Only getting 17mpg

[mayonayze]

I didn't doubt you for a moment! I am envious tho'

Nah, i get it. I’m just currently the lucky winner of a cherry 1958 that doesn’t suffer from exhaust leaks, rattling pillars or mirrors, poor mileage, or any of the other maladies other owners are reporting. My taco was the same way. I’m sure something inconvenient is coming my way, but until then, i fuggin love this little rig!

 

[JoT.]

Only if you believe that the Lexus mpg rating is more accurate than LC . I would say it be percentage wise the same lower in your daily driving of 25% which would mean 12 mpg!!!

Exactly

 

[Impatient]

I think maybe some folks were thinking this was going to be more of a fuel efficient hybrid. Initially, a year ago, I was too. What it actually is, is a torque hybrid. It’s low end movement.

The mpg ratings are 50 mph, flat road, no air conditioning, road tires. Difficult to replicate those conditions in stop start, city commutes or even long Texas highway drives.

 

[Coasteast1]

In my LCLC with BFG TA KO 2's on 20" wheels I am getting 20-20.2 on short trips around town. No legitimate highway miles accounted for. Was getting 22 with factory street tires.

 

[Crewzer]

Dallas to Austin and back to Dallas road trip on a flat I-35 highway cruising between 70-75 MPH and my average was around 19MPG. Big Disappointment. That's a 26% lower MPG than advertised by Toyota. If this is not going to change in near future, than I wish I had purchased the GX550 which around 16MPG combined.

Totally agree

 

[mayonayze]

Totally agree

Lexus is totally waiting for your business. Head on over.

 

[ultane]

Dallas to Austin and back to Dallas road trip on a flat I-35 highway cruising between 70-75 MPH and my average was around 19MPG. Big Disappointment. That's a 26% lower MPG than advertised by Toyota. If this is not going to change in near future, than I wish I had purchased the GX550 which around 16MPG combined.

The advertised MPG was determined using 55 MPH as the test speed, on a calibrated dyno, in a lab. Not 70 to 75 MPH. Wind resistance is a beotch. My 2015 Transit 350 van (twin turbo 3.5L V6) gets 21 MPG at 60 MPH, but only gets 15 MPG at 70 MPH. Feel free to jump ship to a GX550., but it will be significantly worse.

 

[JMD]

Just got back from a 300 mile trip. Got around 21. Around town getting closer to 22

 

[RUN-8]

Only if you believe that the Lexus mpg rating is more accurate than LC . I would say it be percentage wise the same lower in your daily driving of 25% which would mean 12 mpg!!!

A Quick look on the GX550 forum shows a lot of those folks getting about 17–18 MPG on the highway going 75-80. Pretty similar mileage to the LC but with a larger fuel tank and more power/towing ability.

 

[robsurfskate]

Hit the reset button after you reach 1000 miles.

 

[tbounds02]

A Quick look on the GX550 forum shows a lot of those folks getting about 17–18 MPG on the highway going 75-80. Pretty similar mileage to the LC but with a larger fuel tank and more power/towing ability.

Lot of people here are getting over 20mpg , but some not , do you really think the. 6 cylinder is going to give you better mileage than a 4 cylinder , under same conditions?
Some people just don’t understand simple things

 

[mayonayze]

A Quick look on the GX550 forum shows a lot of those folks getting about 17–18 MPG on the highway going 75-80. Pretty similar mileage to the LC but with a larger fuel tank and more power/towing ability.

 

[RUN-8]

Lot of people here are getting over 20mpg , but some not , do you really think the. 6 cylinder is going to give you better mileage than a 4 cylinder , under same conditions?
Some people just don’t understand simple things

Plenty of real world testing in other large heavy vehicles shows that smaller displacement often does not equal significantly improved fuel efficiency.

Deviate from the ridiculously unrealistic EPA fuel economy testing and drive real highway speeds and larger displacement engines often still hit their targets or at least closer than smaller displacement engines.

To move a brick shaped vehicle that weighs 5500lbs (give or take) at 75-80 MPH requires “X” amount of horsepower to be made to overcome wind resistance, driveline friction, tire rolling resistance, and a few other factors. An engine that can produce that required horsepower as close as possible to a perfect stoichiometric air to fuel ratio as possible at the lowest RPM possible will probably be more fuel efficient. So the goal is to stay out of boost (if the engine is turbocharged), and push the tallest gear possible.

At realistic highway speeds I will put my money on a larger engine achieving numbers closer to the EPA highway rating than a smaller one. Especially if the engines in question are turbocharged gasoline engines. While both might have to get into boost, where fuel demand goes way up, the larger engine will typically have to get into boost less often to make required power.

If your use case doesn’t involve a lot of highway travel above 70 MPH the Land Cruiser might not be too far off EPA estimates. That doesn’t describe highways where I live though, speed limits are higher, so that 2.4L turbo is going to spend all of its time on the highway making positive manifold pressure to make adequate power to sustain 80-85 MPH.

Ask yourself if a 2.4L naturally aspirated 4 cylinder engine would realistically be able to efficiently or effectively propel the new Land Cruiser at highway speeds above 65 MPH? Probably not. It has to have a turbocharger to achieve that, and the turbo is going to be making boost basically the entire time aside from going downhill. The 3.4L V6 of the GX550 has a better chance of not needing to build positive manifold pressure more of the time on the highway. Not enough to be more fuel efficient, but enough that the fuel efficiency gap will be minuscule at higher speeds, but the GX will have more fuel range because it carries more fuel.

 

[Tripod1404]

Plenty of real world testing in other large heavy vehicles shows that smaller displacement often does not equal significantly improved fuel efficiency.

Deviate from the ridiculously unrealistic EPA fuel economy testing and drive real highway speeds and larger displacement engines often still hit their targets or at least closer than smaller displacement engines.

To move a brick shaped vehicle that weighs 5500lbs (give or take) at 75-80 MPH requires “X” amount of horsepower to be made to overcome wind resistance, driveline friction, tire rolling resistance, and a few other factors. An engine that can produce that required horsepower as close as possible to a perfect stoichiometric air to fuel ratio as possible at the lowest RPM possible will probably be more fuel efficient. So the goal is to stay out of boost (if the engine is turbocharged), and push the tallest gear possible.

At realistic highway speeds I will put my money on a larger engine achieving numbers closer to the EPA highway rating than a smaller one. Especially if the engines in question are turbocharged gasoline engines. While both might have to get into boost, where fuel demand goes way up, the larger engine will typically have to get into boost less often to make required power.

If your use case doesn’t involve a lot of highway travel above 70 MPH the Land Cruiser might not be too far off EPA estimates. That doesn’t describe highways where I live though, speed limits are higher, so that 2.4L turbo is going to spend all of its time on the highway making positive manifold pressure to make adequate power to sustain 80-85 MPH.

Ask yourself if a 2.4L naturally aspirated 4 cylinder engine would realistically be able to efficiently or effectively propel the new Land Cruiser at highway speeds above 65 MPH? Probably not. It has to have a turbocharger to achieve that, and the turbo is going to be making boost basically the entire time aside from going downhill. The 3.4L V6 of the GX550 has a better chance of not needing to build positive manifold pressure more of the time on the highway. Not enough to be more fuel efficient, but enough that the fuel efficiency gap will be minuscule at higher speeds, but the GX will have more fuel range because it carries more fuel.

It takes roughly 20 and 36 horsepower to move a car at 65 and 80MPH, respectively. Lets say for LC 30-50 horsepower is needed due to increased air resistance. The engine would be producing 50 HP at around ~2500 RPM without boost. So yeah, it can very easily maintain highway speeds with boosting the engine.

I mean this is not rocket science. An 2.4L turbo engine will consume less fuel than 3.4L turbo engine regardless of what metric you use. The 3.4L engine produces 50 HP at around 2200 RPM. So you are increasing engine volume by ~30% to decreases the RPM needed by ~15%. What is more unusual is that GX has an entire liter of engine volume and two turbos, but only produces 23 horsepower more compared to the LC.

How much horsepower do you <em>need</em>?

One very important item in the "Performance Specification" page of any car is the power of the engine. CelloMom explores what exactly you ...

www.cellomomcars.com

 

[tbounds02]

I give up ! You need the Lexus

 

[FirstLC]

I’ve been watching this thread because I was very curious how everyone else was doing, and I think I’ve decided to just enjoy my vehicle.

It’s fun! I like it. I hope it’s efficient. Happy cruising.

 

[RUN-8]

It takes roughly 20 and 36 horsepower to move a car at 65 and 80MPH, respectively. Lets say for LC 30-50 horsepower is needed due to increased air resistance. The engine would be producing 50 HP at around ~2500 RPM without boost. So yeah, it can very easily maintain highway speeds with boosting the engine.

I mean this is not rocket science. An 2.4L turbo engine will consume less fuel than 3.4L turbo engine regardless of what metric you use. The 3.4L engine produces 50 HP at around 2200 RPM. So you are increasing engine volume by ~30% to decreases the RPM needed by ~15%. What is more unusual is that GX has an entire liter of engine volume and two turbos, but only produces 23 horsepower more compared to the LC.

How much horsepower do you <em>need</em>?

One very important item in the "Performance Specification" page of any car is the power of the engine. CelloMom explores what exactly you ...

www.cellomomcars.com

If that were accurate then why are LC owners and GX550 owners reporting more or less the same highway fuel economy?

Toyota clearly seems to have calibrated the engine in the LC to produce good numbers only in EPA testing. That’s all they care about, end user results so far show that the estimates are wildly inaccurate for real use. This is frankly a problem with the tend of downsizing engines to hit EPA fuel economy standards that don’t reflect reality. The new Tundra falls short of achieving its ratings for most owners, same for the Sequoia. Now the Land Cruiser isn’t hitting its numbers, the GX550 isn’t either. The deviation from real world results and EPA numbers seems larger with the 4 cylinder hybrid than the twin turbo V6 (hybrid and non hybrid). If EPA rated highway fuel economy at 70 MPH the Land Cruiser is probably a 21 MPG proposition, the twin turbo V6 equipped Toyota products seem to be about a realistic 19 MPG under that metric. Personally I’ll take the bigger engine and fuel tank given that equation.

This week I’m driving our Chevrolet SS with a 6.2L LS3 V8 with no cylinder deactivation or any other fuel economy concessions. Two adults and a kiddo with a bunch of luggage. Car is rated for 21 MPG highway, we averaged 25 MPG across I-80 cruising at 80-85 MPH, and 26.5 MPG on two lanes running 70-75 MPH. The car will get 21 MPG highway if you set the cruise at 90 MPH or above…. maybe that’s what the EPA wants. Ha ha ha.

 

[Markarian421]

If that were accurate then why are LC owners and GX550 owners reporting more or less the same highway fuel economy?

Toyota clearly seems to have calibrated the engine in the LC to produce good numbers only in EPA testing. That’s all they care about, end user results so far show that the estimates are wildly inaccurate for real use. This is frankly a problem with the tend of downsizing engines to hit EPA fuel economy standards that don’t reflect reality. The new Tundra falls short of achieving its ratings for most owners, same for the Sequoia. Now the Land Cruiser isn’t hitting its numbers, the GX550 isn’t either. The deviation from real world results and EPA numbers seems larger with the 4 cylinder hybrid than the twin turbo V6 (hybrid and non hybrid). If EPA rated highway fuel economy at 70 MPH the Land Cruiser is probably a 21 MPG proposition, the twin turbo V6 equipped Toyota products seem to be about a realistic 19 MPG under that metric. Personally I’ll take the bigger engine and fuel tank given that equation.

This week I’m driving our Chevrolet SS with a 6.2L LS3 V8 with no cylinder deactivation or any other fuel economy concessions. Two adults and a kiddo with a bunch of luggage. Car is rated for 21 MPG highway, we averaged 25 MPG across I-80 cruising at 80-85 MPH, and 26.5 MPG on two lanes running 70-75 MPH. The car will get 21 MPG highway if you set the cruise at 90 MPH or above…. maybe that’s what the EPA wants. Ha ha ha.

Several owners are reporting 20-something MPGs with the LC though. Like maybe half? Are any GX550 owners reporting that?

My guess is this is an issue with any turbo charged 4 cylinder. The hybrid engine probably improves it a bit. I used to drive a WRX (during a brief misguided period between Toyota trucks). If I drove that car carefully, on mostly flat roads, I'd get really great MPG. If I drove it like a WRX on a highway through the hills I got the kind of MPG I'd get in my 80's V8 Mustang.

I do think a larger ICE, a larger electric motor, and a larger battery would really help the MPG rating and performance, and make it a lot more consistent. Our plug in hybrid Volvo gets 36-40 mpg on cross country trips even though it's lugging around a huge battery pack that's only ~20% charged most of the time. I'm sure that's in part because the electric motor can supply 140ish HP all on its own.

 

[Tripod1404]

If that were accurate then why are LC owners and GX550 owners reporting more or less the same highway fuel economy?

Toyota clearly seems to have calibrated the engine in the LC to produce good numbers only in EPA testing. That’s all they care about, end user results so far show that the estimates are wildly inaccurate for real use. This is frankly a problem with the tend of downsizing engines to hit EPA fuel economy standards that don’t reflect reality. The new Tundra falls short of achieving its ratings for most owners, same for the Sequoia. Now the Land Cruiser isn’t hitting its numbers, the GX550 isn’t either. The deviation from real world results and EPA numbers seems larger with the 4 cylinder hybrid than the twin turbo V6 (hybrid and non hybrid). If EPA rated highway fuel economy at 70 MPH the Land Cruiser is probably a 21 MPG proposition, the twin turbo V6 equipped Toyota products seem to be about a realistic 19 MPG under that metric. Personally I’ll take the bigger engine and fuel tank given that equation.

This week I’m driving our Chevrolet SS with a 6.2L LS3 V8 with no cylinder deactivation or any other fuel economy concessions. Two adults and a kiddo with a bunch of luggage. Car is rated for 21 MPG highway, we averaged 25 MPG across I-80 cruising at 80-85 MPH, and 26.5 MPG on two lanes running 70-75 MPH. The car will get 21 MPG highway if you set the cruise at 90 MPH or above…. maybe that’s what the EPA wants. Ha ha ha.

I got 25.5 MPG at 70mph. And GX reporting that?

 

[RUN-8]

Several owners are reporting 20-something MPGs with the LC though. Like maybe half? Are any GX550 owners reporting that?

My guess is this is an issue with any turbo charged 4 cylinder. The hybrid engine probably improves it a bit. I used to drive a WRX (during a brief misguided period between Toyota trucks). If I drove that car carefully, on mostly flat roads, I'd get really great MPG. If I drove it like a WRX on a highway through the hills I got the kind of MPG I'd get in my 80's V8 Mustang.

I do think a larger ICE, a larger electric motor, and a larger battery would really help the MPG rating and performance, and make it a lot more consistent. Our plug in hybrid Volvo gets 36-40 mpg on cross country trips even though it's lugging around a huge battery pack that's only ~20% charged most of the time. I'm sure that's in part because the electric motor can supply 140ish HP all on its own.

There are a few reporting in the 20’s for mileage on the highway. Not enough for me to think that is a realistic expectation.