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

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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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…
 
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.).
 
My UK 2.8 diesel was showing over 36 mpg (UK Gallons not US) after a motorway 100 mile trip with strong reliance on cruise control
 
All stock LC LC in "Normal" mode. I cannot get even close to 29MPG. Last week I purposely drove at 64-67 mph on 100 miles round trip. As a result-22.1 MPG. But I can get about 27-28mpg on country roads driving about 50 mph.
Is she broken in? After 4 to 5K on the odometer, the MPGs increase.
 
We have AdBlue and the DPF filters and all the stuff that the EU mandated - would think we are as regulated as you but I dont have the details
 
400 break in miles so far on new LC...getting 21.5 to 22.5 in combined street and highway driving in DFW area of N Texas. With DFW traffic, there is a lot of stop-and-go activity. Looking forward to some extended highway driving soon, but for my everyday driver...so far so good.
Note - Leaving the LC in ECO mode, and using 91 octane fuel. LC is equipped with 20" Yokohama Geolander X-CV's
. LC Yokohama.jpg
 
here is a tactic i use. cruise control as often as i can. take your foot off the accelerator. let the vehicle stop and accelerate. on its own, you will find it using electric mode a good deal of the time, especially at speeds below 35mph on flat ground. i have it in electric mode at 65mph on slight downhill freeway areas.
 
Road trip MPG report:

(I usually get 17-18 MPG average with my typical driving -> short city drives + 80+mph windy interstate road trips loaded with bikes and cargo box. Also I have modest AT tires.)

I recently went on a 2400mi road trip from southern Idaho to the Canadian rockies/interior BC. It was almost entirely on 2-line highways, going 50-65 mph. No bikes this time, but I did have a roof cargo box. The average over the entire trip was 22mpg which was quite nice! That is enough extra range to make gas stops feel normally spaced out. Once i got back and filled up it showed 327mi of range on a full tank, which is a nice sight when I'm used to seeing a depressing 260mi.

TLDR - 17 to 22 mpg is a pretty big jump, and I didn't change anything about how i drive... it was just a change in what I was driving.

Also, i gotta say, i think the measurement in L/100km, while super awkward at first since it is inverted, is a far superior way to measure fuel economy, it just makes more sense. Fuel used per distance travelled is quite logical, higher is bad because more means more fuel consumed. The limits of no fuel consumed vs infinite distance travelled also are more logical :cool:

But It was fun/weird at first to see the MPG meter work in reverse though!
 
400 break in miles so far on new LC...getting 21.5 to 22.5 in combined street and highway driving in DFW area of N Texas. With DFW traffic, there is a lot of stop-and-go activity. Looking forward to some extended highway driving soon, but for my everyday driver...so far so good.
Note - Leaving the LC in ECO mode, and using 91 octane fuel. LC is equipped with 20" Yokohama Geolander X-CV's
. View attachment 45203
Thanks for confirming they are the G057 variant with an OD of 32.3
 
here is a tactic i use. cruise control as often as i can. take your foot off the accelerator. let the vehicle stop and accelerate. on its own, you will find it using electric mode a good deal of the time, especially at speeds below 35mph on flat ground. i have it in electric mode at 65mph on slight downhill freeway areas.
Straight cruise control works much better than adaptive which just tailgates the vehicle in front of it and flucuates with them. I shut it off ALWAYS.
 
I’m very happy you’re finding this stuff helpful. Regarding the throttle modulation, I kind of do the sharp but shallow-ish or medium push throttle to get full electric boost and then back off of it more gradually when I’m doing city driving where there is more light to light driving. It’s almost like you pulse the pedal but back off as turbo boost starts spooling up unless you need to keep accelerating hard. In city driving I find I’m not usually on throttle for long periods of time and I believe this is what is described in prior posts as Pulse and Glide by BlueCruiser who must be an absolute pro at hybrid driving. This is my very first hybrid and I can’t get 29 MPGs like he seems to be able to get reasonably consistently. I get about 23 MPGs in the city when I mess around with this stuff and am not in a hurry or rush to get somewhere. That’s insane to me… I could get 21-22 MPGs on a super flat highway at steady speed without any brake use in my 4Runner if all conditions were perfect and here I am in my LC getting 23 MPGs with much heavier and 1” larger diameter tires in stop and go city driving!

By no means do I always drive this way but it’s kinda fun to know if I need to extend my tank range or just am not in a hurry this car is capable of getting really good (relative) mileage.

Here I am city driving at 40 MPH with engine off and just electric boost gauge showing assist.
LC Newbie - how do I replicate the dashboard screen shown in your attachment?
 
here is a tactic i use. cruise control as often as i can. take your foot off the accelerator. let the vehicle stop and accelerate. on its own, you will find it using electric mode a good deal of the time, especially at speeds below 35mph on flat ground. i have it in electric mode at 65mph on slight downhill freeway areas.
Welcome to the Asylum.
 
Supporting Vendors View all →
Air Down Gear
Back
Top Bottom