2014 fuel mileage with 285s???

[Intruder]

I don't know and I don't care. I just enjoy my 4Runner.

This. If you're that concerned about mileage, don't lift your truck or put bigger tires on it period. If you're really concerned about mileage then you bought the wrong vehicle. The amount of fun I have with my 4Runner far exceeds the extra money I spend on gas due to my modifications. Btw, my wheels are 23lbs each and tires are probably somewhere around 70lbs each. I still can achieve somewhere around 14L/100km (~20 mpg I think) without the RTT if I don't try to get to the next red light faster than everyone else.

Oh, and on a recent highway trip I was getting 1L/100km (14.4 vs 15.4) better mileage than my buddy in his V8 4th gen that only has lift and tires compared to mine with bumper, winch, skids, sliders, fridge, etc. We were both going the same speed.

 

[eddiebx]

No need to be a jerk about it.
I'm just trying to figure out how much "weight" I should give wheel and tire weight. If it only makes a 2% difference going from one extreme to the other - I'll just slap some heavy mud tires on my stock wheels and call it good.

It's not as simple as just the weight, the main issue that affects your fuel economy is the tire's rolling resistance. This is probably why manufacturer's equip us with "shitty" tires, due to their super low rolling resistance...how else are they going to milk every last MPG out of this pig?

Even if you kept all things equal in weight and diameter, I bet an MT tire with huge soft chunky tread blocks is not going to net you the same MPG vs the OEM tire.

Simply put, there is no magic formula to figure out the weight to MPG ratio, so to speak.

 

[jrandom]

I think it is all in how you drive, period. Best case scenario your ECO light never goes off, you have a quality stock size tire, no additional weight, fresh wax, you'll get posted mileage for city/highway

Since I started keeping track mid January I average mostly city, some highway, 15.74 mpg and I have a moderately heavy foot.

I mashed it from Salt Lake to Las Vegas and back in the last two days and I averaged 17.3 mpg on the highway with an average speed of 87mph on stock size BFG's TA's.

Honestly if you are that worried about gas consumption you shouldn't even be thinking about doing anything to your truck that will make the mileage decrease. Stick with a less aggressive stock sized tire or buy a different vehicle. IMO

 

[Bravo_25]

not worried , just wondering , what the diff if any from my fj ,

 

[jrandom]

not worried , just wondering , what the diff if any from my fj ,

Ahh, I see

Well FJ is a bit lighter isn't it? Are you comparing the same powertrain and gearing?

Funny I just noticed that the manual 6 speed rates lower mileage than the AT.

 

[Bravo_25]

my fj has the samler hp engine, i think they prob weiged close to the same , best i got from fj was 15 some people say they getting 17 + here with 285s i dk about that , mine is stock now with 800 miles and it just breaking 17

 

[wfo9]

my fj has the samler hp engine, i think they prob weiged close to the same , best i got from fj was 15 some people say they getting 17 + here with 285s i dk about that , mine is stock now with 800 miles and it just breaking 17

The FJ looks to have worse aerodynamics.

No facts, just eyeing it, it seems like it would get worse MPG on the hwy. The rack alone is a killer.

 

[JohnJerk]

Funny I just noticed that the manual 6 speed rates lower mileage than the AT.

FJ mt is full time 4wd; auto is part time 4wd.

 

[JAD]

5 week old 2014 TE with 2700 miles so far. I have manually checked the fuel mpg since I drove it off the lot. At last fill up I was 17.74 mpg.

My normal driving is primarily city commuting. But that being said I have had two decent road trips that added about 1200 miles to my total. At first I thought I would do really well on the highway but two factors conspired to "crush" that idea. First a headwind that was in excess of 20 mph getting there. Then when I turned around to come home we were driving excessively fast.

Side note: the Toyota engineers have failed to tune this engine for maximum fuel efficiency at speeds in excess of 90mph. What the Hell!

 

[jrandom]

FJ mt is full time 4wd; auto is part time 4wd.

Seriously?! That seems counter-intuitive. Too me manual means manual, ie manual everything in the drivetrain IMO, hubs included. Old dog new trick I guess.

 

[JohnJerk]

Seriously?! That seems counter-intuitive. Too me manual means manual, ie manual everything in the drivetrain IMO, hubs included. Old dog new trick I guess.

That's what I remember anyway. And the mt costs 1k more than the auto. Auto is always better, certainly easier, for offroad, right?

 

[jrandom]

That's what I remember anyway. And the mt costs 1k more than the auto.

Crazy, thanks for the info. It is obvious I haven't kept up on this stuff.

Auto is always better, certainly easier, for offroad, right?

[offtopic]
Well yes I think AT is easier, better than MT? Debatable certainly and I think the gap is closing. If you haven't got a properly geared manual transmission drivetrain, then yes AT is better IMO but if you have the right gear ratios I believe a MT is far superior, particularly if you are doing slow extended uphill/downhill travel. There is nothing easier than clutching over something when you can't go slow enough. (S-mode sure helps with that)

Not to mention have you every tried to pop start a AT in the middle of nowhere? I have had a few dead batteries and a fried starter in less than desirable locations but have always managed to get going again. Something I fear having had a AT for the last few years (I always carry a jump-pak now)
[/offtopic]