# Does anybody make a 4WD truck with 'good' MPG?



## whenley

The wife has finally broken me.  She does not want to over-winter with my beloved '82 Datsun KingCab 4WD truck.  It has the rust cancer pretty bad, and can be a bit finicky.  So I am looking for a new truck.  4WD is a must to get to our place in winter.  I prefer manual transmission.

Problem is, all of the trucks I have seen, Toyota Tacoma, Nissan Frontier, Big4, etc, have what I consider very poor MPG ratings.  Only Toyota makes a 4cyl 4WD - and it is only rated at 19/23 (2007 EPA).  That is pathetic!  The Nissan Frontier is 6cyl (they do not offer 4cyl in 4WD) and is 17/21.  And none of the trucks available are really 'compact' anymore.  What has happened to the 'small' truck market?

These MPG's seems very poor to me, and I can't find much other choice.  I prefer to buy new, because I plan to keep this thing for quite a while.  Also, I have found it very difficult to find Manual Transmission models on the lot.  Nissan only made 14% of their Frontiers in 2007 with the Manual Trans.

Advice or comments?


----------



## mikeathens

Oh yeah...4 WD truck with good MPG ratings...hahaha...

You definitely need a mid 90's Dodge Dakota 4X4 with V8 - I get awesome mileage when it's not running.  On the unfortunate occasions when I do drive it (usually only to get firewood), I get a whopping 12 MPG.  I'd stick to the 4WD Toyota 4-cyl if you can afford it.  At least you won't have any preoblems with it.


----------



## thephotohound

I agree... coming from someone who looked under every rock, the Toyota 4 cyl is the best when considering dependability and MPG...


----------



## cbrodsky

I have a 98 Tacoma V6 4x4 manual trans. - no matter how I drive it, what season, what load, it's always 20-20.5 MPG.  The only time it dropped was when my O2 sensor died at 130K miles - after replacement, right back to 20.5.  It's more consistent than any car I've ever owned but also frustrating that I can never do better 

I test drove a 4-cylinder version and didn't see the point - way less power and you might get 1 MPG better based on EPA ratings.

I think the Rangers at one point were listed in the upper 20s but not sure they offer 4WD.

-Colin


----------



## Eric Johnson

I've got an '04 Ranger with 4WD and manual trans, the 6 cyl engine and the beefed up hauling package. I consistently get between 22 and 23 mpg which ain't bad, considering that it's full of firewood half the time. Of course, that's the downhill part of my haul. I always push the clutch in on the long hills. I go from about 1,700 feet (where I cut the wood) in elevation down to around 500 (where I burn it).

I should add that when my wife drives it, she gets around 15 mpg.


----------



## Highbeam

The very poor mileage of these anemic engined compact pickups is exactly why I traded my 1985 Toyota 4x4, manual, 4cyl, for a 1998 full sized chevy with a 350 V8 auto and mucho more capability for only a very small drop in mpg. The full size easily passes 20 mpg on the highway and is always better than 15 in the city. Towing the tractor (7000 lb trailer) I get 11. The full sized truck is extremely comfortable, fast, dependable, safe, and worlds more capable for towing/hauling than the compact. The new chevy full sized trucks have a 5.3 liter v8 and are producing even better mpg than my 98. 

Don't assume that sacrificing for a small truck will get you much mpg, unless you have a need for a minitruck then look at the half ton GM products.


----------



## zzr7ky

Hi - 

Here is a link to GM's offerings and fuel economy figures.  They match my experience.

http://www.gmbuypower.com/pages/shopBy/Pick_Up_Trucks_byFuelEconomy.jsp
If you are shopping GM let me know.  I'd be happy to arrange a Friends & Family discount for board members.

The Chevy Colorado and GMC Canyon are true mid-size.  

All the best, 
Mike P   (Live from GM)


----------



## My_3_Girls

I've got to back up Highbeam on this one.  I went from a 2002 4 door s10 at 20 to 21 mpg to a full size Silverado extra cab that dropped to 19.5 to 21mpg   I'm a sales guy, traveling about 65,000 miles a year, so these are highway miles, but on the weekends, a wood cutting maniac.  Compare the full size to the smaller trucks and there's not much difference.  Oh, and the only reason I got rid of the S-10 was that it had 170,000 miles on it, and the dealer gave me $10,500 for a trade!  The Silverado's got 105,000 miles after one set of tires and about 15 oil changes. Still runs like a new truck.


----------



## begreen

My old, totally manual Ford Ranger would get 33 on the highway. Fifth gear was strictly for over 60mph. My newer Ranger gets 30 on the highway. But neither are 4WD.


----------



## Eric Johnson

My dad has an older Chevy S10, std., 2WD, 4CYL that I bet gets upwards of 30 mpg. No guts whatsoever, but it'll get your freight from Point A to Point B just like any other pickup.


----------



## bruce56bb

zz and my 3.......
how dare you praise something that is NOT an import!! this is an import (yugo,datsun,honda,etc.)board only!!
both of you are now on double secret probation
by the way, the gmt900s(new series) are getting ever better fuel economy than their predecessors in real world conditions.

edit, sorry i left you out highbeam. it was an accident.


----------



## saichele

If you're really looking for a truck, it's tough to argue for the little ones.  The GM V8's get very respectable mileage and are capable of just about anything you'd expect.  

My own wood hauler is a 93 F150, 5 spd, 4WD (big lever through the floor and manual hubs) gets about 15 around town (usually hauling firewood, plywood, drywall, etc.) and about 20 on the highway.  Also does a nice job of pulling stumps - 300CID inline 6.

I don't know if Ford puts the 4liter OHC engine from the Explorer in a Ranger, but that's good for 16/22 in real world driving, and a very nice smooth engine.  Likely a tick or two better with a manual.

Steve


----------



## whenley

Wow, thanks everybody.  I had not even considered a full size truck thinking the MPG would be really poor - But I guess they are not that much worse than the Jap trucks.  I will look into them.  Is the Chevy Colorado a new truck?  They list a 3.7l I5 engine.  That is new to me.  I also may take a look at the Silverado.  Opinions?


----------



## Eric Johnson

Steve said:
			
		

> If you're really looking for a truck, it's tough to argue for the little ones.  The GM V8's get very respectable mileage and are capable of just about anything you'd expect.
> 
> My own wood hauler is a 93 F150, 5 spd, 4WD (big lever through the floor and manual hubs) gets about 15 around town (usually hauling firewood, plywood, drywall, etc.) and about 20 on the highway.  Also does a nice job of pulling stumps - 300CID inline 6.
> 
> I don't know if Ford puts the 4liter OHC engine from the Explorer in a Ranger, but that's good for 16/22 in real world driving, and a very nice smooth engine.  Likely a tick or two better with a manual.
> 
> Steve



My Ranger has the 4 litre six and it's a very smooth-running engine. Like I said, most of my driving is loaded on the highway, and it gets 22/23 pretty consistently.


----------



## EatenByLimestone

My father's full size Dodge 4x4 with the Hemi gets 18 to 19 on the highway... not flat land either...  driving in the Adirondack Mtns.  

The new 4x4s don't have the mileage problems the old ones do.  I believe the Dakotas are in the low 20s.

Matt


----------



## saichele

If the choice is between the colorado and the Silverado, I'm with the Silverado every time.  The engine is solid (maybe the on thing GM did right in the last 40 yrs), the other major pieces are solid, the capability is there, and the mileage is decent.  The couple colorado's I've ridden in really feel tinny, and I'd be a little reluctant to load half a cord of firewood inthe back.

Steve


----------



## bruce56bb

katoom, i have been driving this truck most of the summer.

http://www.wilsonsalesco.net/127015.jpg

it's an 04 model with the 5cyl. and i really like it. it gets decent mileage (18)for the type of driving that i do,
lots of 1 to 2 mile trips and few highway miles.
being relatively short (5'10), i love the low bedrail height, decent ride and it is comfy.

but............
for my money i would go with the silverado. for the minimal fuel and initial cost savings the fullsize is the way to go. 
with some of the deals they have right now i think you can buy a fullsize 2wd for $21k and a 4x4 for $23500.


----------



## elkimmeg

Do they still manufacturer the 4 cyl 4x4 with the long bed   (7') without the king cab

 I believe most Ford rangers have Madza engines and trans especially the 4 cyl's

 Me I have two trucks the 1992 GMC 3/4 ton 4x4 for heavy hauling and plowing and everyday 1998 Iszu ( chevy S-10)
 gets mid 20 around town and upper 20 on the hwy but two wheel  drive... If loading a truck having it lower to the ground is real nice.

What' up with these F150's you need a 6'step ladder to reach over the sides.. Makes it real hard to load over the sides even at the tailgate.
 They are way higher than My 1992 GMC k2500


----------



## begreen

That's for sure, some of these trucks are getting just silly. I like a truck with the tailgate waist high.


----------



## wg_bent

elkimmeg said:
			
		

> Do they still manufacturer the 4 cyl 4x4 with the long bed   (7') without the king cab
> 
> I believe most Ford rangers have Madza engines and trans especially the 4 cyl's
> 
> Me I have two trucks the 1992 GMC 3/4 ton 4x4 for heavy hauling and plowing and everyday 1998 Iszu ( chevy S-10)
> gets mid 20 around town and upper 20 on the hwy but two wheel  drive... If loading a truck having it lower to the ground is real nice.
> 
> What' up with these F150's you need a 6'step ladder to reach over the sides.. Makes it real hard to load over the sides even at the tailgate.
> They are way higher than My 1992 GMC k2500



I know Elk.. I laugh at the guys with the Dodge Ram 4x4's with the optional Circus package.  The bed height must be 4'6.  Try loading a bunch of big rounds in that.  I think the load floor of my Safari is a groan sometimes... That's like 2'  

I've spoken to several people who have the Colorado's and I've yet to hear a complaint.

All Dodge's suck gas like the queen mary.  I'd avoid them.  Can't go wrong with a Yoda.  My BIL has a lot of trucks in his insulation business, and he does say the GMs require a lot of care and feeding... not the Toyotas.  Toyota's just work.


----------



## babalu87

1994 Dodge Dakota 4WD and I get close to 20 MPG driving 65 on the highway


----------



## wg_bent

babalu87 said:
			
		

> 1994 Dodge Dakota 4WD and I get close to 20 MPG driving 65 on the highway



You're the first one I've heard of who got more than 16 on the highway.  Must be a 6 cylinder.


----------



## babalu87

6 banger with a K&N;air filter and Mobil1 oil

280,000+ and still runs great.


----------



## begreen

That's impressive bab, you've got a winner.


----------



## Burn-1

It's been the automotive equivalent of vaporware for a number of years now but it looks like
a few Crosslander dealerships may be popping up around the country.

I practically drooled when this Crosslander 4x4 was going to be offered a few years ago. It was a diesel with decent mileage and lots of off-road ability. They're built in Brazil off the Romanian ARO platform and parts. I was always a bit skittish of this since there probably aren't a lot of trained mechanics or parts for these yet.

They couldn't make the diesel work for emissions so the current ones will have a Ford V6. They hope to work a diesel in eventually. I couldn't find the specs for the Ford mpg, but assume it would be equivalent to what has been discussed on this thread. It's trying to be sold for about $20K. I don't think the initial ones will have airbags or ABS but they're sort of old school 4x4's with manual shift and a Land Cruiser meets Land Rover look. Do a web search for Crosslander and you'll find more links.

Also Mahindra & Mahindra of India will supposedly be offering a turbo diesel Scorpio model and possibly some diesel pickups, also to be either side of $20k. If Detroit or Japan aren't going to offer these here, it's only a matter of time before someone else does.

I looked at the Jeep Liberty CRD but it's a bit small for the price, but very nice and decent mpg. There's a Cherokee CRD but more car than I want.


----------



## VT-Woodburner

I was going to be in th emarket for another truck in '08 but I might wait another year.
Ford is introducing a small diesel for it's F150 and it is supposed to get about 25 MPG and have the torque to pull a trailer too. The motors are being cast as I write this.

But the biggest news is the HLA option. "Hydraulic Launch Assist". This is a hybrid. Hydraulic energy is stored during braking and when the truck pulls out from a stop, this energy runs a hydraulic motor and the truck uses much less fuel. A test mule of an F150 got 60 MPG. Yes, boys and girls, 60 MPG. The buzz is that this is gonna revolutionize the truck world. UPS is now using it in it's new fleet. No batteries, no electric motors. And they're talking about it being just a $1,000 option.  I hope they don't kill this at Ford.


----------



## saichele

VT-Woodburner said:
			
		

> I was going to be in th emarket for another truck in '08 but I might wait another year.
> Ford is introducing a small diesel for it's F150 and it is supposed to get about 25 MPG and have the torque to pull a trailer too. The motors are being cast as I write this.
> 
> But the biggest news is the HLA option. "Hydraulic Launch Assist". This is a hybrid. Hydraulic energy is stored during braking and when the truck pulls out from a stop, this energy runs a hydraulic motor and the truck uses much less fuel. A test mule of an F150 got 60 MPG. Yes, boys and girls, 60 MPG. The buzz is that this is gonna revolutionize the truck world. UPS is now using it in it's new fleet. No batteries, no electric motors. And they're talking about it being just a $1,000 option.  I hope they don't kill this at Ford.



That kind of technology would really help close up the city/hwy numbers, but it's not goingt o get you a 60mpg F150.  

Steve


----------



## VT-Woodburner

You use all the gas during startup, not while cruising. And no, I don't believe the '09 F150 will get anywhere near 60MPG. But I have heard reports of 35+, so that's good enough for me.


----------



## EatenByLimestone

Warren said:
			
		

> babalu87 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1994 Dodge Dakota 4WD and I get close to 20 MPG driving 65 on the highway
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the first one I've heard of who got more than 16 on the highway.  Must be a 6 cylinder.
Click to expand...



92 Dodge Dakota, 318 Auto, 19.7 HWY and 16 City.  191K miles on it.  

Matt


----------



## EatenByLimestone

RWD.  I'm not sure if the next truck will be 4WD or not.  I've only been stuck in snow or mud once...  About 300 feet from my house.  As I was walking home the plow turned down the street... ticked me off to no end...

Matt


----------



## Todd

I traded off my F-250 PSD 4X4 for a Chevy Colorado. I get 19 mpg with a combination of city and highway driving. I thought I'd get better than this. Maybe 8000 miles isn't broke in yet? Just highway I can get low 20's mpg. My dad has the same truck and claims he gets 24 on the highway. Not much load capacity for firewood in the colorado in that 5' box, so I use a trailer that is capable of hauling 4000lbs. Much easier than loading that F-250.


----------



## babalu87

How fast do you drive on the highway?
That could be why your dad is getting better mileage in the same truck, I know I picked up quite a bit on highway mileage by driving 65 instead of 80.

I just hope they start putting a diesel in the Dakota by the time I am ready to buy another one, my truck with a diesel would be even better than what it is now.


----------



## bruce56bb

todd, your mpg my increase a little after some more miles on it, but don't expect a big change.
it seems that tire inflation has the most dramatic effect on fuel economy. make sure they are
properly inflated.
bruce


----------



## EatenByLimestone

I always thought that a diesel in a Dakota would be a good idea too.  I'm not going to hold my breath for one though.  

Matt


----------



## keyman512us

katooom said:
			
		

> The wife has finally broken me.  She does not want to over-winter with my beloved '82 Datsun KingCab 4WD truck.  It has the rust cancer pretty bad, and can be a bit finicky.  So I am looking for a new truck.  4WD is a must to get to our place in winter.  I prefer manual transmission.
> 
> Problem is, all of the trucks I have seen, Toyota Tacoma, Nissan Frontier, Big4, etc, have what I consider very poor MPG ratings.  Only Toyota makes a 4cyl 4WD - and it is only rated at 19/23 (2007 EPA).  That is pathetic!  The Nissan Frontier is 6cyl (they do not offer 4cyl in 4WD) and is 17/21.  And none of the trucks available are really 'compact' anymore.  What has happened to the 'small' truck market?
> 
> These MPG's seems very poor to me, and I can't find much other choice.  I prefer to buy new, because I plan to keep this thing for quite a while.  Also, I have found it very difficult to find Manual Transmission models on the lot.  Nissan only made 14% of their Frontiers in 2007 with the Manual Trans.
> 
> Advice or comments?



Old 82' datsun??? How many miles on that (I would guess) 'Z-Motor'??? (8 Spark plugs yes?)

They definatley don't "make them like that anymore". Nissan definately dropped the ball...I've always been a big nissan fan but their new trucks have "blended into the pack" too much for me. 

So is the old nissan headed for the boneyard soon??? "How many miles on the clock???"

Keep us posted on the new truck...


----------



## DiscoInferno

In 1996 when I bought my Ranger (4WD, 4-cyl, short box) it was the most efficient 4WD pickup available; I'm not sure what it was rated but I always get around 23MPG (mostly highway miles, 70MPH when I can).  I have to say I'm surprised they haven't improved compact pickup MPG any since then.  My wife's new Ford Freestyle (a SUV/minivan/station wagon type vehicle) is larger, heavier, has a larger 6-cyl engine, definitely has more power, and yet gets better mileage.  Perhaps Detroit just doesn't see MPG as much of a truck selling point.


----------



## whenley

keyman512us said:
			
		

> Old 82' datsun??? How many miles on that (I would guess) 'Z-Motor'??? (8 Spark plugs yes?)



Right on Key.  720 series Datsun with the 8plug Z-22 (2.2l) motor.  180K miles.  Mechanically the truck has been solid as a rock.  The main reason I need a new truck is the rust cancer - I've fought it for years but it is getting the best of me.  We lived in FL for 9years and that took its toll.  Plus, here in Northern VA they salt the roads when we get a cool drizzle.

I wish somebody still made a small, lightweight, 4cyl 4WD truck.  Even the 'small' trucks of today are big.  I guess it is sort of like the houses around here, I feel sorry for anybody looking for an small reasonably affordable house - can't be found.  Maybe I'll try to squeeze one more year out of the Dats, but the wife is frowning.


----------



## precaud

DiscoInferno said:
			
		

> In 1996 when I bought my Ranger (4WD, 4-cyl, short box) it was the most efficient 4WD pickup available; I'm not sure what it was rated but I always get around 23MPG (mostly highway miles, 70MPH when I can).  I have to say I'm surprised they haven't improved compact pickup MPG any since then.



Ummm... they have. My 05 Ranger 4cyl with longbed gets 29.2mpg in mixed city/hwy driving.


----------



## Highbeam

Apples to oranges. The 4wd aspect contributes significantly to the efficiency of a compact pickup. Check the 05 ranger 4wd.


----------



## wg_bent

Did you ever check out the Honda?  Do a Google on Ridgeline MPG, and there are a few people out there getting some decent mileage.  Maybe not as good as you'd get with a 4 banger, but not far off.  Plus I'm sure the reliability is good.


----------



## DiscoInferno

Highbeam said:
			
		

> Apples to oranges. The 4wd aspect contributes significantly to the efficiency of a compact pickup. Check the 05 ranger 4wd.



It's actually worse now than in 1996, partly because you can't get a 4-banger 4WD Ranger anymore.  So my 96 was rated as 20/25 (2.3L 4cyl) and the 1996 3L 6cyl was 18/24, but the best 2007 4WD (3L 6cyl) is only 17/21.  (These are all the "old" mileage numbers.)  The 2WD versions, on the other hand, have improved for both the 4cyl and 6cyl.

All my numbers come from http://www.fueleconomy.gov/ BTW.


----------



## EatenByLimestone

Warren said:
			
		

> Did you ever check out the Honda?  Do a Google on Ridgeline MPG, and there are a few people out there getting some decent mileage.  Maybe not as good as you'd get with a 4 banger, but not far off.  Plus I'm sure the reliability is good.



Ridgline doesn't have a full frame IIRC.  That may make a difference in long term durability in the 'load the bed up with firewood department'.  Mileage numbers don't mean as much if you can't use the truck like a truck for long.  When they first came out I saw the local dealer selling them with plows attached.  I wouldn't want to buy one of those particular ridgelines used.  

Matt


----------



## wg_bent

I'm sure it's no Ford F 350, but we're talking about small trucks with low payload capability anyway.

The Honda Ridgeline isn't an Odyssey with a truck body.. it does have a Closed-box frame, It's all just welded together.  It's a heck of a lot more torsionally rigid than a Chevy Colorado! 

If the goal is super strength and the truck is going to be loaded such that it's beyond the weekend warrior duty, the good MPG and big capability ARE mutually exclusive and the answer is to go with a full size truck, and most likely at least a 3/4 ton.


----------



## bruce

my 07 f-250 sd gets 14 and is a little stiff, made to work and tow just about what you want to do,  or you can be a bad ass and get a diesel  for 6000$ more and ride around with no bedlinner or tow hitch,, lots of them around!


----------



## bruce56bb

i can hear it now........


mine is stiffer than yours


----------



## Bill

I have a Ranger, with 6cyl, 4x4, 5 speed automatic, I get 20-24 mpg on the highway. My friend has the same truck but 2 wheel drive and a 4 banger he gets 23 on the highway. My spec sheet if I remember correctly said 411 rear end, why the heck do they put such low gearing on it?


----------



## babalu87

Smokey said:
			
		

> My spec sheet if I remember correctly said 411 rear end, why the heck do they put such low gearing on it?



I dont know but with all the technology we (humans) have at our disposal there has to be a way of having a much different gear once you are on the highway.

Mine has a 3.83 and does OK but I would bet the mileage could be much better with a gear in the low 2's

411 is just silly


----------



## Bill

The odd part about that is everyone on the lot had the same rear-end. That's why they put the 5 speed trans in it, what about a 3.50 or 3.23 gearing, imagine the highway economy.


----------



## DiscoInferno

I guess most pickup owners are more concerned about low-end power than highway mileage?  My 4 banger sucks at both ends, in any case.  I have no low end to spare even though my truck spends 95% of its time on the highway.  At 70mph I'm over 3000RPM in 5th gear, but it's about maxed out power wise.


----------



## KeithO

Highway mileage is dominated by drag.   4WD = higher off the ground + increased frontal area + more powertrain drag = less mpg

City driving is dominated by weight.  4WD = heavier (front axle + transfer case) thus less mpg

On top of all that, the ride is generally harsher with the 4wd suspension - the Tacoma is a good example of this.  2wd rides really nice, 4wd jars your teeth out.

If one needs the 4wd on a daily basis (low range) there is no substitute.

If it is only "insurance" get a 2wd wth a diff lock and chains for those occasional "winter situations".  And get snow tyres on a set of steel wheels and use them.  That is much more effective insurance.

This solution gets better mileage, is cheaper, quieter and more comfortable.  Fit air springs to stiffen the suspension for the times when you actually need to carry a heavy load.

Keith


----------



## mayhem

DiscoInferno said:
			
		

> I guess most pickup owners are more concerned about low-end power than highway mileage?  My 4 banger sucks at both ends, in any case.  I have no low end to spare even though my truck spends 95% of its time on the highway.  At 70mph I'm over 3000RPM in 5th gear, but it's about maxed out power wise.



My Silverado is for around town, the commute, heavy, big or rough loads and plowing.  Its got a 6.0 gas motor and 4.10 gears so its got alot of get up and go at the stoplight, pulls heavy loads very nicely...but it drink gas like Dean Martin drank martinis and on the highway the 4.10's keep the motor well over 3000 rpm most of the time...pushing it to 80 makes me feel like I'm abusing it, while my wife's Audi is just getting warmed up at 80 and wants more.

If we need to go anywhere as a familyand we don't need to carry big heavy stuff we take the A4...its more comfortable and gets nearly double the mileage.  If I've got something heavy to do I've got the right tool for the job.


----------



## Abner

most modern engines will get worse mpg with 3.23 3.73 etc gears even the silverado(been there)  If emmisions were not so strrict we could have engines that made power at low rpm and could turn low gears efficently modern engines make the best power at high rpm    It comes from the epa being more worrid about what comes out the tail pipe rather than how much goes in the tank.

I have a 1983 4x4 s10 with plow with 3.73 gears that I get 20 mpg but the way I have it set and running the epa would have a fit.  but it does like e85 too


----------



## Abner

the gearing also makes the bigger engine get better mpg alot of times(if driven properly)
you are using 90% of the 4cyl's power to move the truck at 3000 rpm 
but only 40% of the 6cly's power at 2500 rpm with lower gears


----------



## saichele

It's funny - probably part of our preference to 'tax' the vehicles not the gas.  Europe has looser emissions and fuel requirements, but gas is 2x or 3x more, so people use less.  Less goes in the tank, less comes out the pipe.  Here, we constrict the motor and exhaust, essentially overbuilding the engine so we can lose efficiency on emissions equipment.  So we pay thousands more on the upfront cost, but half or a third as much for the fuel. 

Steve


----------



## KeithO

Many vehicles get poorer mileage in 5th gear than 4th gear simply because the power required to drive the vehicle at that speed requires a greater throttle opening (a higher manifold pressure) at the low RPM.    The vehicle manufacturers have to balance many things, including economy, the ability to carry rated load and passenger comfort (low engine speed = quieter).

If the engine technology is comparable, a smaller engine will always get better mileage than a bigger one.  The only exception to this rule is when running the small engine absolutely flat out all the time, since the engine management system will richen the mixture to keep temperatures under control (use the fuel as "coolant").   This is one of the reasons why the Germans do not get good emissions on the autobahn, since every gas engine is overfueling at 130mph to stop the valves and pistons melting.   This same principle has been used since the 30's in aircraft engines in takeoff conditions to get the last possible HP out of the engine with having it do the "hand grenade" trick..

The bigger engine, running at part load to produce the same HP as a smaller one will have a higher manifold vacum (lower pressure) which results in the engine having to do more work to suck that air mixture into the cylinders.   This is what is referred to as "pumping losses".   If the throttle on the smaller motor is almost fully open, the pumping losses are much smaller. The most efficient operating point for any gas engine is with the throttle fully open and at the peak torque RPM where the flow characteristics of the motor are best. Thats not to say it is the best operating point for the vehicle, since drag increases at the square of the speed hence cruise speed tends to be below peak torque RPM (unless its Ok to drive 100mph).

Then you have to consider that the bigger motor is heavier, its transmission is heavier, the axle is heavier, the chassis / body have to be heavier to manage all that extra hp.   The gas tank is bigger and if filled to the same % it will be heavier with fuel too.   So weight is against you all the way with bigger engines.  Every time you have to accelerate that mass, you are burning extra fuel.   Each time you brake, you convert that inertia into heat.  Stop and go is obviously the worst case scenario.

It should thus be no surprise that some of the most fuel efficient "conventional" cars are light weight and have small motors with preferably a manual transmission.  They will generally have skinny tires too, for low rolling resistance.  Those V8's dont sell with skinny tires last time I looked.  The tires alone can have a 5-10% fuel penalty on fuel consumption.

Emissions technology has not changed significantly for gas vehicles in several years.   There has been a focus on total emissions, including evaporation from the fuel tank etc.   Recently there has been a focus to reduce NOx emissions (created at high combustion temperatures, particularly when running lean) but this impacts the diesel segment much more than gas engines.


----------



## Abner

NOx emmisions are huge part of gas engines there are  2 ways that they are cut  first with the EGR system to lower combustiion temps(a proper EGR helps fuel economy by effectivly making your engine smaller at light loads) the second way that NOx is reduced is lower compression ratios to cut combustion temps and this is where mpg goes.  the engines of today are around 2-4 points lower compression then in the 60s and 70s 

I am not supporting pollution, but I do think that we have gone about it completely wrong

give me a modern engine with 10.5 -11.5 compression and fill it with good fuel or e85 and you will get better mileage than anything comparable


the bigger engine will not get less economy due to the surounding vehicle unless you are comparing a 2.0L 4 cyl to a 8.1L big block then yes you will have heavier components with it

example 200?   K1500 silverado 4x4 ext cab - 4.3v6 4.8v8 5.3v8 and in high end packages 6.0v8 all using same transmision the 4l60e  the same brakes same axles same fuel tank
the 5.3 will get better economy especialy(sp) with a load

same with a 200? ranger 2.3?i4 3.0v6 4.0v6 same drive train different engine

pumping loss is a valid argument but that is also adressed with the egr system


----------



## Firewoodguy.com

katooom said:
			
		

> The wife has finally broken me.  She does not want to over-winter with my beloved '82 Datsun KingCab 4WD truck.  It has the rust cancer pretty bad, and can be a bit finicky.  So I am looking for a new truck.  4WD is a must to get to our place in winter.  I prefer manual transmission.
> 
> Problem is, all of the trucks I have seen, Toyota Tacoma, Nissan Frontier, Big4, etc, have what I consider very poor MPG ratings.  Only Toyota makes a 4cyl 4WD - and it is only rated at 19/23 (2007 EPA).  That is pathetic!  The Nissan Frontier is 6cyl (they do not offer 4cyl in 4WD) and is 17/21.  And none of the trucks available are really 'compact' anymore.  What has happened to the 'small' truck market?
> 
> These MPG's seems very poor to me, and I can't find much other choice.  I prefer to buy new, because I plan to keep this thing for quite a while.  Also, I have found it very difficult to find Manual Transmission models on the lot.  Nissan only made 14% of their Frontiers in 2007 with the Manual Trans.
> 
> Advice or comments?



Try the Hummer, I get close to 11 MPH on my 2006. I think thats a excellent MPH for a 4WD.


----------



## KeithO

The EPA revised the way the fuel economy ratings are measured in the field and averaged.   Expect to see worse numbers for new models of your favorite big V8 trucks too.  Toyota just had the luck that the Tacoma is a new model in 2007 and thus has to comply with the new EPA fuel economy rules.    The imbalance one would presently see is only temporary until all vehicles have been re-rated.  Once that process is through, you may find that the Tacoma don't look so bad anymore.

In 3-5 years time, when gas is $5/gal, the EPA may have to revise their test procedure again, since US drivers may have developed a lighter right foot after all the pain in the wallet at the pumps.  This recent change reflects the fact that the average US driver accelerates much harder than initially estimated by the EPA when they first set up the economy ratings.  The goal of the revision is to more accurately portray the kind of mileage attainable by an average driver with an average driving style.

So if you drive like a tenderfoot, you may in future get mileage better than the EPA estimates, where in the past, they actually assumed you were a tenderfoot....


----------



## drizler

You couldn't give me a 2 WD truck in snow country.   They are just the worst thing ever made for sliding around, period.    One thing the Europeans have figured out is how to count to 6.   Just like the amp on that spoof movie "This is spinal tap" their transmissions go all the way to 6.    Wow if only we dumbass continentals could figure out how to shift that high.     I have managed it and even driven both a 5 and 6 speed interchangeably on the same day.   What an accomplishment eh.    It amazes me they make a car with a 2 litre engine that will toss you in the back seat like a GTO, run happily all day at 125 and get 36 MPG.   Why oh why can't we develop the technology to make a car like that.      Funny the Krauts just don't have any pick up trucks at all.  About all I see is the occasional silverado and a few of the imports but damned few.    Strangely in the 70's when the VW pickup diesel was all over the US I never saw even 1 over there anywhere, just vans.


----------



## KeithO

No pick ups because it is such a wet climate.  Sometimes go 5-6 weeks at a stretch with rain every day (not all day, but you get the idea).  They do have nice vans though, the MB Sprinter is just one of many. The Sprinter will get 28mpg day in and day out while hauling a load and keeping it dry.


----------



## timfromohio

Six is good, but eleven is better.  The amps in "Spinal Tap" go to eleven.  Eleven man ... that's the ticket ...


----------



## colsmith

Evidently I don't understand the need for a 4WD, although certain friends tell me they need one.  I live in WI.  If it snows too much, we just stay home.    They always plow the roads in a reasonable amount of time, it is only my driveway that can be a problem when we haven't shovelled well or it drifts a lot.  We are on our third Ford Ranger, all 2WD.  Actually we still have the second one, it is 17 years old and has 209,000 miles.  It just passed its emissions test today, what a relief.  We ruled out the 4WDs since their mileage is noticeable worse.  What are the conditions that you regularly encounter that require a 4WD?  Driving off road, or lots of snow and a long driveway, or ?  

We stick with the Ranger extended cab since hubby (6'7") fits in it well and doesn't fit in most other vehicles well, and we have a recurring need for a pickup truck.  Now especially with the wood hauling, but we schlepp a lot of manure, wood chips, boxes of produce and other crud as well.   Our old truck got about 21 mpg and we are supposed to get about 24 mpg with this one, but I don't think we have kept track enough to be sure about that.  The current ones are automatics, the first one was a stick shift.  It is hard to find manual transmissions these days, we buy used so it makes it harder.  Our car gets 50 mpg, it is a tiny hybrid, that is what we drive when not having to carry anything big.


----------



## Bill

Some people need 4x4 and some don't. I have a need and use it during the summer moving my boat, pulling it out of the launch etc. I have a very long and steep gravel driveway that requires 4x4 to back up to turn around. When the boats on the trailer you can not back up the driveway. I use the 4x4 every week. I am considering getting chains also. My atv is 4x4 and I have gotten it stuck in the driveway last winter. So I have chains for it also. The biggest problem with chains, they are hard on mag wheels. For long trips I use my economy car, but for boating the truck is the only way to go for me.


----------



## mayhem

I couldn't plow my driveway without engaging 4wd...unless I did it every half inch of snowfall.

I also don't necessarily have the option of staying in if its snowing.  Anything less than a foot of snow I'm going into work.


----------

