"Empty" fuel warning: results of an experiment

Filled up within a mile of flashing dot, put in 8.8 gal. No attempt to add more after click-off. Expected consumption (miles divided by displayed MPG) was 8.9 gal since last fillup. My guess is that there is as much or more variability in pump shut-off mechanisms (vapor recovery or full vacuum, for example) as there might be in our cars. I will probably go 1xMPG past flashing for awhile and correlate with expected consumption to verify. Easy to figure, conservative, will increase my peace-of-mindedness. BTW, my car was built in early March - perhaps Toyota has recently done something about how the bladder fills? 8.8 + 2.5 (if that was what was remaining) is 11.3 gal.

Bruce
04 Driftwood BC

 

Right now I'm getting 49.6mpg, and I've gone just around 100 miles over the blinking bar. We'll fill up today and give results (usually get no more than 7-9 gallons).

-m.

 

Have tanked twice without bladder (in Europe):
- just arriving at last bar: filled it with 10.9 gal (41.3 liter)
- after flashing for awhile: 11.4 gal
- topping off after click-off: just 0.26 gal (1 liter) !
I especially like this last figure.
(got 49.6 mpg this time, aiming for 50+).

 

Ok, so I filled up this weekend. I had approximately 93 miles since the bar was blinking, and my final mpg was 50mpg, which is approx 1.86 gallons over. I filled up the tank to a whopping 11.04 gallons, unfortunately I was the victim of backsplash! Not until after things had seemingly settled and I pulled out the pump, and I heard a gurgle, then out came some gas. Seemed like quite a bit too, not sure how much though. So, again I'm back to not knowing how much is in the tank, and not knowing how long I can go before refueling. I really want to be able to hit a 500 mile tank. We'll see I guess next time around.

-m.

 

That, or you could try through your local dealership. At least with the dealership you can keep asking if they've had any response from "Headquarters"

 

my lord how fast we guys become spoiled!!

driving 470 miles on a tank of gas before refueling and we complain about small tanks???

do you know how big the gas tank would have to be to get that kind of mileage in a Ford?

 

i noticed that most of the posters were doing their calculations on "miles left in the tank" based on the average gas mileage for that tank.

not so!

you need to look at the average fuel consumption after the light goes on or the indicator starts blinking!

if i'm climbing US80 towards Donner Pass, i may be getting no more than 20mpg for those last few gallons! downhill, you may get to pass five "gas here" exits!

 

I just filled up my first tank yesterday on my Tideland BC built this month according to the door jamb. I filled up at 480 miles @ 52 MPG for the tank just 1 mile after the last bar started flashing. The car took 9.6 gallons to auto pump shut-off. I didn't top-off. The gas gauge was very predictable compared to the TRAC cars I rented last year.

--
Geoff

 

Excellent point.

How can you determine fuel consumption after the blinking? Isn't the consumption calculated on the tank? It would be great if there was the capability of monitoring consumption independently for Trip A and Trip B on the odometer.

 

Mine was built 1/04

The Flashing starts consistently between 7-8 Gallons Used.

I have never been able to put in more than 8.3 Gallons.

I run it for several clicks past the first shutoff when filling, but I don't try to completely top off the filler neck.

I have also never run it much past flashing. It's just not worth it to me to risk it.

I do hope for at least word from Toyota and hopefully a fix.

I've told the dealershiip that I consider it an issue and want to be notified of anything official Toyota says, but I'm confident I'll hear it here long before the dealership gets word

 

Built 1/04

very irratic gas gauge - have gone from 3 bars to blinking immediately once!

Ran for about 95 miles over the last bar blinking on the last tank, filled 11.04 gallons, then an undetermined amount came back out, so I don't even know how much is in there now. before this run, the most I was able to get in was 9.3 gallons, usually averaging somewhere between 7-8.5gals.

-m.

 

Hmm, I hope that the European Prius (apparently without the bladder) has better range than just 450 or 470 miles. At the moment I get ~500 miles before the warning light for fuel comes on. But then again, I drive a small car with a 1.9 litre diesel engine (no turbo though). And the fuel tank is almost 50 litres (some 13 gallons). But there's always at least a gallon left when I refuel, don't want to get an empty tank with a diesel. Takes a lot of work to get it working after that.

 

i think we might see an extended range Prius for special use cases here quickly. i wouldnt be surprized to see specialized fleet vehicles with larger tanks even at the expense of slightly smaller cargo room in the back.

also, just a tidbit for all the people in the Pacific Northwest who are patiently waiting for their Prius to come in. I was at the Hawks Prarie Restaurant outside Olympia, WA the other day and was astounded to see 4 Prius' sitting in the parking lot. All the cars were City of Seattle Transportation Vehicles.
(Seattle is 60 miles north of this location)

so maybe the vehicle shortage is being caused by Seattle city officials that want to eat at an out of the way place on occasion?? im sure fleet orders would rank high on any salesman's list.

 

Hmmm... between your report, and the note about a company that just got 8 (I think) white Prii, I'm beginning to think the "increased allocation" rumor is true, and that it's starting with a number of large orders being filled.

 

ok the crap in this post is really getting ridiculous. everyone has lost sight of the topic anyway. it is now all about the rights of anyone to voice his or her opinion.

apparently some feel that it is ok for the OP to raise an alarm over a non Prius issue.

i voiced my opinion simply saying the OP had no issue to raise. that is when the problems started. so apparently its ok for the OP to say whats on his mind no matter how far fetched, but it is not ok for me to speak my mind no matter how grounded in reality or fact.

the OP then bashed Toyota for its seemingly non caring attitude towards the OP's concern.

lets face it OP, they simply didnt want to embarrass you by laughing in your face. that was the reason for not responding to you.

Toyota i think is one of the most customer driven companies in the world. they have risen to be the #2 automaker in the world and imho are on their way to being #1. with the quality and innovation they exhibit time after time, its only a matter of time. i dont think we will have to wait long for that time either.

The gas gauge problem is one they are aware of, and they may have some improvements coming eventually. but realize this... their safety division is probably dealing with hundreds of real world safety issues. i doubt if they want, need or have the time to be bothered by any far fetched "what if this and that" scenario that has a one in a million chance of happening when there are other issues that do happen several times a year to thousands of people.

the one thing i think we all are missing is that the fuel storage system is a revolutionary thing designed to reduce emissions into the atmosphere and it indicative of how concerned Toyota really is about the Earth and the people on it. but its design eliminates the standard method of tracking the amount of remaining fuel in the vehicle. so its a trade off right now. and i think Toyota made the right decision.

keep in mind that Toyota imho is a pioneer in the auto industry for many reasons. if it werent for Toyota, mass marketed hybrids would be years away from the market.

if you get a chance there was an expose on the "supercar fund" in the Chicago Sun-Times. it detailed the big 3 automakers efforts to design a hybrid vehicle. the project was funded partially by the US government and the big 3 participated under the condition that Clinton vetoed the US fleet gas mileage requirement.

well the big 3 did design cars and they all got between 58 to 67 mpg. ther was a big show in Detroit to show off the new technology but they all said that the car would be way too expensive to manufacture or bring to market. 7 months later, the Prius was announced. Toyota sold it at a loss because they believed in the project.

so you see, i still think the OP has no right to say what he said. i stand by my opinion.

all this reminds me of the lady last year who brought a lawsuit against McDonalds because her children were fat and that McDonalds was responsible for putting the lives of her children at risk because of the unhealthy food they served.

 

bruce:
i think its just a Toyota thing. i have a 1991 Corolla and the gas light comes on at between 1/4 to 3/8 of a tank. but it also has the analog gauge. it took a few years but i finally got used to ignoring the bright red gas light on the dash.

the bladder that holds the gas does not allow for the normal methods of monitoring the volume of gas. the problem with the posters or anyone else for that matter is they want the Prius gas gauge to work like any other car. that is not possible. for that reason, Toyota imho has bent over backwards to provide all kinds of tracking mechanisms for gas comsumption. up to second monitoring of comsumption, two trip odometers, mpg, tank mileage, etc all of it designed to give one a better idea of how much they have left to go.

also by the posts here, it seems that the bladder needs some breaking in just like the rest of the car. now five gallons seems to be a bit severe and they dont say how many fillups they have had but i think that anyone wouldnt take long to get used to the way their car runs no matter what the gas gauge said.

i will say that there was another post where someone ran out of gas on purpose and i was a bit surprized at the limited range they got out of the battery before getting to the critical stage. i think they said the battery was reading less than 40% when they decided to stop and gas up after going about a mile or so.

 

Dave, you still haven't clarified who you mean by OP. At this point I must assume you're talking about ericst, and if so I'm really confused as to your point.

The people here concerned about the fuel gauge have talked about the specifics, and about Toyota.

You on the other hand, have once again called people 'full of it', and their posts 'crap'. You're also apparently deciding now who has a 'right' to an opinion or concern.

That's not expressing your opinion, that's being insulting and attacking people, not the issues.

If you don't see that, and if that's the way things are here when someone has a legitimate concern, so be it, but it really disappoints me, I must say.

 

I don't recall saying anything about John's formula. All I said was that anyone who continues to drive without refueling when the car is indicating that a fillup is required, deserves whatever they get. The fuel guage NEVER shows more gas than what's available in the tank. It always errors on the side of caution, so there will always be fuel available when the warning sounds.

The majority of people who gripe about the gas gauge are attempting to "drive to the end of the tank" for bragging rights about how far they can go on one tank of gas (who cares! It's the MPG that counts!).

This doesn't improve your milage (except perhaps by a very small weight savings), and it causes people to risk running out of gas with a possibility of being in a location where fuel isn't easily available. Toyota also warns against running out of gas as they said it's "bad for the car". I classify this as "foolish" behavior, except if done for scientific study, as the original poster did (and he was prepared with gas when it happened and isn't going to start "suing Toyota").

As someone who once ran out of gas (in the middle of a bridge, in rush-hour) in an old chevette with a sticking gas gauge, I have no problems applying that label to myself, as I knew about the problem and did nothing about it.

At any rate, I'm not interested in continuing this discussion and so I'm not going to respond any further on this off-topic thread - I've said my bit and you obviously disagree.

Dave

 

here is the post i am referring to. read it carefully and make your own judgements. in the previous posts i was refering him as the OP because i had totally forgotten what this post was about. my mistake.

but i think i made myself fairly clear what i was talking about since i did not enter this post until the post quoted above.