redvet

The last 3 tankfuls average 17.7-18 miles per gallon in combo driving.
Piss poor for a 4 cyl.
Those are V6 numbers!

36700 miles
Plugs are new
Throttle body cleaned (still have stiff pedal when depressing from stop)
Fresh air filter
Mobil 1

Ducseven

Don't feel to bad, I'm only getting 16mpg in my V6 D-Cab.

85runner

I think the 4cyl actually gets worse milage than the v6

Highland Runner

I used to get 24 MPH all the time in my 2.7 Tacoma. The only time it went down is when I put in a Fram air filter. The mileage went down 3-4 MPG. As soon as I put an OEM filter back in, the mileage instantly went back up. If you didn't use OEM that may be the problem.
85runner- The 22re is the only four cylinder that gets worse mileage than the 3.0. This is my experience from owning a 22RE x-cab 4x4 mini(12-14MPG), a 2.7 Tacoma x-cab 4x4(24+MPG), my 3.0 4-Runner (14-18MPG), my wifes 99 3.4 4-Runner (20-22MPG). Both 4cyl were sticks, both v-6's were autos.

jwahaus

Yea, that does sound a little low for a 4 banger. I just measured my milage
with about 50/50 ratio of city/highway and I got 18.5 MPG. Considering
my engine is a supercharged 3.4L V6 auto (and I've had a moderate lead foot
as of late) I would expect that your engine is not performing at its best.

redvet

Only Toyota filters for me.
I thought I'd get at least 20 miles per with a non 4X4 automatic.
Must be the auto and the 265/15 tires.

rimpainter.com

No offense guys but an air filter is not going to make a 3 - 4 MPG difference unless it was made of solid plastic.

ElwayLite

My 01 auto v6 prerunner xtracab is always right at 17.5 city.

superjoe83

i get no worse that 16mpg, and i got an extra 150 lbs or so with the t-case and front diff, but mine is a reg. cab, if yours is a ext. cab, then the weight would probably cancel each out, also you have to think that the 2.7 is a pretty big 4cyl, only 300cc's smaller than the 3.slow, but it should do better than that, one idea is that you could have a leaky injector

cruizin01

My question is why the heck do we even have the 2.7l? The gas mileage difference is minimal. I dont think the longevity is that much more. Why wouldn't they have just used 3.4l's in everything? I sure would like to have one in my std. cab.

jwahaus

Longevity? Sounds like a myth to me. I would think the 3.4 would last
longer since it doesn't have to work as hard to pull the truck around.

As for why they offer the 2.7? It's almost $1000 cheaper.

It is interesting the Toyota lists the estimated MPG as 19/21 -vs- 17/20 (V6)
Thats only 1MPG difference on the highway! I guess it takes a set amount
of gas to get the weight of the truck moving.

cruizin01

I would have gladly payed the extra $$ for the extra OOMFF!

redvet

My 2.7L is pretty peppy and runs great.
I have to confess with my remote start I do let her warm up for awhile.
That may cost a half mile or so.
I'm not too far from the 19/21 rating.I thought it was something like 22/26.
My wife's 3.8L 200 HP Grand Prix gets 18 combo.26 straight highway.

CrazyDiamond

I'm not sure why, Highland Runner, that you would get 12-14 with a 22re. I've got a 93 4x4 and run 31x10.5x15s with only stock 4.10 gearing and get 21 mpg on the highway, 18 city. I've done a fair amount of intake, timing, and fine-tuning, but I get ˟˟˟˟loads more power than OEM and still get that kind of mileage consistently.

Vinnie T

I'm starting to feel that way too, especially with my wife's DC. We originally bought the 4 because it was an '02 close-out at a tremendous price equipped pretty much like we wanted it. Don't understand the tow option on a 4 though It's fine about 97% of the time, but became somewhat of a liability on a recent trip to Oregon. It had some difficulties climbing a few of the hills in N. California and S. Oregon. As for gas mileage, we've never had a "combo" tank under 20, and it will get 22-24 on the highway. I'm not complaining about that part of it considering what we're paying here for gas right now :pat: