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

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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!
 
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
 
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!!!!!!
 
Last edited:
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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…🤷‍♂️
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Are you tracking actual gallons and miles on a spreadsheet? I drive like an old man, very easy and conservative.
I’m saying this very sincerely, if you are indeed driving very conservatively and smoothly and getting 17 MPGs on dead stock factory OEM setup, you might want to go get your car checked out. But if you have it lifted, with giant, heavy tires, and lots of body armor (sliders, skids) and roof rack, or like to pretty consistently draw on full power and acceleration, I would say that isn’t really worthy of complaining that you’ve been deceived if you’re averaging that with voluntary MPG killing modifications or driving style. Please share with us your setup so that we can help you troubleshoot.
 
Last edited:
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?
Good tire. Make sure you get the Goodyear wrangler rt that comes on 2025 broncos . They are much quieter and you can buy from ford dealer for 220
 
I'm on 255/80R17 All terrains (weight is equal to stock setup) Lifted 3" with heavier/beefier UCAs, have all Steel engine and transmission skids, Rago bumper including bull bar with winch, lights (16ft of 1/0 wire x2), Dissent rock sliders and few other smaller weight adders still average 22-23 without really even trying.

Worst I've seen is 21 MPG, except for offroad on two trips of ~185 miles each when I got 17-18 (for the whole trip with highway out and back) and as low as 12 MPG while climbing over 4700' multiple times, which quickly recovers on the descents.

The offroad MPG trips was quite impressive to me because the vehicle was fully loaded (4 people, recovery gear, chainsaw (26lbs.) cooler and a few guns. I had no free space in the rear cargo area except above rear seat level.
 
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.
Your point in this case is invalid............ While I didn't state specifically that I did the actual calculation, I in fact did. In my case the LC's MPG gauge and my spreadsheet calculation were extremely close, but not exact, hence my stating "ish". I do believe this is partially due to the fact that, it would be extremely rare to fill the LC's tank to the exact spot on every refill and not all fuel pumps are created equal and the pump(s) state's certification(s), while close, may or may not be exact and over time and many fill ups, any small percentage (plus or minus) would add up skewing the results of any "manual" calculation. Additionally tire size and or tire wear would also have a very small impact, but is still a variable.

Thus a true, accurate MPG calculation would only be possible if a known, measured amount of fuel was used in the calculation. But hey it's just my opinion, so my "ish" factor was reflected in my post.
 
After a while when you own a vehicle, you get to know pretty closely how much additional fuel you can add after the initial pump shutdown to within a few tenths. That will get you within a few tenths in your calculations....consistently. It seems the fuel tank is on the left of LC. That would also suggest you would get slightly more in the tank if right side is higher. Would be pretty interesting if anyone has run the tank dry and done a complete fillup.
 
Back
Top Bottom