What kind of mpg?

[p nut]

you cant make the argument either according to you standards. And no shlt, they didnt slap another gear on the original tranny, but a manual tranny will produce better MPG with a decent driver under same conditions, if this weren't the case the manual transmission would be nearly extinct in road vehicles.

Ok, so WHY does the MT produce better mpg's? If it were that much better, why are no hybrids using it? Honda Fit actually reports better mpg from the auto. As does the FJC. With the 4Runner/Tacoma? Everywhere I look, it says there is no difference. Even the factory EPA figures are the same.

My standards? I merely stated that YOU need to report what you've been getting, not a friend/relative. I track my miles and have been for many years. I can post up my spreadsheet stating the miles traveled, gas used, octane, price, etc. Since I commute on the exact same roads, my readings will be more accurate than you comparing your routes to your aunts. Driving habits will also be more consistent. Again, come back to me when you start averaging 23mpg or more with at least 10 fill ups.

I swear every point you try to make either doesn't make sense or is backed up by nothing. :redbrick:

 

[Martinjmpr]

Martin - I have to disagree on the mpg between MT and AT. I have gotten an avg of 21mpg from 3.4L autos on the freeway. I absolutely cannot see a MT getting any better than that. Plus the 5MT will usually churn higher rpm's at the same speed.

Well, it's not exactly the same thing, but my previous vehicle was an '04 Tacoma. Same 3.4 engine, same 4wd. Mine was an extended cab with a shell and I usually had a few things in the bed (carpet kit, tools, etc) so it probably outweighed the 4runner by several hundred pounds.

However, it had a manual transmission. I could routinely get 17-18 MPG in the city, and 20-23 on the highway, all numbers which are 1-3 mpg higher than I'm getting in my current 4runner.

I actually once got an honest-to-God 27 mpg out of that Tacoma, and it was fully loaded!

Of course, it was special circumstances: I was coming back from a hunting trip on the Western Slope. I filled up with gas in Glenwood Springs, and then drove home, with the cruise control set at 65mph in the right lane of I-70. That road basically consisted of a fairly flat section of about 65 miles, a short but steep uphill of about 25 miles, then a long, slow downhill of another 30 miles, another short but very steep uphill of about 10 miles, and then a long, 50 mile downward slope. By the time I got back to Denver and dropped my brother off at his home on the other side of town, I filled up and took 7.77 gallons of gas to go 210 miles!

 

[JohnsD90]

Ok, so WHY does the MT produce better mpg's?

The facts are that Manuals get better milage. I don't know how you have never heard that. here is an article incase you think im bullshlting you.
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/...ck-shift-10-08/overview/manual-vs-auto-ov.htm

Your standards were 10000+ miles in the car same conditions, same driver, and route, and then the same with the other transmission.

 

[p nut]

Martin - When my 02 4Runner was stock, I would get the same ranges of mpg as you. My average for 20k miles was 21mpg, though. I have not ever heard of a 3.4L getting more than 21mpg on the average. Which is the point here--average. No one tank calculations are going to be accurate. When I first got the 4Runner, I was eccstatic about getting 24mpg on one of the first tanks. Until the next tank showed 19mpg (same terrain). All averaged 21 since then.

 

[p nut]

The facts are that Manuals get better milage. I don't know how you have never heard that. here is an article incase you think im bullshlting you.
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/...ck-shift-10-08/overview/manual-vs-auto-ov.htm

Your standards were 10000+ miles in the car same conditions, same driver, and route, and then the same with the other transmission.

Why are you posting a link to an article showing results from Subaru's and Ford Focus? Stick to the main point. We are talking about 4Runners. With 4Runners, I have yet to come across anyone claiming higher than 21mpg average.

And your blanket statement about manuals mpg being better than auto? Look no further than Toyota to bust that myth. FJC, Tacoma both tout better mpg with the auto.

 

[awpsome]

i have an AT
and im still getting 12mpg avg.
wtf...

its killing me you guys all getting about 16
you think maybe fuel filter?

 

[JohnsD90]

Why are you posting a link to an article showing results from Subaru's and Ford Focus? Stick to the main point. We are talking about 4Runners. With 4Runners, I have yet to come across anyone claiming higher than 21mpg average.

And your blanket statement about manuals mpg being better than auto? Look no further than Toyota to bust that myth. FJC, Tacoma both tout better mpg with the auto.

It's not a myth, its the truth, although the Driver has a big part of it. A manual transmission on a Class A truck will get better fuel milage than its automatic counterpart if the driver knows what he is doing, that said i cant see how sedan's and then class A trucks/Semi's can get better milage with a stick the the models between them can't. It is all about the drivers choices on what gear to be in when to shift and so on.
I cant find any articles relating to the 4runner AT vs MT.

 

[p nut]

It's not a myth, its the truth, although the Driver has a big part of it. A manual transmission on a Class A truck will get better fuel milage than its automatic counterpart if the driver knows what he is doing, that said i cant see how sedan's and then class A trucks/Semi's can get better milage with a stick the the models between them can't. It is all about the drivers choices on what gear to be in when to shift and so on.
I cant find any articles relating to the 4runner AT vs MT.

From 4Runners to Subaru's to commercial trucks? Wow, you're a jem. Stick to the topic on hand-Toyota 3.4L autos and manuals.

Of course mpg differs between drivers. Driver A can get 20mpg while Driver B only manages 15. Right gear, throttle position, terrain, climate, etc. all play a part. But that's NOT what we're talking about.

 

[Sig220]

In theory, a manual transmission is more efficient then a automatic transmission.

Reason being is energy wasted on hydraulics and slippage with the automatic.

BTW, new member here, with a 98 4runner, w/AT.

 

[JohnsD90]

In theory, a manual transmission is more efficient then a automatic transmission.

Reason being is energy wasted on hydraulics and slippage with the automatic.

BTW, new member here, with a 98 4runner, w/AT.

YES, i have been waiting for someone to say this. welcome, pics, color, trim model, milage, engine?

 

[Sig220]

Thanks,
I picked up a "champagne" limited 4WD with 73K, 3.4 with the auto as mentioned. Wished I could have found a manual, but this one surfaced and felt I should not hesitate to get it. Carfax certified and all in terrific shape. Other stuff, you probably already know about....leather seats, power seats, moon roof, CD-cassette player.

I decided to buy after my Jeep "Hoopty" gave me so much trouble on a hunting trip to CO. Officially replaced now!!!

 

[essadv]

73k Cost

How much did you pay for your 73k Champagne?

thanks

 

[T4Ralabama]

i get at least 300 miles in mine from full to a quarter maybe its where i live but mines a 1998 with 306K on it ..it is four wheel drive and it is the V6 lucky i guess either that or my trip meter is broken lol but i dont think so,i get just as good as gas mileage as my friend who has a 2001 2wd with the same engine im not complaining!!

 

[collin]

wha should i be expectting out of my 97? i have the 3.4. it has 126,000 miles on it. it doesn't seem to get many mpg in city but highway it is alot better. usually it only differs slightly. what size tank come in 97? i filled up and zeroed it out and only got 288 miles before gas light came on.

I just got one and I have 1 tank through it and I got 19.4 mpg of like 80% freeway.

In my gf's 02' 4runner we got 25mpg going from san diego to sacramento.

 

[raydouble]

Autos have become so efficient it's not necessarily true that manuals always get better fuel mileage, but for the 3rd gens....I think it's way easier to get better mileage out of the 5 speed.

 

[JohnsD90]

Autos have become so efficient it's not necessarily true that manuals always get better fuel mileage, but for the 3rd gens....I think it's way easier to get better mileage out of the 5 speed.

Nope. Auto's are getting more efficent (from where they were), but it comes down to the driver, the computer does not know as well as a smart expierenced driver does on what gear and rpm to be at a certian time and speed. This isnt an opinion thing, autos aren't as efficent as a manual.

 

[Pure 98]

I only get 255 on my 98 auto 4r :wtf:

 

[raydouble]

Nope. Auto's are getting more efficent (from where they were), but it comes down to the driver, the computer does not know as well as a smart expierenced driver does on what gear and rpm to be at a certian time and speed. This isnt an opinion thing, autos aren't as efficent as a manual.

What about CVT's?

I remember knowing everything at 17 too. :

 

[collin]

What about CVT's?

I remember knowing everything at 17 too. :

stay far away from CVT transmissions. In theory they seem like a good idea but do a little googling to see how much they suck. I had one in my audi and hated it and sold the car before I got stuck with the $4000 repair bill.

 

[Hacker]

Here's my Gas Cubby analysis for the last 6 months and about 10,000 miles (99 4WD Limited).

Average = 19.96
Low = 11.62
High = 24.62

Obviously the lows are city driving, the highs are highway driving.