 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Toyota / Prius / February 2005MPG experience?
I have just discovered this newsgroup, so please forgive me if I ask questions that have been raised before. I would like to hear about your experience with gas mileage. Since picking up my '05 Prius, I have filled it four times. My MPG averages 44. The last was 38. This is disturbing, so I arranged with the local dealer to look at it. They did a number of tests, particularly the highway test, today. Result: 44 MPG. The service guy said that the MPG will increase with more miles on the car. I have only 2000 so far. Also, he said that my MPG would increase if I would fill with a better grade of gas, such as Chevron or Shell. I have been using Arco. I would appreciate any comment, particularly comparing with your experience. Many thanks. Harlan --- [If you reply to my email address, please delete the word REMOVE from the address.] I neglected to mention in my original post above that I drive very conservatively and carefully, and about 75% of my driving is city. Harlan --- [If you reply to my email address, please delete the word REMOVE from the address.] |I have just discovered this newsgroup, so please forgive me if I ask | questions that have been raised before. I would like to hear about your [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] | [If you reply to my email address, please delete the word REMOVE from the | address.] The MPG rating will be about 46 or 47 MPG on Avg. The rating listed by sticker is completely unrealistic, and will no doubt be changed in the future to reflect real-world circumstances. I wouldn't worry too much about it. Just remember to use the regenerative braking and drive softly on the acceleration. KK >I neglected to mention in my original post above that I drive very > conservatively and carefully, and about 75% of my driving is city. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > the > | address.] I am pretty happy that I averaged 40.2 MPG with my first tank. The EPA ratings are ALWAYS pipe dreams. Sometimes I think that in order to achieve them you have to be a jockey, driving downhill with a lot of wind behind you, filling a parasail. John '05 - Driftwood Pearl - Package 6 309 total miles > The MPG rating will be about 46 or 47 MPG on Avg. The rating listed by > sticker is completely unrealistic, and will no doubt be changed in the [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >> the >> | address.] > The MPG rating will be about 46 or 47 MPG on Avg. The rating listed > by sticker is completely unrealistic, and will no doubt be changed in > the future to reflect real-world circumstances. It won't be changed unless the EPA changes its testing procedures--assuming that nothing else (e.g., engine, drag coefficient, vehicle weight, etc.) changes.  SignatureStop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush. >> The MPG rating will be about 46 or 47 MPG on Avg. The rating listed >> by sticker is completely unrealistic, and will no doubt be changed in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > procedures--assuming that nothing else (e.g., engine, drag coefficient, > vehicle weight, etc.) changes. Exactly. The ratings were never intended to be reflections of what people get in the real world; they were for comparison. The CAFE averages used the EPA fuel economy ratings. Mike I have a 2001 and instead of Fretting about how high I could get the MPG I decided to see what the Worst I could get for a tank. I live 35 miles from work which is on the shore (SD CA) and live at the 2000 ft level, all freeway. I drive at least 80 coming off the mountain in the mornings (that is just keeping up with traffic) and in the evening going up I hit 92/93 mph on the last steep stretch (does bring the battery down to one bar). I jack rabbit at lights and stop signs and so on. Anyway, the Lowest I could ever get the MPG down to for a complete tank of gas was 37 so my normal of 41 ain't all that bad. I now have 80K miles on the car and other than one problem with the accelerator linkage (hmmm... wonder whose fault That was? And DON'T blame my P!) it has run and is running Wonderfully. Thorn > The MPG rating will be about 46 or 47 MPG on Avg. The rating listed by > sticker is completely unrealistic, and will no doubt be changed in the [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >>the >>| address.] Oh! This is pretty dissapointing. Also a friend told me that Prius was actually worse than a good 2.0 turbo diesel from any Euro manufacturer So why would i want to buy a Prius if there are other, cheaper cars with better MPG? Thanks > The MPG rating will be about 46 or 47 MPG on Avg. The rating listed by > sticker is completely unrealistic, and will no doubt be changed in the [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > the > > | address.] > Oh! This is pretty dissapointing. Also a friend told me that Prius was > actually worse than a good 2.0 turbo diesel from any Euro manufacturer [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Thanks As many have pointed out, the dollars in fuel savings at current prices will never make up for the price difference between the Prius and the similar Corolla. Fuel economy alone is not the best reason to choose the Prius. There have always been cheaper cars with better fuel economy than more expensive cars. I was hooked by the smoothness of the power delivery, the manueverability (we have a 2002) and the comfort. It was just right for us. I never even considered a diesel - they are still noisy at low speeds, smoky at hard acceleration (yes - even the late model TDi's smoke here at 7000 feet when accelerating up hills in town), and diesels don't age gracefully. When the engine wears they start on ever fewer cylinders and smoke more. Direct injection can't change the laws of physics. And I have been on two charter vehicles, a tour bus and a whale watching charter, that suffered turbo failure on the diesels. Both blew oil spray and huge volumes of smoke out the tail pipes. I don't know about the bus, but the boat went through a 5 gallon can of oil getting back into port from about a mile out. Things like that make me not want to go there. To each their own. Many people buy Prius for the low emissions. I was interested because the technology is the only sensible way to approach a car in mixed city/highway use. Mike > Oh! This is pretty dissapointing. Also a friend told me that Prius > was actually worse than a good 2.0 turbo diesel from any Euro > manufacturer He's wrong. > So why would i want to buy a Prius if there are other, cheaper cars > with better MPG? Well, if you want cheap, go for cheap. You can get an Echo for $12,325 or a Rio for $10,535. But if you want a midsize car with one of the best gas mileages available, and is one of the lowest polluting cars, some luxury items, and some leading-edge technology, the only answer is Prius. SignatureStop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush. There is a diesel Volkswagen that can achieve 50 MPG. My research reveals that it is not for sale in California. Many of you don't live in Ca so this is no concern of yours. Diesel fuel here in San Diego is more expensive than 87 octane gasoline. Unless you have a source for bio diesel, you may be in the same situation. Of course... Your mileage may vary. John '05 Driftwood Pearl - Package 6 400 miles of smiles at 44.5 MPG >> Oh! This is pretty dissapointing. Also a friend told me that Prius >> was actually worse than a good 2.0 turbo diesel from any Euro [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > available, and is one of the lowest polluting cars, some luxury items, > and some leading-edge technology, the only answer is Prius. > There is a diesel Volkswagen that can achieve 50 MPG. My research reveals > that it is not for sale in California. It's also not for sale in any state that has the same emission requirements as California. That's because the car can't pass the emissions test. It's also a smaller car than a Prius, with fewer features and options. > Many of you don't live in Ca so this is no concern of yours. Diesel > fuel here in San Diego is more expensive than 87 octane gasoline. And around here, it's more expensive than 91 octane gasoline. SignatureStop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush. I see your points but I dont think I made myself clear. I'm interested solely in C02 and am looking for the least polluting sensibly sized car I dont mind paying for efficiency, but it seems that the diesel is "both" cheaper and more fuel economic that the Prius I love the Prius for its technology and probably being the precursor to a cleaner environement(and hopefully nuclear powered if the public perception is open minded enough) and a faster track to hydrogen Now I see the reality in the fuel consumption, its got a long way to go and I'm a little sad about this. I did leave a thread last week about the weight/safety issue and this too still has to be addressed. Again i dont mind sacrificing other budget items to pay for this. rgds > Oh! This is pretty dissapointing. Also a friend told me that Prius was > actually worse than a good 2.0 turbo diesel from any Euro manufacturer [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > > the > > > | address.] >I see your points but I dont think I made myself clear. I'm interested > solely in C02 and am looking for the least polluting sensibly sized car [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > rgds Be aware *all* cars suffer the "real world" losses in fuel economy the Prius does. A significant part of every tank of fuel goes into something other than covering miles: heating or cooling the occupants, keeping lights lit. In conventional cars a lot of fuel is burned at zero mpg, waiting in traffic. Today's hybrids control that part well. Mike snip >Be aware *all* cars suffer the "real world" losses in fuel economy the Prius >does. A significant part of every tank of fuel goes into something other >than covering miles: heating or cooling the occupants, keeping lights lit. snip Right. A round trip from point A to point B and back will consume a certain amount of fuel, be it gasoline, propane, diesel, or electricity. ALL of the energy released by the propulsion process in using up that amount of fuel ends up as waste heat (internal energy) discharged to the atmosphere. That's the price we pay for moving our butts around the planet. The trick is to maximize or optimize the efficiency of the conversion process (energy to work) and keep parasitic losses, such as excess weight, tire friction, internal engine friction, electrical losses, pumping losses and air drag to a minimum. That is, very simply, strive for the highest MPG possible. The Prius, by using a small engine with electric motor boosts as needed, stopping the engine instead of letting it idle when the vehicle is stopped, and utilizing regenerative braking has shown the way to go. I think it is definitely the wave of the future made possible by computer control. By the way Robin, forget hydrogen as a significant replacement for petroleum based fuel. Ain't going to happen. One man's opinion, but I know a lot about what would be involved in attempting that. There's no good answer for replacing petroleum based fuels. We're in an ever-tightening bind. Rod Thanks guys some good points, I feel better educated about the case for hybrid now, especially given that official figures dont factor in the special items already mentioned, which can only make the case better Couple of things though: * I did a study and comparing Govt official figures it seems a ford Focus 1.8 turbo diesel with direct injection emits 50% more CO2 than the prius and overall consumption is still 20% better for the Prius. This does not factor the above special items. So its still significantly better using a Hybrid over the state of the art diesel available * About hydrogen, I agree its a long shot and a great effort. But I think I would prefer the associated expense and trade offs, rather than wait for the water to start lapping at the front door step(I live 75m about MSL so should be OK, but not so for those living 10M or less above MSL after the next 30 years or so) For more data on this point please see http://www.ecolo.org/base/baseen.htm BTW I'm by no means a tree hugging green. Nuclear seems the only way to resolve this, Kyoto is a nice try but naive. Lets not go there (: Rgds > snip > >Be aware *all* cars suffer the "real world" losses in fuel economy the Prius [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Rod snip >* About hydrogen, I agree its a long shot and a great effort. But I think I >would prefer the associated expense and trade offs, rather than wait for the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >BTW I'm by no means a tree hugging green. Nuclear seems the only way to >resolve this, Kyoto is a nice try but naive. Lets not go there (: Thanks for the site reference. Very interesting. I'm going to check that out when I have more time. We are on the same track. I don't want to clutter this group with off-topic messages, but this is not exactly off-topic. I am in total agreement that clean nuclear is the way to go, but I'm sure you know the limitations there. Are you an engineer? You sound like one. I'm a Chem E, retired prof, with a deep oil and shallow nuclear background. Incidentally, it's not a good idea to post your email address in newsgroups. You'll get on the spam lists and who knows what else. Note how some posters disguise theirs. I don't put mine up at all. Rod Rod, appreciate the spam hint. To close this thread I just like to add the following I used to be an engineer in telecomms but moved over to the dark side(marketing 4 years ago) So I'm in a good position to understand both the logic and the emotion of these arguments... I hope! I would also recommend you read some of James Lovelock's articles on EFN and elsewhere on the web...very good at seperating the logic out of an emotional debate I'd be interested to hear your thoughts after you've read a few. My belief is that its down to every single individual, rich or poor to contribute to the environment going forward. After all we are the ones that have the most stake in the air we breath(as opposed to govt and industry who have their own agendas based on supply and demand) Mode of operation to date is to blame govt and industry(ie the misused term globalisation) for these issues. I argue that its me that has the most to gain or loose,so its me who should step up and contribute to change Let me know how you get on. I'm thinking about persuing a web community to pass this message on rgds > snip > >* About hydrogen, I agree its a long shot and a great effort. But I think I [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Rod <snip> >> Now I see the reality in the fuel consumption, its got a long way to go >> and [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Mike I just gave my new Prius a 200 mile break-in run to Minneapolis. It was at night (lights on), in rain (resistance), 36F (engine ran to heat cab) and without wind of any consequence. Drove 55 for the first 30 miles (rolling hills) and averaged 52 mpg, beating the epa rating. Drove the next 170 miles changing speed at 30 minute intervals per dealer's recommendation running 55, 60, 65 and 70. Averaged 47.2 mpg. As far as I'm concerned, the 50 mpg rating at highways speeds (55 when established) is accurate. Navigation system brought me precisely to my destination. > I see your points but I dont think I made myself clear. I'm interested > solely in C02 and am looking for the least polluting sensibly sized car If you are interested soley in CO2 emissions, the Prius is King. There are several measures of effciency. MPG measures just the amount of fuel needed to move the car a certain distance. The CO2, NOX and other pollutants generated per mile is a different measure. The Prius (last year) was the very cleanest in this regard, and the diesels and other technologies did not come close. Daniel Cheers got that from soem research over the weeked. Appreciate your dilligence and I agree totaly now rgds > > I see your points but I dont think I made myself clear. I'm interested > > solely in C02 and am looking for the least polluting sensibly sized car [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Daniel > I see your points but I dont think I made myself clear. I'm > interested solely in C02 and am looking for the least polluting > sensibly sized car Why only CO2? Don't other pollutants matter? > I dont mind paying for efficiency, but it seems that the diesel is > "both" cheaper and more fuel economic that the Prius Diesel is more expensive than 91 octane around here; does not meet California emission standards; and very few diesel cars in the USA have better fuel mileage than the Prius does--and those that do are smaller than the Prius and are bottom of the line models. > Now I see the reality in the fuel consumption, its got a long way to > go and I'm a little sad about this. The reality of fuel consumption for the Prius is that in real world operation, it gets between about 46 MPG to well over 50 MPG, depending on numerous factors, the most important being the conditions of the average trip and the driving habits of the operator. My autumn mileage is about 51-53 MPG; my summer and winter mileage is about 46-48 MPG; I haven't operated a Prius in the Spring yet, but I expect it to be about the same as Autumn. SignatureStop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush. >> I see your points but I dont think I made myself clear. I'm >> interested solely in C02 and am looking for the least polluting [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >about 46-48 MPG; I haven't operated a Prius in the Spring yet, but I >expect it to be about the same as Autumn. I have to agree here -- I get about 48 MPG with our 2001 in fall and spring. I get about 42 MPG in midwinter or the hottest part of summer. That sort of range is what you will generally see (5-10 MPG difference between running climate control and not running it). I also tend to drive over half my miles on trips of less than 10 miles. You will notice that those who get the best gas mileage drive further on an "average" trip. Same is true of non-hybrid cars, too. I get about 27 MPG from my Sentra under the same circumstances. So the Prius seems to be just short of twice the gas mileage of a smaller but comparable car. The 2005 has only 3500 miles on it, all this winter, but I've got between 45 and 50 MPG each fillup (miles driven/gallons added, so as to avoid any errors in the computer calculated MPG) so it does appear to beat the 2001 by a hair.... --Charles |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.