You just replied awhile ago and said: " I'm not even sure that I even get 24MPG!" But here you are doubting whether I do or not! If you keep an eye on your mpg you will know whether it's time for a tuneup, O2 sensor, AFM...! <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/shame.gif" alt="" />
Maybe you think the 3.4 is immune from the HG's going bad! <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/lol.gif" alt="" />
Now that we hijacked this post & Beechdiver is confused,
"That's all folks!" <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/lol.gif" alt="" />

Actually.....I'm pretty good at that math stuff and I do it in my head...at the pump. My last tank of gas I got 19.71 mpg. Tank before that was 18.9.

It's bad enough that I do it to 2 decimals places in my head I don't need to add to my nerosis by keeping a spread sheet of it.

Anyone want the numbers on my honda?

I don't want your resume and I dont't care if you can solve the Rubiks cube! Can you remember what the last #'s were 7 tanks ago? To the tenth? <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/shame.gif" alt="" />
That MPG isn't bad! What Octane do ya run?
I'd figure w/that big bad 3.4 you would get 27+ mpg! <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/lol.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/lol.gif" alt="" />
So be it! <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/evil.gif" alt="" />

Well...I've only run 4 tanks through it so far...just started the 5th tank this morning. But, those are 17.1 (I think...I had just gotten it on the road), 17.5, 18.9 and 19.71.

I tend to forget the second decimal place after a week or so....which is actually rather irrelivent when you think about the signifigant figures your are working with and the fact that your odometer does't account for idle time....

anyway....I always put the high octane stuff (93) in cars I care about. Aside from just running better, I found that it also gave better gas milage which (unless the car was a pig) made up for the cost difference. Cars I don't care about get the cheap stuff...ofcourse those are so far out of tune that nothing is going to make them run better, but new parts.

The '97 4Runner (which is what my motor came from) only got between 17 and 20 mpg when they were new, so I'm doing alright. I really don't have any highway time on the car, so about 18.5 mpg is pretty good so far. I've got a road trip comming up in a couple of weeks....I'll post those numbers for you if you wanted.

By the way...The Honda's last 7 tanks were 30.0, 30.5, 29.8, 32.0, 31.9 (last two were road trip miles), 29.8 and 29.9.

Good MPG's CoRunner! Get her out on the hwy and you'll push 23+! I wish I had the mpg that my wife's cars got: Nissan, Altima 45+! Sentra 50+, combined hwy & twn! Unreal! We go to VA or NC every yr on vacation and then it gets close to 60!! <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />
10-4! out! Pie = 3.14 the coefficient of matter is? It don't matter! <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/lol.gif" alt="" />

Did you look into Camry heads? <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

My impression is the worst issues are with automatic 2nd gen 4runners which have a gearing issue. I still think the "grain" might be a bit confused. Example, you take a gearing problem put on motor mods that won't address the issue, then conclude the motor is the issue. Once the "word" is on the street, post after post, it spreads and soon you have fewer and fewer people working on solving problem as more just live with it or jump ship.

Frank

Question for Nunsa-
You said "88 - 90 were the best yrs. for a 3.0, as long as the trans was a manual!"
I've done alot of research on the V6's in general and I was wondering why you think the 88-90 would be any better than the 91-95? What are the differences? ECU & emission controls?
I've rebuilt several 3.0's when I worked in a shop and I can't recall any obvious differences except the airbox and intake plumbing.

I actually don't know there Willcipher, to be honest w/ya!
I did recall after recall(HG's) on these bad boys and most were 91+ years, No kidding! I had/have 3.0 's, 88 and my current '89, my 88 screamed, all stock! My '89 now does w/some mods to the engine! With the auto trans attached the 3.0 is a 3.slo!
<img src="/forums/images/graemlins/cheers.gif" alt="" /> to ya!

Nunsa,
That's cool. From my understanding, the headgaskets were not an issue in the early V6's because they were using an asbestos mix. In the 90's, they changed to a different material due to the health risks of working with asbestos and that's when the troubles started. FWIW, I had a 90 4Runner (the rare 2 door) with the 3.0, 5spd and loved that truck. I bought it with 190,000 miles on it and put another 30,000 trouble free miles on it. I replaced the T-belt and some other preventative maint stuff but had no real problems except A/C leaks in the evaporator and one of the rear shock mount welds breaking off the axle.
I drove it from St Louis to Seattle averaging 75-80 MPH mostly with A/C on and averaged 18-19 MPG. It had the stock 31's on it. I sold it because I got a company car and kicked myself for it later. Friends were like, "You're going across the country in a vehicle with over 200,000 miles on the original motor?" DOH, you can do that in a Toy! With 2 doors and the 5 speed, all stock engine parts and properly tuned up, it would hum along at 90 miles an hour easily.
I can't knock the 3.0 but I prefer the 3.4 S/C in a first gen Runner

Outstanding Willcipher! I hear that a lot, "Your going where? & you have almost 300,000 miles on it?" Yeah, I say, It's a Toyota not a Chevy!
As far as the asbestos, yes they did use asbestos then,what harm did it due? The HG's lasted longer! The 3.4 is a great engine no doubt! I love my 3.0's! The swap was too expensive for me! I R&R my engine when the HG started to leak @ 297,000+ miles! I guess I'm good for another 1/4 million miles huh? I get 21 - 24 mpg, & that's with 93 octance!
<img src="/forums/images/graemlins/cheers.gif" alt="" /> to ya!