3.4L mileage
#2
I've been getting about the same as I did with the 3.0 (15-16 mpg) but I'm driving much faster (cruising 70-75mph). My truck weighs a little more now too. I haven't tried driving slow yet, I didn't swap in a supercharged 3.4 so I could drive like grandma.
#5
Right now, I'm pulling around 450-475 kms per tank, which usually runs about 55 liters. For you non-metric types, that works out to around 19-20 mpg. I'm running a 5 speed with 33s, stock gearing.
Trending Topics
#8
You guys in high elevations will always get better mileage due to less wind resistance. Other considerations are how fast you drive, 55mph is better than 75mph. Also don't forget some stations are now selling blends of ethanol which gets less mpg too, some won't even tell you either.
Last edited by mt_goat; Jun 5, 2008 at 03:35 AM.
#9
Hey, Dale!
Although they might not tell you directly, the stations here in Colorado are required to tag the pumps with a sticker stating how much ethanol is in the fuel. All I have ever seen is 10% on standard gas pumps. It started out as a seasonal thing, but I believe that they run E10 year round, now.
The altitude certainly helps with our milage figures, but I can't say that I take it very easy on the truck on drives back and forth to Denver, and such. The 3.4 is just that much more efficient at producing its power (and I don't have the S/C, either). I would have to attribute most of that gain to the far better ignition system on the 3.4. The modified COP set up is WAY better than the distributor/coil ignition.
Although they might not tell you directly, the stations here in Colorado are required to tag the pumps with a sticker stating how much ethanol is in the fuel. All I have ever seen is 10% on standard gas pumps. It started out as a seasonal thing, but I believe that they run E10 year round, now.
The altitude certainly helps with our milage figures, but I can't say that I take it very easy on the truck on drives back and forth to Denver, and such. The 3.4 is just that much more efficient at producing its power (and I don't have the S/C, either). I would have to attribute most of that gain to the far better ignition system on the 3.4. The modified COP set up is WAY better than the distributor/coil ignition.
#10
#11
Higher elevation usually comes with lots of hill and mountain passes plus our vehicles produce less power making them work harder so our gas mileage isn't really any better overall and I'm getting the same as the flat landers do.
#13
I think about 16 or just more. About 4 mpg better on average than with the 3.0. My 4Runner has lot's of armor, winch, bumpers and all that jazz. Overall I am still really happy with the swap. More power and more range.
I am, but I think 4.88's might work better with 35's and the 3.4. I think my revs would drop for hwy driving and increase my MPG.
Then again, I kind of have an excuse to go 37's next time.
I am, but I think 4.88's might work better with 35's and the 3.4. I think my revs would drop for hwy driving and increase my MPG.
Then again, I kind of have an excuse to go 37's next time.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
primordialbeast117
86-95 Trucks & 4Runners
11
Dec 19, 2015 12:23 PM
dzldust
General Vehicle Related Topics (Non Year Related)
7
Oct 6, 2015 05:39 AM
LCE_Performance
95.5-2004 Tacomas & 96-2002 4Runners (Build-Up Section)
0
Oct 1, 2015 01:03 PM




