2010 MPG Stats - Post Them Here

[bwilson4web]

Originally Posted by F8L

. . .
You seriously drove around in loops for an hour at 25mph?

Actually, this is what we did:

• Kiwi dog and I got in the car and drove at 25 miles per hour through the neighborhood and no traffic, limited access road onto Redstone Arsenal and to the center. We played Saturday's "Car Talk" podcast. Estimated 15 minutes to get there and ending MPG ~67 MPG (includes warm-up.)
• We circled the loop at 25 mph and spied four skunks and one rabbit. Kiwi dog is very interested. The center has an outer, three lane loop and is posted at 25 mph with no stop or yield signs and a maximum altitude change of less than 5 meters. Two lanes run in a counter clockwise direction, the path we took. After 16 miles, parked to take a photo only to discover the batteries were dead. So we got out to sneak-up on the rabbit with ending MPG ~86 MPG.
• The rabbit spied us too far away so Kiwi dog had to be content with sniffing rabbit poo and leaving her contribution so we returned to car.
• We circled the loop one more time at 25 mph, counting the skunks and drove home at 25 mph. Car talk ended on the way home. Got fresh batteries, took photo and made posting, ending 87.7 MPG.

The 87.7 MPG includes vehicle warm-up. My charts are all based upon after the car is throughly warmed up and like my NHW11, it still seems to take at least 20 minutes. But I'm seeing enough data to suggest that 25 mph mileage will be at least 90 MPG and probably a bit more.

I still need to map speed ranges between 25 and 50 mph. The slope of the curve along with coast-down tests will give us a good idea of the vehicle efficiency. The last will be an 'idle' test to measure the heart-beat overhead.

I would like to disabuse anyone of thinking I'm doing these tests for any reason except to plot the engineering data. Sure, I know the tricks but I also realize one's actual mileage is as much an accident of where you live as anything else. There are people who are getting 40 MPG in their Prius and considering their driving environment, this is brilliant mileage.

There was a resident in Boston who lived at the bottom of a hill. For those who don't know, a resident is a physician who has to do a period of work in hospitals, often 60-80 hour weeks, for about two years. Living at the bottom of the hill, he had no choice but to climb his still cold engine Prius every time he went to the hospital and transportation time stole time away from sleeping, family and medical practice. His 40 MPG was brilliant and his use of his time sterling!

As for driving stunts, if they take more than an hour, not counting warm-up, or two hours including warm-up, I consider it a total waste of human time. If you can't figure out what is going to happen in the first 1-2 hours, additional time does not make it better. There are times when endurance is important but a driving stunt is below my threshold of importance. I'd rather send a robot with a body-sized ballast to do an endurance test.

Bob Wilson

[F8L]

See, now that is WAY more interesting than just driving in a loop at 25mph for almost an hour. I mean with a cool copilot, skunks and rabbits there was plenty of entertainment. I just feel sorry for Kiwi dog, I mean not even getting to chase one of the rabbits and instead had to watch from the passenger side window must have been torture.

Thanks for taking the time to write that reply. It made my morning my friend.

[a priori]

Originally Posted by Gen 3 for me

Can anybody tell me what it will do mpg wise with only the driver at 70 mph on a relatively flat interstate with the cruise set at 70 mph with A/C and without A/C. Thanks

I've got good data on a trip much like that, but I only had it WITH A/C (on Auto at 72; ambient temps in the low 80s and humid). Also, my speeds were a bit lower. I set the cruise control to 70 (I-65 has a 65 limit), but I was using the adaptive cruise control and was parked behind other cars and trucks going anywhere from 63 to 70.

I measured the round-trip, so I wouldn't get only the benefit or detriment of downhill or uphill mileage. (Don't laugh, even Illinois and Indiana have hills!)

Here is the picture of my MID upon arrival home after the trip (shows 441 miles at 58.8 MPG):



I also just did a longer run from Chicago to St. Paul (via stops in Wisconsin). That run was not completely round-trip -- meaning I took some different roads in part, and it wasn't completely interstate, though almost all was on divided highway with 65mph speed limits or Interstate with 70mph limits.

Weather was a major factor in that I had rain, cool weather (50s and 60s for some) and headwinds. In fact, I had severe headwinds going north and light headwinds returning!

I drove with the A/C on and set at Auto (72). I used the ECO mode most of the time (some Power for fun!). I was driving in a BIG hurry going north, so even though I was on cruise control, I bumped it up several times. The way back was more leisurely, and I took a number of stops.

I don't have a screen shot of the MID for the round-trip, but here are the stats: 849.5 miles at 53.0 MPG. Average speed was 46mph (those stops -- and also a lot of time "idling" while I took pictures -- take a look at my new album!).

I'm not so certain the A/C is making as much of a difference in mileage in the 2010. Using the ECO mode seems to help by keeping the fan from going bonkers.

[SageBrush]

Here is the picture of my MID upon arrival home after the trip (shows 441 miles at 58.8 MPG):

Very impressive. That is better by about 2 mpg than my G2, and I drive at 5500 ft. elevation.

AC use is more informative if the ambient temps are reported.

[a priori]

Originally Posted by SageBrush

Very impressive. That is better by about 2 mpg than my G2, and I drive at 5500 ft. elevation.

AC use is more informative if the ambient temps are reported.

Good point! I made a quick edit.

[Husker4theSpurs]

My first tank ended JUST under 50mpg ... Just over half of the miles were at Interstate speeds of 75mph ... I am confident I can get 60 mpg with an all city tank.

[Genoz World]

VERY NICE. it looks like the new gen III owners are very happy with the MPG's they're receiving. with averages into the 50's, this is a great number to have.

cheers

[JimboK]

Originally Posted by bwilson4web

Actually, this is what we did:

• Kiwi dog and I got in the car and drove at 25 miles per hour through the neighborhood and no traffic, limited access road onto Redstone Arsenal and to the center. We played Saturday's "Car Talk" podcast. Estimated 15 minutes to get there and ending MPG ~67 MPG (includes warm-up.)
• We circled the loop at 25 mph and spied four skunks and one rabbit. Kiwi dog is very interested. The center has an outer, three lane loop and is posted at 25 mph with no stop or yield signs and a maximum altitude change of less than 5 meters. Two lanes run in a counter clockwise direction, the path we took. After 16 miles, parked to take a photo only to discover the batteries were dead. So we got out to sneak-up on the rabbit with ending MPG ~86 MPG.
• The rabbit spied us too far away so Kiwi dog had to be content with sniffing rabbit poo and leaving her contribution so we returned to car.
• We circled the loop one more time at 25 mph, counting the skunks and drove home at 25 mph. Car talk ended on the way home. Got fresh batteries, took photo and made posting, ending 87.7 MPG.

Like any good science author, Bob has done a wonderful job of documenting study methodology in his paper.

[wvgasguy]

Originally Posted by DaveinOlyWA

he wouldnt be the first to do so to boost mileage. have been a lot of people detailing how they circled a parking lot or a desolate country road at crawl speed just to get an extra mile per gallon on their final tank #'s.

I understand Bob's interest in the science, but for the others, it seems to defeat the purpose of buying a fuel saving vehicle if you use fuel just to get your average up.

[DaveinOlyWA]

if current tank holds i will be 9 mpg higher than the SPM, granted different drivers, driving conditions similar but SPM routes tend to be shorter and when i was driving SPM i was averaging closer to 55-56 mpg... so i will say, all things equal, the 2010 is doing about 7 MPG better.

so where that make me?

63.4 mpg on 420 miles