Is the super low MPG in 4runner is due to the small air filter?

One thing I didn't see mentioned is that the US has different restrictions on emissions. So sure, the truck in Australia might get a higher mpg, but what are it's emissions?

And does it TRULY stack up:
In other words. The same engine here and there, same HP and same Torque? acceleration differences?

Then you get restrictions in the system such as baffles/mufflers/CatConverters.

I'm just guessing in the dark, but the vehicles are different enough from one country to the next do to gov't regulations.

We might not get the same milage (or we might) but do we run cleaner?

Yes, this is exactly my thoughts too. I think it has more to do with emissions (gas, equipment, etc.) than the size of the filter.

I happen to know that on our predecessor, the 3VZ-E engine, it was a measurable drop in MPG's if you had the "CA emissions" vehicle with the EGR system, this coming from Toyota themselves. It cleaned up the emissions but caused the engine to run less efficiently.
 
sorry OFF TOPIC here....... But dude WHERE IS YOUR BUILD THREAD!!!! i must know

I don't have one since this is mostly a off-road enthusiasts forum. People don't care as much for a "on-road" build thread. Plus I don't care enough to take photos of my work and all that except for my own reference & memories haha. Though I should update my photo on my avatar, it doesn't look like that anymore.
 
Plugs and Wires

I just ordered some new plugs and wires because I get terrible mpg with 265-70-16. 70 mph to Minneapolis I think I got around 13mpg. I will let you know if this helps me out at all.
 
When new (say, <50k miles) my 4Runner (5vz-fe auto 2WD on stock 225/75-15's) got 24 on the highway at 65-70mph, fully documented with mileage and fillup data. Now, 4WD on 265/70-17's and at 275k miles still gets 20-22mpg at the same speeds.

Doesn't seem unreasonable at all to get that with a 5-speed.

The air filter isn't a restriction at cruising speeds. It might cost a couple HP at the top end, but then you aren't going for mileage, are you?

-Charlie
 
Heck....on a nice clear day...pull the filter....run it down the road for 50 miles and back. Check your mileage....bam you will get the answer. Bet you a beer it doesn't change one bit from having a clean air filter or no air filter.
 
Oh I forgot about this: I cleaned the MAF sensor and that helped me a small amount. Mine was real bad but the difference I noticed most was in acceleration which would have an immediate result on mpg if you have to jam on the gas to make the truck go.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I got a couple of 20 - 21 mpg tanks in my '99 5 spd right after I got it. But that was an 'indicated' MPG, mostly due to the cute tiny little 245 width tires on it. They spin more times per mile, which racks up more miles on the odometer, more miles = better MPG.

I stuck 32" Michelin AT2's on it next, which dropped the indicated miles down, and MPG's dropped a bit. Then I added weight (armor) and some bigger chunkier tires (33" MFG's) and now MPG's are around 17, 17.5 in mixed driving.

I really think that about all a restrictive air filter could do is limit your peak HP. The fuel/air mixture is very tightly controlled by the ECU as it watches the exhaust via the O2 sensor. Having a restrictive air filter is effectively the same thing as having the throttle slightly less open. No effect at anything less than WOT, and a *very* minor effect at WOT.

Assuming the stock sized air filter isn't completely clogged with crap. And even in that case, it's just more of a drop in peak WOT HP, not a loss in HP. If anything, that will prevent you from using more gas. HP means gas.

In ye olden days of carburetors, sure, a dirty air filter could make a car run rich as hell and get horrible MPG. Because carbs meter fuel into the passing air based on relative air pressures - the air flowing through a venturi creates a partial vacuum, that sucks the fuel through little jets into the air. If the air cleaner is creating a restriction, it creates even more vacuum, the carb in effect thinks more air is going into the engine, more fuel gets sucked in.

In a fuel injected car, even if the MAF/AM sensor was fooled by a slight vacuum from an air filter restriction (and it *isn't*), then the ECU/O2 sensor would catch and correct it.

As for oiled mesh (K&N, et al) style filters, I won't use them on my car anymore. If they are slightly overoiled, they can foul the MAF. The MAF uses a heated wire in the air flow, little droplets of air filter oil land on it, get turned to soot, enough of that going on and the sensor stops working correctly. When I bought my 4Runner the CEL came on and I got them to knock a few hundred bucks off, it ended up being an over-enthusiastically oiled K&N filter.

Even oiled correctly, they can stop working properly if they get overwhelmed with dust. This is absolutely *NOT* a failure mode you'd want from your air filter. Last year's back country Utah and Colorado trip with me in my '99 and my wife in her '96 involved lots of dusty roads. Even following at an appropriate distance, the following car got a decent amount of dust. After a week or so my '99 set a CL and started running poorly, noticeably weaker, harder to start. And a peek in the intake tract showed signs of fine dust all over. A little time with a Q-tip *VARY carefully cleaning the MAF wire and it was back in fine shape again, but I swung by a parts store ASAP and got a paper air filter. If a paper air filter gets overwhelmed, it just clogs up and you lose peak HP. If a K&N style gets overwhelmed, it just start letting dust into the engine. Fouling the MAF wire is a minor inconvenience, the wear created by dust gioong into the cylinders is a bigger concern, if it were to happen more often.
 
...
He then sends me a picture of the airfilter he has in the truck: Picture-1

It is MUCH bigger with a huge surface area to pass air into the engine.
The one we have in the US spec is so small I find the surface area is almost equal to the 1.6 L 4 cylinder corolla air filter....

They picture may be large but it's true dimensions are Not, 197mm (7.75") x 86 (3.4") x 145 (5.7") and is designed to fit either a 2.0 or 3.4L engine, not really impressive in size when compared to Our filter (8.5 x 2.4 x 10.2 inches). Do they math, ours has more surface area.

Then comes the price of this round boy, I couldn't find it any less than $38 whereas Our filter can be had for about $10.

Thanks but I'll keep Our design and isn't it the easiest/fastest ever to replace? :cowboy:
 
If you haven't done it yet consider replacing the PCV valve, hose, & grommet. Beware, the shrunken and dried out grommmet loves to break apart on removal and drop bits of itself into the engine. I spent my hour with flashlight and forceps retrieving chunks of mine. Clean your TB too.

I have the receipts from the orig owner and I don't see the PCV valve on there so it's probably a good idea. Thanks. 350k miles on one PCV? Probably, it still has the orig shocks and struts. ugh.
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
278,315
Messages
3,554,130
Members
248,016
Latest member
Advally Service

Trending content

Back
Top