I read that it would only get 15 mpg city and 19mpg highway in thisNYTimes Article.
I had seen and read some previews of this vehicle in Car and Driver, and it really seemed to be a very good vehicle for Colorado/New Mexico Photography with the off-road capabilities and great rear space for sleeping. Plus, I thought that Toyota (being a fairly progressive and cutting edge company) would find a way to do what so many other companies fail to do: produce an off-road vehicle while maintaining at least decent fuel economy. I was hoping the fuel economy might rival or exceed the Taco (I know, I'm a hopeless dreamer).
Someday, I hope one can purchase a Jeep-type off road vehicle without having to make such an extreme fuel-economy sacrifice. The Diesel future looks bright with new regs coming on board in 2008 that clean up the sulfur emissions (But for those obnoxious and potent emissions, Diesel beats gasoline hands-down both in economy and performance). Because of both the economic reality of gas prices and my own personal views, I guess I'll just have to continue waiting for my efficient off-roader while I continue to bust up my Subaru by pushing it beyond its limits.
Yah, it's certainly ugly (even uglier than the concept).
I guess I'll have to look into that Jeep Diesel thing. That looks decent and has decent economy.
Posted by Brent Murphy on March 1, 2006 at 4:36 PM
Don't know about ugly. I think it looks pretty funky. Those gas mileage estimates are pretty ugly, though. If I wasn't married with a second kid on the way, maybe. But at this point, I unfortunately have to think about vehicles that can easily fit two car seats. . . . <sigh> But if I had been thinking about buying a Wrangler, I might lean towards this instead. Looks like a pretty capable off-roader.
That city gas mileage is worse than my wrangler on 33s. Before I went up 3 inches in tire size, I was getting 19 mpg on the highway. Now I seem to get about 16.5 mpg whether doing city or highway driving. Thats surprisingly bad for a toyota.
Kinda disappointing that they went with independent front suspension. It makes it drive a little easier on the road, but makes it much more expensive to lift the suspension and significantly takes away from the offroad ability. Too bad, cause I like the looks of it pretty well.
Posted by Brent Murphy on March 1, 2006 at 5:39 PM
Mel - Did you have your odometer adjusted for the change in tire size? Changing tires without getting the odometer adjusted can make gas mileage changes appear more dramatic than they actually are.
No I did not. The speedometer/odometer on Jeep Wrangler Rubicons were know to read approximately 10% low on stock tires. I've done trips with my GPS with the 33s and there is a very slight variance between the GPS trip odometer and the jeep's odometer.
You've got the calculation backwards. Correcting the odometer for larger tires will "give" you slightly better gas mileage (since you are actually going more miles than the odometer is reading.)
I love the FJ Cruiser, hate the gas mileage, and will likely buy it any way. I'm waiting for them to hit the dealerships so I can test out the sleeping area as I'm hopeful it won't be as cramped as my Taco Crew Cab bed (5'1"). I'll wait for the 2008 model to allow Toyota time to work out all the kinks with a brand new vehicle.
As for the IFS, I don't see it as that much of a problem. Yes, a solid front axle articulates better and is cheaper to lift but the IFS front end on my Taco works just fine in the rough stuff. I've run trails rated at 8 in Colorado and not had any problems with it, which is about as technical a trail as I'll ever need to run to get to a good photography location.
Bret- I had the same feeling when the concept was released. I thought for sure the vehicle was for me. However the production model seems a bit fat compared to the muscular look of the concept, and the rear does not look as spacious as the concept. Plus, I thought the concept had a completely flat back once rear seats were folded down with no tire wells. The video on Edmunds shows no tire wells, but does show that the seats seem to fold flat a good 6-inches to a foot taller than the the rear floor, creating an uneven rear.
Posted by Scott Borger on March 1, 2006 at 10:50 PM
I think that it looks more like a honda element on steroids.
Posted by Scott Borger on March 1, 2006 at 10:51 PM
And the front of it looks alot like the old Land Cruisers from the 70's.
Posted by Todd Caudle on March 2, 2006 at 12:10 AM
Thanks, Brian. You might have just cost me $30K. This thing is off the HOOK! In truth, I'm not getting a new vehicle until my current one gets to 300K mileage. At around 210K now, I'm barely two-thirds there. But if I got a sudden infusion of cash, that'd be another story.
I saw some photos of this little beast awhile ago, on a Toyota magazine website. They showed it running the Rubicon Trail, stock. So I imagine it comes with some big rubber, hence the low MPG. Not that anyone would get more than about 12mpg off road. I have a Taco and I think the ultimate solution would be a Wildernest topper -- perfect for what we need. Alas, I believe they are out of business, but still available used. My brother has a '71 FJ40 and for less than the price of this he threw in a Chevy motor from a Suburban and he gets almost the same gas milage. I actually like this new incarnation though!
Will you let the Toyota salesman know my address so that I can get the commision on the sale? I need that money to buy the 5D!
Posted by Brent Murphy on March 2, 2006 at 10:36 AM
Mel - Thanks for the correction. I knew that changing the tire size affected the mileage, but never put enough thought into it to figure out if the mileage would go up or down. Unfortunately, I guess this means that my Explorer is getting even worse gas mileage than it appears.
Discussion
16 repliesI had seen and read some previews of this vehicle in Car and Driver, and it really seemed to be a very good vehicle for Colorado/New Mexico Photography with the off-road capabilities and great rear space for sleeping. Plus, I thought that Toyota (being a fairly progressive and cutting edge company) would find a way to do what so many other companies fail to do: produce an off-road vehicle while maintaining at least decent fuel economy. I was hoping the fuel economy might rival or exceed the Taco (I know, I'm a hopeless dreamer).
Someday, I hope one can purchase a Jeep-type off road vehicle without having to make such an extreme fuel-economy sacrifice. The Diesel future looks bright with new regs coming on board in 2008 that clean up the sulfur emissions (But for those obnoxious and potent emissions, Diesel beats gasoline hands-down both in economy and performance). Because of both the economic reality of gas prices and my own personal views, I guess I'll just have to continue waiting for my efficient off-roader while I continue to bust up my Subaru by pushing it beyond its limits.
EDIT: Here's a slightly better review at Edmunds.com
I guess I'll have to look into that Jeep Diesel thing. That looks decent and has decent economy.
Kinda disappointing that they went with independent front suspension. It makes it drive a little easier on the road, but makes it much more expensive to lift the suspension and significantly takes away from the offroad ability. Too bad, cause I like the looks of it pretty well.
You've got the calculation backwards. Correcting the odometer for larger tires will "give" you slightly better gas mileage (since you are actually going more miles than the odometer is reading.)
As for the IFS, I don't see it as that much of a problem. Yes, a solid front axle articulates better and is cheaper to lift but the IFS front end on my Taco works just fine in the rough stuff. I've run trails rated at 8 in Colorado and not had any problems with it, which is about as technical a trail as I'll ever need to run to get to a good photography location.
Will you let the Toyota salesman know my address so that I can get the commision on the sale? I need that money to buy the 5D!