# Fuel mileage but where is the United States?



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

The news that Toyota overtook Ford was interesting, but not as interesting as the 2007 models available from car and truck manufacturers outside the US.

Consider the following combined city highway mileage by Toyota in Europe

The 1.4 litre turbocharged D-4D engine 58.9 mpg. Used in the Corolla's and other similiar size cars.

The 2.2 litre D-4D 140 engine 42.8 mpg.The 2.2 litre D-4D 180 40.4 mpg used in their SUV's like the Land Crusier and RAV4 with towing power equal to Ford Explorer, F 150's etc. and a much lower emission engine than anything produced by Ford, GM or Chrysler for any truck.

The smallest diesel in the Yaris gets over 64 mpg.

The 2007 Lexus diesel in Europe gets 46 mpg city/highway.

The next time you go into a car dealer, why not ask them why we pay so much for a car or truck with such poor gas mileage, when their European versions do so much better? Until we as consumers put our foot down against the dealers and the government, you are going to keep paying for fuel you don't need to buy.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

:beer: Absolute truth. There was a great editorial on energy use in the Forum a few weeks ago on this same subject. And same conclusion. There is no energy plan in place because we are used to having our cake and eat it too, after all, there has always been more cake.....


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Good question but what is the answer? Is it possible those high mileage vehicles don't meet the emission standards we have imposed on ourselves. Maybe we can't eat the cake after all.


----------



## fox412 (Mar 18, 2005)

My sister bought a diesel vw jetta and the thing gets about 36 in town and 45 on the highway. Its a nice little car and runs pretty well. I wish my full size truck go half of that


----------



## tail chaser (Sep 24, 2004)

Hello everyone its been a while since I have posted anything but if you ask me we are getting what we deserve. Who in there right mind lets the leadership of thier country sit down with energy execs behind closed doors to come up with an energy policy? Oh ya that would be us!

Only a little over half of the population votes and untill that changes the far left and the far right will continue to look out for the best interest of themselves and there respective parties rather than you and I. Am I wrong look at whats going on? Winning elections has become more important than doing what is good for americans.

Tail chaser


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I just bought a diesel jetta I get 42 all around and 45 hwy. Its got a stickshift and is areal nice car.

I am real nervous about VW reliability though. I wish toyota would bring that stuff here. If VW can meet the emmisions then Toyota should be able to also.

I also wonder how the heck a vehicle that burns 1 gallon in 50 miles would be dumping as much crap in the air as an american vehicle that use 1 gallon every 17 miles


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

Bobm: I was going to buy a jetta, but we just make too many short trips and that wouldn't really be a good vehicle to do that in since it is a diesel but anyhow; I did the research on that diesel motor and that is the same motor that VW has had since 1977. Remember the VW rabbits out there? They were easily getting 45-50 mpg even way back when. I read a report that the jetta diesel (1.9 liter turbo) is rated for over 300,000 miles.


----------



## NDTracer (Dec 15, 2005)

Bobm said:


> I also wonder how the heck a vehicle that burns 1 gallon in 50 miles would be dumping as much crap in the air as an american vehicle that use 1 gallon every 17 miles


Does anyone know how the test is done? My guess is the measurement is based on amount of flow. Since the amount of exhaust is less for the better milage car the test is reading for 3 minutes where for the gas guzzler it only has to read for 10 seconds. Then these two numbers are compared and whala the guzzler is more producing less crap since it passed the same amount of exhaust past the sensor and had a smaller reading. Just a guess and kinda seems like a stupid way of testing so that is probably the case.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> I also wonder how the heck a vehicle that burns 1 gallon in 50 miles would be dumping as much crap in the air as an american vehicle that use 1 gallon every 17 miles


That one is pretty easy Bob. A vehicle with little or no pollution devices will pollute more from a gallon of gas than a vehicle with all the pollution controls will while burning several gallons of gas. As a example I have a 99 Dodge diesel that when bought new got about 22-23 mpg. Several months after I bought it the EPA came out and notified Chrysler that their diesels didn't meet pollution standards. Since they are electronic controlled it was a easy fix. A recall was made and a reflash on the computer retarded the timing and changed the fuel curve. Now I average 18-19 mpg. Still not bad as it is a 4x4 and doesn't matter if I'm unloaded or hauling a heavy load I get that mileage. Only thing that lowers the mpg is towing something with wind resistance or high speed. If I keep the speed at 65 mph or lower I can squeeze 20-21 out of it. The older Dodge Cummins with the mechanical fueling system which EPA couldn't touch are getting 26+ mpg.

I tried to talk the wife into buying a Jetta this year but she went with the Toyota Camrey. Still it is averaging about 32-33 on the highway and 28 in town. Does the Jetta's have the rail injection system? The newer Ford, Chevy, and Dodge trucks now have the rail injection system and they are as quite as a gas engine. If the Jeep Liberty ever gets that diesel of theirs straightened out where it gets high mileage I'm going to look hard at get one. Right now their mileage sucks and yep it is because of EPA restrictions. I don't see how we are going to have it both ways.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Its not arail system but its a very safe car and not too noisy.

Europe has low sulfur diesel and thats probably the difference we should of had it years ago.

I want a diesel toyota Tacoma, If they bring them here thats my next vehicle.


----------



## gaddyshooter (Oct 12, 2003)

Those are some impressive numbers. Unfortunately our big three automakers are not going to spend the money to develop those kind of vehicles, until they are forced to do so. With a lot of the market share going to foreing car makers the last 5 years or so, I have seen that it has forced Ford, Chevy, and Dodge to up the quality of the cars they are turning out, especially the interior features. It they keep losing market share to those kind of higher gas mileage foreign cars, they are going to have to compete with them. I have always had Chevy vehicles and have had good experience with them. Right now I have two vehicles, a 99 Malibu and a 2004 Malibu. Both get in the low 30's on the highway which I am ok with.


----------



## Robert A. Langager (Feb 22, 2002)

Bobm said:


> I want a diesel toyota Tacoma, If they bring them here thats my next vehicle.


Amen.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

I just love it as the sun rises and peoples minds start to function, come on folks this oil problem has been here for 100 years already. Some day we will stop protecting our government and big oil from the people they are stealing from, then the shiat will hit the fan. haha


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

I'm wondering if those European figures you posted are, in fact, kilometers per gallon or something, not miles per gallon. Even with no emission control stuff, different engine tuning, different gas, etc the descrepancy seems too big. Or is their fuel different? I travel to Canada quite a bit and we always get better mileage with the gas up there (costs a lot more, too although that's taxes) than gas here. 
The difference is so large I wonder if we are comparing apples to oranges somehow?? 
The rest of the modern world uses the metric system and their numbers would be figured in kilometers per litre, and I question that when converted for Americans who cling to the archaic inches-feet-ounce-quart system to comprehend it, that someone made a mistake. I find it hard to believe there could be THAT much difference!


----------



## Invector (Jan 13, 2006)

I just looked up the land cruiser and found no optional diesel on their website. 4.7-liter DOHC 32-valve EFI V8 275 hp @ 5400 rpm; 332 lb.-ft. @ 3400 rpm is what was posted, also the fuel was 13/17. And I also looked up the Yaris, no diesel...same with all the cars Toyota had. I think it has to do with the fact the trend is no diesel over here in the US. I have been looking at getting a small car that gets better milage then my truck, well almost anything beats my truck except maybe an exotic. The point is I think market trends and research and the gas Co. (and those who have their fingers in it) stop such cars and trucks form making it here and the big 3 are hard at work giving US people what trends have shown...why else would the Challenger, Charger, Camaro, (Fire Bird rumored) be coming back. There is too much compitition out there for big HP and big engins in a RWD to compete with the rice cars. It would be nice to see a diesel that gets good MPG in one of the big truck lines. Rumors have it GM is in trouble and so it Ford...Chrysler has not said much yet. GM just re-did their truck line (GMC and Chevy) in hopes of coming out of the crapper. Point on point drop gas prices and cars will cell...if not make a car that is cheaper to run or realy realy cheap to run. :beer: good post


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

Yes, I don't know what will ultimately happen. I truly think the day of the big trucks, SUV's and pickups may be over, except for people who really need them for work. I could be wrong but unless some alternative form of propulsion is developed (don't hold your breath on this one) for a long term fix there just isn't enough gas to go around, looking at the world picture. 
I see gas is inching down again, but if you look at the long term trends in gas prices, the gas costs just keep ratcheting up slowly. Automaker have to adapt to this or fade away.
I have a Tacoma 4 door right now and would trade it immediately when they put the same hybrid engine that is in the Highlander. That thing has power to burn. My brother in law has one in the Highlander and it routinely gets over 30mpg in city driving in San Diego. It'l snap your neck passing on the Interstates. A smaller pickup is all I need, and can easily pull my camper and boat anywhere I need to pull it with my current Tacoma, and it's been the most reliable and trouble free vehicle I've owned in 50 years of auto ownership. I'm not sold on a hybrid for pulling although it's done all the time with the Highlanders and fully tested out, so for all the towing I do it should be fine.
We have a Prius right now, and it's amazing what you can stuff into that thing and cruise down the interstates at 75 - 80+ mpg. My wife and I, suitcases, two fold up bikes, etc. Way more room that it looks from the outside.
I'd love to buy an American designed and made (although Toyota is really an American company for all practical reasons) but they just don't make anything like that, and I simply got tired of paying for them twice with repairs starting at 50K miles. After my last Ford, I still get angry and nauseated every time I drive past the Ford dealership!
Wonder what deisel prices will be in the long run?


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Since I started this....... the websites for the automakers will automatically direct you to the US site, which is devoid of information on diesels. For example, go to www.toyota.co.uk and you will see the info on diesels. Yes, the figures I quoted were miles per gallon, not kilometers or litres. 
I too own a jetta diesel, but the 2002 model which has averaged over 49 mpg city and highway and gets over 51 mpg on the highway. Even VW changed their diesel in the bid for more horsepower to meet the american craze for power so mileage dropped starting with the 2003 model year.

As to pollution, the emission control rules starting in 2007 in Europe will make european diesels put out less pollution than the current strict California rules for the same horsepower gas engines. Guess what, manufacturers like Toyota, Honda and Nissan had no problem meeting the new emission laws and in fact were able to meet them in the 2006 model year.

Once again, why are manufacturers in the US whining it would cost too much, the technology doesn't exist, etc. etc.? they are once again pulling the wool over the eyes of the American consumer.


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

Well, I don't know! The problem is if they just start to look into this technology now they are already way behind. I think they have been too caught up with big, high powered truck and SUV craze that will likely end, like it or not, with climbing gas prices. The big ones sold well when gas prices were low, but I really think that day is pretty well over. 
My sister has a Jetta wagon (05) and pulls a tent camper with it all the time. Seems to do the job, which surprised me a bit. A friend has a Jetta, too, and even though he is 6 - 6 and a very big guy he has lots of headroom and also loves it. They both report 45 - 50 or so. 
I think people have been acclimatized that they have to have big vehicles and smaller ones won't do the job. Several friends claim they NEED big macho pickups with huge engines to go to work and occasionally pull their boats, etc. In my opinion, they'd be surprised how versatile smaller vehicles are, not to mention money saving. 
My wife and I figured out that by driving smaller vehicles and not trading so often the money saved would pretty well cover a week scuba diving in the Caribean every year! Guess I'd sooner do that than have a big macho rig that I don't realloy need. Would be a different story if I were a farmer or contracter, though. 
I hate making payments on anything if I can avoid it. So I've learned to buy something that doesn't need constant repairs, keeps its resale value and is big enough for what I use it for, and then hold it for more years to beat depreciation.


----------



## drhunter (Aug 8, 2006)

Just my 2 cents, then I'll get off my soap box.

1st truck: 1971 Chevy 1/2 ton 2WD, 350, carb and points ignition, 15-16 on the highway if you drove nice, 3 spd manual, no overdrive

Current truck: 2003 Chevy Avalanche 4X4, 5.3l engine, sequential fuel injection, separate coil packs for each cylinder, a computer more powerful than the one I'm typing on, automatic overdrive transmission, average 16.5 highway

We have the technology. There is no explanation or excuse for 30 years of technology with no increase in mileage. I know performance is worse, as I'd rather have that old 350. We have engineers at the car manufacturers that have as their primary job to figure out how to tune these trucks to get crappy mileage, and we all follow along like cattle.

Just my opinion, though. I've been wrong before.


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

I'm an old fossil, but I still think the best engine GM ever produced was the 327 V8. Probably followed closely by the 350. Both were good dependable easy to maintain engines. I don't know much about the new ones with all the solid state computerized, fuel injection, etc. but those earlier engines were sure nice and straighforward to work on, even for an idiot like me on the rare occasion when anything went wrong.


----------



## Robert A. Langager (Feb 22, 2002)

drhunter said:


> Just my 2 cents, then I'll get off my soap box.
> 
> 1st truck: 1971 Chevy 1/2 ton 2WD, 350, carb and points ignition, 15-16 on the highway if you drove nice, 3 spd manual, no overdrive
> 
> ...


I'd venture to say the Avalanche is much heavier, has much more power, plus it is a 4x4. That is why the mileage is the same after 30 years.

I saw a commercial for the new Suburban. GM is claiming 21 mpg highway. I find it ironic that they are hyping mileage on the poster child for huge SUVs, plus 21 mpg just isn't going to cut it for me. Get it up to 30 and we'll talk.


----------



## Bob Aronsohn (Mar 21, 2005)

A friend of mine just got back from the UK and gas is $ 11.00 a gallon over there!!! Perhaps that is why they get such good gas mileage on there vehicles.

Bob A.


----------



## englishpointer (May 16, 2005)

drhunter said:


> Just my 2 cents, then I'll get off my soap box.
> 
> 1st truck: 1971 Chevy 1/2 ton 2WD, 350, carb and points ignition, 15-16 on the highway if you drove nice, 3 spd manual, no overdrive
> 
> ...


 I agree fully , with you , Avalanche may be heavier. Also the front axle is disconected when not engaged. 
BUT dont tell me that we cant do better on fuel mileage with 30 years of engineering and advances in electronics.IE Fuel injection, no plug wires ,etc.

If you are one that buys into that is the best that can be done.
Please explain how a GM ford Dodge any of them , being in Europe or anywere but USA get more then 30% better economy and have more HP?

DONT tell me it is emmission standards, because how can you burn more fuel in the US and have lower emmissions??


----------



## Invector (Jan 13, 2006)

Well lets just look at the fact if things do not change a bit GM, Ford, and Chrysler might not be around long enough to produce any thing that might hit the kind of numbers stated in the original post :eyeroll:

If it gets that bad...well get ready to love rice


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Well, like it or not emission standards do play a role in fuel economy. You're not burning the same gas today that you burned 25 years ago and thus your not getting the same work from that gas. But.......To improve a vehicles fuel economy, one of two things must happen. The efficiency of the powertrain must be increased through new technologies, and to accomplish that the customer is going to pay through the nose for the money and time spent on developing those new technologies. Slap a couple extra thousand dollars on that new truck you liked and as with most customers you most likely will go to the other guy that is cheaper but a little less fuel efficient. Isn't competition great. The second thing for better fuel economy is the amount of work required by the engine to move the vehicle must be lowered, usually by lessening wind resistance or by reducing the vehicles size and weight. No one will buy a 3,000 pound mini truck shaped like a wedge that can't haul or tow all that hunting or fishing gear so the large heavy truck still rules. You're not going to get your cake and eat it to.............. something has to change.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

> We have a Prius right now, and it's amazing what you can stuff into that thing and cruise down the interstates at 75 - 80+ mpg. My wife and I, suitcases, two fold up bikes, etc. Way more room that it looks from the outside.


HH, how long have you had that Prius? We were on the Toyota dealer lot yesterday when a guy drove in with an '06. Said his wife talked him into it and they just came back to Jamestown from the cities with slightly over 60 mpg. Seemed pretty good to me. How is it in cold weather? Good and bad points?


----------



## englishpointer (May 16, 2005)

Gohon said:


> But.......To improve a vehicles fuel economy, one of two things must happen. The efficiency of the powertrain must be increased through new technologies, and to accomplish that the customer is going to pay through the nose for the money and time spent on developing those new technologies. No one will buy a 3,000 pound mini truck shaped like a wedge that can't haul or tow all that hunting or fishing gear so the large heavy truck still rules. You're not going to get your cake and eat it to.............. something has to change.


Ok ,

What you are saying is that technology has not been applied to any pickup or suv vehicles then.
So then conversly you are also saying that the new vehicles have not been stream lined for better aero dynamics?
Then you will with that statement also say that engine electronics have not improved, and drive train compents have not become less resistant to motion, or be disconected when not in use.

Come on , direct fuel injection , front diffs that disconect, Coils directly on the plugs, fuel management systems that are not effected by weather or climate. How many more of these things will you dispute?
Aero dynamics that "according" to the Big 3 are vastly improved.

The EXACT same vehicles are being used in other countries and getting more HP and Better Mileage. AGAIN explain to me why in USA our vehicles get less mileage and less HP then other countries with same vehicles.
Also please explain to me how we have LESS emmissions when we BURN MORE FUEL?


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

Dick, the mileage varries quite a lot but averages overall about 45 to 50 at the same highway speeds with passing, etc. that everybody else drives.
It's surprising how wind affects it. Driving at interstate speeds into a 20 - 30 mph wind occasionally brings it down below 40, and once (only once) we got 68 between Great Falls and Billings over a mountain range but with a 30mph tail wind. Also a heavy foot will knock it down, too.
But overall, expect around 45 with normal operation. 
So far we've been really happy with it (first 2 years) but ask me in 4 - 5 years.


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

Oh yes, cold weather - I was a bit apprehensive about it, but so far works great. You can't start the engine and let it idle to warm up though, as the car usually takes off on recovered electrical power and the gas engine starts and stops automatically under the control of a computer, so unless you are looking for the starts and stops of the gas engine you don't notice them and can't feel them. To drive, after you get in you push a button that looks like a computer on off switch, then when nothing seems to be happening except a few lights flashing, just push down on the gas after putting it in gear, and away you go. Sooner or later the gas engine cuts in but unless you are looking for it you won't feel it. There's no starter per se on it. Starting and stopping the gas engine is all done automatically idependent of your control. 
I always worry as it takes off so silently that one of my dogs or grandchildren might not hear it someday and could lose an argument with it. I wrote Toyota and advised them to put a beep-beep thing in reverse gear like a payloader or garbage truck to get people's attention, because it is totally silent for up to the first hundred yards or so. 
Lots of heat in winter - I don't know how they get that much heat out of that tiny gas engine so quickly, unless part of the heater when you first turn it on might be electrical powered??? Same with the air conditioner - it keeps on ticking even though the gas engine is shut down at stop signs and traffic lights. I was worried about the heater and air conditioner when we bought it, but it works fine. 
I don't understand how the guts of the thing works, just that it works well and so far, except for one minor recall, has been totally reliable and trouble free for 45,000 miles. So far, so good.
Definitely NOT a 1st choice hunting rig, although it handles gravel roads fine. Not much clearance, about average for a compact car.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> Come on , direct fuel injection , front diffs that disconect, Coils directly on the plugs, fuel management systems that are not effected by weather or climate. How many more of these things will you dispute?


I'm not disputing anything and I never said technology is not being applied. You can not apply something that may not exist. And I never said vehicles are not being streamlined. But if you think a truck that sits 18 inches off the ground and is pretty much shaped like a brick ( and that covers most trucks & SUV's that sportsmen use ) is streamed lined........... oh well. Making the hood pointed and putting fancy head lights up front is not streamlined. Read what is written, not what you want to see written. The technology to produce streamlined and light fuel efficient cars not only exists but they are on the market now. You want to drive a little scrunched up bug on your next hunting trip so you can get 60 miles a gallon then go ahead. But the technology to produce a vehicle producing 400 pounds of rear torque to pull your trailer or haul all your decoys or what ever you insist on taking into the field with you and get you high gas mileage doesn't seem to be there. You can do all the Monday morning quarterback complaining you want but in the end, you like most will continue driving that 8,000 pound tank you probable don't need and continue complaining about how the auto makers are ripping you off.

Wake up and smell the coffee........... all the stuff you named does not produce more torque and nothing but torque will move the load everyone as sportsmen, travelers or whatever wants to carry and to produce that torque you will burn more gas. The technology to make a 3/4 or 1 ton 4x4 to carry a heavy load and get that 30 mpg you claim should be there does not exist. If it does and you are aware of it then you need to make a trip to Washington and point it out for all to see. The closest that anyone has come was the use of diesel engines that were getting 25 mpg but thanks to the EPA that went out the door in 1999 when they insisted timing be retarded to lower emissions. Now they are lucky to get 20-21 if they drive like little old ladies.



> The EXACT same vehicles are being used in other countries and getting more HP and Better Mileage


I don't buy that for one second. You have some cite or proof they are the exact, and the operative word here is *exact*. That would be something like 5 mph crash bumpers, side impact beams, gas tank protection shields, all around safety air bags........... in other words, are they really the *exact* same vehicles?



> Also please explain to me how we have LESS emmissions when we BURN MORE FUEL


Because the engine is working harder to produce usable torque to propel the vehicle down the road. Torque that is being robbed by all the pollution devices on the engine. So in the end you need more gas to produce the same about of work from the engine that 25 years ago took less gas to produce.

The bottom line is anyone that thinks one of the big three would not produce a large vehicle that would meet the needs/demands of the public while at the same time getting high gas mileage just because they want to be nice to their competitors is simply being unrealistic. GM would much rather give their stock holders more money and steal customers away from Chrysler and Ford rather than downsize and close plants if they had this technology and they would build then in a heartbeat if possible.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

For those of you who wondered, the Toyota pickup in Europe and Asia is called the HiLux. The 3.0 litre diesel has 343Nm (253 lb-ft) of torque averaging 28 mpg using a 5 speed manual transmission. According to the article, Toyota sold over 500,000 HiLux vehicles in 2006 worldwide.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/07 ... roduc.html


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/07 ... roduc.html

indsport, that is a facinating read. Alway wondered where electric transportation tecnology was going and they list everything under their topics section. Thanks!


----------



## JustAnotherDog (Oct 16, 2005)

_"in their SUV's like the Land Crusier and RAV4 with towing power equal to Ford Explorer, F 150's etc. and a much lower emission engine than anything produced by Ford, GM or Chrysler for any truck. "_

When I see one of their SUV's pulling a big trailer, etc. I'll believe it. But until then . . . . . . uke:


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

Thanks for the website indsport. Very interesting new technology being worked on! The rechargeable battery by plugging it in for the Prius looks interesting! I'll have to look into this. Most of our driving in it is my wife doing home health care nursing around the city and in and out to town. That 100mpg looks attractive! It would take a long time to pay back, though, even at $3.00+ per gallon! 
Reminds me of the blonde who had new windows put in her house, and after a year the installers called and asked why she hadn't paid for them yet despite multiple billing. She replied "the salesman said they would pay for themselves after a year!"


----------



## JustAnotherDog (Oct 16, 2005)

" The 2.2 litre D-4D 140 engine 42.8 mpg.The 2.2 litre D-4D 180 40.4 mpg used in their SUV's like the Land Crusier and RAV4 *with towing power equal to Ford Explorer, F 150's etc.* and a much lower emission engine than anything produced by Ford, GM or Chrysler for any truck."

My statement still stands, show me the RAV4 or the Land Rover that can tow what an F150 can tow, with links.

BTW, I just went to Toyota/UK and the * basic RAV4* with the Diesel engine is 27,000UKpounds or a little more than $48,000 and there was nothing there about towing capacity.

For what it's worth, I agree the US car/truck makers can do better, but the above statement just dont' cut it. :wink:

Sorry, need proof.


----------



## Old Hunter (Mar 8, 2002)

In 1986 I bought a Toyota Tercel 4WHD station wagon. It was a 5 speed with an extra low (6 speed total) It could do any thing within reason. I could pull a light fishing boat,huntwith wife,son and dog,and decoys on top. It was gas engine with a 2 brl carb. It got 32 mpg in the city and up to 42 on the hwy. It was so wonderful I bought another one. I ran them both about 250,000 miles with absolutly no problems. You could put it in 4 wheel at any speed(or take it out).In 1988 0r 89 they made them full time 4 wheel and ruined the milage. Even Toyota screws up a good thing. If they made them today I would buy one in a heartbeat.


----------



## JustAnotherDog (Oct 16, 2005)

I've owned Toyotas too and they were great vehicles but none ever "with towing power equal to Ford Explorer, F 150's etc." with a 2.2 L diesel.


----------

