Hey all -- back just before the anniversary, with my '24 XW60... Mostly, just notes on things noticed and learned. -- running 89 octane vs. 87, at least in is the move. Lots of in-town, but also lots of highway (and all graded since I live on the slopes and isthmus of two volcanoes). Peak hi mpg = 64.78. If you're getting better mpg, probably live in cooler, drier weather and flatter topology. -- since have only owned ICE-only Toyota in past (and gotten great mpg w/ ahem, rather spirited methods of maintaining momentum )... have become aware of more and more techniques that simply faceplant w/ the XW60 vs. say, a 1.5L Toyota Echo (which in non-squiddish hands / feet, can easily attain 40s mpg): don't feather the throttle everywhere, it isn't worth it like it is in an ICE-only vehicle. Initially, found ECO mode greatly improved mpg, before learning the car's foibles more closely. For a time, NORMAL mode seemed to increase mpg more often on my sorties than ECO, which was fine as it allows us not to trigger impatient Zoomers in their Rios and 13-yo Altimas. But as time passed, more about ECO mode seemed to make sense -- which demanded chg in driving style honed 40 yrs by sub-2.0L 4-cyl ICEs -- and once that were made, more mpg literally fell out -- like discovering toothpaste tube squeezers reveal you've been wasting a shirtload of product mostly... this means, as in the 9-Month Review, 1) letting the car decide more often (as opposed to all the time) when to go to EV Mode; 2) learning where the car has the greatest response with the smallest amt of throttle angle. for example: simple standing start from a light. Don't foot to wood, and don't feather it so much the tweaker Karens in 29-mpg X3s in back have their little entitled teething fits. Somewhere in the middle -- my best results are juuust into the POWER range of throttle for a few seconds / 35 mph, then backing off in steps, until the angle's in the lower half of ECO range -- sounding and feeling sort of like the shifts of an automatic transmission. You'll notice the car will still rattle off increasing mph numbers at a very similar rate, even though you've backed out what feels like 1/4 of your throttle angle. This is the e-CVT (MG2?) cutting shaft revs so the transmission goes physically higher / numerically-lower gear ratio, which is only possible over ~35 mph. Sure you can chop throttle earlier and the car will go into EV mode given sufficient charge... but you'll still be crawling, and also dramatically slow to the car behind, both which have zero value for you, at a light where 45 - 55 mph is the upcoming speed limit. in fact, that experience w/ automatic transmissions is what was used to experiment with getting best mpg back via least amt of attracting attention. You'll need to do this in ECO mode, as that gives slowest throttle response so easiest to fine-tune throttle angle-to-felt-acceleration. I'm an old motorcyclist, so forgive if some of this sails over the heads of those not trained 20+ yrs on needing to feel and being in tune w/ the oily bits / noises / personality of your vehicle... but shouldn't be too far out to follow and experiment on your own with -- the 2.0L, Atkinson-cycle M20A-FXS, is a peaky little bugger, all said and done But one of its strangest qualities I've seen, beaten into me trying all kinds of workarounds to gain a few tenths... is it gets better FE on slight acceleration / moderate load, than in steady-state, one-throttle-angle, low-load highway work. For example, have been fine-tuning when the car can get best mpg in town (so can adjust driving style to suit where I happen to be)... and have found letting the car decide when to switch to EV Mode, but, using that automatic-transmission-aping method to accel to the speed limit... can net a tenth about twice as quickly as feathering throttle and trying to stay in EV Mode as long as possible, before the car simply takes over due to spent battery. This drivetrain must have the ICE on a certain amt of time, at a certain amt of throttle angle, to charge the battery for best mpg. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to find out how long / where that is, and try to invariably stick to running the ICE that long, and no longer. -- speaking of the ICE... don't make lots of short trips with this car (which is hilarious, as Priuses have been fleet-bought for taxis since the '90s. Short = less than 10 mins of driving). Despite the 0W-16 viscosity, the XW60 needs to be fully warm before it'll even think about coming off the ICE -- and it will keep you on it, especially at low speed, until its sensors report everything's ready for max mpg-chasing, and not a moment sooner. Using 89 oct fuel doesn't help, as the car runs cooler on it than 87... but I'm not giving up the on-demand acceleration for possible top-end damage from years of ping, even if gracefully handled by the PCU. Luckily my morning commute's 45 - 55 mph highway within 2m of starting, which means the sortie-out gets crappy mpg, but the one back nearly dbls it (seriously -- 47 mpg vs. 87 mpg avg / 99 mpg stars-aligned). I suppose taxis need to be more durable, and e-CVT Toyota drivetrains are defo a good chunk longer-lasting than their ICE-only versions. But when they're not warmed up enough... you can expect dash readouts blaring '25.5 mpg' at you on the regular -- deadly to the avg, when they pile up. -- the suspension / chassis isn't perfect per se... but a helluva lot more durable and less finicky than my previous car, a 10th-gen Honda Civic. Part of this is the 60-series 17" LE wheels, which absorb road shock a lot better than 45-series 18" wheels, which needed alignment every 3 mos on the nose on local roads. But just the beefiness of the suspension components vs. Honda's non-CUV/SUVs, should take the rest of the credit. Here, potholes are like Detroit: long-lasting enough to have their own lore and niche fanbase And when they're repaired, it's by ex-cons in unions who have no intention of doing anywhere near a good job, only enough to maintain plausible deniability. Thus why Tacomas are so popular here -- simple enough chassis to fix yourself, balloon tires & 4WD suspension to shrug off sharp-edged puddle-filled potholes and sloppy fixes almost as bad as the original flaw. This XW60 needs to be steered away from the worst of these, make no mistake... but the ones I did hit, which would've required the car spend time in an alignment rack that weekend, no problem. Not gonna push it... but after a year and several of these flubs... the legs have been well, old-school-Toyota graceful. Which is a nice feeling in a late-model one -- lastly, for those who can still hold their heads up off the desk have noticed long hills on which you can charge the battery, do not take as much battery to climb. Thus you have a method to extend your range, if available. Both major gains in mpg (5 and 3 mpg respectively), have been where I've incorporated driving the extra distance to get to a nice long (1/2 mi), 30 - 35 mph hill w/ a gentler stretch of more level ground before any climb out of where you are back to the highway. Just gained a tenth this morning on such a loop, and the ICE fuel to climb out of it doesn't penalise you as much as is logical (protip: when no other cars around / behind you, to climb a hill, try crabwalking up it: turn the wheel to gently angle to the white line, then when you reach it, sharp turn to straighten and aim for the other line -- this reduces the effective angle of the hill for you, just like zigzagging up a hill is easier than straight to the top). I've gained as much 2 - 3 mph more at the top using this method w/ the same amt of throttle. If you made it this far, again thanks for reading, and hope you can unlock more mpg without pissing off too many brodozers. More after the anniversary
Not sure what's happening with lag on this forum... but some edits obvi didn't make the final cut for whatever reason :/ "... running 89 octane vs. 87, at least in Hawai'i, is the move." "since have only owned ICE-only Toyotas in past..." "But just the beefiness of the suspension components vs. Honda's non-CUV/SUVs, should take the rest of the credit. Here, potholes are like in Detroit: long-lasting enough to have their own lore and niche fanbase" "this reduces the effective angle of the hill for you, just like zigzagging up a hill on foot is easier than straight to the top" Back soon
Are you on a phone? iPhone? I find doing multiple edits on mine, you have to manually refresh the edit page, or it’s presenting you with the previous edition, and when you save again, your previous edits are gone.
Occasionally the forum does slow significantly and double posts can result. This behavior was reduced after a significant outage only to be replaced with as ios refresh issue that is repeatable as clockwork. Problem with post edits start on the second edit. Often you have to refresh a thread you are following or new posts are missing.
-- lastly, for those who can still hold their heads up off the desk have [I've?]noticed long hills on which you can charge the battery, do not take as much battery to climb. huh? I may have suffered a 'micro-TBI' from the head-to-desk interface but am I reading this right? You can capture more energy going downhill than you expended by going UP the same hill? Interesting info about the octane levels.
Well, that's certainly not true. The vast majority of Toyota's don't need more than 87, and no Prius needs more than 87, but there are definitely some Toyotas that need 91 or 93. GR 86, GR Supra, GR Corolla, Land Cruiser, maybe one or three others. And that's not counting any Lexus or Scion models. Will those models run if you put 87 in them? Sure. The knock sensors will detect any pre-detonations and dial back the intake timing to limit max compression. But that does mean you lose some power at the top end because the engine will never be allowed to operate at maximum displacement.
OK, I suspected especially older Supras that could have specced higher. I experimented with 91 octane on my 2020 Prius Prime XLE, and I observed no effect on fuel economy. I used to use 91–93 octane in my 85 Corolla to reduce pinging, but I doubt it helped. As far as the gravitational energy is concerned, it is a conservative force defined by a potential energy, which means that it only depends on the difference of height, whether uphill or downhill. So, you cannot put more energy downhill than you consume uphill. Moreover, I would think if you increase zigzagging, you would lose more energy due to increased frictional loss due to a longer distance, unless you are able to somehow significantly use less acceleration during grade shifts.
Sorry, tested both octanes extensively. For my driving style, 89 provides both better acceleration and better mileage. You can run whatever you want in your Toyota, I'm running 89 in mine -- esp in HI during the summer As for the essay on gravity... that all sounds impressive. Really. Don't care about it tho -- I get more mph at the top of the hill when I zigzag up slightly (which may lessen upward progress, which to the car behind me wiil appear as if I'm slowing. Makes sense, I'm driving a longer distance). But to the car, which only responds to what throttle angle I choose for the situation, I use very slightly less. Meaning less fuel being used, meaning better mpg overall. I got 65.x my last fillup -- for all who own XW60s, you know how hard it is to get 5/10ths of a mpg on this car, never mind 8. Maybe it's the narrower tires not penalising this tq. Maybe I'm spending the minimum time changing direction, so the bulk of climbing is with wheels pointed straight towards the other white line verge -- meaning less energy spent in friction in the CV axles, in add'n to scrub at the tire patch. I've raced motos, where the wrong amt of scrub can cost you 2 places if not avoided in a crucial corner. Friction mgmt is everything in the 600cc 2-wheeled world... and still applies on cars with moto-sized tires, apparently (not to mention the speed you start at the bottom of the hill, and how much of that momentum remains by the top) Thanks for the input, I do appreciate it. Both hills should cancel each other out, as they start / end at the same elevations and have roughly the same grade. The difference, is I'm somehow clawing back far more mileage than expected, only since starting this routine of these two hills -- mostly to get battery charged for the drive back home. I'll take it... --- In less confrontational news... Sharing today about more things discovered about this iteration of e-CVT... Had a new car with belt CVT as my last one, so have 5y exp w/ them + their quirks. Toyota e-CVTs seem to feel much the same to drive as a janky belt-driven CVT... just made without the jank (c/a and litigation for which, nearly bankrupted a top JDM factory). But the driving tqs that allow full advantage of its benefits are similar, however not identical. Have noticed, per an earlier post, one of the e-CVTs quirks (and advantages over a belt CVT), is the ability to electronically control the rate of ratio change, which is far more physically limited with the glorified snowmobile / scooter setup of a belt. The XW60's isn't perfect, but there are ways to avoid its limits tagging your mpg. You want to maximise acceleration as a function of the least amt of throttle angle, for best mpg. We don't even determine that anymore from the pedal really, as all modern Toyotas have throttle-by-wire. But the quicker you ask e-CVT to change ratios, the slower you accelerate. This was a quirk difficult to get used to with my last car -- mashing the throttle often got worse forward progress than rolling onto it. Which tbf, applies to vehicles with other types of transmissions too. The XW60 doesn't mind lots of throttle from a stop... but that just wears your tires and drinks fuel, even in ECO mode. My focus is rolling on from ~15mph to ~45 - 60 mph. The car will humour your need to zip away from a light, but it'll obvi take more to do it. To stay above 62 indicated / 64 mpg actual, you need to be aware of 2 things: with some feeling around, one can easily feel the max accel / min fuel sweet spot... and giving the PCU what it expects, to achieve this compromise. At ~15 mph and light throttle... can feel the slight rubber-band-y quality of the classic CVT snowmobile drone: more throttle ≠ more forward thrust, just like getting out of the throttle doesn't resemble chopping it in a manual, for example. This is because the energy that would be transmitted to the wheels, is being absorbed in the ratio change. Since the PCU controls drive ratio and how fast it changes thru MG2... moreso than with a fixed-ratio transmission, one needs pay attention not only where the throttle angle ends up, but the rate at which you get there, apparently. Stay with me, y'all What I do (as per the earlier post) is to pull away nicely... then sort of experiment varying the throttle, to find where the car accelerates best with a given single throttle angle. As before, you can add throttle... but add too much, and the change in ratio will dull acceleration and waste fuel. Not enough, and you haven't found the sweet spot. What I've found and tested, is starting just touching the PWR range of angle at first, then backing off juuuust enough for the ICE to keep accelerating the same rate, but w/ far less angle. Below that marked halfway point on the dash and below, is when the car looks for conditions for EV mode. This results in stepped backing-out of the throttle, like a classic auto transmission. For now, at least. What the car wants in reality, is not to suddenly change throttle angle, either more or less... but depending on speed and grade (and probably a hundred other variables)... what throttle angle the PCU wants, to get you forward for least fuel. This means my auto transmission method isn't the final word. XW60 likes a sharper backing-out with more angle, but less with less angle. I know this all sound bollocks but like I said, 10ths are very hard to come by once you're over 62 mpg indicated. However mods to tq have already put the actual over 65 from 64 -- which on this car, may as well be 150kg kerb weight. So work in progress. For my needs / desires / driving style, on my roads at my climate / temperatures... 65 actual's amazing, esp since mpg started right at the EPA numbers, ~58 (still regularly pass lots of malihini douches who pull in front then slow below my speed, lots of PWR utilisation). Those in need of 19" bling on a 5th-gen Prius get 52 mpg EPA, identical to the new 2.5L Camry HEV. Hey, you have your needs too. But for me, the dorky but low-mass 60-series wheels and 65 mpg actual, with two 400m - 800m 10 - 12% grades added to the daily commute? Let's go
I live at 7,000 feet in the Rockies and 85 octane works just fine....have been using it all my Toyota's since moving here in 2000. When my Dad, in Maine (300 feet) bought his 2002 Tundra new, he thought higher octane was better so only used 91 or 92 the first year he had it. When he went in for the 2nd oil change, the mechanic told him it doesn't need to use premium gas, just put in 87. So he did and found the engine would do terrible knocking so he ended up using premium all the time. (Which stunk if you borrowed his truck, had to refill with only premium.) For better fuel economy in any hybrid, using the pulse-and-glide technique works better than the feather approach to the throttle. Get her up to speed quickly then let her glide...and run off the battery as much as possible. And there IS an ICE engine in there so an "Italian tune up" about once a month or so is healthy for it...and if you have a 4x4, you want to engage it into 4-wheel drive at least monthly to keep those gears inside the differentials lubed up....lots of stories of 4x4 owners who don't and then need it and find it won't work.
I haven't grumbled about this for a while, just editorial: You're saying there's an "Internal Combustion Engine engine" in there.
Getting pretty grumbly about something that makes sense to me since ICE as an abbreviation is not well known to the average person who visits here. It's Break or Breaks instead of Brake or Brakes that makes me shake my head. Priuschat refresh problems are also worth grumbling about as are the lack of moderators. My experience with higher octane fuel in Toyota hybrids is octane can add mpg but the cost increase negates the small mpg benefit.
So why not just: ICE engine But wait, is that an internal combustion style engine. Say as opposed to a steam locomotive's style engine. You never know. Then there's RTOD, an acronym based on another obscure, and unofficial, not to mention silly.... Uhoh, I'm started...
Routing Tables of Death Realtime Orbit Determination Revocable Transfer on Death Radial Turbine Off-Design Real Time on Demand RTOD (IBM Command for Report Times) RTOD (Convert Radians to Degrees)
