2010 calculated vs. computer MPG - Please post your results

[wave_slider]

My friend is on his 3rd tank and his MID says 1.5 mpg higher than his calculation. I have 140+ miles and haven't even used a 1/4 tank yet, but I will be posting my results. I expect to use 2 tankfuls a month.

[sleewa]

Only 1 tank so far, but displayed MPG = 49.7; calculated MPG = 50.07

2nd tank: displayed MPG = 51.0; calculated MPG = 48.00

[wvgasguy]

I also perform one other calculation when I do my manual averaging. I record the computer reading. From that I calculate the gallons the computer estimated I used based on the computer average and the actual miles to get a "theoritical" gallons used. From that and tracking the milage I am able to do a "running total" I.E. a lifetime total of the computer reading. That takes the variances out of the tank to tank reading. In the TCH I also made an adjustment for the odometer error. What I fouind was that my manual calculation with odometer corrections over the 67,000 miles of ownership was about 0.5 mpg below the computer lifetime average, but about 0.5 mpg above the manual average.

Sounds complicated, but once the spreadsheet was set up all I had to do was enter the odometer reading, the cost of the gas (to keep a running operating cost as well) and the gallons used.

[wvgasguy]

Only one tank so far on the Prius, but I also found that when "hypermiling" the TCH I found that the variance between the manual calculation and the computer was wider. For example when I averaged 37 to 38 the difference was usually around 1 mpg, but when I averaged 40+ the difference was closer to 2 to 3 mpg. I attributed that to the error in measurement of the gas. I don't know what type of measurement is used but in most flow meters they do not have an accurate reading over the entire range of no flow to max flow. (I would assume they are not measuring gasoline used as you do in a gasoline pump but rather some sort of flow calculation). Thus high error readings on the computer are during times when there is a lot of EV function going on, or really low gasoline flows to the ICE.

I never really had anyone smarter them me (that's a lot of people) confirm this possibility.

[ken1784]

Originally Posted by F8L

Thank you guys for posting up. I think if we gather enough data that shows there may be a large discrepancy between the MID and the calculated MPG then we can persuade Toyota to pay more attention to this issue on future models or maybe make changes to the software currently handling the calculations. That is if there is indeed a problem.

Japanese G3 owners are also seeing 5-6% error.
I saw approx 10% error on the VW Golf.
Are there any vehicle which reports the exact same computer MPG as calculated MPG?

There are a lot of factors to produce computer MPG error, and a car manufacturers doesn't want to display worse computer MPG than calculated(actual) MPG.

A rumor says that Toyota engineers are going to display intentionally 5% better number on computer MPG for the Gen3 Prius.

Ken@Japan

[Sphyrna]

Just to add to the complicated hot mess that is calculating all this, I'm interested in what kind of driving and speeds. For instance I drive 75 Miles each way to/from work. about 17 are 'city' the rest are highway. The city streets average speed limit is about 40 and the highway spd limit is 65. Of course actual speeds vary day to day or even every few seconds! But there may be a correlation between the more accurate MID readings vs calc'd for slower or city driving.

Figuring this out would give us a clearer picture of what this car realy does in different circumstances/styles of driving.

I'm going to receive my Prius as soon as Mr. Obama buys my old clunker. It's waiting for me at the dealer, all the papers are signed and financing ready. ♫ The waiting is the hardest part... ♪

[sdembry]

Originally Posted by F8L

I am insterested in seeing how many people are experiencing wide swings in hand calculated MPG vs. computer derived MPG.

I see a lot of high numbers from many new owners but it seems the ones who are tracking MPG with both methods are seeing wide swings of 6-10MPG less than the computer MPG. I would like to see if this is a common issue and the car is overestimating the MPG or if maybe there is an issue specific to say Dave's car or his fill-up stations.

We have established through robust recordkeeping that the GenII is within 1%-3% or so from the MDF but I would like to see the same kind of data for the GenIII but since I cannot do it myself I am asking for you GenIII folks to perform the task. At least over a few tanks.

I, too, am interested in seeing if the displayed error is consistently higher than manual calculations. I have measured manually twice (both after 350+ mile trips of the odometer, standard commutes over 1.5 week intervals) and have measured my actual (Odometer reading / full tank to full tank gals at pump) mpgs to be near 5mpg less than displayed. I called the service department to see if a calibration adjustment was possible. They said no adjustment, that they knew of.

[krisirk]

I'm getting about 3 MPG difference. Here's my first two tanks.

Tank 1: 50.3 MPG Actual vs 53.7 MPG Computer

Tank 2: 57.3 MPG Actual vs 60.4 MPG Computer

Kris

[wave_slider]

I filled up today at about 390 miles driven. My display read 52.4 and I calculated 49.9. It may also have been due to the fact that when I gassed the first time, I let it click off and then squeezed the handle halfway till it shut off again.

I don't want to overfill so I will be stopping at the first click from now on. I will also fill at the same station, hopefully at the same pump to get a consistent pump shut-off.

[a priori]

I had wanted to do this analysis after 10 tanks, but it is taking me too long to get there.

I have filled the car 9 times, but I haven't used the first fill in my calculations, because I really don't know how full it was nor at what point the car was "filled" with gas before purchase. The 8 tanks I've purchased each resulted in calculated MPGs that were lower than the fuel economy shown on the MID readout. The variance hasn't been consistent, but I attribute that to my own inconsistency in filling the tank. I suppose I also can place "blame" on the gasoline pumps, also.

The largest difference was 3.5 MPGs (57.6 vs. 54.1) while the smallest was 1.7 MPGs (50.7 vs. 49.0). The average difference is 2.6 MPGs (56.3 vs. 53.7) which is equivalent to about 4.8%.

The following chart shows the tank-by-tank variance oscillates: