ethanol: A Tragedy in 3 Acts

[david824]

Originally Posted by j4x4ar3

Not true.. Ethanol based fuels actually have "issues" not because of octane but because of the way they burn. One gallon of ethanol doesn't produce as much energy as 1 gallon of gasoline. That's because ethanol and gasoline burn at different rates. It takes more ethanol to go 100 miles than is does gasoline. It's a known fact and is something that has been debated in the fuel circles for a long time. If vehicles were setup to run more on ethanol then we would all have to fill up more often.

"The other negative aspect of this inefficient fuel is that numerous studies have found that ethanol creates less energy than is required to make it. Other studies have found that ethanol creates "slightly" more energy than is used in its production. Yet not one of these studies takes into account that when E85 is used, the vehicle's fuel efficiency drops by at least 25% -- and possibly by as much as 40%. Using any of the accredited studies as a baseline in an energy-efficiency equation, ethanol when used as a fuel is a net energy waste." -- Ethanol: A Tragedy in 3 Acts

Reading that made my head hurt. Way to much chemistry and physics for a Friday afternoon.

[NauticalBlue]

Finally someone who read up on ethanol! We live in the third largest country in the world, and we still couldn't grow enough frappin' corn to replace oil. Not to mention the price of anything that uses corn somewhere along the line (anyone else noticed the price of their favorite dairy products recently???) will only increase in price.