Highway fuel economy

[marcinpisz]

I have a question about fuel economy. From the mine has a 2009 version of the Toyota Pius. On the trip from Edmonton to the Rocky Mountains he experienced the fuel economy of 5.4 L per hundred kilometers. He got about the same results: there and back while driving the speed limit of 110 km an hour. Going on the freeway at 80 km an hour, the best I could achieve in the summer is 4.4 L per hundred kilometers. He does not drive his car hard, uses air conditioning in the summer of course but this is not a hot climate.

Does the above fuel economy seems to be consistent with what most people are getting?

Reason I'm asking this is I'm thinking whether to get this car or go for the Venza which according to fuel economy figures gets about 7.1 L per hundred kilometers on the highway. I do mostly highway driving. 1.5 L per hundred kilometer difference is not worth the all wheel drive that gives extra traction in the winter as well as the larger vehicle.

[JimboPalmer]

The 2010 gets about 5 MPG better mileage than the 2009 in most situations.
No Prius has AWD, Ford Escape Hybrid and Toyota Highlander Hybrid do. They may also be similarly sized. The Highlander gets 9 MPG better city mileage than the Venza.

[wintechsw]

Originally Posted by marcinpisz

I have a question about fuel economy. From the mine has a 2009 version of the Toyota Pius. On the trip from Edmonton to the Rocky Mountains he experienced the fuel economy of 5.4 L per hundred kilometers. He got about the same results: there and back while driving the speed limit of 110 km an hour. Going on the freeway at 80 km an hour, the best I could achieve in the summer is 4.4 L per hundred kilometers. He does not drive his car hard, uses air conditioning in the summer of course but this is not a hot climate.

Does the above fuel economy seems to be consistent with what most people are getting?

Reason I'm asking this is I'm thinking whether to get this car or go for the Venza which according to fuel economy figures gets about 7.1 L per hundred kilometers on the highway. I do mostly highway driving. 1.5 L per hundred kilometer difference is not worth the all wheel drive that gives extra traction in the winter as well as the larger vehicle.

The 5.4 l/100km consumption can be improved to around 4.6 l/100km by just dropping the speed down to 106kph. My Gen2 has a critical spot on my Scanguage at the 78 LOD figure. Any faster speeds sends the consumption > 5l/100km, sitting at 106kph keeps the LOD < 78. The slightly slower speed adds a few minutes to a journey, but the increased consumption is significant.

[Mt View]

Originally Posted by marcinpisz

I have a question about fuel economy. From the mine has a 2009 version of the Toyota Pius. On the trip from Edmonton to the Rocky Mountains he experienced the fuel economy of 5.4 L per hundred kilometers. He got about the same results: there and back while driving the speed limit of 110 km an hour. Going on the freeway at 80 km an hour, the best I could achieve in the summer is 4.4 L per hundred kilometers. He does not drive his car hard, uses air conditioning in the summer of course but this is not a hot climate.

Does the above fuel economy seems to be consistent with what most people are getting?

Reason I'm asking this is I'm thinking whether to get this car or go for the Venza which according to fuel economy figures gets about 7.1 L per hundred kilometers on the highway. I do mostly highway driving. 1.5 L per hundred kilometer difference is not worth the all wheel drive that gives extra traction in the winter as well as the larger vehicle.

My 2010 gets significantly better fuel economy climbing and at highway speeds than my 2005 prius. I'm averaging about 49 mpg against 43 mpg on my normal work route (climbing 3500 feet going home). This is with ethonal fuel, my 2005 got 46 with "real" gas but you can't find that anymore. I average over 50 mpg at 75 mph on my last trip.

[marcinpisz]

When you are saying 5 miles per gallon better than the 2009 model, are you talking about the displayed mileage or the actual mileage. I have been reading quite a lot of forums about the car and from what I have been able to deduce is that the 2010 model seems to display about 10% better mileage than what it actually gets. On the other hand, the 2009 model was almost spot on. So it is no surprise, that the people are seeing the displayed fuel economy on the new model as being higher than on the old model. The actual fuel economy might not actually be that different from the old one. I do not do a lot of city driving, so city fuel economy is not that important to me. I am very doubtful that any of these tall SUVs get better mileage than the Venza.

[marcinpisz]

Originally Posted by wintechsw

The 5.4 l/100km consumption can be improved to around 4.6 l/100km by just dropping the speed down to 106kph. My Gen2 has a critical spot on my Scanguage at the 78 LOD figure. Any faster speeds sends the consumption > 5l/100km, sitting at 106kph keeps the LOD < 78. The slightly slower speed adds a few minutes to a journey, but the increased consumption is significant.

Since I would be driving it around 105 km an hour I would probably be achieving a slightly better fuel economy as you suggested. In terms of slowing down even more, I would not be doing it so. I am the kind of person that simply drives the speed limit. Driving any slower than that would not work for me as I work long days, 12 hour days. So I tend to drive to get to work and back as quickly as possible without speeding. Thankfully the speed limit to work is 100 km an hour with 10% allowance for driver and mechanical error. I am also wondering if you ever tried using premium fuel to help the engine advance the timing and therefore get better fuel economy at these higher speeds.

[marcinpisz]

Originally Posted by Mt View

My 2010 gets significantly better fuel economy climbing and at highway speeds than my 2005 prius. I'm averaging about 49 mpg against 43 mpg on my normal work route (climbing 3500 feet going home). This is with ethonal fuel, my 2005 got 46 with "real" gas but you can't find that anymore. I average over 50 mpg at 75 mph on my last trip.

I am going to ask the same question, as I have done to the first person who responded to my post on the newsgroup. Are you taking your fuel mileage from the display of the new 2010 or are you using the actual mileage you have calculated. As the new 2010 over estimates its mileage by 10% on the display was the old model was very accurate. Are you actually driving a longer distance on the fuel tank as they should have the same size of time.

[JimboPalmer]

Originally Posted by marcinpisz

When you are saying 5 miles per gallon better than the 2009 model, are you talking about the displayed mileage or the actual mileage. I have been reading quite a lot of forums about the car and from what I have been able to deduce is that the 2010 model seems to display about 10% better mileage than what it actually gets. On the other hand, the 2009 model was almost spot on. So it is no surprise, that the people are seeing the displayed fuel economy on the new model as being higher than on the old model. The actual fuel economy might not actually be that different from the old one.

The EPA is not using the car's displays, either for MPG or even the odometer. The gen II has wildly varying gas tank capacity, so measuring how much gas it takes is not a measure of how much you used. (last tank 47 MPG displayed, 52 MPG calculated; this tank 49 MPG displayed, 40 MPG calculated) You would need to compare over several tankfuls to eliminate the effects of the bladder.

Mileage Challenge 5.4: The Results - KickingTires Has some displayed vs. calculated discussion.

Originally Posted by marcinpisz

I do not do a lot of city driving, so city fuel economy is not that important to me. I am very doubtful that any of these tall SUVs get better mileage than the Venza.

If by highway miles, you mean freeway miles, I agree, most of my highway miles are on two lane roads that slow to 45 in towns and have stop signs at intersections, my highway results still have a lot of regen effect in them. I have no hills, but regen on hills may well affect even freeway MPG.

My Service Area - Google Maps

[Mt View]

Originally Posted by marcinpisz

I am going to ask the same question, as I have done to the first person who responded to my post on the newsgroup. Are you taking your fuel mileage from the display of the new 2010 or are you using the actual mileage you have calculated. As the new 2010 over estimates its mileage by 10% on the display was the old model was very accurate. Are you actually driving a longer distance on the fuel tank as they should have the same size of time.

49 calculated, my car display is averaging about 4% better over 10,000 miles. My last tank was 49.58 calculated and 50.7 on the car computer.

[Tideland Prius]

Edmonton -> Calgary. Starting FE was 4.0L/100km. By the time I got to Calgary, it registered 4.5L/100km. Hand calculations = 4.68L/100km...

Through the Rockies, I netted 4.3L/100km or 4.56L/100km calculated to Enderby, B.C.

This is with a 2010.


With our 2005, 70mph nets 5.1L/100km consistently. Tyres are pumped at 38/36.

2L/100km may not seem like much but 7.1L/100km is achieved by travelling at 80-90km/h. If I travelled at 80km/h, I'll net 4.1L/100km which is just under the official rating for the 2G Prius of 4.2L/100km.