according to www.fueleconomy.gov the difference in gas consumption is only like 2 mpg for the 4x4. how true is this? are the 4 cylinders really that poor in comparison? says 17 city and 21 hwy for 4 cyl and 16/19 for 6 cyl (manual)

 

In my experience that seems to be true. I have the 2.7 and I don't really see that much better gas mileage than the guys with the V6. Part of that is gearing and what size tire you run.

 

Consider that it takes X amount of horsepower to move a vehicle at a specific speed down the highway and Y amount of fuel to make X horsepower. Thus, for a given vehicle where everthing else is the same, Y is more or less a constant. The difference is probably due to the 2.7 weighs less and has lower peak power (peak fuel consumption). In short, the 2.7 has to work harder (use more gas/cylinder) than the 3.4.

 

My 3.4 hits a steady 17 in the city and 18.5 hwy at 77 mph.

 

22-24 mpg. mixed driving

 

The 2.7L mileage goes down big time because of how the truck downshifts(auto) on a small hill.
The bigger the hill...the farther down the pedal must go.
The 2.7L is peppy on level ground but hill kill her.

 

This is pretty much the same reason why many see a decrease in MPG AFTER installing a S/C.

 

So owning a 4 banger isn't worth it for the gas mileage plus I can't imagine driving a 4 cylinder powered 3rd gen Runner since I think the 3.4 is kinda slow on the start but it does cruise nicely at 75 on the highway till I hit the mountains.

 

When I had my 2.7 5spd X-cab 4X4 Tacoma it got 20/24 MPG on a regular basis. My wifes 3.4 auto 4x4 Runner gets 17/22. I think those numbers can vary greatly on driving habits, transmission, and engine condition (oil, air filter, plugs, etc). Also it doesn't seem 4x4 should make a lot of difference. I put manual hubs on my Runner expecting to see some mileage increase, but none. The axles on my 2nd gen and my wifes 3rd gen spin so easy, I can see why the hubs didn't help mileage.

 

well, maybe i'll just keep that 20R of mine and rebuild it. i've been getting much better gas mileage lately...around 20-22mpg. and that's with 310,000 miles of wear and low compression!

 

I get a steady 17 - 18.5 mpg just depnds on how much driving I do around town

 

The 20R is supposted to be a better engine than the 22re from what I've heard. They had better head design and double row timing chain. That's why companies like LC Enginnering combine the 22RE and 20R to get the best of both worlds.

 

actually that's DOA that monkey wrenched EFI onto the 20R. the blocks are supposedly identical to a early 22R, but i've heard they have tougher thrust bearings. the only other difference between that and the 22R is the bore. in fact, the 20R can be bored out to accept 22R pistons if you want. the head flows a bit better than the 22R because it has round intake ports instead of square ones

more useless information

 

bump?