Notices
86-95 Trucks & 4Runners 2nd/3rd gen pickups, and 1st/2nd gen 4Runners with IFS
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by: DashLynx

Fuel mileage improvements on the 3vze

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 03-12-2014, 08:53 PM
  #41  
Registered User
Thread Starter
 
lectric80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Either way, this thread is drifting from the topic at hand, this is about improving the mileage on a 3vz-e, not about correcting the speedo reading.

As I mentioned, I'm going to assume the original mileage reading as my baseline, regardless of whether or not the odometer is actually off the same amount as the speedo. This is a safe baseline for me to see what things actually do improve my mileage.

Today, when I filled up, I made the next change. I will continue with the driving changes I have already made, the idea is to continually improve mileage, but I filled up with 89 instead of the normal 85 that I had been running. I will report back once this tank is used up, and I will continue to use it unless I fail to see any marked improvement. It ends up costing about $2.50 to $3 more per tank to use the higher octane fuel.
Old 03-13-2014, 05:59 AM
  #42  
Registered User
 
xfactor203's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: N. CO
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Either way, this thread is drifting from the topic at hand
Yeah, that's true. Sorry for instigating. . .
Old 03-14-2014, 01:47 AM
  #43  
Registered User
Thread Starter
 
lectric80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
No harm done, just trying to keep the thread on track.

Looks so far like the increased octane isn't making much of a difference. Of course, it is still early in the tank, so I could be wrong. This weekend is cleanup of the throttle body, since I know it is pretty dirty and preventing the throttle plate from fully closing. My idle when warm is about 1200, and I know it should be lower.
Old 03-14-2014, 02:31 AM
  #44  
RSR
Registered User
 
RSR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Central TX
Posts: 1,047
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I think speedo ratings are critical. Folks come on here comparing MPGs and not realizing how changes in gearing, tire sizes, etc, all effect their odometer, which is what most folks use to calculate their MPGs...

Personally, I think a properly calculated odometer is more accurate for MPGs than GPS or map website's calculations, especially if any of route is on more than just flat land. Maybe they account for all the changes in elevations and how map/horizontal distances differ from physical roads, but then again, maybe they don't...
Old 03-14-2014, 02:41 AM
  #45  
Registered User
Thread Starter
 
lectric80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by RSR
I think speedo ratings are critical. Folks come on here comparing MPGs and not realizing how changes in gearing, tire sizes, etc, all effect their odometer, which is what most folks use to calculate their MPGs...

Personally, I think a properly calculated odometer is more accurate for MPGs than GPS or map website's calculations, especially if any of route is on more than just flat land. Maybe they account for all the changes in elevations and how map/horizontal distances differ from physical roads, but then again, maybe they don't...
I certainly understand the need for accurate readings on the speedo/odometer, but in this case I'm going to work off of the current readings. I know that my actual MPG's are actually lower than they appear, but they are a good baseline. I know my speedo is off by about 6.5%, so the net effect is that the mileage I report here is about 6.5% higher than the real world. While that sounds like a lot, at the end of the day it is only about 1 MPG difference.

Once I see where I can get it to, then I can calculate actual MPG's using a GPS or my knowledge of the exact mileage from my house to my office. What I hope to accomplish here is to report what things make an actual difference for me, but what works for me may not yield the same results for someone else. However, seeing what works for me can help others to try things that either I didn't think of, or that are slight variations of what I'm doing. I truly believe these 4Runners with the 3.0 are capable of far more than 15-16 MPG, and so far my slight changes have proven that out. Ultimately, I want to see just how far I can take it so that maybe it will help someone else.
Old 03-14-2014, 04:59 PM
  #46  
RSR
Registered User
 
RSR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Central TX
Posts: 1,047
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Yes, if you follow our advice, it'll get you most of the way there.

You have to be careful when comparing this engine to more modern engines. For one it's a single overhead cam design, whereas more modern engines are dual overhead cams, which flow air better and already have engines designed to support leaner burns... They're also more completely controlled by computers than ours is and most modern engines also support lean burns -- a combo of cooling upgrades, air fuel ratio upgrades, turbo/lean caliber pistons, etc.
To get max power and efficiency from the 3vze, you basically need a bunch of head work (oversized valves and new valve seats), special grind camshafts, engine and head oil and coolant ports widened, your air intake ported and polished throughout, basically an entire shortblock rebuild with higher durability parts, plus all the stuff we're mentioning to you (don't think anyone mentioned the crossover delete, but that's a critical change too). For all intents you're setting your engine up for a turbo type of operation.

Nearly all of the engine specific stuff is corrected/overcome in the next gen 3.4L 5vzfe, which has both more power and better mpgs. And the cost for the swap is roughly half what you'd pay for tuning your 3.0 for optimal.
Our recommendations can probably improve your mpgs by a good 20-25%, maybe even into mid 30s (remembering that each 1.5 mpg improvement is approx +10%). You gain a mile or two more mpgs from the 3.4L swap, so the primary gain there is add'l power, not MPG, but an MPG gain is there. If fuel savings is your ultimate goal, a 3rzfe (the 22re's next gen) is probably the best choice. Roughly same power, a little less than the 3vze, but with 4 cylinders and same tech as 5vzfe, should yield further gains than 3.4L. The only caveat is that a 4 cylinder platform really is underpowered for our rigs, so probably only yields fuel mpg gains at cruising speeds on the highway...

Some of the fluids, exhaust, and whatnot stuff we're recommending will take care of needs for both -- that's the path I'm taking (do stuff that will help me now and later that's expensive like mandrel exhaust) while saving towards the ultimate goal of a 3.4 swap -- leaving just the low cost upgrade stuff on the table.

I probably have $2k in my 3.0 engine w/ new belts throughout, new hoses, gaskets for valve covers, plugs, wires, replacing failed parts like distributor, etc. Standard reliability and preventative maintenance stuff. And it was a very well cared for vehicle. Doing over, it makes more $ sense to bite the bullet and swap upfront. It also allows one to buy a busted engine vehicle cheap (blown 3.0 HG's are relatively easy to find compared to finding well cared for rigs with Xtra Cabs, SR5 packages, etc) with good body and hopefully well cared for drivetrain and suspension, and just do the swap upfront. This is about the maximum power/efficiency setup you can get on our engines.

And the 3.4L also supports a supercharger in stock configuration, which is a plus for further gains in both efficiency and power. By the #s, the turbocharged 3.4L 5vzfe is darn near the most powerful engine platform that can be squeezed into our engine bay.
Old 03-15-2014, 06:47 AM
  #47  
Registered User
 
xfactor203's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: N. CO
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
^ Good thoughts on the merits of various build directions for mileage, but I think the OP is just trying to see what kind of mileage he can get out of his 3VZE. I'm paying attention to this thread b/c I share that interest and any sort of major mods (like a 3.4 swap) are fully off the table for me (I would just buy a 3rd gen if I wanted that engine, not that I don't think the swap makes sense for other folks in other situations).

Our recommendations can probably improve your mpgs by a good 20-25%, maybe even into mid 30s
This would be from a 4cyl swap or some silliness, right? I have never heard of anyone getting anywhere near 30 mph from a 3VZE in a truck / 4runner.

To the OP: I have never noticed much fuel economy difference from premium gas either. Ethanol, however, KILLS my mpg.
Old 03-15-2014, 01:42 PM
  #48  
Registered User
Thread Starter
 
lectric80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
You are correct, an engine swap is just not in the budget or plan for this thing. The plan here is to see how far I can take it.
Old 03-15-2014, 01:52 PM
  #49  
Registered User
 
4runrjunkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by xfactor203
This would be from a 4cyl swap or some silliness, right? I have never heard of anyone getting anywhere near 30 mph from a 3VZE in a truck / 4runner.
I think what he meant was improving gas mileage by 20-25%, maybe up to 30-35% ... basically an improvement on 3-4 mpg.
Old 03-16-2014, 02:51 PM
  #50  
Registered User
 
dirtrider0129's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I was in the same boat as you for a while. I purchased a 92 pickup with the 3.0 back in late August. I daily drove it for a while and only managed 14-15 driving 100% country back roads and about 13-15 driving mixed highway/ back roads. Above and beyond the typical "tune up" items, I did a few more things to squeeze every last MPG out of my 176k mile all original (even head gaskets) 3.0:

-manual locking hubs
-re adjusted my TPS (it was all out of whack)
-synthetic oil in the transmission, transfer case, and rear diff.
-synthetic 5w-30
-new O2 sensor (O.E. Desno unit)
-replaces ALL vacuum hoses (most were dry rotted, and "loose" fitting)
-35 ish psi in all of the tires (running 31's with factory 3.56 gears)
-sea foam'ed engine multiple times
- granny shift at 2500

last few fill-ups have been 19-22. got close to 23 on the last all highway trip I did with the cruise holding steady at 65 (about 150 miles round trip).
Old 03-16-2014, 09:08 PM
  #51  
Registered User
Thread Starter
 
lectric80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Ok, so in spite of my earlier disbelief, the extra 4 octane does appear to improve mileage a bit. Went from the prior 18.1 to 19.3 on that tank. Just to test I'm reverting back to the regular 85 octane for a tank.

Disclaimer, Utah is at a relatively high elevation and we are usually able to run 85 without pinging. Many other states don't have 85 octane and so moving to 89 may not yield similiar results.

So far these changes have me close to my goal, but I do want to see how high I can get it. Will keep working on it, still didn't get to the throttle body. I spent the weekend swapping a clutch master cylinder and working around the house.
Old 03-16-2014, 09:21 PM
  #52  
Registered User
 
jb451's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Mesquite Texas
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by dirtrider0129
I was in the same boat as you for a while. I purchased a 92 pickup with the 3.0 back in late August. I daily drove it for a while and only managed 14-15 driving 100% country back roads and about 13-15 driving mixed highway/ back roads. Above and beyond the typical "tune up" items, I did a few more things to squeeze every last MPG out of my 176k mile all original (even head gaskets) 3.0:

-manual locking hubs
-re adjusted my TPS (it was all out of whack)
-synthetic oil in the transmission, transfer case, and rear diff.
-synthetic 5w-30
-new O2 sensor (O.E. Desno unit)
-replaces ALL vacuum hoses (most were dry rotted, and "loose" fitting)
-35 ish psi in all of the tires (running 31's with factory 3.56 gears)
-sea foam'ed engine multiple times
- granny shift at 2500

last few fill-ups have been 19-22. got close to 23 on the last all highway trip I did with the cruise holding steady at 65 (about 150 miles round trip).

My best ever city mileage (17-18mpg) was achieved right after a tune up and by "granny shifting" although i was shifting more like 1900-2100 rpms. I've always been a firm believer in how you drive is a major factor on mpgs more than anything else.. But, both my cars suck in the mpg department, so i've never worried much anyways
Old 03-16-2014, 09:49 PM
  #53  
RJR
Registered User
 
RJR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 1,776
Likes: 0
Received 109 Likes on 81 Posts
"Granny" shifting at 2000-2500 rpm won't do much for your mileage, but it will increase your chances of blowing a headgasket. Wide open throttle at low rpm's increases cylinder pressures, hastens the onset of knocking, raises combustion temperatures, and in general is not kind to your engine.

Hi rpm's are the 3vz's friend. I routinely shift at 3500-4000 rpm's and also routinely get 18-19 mpg.
Old 03-16-2014, 11:08 PM
  #54  
RSR
Registered User
 
RSR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Central TX
Posts: 1,047
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by 4runrjunkie
I think what he meant was improving gas mileage by 20-25%, maybe up to 30-35% ... basically an improvement on 3-4 mpg.
Yes, this. Talking percentages, not mpgs.

+10%, approx +1.5 mpg
+20%, approx +3 mpg
+30%, approx +4.5 mpg
+40%, approx +6 mpg

Last edited by RSR; 03-16-2014 at 11:09 PM.
Old 03-16-2014, 11:28 PM
  #55  
RSR
Registered User
 
RSR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Central TX
Posts: 1,047
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by xfactor203
^ Good thoughts on the merits of various build directions for mileage, but I think the OP is just trying to see what kind of mileage he can get out of his 3VZE. I'm paying attention to this thread b/c I share that interest and any sort of major mods (like a 3.4 swap) are fully off the table for me (I would just buy a 3rd gen if I wanted that engine, not that I don't think the swap makes sense for other folks in other situations).
My post was specifically in regards to the OP's post in the post preceding mine:
Originally Posted by lectric80
I truly believe these 4Runners with the 3.0 are capable of far more than 15-16 MPG, and so far my slight changes have proven that out. Ultimately, I want to see just how far I can take it so that maybe it will help someone else.
My point is that even in best case scenarios our trucks will hit low 20mpgs.

Current production 2wd Tundras make 16/20 mpg on V6 and 13/18 mpg V8, and 4wd V8 make 14/18 mpg.

Current production 2wd Tacomas hit 21/25 mpg on 4cyl and 17/21 V6,
and 4wd 4cyl make 18/21 mpg and 4wd V6 make 16/19mpg.

Modern production vehicles are lighter, and because of MPG requirements across average of entire fleet production, all vehicles are now being most costly tuned from A to Z for optimum MPGs.

There was no similar incentive when our trucks were on the market other than to be towards the top of the class in MPGs (which our Toyota trucks were, even the V6s). Everything else was a cost/benefit analysis. The primary government incentive/constraint/regulation production perversion when our trucks came to market was emissions. That's why a modern high flow cat improves flow while ours restricts to ensure maximum scrubbing. That's why our timing is retarded to 10* btdc when advanced to 12-15*btdc is best for performance. And that's likely why we have a restrictive AFM (though possibly this is to discourage high end revving and according HG/warranty repairs...).

When you recognize where current production vehicles are with all the modeling and testing that's able to be done on computers BEFORE building engines and physically testing like was required in the early/mid 80s and where their engines are in MPGs, it really helps to put the expectations in proper orientation. In fact, on most modern vehicles, you'll find the stuff that makes performance differences on our rigs are statistically insignificant, and just aesthetic improvements (if not performance degraders)... All considered, the OPs expectations of "far more than 15-16 mpg average" sounded quite a bit off base to me...

Ultimately, if you want optimal MPGs, a diesel conversion is your best bet. If you want optimal power a turbocharged 5vzfe looks like the best bet, and is probably even the best bet when looking at a power per gallon ratio too -- I'll let someone else do the exact math but it's something like 5-10% degradation in MPGs w/ a 1/3rd (30%+) improvement in power. But the a stock 5vzfe V6 is the best bet if wanting optimal MPGs while also having an engine capable of general purpose "truck work." You'll see some mpg benefits w/ a 4 cylinder over a V6 but bear in mind the modern 2.7L Tacoma 4cylinders only make 159 HP, and 180 ft-lbs torque (roughly the same as our 3vzes). The 5vzfe makes 190 HP and 220 ft-lb torque; supercharged w/ the OEM supercharger it makes 254 hp and 290 ft-lb torque. Again, supercharges decrease fuel efficiency, sort of like running a 2nd AC.

Last edited by RSR; 03-17-2014 at 12:14 AM.
Old 03-16-2014, 11:50 PM
  #56  
RSR
Registered User
 
RSR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Central TX
Posts: 1,047
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by lectric80
You are correct, an engine swap is just not in the budget or plan for this thing. The plan here is to see how far I can take it.
My point is that if you really want to take it as far as it can go, you'll end up paying for head work, custom cams, oversized valves, either headers or custom crossover delete, all the required parts to optimally tune, etc. Even if doing the assembly work yourself, you'll pay at least double what it'd cost to drop a scrapyard and/or half cut 5vzfe into your engine bay and it would actually be cheaper to put a fully rebuilt, like new 5vzfe into your rig. Heck, you could probably even pay labor on the more expensive engine and end up even or less as to what you'll have on the incremental cost of your pursuit of optimal.

By all means explore and share your results b/c myself and others are interested. But if you look on these boards, the resounding theme is "should've just swapped." There's a reason for that.

Last edited by RSR; 03-17-2014 at 01:06 PM.
Old 03-16-2014, 11:56 PM
  #57  
RSR
Registered User
 
RSR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Central TX
Posts: 1,047
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by dirtrider0129
I was in the same boat as you for a while. I purchased a 92 pickup with the 3.0 back in late August. I daily drove it for a while and only managed 14-15 driving 100% country back roads and about 13-15 driving mixed highway/ back roads. Above and beyond the typical "tune up" items, I did a few more things to squeeze every last MPG out of my 176k mile all original (even head gaskets) 3.0:

-manual locking hubs
-re adjusted my TPS (it was all out of whack)
-synthetic oil in the transmission, transfer case, and rear diff.
-synthetic 5w-30
-new O2 sensor (O.E. Desno unit)
-replaces ALL vacuum hoses (most were dry rotted, and "loose" fitting)
-35 ish psi in all of the tires (running 31's with factory 3.56 gears)
-sea foam'ed engine multiple times
- granny shift at 2500

last few fill-ups have been 19-22. got close to 23 on the last all highway trip I did with the cruise holding steady at 65 (about 150 miles round trip).
Great advice. Basically, to improve MPGs you have 2 options.
1) Improve engine efficiency.
2) Reduce drag on both the drivetrain and from air/gravity.

Our engines are limited and upgrades become costly. All things considered, the biggest bang for your buck is in regards to drag as most of it is stuff like lower speed, paying a little more for better lubricants, small parts cost investments like manual hubs, drafting at safe distance behind semis, etc...

Also, accelerating slowly isn't always the most efficient:
Accelerate Quickly But Smoothly
Contrary to popular opinion, accelerating quickly actually uses less fuel to get up to cruising speed than accelerating slowly would. The problem is that most people confuse the need to minimize acceleration with how to accelerate.

Fuel efficiency during acceleration actually improves as RPM increases and optimal engine efficiency is typically between 1500 and 2800 rpm at 75% load (that is, during quick acceleration). As a result, experts recommend accelerating as quickly and smoothly as possible to the desired cruising speed and then once at that speed, cruising in the highest gear possible. This method is also known as "pulse and glide". Read more about the "pulse and glide" method.

Accelerating from a stand-still definitely uses fuel and you want to minimize how often you do. But, when you need to accelerate, you should do it as efficiently as possible, and that means accelerating as quickly as possible.
Source -- and it's a good read overall: http://www.goecospeed.com/driving_tips.html

Last edited by RSR; 03-17-2014 at 12:02 AM.
Old 03-17-2014, 12:05 AM
  #58  
RSR
Registered User
 
RSR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Central TX
Posts: 1,047
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Great read over at 4 wheel parts too: http://www.4wheelparts.com/buyers-gu...e-gas-mpg.aspx
Tips for Increasing Your Vehicle’s Fuel Economy
Fuel costs are on the rise once again. If there’s anything vehicle owners have learned from the last few years, it’s that gas mileage is important. Even when gas prices dip down in the short term, you can always expect them to bounce back up again. And that’s why every driver, on-road or off, can benefit from understanding which driving strategies and vehicle modifications improve gas mileage.

How and where you drive
You can achieve gas mileage improvements of 2 to 4 mpg simply by changing the way you drive. Follow these tips to do it.

Manage acceleration: You don’t want to accelerate too quickly or too slowly. Find the middle ground. The goal is to get into higher gears as soon as possible, without being too aggressive on the throttle.
Minimize idling: Keep the idling to a minimum by watching the traffic ahead and timing your momentum. The vehicle burns less fuel accelerating from a dead stop than it does accelerating from a very low speed. If you’re stuck in a traffic jam, turn your engine off.
Use cruise control: Even at 45 mph, cruise control conserves fuel. If you are traveling a long distance, the cruise control can save you as much as 1 or 2 mpg.
Shorten your warm-up: Don’t wait extended minutes for your engine to warm. You really only need to wait for the oil pressure to stabilize. Once that happens, you can get moving.
Get a block heater: If you live in a cold-weather climate, a block heater allows you to shorten your warm-up time significantly.
Coast: Take advantage of momentum provided by downhill roads and lighten your pressure on the gas pedal.
Relax: Stress encourages you to drive aggressively, so try to keep your mind relaxed when you’re on the road. Music or talk radio might keep you from thinking about being late. If that doesn’t work, make it a habit to leave early and plan for any potential traffic.
Shift earlier: Shift early and get into your highest gear quickly.
Reduce your freeway speed. Your truck or Jeep is not aerodynamic. The faster you go, the more fuel you burn.
Manage your A/C use: Your A/C uses more fuel at low speeds than it does at high speeds. But, driving with your windows rolled down on the freeway also decreases fuel economy, because your rig has poor aerodynamics. Some tests indicate that during freeway driving, the fuel impact of using the A/C is slightly better than the fuel impact of driving with the windows down.
You can probably incorporate the above tips into your driving relatively easily, but changing where you drive may be more difficult. A stop-and-go commute is terrible for your fuel economy, but you can’t just go and get a new job. You could try alternate routes or a different schedule. If you can drive around the stop-and-go traffic, you might use less fuel, even if you have to cover a greater distance. A more effective solution might be to leave earlier or later to avoid the traffic and benefit from the shortest route.

How tire pressure affects fuel economy
To find out what impact tire pressure has on fuel economy, we did a test on a stock 2005 Ford F-150 with OE General Grabber TR 245-70R16D tires. The test involved driving the truck over a 10-mile course with four different tire pressures. We measured the fuel economy with an Edge Evolution programmer, and mimicked an inexperienced driver. Our test pressures were:

Maximum pressure of 65 psi
50 psi in the front and 60 psi in the rear, as recommended by Ford
Empty cruising pressure, according to tire load inflation charts
Underinflated pressure
From the maximum tire pressure to the underinflated level, the difference in fuel economy was ¾ mpg. This was the largest difference measured; the fuel performance was very similar across the maximum level, the Ford-recommended levels, and the empty cruising levels.

Your choice of fuel makes a difference
The gas or diesel you put in the tank does affect fuel efficiency. Differences in BTU (British Thermal Units) content from one brand to another can lower mpg performance by 2-4%. (BTU quantifies the amount of stored energy in fuel.) Fuels with lower BTU tend to be less efficient. Some examples are oxygenated fuels, winter grades of gasoline, and fuel/ethanol blends. In blends, a higher ethanol component can mean lower gas mileage. E85, which is 85% ethanol, can decrease your fuel economy by 15-25%. In a perfect world, the lower cost of the ethanol blend makes up for the poor gas mileage. That often isn’t the case currently, but that could change in the future.

Diesel fuel is less efficient than it used to be, due to government regulations. These regulations pushed through a new formulation with a lower sulphur content. Since that change, some owners have seen a 2% decline in fuel performance. As with gas winter blends, diesel winter blends are less efficient.

Biodiesel is also less efficient that regular gas, due to its lower BTU content. Biodiesels with higher biofuel content have a greater negative impact on fuel performance. You can determine relative biofuel content by the name of the blend; B20, for example, has lower biofuel content than B100. B20 has roughly 2% lower fuel economy relative to gas. For B100, the difference is closer to 10%. As with ethanol blends, this lower fuel economy is supposed to be offset by lower prices. This may start to become reality as the biofuel infrastructure continues to develop.

Vehicle modifications to improve fuel economy
Building your vehicle for off-road performance inevitably reduces your fuel economy. You can’t make up for these losses with bolt-on products, but you can lessen them to some extent. Know that none of the individual upgrades described below will single-handedly create huge gains in fuel performance. Further, the gains you can achieve depend on how your vehicle is currently set up and on the way you drive. We have provided average gains, taken from several different sources. Your experience could be different.

Aerodynamics - Off-road vehicles generally have poor aerodynamics. A suspension lift and massive tires make the front of your rig bigger and bulkier, which means your vehicle does not cut through the air efficiently. Other popular accessories, like bars, bumpers, lights, and racks, worsen the problem. Poor aerodynamics hurt your fuel economy more at higher speeds. If you are just beginning to build up your vehicle, choose a lower lift and smaller tires. Keep the bolt-on pieces on the outside to a minimum. If your vehicle is already built, you’ll have to pay more attention to the way you drive to offset the poor aerodynamics.

You should also remember to remove any gear you don’t need. If you’re just driving to work, for example, unload your off-road equipment and leave it in the garage. A more extreme strategy is to design and build some custom removable pieces that direct airflow away from the truck body. At freeway speeds, you can probably achieve a fuel economy improvement of 3 to 4 mpg.

Camshaft replacement - You can see some benefit by switching out a performance camshaft for a milder model. Stock camshafts are generally pretty fuel-efficient. If you already have a stock version, the cost of replacing it with an economy or RV cam may not be worth the potential gains. You could look into an economy model once your stock cam actually needs to be replaced.

Increased compression ratio - A higher-ratio engine will have better fuel economy than a lower-ratio engine. If you upgrade an engine with an 8:1 ratio to 9:1, you might see an improvement of about 5%. Know that you may have trouble getting an older engine to run ping-free with a ratio higher than 9.5:1.

Other engine upgrades - You can take steps to reduce the internal friction in your engine with roller rockers, roller lifters, and light valve spring pressures. This might produce an improvement of 1% or so. You can improve combustion and volumetric efficiency with exhaust modifications. Some ideas are to increase the size of the exhaust values and to use thermal coatings in the combustion chamber and on the piston crowns. These really aren’t efficient options unless you intend to rebuild the engine anyway.

Exhaust upgrades - Depending on what’s on your vehicle currently, you can sometimes achieve sizeable fuel economy increases by switching out the exhaust. Low-restriction mufflers, cat-back exhaust systems with mandrel bent pipes, and long-tube headers can all be effective. Your gains might range from 1% to 10%. If you have a very inefficient factory manifold, you might also see a nice improvement from installing shorty headers.

Fuel system modifications - Switching out an old carburetor can add a 2% gain, as long as the new carb has a low CFM rating. You can achieve a similar gain by converting your carburetor using a bolt-on EFI kit, depending on the programming of the EFI.

Programmers - You might get a small increase in fuel economy with a programmer or chip for your gas engine. Be sure to pick a programmer that has custom tuning options. You can play with the shift points and timing to optimize your mpg performance. If you’re driving a diesel, a programmer can optimize your fuel pressure and timing on the lowest level setting.
Intake manifold - Some aftermarket intake manifolds can deliver fuel economy gains, but others are only designed for gains at high rpms. You should review the specs before you buy, so you know what to expect.
Cold air intake - Cold air intakes will improve fuel efficiency, only to the extent that they are actually delivering colder air versus your stock intake.
Air cleaners and filters - Air cleaners and filters generally don’t produce much in the way of fuel economy.
Gearing - If you have stock tires, the OE gearing will be the most fuel-efficient. Things change, though, when you increase your tire size. Gearing changes do impact fuel economy, but there are many factors that come into play. The engine’s torque curve, aerodynamics, and weight are a few examples. The taller tires on your off-road vehicle reduce the engine rpm, no matter how fast you’re traveling. The drawback is that the engine has to do more to accelerate. So you might see increased fuel efficiency while you are cruising on the freeway, and decreased fuel efficiency when you’re starting and stopping on city streets. Low gearing can help, because you then have the ability to speed up without as much throttle.

There is a cruising rpm range where your engine will achieve its maximum fuel economy. This typically happens in the lower third of the engine’s torque plateau — assuming the engine has the torque necessary to handle the load at that speed. If it doesn’t, you end up lugging the engine with the throttle open just to maintain your speed. And, that uses up a lot of fuel. If the engine can hold the increased speed with less throttle, you can get away with a few higher rpms than stock, without hurting your mpg performance.

Ignition upgrades - You might get tiny improvements from making ignition system upgrades. Some examples include hotter coils and ignition modules, performance plug wires, and higher quality spark plugs. Any improvement would be very dependent on what you are replacing. Also, you’re likely to see a greater improvement if your vehicle has a distributor. You can also try modifying your timing advance curve and timing settings. Optimizing these settings could deliver an improvement of up to 5% if you know what you are doing.

Lubricant change For the best mileage, run the lightest oil possible for your climate and conditions. You might also try switching to a slippery, synthetic oil, which will add a variable amount of fuel economy, depending on what’s being replaced.

Electric fan conversion - Installing an electric fan will improve your fuel economy for freeway cruising. The gains can be in the neighborhood of 5-10%. This assumes your new electric fan effectively keeps your engine cool. You’ll see a much lower benefit during city driving.

Tires - Lower rolling resistance and friction means better fuel economy. No matter what type of tires you have, you can reduce the rolling resistance by maintaining maximum tire pressure on the sidewall. The drawback is that your ride quality will deteriorate slightly. Also note that the type of tire impacts your fuel economy too. Highway tires are the most efficient, followed by all-terrains, mudders, and mudders with aggressive tread. The compound plays a roll too. Hard rubber is more efficient, because it generates less friction than soft rubber.

Weight - This was covered briefly above. Keeping your total vehicle weight as low as possible can create a significant increase on your fuel economy. For daily driving, set aside your off-road equipment. If your gear weighs a few hundred pounds, removing it might give you an extra couple of miles per gallon. This assumes you drive a low-powered vehicle. The gains for big truck with a big engine won’t be as noticeable, but they’re likely to add up over time. One study demonstrated a 0.4-mpg improvement for a gas-powered Ford truck when it was empty, compared to the same truck carrying an 850-lb. load.

Measuring your fuel performance
You can calculate your fuel performance by dividing the miles you’ve driven by the number of gallons you’ve used. While this calculation is relatively simple, your result can be inaccurate, depending on where you get your numbers.

Odometer readings - Your odometer might be inaccurate if you’ve made changes to your tires and gear ratio without adjusting your speedometer. So, with bigger tires, the number on your odometer might be lower than it should be. If your calculation is based on fewer miles than you’ve actually driven, your calculated fuel economy will be higher than what you’ve really achieved.

On the other hand, lower gears might result in your odometer showing more miles than actual. In turn, your calculated fuel economy will be worse than actual performance. Of course, gearing and tire changes done simultaneously could cancel each other out. Or not.

The easiest way to test your odometer is to compare your readings to mile markers on the highway. If the odometer reading is off, you can calculate how to adjust for the difference:

Your correction factor will be the actual miles divided by the miles shown on your odometer. If your odometer reads 1.2 and you’ve only driven one mile, the calculation is 1/1.2, or 0.83.
Use the correction factor to calculate your actual miles driven. If your odometer indicates you’ve driven 150 miles, then you’ve actually driven 150x.83 miles, or 124.5 miles.
Fill level - Your fuel economy readings are more accurate when your tank is filled to the same level every time. This can be tough in practice. You can reduce the variables at play by using the same pump in the same station for every fill. Or, at least avoid filling the tank when the vehicle is on any type of incline. The pump’s automatic shutoff should be triggered at the same time no matter where you are, but pay attention just in case.

Diesels are more problematic because diesel fuel foams. The amount of foaming varies, depending on how fast you are pumping. Try adding the final gallons very slowly and fill the tank all the way to the top if you can.

Tire size - To identify an appropriate gear ratio following a tire swap, first divide the new tire diameter by the old tire diameter. Multiply that quotient by the vehicle’s original gear ratio. If the result falls between two available options, you have to choose between highway fuel economy and acceleration performance. The lower gear ratio will have better highway fuel economy. The lower ratio will have better acceleration performance, trail performance, and in-town fuel efficiency.

Balancing upgrade cost with potential benefits
You can run a few calculations to help you decide which upgrades are worth the expense. Note that this calculation is not exact, because you have to guess on the potential mpg increase. But, you can play with different numbers to determine where your cost/benefit threshold is.

Start by noting these figures:

Cost of the upgrade
Expected mpg increase
How many miles you drive annually
Your current mpg
Here are the steps of the calculation:

Determine your gallons of gas used per year by dividing your miles driven annually by your current mpg.
Add the expected mpg gain to your current mpg to get the post-upgrade mpg.
Divide your miles driven annually by the post-upgrade mpg. This tells you how many gallons of gas you’ll use after the upgrade.
Subtract this number from the number of gallons you’re currently using each year.
Multiply the result by the current per-gallon price for gas. This is what you’ll save annually, at current gas prices, after the upgrade.
You might choose to go forward with an upgrade if it pays for itself after a year or two of driving. If it takes longer than that to pay off, consider how long you’ll keep the vehicle before you proceed. You will lose money on the deal if you sell the rig before you break even on the upgrades.
Old 03-17-2014, 01:45 AM
  #59  
Registered User
Thread Starter
 
lectric80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by RSR
My point is that if you really want to take it as far as it can go, you'll end up paying for head work, custom cams, oversized valves, either headers or custom crossover delete, all the required parts to optimally tune, etc. Even if doing the assembly work yourself, you'll pay at least double what it'd cost to drop a scrapyard and/or half cut 5vzfe into your engine bay and it would actually be cheaper to put a fully rebuilt, like new 5vzfe into your rig. Heck, you could probably even pay labor on the more extensive engien and end up even or less as to what you'll have on the incremental cost of your pursuit of optimal.

By all means explore and share your results b/c myself and others are interested. But if you look on these boards, the resounding theme is "should've just swapped." There's a reason for that.
Maybe it wasn't clear, but by as far as it can go, I mean without changing the powertrain in any significant way. If I wanted to do custom heads, cam and all that other stuff, I might consider going the way of the 5vze, but this is a daily driver with way too much rust for me to spend that kind of coin on. I don't expect 30 MPG's out of it, not even the 25 my 22re was getting, but to see how far a stock engine with a quarter of a million miles can be taken without spending tons of money. What things can I do to actually improve mileage? That's the question I'm working on, and I hope that it will benefit others.

You act as if low 20's isn't that great, but look at Ford's ecoboost and other large truck engines and you will see that low 20's is still about normal (the new Silverado with a V8 is getting 23 hwy). My point with this is that in a stock Runner, there is no reason to see low teens unless all your driving is stop and go traffic. Lifted, cut or modified is obviously going to decrease mileage, but I'm talking a stock vehicle.

You also say modern cars and trucks are lighter, but that isn't proven out in the numbers. A 94 Runner like mine has a curb weight of 3850 while a 2014 Runner with 4x4 and V6 is 4750. 900 lbs heavier, and almost no increase in fuel economy in spite of all the modern computer modeling and design. As I said, I believe these Runners and pickups with the 3.0 to be capable of more than the 14-16 many seem to be willing to settle with. Just the small changes I have made have proven it, now it's time to see if bigger things can also work to improve it.
Old 03-17-2014, 07:09 AM
  #60  
RJR
Registered User
 
RJR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 1,776
Likes: 0
Received 109 Likes on 81 Posts
My daughter had a '97 4runner with the 5vze. It actually got about 1-2 mpg worse mileage than my '94 with the 3vze. I'm not saying the 5vze isn't a better engine, or isn't capable of better mileage, but it seems you'd have to do some tweaking with the 5vze to get there as well. I don't think it's just a matter of dropping in the 3.4 and automatically picking up 3-4 mpg.

I suspect, with either engine, it's just mostly a lot of attention to detail. Good compression, good plugs, all sensors and ECU wiring in top shape, timing set right, proper fuel, etc. Get all that right and the engine will perform well.


Quick Reply: Fuel mileage improvements on the 3vze



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:40 PM.