How I get 25MPG with my 3VZ-E
06-18-2008, 01:42 PM
#21
Contributing Member
Thread Starter
also, you cant really compare a 22re and a 3VZ-E because 4cyl and 6cyl should be a big difference and from what i read, the majority of 24mpg+ vehicles ARE 22RE.
06-18-2008, 01:49 PM
#22
Contributing Member
06-18-2008, 01:59 PM
#23
Contributing Member
Thread Starter
What interests me is that newer engines get less fuel economy than older non fuel efficent engines. like the 3.4 should get more than the 3.0 but doesnt in most cases.
06-18-2008, 02:44 PM
#25
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
that's a contradicting statement. i mean, yeah, better design overall i guess blah blah blah but it's nearly and extra half of a litre in displacement. manufacturers focused on what most Americans of the time seemed to want...more POWER
and so they beefed up size (again)
Last edited by Mr Priceless; 06-18-2008 at 02:47 PM.
06-18-2008, 03:56 PM
#27
Contributing Member
My 3.4 gets about the same as my old 3.0 did, but I have twice the power and drive faster.
06-19-2008, 06:50 AM
#29
Contributing Member
Thread Starter
Aero dynamics:
the snorkel adds another lump in the aero dynamics and there for will produce more drag than without it.
And the lund sunvisor can go either way, good or bad influence on fuel economy as it also effects the Aero Dynamics.
The extra weight of the spare tire swing arm at the absolute rear rather than close to the axle AND when the wind passes over the back, it adds resistance or drag rather than a smooth flow. Unless i had a spolier which i want, then it would make no difference except with the displaced weight.
And the reason i said about the 3.0 to 3.4 is because i hear people say they have lower fuel economy, obviously not with all 3.4
the snorkel adds another lump in the aero dynamics and there for will produce more drag than without it.
And the lund sunvisor can go either way, good or bad influence on fuel economy as it also effects the Aero Dynamics.
The extra weight of the spare tire swing arm at the absolute rear rather than close to the axle AND when the wind passes over the back, it adds resistance or drag rather than a smooth flow. Unless i had a spolier which i want, then it would make no difference except with the displaced weight.
And the reason i said about the 3.0 to 3.4 is because i hear people say they have lower fuel economy, obviously not with all 3.4
06-19-2008, 06:53 AM
#30
Contributing Member
Thread Starter
But there are also benefits to a snorkel, such as better intake location, less grit will enter the intake and should provide a cleaner air supply for the motor.
06-19-2008, 07:07 AM
#31
Registered User
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 809
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
25 mpg. pbbbt ahahahhahahhahhahah, sure ok man. im lucky if im gettin 17 mpg.
Look guys this thread is completely bogus, this is humanly impossible.
LOL, just kidding man, pulling your leg, I would do all this crap too to get better mpg. the only problem is, I have no money to buy these things because it is all being wasted on gas.
Look guys this thread is completely bogus, this is humanly impossible.
LOL, just kidding man, pulling your leg, I would do all this crap too to get better mpg. the only problem is, I have no money to buy these things because it is all being wasted on gas.
06-19-2008, 09:20 AM
#32
Registered User
Aero dynamics:
the snorkel adds another lump in the aero dynamics and there for will produce more drag than without it.
And the lund sunvisor can go either way, good or bad influence on fuel economy as it also effects the Aero Dynamics.
The extra weight of the spare tire swing arm at the absolute rear rather than close to the axle AND when the wind passes over the back, it adds resistance or drag rather than a smooth flow. Unless i had a spolier which i want, then it would make no difference except with the displaced weight.
the snorkel adds another lump in the aero dynamics and there for will produce more drag than without it.
And the lund sunvisor can go either way, good or bad influence on fuel economy as it also effects the Aero Dynamics.
The extra weight of the spare tire swing arm at the absolute rear rather than close to the axle AND when the wind passes over the back, it adds resistance or drag rather than a smooth flow. Unless i had a spolier which i want, then it would make no difference except with the displaced weight.
06-19-2008, 09:48 AM
#33
Registered User
Best I can get out of mine at pretty much stock configuration w/ new plugs, wires, cap, timing set perfectly, new fuel & air filters, tires inflated as high as possible & no load inside is a little over 16mpg interstate @ 70mph & around 15 mixed driving. I might get 17mpg or a tad more if I limited the speed to 60mph on the interstate.
25mpg out of a 3.0 is hard to believe; even for a standard tranny & hypermiling. But far be it from me to ever call someone a liar when I'm not there to see it with my own eyes; anything is possible I suppose.
25mpg out of a 3.0 is hard to believe; even for a standard tranny & hypermiling. But far be it from me to ever call someone a liar when I'm not there to see it with my own eyes; anything is possible I suppose.
06-19-2008, 01:49 PM
#34
Contributing Member
Thread Starter
Well i think a big factory is wear and tear. i have low milage for a 91, the engine has been babied it's whole life. It is a manual and the tire pressure makes the difference. If you dont believe me then the only way to prove it to you is brain washing (maybe on day) or if you ever visit me at my B&B i can show you then. So weither or not everyone or no one believes my real world numbers i dont really care. i posted this thread so as to help other people get ideas on ways that may have good or bad effects on fuel economy.
06-19-2008, 03:29 PM
#35
Contributing Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: maple ridge, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 9,055
Likes: 0
Received 9 Likes
on
5 Posts
Hmm, im going to take your advice. Im gonna bump my tire psi from 35 to 40, and I will see what difference I get. I seem to average 16.4-8mpg mixed driving. My truck HATES high speeds, wire tires are NOT areodynamic. 
06-19-2008, 04:23 PM
#36
Registered User
I put 43 PSI in my tires today, we'll see what I get next time i fill up. Currently I'm getting 18 MPG with mixed city/freeway. Oh, and its a 22R-E running like a top with 140K on it.
Last edited by BAZ; 06-19-2008 at 04:25 PM.
06-19-2008, 07:16 PM
#39
Contributing Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Where it always works if you work it, in Sunny Selinsgrove, PA
Posts: 2,336
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
yeah, I believe it. I just increased my air pressure from a stunningly low 16 PSI on the rear tires to ~38 PSI all around the truck. Stock 3VZE with autotragic. I just got 22.5 MPG. grant it, it runs perfect, and is well tuned, but its high mileage, and thats not all highway miles... I'd say about a 85/15 mix, but still, 22.5... so I can believe 25, some guys easily get 20 out of their 3VZE. My friend's dad always got 19 or better, with an auto.
