V6 v V8 v Diesel

[Thai]

Aspade - I agree. The EPA test is getting pretty useless. So many companies are out there are setting their cars up for the test and not what returns better real world numbers. CR found exactly that cars with similar power, size, weight (OMG!!!) got similar gas mileage versus the EPA test that showed some substantially better than others.

Being a scientific person that you appear to be, i think that your assumption is flawed. I am no scientific person myself, but i think that EPA provides a common ground that you can compare vehicle's fuel efficiency, whereas random car test by CR is not legit for comparing such small things down to 1 mpg difference. Now, if you give me a CR comparo b/w a Corolla and a Land Cruiser and show me that the Corolla is more efficient, then i agree. But, when you're comparing 0.5 mpg to 2 mpg differences, CR testing has too many variables for you to be able to do that. EPA is legit for this very type of comparison IMO.

 

[DaveS]

Fascinating though the physics lessons maybe (I fear fluid dynamics will be next), and bearing in mind that the OP was primarily trying to encourage us all to email Toyota to ask them for an alternative engine option, I am hoping lots of folks from the 138 posts so far have passed on their thoughts to Toyota.

 

[M1911]

But, when you're comparing 0.5 mpg to 2 mpg differences, CR testing has too many variables for you to be able to do that. EPA is legit for this very type of comparison IMO.

Agreed. A road test, while interesting, can not be duplicated because it is not performed under controlled conditions. The EPA test is performed under controlled conditions and is useful as a comparison between different vehicles.

 

[Quentin]

Being a scientific person that you appear to be, i think that your assumption is flawed. I am no scientific person myself, but i think that EPA provides a common ground that you can compare vehicle's fuel efficiency, whereas random car test by CR is not legit for comparing such small things down to 1 mpg difference. Now, if you give me a CR comparo b/w a Corolla and a Land Cruiser and show me that the Corolla is more efficient, then i agree. But, when you're comparing 0.5 mpg to 2 mpg differences, CR testing has too many variables for you to be able to do that. EPA is legit for this very type of comparison IMO.

I guess my beef comes from the fact that a lot of vehicles are claiming, on the EPA test, to get amazing fuel economy... numbers that simply don't make sense.* Then CR tests them on their different patterns** and the numbers fall much more in line with what physics says they should. I've checked out a few that I suspected on the forums, fueleconomy.gov, and true delta and the numbers people are actually getting don't match the rating.

* I mean, really, a Honda Fit Sport only get 33mpg on the highway while a Chevy Equinox gets 32mpg? That is what the EPA says. You are looking at a 117hp, 2489lb car in the Fit. It only does 1mpg better than the 3700lb, 182hp Equinox? Something is amiss.

http://www.cars.com/go/compare/trimCompare.jsp?acodes=USC10CHS151A0,USC10HOC081B0

** CR has a set course they follow trying to keep things as equal as possible. The numbers quoted from that aren't necessarily the numbers that they quote in the road tests. Basically, they have their own controlled tests.

 

[Thai]

I guess my beef comes from the fact that a lot of vehicles are claiming, on the EPA test, to get amazing fuel economy... numbers that simply don't make sense.* Then CR tests them on their different patterns** and the numbers fall much more in line with what physics says they should. I've checked out a few that I suspected on the forums, fueleconomy.gov, and true delta and the numbers people are actually getting don't match the rating.

* I mean, really, a Honda Fit Sport only get 33mpg on the highway while a Chevy Equinox gets 32mpg? That is what the EPA says. You are looking at a 117hp, 2489lb car in the Fit. It only does 1mpg better than the 3700lb, 182hp Equinox? Something is amiss.

2011 Chevrolet Equinox vs. 2011 Honda Fit

** CR has a set course they follow trying to keep things as equal as possible. The numbers quoted from that aren't necessarily the numbers that they quote in the road tests. Basically, they have their own controlled tests.

One word: GEARING. If you drove both, then you know what i mean! GM made that particular Equinox 4-cyl model to achieve that at the expense of any hope of performance! I think that i can run faster than the Equinox can accelerate! On the other hand, Honda made the Fit into a high-reving little car...it is very responsive on the throttle...engine buzzes like crazy at highway speeds! Actually, if you go on Fit forums, then you will see people saying the same thing...Fit does NOT get as good mileage as Corollas, etc..

Out of all the tests that you mentioned, ONLY one of which can be used to compare to vehicles with small mpgs differences...EPA. The rest is unscientific and useless. With CR, yeah, they use the same driving loop...but that only rules out ONE variable...not enough to be legit in comparisons.

 

[Quentin]

One word: GEARING. If you drove both, then you know what i mean! GM made that particular Equinox 4-cyl model to achieve that at the expense of any hope of performance! I think that i can run faster than the Equinox can accelerate! On the other hand, Honda made the Fit into a high-reving little car...it is very responsive on the throttle...engine buzzes like crazy at highway speeds! Actually, if you go on Fit forums, then you will see people saying the same thing...Fit does NOT get as good mileage as Corollas, etc..

Out of all the tests that you mentioned, ONLY one of which can be used to compare to vehicles with small mpgs differences...EPA. The rest is unscientific and useless. With CR, yeah, they use the same driving loop...but that only rules out ONE variable...not enough to be legit in comparisons.

Well, and GM has the transmission tuned to upshift the moment you hit 2k RPM. I loved the Fit that I test drove. It was a peppy little ride. Considering that my GTI regularly got 32mpg, I figure that the Fit would still do a bit better than 33mpg.

I agree that the EPA is consistent. I just think it is getting too easy to sandbag with high HP numbers and performance that doesn't match with irritating gear ratios and shifting. I guess that is why you test drive before you buy.

 

[Koz]

I love V8 threads!

Interestingly, 4Runner sales are up 26% comparing 02/10 and 02/11, and GX sales are DOWN 33% comparing 02/10 and 02/11.

They sold 2,100 GX's in 02/11 compared to 3,700 4Runners in 02/11.

I think this is best interpreted as decent demand for truck based SUVs, and weaker demand for a 65K truck that has basically only a V8 engine and 6 speed transmission to differentiate it from a 4Runner.

Toyota Reports February Sales -- TORRANCE, Calif., March 1, 2011 /PRNewswire/ --

I am still on the sidelines waiting to buy a vehicle, but I do not believe they will make a V8 4Runner anytime soon(2013???). I wish Toyota would do so. I do not think spending 65K on a truck is a reasonable path either.

V8

There is a reason why the 2nd gen GX cost so much more then even the 1st gen GX and if you think the only difference between the GX and 4Runner is the drive train, you are sadly mistaken. I don't want to put down the 4Runner because I really enjoyed/loved it for six years. Unfortunately I feel the 5th gen took a step backwards. All I can say is the GX is worth every penny and the level of refinement/luxury just feels better every time I drive it. I can't wait to start towing and doing some serious touring across the country.

Koz

 

[Koz]

Even if that is true, you're doing an apples & orange comparison. A 6 speed will always have an advantage over a 5 speed, even when it's behind a V8 engine.

The only difference in the 5 speed (A750F) and the 6 speed (A760F) is the lower sixth gear (.586). Gears 1 through 5 are the exact ratio's. That leads me to believe the 4.6 V8 is more efficient then the 4.0 V6. I'm getting the same mileage (in the city) with the 4.6 as I was getting with my 4.7 4Runner and the GX is 800lbs more.

Koz

 

[V8 AWD 4EVR]

Koz,

Share with us all the things a 2011 GX has that a 2011 Limited 4Runner does not!

V8

P.S. My earlier post was incorrect, in that GX sales are actually down 50% comparing 02/10 to 02/11, not 33% as I had indicated.

 

[Quentin]

The only difference in the 5 speed (A750F) and the 6 speed (A760F) is the lower sixth gear (.586). Gears 1 through 5 are the exact ratio's. That leads me to believe the 4.6 V8 is more efficient then the 4.0 V6. I'm getting the same mileage (in the city) with the 4.6 as I was getting with my 4.7 4Runner and the GX is 800lbs more.

Koz

I'm unsure how getting similar mileage in your GX versus your old V8 4Runner means anything versus the updated 1GR-FE. The architecture of the 4.6 UR and 4.0 GR is very, very similar (roller rockers, dual VVT, divorced cam carrier).

The extra gear will give the GX a lot of help on the highway as far as fuel economy goes. It works well with the 4.6L making a good bit more torque than the 1GR, though. The extra torque of the UR lets the GX lug along on a super tall 6th gear where something with less torque (1GR, for example) would probably be downshifting.

 

[DocMT]

The EPA test is crap. Their highway test is done on a treadmill at an average of 48 mph. Even the new "high speed" highway test for 2008 still averages 48 mph - it has more stops.

Real highway driving at 75-80 is drag dominated and all the weak driveline tricks for a good EPA score don't do much of anything.

Which is why when CR put the trucks on a genuine highway the "22 mpg" 4R showed zero improvment over the "20 mpg" GX.

It doesn't matter if the test is "crap" or not because the test cycle is done the same on every vehicle. So even if the numbers aren't always completely accurate (which is impossible due to the many variables), they are still completely useful for comparisons between two vehicles.

If vehicle A has an EPA rating of 18/27 and vehicle B has an EPA rating of 21/31, then at least you know that you'll get about 3 MPG more when you buy vehicle B, regardless of whether or not you achieve the same numbers as on the EPA rating.

 

[DocMT]

They have different engines. And that only results in a 5% difference in curb weight. Show me two V6 4Runners with a decent difference in weight that directly relates to a substantial difference in fuel economy while running a relatively steady state pattern. I'm just saying that weight isn't a big deal in those conditions. Show me a part of that overall energy equation that says that weight is a substantial portion of the overall energy loss and I'll gladly concede.

.

I'm not showing you anything. I already told you that you're beyond hope. You fail over and over again to consider the data provided (fuel economy ratings) that goes directly against your silly theory. If there was a shred of truth to what you're saying about heavier vehicles benefitting in fuel efficiency due to their momentum (LOL, that's still funny to me), then it would be reflected in the fuel economy ratings. It doesn't matter if you think the EPA ratings are crap because they are done in a controlled environment and are comparable from one vehicle to the next. That's more scientific than your crackpot theories and anyone reading this thread can easily undertand that...except maybe you.

 

[DocMT]

Hey, I just came up with a brilliant idea! Since I drive my 4Runner 90 miles per day on the highway to commute to and from work, I think I'll put 1000 lbs of "ballast" in my cargo area so that I can increase the fuel economy of my 4Runner. After all, my 4Runner is on the highway for 95% of my commute and that extra weight will help the vehicle keep its momentum and result in better highway fuel economy.

Don't you see how unbelievable ridiculous that sounds? Dontcha?

 

[truckmike26]

Hey, I just came up with a brilliant idea! Since I drive my 4Runner 90 miles per day on the highway to commute to and from work, I think I'll put 1000 lbs of "ballast" in my cargo area so that I can increase the fuel economy of my 4Runner. After all, my 4Runner is on the highway for 95% of my commute and that extra weight will help the vehicle keep its momentum and result in better highway fuel economy.

Don't you see how unbelievable ridiculous that sounds? Dontcha?

Bravo.

 

[Quentin]

Hey, I just came up with a brilliant idea! Since I drive my 4Runner 90 miles per day on the highway to commute to and from work, I think I'll put 1000 lbs of "ballast" in my cargo area so that I can increase the fuel economy of my 4Runner. After all, my 4Runner is on the highway for 95% of my commute and that extra weight will help the vehicle keep its momentum and result in better highway fuel economy.

Don't you see how unbelievable ridiculous that sounds? Dontcha?

Nice hyperbole!

You commute 90 miles per day? You are brilliant.

 

[DocMT]

Hyperbole!

You commute 90 miles per day? You are brilliant.

Actually, I live exactly 4 miles from work. So my entire round trip is 8 miles. It takes me about 6 minutes to get to work if I catch the red lights.

If I really drove 90 miles per day, I'd probably have a different vehicle than a 4Runner. BTW, in case you haven't figured it out yet, I was basically mocking you.

 

[Quentin]

Actually, I live exactly 4 miles from work. So my entire round trip is 8 miles. It takes me about 6 minutes to get to work if I catch the red lights.

If I really drove 90 miles per day, I'd probably have a different vehicle than a 4Runner. BTW, in case you haven't figured it out yet, I was basically mocking you.

:cry2:

Someone mocked me by tricking me into thinking they drove 90 miles each day! Oh dear!

 

[DocMT]

:cry2:

Someone mocked me by tricking me into thinking they drove 90 miles each day! Oh dear!

Um....no. That wasn't the "mocking" part. LOL

Sometimes I feel like I'm talking to teenagers around here.

 

[Thai]

:cry2:

Someone mocked me by tricking me into thinking they drove 90 miles each day! Oh dear!

But he has a point...does adding weight to a car improve fuel economy based on your theory? I do drive at least 75 miles per day.

 

[Quentin]

But he has a point...does adding weight to a car improve fuel economy based on your theory? I do drive at least 75 miles per day.

No, it doesn't. It will definitely create more drag forces overall. My point, which he took to hyperbole land, was that extra weight doesn't make much difference when you are already up and moving.

If you check out my calculations above, it shows that rolling resistance is larger with the extra weight. When taken into consideration with aero drag at highway speeds, it is insignificant. Basically, you get 6lbs more of rolling resistance drag in the GX versus the 4Runner. The combination of aero and rolling resistance drag is up over 300lbs at 70mph in a 4Runner. 6lbs more is insignificant compared to the 300lbs of total drag that is already there.