FE is arranged this way
1] Vehicle spec
4] Vehicle Use (Driver Skill)
Start with EPA figures (appears to be 13-18 & either 15 or 16 combined) and add a bit of improvement for warm climate / flat terrain, or deduct a touch for colder / hilly to mountainous.
I've not ever seen a problem in exceeding EPA estimates going back to the 1970's, so the revised downwards
testing procedure now in use should be easy to match for a lazy driver.
If one avoids 4WD spec and uses closed shoulder tread tires (such as MICHELIN LTX A/S) mpg will be as high as can be across the range of use. Consider such an approach as Smart Spec
(and for any truck would include a bed cover, etc, that eases aerodynamic quality) where the goal is the most work for the least fuel burn.
is in an FE-consious approach. Combined trips, pre-warming of fluids, etc. It is possible (I have done it) to nearly equal highway mpg while in town with skill improvement.
a deduction of 30-40% from highway mpg is a rule-of-thumb assumption. If one records all gallons, all miles in a spreadsheet to find the actual highway mpg average
this will be easy. An EPA-based deduction would show that 10.5-12.5 towing is a reasonable start.
An 11-mpg average with fuel at an average $3.50/gl is 32-cpm [cents-per-mile] for purposes of planning. This
number -- cpm -- is the meaningful one to acquire as mpg actually means little by itself.
The average vacationer may cover 5k miles annually. $1600 in fuel for this vehicle.
It is the annual solo miles that matter for purposes of budgeting for the non-full-timer.
calculates overall cpm for a Tundra at 15k annually over 5-years shows an overall cost of .98-cpm. And alternative tow vehicle, a V6 Dodge Charger
, would be .79-cpm. Or, $10,000.
In comparing new vehicle numbers (any
numbers) start from a baseline such as this. For a towing rig it is the trailer that drives ultimate fuel consumption numbers (on this an A/S is unbeatable), but a poor choice of TV (safety and FE) will exact a higher cost at higher risk.