Same here @ 5300 miles, 18" Michelin Trails. Stays at 21.2 mpg mostly. 70 MPH on US 93 plus local 35mph roads.
22 MPG!
- Thread starter Esquire
- Start date
I don’t think any car company is testing their efficiencies at the operating conditions you are using. Your usage is not exactly light and you should not take the EPA number for your efficiency reference.
- Oct 15, 2024
- 66
- Media
- 14
- 93
- Vehicles
- '24 J250 LC FE, '24 BMW R 1250 GS, '24 Ducati Streetfighter V4S, '21 BMW RnineT
Well, if 65-75 mph with OEM wheels is not the proper condition then I would say the testing conditions are not realistic and are entirely misleading. The speed limit on most freeways around the Bay Area is 65 mph so it's not like I was doing anything to push the limits, and I was accelerating gently to see how good of mileage I could get. I could not get it north of 17.5 mpg driving slowly and gently. But, again, I do not care one iota about efficiency, just pointing out that the estimates are inaccurate and unrealistic.
EPA test standards is not new. It has always been there. Whether it is realistic or not is irrelevant. Everybody is following these rules.
The fact is that you know you are driving a turbo, Turbo engine has its particular gas consumption profile. Almost all Toyota TNGA platforms is sharing very similar characteristics in efficiency for the past few years. You choose to drive it so far away from its optimal condition (I'd say nobody will ever care optimizing the efficiency at 85-90 or even just 70+ mph, you are lucky you are not arrested at that speed). Then I don't think you should complaint at all about efficiency since you deliberately ignore the rule of physics.
BTW my average at the first 3K miles is 22 MPG, so Toyota's number is absolutely real. If you care efficiency that much then drive it closer to the way EPA mandated the carmakers to test their vehicles is the way to go.
I’ve got about 500 miles on the odometer. Averaging 20.3 with about 90% city driving. I’ve kept it in eco mode and try to keep my foot out of it as much as possible.
Did you drive with the Side-mirror Folded?
How was your In-carbine Fan Behaviour?
How was your In-carbine Fan Behaviour?
- Oct 15, 2024
- 66
- Media
- 14
- 93
- Vehicles
- '24 J250 LC FE, '24 BMW R 1250 GS, '24 Ducati Streetfighter V4S, '21 BMW RnineT
No one is getting arrested driving those basic speeds, and for those not in the know Nevada has many portions that have an 80mph speed limit, so 85-90 is the norm for most drivers on such roads and the highway patrol does not care. EPA ratings performed in unrealistic conditions most people don't follow is useless. But, again, I already said I do not care about efficiency and I am not complaining. Just describing reality. I find it interesting anyone can get anywhere near the EPA estimates.
I do, and many others apparently also reported so. I drove on I-5 for 55-70 and I can get 22 + mph. So perhaps the problem is how you drive, not the car.
- Oct 15, 2024
- 66
- Media
- 14
- 93
- Vehicles
- '24 J250 LC FE, '24 BMW R 1250 GS, '24 Ducati Streetfighter V4S, '21 BMW RnineT
And many others have reported what I have, that these things consume lots of gas and do not achieve EPA estimated gas mileage. I race cars and motorcycles and have fine throttle control but I cannot get anywhere near the pointless EPA estimates even while deliberately trying to do so. Good to know you are so skilled.
Or perhaps wind, elevation, elevation profile, weather conditions, traffic, seasonal gas mixture, load, and probably 100 other factors are at play here and it has absolutely nothing to do with anyone driving good/bad.
Nevada and Idaho have 80mph interstates on rolling hills with heavy winds. I can absolutely relate, i get 16-18mpg on the interstate around here at ~80mph. Once you get onto the 2-lane country highways and cruise along at 55-65mph, 20-22+ mpg is back on the menu, depending on overall elevation profile.
What are you even talking about?
You don't drive within the EPA test standards and how you can blame the car not giving you EPA gas efficiency? I can confidently say in my case I drive a lot closer to the EPA mandated test standard than you and I get a very close gas efficiency to EPA number than you. Whether you are some F-1 racer, or top-notch automotive architect, or average Joe or a silly side-shower is COMPLETELY irrelevant.
It sounds to me that you are blaming EPA not testing the car in the way you drive, that should be an issue discussed in other places. It has nothing to do with Land Cruiser and not even Toyota. But again I drive close to EPA test so it works for me. Don't quote standards that you don't even use and blindly blame others not living in the same universe as you.
I want to repeat this: your driving is the problem, not Toyota. Your reply simply keeps confirming this. "I don't drive EPA" shouldn't that be the answer to yourself already?
Last edited:
I feel the discussion about the right gas efficiency is kind of silly so this is my last post here. If people want to quote EPA number then establishing reasonable relevance is a pre-requisite. Otherwise it's just an apple-to-orange situation. Each type of engines (gas, diesel, turbo and EV... etc) all have their distinct profiles and characteristics. Some powertrain might be more forgiving and others don't. A fair benchmark is never a naive figure comparison.
If a jet-fighter keeps his plane low and have afterburner on all the time while dogfighting with another jet fighter, can he blame his plane miss big on cruising range to the manufacturer's standard? Can the pilot make this argument "Cruising range is not reasonable because fighter are made to fight"
Last edited:
Similar threads
