YOU CAN"T floor it, smash on the brakes and expect any car to get reasonable mileage! Come to think of it I'd imagine even normal ICE vehicles would get better mileage if they had the screens the Prius has, people would be more aware of what eats up the gas.

A little TLC with the Prius and the EPA stuff is real.

True enough. You don't even need a fancy MFD to see how you're doing. When I started paying attention to the "instantaneous MPG" readout on my `93 minivan I found I could squeeze another 5 - 10% out of it. Which brought it much closer to the EPA estimates.

MPG

Here in IL its flat but am surrounded by 6 million people so my environment is paved. My MPG has ranged from 47 to 53 per tank which is about 10% below the EPA average of 55. Considering my previous car, an Acura RL that uses premium gas, got about 18-20 MPG am thrilled with the Prius mileage and driveability.
The more Prii, the more better.

I watched my son (22) drive my Prius. He got 35 m.p.g. He drove like his peers. Look at the recent Car and Driver article 18 m.p.g. on the track. Hard acceleration, hard breaking. Also look at the rest of the data. I also think that you should read the hard copy not the internet article. I think that the "win" for the HCH is for the fun car and is a side bar, but thats me. I for one think that every car should come with at least a instantaneous and tank average m.p.g. read out. It should be in your face like mph and rpm.

well i am below the EPA's overall estimate of 56.1 mpg for my Prius.

i am a whole 4 % below. (53.8 mpg overall) and i can live with that.

BUT on the highway i am over the epa. (realize that i dont have full tanks of straight highway so its a rough estimate based on trips of over 200 miles that was 95+% freeway) averaging about 52.4 mpg for a 3% increase over the EPA's figure of 52 mpg.

on city driving this is where i get my biggest variation going from 49 to 56 mpg. the huge difference has more to do with the length of the trip more than the type of driving or speed.

to test this. i purposely experimented with extending short trips to at least 5 miles and then to 10 miles. on trips that were extended to minimum of 5 miles (easy to do since only 33% of my trips were shorter) i averaged between 51-53 mpg.

when extended to 10 miles (actually i extended it to 10.6 miles since this is the distance to work) i averaged between 53-56 mpg.

to make it fair i tried several trips of about 2.4 miles ( yes i had a specific destination in mind. this trip i normally did on my bike. i took the car for this experimentation only.) and my average appeared to be as low as 42-45 mph.

realize all these were performed in warm weather and the air conditioning didnt seem to affect longer trips at all. i didnt keep track of the shorter ones as i did them first and didnt think about the air conditioning as i havent noticed the air conditioning affecting my mileage before.

now to figure estimated mileage on partial tanks what i did was to reset one of the trip meter so i wouldnt have to worry about tracking the distance. then i would take my start point and determine the amount of gas used. the figure the amount used at the end of the trip.

for example if i had a tank at 50 mpg and 250 miles on the tank i would estimate 5 gallons of gas used.

then if i drove 100 miles and at the end of the trip the mileage was 52 mpg. well that would be for 350 miles so that would be 6.73 gallons used. so the trip would have been 100 miles and 1.73 gallons used for a 57.8 mpg estimate.

what gets me is the EPA collects "real world" data but doesnt use them. if they were to mix in a certain percentage of this data, more people would be happy.

EPA already conducts realistic tests that generate both pollution and fuel-economy data. Those simulate hilly terrain, air-conditioning use at 95 degrees, aggressive driving with hard acceleration up to 85 mph and cold-weather operation at 20 degrees.

i wonder how much its costing us to collect this data that we dont get to see??

Actually, you do. Look at the "fine print" below the big block EPA numbers. That's where they get their "accpetable" range.

ok... here is verbatim "fine print" for my car

Actual mileage will vary with options, driving conditions, criving habits and vehicle's condition. Results reported to EPA indicate that the majority of vehicles with these estimates will achieve between


51 and 69 mpg in the city and between

43 and 59 mpg on the highway.

For comparison Shopping, all vehicles classified as

MID-SIZE

have been issued mileage ratings ranging from

10 to 59 mpg city and

14 to 51 mpg highway.

i fail to see where they state real world mileage estimates. and what they do state is erroneous anyway. and i dont mean wrong because of piss poor estimates. i mean in that midsized cars have estimates in city ranging from 10 to 59 mpg city...

well, seems they saw fit to not include the Prius' 60 mpg...

After reading a number of these posts by Prius owners and potential owners far wiser than I, it seems that the real lesson that should be learned is that the EPA desperately needs to update their test methodology--that EVERY car's MPG rating is probably off to some degree. And, of course, that driving habits also greatly affect mileage--although I naively assumed everyone already knew that! Apparently I was wrong!

Unfortunately, the media is spinning it as some sort of deception on the part of Toyota and Prius owners. And, of course, those that hate Prius and/or the very idea of hybrids are contributing to the nonsense. However, despite all the negative press, Prius sales continue to increase, so I guess there's hope!

Harrison
(more or less patiently waiting for his Prius in S. CA)

That's easier said than done. The EPA estimate is what drives the CAFE requirement for the manufacturer. Every manufacturer has to be evaluated against the same test or it won't be "fair".

Congress probably needs to authorize the EPA to create a new classification for hybrids so the EPA can do its thing more reasonably.