Gas Mileage (real life)

Ray Pinpillage wrote: That's an interesting statement. The OP never asked for a cost analysis between a Honda Civic and a Tacoma. However, as is always the case, you assumed your money issues are his money issues.

That's an interesting statement. The MPer on this thread never asked for a personal attack as your first post on this thread. However, as is always the case, you try to recover from your fumble by pretending to help after violating rule #1 as always.


LOL

note that the OP asked

Do you personally find the MPG limitation worth the livability factor and/or durability/clearance factor?


and several of us on this thread took it to mean does a fuel efficient car work ... dont see ya "attacking" them now

to the OP ... if you NEED awd and HC ... then get the truck/SUV its that simple

i also have a CRV, which i find just fine for most things ... its not HC, but it gets works and gets a bit better gas mileage than a truck, on the highway its 27 us MPG or so ... the savings between a CRV and a truck with tacoma like gas mileage is around 500$ a year if you drive it regularly, more for longer trips ... which again is a good part of a new shiny rack every year

fold down the seats for sleeping and youll be fine

;)

jmeizis wrote:Most people who say they need high clearance and 4WD just don't know how to drive. If i can get up Camp Bird in winter on bald tires, Turkey rocks in the summer and most 14er trailheads that are labeled 4WD then the idea that it is a need is a bit overblown. It's purely a convenience for which most pay a pretty penny. When i really need 4WD i can just borrow, rent, or drive with someone else. I slept in my hatchback for a couple weeks in Ouray off Camp Bird. It was fine. Climbers are supposed to be hard so put on your big girl panties and harden the fuck up! :)

Some people live where getting to and from point A to point B require that you drive up (and consequentially down) hills that have snow...In my experience yes AWD can usually (not 99% of the time, mind you) get you to where you want to go in the summer.

My prime reasoning for AWD is not only for difficult terrain but ALSO for harsh winter environments where snow and ice is involved. So yes sometime AWD is required unless you want to drive with chained tires and I do not lol

Agreed that a .5 ton truck is better than a taco. Friend has a Honda element that he has his lived in for weeks at a time, get 25-28 mpg and has awd. About 8" clearance.

David Sahalie wrote:Agreed that a .5 ton truck is better than a taco. Friend has a Honda element that he has his lived in for weeks at a time, get 25-28 mpg and has awd. About 8" clearance.

The advantage with tacoma's is the reliability factor, especially after 200K miles....no?

I have a 2005 Tacoma with topper that is 4" higher than the cab. This winter I have been getting around 17 MPG. Not too great, that is not babying it and mixed use of 4wd. I also mounted some AT tires on it and they probably dropped my MPG by 1-1.5. With the original tires I could get around 19 - 20.5 depending on how gentle I drove.

mozeman wrote: The advantage with tacoma's is the reliability factor, especially after 200K miles....no?

reliability of Hondas versus Toyota is negligible. The mid-90s Tacos are bombproof, but the newer ones have some issues. The Taco does have more clearance and a suspension made for hammering constantly. but is that worth 8mpg to you?

buddy's Element has 210k, with no costs other than maintenance.

In any case, Elements arent made anymore so expect to pay top dollar.

David Sahalie wrote: reliability of Hondas versus Toyota is negligible. The mid-90s Tacos are bombproof, but the newer ones have some issues. The Taco does have more clearance and a suspension made for hammering constantly. but is that worth 8mpg to you? buddy's Element has 210k, with no costs other than maintenance. In any case, Elements arent made anymore so expect to pay top dollar.

I was referring to taco's vs 1/2 ton trucks.......and I can find them cheap around my neck of the woods... only reason for considering

mozeman wrote: I was referring to taco's vs 1/2 ton trucks.......and I can find them cheap around my neck of the woods... only reason for considering

I think the reliability of the Taco is overstated. My 1/2 chevy has been pretty reliable. I've changed the water pump twice and regular maintenance in 135K miles.

A big factor with the Tacoma is whether you have a V6 or the 4 cylinder. I have a 2006 4 cylinder with a topper and I've averaged the upper 20's for the 6 months that I've had it.
Before this I had an 88 and 90 toyota 4x4, both with 4 cyl's and the 88 finally blew up on me with 251k miles and the 90 is still going with 225k miles. Although watch your catalytic converter, those trucks are easy targets for pricks to steal them right out from under the truck.
If you're comparing Honda's to Tacoma's the reliability is probably negligible, it's more about what you want in a vehicle.
I've had lots of friends/family with Chevy's and Fords and they're nice trucks but it seems like for very story about how great one of those trucks is, I've heard five about how much maintenance they require.

Ray Pinpillage wrote: I think the reliability of the Taco is overstated. My 1/2 chevy has been pretty reliable. I've changed the water pump twice and regular maintenance in 135K miles.

I've had two chevy silverado's in the past and neither of them are my "buy again" list. But to each his own I'm glad they are working for somebody else!

Ray Pinpillage wrote: I think the reliability of the Taco is overstated. My 1/2 chevy has been pretty reliable. I've changed the water pump twice and regular maintenance in 135K miles.

135 is when the domestic trucks start going bad. BTW from my toyota perspective, 2 water pumps in that time is absurd.

My t100 with 185k on it has needed a fuel pump. Nothing else other than maintenance.

I had a 97 Chevy Astro that needed an entire new front end, a new power steering pump, had damage to the rack and pinion, the transmission leaked like a sieve, and had 140k when I sold it for $500.

There is simply no comparison between the two things above 130-150k. If you are planning to lease or trade in every 4-5 years, the domestics probably have a lot more features for the price.

nicelegs wrote: 135 is when the domestic trucks start going bad.

It is silly to make any sweeping statement about the correlation between a specific mileage and a specific condition. I have seen brand new vehicles smoke a transmission five miles off the lot, and I have seen diesel trucks with 1,000,000 miles that have never had the transmission overhauled.

It really does not matter what brand you like, there will always be sources that say your brand sucks and will only last until "xxx miles," and there will be sources that say the brand is the best thing that has ever hit the market. The best option is to look at an independent third party that evaluates very large quantities of vehicles. The JD Powers and Associates Annual Reliability List is a good place to start. But at the end of the day, ANY vehicle can break down, high or low ratings, and so when I purchase a vehicle, brand is not my primary consideration.

nicelegs wrote: 135 is when the domestic trucks start going bad. BTW from my toyota perspective, 2 water pumps in that time is absurd. My t100 with 185k on it has needed a fuel pump. Nothing else other than maintenance. I had a 97 Chevy Astro that needed an entire new front end, a new power steering pump, had damage to the rack and pinion, the transmission leaked like a sieve, and had 140k when I sold it for $500. There is simply no comparison between the two things above 130-150k. If you are planning to lease or trade in every 4-5 years, the domestics probably have a lot more features for the price.

My example is anecdote at best, a sample of one. I'm not saying Chevy trucks are all that great but there are plenty with high miles and low maintenance costs. Likewise, I am sure their are lemon Toyotas.

When the Tundras came out there was an issue with frames bending when using lightweight campers. There was also a frame recall on Tacomas for corrosion. I'm not promoting one brand, they all have issues.

I have a 2001 4wd tacoma, with the 3.4l engine. I have a shell on it as well, the one that is slightly higher than cab height. I live in SLC, and 90% of my driving is around the city or up and down the cottonwood canyons, with which I average about 20 mpg. This past weekend I drove 4 hours south to goblin valley, and averaged a hair over 25 mpg for that trip. Not bad at all, especially considering that I put bigger 32" tires and a small lift on my truck a while back. I also had three people in the car and was pretty loaded down with gear, and I'd say that mileage is pretty typical. Last summer I managed to squeeze four people and four kayaks into the truck, and still got 23 mpg. On some solo trips I've managed as high as 27.

I'd say the two keys for keeping high mileage are 1) drive with a light foot, and 2) I'm pretty meticulous with maintenance. My tacoma has over 170k miles and hasn't needed anything but regular maintenance, and I do all that maintenance myself to know its down right. Frequent oil changes, a clean air filter, etc. can make big differences for mileage.

Obviously this is all anecdotal, but I couldn't be happier with my tacoma. As far as the necessity of 4wd, I could probably count the number of times on one hand that I've honestly needed it to get to crag. It does get used a lot for snow driving or finding that hidden campsite (as was mentioned before), but tire chains work well too and there's always other campsites. The biggest advantage for me is the space. I can load up several friends and all our gear and only have to take one car, and I've slept comfortably on my platform in the bed many nights. Haven't done it yet, but I'd be confident in my ability to live in there longer term. But even though 20-25 mpg is good, there are a lot of smaller vehicles that can do much better, and many of them are very reliable too. All depends on what your circumstances allow.

Best response by Jack mayberry so far. Tacoma's are great for an all around vehicle and live out of as well. I lived out of the back of mine several times with the longest being for about 5 months, and a few other times for a month or so each. My mileage for a 2002 with 3.4, tall topper, 3" lift and bigger tires was always 17-19 MPG. You will be able to go anywhere in a Tacoma and that ability pays for itself ten times over when its needed. If you're planning to stay in the back best advice for comfort is to get a tall topper that sticks above the cab that is carpet lined and build a simple platform with foam mattress that your gear slides under. Go for the tacoma or a similar small truck the mileage isn't that bad and the livability is way higher than any car if not for the fact that you can pack all your gear in the cab and under the platform so when you pull into parking lot or campsite at 10 o'clock you just have to crawl into the back and go to sleep.