MPGs - Many People Griping - A Foundational Knowledge Primer To Assist in Better Efficiency

[l00semarble]

Not responsible for you running highly inefficient rubber. Not sure why you off roader types don't just mount up your hardcore rubber for the off road work..like we track guys do with our slicks. Takes 15 minutes to switch over. I know, I know, its all about the LOOK! But at expense of wet weather traction, noise, etc. Nothing worse than a 50+-75% worn off road tire with no sipes.

I feel like this overlooks the whole value proposition/concept of a Land Cruiser. Some of us like to explore and any way you cut it we use long stretches of pavement to get to cool places. Carrying a full 2nd set of wheels/tires in/on the vehicle is just not practical. AT tires have come a long way and work quite well for combination driving with some acceptable tradeoffs. Unless your rig is only an offroad rig and goes places on a trailer swapping tires at the edge of the pavement does not make practical sense.

 

[RideWithYanu]

I feel like this overlooks the whole value proposition/concept of a Land Cruiser. Some of us like to explore and any way you cut it we use long stretches of pavement to get to cool places. Carrying a full 2nd set of wheels/tires in/on the vehicle is just not practical. AT tires have come a long way and work quite well for combination driving with some acceptable tradeoffs. Unless your rig is only an offroad rig and goes places on a trailer swapping tires at the edge of the pavement does not make practical sense.

Yeah that’s a silly notion unless it’s a trailered rock crawler-type situation. In which case, I’d question the J250 as the vehicle of choice.

I’m off roading my daily driver J250 2-3 times a week - there’s no way I’m swapping wheel sets . But I’m also not complaining about MPG. I simply don’t care much about it.

 

[imann777]

Ok just to settle the dust on the Fuel tank conversation on LC250, here is the brief synopsis on the LC 250 Fuel Tank and Low Level Fuel Warning Light and its related capacity.
1. Vehicle without Sub Fuel tank indicates the remaining fuel is approximately 14.6L ( 3.8US Gal)or when Fuel low level warning Light On
2. Vehicle with Sub Fuel Tank ( if equipped) Most Middle East Model & China and Africa have this equipped, Indicates that remaining fuel is approximately 22.5L( 5.9US Gal or less if the light comes on

Now here is the other Fuel Warning Light,( Buzzer) sometime may come up, if the amount of accumulated water in the fuel filter has reached the specified level or if the light flashes ,in then it maybe also the Fuel System .

The T24A-FTS engine uses a direct injection 4 stroke gasoline engine superior version with Turbo (D4ST) system which has both direct and port type fuel injection. Fuel sent from the fuel pump ( for low pressure side) in teh fuel assembly is delivered to the low pressure and high pressure fuel systems. The fuel delivered to the low pressure fuel system is injected from the port fuel injector assy to the intake port. The fuel delivered to the high pressure fuel system is pressurized by the fuel ( engine room side) pump assy for high pressure side and injected from the DFI ( direct fuel injector ) assy to the combustion chamber.

1. Models equipped with a 80 Litres ( 84..5 US qts, 70.4 Imp qts)capacity "RESIN Fuel Tank assy ( Models with Single Tank)
2. Model equipped with Dual Tank (Main Tank 80 Litres ( 84..5 US qts, 70.4 Imp qts)capacity "RESIN Fuel Tank assy and a 30 Litres ( 31.7US qts, 26.4 Imp qts) capacity resin fuel sub tank assy
3. By using a resin fuel tank assembly, weight reduction has been achieved.
4. A quick connector is used at each connection of the fuel pipes in consideration of serviceability and reducing the number of perils.
5. A center direct injection system with the direct fuel injector assemblies and fuel delivery pipe sub assembly ( for direct injection) located on top of engine is used.
6. A fuel returnless system is used for low pressure fuel control and is performed by the fuel suction tube with pump and gauge assy and fuel main valve assy.
7. High Pressure fuel system control is performed by the fuel( Engine room side) pump assy ( for high pressure side) and the spill control valve.
8. A fuel leak prevention is installed which turns off the fuel pump ( low pressure side) during collision, when the airbag if deployed occurs is used ensuring safety.
9. Most of the Duel fuel tanks models uses Jet Pump. This is unlike any model Toyota has done before. Because the Fuel tanks are positioned on either side of the chassis on the same level , that is why the jet pump has been provided to transfer the fuel from Fuel sub tank assy to the main fuel tank . This is accomplished for utilizing the flow of the fuel through the jet pump so that the pressure difference, which is created by the fuel as it passes through the venturi is used to suck the fuel out of sub tank.

Hope this clarifies the knowledge to all

 

[Doggman1525]

Yeah that’s a silly notion unless it’s a trailered rock crawler-type situation. In which case, I’d question the J250 as the vehicle of choice.

I’m off roading my daily driver J250 2-3 times a week - there’s no way I’m swapping wheel sets . But I’m also not complaining about MPG. I simply don’t care much about it.

Agreed, if you have a lifestyle that affords opportunities to recreate like this throughout the week it wouldn't make much sense but for the weekend warriors among us swapping tires Friday night for a couple of days of running trails and camping then back on with the street shoes Sunday night in prep for the work week isn't entirely ridiculous - if (big if) you have the storage space, the right tools and perhaps a spare teenager dumb enough to say "I'm bored" to your face and therefore clearly in need of being given more chores, it's like a 10 minute job to swap wheels.

 

[teghogh]

Now that's what I like to hear!!! 19x23=437!!! It seems everyone is putting in huge reserves these days and capacity is based on first click off of the pump. My Stelvio, like clockwork takes another 1.5 gallons after initial shut off.....go beyond 1.5gallon and it is stuffed pretty quick. That extra 20-25 miles was that extra 1.1+ gallon. NOw how is brave enough to suck the car dry? Do I hear 19.5???!!!

Do you really want to drive on reserve with no idea of when it will run out ? Similar to ev anxiety. Not to mention it is bad for the fuel pump

 

[ultane]

Okay here's an interesting piece of information to add to this issue. I decided to let my tank run down past indicated empty and indicated zero range. I drove maybe another 20 to 25 miles but I didn't keep track of it exactly because I didn't notice exactly when the gauge went to zero.

But the point is I drove it for a while after empty and then just now I brimmed the tank until it's splashed out and put over 19 gallons in assuming I can trust a regulated/ inspected pump.

I usually pump in about 15 gallons if I'm down near empty so this extra reserve in the tank is significant. Also seem surprising that they rate the tank 17.9 but I got over a gallon more than that. I guess some is in the filler neck but still seems like a big discrepancy.

View attachment 44539

As I have mentioned several times in the past, The Car Care Nut warns NOT to add gasoline after the gas pump shuts off the FIRST TIME. Otherwise you will fill the charcoal canister with gasoline, which ruins it. They are NOT cheap to buy, and NOT cheap to replace. (DAMHIKT)

 

[ultane]

I drive my GF from Cherokee County NC to Murfreesboro Tenn today. 45 to 55 mph on two lane highways, 60 mph on the interstates, and Miss Daisy got 30.2 mph on the interstate, but buy the time I got to the Dr.’s Office, it had dropped to 30.0 mpg.

Stock Michelin’s at 33 psi, Eco mode, & 93 octane E0 fuel.

 

[perigree]

Anyone else using eco mode? This is probably the first car I’ve had where “eco” mode makes a meaningful change to drivetrain behavior.

Maybe it’s copium but I don’t think it only reduces power demand from gas pedal input. From using it, it seems to go to battery only mode much more aggressively which has helped me bump my mpg on street and lower speed highway driving.

I don’t consistently drive in eco mode, only swap to it when I’m in stop and go or slower traffic.

Currently getting 21mpg consistently in my 2025 1958 LC with 265/70R18 Falken AT4Ws E Load @ 36PSI. No other modifications to the vehicle aerodynamics like roof rack, or front air damn delete.

 

[supernova]

On my LC LC my total average is 21.4 (range 342), if I drive both on highway and clogged Houston streets. If I only drive on city streets for a while it drops down to 21.1
I have seen going though these forums is that 1958 editions are giving better mileage. Maybe because most LC LC have roof rails and they might be affecting the mpg

 

[MHead]

A recent trip from Manchester Vt to Boston in my 1958, on stock skinny tires - 35 psi, recorded 26.1 MPG in ECO mode...It has the optional roof rack and sliders. AC was on the entire trip.

I have owned a bunch of LCs and have never got this gas mileage ... Still have a 40 and an 80. If either of these get better than 12 MPG, I consider that great.

But...I never bought a LC thinking about fuel economy ....until this one. Frankly, I am pleased.

 

[Sugarloafer80]

I feel like this overlooks the whole value proposition/concept of a Land Cruiser. Some of us like to explore and any way you cut it we use long stretches of pavement to get to cool places. Carrying a full 2nd set of wheels/tires in/on the vehicle is just not practical. AT tires have come a long way and work quite well for combination driving with some acceptable tradeoffs. Unless your rig is only an offroad rig and goes places on a trailer swapping tires at the edge of the pavement does not make practical sense.

That's like saying slicks are fine on the street because their grip is so awesome. Never said carry 2 sets of tires. Mount up the offroad rubber when you go offroad. Many of us hate listening to all that singing loud rubber on our public roads. You are going on an offroad trip. Great. Run the tires. When you get back home, loose the ego and run the street tires. Save the tread depth so it can be at its best. Cuse for being a contrarian on a Land Cruiser site, but the big offroad tire crowd aren't any better than the Hondas with fart cans or silly camber. I know I poked the bear but maybe your side of the aisle doesn't even realize the way the rest of the world see you...nor do you care, of course. A little discretion can go a long way.

 

[Sugarloafer80]

As I have mentioned several times in the past, The Car Care Nut warns NOT to add gasoline after the gas pump shuts off the FIRST TIME. Otherwise you will fill the charcoal canister with gasoline, which ruins it. They are NOT cheap to buy, and NOT cheap to replace. (DAMHIKT)View attachment 44588

Who the hell is the Car Care Nut? Design has changed in the last 50yrs.................otherwise half the cars in the country would experience this kind of failure. Like I said elsewhere, I have not heard of this kind of failure in 25+ years. They don't put them at fill level anymore. In the beginning, it was stupid design.
I checked and just as I expected, just another YouTube self proclaimed expert wanker. These guys will say anything for a subscribe. Please have him show the failure rate........otherwise he's just talkin out his wazoo.

 

[COSmurf]

On my LC LC my total average is 21.4 (range 342), if I drive both on highway and clogged Houston streets. If I only drive on city streets for a while it drops down to 21.1
I have seen going though these forums is that 1958 editions are giving better mileage. Maybe because most LC LC have roof rails and they might be affecting the mpg

The 58s also come with skinnier and smaller tires so that helps rolling resistance. I can’t imagine what kinda mileage I would have been able to get if I was driving a base 1958 around since I was easily getting 23-25 on my factory 265 70 R18s setup with roof rack, sliders, and skid plates before I swapped out to larger, heavier tires. I did not buy the car for MPGs… I had heard the complaints about lower than EPA ratings and have been pleasantly surprised to the upside in my own experience.

 

[RideWithYanu]

Who the hell is the Car Care Nut? Design has changed in the last 50yrs.................otherwise half the cars in the country would experience this kind of failure. Like I said elsewhere, I have not heard of this kind of failure in 25+ years. They don't put them at fill level anymore. In the beginning, it was stupid design.
I checked and just as I expected, just another YouTube self proclaimed expert wanker. These guys will say anything for a subscribe. Please have him show the failure rate........otherwise he's just talkin out his wazoo.

The Car Care Nut is renowned for his massive expertise in vehicle maintenance, especially Toyotas, especially Toyota trucks. He knows more than the rest of us combined.

 

[Bajacruzzer]

All I know is if you use Cali gas the gas mileage is bad. I think the best gas mileage on the freeway/interstate is rolling at 80 mph. My 58 thinks that best for gas mileage, I hover around 23.8/24.4 mpg at that speed. The mileage is always better once you cross the Cali border headed anywhere and the gas mileage gets better with each tank of gas. So the moral of the story here is, get out of Cali and you won’t complain about MPG’s again…

 

[mav]

There is a lot of conversation around the small gas tank and bad gas mileage (and correspondingly low overall range) for the LC250 so I figured it might be useful to address some of the basics around how the forced induction impacts fuel consumption so people can adjust their expectations and behaviors.

"Well anybody who can afford this car, shouldn't care about gas mileage because they can afford the gas!" - Well I most definitely can afford the gas, and premium at that, but being very far off of advertised EPA estimates is worthy of being upsetting even if one can afford to pay for gas and expensive gas even.

"The hybrid system in the LC250 isn't designed for fuel efficiency, but for low end power, so get over it". - Well yes, it's not BIASED toward the explicit goal of extracting maximum fuel efficiency, but by definition, the electric boost results in recaptured energy otherwise wasted and dissipated as heat via the brakes, and instead adds torque and power to the wheels, which necessarily translates to forward motion that otherwise wouldn't exist in the absence of the hybrid system. So either way, it generates more power and forward motion vs a non-hybrid system, even if its BIAS is more for supplementing power or filling holes in the power band while the turbo spools, etc.

"Toyota is silly, their ECO mode isn't actually better for MPGs, put it in Normal or Sport mode". - I love how people extoll the virtues of Toyota engineering and how they are very intentional with design and then decide that they actually programmed ECO mode to be less economical than Normal or Sport because they don't like the slower responses and compensate by being heavy footed during ECO mode and end up keeping the motor in boost a lot and wonder why ECO isn't getting them better mileage. You can't counteract ECO by being lead footed to offset slightly slower responses and acceleration, it's self defeating.

Without splitting hairs too finely and getting down to stoichiometric specifics regarding rich vs lean air fuel ratios run on the T24A - FTS, one can use the engine displacement (2.4L), compression ratio (11.0:1) and various boost pressures of the turbo, to get some understanding of back of the envelope naturally aspirated equivalent for various boost pressures from the turbo. After all, engines and the way they generate power is all just a giant pump of air and fuel. Think of the turbo as displacement on demand. So here we go:

1) No boost - 2.4L engine
2) 10 PSI boost - 4.03L engine
3) 15 PSI boost - 4.85L engine
4) 20 PSI boost - 6.07L engine

So if you're easy on the pedal and more importantly in ECO mode and driving smoothly (vs abruptly accelerating and winding up the turbo boost pressures), it consumes the fuel equivalent of the above stated naturally aspirated engines at the various loads described. If you're constantly at 10 PSI of boost, you're roughly ingesting and burning up the air/fuel of a 4L engine for those moments. The car is too heavy and big to be operating as solely a 2.4L 4 cylinder, for lots of the time, but to be under low single digits of boost for periods vs 10+ lbs makes quite a difference for fuel economy. I never hesitate to call on its full power when I need to accelerate quickly, I am merely pointing this out to the countless people who are confused as to why their fuel economy is low when they wind up the motor quite often and spend a lot of time in boost. Separately, the hybrid electric assist can also be thought of as additional displacement equivalent roughly equating to ~0.8L across the entire range. so factor that in as well (but this doesn't cost us any additional fuel, so is really quite a neat perk). Now add that back in and suddenly being a 2.4L supplemented by a 0.8L of equivalent electric power sounds a lot more reasonable at 3.2L displacement equivalent.

Fuelly shows an average of ~19 MPGs mixed for the LC250 and I think between this forum and that site, there is selection bias for LC/car enthusiasts that have a penchant for modifying their cars and in the case of the LC, typically upsizing their wheels and tires and lifting them, adding armor etc, which reduces MPGs. With stock suspension and tires, the LC has no issues being able to reach its EPA ratings if driven reasonably, and without calling on its full power potential constantly.

I just passed the 10K mark and I am consistently getting slightly below the EPA's 23 MPG estimate (22-23) around town (10-15 minute commute, 20 MPH to 45 MPH zones) and slightly ABOVE the EPA's 25 MPG estimate (26-27) on highway. But I have to baby COSmurf described above (i.e., I keep it around 59 MPH in 55 MPH zone and around 62 in 65/70 MPH zones) and I avoid any unnecessary accelerations up hlil (i.e., I will wait to pass on the downhill). I too thought it didn't matter if I was in ECO or Normal mode when I first got the vehicle but I've discovered on the highway staying in ECO and using cruise control helps smooth things out (unlike with my wife's Honda which seems to get worse gas mileage when cruise control is engaged because it wants to accelerate up hills to maintain speed, etc.).