@@Pickuptrucktalk Hmm that's too bad. It definitely seems like they tuned the engine for high performance and not mpg. It would be cool if Eco mode had a more dramatic effect on efficiency.
Doesn’t surprise me that the MT is less efficient. Even a conscientious driver would not shift early enough to keep the engine in the most efficient RPM range in city driving (plus downshifting is not as simple as just mashing the gas, so it isn’t super safe to always be lugging around with no ability to accelerate suddenly). Add to that the greater number of gears in the AT to suit a wider variety of situations, and wham you have notably better and more consistent fuel efficiency.
Who was asking for more power in a mid-size truck? I wanted improved efficiency. Toyota has failed in learning from Honda’s mistakes. No one want hybrids for more power they want them for improved efficiency.
I was in Boerne, TX for Thanksgiving and saw a test mule. Spoke with the driver, he let me look inside but wouldn't let me sit in it. On the dash of the TRD Off-road it said 27mpg. I asked if it was the hybrid but he told me he wasn't aloud to talk about the truck. The truck didn't have the I-force Max badging but the logo had the blue tint.
Yes, but longevity will be better than your F-150. Sorry it's a fact. Don't take my word for it though and be pissed off I spoke the truth. Go straight to Ford and they will tell you their quality sucks. 😂
@@JIPlatium Quality and reliability are no different vs GM or Stellantis. And, the new Tundra has had a lot of issues. I don't like Fords more than other brands, I just got a great deal when I bought it. I wouldn't buy any of them nowadays, especially any Marxist made UAW vehicles.
My 87 Toyota got about 20mpg back in the day. If the manufacturers made a truck that got 30mpg most people wouldn't buy it because it wouldn't look cool enough. It wouldn't have the capability, ground clearance, power, etc. You can't have it all. The Ford Maverick is a great example of the compromise of a truck with both economy and capability. These new midsize trucks are almost the size of a full size truck from 20+ years ago.
Your 87 Toyota made 14 horsepower and 16 torque though, this new engine makes a touch more and still gets similar gas mileage. I don't understand why people think these new trucks should make 30+ mpg, as you said you can't have it all.
@@treefity350 True but my point is that no matter what lengths manufacturers go to for mpg they can't beat the laws of physics. It is pretty impressive that they can give us so much more power with similar MPG.
Yep, and can you imagine the negative reviews a maker would get if their numbers didn't outdo the other guy? It's amazing where these trucks are compared to even 10 years ago. The Nissan seems to be in a great spot with its numbers but so many reviews will list it last.
Engine in new Taco the T24A-FTS debuted in the 2022 Lexus NX350 Similar to A25A engine and kiddos it's not all about the gas mileage word on the street is pure emissions related.
Really just refers to engine testing and validation. So if they are identical, then not much. However that would mean that any engine which meets a more rigorous duty cycle will fair better in a lower stressed or used environment.
I always liked my fathers Ranger with duel tanks. As a kid,, there was something magical about flipping a switch and watching the fuel gauge go back up.
The fact that the standard size tundra fuel tank is almost the size of the taco tank is insane, a half ton truck should not have anything smaller than a 28gal minimum
Agreed, but most Tundras in the mix get the bigger 33gal unit. My Silverado is worse- there's no bigger tank option. 24gal doesn't go far enough w/ a trailer. That doesn't help the Tacoma though. Hopefully demand will drive an aftermarket plastic tank- like the Titan Tanks, but for gasoline applications.
Kinda feel the opposite. I love inline engines for their straight forward design (no pun intended). Easy access to the valve cover, intake/exhaust manifold and accessories/belts.
@@CACressida talk to me when it hits 300k miles on this turbo 4 cylinder truck. Same with the hybrid. I’d love to see reliability. Something has to give!
@@appleztooranges fact is very few owners keep their vehicles into that kind of mileage. But even if the engine does have issues such as needing a new turbo or something it's not really going to break the bank. I think many mainstream turbos run around $350-600 and being a 4 cylinder it should be easy to replace. Probably more expensive if any interior electronics start having issues, so focusing on just the engine is a very small fish in the large pond that is modern vehicles.
@@appleztooranges lol are you questioning Toyotas reliability? Let's name decades old Toyotas all time popular and reliable TURBO engines. 2JZGTE, 1JZGTE, 22RTE, 3SGTE, 1GGTE, 1KZT, 1VDFTV, 2LTE, 1HDFT, 1HDT. From popular racing engines to hardcore workhorse engines, Toyota is no stranger to Turbo charging engines.
I have a 2023 ford ranger (2wd, don’t live in the snowbelt and zero interest in off roading. Going 60-65 mph I get in the low 30’s, epa is 26 hwy. it’s all how you drive and how fast. Might be interested in the Tacoma hybrid, but knowing Toyota it wouldn’t even get better then the Tacoma turbo, such is the state of Toyota now days. I will be interested in the 2025 Ranger phev when it comes to North America in 2 years. Would love a phev Tacoma but they are basically a anti ev company to the hilt
How does anyone know what the real life fuel economy is on the 2024 Tacoma is? How many 2024 Tacomas have been delivered? I really believe that many people are uninformed about why turbocharged 4 cylinder are being used in mid sized trucks. Fuel economy is secondary to meeting increasingly stringent emissions standards and still delivering the power that consumers want. There’s always going to be haters when changes are made. Auto manufacturers are simply responding to federal mandates while still producing a good product. They’re not saying we hate our customers so we’ll get rid of normally aspirated V6 and V8 engines. As far as fuel economy is concerned it takes a certain amount of power and fuel to move a fixed mass down the road regardless of whether your using a turbo 4 or a normally aspirated 6. Engineers can use engineering wizardry and tweaks to marginally increase fuel economy but they can’t change the laws of physics!
I drove a 2000 Tacoma 3.4L V6 5 speed manual access cab for nearly 20 years. I averaged around 18 city and about 21-22 highway for the entire life of the vehicle. Granted, I knew how to milk each gear to maximize my mpg since I had been driving stick my entire life. I am confident when I eventually buy the new Tacoma MT I'll squeeze way more than 18 mpg city out of that truck.
With modern engine control system with knock sensor and the ability to retard timing you won’t see a significant difference in fuel economy with premium and regular under almost all conditions.
I think the issue is that it’s only 1 MPG more than last generation And not significantly better than Tundra. That being said, as you showed in video Tacoma mpg is similar to competition
Made me appreciate my 8 1/2 year old RAM Ecodiesel. Yes, I know the price of diesel and I also remember what it was before the 2020 presidential election. Everyday use 24 mpg. Highway 70 mph 26-28 mpg. Towing 5,000 pound camping trailer 18 mpg.
I'll take a less technical naturally aspirated v six with the same view economy as all that techno stuff on the new tacoma, and buy the nissan for considerably less money
After driving an EV for years, I found myself pushing a gas truck rental waaay harder than “normal” since they are so slow in comparison. The mpg was trash.
Wellll..you either want more power or more fuel efficiency..you can't have both unfortunately, atleast not currently in this application.. I WANT A 4X4, FUEL EFFICIENT, FAST, HIGHER CLEARANCE, AND TORQUE TO TOW! I SHOULD HAVE IT ALL DANG IT!
I think MPG is reaching its limits without electrification in the mix. But yeah, MPG isn't what manufactures are so worried about but rather it's emissions. Toyota has a ton of MPG wiggle room with the small hybrids in their fleet.
In the 1971 Tom Ogle invented a carborator that could get over 100 mpg buy reusing vapor from the fuel that the vehicle had in it's fuel tank. Bottom line, the oil companies had him killed and the invention never made it to the market of course. He had converted a 1972 Ford Thunderbird and was getting nearly 100 mpg and had racked up some insane amount of miles on this car with the system. The bottom line is the gas powered engine has lots of life to it but the tree hugging liberal commies forced these new admissions standards so hard and so fast the engine technology cannot evolve fast enough. My first vehicle was a 1984 Subaru that had a 1.8L I4 with 96 HP and could barely do 70-75 mph. It got 28 mpg highway and around 24-25 city. Today, I drive a 2017 Accord V6 Touring that has 3.5L V6 with nearly 300 Hp, and on the highway at 70-75 mph gets 36-37 mpg all day long. In town it averages around 25-26 mpg. In 29 years the evolution of the gas motor was enormous, but sadly the communist running this planet will not allow more evolution to happen.
Fuel economy is mostly a function of weight, aerodynamics, driveline efficiency and tire rolling resistance. Turbo 4-cylinders have fewer cylinders with less frictional losses compared to NA V6 and higher thermal efficiency. Idle time equals 0 MPG so if you do a lot of that your furl economy is going to suck regardless and the advantage of a hybrid.
Well I guess Toyota doesn't get the point of building a HYBRID version. 25 MPG is ridiculously low for a "mid sized" truck. Should be set to get at least 30 MPG. That's what you get when you design one engine package and use it in several new models though. Funny how the new Bigger Highlander Hybrid can get 36 MPG , and this is so bad. Sorry Toyota, guess I'll be looking elsewhere for my next vehicle.
Really like your content. Good comparison of MPG. Makes sense that all are in the same ballpark. All these trucks are roughly the same shape and use engines with roughly the same technology. If you multiply fuel efficiency by fuel tank size you realize that you really can't go all that far on a tank of gas with any of these. Was almost convinced on the I-Force max hybrid model but given high pricing of non-hybrid Tacomas, the lack of major efficiency gains and the rapidly improving charging infrastructure where I live, I'm 100% on Cybertruck. It may cost me $25k more to get a Tesla but you get 35" tires, way better highway ride quality, 48V infrastructure with adjustable suspension, plus autopilot for long drives. Sure charging on the highway will be a pain for a few years, but once V4 chargers become prevalent a "fill-up" with a Cybertruck will be on par with filling a 20 gallon tank on a mid-size truck.
Toyota focused on power over mpg, they could have given the Tacoma the same version of the 2.4T as the Highlander that gets a combined 25mpg but they chose not to. That combined with the worse aero gives us barely over V8 fuel economy in a midsize truck.
I just don't get why Toyota would take 3 gallons away from the 3rd get to the 4th, and have close to the same MPG. I could get about 300 miles on a tank in my 21 OR. Now, with a 3 gallon less tank, you might get 250. That's a big fail. Very disappointing.
Folks want the power increase and then get upset when the efficiency doesnt improve or goes down. If you can bench 500lbs and squat 800lbs you cant run a marathon lol. And if youre built to runa. Marathon you cant lift those kinds of weights. Want more efficiency then detune the engine to 250hp and 280lbft of torque. You will get better fuel economy
@@RSTi12BlueFord says you can get those numbers. But they had to make the vehicle aluminum dropping weight. And if you drive even slightly outside the conservative spectrum you loose efficiency. The best example of a decent mid point is the Ford though. The 2.7 turbo has like 325hp and 400lb of torque. Less power than a big V8 but more peppy because of the turbo. But actually gets decent gas and "tows" 10k lbs. Not well though because the F150 is light and the engine is a bit under powered for that weight. But at 8k lbs it's more than enough truck.
With the new Tacoma getting better mileage, Toyota probably figured that having a smaller fuel tank was 1) Provide the equivalent range 2) Would increase payload capacity
it's because all the small pick up trucks curb weight are over 4,200 pounds (in 4x2), so the 4x4's are probably sitting at +4,500 pounds. (for comparaison, my 2010 Dodge Dakota 4x2 is at 4,200 pounds looking to change for a 2024 Colorado 4x2 Turbomaxx). The Mavericks are sitting from 3.550 to 3,750pounds. The SWB Silverado 4x2 2.7L is sitting at 4,410 pounds. So, the Taco and Colorado are the same weight of a SWB 1500 trucks!!!
I have a 1988 Toyota 4cyl. CARBURETED 2wd that gets 31 MPG and a 1994 Toyota Fuel Injected 4cyl 4x4 with stock 31x10.50x15 tires that gets 21 MPG. Low 20's was the standard 30 years ago. Today's MPG are horrendous with these "technology evolved" engines.
Because CAFE standards take into consideration a vehicle's "footprint" (size) neither your 1988 nor 1994 could profitably be manufactured today. They're too small so they would need to do something like 60+ mpg in order to avoid fines. This is the reason why vehicle size keeps increasing because larger vehicles have lower target mpgs to hit.
@@ALMX5DP It's all irrelevant. MPG vs MPG. Once you start "using" that "more power" you no longer get the rated MPG. Try towing 6500lb with that new tacoma, your mpg will be 8 mpg if you're lucky
@@tbr2109 Ironic that the entire "purpose" of cafe standard was to increase mpg and use less gasoline, yet the opposite occurred as vehicle size increased using the same or less mpg and gasoline, all while making vehicles unaffordable in the process. That's the result of government intervention.
The GM HO 2.7L has some impressive HP and torque numbers I can only imagine how much internal pressure it has unless GM has not being truthful with the ratings
As far as duty cycle is concerned I have always maintained the Highlander is nothing more than a glorified mini-van. Just look at rear differential size as compared to 4Runner and you will see what I mean. Same reason Tacoma engine andnfuture 4Runner version is beefed up here.
All of these truck get between 400-430 mile on a tank of fuel. An to full a tank up between 53-70 bucks . Unless you’re hauling or pulling something heavy. Then good luck. Miles or money you choose.Good luck guys
If it had better fuel economy then people would complain that it has no power. I rather have more torque with slightly better fuel economy than better fuel economy and no power gains.
Fuel tank size is a bit of a bummer for both the Tacoma and Ranger (maybe even more so the Ranger since the global market vehicle has a 21 gallon tank). May not be a huge deal breaker for most, but having that extra reserve I think is very nice to have for a pickup in general.
@@Dusdaddy yup, i think 500 miles is not unreasonable in terms of a maximum ideal range. Not sure why, but my guess has something to do with the platform constraints (though still odd since the GX550 on the same one with a shorter wheelbase has a 21 gallon tank, so who knows).
@@ALMX5DP I'm betting it had to be something serious to the engineers because they damn well know everyone would come down on them regardless of how trivial the effect is. Kinda like some other truck maker and the infamous light switch....or lack thereof, lol.
@@rustynail7866 yeah but with diesel you pay a premium for that engine, and the fuel is a dollar more a gallon at the pump then there is DEF and more costly maintenance over the life of that vehicle.
@@kabloosh699 Diesel is more, but a full size truck getting 26/32 (actual) is worth it. Long term maintenance is about the same as gas. DEF runs about 30 bucks at the pump every 6K.
The most important factor is that the Tacoma will last longer with fewer problems than all the others. A couple mpg difference is not worth obsessing over.
Tim, I don't believe I've seen anyone address the stop/start on the Tacoma yet and I hear it has it. What can you tell us about it? Is it defeatable so you can turn it off permanently or only temporarily shut it off with each cycling of the engine? Does it come on manual transmission models? Also, does it come on al the trim levels or have they spared the PRO and Trailhunter owners?
Have to turn it off every engine cycle. Comes on all trims, it’s an EPA thing and all brands have it. Hybrid does make it feel like auto start/stop doesn’t exist. You run on the battery at stops.
It's SOLELY to comply with government mandated emissions. The market has never been demanding turbos in their vehicles. The government is forcing manufacturers to produce vehicles that the public DO NOT want. Just look at the current EV fiasco.
@rustynail7866 The preproduction Tacoma only got around 21 mpg on one test drive by a youtuber. That's horrible. That's about what the 3rd Gen gets if not more
@@PHILLIPS8822 shouldnt pay attention to a first drive event as they arent testing fuel economy and are stopping and idling a ton to get the content they need in the short time they have their vehicles.
One of my favorite, yet most unreliable, trucks was a 2000 S10 ZR2 with a 5 speed manual. It would go about anywhere and I loved the 5 speed manual. I'm sure there will be way more electronic tech than I would want on a truck with this new Tacoma. It will be interesting to see your videos on the Tacoma.
I care about the range more than anything. The MPG and the tank capacity as a package. You'll hopefully never run a tank down to the last gallon. When you are towing, or on a trip and hit some slow traffic, or something comes up, people will wish for the extra.
With 8 speed dual clutch automatic transmission it should be no surprise the fuel economy is better than manual transmission. Manual transmissions are there only for the stubborn dinosaurs. The durability/reliabilty of these newer dual clutch transmissions is way better than those of automatics of years past. In fact the intelligent automatic transmission will place less stress on engine and driveline then typical dumb human dropping the clutch at high revs or lugging the engine at lower than prudent rpms.
Nice to have the choice for a manual transmission and it isn't just for stubborn dinosaurs it's also for those who simply enjoy a more engaged driving experience.
@@davidcmatson I drove manual transmissions vehicles for 15 years back when they were cheaper and automatics sucked. Last time I drove manual transmission car was in Germany about 8 years ago. Now I ride motorcycles if I want a truly engaging driving experience. Manual gearboxes are a burden in urban traffic and everyday driving. They do not make driving a puik-up truck more engaging. It’s a pick-up truck not a sports car.😂 There is always this small < 5% of vocal populace that demands things because they can. Toyota should charge a premium for this and then see how many are willing to pay.
Sad. You really can’t move beyond the fact you “think” you know what you’re talking about. Legend in your own mind huh….a small and lonely place no doubt😮😢😂😂😂😂
@@waynespringer501You don’t understand, they went to turbos because of stricter and stricter emissions requirements. The next step is full EV, no going back now.
@@smrtguy77777 It's not me that doesn't understand, when no one is purchasing those engines they will not be manufacturing them no matter what emissions mandates.
This guy is 100% paid by Toyota, as a ‘journalist’, he should know the tiny mpg improvement does not make sense changing from 6 to 4 cylinder, instead of comparing previous gen Tacoma to newest gen’s mpg, he went out of his way to compare to other brands to make a point the newest gen Tacoma mpg is not as bad when compared to other brand. Tell me this guy is not paid by Toyota? These ‘journalist’ has sign up with Toyota to go to their launch events to promote Toyota cars and their Channels, they don’t dare say anything bad about Toyota cars so they don’t get invited next time, that’s why he is full of shiiiet
Anecdotal maybe, but I watch many channels on cars and to me it seems noticeably evident that you have a strong bias towards Toyotas, a need to defend Toyota - BTW, I like Toyota's and happen to own one and the new Tacoma is on my radar
The small fuel tanks are all about maintaining payload and fuel economy. Fuel is heavy. All the current Turbo 4 cylinder trucks get worse Highway MPG than my 5.3L Trailboss. None of these Turbo engines are for fuel economy. They are for emissions. The funny part about that is these DI Turbo engines are much worse on emissions once they age a few years, far worse than a port injection NA engine will be down the road.
@@Dusdaddy mine is used for work around the farm, pulls trailer, ATVs/UTV. Take the family places and haul what I need too. Everyone is entitled to own one, some people it's impractical.
Link to the article: pickuptrucktalk.com/2023/12/2024-midsize-truck-mpg-horsepower-torque-and-fuel-tank-size/
I wonder how the mpg is if you drive it in Eco mode.
About a very small improvement. Eco doesn’t do a whole heck of a lot.
@@Pickuptrucktalk Hmm that's too bad. It definitely seems like they tuned the engine for high performance and not mpg. It would be cool if Eco mode had a more dramatic effect on efficiency.
The DC long bed Tacoma is 18' 9.5", 7.5" longer that the Gladiator at 18' 2".
Any light duty truck that is getting the same mpg's as its 1/4 ton brothers is not configured correctly
New gen truck with old gen MPG. This is what 8 years of progress looks like.
Doesn’t surprise me that the MT is less efficient. Even a conscientious driver would not shift early enough to keep the engine in the most efficient RPM range in city driving (plus downshifting is not as simple as just mashing the gas, so it isn’t super safe to always be lugging around with no ability to accelerate suddenly). Add to that the greater number of gears in the AT to suit a wider variety of situations, and wham you have notably better and more consistent fuel efficiency.
I have a 2021 Tacoma ! Just bought the 2024 and I have to say I love the turbo a lot better ! Just saying
People complaining about turbo 4 fuel mileage must drive inefficiently… I’m averaging 24+ highway mileage in my 23 Colorado z71 and 18 around town…
The mpg is disappointing when compared to the out going v6 and also when compared to its bigger brother the turbo v6 tundra. That's the problem.
A 4 cylinder engine can only move so much truck. Our average highway speeds are a lot higher than what the EPA uses to measure fuel economy.
Who was asking for more power in a mid-size truck? I wanted improved efficiency. Toyota has failed in learning from Honda’s mistakes. No one want hybrids for more power they want them for improved efficiency.
Should have kept the V8
V6.
Power looks like a disappointment to me. It falls short of the 2.7s (Ford and GM)
I was in Boerne, TX for Thanksgiving and saw a test mule. Spoke with the driver, he let me look inside but wouldn't let me sit in it. On the dash of the TRD Off-road it said 27mpg. I asked if it was the hybrid but he told me he wasn't aloud to talk about the truck. The truck didn't have the I-force Max badging but the logo had the blue tint.
Gas price here in NM is $2.38/gal. 😮
Mileage ratings by the government and manufacturers are typically not real world results.
My diesel gladiator still gets 24 mpg hand calculated on 39” tires. Terrible shame it was discontinued
The Tacoma is made in Mexico and priced like it’s made in Japan!
Look it's Samwise the brave!
I’ll take that compliment!
My F150 2.7L 4x4 crew gets better mpg than these
Yes, but longevity will be better than your F-150. Sorry it's a fact. Don't take my word for it though and be pissed off I spoke the truth. Go straight to Ford and they will tell you their quality sucks. 😂
@@JIPlatium 2.7 is a very proven engine. Without focusing on other aspects, I think powertrain longevity would be similar.
@@JIPlatium Quality and reliability are no different vs GM or Stellantis. And, the new Tundra has had a lot of issues.
I don't like Fords more than other brands, I just got a great deal when I bought it. I wouldn't buy any of them nowadays, especially any Marxist made UAW vehicles.
Ditto. I get 20 on a bad day. Full size 4WD. 25+ on the highway. (21 F150 Super Cab STX 4x4, 60k miles)
My 87 Toyota got about 20mpg back in the day. If the manufacturers made a truck that got 30mpg most people wouldn't buy it because it wouldn't look cool enough. It wouldn't have the capability, ground clearance, power, etc. You can't have it all. The Ford Maverick is a great example of the compromise of a truck with both economy and capability. These new midsize trucks are almost the size of a full size truck from 20+ years ago.
You are correct!
Your 87 Toyota made 14 horsepower and 16 torque though, this new engine makes a touch more and still gets similar gas mileage.
I don't understand why people think these new trucks should make 30+ mpg, as you said you can't have it all.
@@treefity350 True but my point is that no matter what lengths manufacturers go to for mpg they can't beat the laws of physics. It is pretty impressive that they can give us so much more power with similar MPG.
@@kennethisaac3799 gotcha, sorry about that I see what you're saying on a second read
Yep, and can you imagine the negative reviews a maker would get if their numbers didn't outdo the other guy? It's amazing where these trucks are compared to even 10 years ago. The Nissan seems to be in a great spot with its numbers but so many reviews will list it last.
Engine in new Taco the
T24A-FTS debuted in the 2022 Lexus NX350
Similar to A25A engine and kiddos it's not all about the gas mileage word on the street is pure emissions related.
When will everyone learn! Toyota tunes their engines to get nearly the same HP, torque and fuel economy no matter what engine is in the truck.
Wonder how the duty cycle compares between say the 3.6 in the Dodge charger compared to the 3.6 in the Jeep gladiator ? me thinks not so much .
Really just refers to engine testing and validation. So if they are identical, then not much. However that would mean that any engine which meets a more rigorous duty cycle will fair better in a lower stressed or used environment.
I just LOVE the all new Tacoma and i just LOVE there NEW high prices for 2024 too!!
Lmao
I always liked my fathers Ranger with duel tanks. As a kid,, there was something magical about flipping a switch and watching the fuel gauge go back up.
I'd love it if the offered as an option at least.
Might as well get a half ton like the f150. Can get better fuel economy with more space and capability also more likely to survive in a crash.
Agreed but it depends on the user. Some poeple want a smaller truck for parking. Or narrow trails.
It’s terrible since it barely above the v6.
Midsize trucks should at least be hitting 25-30 mpg. But getting as much as a full size pickup?? Smh
Tacoma: Too large and too expensive.
I'll wait for the Stout.
The fact that the standard size tundra fuel tank is almost the size of the taco tank is insane, a half ton truck should not have anything smaller than a 28gal minimum
Agreed, but most Tundras in the mix get the bigger 33gal unit. My Silverado is worse- there's no bigger tank option. 24gal doesn't go far enough w/ a trailer. That doesn't help the Tacoma though. Hopefully demand will drive an aftermarket plastic tank- like the Titan Tanks, but for gasoline applications.
Rather v6 that gets 18-21 mpg than 4 cylinder turbo that gets 19-22 mpg
Kinda feel the opposite. I love inline engines for their straight forward design (no pun intended). Easy access to the valve cover, intake/exhaust manifold and accessories/belts.
After driving a 3.5 Taco back to back with a 4.0 Taco, you can keep that tired weezing 3.5 V6. The 4 banger is going to be a very welcomed upgrade.
@@CACressida talk to me when it hits 300k miles on this turbo 4 cylinder truck. Same with the hybrid. I’d love to see reliability. Something has to give!
@@appleztooranges fact is very few owners keep their vehicles into that kind of mileage. But even if the engine does have issues such as needing a new turbo or something it's not really going to break the bank. I think many mainstream turbos run around $350-600 and being a 4 cylinder it should be easy to replace. Probably more expensive if any interior electronics start having issues, so focusing on just the engine is a very small fish in the large pond that is modern vehicles.
@@appleztooranges lol are you questioning Toyotas reliability? Let's name decades old Toyotas all time popular and reliable TURBO engines. 2JZGTE, 1JZGTE, 22RTE, 3SGTE, 1GGTE, 1KZT, 1VDFTV, 2LTE, 1HDFT, 1HDT.
From popular racing engines to hardcore workhorse engines, Toyota is no stranger to Turbo charging engines.
I have a 2023 ford ranger (2wd, don’t live in the snowbelt and zero interest in off roading. Going 60-65 mph I get in the low 30’s, epa is 26 hwy. it’s all how you drive and how fast. Might be interested in the Tacoma hybrid, but knowing Toyota it wouldn’t even get better then the Tacoma turbo, such is the state of Toyota now days.
I will be interested in the 2025 Ranger phev when it comes to North America in 2 years.
Would love a phev Tacoma but they are basically a anti ev company to the hilt
How does anyone know what the real life fuel economy is on the 2024 Tacoma is? How many 2024 Tacomas have been delivered? I really believe that many people are uninformed about why turbocharged 4 cylinder are being used in mid sized trucks. Fuel economy is secondary to meeting increasingly stringent emissions standards and still delivering the power that consumers want. There’s always going to be haters when changes are made. Auto manufacturers are simply responding to federal mandates while still producing a good product. They’re not saying we hate our customers so we’ll get rid of normally aspirated V6 and V8 engines. As far as fuel economy is concerned it takes a certain amount of power and fuel to move a fixed mass down the road regardless of whether your using a turbo 4 or a normally aspirated 6. Engineers can use engineering wizardry and tweaks to marginally increase fuel economy but they can’t change the laws of physics!
Sorry have you looked at the F-150 numbers? 2WD turbo 6 is 20/26/22, V8 is 17/25/20. Bigger truck with comparable fuel economy.
Wait until someone tests the truck with 35 inch KO2s and a lift.
I drove a 2000 Tacoma 3.4L V6 5 speed manual access cab for nearly 20 years. I averaged around 18 city and about 21-22 highway for the entire life of the vehicle. Granted, I knew how to milk each gear to maximize my mpg since I had been driving stick my entire life. I am confident when I eventually buy the new Tacoma MT I'll squeeze way more than 18 mpg city out of that truck.
With modern engine control system with knock sensor and the ability to retard timing you won’t see a significant difference in fuel economy with premium and regular under almost all conditions.
I think the issue is that it’s only 1 MPG more than last generation
And not significantly better than Tundra.
That being said, as you showed in video Tacoma mpg is similar to competition
Made me appreciate my 8 1/2 year old RAM Ecodiesel. Yes, I know the price of diesel and I also remember what it was before the 2020 presidential election. Everyday use 24 mpg. Highway 70 mph 26-28 mpg. Towing 5,000 pound camping trailer 18 mpg.
I'll take a less technical naturally aspirated v six with the same view economy as all that techno stuff on the new tacoma, and buy the nissan for considerably less money
After driving an EV for years, I found myself pushing a gas truck rental waaay harder than “normal” since they are so slow in comparison. The mpg was trash.
Wellll..you either want more power or more fuel efficiency..you can't have both unfortunately, atleast not currently in this application..
I WANT A 4X4, FUEL EFFICIENT, FAST, HIGHER CLEARANCE, AND TORQUE TO TOW! I SHOULD HAVE IT ALL DANG IT!
I think MPG is reaching its limits without electrification in the mix. But yeah, MPG isn't what manufactures are so worried about but rather it's emissions. Toyota has a ton of MPG wiggle room with the small hybrids in their fleet.
I think emissions is pointless. The air is already very clean.
In the 1971 Tom Ogle invented a carborator that could get over 100 mpg buy reusing vapor from the fuel that the vehicle had in it's fuel tank. Bottom line, the oil companies had him killed and the invention never made it to the market of course. He had converted a 1972 Ford Thunderbird and was getting nearly 100 mpg and had racked up some insane amount of miles on this car with the system.
The bottom line is the gas powered engine has lots of life to it but the tree hugging liberal commies forced these new admissions standards so hard and so fast the engine technology cannot evolve fast enough.
My first vehicle was a 1984 Subaru that had a 1.8L I4 with 96 HP and could barely do 70-75 mph. It got 28 mpg highway and around 24-25 city. Today, I drive a 2017 Accord V6 Touring that has 3.5L V6 with nearly 300 Hp, and on the highway at 70-75 mph gets 36-37 mpg all day long. In town it averages around 25-26 mpg. In 29 years the evolution of the gas motor was enormous, but sadly the communist running this planet will not allow more evolution to happen.
@@callofdutyguy9true... Because of emissions regulations though.
@@fubarmedic4222emission regulations ON FACTORIES. Fleet emissions is a very small impactor
Fuel economy is mostly a function of weight, aerodynamics, driveline efficiency and tire rolling resistance. Turbo 4-cylinders have fewer cylinders with less frictional losses compared to NA V6 and higher thermal efficiency. Idle time equals 0 MPG so if you do a lot of that your furl economy is going to suck regardless and the advantage of a hybrid.
Well I guess Toyota doesn't get the point of building a HYBRID version.
25 MPG is ridiculously low for a "mid sized" truck. Should be set to get at least 30 MPG.
That's what you get when you design one engine package and use it in several new models though.
Funny how the new Bigger Highlander Hybrid can get 36 MPG , and this is so bad.
Sorry Toyota, guess I'll be looking elsewhere for my next vehicle.
Really like your content. Good comparison of MPG. Makes sense that all are in the same ballpark. All these trucks are roughly the same shape and use engines with roughly the same technology. If you multiply fuel efficiency by fuel tank size you realize that you really can't go all that far on a tank of gas with any of these. Was almost convinced on the I-Force max hybrid model but given high pricing of non-hybrid Tacomas, the lack of major efficiency gains and the rapidly improving charging infrastructure where I live, I'm 100% on Cybertruck. It may cost me $25k more to get a Tesla but you get 35" tires, way better highway ride quality, 48V infrastructure with adjustable suspension, plus autopilot for long drives. Sure charging on the highway will be a pain for a few years, but once V4 chargers become prevalent a "fill-up" with a Cybertruck will be on par with filling a 20 gallon tank on a mid-size truck.
Man I could just watch videos on truck gas mileage that ALL get about the same all day long. They’re trucks…get what you like…fill it up and go…🙄
AMEN!
Toyota focused on power over mpg, they could have given the Tacoma the same version of the 2.4T as the Highlander that gets a combined 25mpg but they chose not to. That combined with the worse aero gives us barely over V8 fuel economy in a midsize truck.
Great video, well thought out and put together.
Much appreciated!
I just don't get why Toyota would take 3 gallons away from the 3rd get to the 4th, and have close to the same MPG. I could get about 300 miles on a tank in my 21 OR. Now, with a 3 gallon less tank, you might get 250. That's a big fail. Very disappointing.
Folks want the power increase and then get upset when the efficiency doesnt improve or goes down. If you can bench 500lbs and squat 800lbs you cant run a marathon lol. And if youre built to runa. Marathon you cant lift those kinds of weights. Want more efficiency then detune the engine to 250hp and 280lbft of torque. You will get better fuel economy
You should make videos with your common sense.
Look at Ford F150 with ecoboost. It got better mpg with little more power and a little heavier, too.
On my 40th b'day I could bench 300, and run 5 miles. I had friends that could bench more and knew people that could run further. I felt unique.
@@sharkskin3448when I was in the army I could bench 450 and run 8 miles. Did neither without pain and wasn't the best at either one. 🤣🤣🤣
@@RSTi12BlueFord says you can get those numbers. But they had to make the vehicle aluminum dropping weight. And if you drive even slightly outside the conservative spectrum you loose efficiency. The best example of a decent mid point is the Ford though. The 2.7 turbo has like 325hp and 400lb of torque. Less power than a big V8 but more peppy because of the turbo. But actually gets decent gas and "tows" 10k lbs. Not well though because the F150 is light and the engine is a bit under powered for that weight. But at 8k lbs it's more than enough truck.
With the new Tacoma getting better mileage, Toyota probably figured that having a smaller fuel tank was 1) Provide the equivalent range 2) Would increase payload capacity
it's because all the small pick up trucks curb weight are over 4,200 pounds (in 4x2), so the 4x4's are probably sitting at +4,500 pounds. (for comparaison, my 2010 Dodge Dakota 4x2 is at 4,200 pounds looking to change for a 2024 Colorado 4x2 Turbomaxx). The Mavericks are sitting from 3.550 to 3,750pounds. The SWB Silverado 4x2 2.7L is sitting at 4,410 pounds. So, the Taco and Colorado are the same weight of a SWB 1500 trucks!!!
I have a 1988 Toyota 4cyl. CARBURETED 2wd that gets 31 MPG and a 1994 Toyota Fuel Injected 4cyl 4x4 with stock 31x10.50x15 tires that gets 21 MPG. Low 20's was the standard 30 years ago. Today's MPG are horrendous with these "technology evolved" engines.
How much power did they make? Also consider weight, safety or other features and overall size.
@@ALMX5DPright? This dude is like "my truck that has 7 horsepower got the same amount of MPGs"
Because CAFE standards take into consideration a vehicle's "footprint" (size) neither your 1988 nor 1994 could profitably be manufactured today. They're too small so they would need to do something like 60+ mpg in order to avoid fines. This is the reason why vehicle size keeps increasing because larger vehicles have lower target mpgs to hit.
@@ALMX5DP It's all irrelevant. MPG vs MPG. Once you start "using" that "more power" you no longer get the rated MPG. Try towing 6500lb with that new tacoma, your mpg will be 8 mpg if you're lucky
@@tbr2109 Ironic that the entire "purpose" of cafe standard was to increase mpg and use less gasoline, yet the opposite occurred as vehicle size increased using the same or less mpg and gasoline, all while making vehicles unaffordable in the process. That's the result of government intervention.
The GM HO 2.7L has some impressive HP and torque numbers I can only imagine how much internal pressure it has unless GM has not being truthful with the ratings
As far as duty cycle is concerned I have always maintained the Highlander is nothing more than a glorified mini-van. Just look at rear differential size as compared to 4Runner and you will see what I mean. Same reason Tacoma engine andnfuture 4Runner version is beefed up here.
This is very helpful Tim. Range is most important to me, and guides my buying decision. Not many good options anymore.
Find a diesel gladiator for sale. Stock mine easily reached 500 miles. On 39s I still get 420-430 miles
As always haters are going to hate. Tim I'm also told I talk to fast. Its not us, they hear to slow.😂
They hear too slow. 😂
All of these truck get between 400-430 mile on a tank of fuel. An to full a tank up between 53-70 bucks . Unless you’re hauling or pulling something heavy. Then good luck. Miles or money you choose.Good luck guys
If it had better fuel economy then people would complain that it has no power. I rather have more torque with slightly better fuel economy than better fuel economy and no power gains.
Fuel tank size is a bit of a bummer for both the Tacoma and Ranger (maybe even more so the Ranger since the global market vehicle has a 21 gallon tank). May not be a huge deal breaker for most, but having that extra reserve I think is very nice to have for a pickup in general.
Good point. Honestly, I just hate having to stop often to get gas. I wonder why Toyota went smaller. Weight and balance?
@@Dusdaddy yup, i think 500 miles is not unreasonable in terms of a maximum ideal range. Not sure why, but my guess has something to do with the platform constraints (though still odd since the GX550 on the same one with a shorter wheelbase has a 21 gallon tank, so who knows).
@@ALMX5DP I'm betting it had to be something serious to the engineers because they damn well know everyone would come down on them regardless of how trivial the effect is. Kinda like some other truck maker and the infamous light switch....or lack thereof, lol.
If you want good fuel economy, get a small car!
Or a 3.0 duramax.
@@rustynail7866 yeah but with diesel you pay a premium for that engine, and the fuel is a dollar more a gallon at the pump then there is DEF and more costly maintenance over the life of that vehicle.
well then if you want a truck?.... get a one ton .
@rodgood But not everyone who wants a truck needs a 1 ton
@@kabloosh699 Diesel is more, but a full size truck getting 26/32 (actual) is worth it. Long term maintenance is about the same as gas. DEF runs about 30 bucks at the pump every 6K.
You are a journalist? I thought I saw you working at McDonalds drive though the other day. Lol. Merry Christmas
My twin brother!
The most important factor is that the Tacoma will last longer with fewer problems than all the others. A couple mpg difference is not worth obsessing over.
My gut tells me the hybrids will increase MPG where Toyota will try to upsell people on that.
Naw they will sell you on the additional power
Tim, I don't believe I've seen anyone address the stop/start on the Tacoma yet and I hear it has it. What can you tell us about it? Is it defeatable so you can turn it off permanently or only temporarily shut it off with each cycling of the engine? Does it come on manual transmission models? Also, does it come on al the trim levels or have they spared the PRO and Trailhunter owners?
Have to turn it off every engine cycle. Comes on all trims, it’s an EPA thing and all brands have it. Hybrid does make it feel like auto start/stop doesn’t exist. You run on the battery at stops.
@@Pickuptrucktalk thanks for the reply! I had heard the manual didn't have it, but I know other manufactures have it on manuals.
Why go turbo if you aren’t getting the efficiency…
better power/torque without a hit in fuel economy.
It's SOLELY to comply with government mandated emissions. The market has never been demanding turbos in their vehicles. The government is forcing manufacturers to produce vehicles that the public DO NOT want. Just look at the current EV fiasco.
Emissions
@rustynail7866 The preproduction Tacoma only got around 21 mpg on one test drive by a youtuber. That's horrible. That's about what the 3rd Gen gets if not more
@@PHILLIPS8822 shouldnt pay attention to a first drive event as they arent testing fuel economy and are stopping and idling a ton to get the content they need in the short time they have their vehicles.
One of my favorite, yet most unreliable, trucks was a 2000 S10 ZR2 with a 5 speed manual. It would go about anywhere and I loved the 5 speed manual. I'm sure there will be way more electronic tech than I would want on a truck with this new Tacoma. It will be interesting to see your videos on the Tacoma.
Hybrids and small displacement turbo engines getting worse mileage. 🤣 Toyota is turning their engine tech into marketing BS.
I care about the range more than anything. The MPG and the tank capacity as a package. You'll hopefully never run a tank down to the last gallon. When you are towing, or on a trip and hit some slow traffic, or something comes up, people will wish for the extra.
With 8 speed dual clutch automatic transmission it should be no surprise the fuel economy is better than manual transmission. Manual transmissions are there only for the stubborn dinosaurs. The durability/reliabilty of these newer dual clutch transmissions is way better than those of automatics of years past. In fact the intelligent automatic transmission will place less stress on engine and driveline then typical dumb human dropping the clutch at high revs or lugging the engine at lower than prudent rpms.
Nice to have the choice for a manual transmission and it isn't just for stubborn dinosaurs it's also for those who simply enjoy a more engaged driving experience.
@@davidcmatson I drove manual transmissions vehicles for 15 years back when they were cheaper and automatics sucked. Last time I drove manual transmission car was in Germany about 8 years ago.
Now I ride motorcycles if I want a truly engaging driving experience.
Manual gearboxes are a burden in urban traffic and everyday driving. They do not make driving a puik-up truck more engaging. It’s a pick-up truck not a sports car.😂
There is always this small < 5% of vocal populace that demands things because they can. Toyota should charge a premium for this and then see how many are willing to pay.
Life really must be tough on you. Sorry you’re so miserable big fella 😢😢😢
@@davidcmatson 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Change is brutal and hard to accept especially for dinosaurs🦕. They proved when you are unable to adapt you become extinct.
Sad. You really can’t move beyond the fact you “think” you know what you’re talking about. Legend in your own mind huh….a small and lonely place no doubt😮😢😂😂😂😂
Bring back the V6!
Toyota says they listen to customers but they actually don’t. They’re the biggest and they know best. Pass the KoolAid….
I’m looking forward to an aftermarket turbo delete that will improve fuel economy. I’m sure it will sell like hotcakes.
After the 3rd year refresh will offer without turbos after they see how weak their sales are with them.
@@waynespringer501You don’t understand, they went to turbos because of stricter and stricter emissions requirements. The next step is full EV, no going back now.
@@smrtguy77777and yet the Nissan has a V6 and so does the Ford
@@smrtguy77777 It's not me that doesn't understand, when no one is purchasing those engines they will not be manufacturing them no matter what emissions mandates.
@@marklihsu those are outgoing engines.
This guy is 100% paid by Toyota, as a ‘journalist’, he should know the tiny mpg improvement does not make sense changing from 6 to 4 cylinder, instead of comparing previous gen Tacoma to newest gen’s mpg, he went out of his way to compare to other brands to make a point the newest gen Tacoma mpg is not as bad when compared to other brand. Tell me this guy is not paid by Toyota? These ‘journalist’ has sign up with Toyota to go to their launch events to promote Toyota cars and their Channels, they don’t dare say anything bad about Toyota cars so they don’t get invited next time, that’s why he is full of shiiiet
Anecdotal maybe, but I watch many channels on cars and to me it seems noticeably evident that you have a strong bias towards Toyotas, a need to defend Toyota - BTW, I like Toyota's and happen to own one and the new Tacoma is on my radar
It’s funny. I get called biased towards all brands from time to time. Not sure why.
If you can afford 60k Tacoma. Mpg is last thing on your mind 😅😅😅
Exactly.
Not sure that applies in an age where the average vehicle transaction price is in the high $40k range now.
The small fuel tanks are all about maintaining payload and fuel economy. Fuel is heavy.
All the current Turbo 4 cylinder trucks get worse Highway MPG than my 5.3L Trailboss.
None of these Turbo engines are for fuel economy. They are for emissions. The funny part about that is these DI Turbo engines are much worse on emissions once they age a few years, far worse than a port injection NA engine will be down the road.
Nobody buys a truck for the fuel economy. I don't know when we came to expect great mpg from a truck
Why not ask it to do both? Why settle for the short end of the stick? Let it be a true truck, but I don't mind the frosting of better fuel mileage.
Exactly. It's been like this for years...trucks have pretty poor MPG
Plenty of people value fuel economy, especially if it's for work and better fuel economy means less off their bottom line.
When we started buying them and using them as the daily driver just to get to work where they sit in a parking lot all day.
@@Dusdaddy mine is used for work around the farm, pulls trailer, ATVs/UTV. Take the family places and haul what I need too. Everyone is entitled to own one, some people it's impractical.
People who can afford to pay crazy prices for these trucks these days don’t worry about mpg
Correct.