[Thebeastlives]

So I took the 3rd gen fully loaded ( dogs, wife, all the camping gear, cooler etc) and headed to Roper Lake from Tucson. As some of you know the inclines and hills are very noticeable when you are in a 3rd gen especially when it is loaded. I had my throttle body cleaned along with fuel filter replaced and replaced my stock intake with a k/n full intake. The car for months around town had avg 23 to 24 mpg. So I was curious on this road trip would the truck have noticeably more power on the hills too and from Roper Lake. Also I wondered what the mpg avg would be especially since the rpms would be 2300+. Well it avg 18.2 mpg and was still able to run 70+ mph up the steepest inclines. Of course my son's 4th gen left us when the hills got long and steep but he avg only 19 mpg on the trip. Previous road trips with lots of hills and a loaded truck I would avg 13.5 mpg and struggle up inclines running 3000+ rpms. I would say this old as hell 25 year old SUV runs ok now.

[pluton]

Originally Posted by Thebeastlives

The car for months around town had avg 23 to 24 mpg.

This seems unusual.

[Thebeastlives]

Why? Try driving your truck like an lil old lady watch the mpg increase. Wife drives this thing daily to work and she drives slow and easy . I drive my lifted tundra with 35 and if I drive like I have sense I can avg 16 to 18 mpg. Not rocket science

[Iffykid]

Originally Posted by Thebeastlives

Why? Try driving your truck like an lil old lady watch the mpg increase. Wife drives this thing daily to work and she drives slow and easy . I drive my lifted tundra with 35 and if I drive like I have sense I can avg 16 to 18 mpg. Not rocket science

I drive a stock 00 on 265/75/16s and drive like a little old man never above posted highway speeds try to keep acceleration rpms in the 2000-2500 range and average closer to 17mpg.

[Penguin_Who_Laughs]

Yeah 23 is what the factory spec is for highway. If you're getting that on a 20 year old car that's amazing. The most I've gotten is 20 and that was on a distributor on flat ground.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Brian.]

Originally Posted by Thebeastlives

Why? Try driving your truck like an lil old lady watch the mpg increase. Wife drives this thing daily to work and she drives slow and easy . I drive my lifted tundra with 35 and if I drive like I have sense I can avg 16 to 18 mpg. Not rocket science

Done that, doesn't work for my 4runner. 18mpg is about as good as it gets for me. Meanwhile, I can get 20 out of my Ford Transit with a high roof, and spent 20 years getting 50mpg out of a diesel jetta ~ I'm no stranger to driving softly.

The sad thing is that I've done every conceivable maintenance item I can think of too. Running stock sized, highway biased tires, use gas for a known station (where I fill up my other 3 vehicles), basically doing everything possible that a person could do and still only getting ~18mpg. Don't know if I've even been over 55mph in the thing for the past ~3k miles.

[RandyBobandy]

I drive very conservatively and average 16-17 around town, that's lifted with 33s and a 5 speed, best I ever got was 20 on an 8 hour trip but that was with the auto still in it and my around town average was 14-15 with the auto

[Thebeastlives]

Originally Posted by RandyBobandy

I drive very conservatively and average 16-17 around town, that's lifted with 33s and a 5 speed, best I ever got was 20 on an 8 hour trip but that was with the auto still in it and my around town average was 14-15 with the auto

We run stock size truck passenger tires which are light. They aren't great offroad but they do well enough but they definitely shine on the road and for mpg. I notice that when she drives her rpms are on the avg below 2000 rpms at 50 to 55 mphs. On the open hwy like when I drove to lake roper the rpms were 2400+ ( at 75+ mph) but never over 3000 even on the steep longer inclines. The k/n intake is noticeably louder when the motor revs but definitely helps the truck to run at lower rpms therefore burning less fuel. I believe it is a combination of light tires, clean throttle body, k/n intake and a woman with a light foot that has helped the mpg. This truck overall has much more power, accelerates better, and has more passing power. Larger tires and that restrictive stock intake definitely doesn't help overall fuel economy at least it didn't on my truck.

[jgue467]

Originally Posted by Thebeastlives

... The k/n intake ...restrictive stock intake...

Less restrictive air intake = more grit to grind cylinder walls...Luck.

[calimobber]

Originally Posted by jgue467

Less restrictive air intake = more grit to grind cylinder walls...Luck.

Exactly! Paper filters only.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJ3L-E-ufYo

[Thebeastlives]

Originally Posted by jgue467

Less restrictive air intake = more grit to grind cylinder walls...Luck.

lots of people say that and yes with improper cleaning and oiling I would agree. I've run the full K/N setup on vehicles of mine for 20+ years with zero issues. I've had built quads, utvs, offroad jeeps, etc that I have beat in the ground only to break down and have the top end rebuilt from racing and heavy mileage and no damage to the cylinder walls. Yes I've blown up race motors which happens but never once was that because of an intake setup. I've run them on all tow vehicles running them thru miles of dirt roads following 6+ other vehicles for years. They get run on all my utvs, motorcycles, quads and all we do is following each other thru thousands of miles of sand, dirt, etc. The UTVs see more dirt and sand in 1 of our rides than most road vehicles see in 10 years. I've had a 2013 mav caked in dirt mud after 1 150 mile pre run ride. That utv has never had any dirt or debris get pass the k/n filter. I clean it and oil after the rides and no issues and the intake system has the worst placement of any of these utvs. If I have a vehicle that needs more power or better filtration over stock 1 of the first mod I do is the full K/n intake. If non are available I will have weller racing fab 1 up for me. I really am not worried about the intake on my 96 Toyota forerunner because even though Az is dusty if they work on my utvs, quads motorcycles Tundra for years and these vehicles are constantly in the sand and dirt I'm totally confident the 4 runner will have no issues with the cylinders because of this.

[RandyBobandy]

Originally Posted by Thebeastlives

We run stock size truck passenger tires which are light. They aren't great offroad but they do well enough but they definitely shine on the road and for mpg. I notice that when she drives her rpms are on the avg below 2000 rpms at 50 to 55 mphs. On the open hwy like when I drove to lake roper the rpms were 2400+ ( at 75+ mph) but never over 3000 even on the steep longer inclines. The k/n intake is noticeably louder when the motor revs but definitely helps the truck to run at lower rpms therefore burning less fuel. I believe it is a combination of light tires, clean throttle body, k/n intake and a woman with a light foot that has helped the mpg. This truck overall has much more power, accelerates better, and has more passing power. Larger tires and that restrictive stock intake definitely doesn't help overall fuel economy at least it didn't on my truck.

The tires probably help a lot, I got a small bump in mpg going from mud tires to all terrain tires, 17 around town is probably the best i can hope for with my tire type and the hilly terrain in the area

[Brian.]

Originally Posted by Thebeastlives

lots of people say that and yes with improper cleaning and oiling I would agree.

It's been 20 years since I quit on K&N. My reason was knowing a guy who was head of the maintenance department for a mine just outside of ABQ, NM. In an effort to try and save some money, they tested out K&N filters. He was such a stickler for details, there is NO WAY that the filters were in any way "improper". With a known engine lifetimes before rebuilds, known wear over that time, etc... he found that K&N filters offered roughly half the life before needing to be rebuilt, and the cost savings vs paper filters simply wasn't there (quite the opposite given the cost of rebuilding the engines).

We were both active participants on a motorcycle email list for several years and I met him in person a few times over those years. This is a man who didn't form opinions quickly/rashly, it was a no-brainer to ditch K&N once I heard him out.

Later I saw testing done on a flow bench (I worked in the motorcycle roadracing circuit 99~01) that showed airflow of paper vs gauze (K&N) vs foam (UNI). There was precious little difference when new, but the paper retained better flow over time while the oiled filters loaded up. Different test that looked into filtering showed that paper filters did a better job when "new" and then evened out with the oiled filters over time.

But lots of money gets spent on marketing. Combine that with the human condition where we don't want to be "wrong" about something we've spent money on and it's easy to see how there are such bi-polar feelings about these things.

[HiLife]

Getting a persistent oily residue on my maf sensor did it for me.
Tossed my k&n and it's been paper filters ever since, no more oily maf sensor.

[Jidaran]

You have the 3.4, right? I also have a stock 4Runner with P rated tires. I reset my mpg gauge on the UG every fill up, sometimes for kicks see how high I can keep the mpg for the first few miles (not just driving like an old lady, but also avoiding the brakes as much as possible). In town, I'm lucky if I can keep it at 19. I've compared the UG to fill up data, it overestimates by about 1 mpg.

If you said you got 24 mpg doing 65 mph on a flat road with a backwind, then maybe. But 24 in town? I don't see how that's possible.