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

[teghogh]

Not embarrassed one bit, I made a mistake and missed a few details and got tired of researching, simple as that. If I were embarrassed, I'd just delete or edit the post.

Rather than do the math why don't you put a tape measure to the tread width, I would like to see what it actually measures to and may help others trying to decide what tires to run? While you're at it measuring installed height on LC would be nice as well. The pictures of them show quite a bit of taper and allot of sidewall bulge (the amount of bulge could be due to a narrower wheel between what is pictured but that is unknown). Does the spare fit in the stock location in that size and specific tire?

Nice light weight setup! How ever they have only one purpose IMO (MPG improvement) from what I've read, no mileage warranty and a very soft compound (according to reviews) "C" load rated tire. Reviews on wear are pretty terrible from Raptor and Bronco owners running them. Most owners are reporting 33.5" -33.75" when installed under load, which happens to any tire, but they are not 35" tires to begin with and should either be referred to as their metric size or 34" tires when rounding and speaking of the inch conversion equivalent (34.4 rounds to 34).

There are also a few reports of sidewall failure on trails from the same owners.

My tires (pizza cutters) 255/80R17 @ 52lbs. are 10.1" section width (tread measures 7.75") and are 33.2" diameter (dia. measures 32.5" installed) and have 55k mile warranty. They are not the best tire out there in that size by no means but the lightest I could find without other compromises for my use case, and I'll probably go with something else next time as they are quite loud (likely due to tread depth of 18/32") but have otherwise been flawless IMO.

Thanks for bringing the conversation back to topic . This picture shows how narrow they run compared to other 12.5 width tires
See below for the discussion the Bronco forum

https://www.bronco6g.com/forum/threads/are-your-goodyear-territory-mt-315-70r17-tires-really-35s.35448/

Wheel width is 8.5 so no problem there .
In terms of height they are just as tall as bfgoodrich k02s in the same size .
The main reason I chose them for lc is

1. Lightest 35s on the market even lighter than most 33s
2. Narrow contact patch allows for clearance with only a 1 inch front lift.

Ofcourse there are compromises as with everything else . They are soft and likely more prone to punctures, and hold gravel but I’m willing to live with that for onroad comfort at mpg improvements

 

[TakaraLC]

Does anyone know if there was anything altered around the fuel tank on the American Prado vs the AU version?

I am looking into getting an OEM 80L, interested in whether anyone could post some photos/measurements between the tank frame & other components.

Isn’t that a diesel tank?

 

[rysn]

Isn’t that a diesel tank?

Yes, but the Columbia market has an 80L petrol option. It should have the same mounting as the AU version & arguable should be the same as ours. Which is what I am trying to confirm—I know we can mount it, I found the tapped holes, I just want to get a better idea of how the undercarriage is structured.

 

[imann777]

Isn’t that a diesel tank?

This is what we get in Middle East. My FE shows 80L ( Main Tank) +30 ( Sub Tank)

 

[teghogh]

This is what we get in Middle East. My FE shows 80L ( Main Tank) +30 ( Sub Tank)

all you need to do is to change your tank with the raptor in the picture. you will end up 33 gallons

 

[jedyxu]

Thanks for bringing the conversation back to topic . This picture shows how narrow they run compared to other 12.5 width tires
See below for the discussion the Bronco forum

https://www.bronco6g.com/forum/threads/are-your-goodyear-territory-mt-315-70r17-tires-really-35s.35448/

Wheel width is 8.5 so no problem there .
In terms of height they are just as tall as bfgoodrich k02s in the same size .
The main reason I chose them for lc is

1. Lightest 35s on the market even lighter than most 33s
2. Narrow contact patch allows for clearance with only a 1 inch front lift.

Ofcourse there are compromises as with everything else . They are soft and likely more prone to punctures, and hold gravel but I’m willing to live with that for onroad comfort at mpg improvements

How is your mpg? I'm considering these. Are they actually 52lbs? Do you mind measuring the actual length of the contact width of the tire?

 

[kevins950]

All this talk of getting 20+ MPG is folly. I have a 2025 with 3,957 miles on the odometer and I'm getting a whopping 17.8 MPG. This is not wishfully folly of reading the dash cluster read out, its tracking actual miles and gallons on a spreadsheet.

Overall I'm very disappointed with the fake 23 MPG combined EPA rating on the window sticker. The mix of a woefully small gas tank, marginal cargo space, and nominal ground clearance are disappointing. Seriously, I have buyers remorse.

 

[EOD Guy]

All this talk of getting 20+ MPG is folly. I have a 2025 with 3,957 miles on the odometer and I'm getting a whopping 17.8 MPG. This is not wishfully folly of reading the dash cluster read out, its tracking actual miles and gallons on a spreadsheet.

Overall I'm very disappointed with the fake 23 MPG combined EPA rating on the window sticker. The mix of a woefully small gas tank, marginal cargo space, and nominal ground clearance are disappointing. Seriously, I have buyers remorse.

I too was getting 17ish....... after 10K miles I reset the MPG meter and now it is in the 19ish range. So in my case it's getting better and I did not alter my driving habits in any way.

 

[ratherberiding]

All this talk of getting 20+ MPG is folly. I have a 2025 with 3,957 miles on the odometer and I'm getting a whopping 17.8 MPG. This is not wishfully folly of reading the dash cluster read out, its tracking actual miles and gallons on a spreadsheet.

Overall I'm very disappointed with the fake 23 MPG combined EPA rating on the window sticker. The mix of a woefully small gas tank, marginal cargo space, and nominal ground clearance are disappointing. Seriously, I have buyers remorse.

Sounds like you should sell it then if you don’t like it. I have almost exactly the same miles on my 2025, measured average of 21.8 across every mile since the first 20. That’s commuting on country roads, city driving, and one 1500 mile mostly highway trip. Clearly you are either driving uphill into a wind everywhere you go, or your foot is heavier than mine.

 

[dpcompt]

I just drove from Lodi,CA to Santa Cruz, spent 5 days cruising around the Santa Cruz area and drove home. Drove Hwy 17. I averaged right at 20mpg. My wife drives the Cruiser 90% of the while we're home and gets around 19 mpg ( mostly short trips) I think the Hybrid system helps a lot in town, but very little on 75+ freeway driving. My wife's sister has a V8 Landcruiser and it gets nowhere near the mpg our '24 gets. Our Landcruiser is no economy vehicle but I'm pretty happy with the vehicle's performance overall. It's a bulletproof , heavy vehicle. And the electric motor makes wonderful extra power for entering a freeway or passing.

 

[Sugarloafer80]

even holding at 70 mph for 300 miles of hilly interstate, i was averaging 23.5 mpg - and while using adaptive cruise.

And adaptive cruise is often LOUSY for fuel economy because it just follows the erratic sheep in front of it.

 

[Sugarloafer80]

I joined this forum to see the mindset of the owners. Already amused. I have been a driving instructor (track) for 20yrs. Anybody in the business knows Scott Dixon is the master while being the best in the modern era. He is smooth as glass. Pedal stabbers refuse to admit it is their flaw.
I have owned a Range Rover Westminster with the 3.0TT for the past 5years. I get ~21mpg summer with 22in wheels (hate them btw)and with 20in snows in the winter 19.5-20mpg. I drive in Maine at 80 mph and 75-78 further south. I pass cars on secondary roads as needed. RR is pretty fast!
I NEVER USE ADAPTIVE CRUISE AS IT DOES THE EXACT THING I TEACH MY STUDENT NOT TO DO DAY 1. "Do not stare at the bumper in front of you". That technique makes you a reactive driver instead of proactive driver. I fully predict because I don't have it yet, I will have little trouble getting upwards of 23mpg because I was also a Limo driver and am VERY smooth. We can revisit this in a few months!

 

[Sugarloafer80]

Keep trying! It is definitely possible to achieve 29 mpg's on the highway. I did it at sea level on flat terrain in normal mode without much difficulty. The LC had 20 inch OEM wheels and a crossbar but otherwise unmodified.

Below is a summary of information that may be useful if trying to maximize fuel economy.

Background
First, It helps to understand the design philosophy as described by Toyota because the I-Force Max 2.4L hybrid is different than traditional combinations of twin turbos, superchargers, hybrids, or AWD EVs. It uses a standard inline four cylinder turbo as the ICE, mated to a standard 8 speed transmission (less gear searching vs a 10 speed), and with an electric motor (EM) sandwiched in between.

This combination has produced the highest power, highest torque, and highest fuel economy ever in this class of its vehicles (LC and Taco). Other than the electric system, it leverages standard, well proven, and readily available light truck components for the engine, transmission, drive train, suspension, and brakes. It also has the promise of extending the longevity of the vehicle because it has fewer moving parts, and reduces the load on the ICE, transmission, and braking systems over its useful life. Only time will tell.

It is important to understand this architecture because in order to maximize performance the driving technique is counter intuitive. For fuel economy, it should be operated as a very low revving four cylinder vehicle rarely going above 2K RPMs. To do this, the driver must focus on leveraging the electric engine and induce its use as much as possible. Some call this "pulse and glide". Others describe it as driving by RPM vs MPH. Either way, the objective is use the electric engine more and the ICE less.

Driving tactics
1. The electric motor can sustain speeds up to 15mph on its own. RPM is zero and electric sound hums.
2. The EM can solely maintain speeds up to 30mph on its own. Once at speed, RPM drops to zero and electric sound hums. Soft pedal the accelerator so the ICE never kicks in.
3. The EM can sustain highway cruising speeds up to 65 mph while keeping RPMs within the peak torque 1700 to 1800 range using the pulse and glide technique. This gives rapid power delivery and forces the EM to provide the boost rather than revving the ICE or spooling the turbo. RPMs remain constant yet you feel the boost/pulse of the EM to push faster.
4. Just a note. Although not moving, I have noticed the vehicle can run the AC and other systems for a relatively long period of time while parked before the ICE kicks in temporarily and then shuts of automatically. This saves quit a bit of gas compared to other vehicles that must sit there and idle the whole time.

When people complain that they are driving 75 mph and getting lower than expected MPG it suggests they are thinking about it backwards. For those who would complain that it is too much trouble to think about and just want to drive the vehicle, remember that this philosophy will keep you constantly in the optimal power band (about 1800 RPMS) and provide the most rapid power delivery. In sport mode, it is a total blast.

By understanding how this very clever and capable system was designed and re-training your driving instincts it is amazing what can be achieved for both fuel economy and driving performance. I fully expect someone with a little time and practice can break the 30 mpg barrier soon.

Good luck

View attachment 42537

But if is a DI motor, that technique will quickly give you carboned up everything. All motors need to be wrung out periodically. ALL MOTORS

 

[Sugarloafer80]

That’s a great observation, and it actually reflects what traffic engineers describe with terms like car-following theory, headway management, and the fundamental diagram of traffic flow. When cars follow too closely, small speed changes turn into waves of braking and accelerating that spread backward through traffic, a phenomenon called capacity drop. This doesn’t just hurt fuel economy but also makes congestion worse overall.

Put simply, leaving more space between you and the car ahead lets you drive more smoothly without constantly hitting the brakes or throttle. That saves fuel because your engine isn’t working overtime to keep adjusting. It also helps everyone else on the road by preventing the chain reaction of stop-and-go driving. Your anecdote about using adaptive cruise control on its widest setting is a perfect example of headway management working as intended. It’s not just better for your MPG but for the whole flow of traffic.

I’m not a traffic engineer, just a massive nerd who finds obscure topics like this one fascinating and research-worthy.

Adaptive cruise is 100% responsible for our ever more erratic driving conditions in traffic. Should be outlawed.

And of course, never believe the MPG listed on a gauge. Calculate it properly. After a few tankfuls on most vehicles, you know how far off it really is. My RRS was off 1/7mpg. My RR is of by 2.3mpg!!! My Stelvio Quad is always within a few tenths! Nothing can touch my Fiat 500e at 121.5mpge!!!!!!

 

[TakaraLC]

I joined this forum to see the mindset of the owners. Already amused. I have been a driving instructor (track) for 20yrs. Anybody in the business knows Scott Dixon is the master while being the best in the modern era. He is smooth as glass. Pedal stabbers refuse to admit it is their flaw.
I have owned a Range Rover Westminster with the 3.0TT for the past 5years. I get ~21mpg summer with 22in wheels (hate them btw)and with 20in snows in the winter 19.5-20mpg. I drive in Maine at 80 mph and 75-78 further south. I pass cars on secondary roads as needed. RR is pretty fast!
I NEVER USE ADAPTIVE CRUISE AS IT DOES THE EXACT THING I TEACH MY STUDENT NOT TO DO DAY 1. "Do not stare at the bumper in front of you". That technique makes you a reactive driver instead of proactive driver. I fully predict because I don't have it yet, I will have little trouble getting upwards of 23mpg because I was also a Limo driver and am VERY smooth. We can revisit this in a few months!

You students have radar for eyes?

 

[kevins950]

I too was getting 17ish....... after 10K miles I reset the MPG meter and now it is in the 19ish range. So in my case it's getting better and I did not alter my driving habits in any way.

Case in point, the MPG meter is not accurate. It you track actual miles and gallons from the pump on a spreadsheet, the results are not pretty.

 

[kevins950]

Sounds like you should sell it then if you don’t like it. I have almost exactly the same miles on my 2025, measured average of 21.8 across every mile since the first 20. That’s commuting on country roads, city driving, and one 1500 mile mostly highway trip. Clearly you are either driving uphill into a wind everywhere you go, or your foot is heavier than mine.

Are you tracking actual gallons and miles on a spreadsheet? I drive like an old man, very easy and conservative.

 

[TakaraLC]

Case in point, the MPG meter is not accurate. It you track actual miles and gallons from the pump on a spreadsheet, the results are not pretty.

Case in point, the MPG meter is not accurate. It you track actual miles and gallons from the pump on a spreadsheet, the results are not pretty.

It is spot on if you reset the MPG meter just after filling up, record miles you drive until next fill up and calculate MPG based on how much gas it takes to fill up.

 

[ratherberiding]

Are you tracking actual gallons and miles on a spreadsheet? I drive like an old man, very easy and conservative.

Well I note every fill up in the notes app on my phone and do the math, but yes essentially. Totally stock, always 93 octane. Limited elevation changes…

 

[COSmurf]

All this talk of getting 20+ MPG is folly. I have a 2025 with 3,957 miles on the odometer and I'm getting a whopping 17.8 MPG. This is not wishfully folly of reading the dash cluster read out, its tracking actual miles and gallons on a spreadsheet.

Overall I'm very disappointed with the fake 23 MPG combined EPA rating on the window sticker. The mix of a woefully small gas tank, marginal cargo space, and nominal ground clearance are disappointing. Seriously, I have buyers remorse.

Did you even read the original post that kicked off this thread? If so, you might be able to figure out why you’re getting the 17 MPGs you are. The folly is clearly in the way that you drive if you care at all about gas mileage. The car will flex up with enough power when you need it, but also flex down to a 2.4L 4 cylinder with hybrid assist as well when you want to be more economical. If you want to drive around boosting the motor and experiencing the full power of the car all day long, then you will certainly get worse gas mileage as it will consume the air/FUEL of a much larger motor while also putting down the HP and Torque of a much larger motor during those periods. That’s what forced induction does.

I literally had to top off my tank today in anticipation of a longer mountain drive coming up, and my hand calculated tank averaged 21.6 MPGs in mixed driving after putting in 14.26 gallons until the pump clicked off. This by the way, was very close (within .3 MPGs) to my LC reported average as I reset the MPGs when I fuel up. I have E load rated nearly 60 lbs tires that are all terrain tread in 285 width. On SL rated tires that weigh 15-20 lbs less, I’d be getting FAR better. Also, I topped off at the exact same gas station as last time (Costco) for my premium so to the extent the pumps are reasonably consistently calibrated, my hand calc to check against my on board computer calc should be close enough.