Toyota FJ Cruiser Forum banner
1 - 20 of 74 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
26 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
How many miles per gallon is a fj suppost to give you for real? Mine is 2007 manual 4x4 6 speed ,when i bought i knew that they were terrible in that department but mine is ridiculos , l'm lucky if I get 12.5 miles per gallon...............Is that normal? Or there is something wrong with mine?........Please help,-
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,655 Posts
Any mods to your FJ?
Speeds do you travel?
Tires?
How do you drive?
Fuel?

So many factors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Longwayround

·
Registered
Joined
·
66 Posts
It's true fj's arent great gas mileage vehicles. I mean, they are basically bricks on wheels. No aerodynamics whatsoever....I'm an AT fully loaded with 4.88's, tool drawers, steel bumper, winch, RTT, GOBI rack, fridge,icon lift with 33's etc. and avg about 14mpg. That's about 50/50 hwy and city... sounds a bit off to be at 12mpg. Are you stock or loaded down as well?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,885 Posts
The factors that have the greatest affect on fuel consumption are:
1. By far the greatest affect is the driver's driving habits: hard on the accelerator and hard on the brakes, little or no coasting up to stop lights and stop signs, consistently running up to 3,500 RPM or higher, etc.
2. Condition of the engine's fuel-feedback system: clean mass airflow sensor and correctly functioning fuel-air sensors;
3. Average cruise speed on the highway: you'll need to limit that to around 65 MPH for decent fuel economy;
4. Ratio of highway driving to stop-and-go city driving;
5. Modifications that add weight and aerodynamic drag: larger/heavier than stock tires, roof rack, roof-top tent, heavy steel skid plates, etc.
6. Tire inflation pressure: the higher the pressure, the less rolling resistance there is. The recommended tire pressure shown on the door jamb label is only applicable to the original tire type and size that the vehicle was delivered with.
7. Condition of the engine's ignition system (primarily spark plug condition).
8. The 2010 and later dual-VVTi, higher compression engines are capable of a few more MPG than the '07-'09 models with single VVTi engines.

A well-tuned, minimally-modified '07, conservatively driven, can achieve 18-19 MPG or better on the highway.
A well-tuned, minimally-modified '10 or later can achieve 20-21 MPG on the highway.

If you don't know when the last time the MAF sensor was cleaned, do it now. If the air-fuel sensors have more than about 85,000 miles on them, replace them now. Check your tire pressures. Try upshifting at 2,000 RPM for one tank of gas and see how that affects fuel consumption.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Thanks for your answers guys, I appreciate that, I consider myself a good driver I'm a 60 plus man, mos of my driving is on open road and my FJ doesn't have
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,655 Posts
no extra weight on mine on my fj except big tires
How big? Load range?

With the MT 2,500 - 3,000 rpm is its happy place. 2,000rpm is low and the engine is working to hard. Been at it near 15 years with my MT and this has been my observation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,885 Posts
Same engine in AT and MT models, correct?

Engine isn't "working too hard" at 2K RPM if you limit throttle opening to an appropriate value for that RPM.

Manual transmission allows you to dial in an 'excessive' amount of throttle at lower RPM, while AT does not.

Discussion is about MPG, and either version of the 1GR-FE engine, in front of either AT or MT, is perfectly capable of being conservatively upshifted at 2K RPM to maximize MPG. Obviously, you won't be winning any highway on-ramp drag races, but you will be limiting stress levels in the entire drivetrain while you achieve 18-20 MPG.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,655 Posts
Same engine in AT and MT models, correct?

Engine isn't "working too hard" at 2K RPM if you limit throttle opening to an appropriate value for that RPM.

Manual transmission allows you to dial in an 'excessive' amount of throttle at lower RPM, while AT does not.

Discussion is about MPG, and either version of the 1GR-FE engine, in front of either AT or MT, is perfectly capable of being conservatively upshifted at 2K RPM to maximize MPG. Obviously, you won't be winning any highway on-ramp drag races, but you will be limiting stress levels in the entire drivetrain while you achieve 18-20 MPG.
Nope. Ill put my near 15 years of driving an MT FJ against your theoretical ramblings and lack ( 0 ) of seat time in an MT FJ.
By your reasoning above the mpg for an AT and MT should be the same.....their not. Neither are their driving styles
/habits for either one.
The MT was only rated for 16mpg on PREMIUM...so highly, highly unlikely ( from expierence) that you will achieve 20mpg by short shifting at 2,000 rpm.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
I recently took a 600 mile highway trip. Auto tran 2010 stock and averaged 19mpg . Average speed on interstate probably 70. 108 k total miles, runs and looks absolutely new. I certainly cant complain. Lonslo
 

·
fka BLACK HAWK
Joined
·
2,975 Posts
change spark plugs with OEM Denso, replace air filter, replace incab air filter
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,549 Posts
Hi Rolando,
A stock FJ, driven conservatively, not more than 70mph, ought to get better than 12.5mpg.
Besides confirming the oxygen sensors and MAF are functioning their best, another thing to check for is a binding/dragging brake caliper.

My mpg dropped suddenly and then I noticed one wheel was hot after a drive. The lower pistons in that caliper were seized, and the other side were nearly so. New front calipers (to eliminate the drag) and discs (they were ruined by the dragging and heat) returned to business usual.

Norm
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
169 Posts
The factors that have the greatest affect on fuel consumption are:
1. By far the greatest affect is the driver's driving habits: hard on the accelerator and hard on the brakes, little or no coasting up to stop lights and stop signs, consistently running up to 3,500 RPM or higher, etc.
2. Condition of the engine's fuel-feedback system: clean mass airflow sensor and correctly functioning fuel-air sensors;
3. Average cruise speed on the highway: you'll need to limit that to around 65 MPH for decent fuel economy;
4. Ratio of highway driving to stop-and-go city driving;
5. Modifications that add weight and aerodynamic drag: larger/heavier than stock tires, roof rack, roof-top tent, heavy steel skid plates, etc.
6. Tire inflation pressure: the higher the pressure, the less rolling resistance there is. The recommended tire pressure shown on the door jamb label is only applicable to the original tire type and size that the vehicle was delivered with.
7. Condition of the engine's ignition system (primarily spark plug condition).
8. The 2010 and later dual-VVTi, higher compression engines are capable of a few more MPG than the '07-'09 models with single VVTi engines.

A well-tuned, minimally-modified '07, conservatively driven, can achieve 18-19 MPG or better on the highway.
A well-tuned, minimally-modified '10 or later can achieve 20-21 MPG on the highway.

If you don't know when the last time the MAF sensor was cleaned, do it now. If the air-fuel sensors have more than about 85,000 miles on them, replace them now. Check your tire pressures. Try upshifting at 2,000 RPM for one tank of gas and see how that affects fuel consumption.
Once again, an excellent reply. I would only add that a scangauge
Nope. Ill put my near 15 years of driving an MT FJ against your theoretical ramblings and lack ( 0 ) of seat time in an MT FJ.
By your reasoning above the mpg for an AT and MT should be the same.....their not. Neither are their driving styles
/habits for either one.
The MT was only rated for 16mpg on PREMIUM...so highly, highly unlikely ( from expierence) that you will achieve 20mpg by short shifting at 2,000 rpm.
A Scangauge can correct a heavy foot....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,885 Posts
Nope. Ill put my near 15 years of driving an MT FJ against your theoretical ramblings and lack ( 0 ) of seat time in an MT FJ.
By your reasoning above the mpg for an AT and MT should be the same.....their not. Neither are their driving styles
/habits for either one.
The MT was only rated for 16mpg on PREMIUM...so highly, highly unlikely ( from expierence) that you will achieve 20mpg by short shifting at 2,000 rpm.
Mikey - Stop fabricating ... nowhere did I state that fuel consumption for MT and AT models should be the same ... you simply made that up.

I did say that the ENGINES in the AT and MT models were the same. Any moron can see that the full time 4WD system in the MT models will have more driveline frictional losses than an otherwise-identical part-time 4WD model.

And I'm pretty sure that you have ZERO knowledge of how much time I've spent driving MT FJs, correct?

Rather than just expelling hot air, why not look at the actual EPA fuel economy ratings for both the single VVTi ('07 - '09) and the dual VVTi engines ('10 and later)?

EPA highway rating for the '07 AT was 19 MPG, '08 and '09 ATs were 20 MPG.
EPA highway ratings for the '07 and '08 MTs was 18 MPG, and 19 MPG for the '09 MT.

The '10 AT was rated at 21 MPG, while the MT stayed at 19 MPG.

The EPA ratings are obtained via a relatively short, computer-controlled test on a dyno, and may or may have any relevance to real-world driving conditions. It's just a standardized test program that is applied to all vehicles, regardless of whether they have a 3-cylinder engine or a V10.

It's fairly easy to exceed the EPA 'ratings' for both city and highway through conservative driving habits, common sense, and a well-maintained engine. So I'll stand behind my '18-20 MPG is achievable' statement.

If you're absolutely unable to approach these numbers under any conditions, maybe you need new sparkplugs. Or something.

Here is the EPA data, direct from the EPA website, for the '07-'09 models:

Car Tire Wheel Motor vehicle Vehicle


And for the '10 dual-VVTi model:
Rectangle Font Parallel Circle Pattern
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,216 Posts
mickey must be a any moron. That’s offensive and a personal attack. Do you not agree Norm?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
50 Posts
When I bought my '08 brand new it had off road package and was an auto. For the 1st 40k miles, it did not matter if I was on the interstate or the city, AC on or windows rolled down or anything. My MPG was always 16 period. After my first tune-up it when my milage started to look more like it was supposed to (as advertised 16-20). Now if I could find REAL GAS (no ethanol) my MPG jumped way up to 22-26. I totaled that one in Dec and just got an '07 so I have no idea what it'll do yet.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,655 Posts
Mikey - Stop fabricating ... nowhere did I state that fuel consumption for MT and AT models should be the same ... you simply made that up.

I did say that the ENGINES in the AT and MT models were the same. Any moron can see that the full time 4WD system in the MT models will have more driveline frictional losses than an otherwise-identical part-time 4WD model.

And I'm pretty sure that you have ZERO knowledge of how much time I've spent driving MT FJs, correct?

Rather than just expelling hot air, why not look at the actual EPA fuel economy ratings for both the single VVTi ('07 - '09) and the dual VVTi engines ('10 and later)?

EPA highway rating for the '07 AT was 19 MPG, '08 and '09 ATs were 20 MPG.
EPA highway ratings for the '07 and '08 MTs was 18 MPG, and 19 MPG for the '09 MT.

The '10 AT was rated at 21 MPG, while the MT stayed at 19 MPG.

The EPA ratings are obtained via a relatively short, computer-controlled test on a dyno, and may or may have any relevance to real-world driving conditions. It's just a standardized test program that is applied to all vehicles, regardless of whether they have a 3-cylinder engine or a V10.

It's fairly easy to exceed the EPA 'ratings' for both city and highway through conservative driving habits, common sense, and a well-maintained engine. So I'll stand behind my '18-20 MPG is achievable' statement.

If you're absolutely unable to approach these numbers under any conditions, maybe you need new sparkplugs. Or something.

Here is the EPA data, direct from the EPA website, for the '07-'09 models:

View attachment 1154130

And for the '10 dual-VVTi model:
View attachment 1154131
Moron, eh? Thanks for the complement.

I was refereing to the combined average which is 16mpg on PREMIUM as you so kindly posted.

You implied that AT and MT when shifting at your recommend rpm should be equall or better than EPA. I stand corrected.

Still stand by my statement ( miles and seat time) of 2,000 rpm is to low to be shifting gears on an MT 2,500 - 3,000 rpm is the best.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,885 Posts
mickey must be a any moron. That’s offensive and a personal attack. Do you not agree Norm?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sparkey wrote: "mickey must be a moron" (I think you might have meant Mikey).

Jeez, has someone been distributing free Karen hats??

Sorry, but I did not call Mikey a moron.

If you interpreted my post that way, then it was poor choice of sentence structure on my part, or possibly something else.

Not clear why some individuals seem to get so overwrought when alternate opinions are expressed.
 
1 - 20 of 74 Posts
Top