Terrible mpg on 2017 4Runner...

Hi, I have a 2017 4Runner TRD Pro (mostly stock). Now it has 13k miles on it. The mpg has been terrible since day 1....

The average mpg is only around 12.5 which I cannot accept because it’s not a V8 land cruiser. For most of time, I drive on freeway with around 75~80mph. And the average range is around 283 miles per tank.

Can someone explain why I get such that terrible mpg ?? Thanks a lot !!

 

I hear ya, I have a 2018 with the upgraded off-road tires and I don't get anything above 15.6. (This is confirmed by refueling and not using the on board electronics). For me a lot of that is I only drive 3 miles to work there and back so the motor never gets to cruise. Unfortunately short distances and stop and go traffic in these things really kill the mileage, as my 2015 like model was the exact same. You'll get differences of opinion here as others love to show their "high MPG" pics but there is little real world truth to it. If you drive the truck like a normal person you're going to get less than the 17 claimed by the OEM (a lot worse if you stop and go). This is proven in 99% of all road tests done by not only major mags/companies but those that buy the vehicles. Having said that, if you light foot it, cruise control for an hour just after you reset your avg, you'll see the AMAZING results of 19+ like everyone else. Now, as soon as you stop at a light and get on the gas for the same duration you'll notice your MPG avg is comparable to the horrible sub 17's like the rest. Don't believe the hype to users that post crazy good mileage, there are no better avg's as you'd have to believe that if Big Toyota could get a consistent 19+ avg by putting on an aftermarket twinkie… they'd be plastering that on every window sticker they could.

Now, why you're getting 12.5 is a mystery. I would suggest not using the on-board computer and calculating your own numbers. I would assume taking this brick to speeds of 70+ would detract from good mileage as it's not a sports car and drag is drag (as I've seen on my prior rig). This is enhanced by wind not maneuvering past the rack, front end, sidemirrors, and just sheer blockiness of our vehicles.

Try 55-60 in the same range on a new tank and use cruise control whenever possible, you may see a greater difference.

I had a 2018 Honda civic SI that saw 43mpg on a road trip (800 mile) when I kept it at 70 and cruise controlled where I could. On the way back from my trip I used cruise still but stayed above 70 (that's all I'll say) and I didn't get past 37-39 mpg (sometimes dipping to 34 for reasons I won't mention). Now, this is a little sporty car that was low to the ground and the underbody was completely covered (no drag) and was way more aerodynamic features than the 4R. But the simple decrease in foot pedal and speed saw a decrease of 5-6 MPG.

Now consider your blocky 4runner and how fast you drive and push the pedal...

A sports car it will never be nor will it reward you EVER for driving with your foot on the pedal going over 60.

These are my opinions and there's no scientific proof to it (only my own real world tests on my own vehicles. But, I'd gladly show you my 25mpg dash on my 2017 GMC Sierra Crew Cab All Terrain that proves my point.

Drive it... enjoy it, but don't expect it to wow you with efficiency.

The 4R's are heavy, underpowered, under geared, and not aerodynamic. But, that's not why you bought it now is it?

 

I agree, i do mostly city driving and get 12.5 to 14.5 mpg. Now if i get out on the super slab and cruise at 65 i can get 18 mpg. I am lifted with 285/70/17 MTs so i expect that.

 

change your takeoff habits. remember green light on the track = bat out of hell.
green light in town = nice-n-easy
remember that 20ish/25ish % of fuel consumption happens at takeoff. also feather the brakes less o'course you need to stop completely

 

Sadly, yet another "my runner sucks ass mpg wise" post. Shit is truly sad. I myself am a bit shocked at the dirt bag mileage these get, and yet, ZERO power imho. Love my runner, but man, i wish it had double the damn power, and got in the 20s doing it.
285/70/17 here, little else. And i see upper 15s and 16s on ave. I just accept it.
Your 12s, is horrible ,.. sucks mate.

 

Check your driving habits. Use the eco-meter to influence them in a positive way. You have a 5000 pound brick on a frame, mashing the pedals and swerving all over the highway at 80+ isn't doing you any favors at the pump. I have a mild lift, 275/70 KO2s, and a roof rack- I still get 19 on the highway and 16 around town.

Lol at the "I need double the power and mpg" comment. Go buy a crossover dude.

 

Try another gas brand, or octane. You need to be using 87 octane minimum. I would make sure you have done the maintenance. There maybe something else wrong, like a bad sensor, or filter/something.

 

So I am not sure this helps but I have a 2016 TEP with BP-51 lift and 285 KO2's, SSL bumper with Warn winch, sliders and full skids. Mix of city and high travel around Denver, CO and average 17.4 using 87 Octane (mid-grade in Denver). I was getting about 18.1 average with Duratrac 255/75/17 but recently replaced them after ripping out a side wall on a recent Overlanding trip with friends.

 

Its is 2018, dude. More than feasible to ask for some power, and get decent mileage. Like i said, im content with my rig, and accept it, ... but, there is not one person, on this forum, that is happy with both power and mileage of these rigs. Fact.

 

pedal commander

 

Yes, Toyota has been sitting on its laurels for quite some time, especially with the 5th gen. It's really only by luck that their lethargy has turned into an advantage- they're one of the last BOF midsize SUVs left on the market, and people are flocking to them when they realize that crossovers won't take them very far off-road.

Yet I doubt that Toyota will go the route that Ford and others are pushing when it comes to the (unicorn?) 6th gen Runner. Downsizing and turbocharging seems to be the current trend, but Toyota isn't doing that anywhere. Not just because they're sluggish and stubborn- I believe it's also because they KNOW that small turbo engines aren't as fuel efficient in the real world that EPA ratings would lead you to believe. Check out the Ecoboost posts in the F150 forums, most of them are showing MPG numbers that are the same or worse than the Coyote 5.0 engine. Power? Yes. Efficiency? Not so much. And when you factor in the extra complexity and strain that turbo plumbing and higher chamber pressures inevitably bring, it's easy to understand why Toyota is resisting the trend. Not to mention longevity and maintenance concerns: If a large, naturally-aspirated and understressed engine makes the same power as a smaller, overstressed turbo engine; which one do you think you'll be spending less on repairs for over their lifetimes?

As for no one being happy with their power or mileage, I'll vouch for at least one person who is: me. This is because when it was time to replace my truck with a more family-friendly vehicle, I spent a lot of time deliberating on it. I took lots of vehicles on test drives, and did my own research. I also read and understood the stickers on the window. There are plenty of vehicles that laugh at this old dinosaur of a truck. I know that the 4Runner is neither fast or efficient, and I was willing to settle in exchange for off-road capability and rugged reliability.

Would a little more power or efficiency be nice? Sure, but arguing with physics doesn't get you very far. Instead of mashing the gas between stoplights and merging onto the highway at 5K RPM, try leaving the house 5 minutes earlier. Your blood pressure and gas receipts will drop precipitously.

By the way, this is coming from someone who enjoys driving quickly- besides a motorcycle, I also have a resto-mod Volkswagen Beetle project with turbo, fuel injection, E85, big brakes, cage, etc. Guess what? I'm not complaining that it won't go off road with all of my camping gear or haul my family plus dogs on a road trip. Maybe I just need a more wishful mindset, like you.

 

Understood boss. I bought what I did, not even looking at or caring about milage. But for things you mentioned. Relaibily, some room, decent capabilities. I've never once said I needed anything. Power or mileage. All I ment, was, I "feel" both could be better. That's all hoss...
No harm, no foul...

 

I get 16.5 with a 3in lift 285 tires and front bumper and winch. However i live in south florida with no hills. I slowly acclerate at green lights and press the breaks before anyone else does; however my biggest culprit is idling, idle at least an hour a day with the A/C full blast. Now on the highway down here for a few hours i can get 22mpg but i put in in cruise and set it to 77. When i get in North Fl where the hills are rampet i can get 18 on the highway. But i did not buy a prius for a reason i wanted a rugged reliable naturally aspirated vehicle and that perfectly describes a 4Runner. For the power, if the v8 was still offered i would have got that in a flash. When i am in North Fl in cruise the rpms start running in to the 4-4.5 range just to get up a hill and i drop to 74 mph. I hope Toyota does something with the power for the 6th gen.

 

So many comments, so little time. All I will say is I will be first to jump ship on any 4-cyl turbo that anyone will offer for this thing (reference GM's new 4-cyl for their trucks - https://www.trucks.com/2018/05/18/gm-turbocharged-engine-silverado-1500/) . The tech is sound, it's been proven for years.. and check out them "turbo Diesels" for longevity. I've driven the ecoboost, owned a focus ST and its crazy how low end the power comes and stays. Lighter motors (4r heavy already) and low torque... give me that all day. I'm sorry all the ecoboost complain about MPG... yes, they have a 6-cyl turbo that has over 400 ft lbs of torque... cry me a river at your 17mpg when towing. Last example... I owned a 15 civic SI vtec 2.4L naturally aspirated 205 hp 4cyl that needed 93 octane for max performance and I got 21-23 avg mpg. Fast forward to 2018 to a 1.5L turbo with 205hp, 10 more ft torque at lower RP and I never saw under 30, and actually hit 43 on a trip for a consistent period. Smaller motor, better torque range and MPG all day long. Yes, yes.. these are cars, but ecoboosts are doing great in trucks with the power to weight ratio and GM's following suit (keep your eye on the Edge ST for ford reference and GM's full size trucks).

Don't look at Toyota's for what you think they're doing or not doing either.. look at those amazing lexus motors they are throwing turbos on... do the 3.5L's look familiar? I'm pretty sure they share at least some similar tech (save for some fancy internal upgrades). I think they are keeping the tech on the high end and will eventually move it to the Toyota lines... They have to IMO to keep up. Like I said, I'd gladly take anyone's turbo 4 in this beast if it gave me 40-60 more HP and 20-30 more torque and lighten my front end up.

For fuel efficiency.. if you wanted to match what you have now... they could easily pump out 285hp and boost your MPG with a smaller motor, but that's not what we all want. We want 400hp/400ft lb torque and then will complain when our mpg stays at 17mpg for a 5000 lb BOF beast. I don't think that's how it works. The trends are going lighter materials, smaller displacement boosted motors at avery high cost for R&D. Save weight, increase power... and hopefully gain some MPG's. Unfortunately we aren't going to get there tomorrow because we want what we want, more of everything, sacrificing nothing. What do I mean by that... simply, give me a smaller lighter turbo motor with 275hp/290ft lb tq engine (not outrageous) and drop a couple hundred lbs and a get me 21-23 mpg and go from there. I'll cry for more HP/TQ after that becomes a reality. Unfortunately, they need to R&D money so they put it only in the best sellers (read - F150 -300K truck sales a year) so they can finance the tech. Toyota doing the same but at lower volume with lexus. GM is doing it now in their own way and so is Honda. It's coming.. and it's going to be glorious! So, don't hate the tech but remain skeptical if you want to. I've driven it, had the taste and I liked the flavor.

 

Exactly dude. That's what I was saying. It is there. In their own damn makes/models even. That's all I was getting at...


Hell, I'd like a 6 speed trans, with close(er) ratio gearing, I think that would help a ton.


Also, a rad lil oil burner (diesel) would be kinda cool. Actually real cool.

Pipe dreams are fun....

 

I switched to 91 octane from 87. My mileage went from high 14, 15ish to low 18.

I know everyone will tell me it’s not the gasoline grade and I’m wasting my money. Can’t say I disagree. But I’m going to use 91 for a while and see what happens.

 

I 4 one only use 91. it helps 4 sure.

 

I'm with Kyle a nice lil diesel wood b bad a$$

 

I'd love a 6-speed auto as well but with better electronics than what's on the Tacoma. I bought a T4R because I couldn't stand the gear-hunting on the Taco when on a slight incline.

 

I have got as high as 22 and as low as 17.5 over the last 17,000 miles in my 2017 OR. Mine is lifted 2.5 in. and has a SSO bumper and winch with stock tires. I just took a trip to Albuquerque, 200 miles each way at 75 MPH, and averaged 19.5. I am getting around 400 miles per tank. I use mid grade 88 in a top tear brand. I did find that non top tier gas, Safeway, Sam's Club, etc. made a difference in mileage.

Compared to the '08 Rubicon that I had the 4 Runner is great. More power than the Jeep and 4 to 5 MPG better. I am satisfied with what I am getting, but if they every offer a little turbo diesel---------
Bill

 

I'm not knocking boost (haha, pun intended?). I have driven and enjoyed many turbo engines, gas and diesel. They have their space in the automotive landscape.

I'm not saying that downsizing/turbocharging doesn't work in certain applications, I'm just taking the piss. It cracks me up to think that people buy their truck and then lament that the 20 year-old 4.0 liter lump with port injection and 5-speed slushbox hasn't somehow turned into an F1 engine with KERS overnight. "But all the other companies have blah blah engines that get X mpg and Y power." Well I hate to inform you, I think you bought the wrong truck if those are your deal-breakers. This thing has been around unchanged for a decade, but everyone keeps surprising themselves somehow.

I guess I'm the only one that considers the 5th gen for what it is: adequate. The powertrain is a dinosaur but it makes 80-90% of its peak torque everywhere in the rev range and it will outlast cockroaches. It hauls my family, dogs, and gear over 10K passes and through 100°+ deserts with the AC blasting. You'd need to spend five figures on the suspension before the engine is your limiting factor off-road. I'm never in a hurry even in suburbia, and people surging through traffic so they can get to the job they hate even quicker has always puzzled me.

Are you telling me that you'd cash out for a new JL Wrangler with the 2.0T? Have fun, and keep your AAA membership paid up.

 

I love when people ask me what kind of mileage I get and tell them "I dont care" lol. I think it is the perfect balance of power and performance.
As far as diesels go, you can keep them. I have driven all makes and models in over 20 countries, give me a petrol Toyota and I will beat you to the FOB!!!!

 

Just another observation. Keep in mind I only have 3800 miles on it now, but the first couple tanks of gas were 87 oct, and the best I could muster was 16.2 mpg. I switched to 91 that I run in absolutely everything I drive, and I have been holding steady at 19.1. No lift and stock tires though. Once the lift goes on and the shoes get changed, I'll see what the damage is

 

I think this is a difficult topic to tackle because there are a lot of factors.

I just want to offer up my 2 cents.

Given the info ^, here are my computations for how much it's going to cost to drive 100 miles with either 87 or 91 octane gas.

91 octane: 100 miles / 19.1 mpg * $3.53 per gallon = $18.48
87 octane: 100 miles / 16.2 mpg * $2.83 per gallon = $17.46

This is my source for the kwiktrip gas prices https://www.gasbuddy.com/Station/100556

 

I just bought an end of 2018 year, 2018 ORP. It’s still stock, haha, I’ve only had it 2 weeks! So far according to the eco gauge in the vehicle, I’m getting 13.1 lire’s/100km, which is Canadian for 18 mpg. That’s about what I got from my 2015 Taco. So far my 4 Runner has 1100 km on it. I mostly drive around the small town and rural area where we live, but I’ve also been to Toronto in it sitting in traffic and driving on the big highways at 130 km/hour. Ok, in the modern world of electric, hybrid, and diesel vehicles these numbers aren’t great, but they’re not too bad either. The important thing to ask is can you afford the fuel cost for the purpose being served by the vehicle. If it’s a daily commuter, and you’re in a low income occupation you might be better off to drive a motorbike. But if you’re headed into the wild beyond loaded with camping gear, and escaping the human race for a few days how relevant is a couple of tanks of fuel? Oh yeah, I’m running stock size BFG KO 2’s.

 

I am going to also throw in that it will vary by region. Gas here is a lot closer in price. It's only about a $0.30 cent difference right now between Premium and Regular so the better MPG's for me is cheaper. I think right now the average 87 in WA state is 3.46, the average 91 is 3.76. (just looked it up to make sure) Plus I can put gas in cans at the house and know that besides the mower and 2stroke edger, everything else uses the same gas. My wifes '10 Subaru Forester ran rough (as the flat 4's do) on 87, since trying 91 and and significant improvement in smoothness and mpg's, she hasn't gone back. There are always debates on octane and if higher is better. I know every situation is different and really everyone should do their own research to see what works best for them. My '58 chevy BB gets 10mpg on 91 no matter if I'm running down a hill empty or dragging a house back up the hill..lol

 

I'm picking up what you are putting down, totally agree. I knew exactly what I was buying and have no regrets.

 

We have no ethanol 93 here and it makes a noticeable difference in how the 4 drives.

 

And then there is me a higher octane...meh... .. . I dont buy any more than a loaf of bread being 3 days newer, being a huge percent better. Hell, rigs now, know how to adjust to whatever. But, suite yourselves.

Edit- higher octane, is for detonation. Milage gain.... meh...