3.0 5 spd mpg
 

OK I wanted to gauge how the old mpg is doing.

I am looking for 3.0 5 spd numbers. Please post your mpg, let me know if it is city, highway or combined.

Please indicate what mods you have don that would effect mpg & your estimate of the effect. ie - lift & bigger tires.

I have just gotten 17mpg city (all city) & 21 mpg highway (mixed with 4wd & slow mud trails, then 75mph on paved. I have 31" tires & 1.5" lift with ARB. my conical is dirty so I will probable get a little better.

I used to get 18-19mpg stock in the city & 23-24 mpg highway

89 3.0 5 speed 130k all stock - 18-20 mpg combined city and highway

I get 14-16 usually in the city, and 17-18 highway.

i get 15.5 - 17 city, 18-20 highway.

electric fan
k&n filter
ISR
manual hubs
flowmaster 40
31x10.5 MT

wow, I thought that you would get better than that with the manual hubs & electric fan?

bone stock '93
15.5-16 city
17.5-18 highway
ADD still attached
K&N stock replacement filter
31x10.50 MTs
10W30 Mobil oil

stock 94 (4.56 and 31's)

i get 16.8-17mpg religously in my intown driveing (highway or not really doesnt matter)

i get 14-15 with hubs locked (yes its that noticable)

im good to get 18 if on a highway trip but thats usually because im "cruseing" at 75 (give or take) im shure it would get better if you were only avg 65-70

for compairson, my 92 4runner auto with drive hubs .... city 13-14, hwy 16, towing hwy 10-12

I would be interested in hearing the reason for this :think:

Well, manual hubs greatly reduce your rotating mass as the CV's and diff aren't moving.

Supposedly electric fan reduces the drag on the crank, improving available power, but I'm a little dubious of this one. The power just comes from the alternator instead, but same amount of power is required.

Just returned from a 300 mile road trip w/my '92 4Runner(stock). With the cruise set at 75mph, I averaged over 17 mpg. This was all interstate driving but it's still not bad for a 14 yr old vehicle with a 181,000 on the clock. My '05 Taco D-cab doesn't do much better than that!

correct....if the electric fan is more efficent then it would take less "power" to get the same cooling effect.

or because there is a mechnical advantage assocated with the belt drive system of the alternator there is less power used by the alternator than directly driven off the crank???

in theory running AC would result in poor gas millage also, but i think this is one of those myth buster things.....

warmer temps(summer) should result in higher gas millage as the air is warmer = less dense = computer uses less fuel to maintain the right AFR.

89 4runner, 3.0,auto.............combo when fully tuned up is-275-300 miles to a full tank...stock

89 4runner, 3.0,auto.............combo, when fully tuned up is-275-300 miles to a full tank...stock

Same here

BONE STOCK
sr5
ADD
31X10.50 R15

93 Pickup, Xtra Cab, 5 speed, 3.0 3vze V6, (with stock 31" tires and 4.56 gears) as you can see from my signature.

Engine is bone stock with the exception of the Synthetic oil.

I get about 15-16 MPG in the City, and 18-19 MPG on the highway on average. And I have calculated this properly into US Gallons and Miles from Kilometers and Liters we're used to up here in Canada (1.6 kilometers per Mile, 3.78 liters per US Gallon).

I think my window sticker estimates when I bought the truck were 16 city, 19 highway mpg. That's about what I had until I lost a cylinder which took city down to 14 mpg. I'll let you know in a few weeks what I get with the new 3.0.

when i installed my electric fan, it increased my mpg by about .5 mpg. When i first got the truck, it was only around 15.0 mpg. So i'm content for now with my mileage after all the mods.

my driving habits have changed slightly....i put my foot into it a lot more than I used to because of the increases in throttle response and a little power increase.

Im a REAL leadfoot so I will say 10-16, I have gotten about 340 out of a tank and that seems crazy, I must have had it filled to the spicket.

Didn't see that I got the manual hubs in that quate, and that one is obvious.

BUT, despite the fact that some people claim they got better mpg with the electric fan, I don't believe it. The mechanical transfer of power directly to the fan should be way more efficient than the alternator first producing electricity that in turn is used by the fan. I don't know what the efficiency rates are for alternators/electrical motors, so I don't have any hard facts to support this, but it seems pretty obvious to me.

On the other hand, I seem to be getting 14-15 mpg city, with a lot of hills, and I've been getting almost 18 mpg on my trips to Tahoe from the Bay Area, with about half the distance going up and down 8000ft.

I have 7" of lift and run 35" tires. I average about 12mpg in 4wd on trails, and about 16 in the city. 17 on the highways.