I have to agree with you. I have just under 3000 miles on mine and the mpg has been steadily improving. I think the mpg will depend greatly on the mix of driving that folks do. My mpg on average is probably 2 mpg greater than when I first got it...and I haven't changed my driving style much. My dealer warned me that the HH will take longer to break in because the engine only works half as much. If that is true than I might still see a little more improvement.
8-4 we left for NYC area from Milwaukee. This was a straight through trip from my door to my sons in NJ. Temperature was mid to upper 90s the whole way with A/C on constant. I wanted to see what I would average for the trip, flat land and mountain. We travelled between 70~75 most of the trip with only light traffic in general until NYC area.It was 872 miles and we got 27.2 mpg
While out there we put on 535 miles and got 27.2 this was in temperatures of 93 to 102 on Saturday A/C on always. Of the 535 miles about 225 where highway miles to the Jersey Shore. the rest of it was in the NYC area. This was reset mileage to 0 once we arrived out East.
8-15 We returned from NJ to Milwaukee Straight through again this time 852 miles in 90+ heat A/C on of course. we got 25.5 mpg. The difference was we had heavy traffic for about half the trip with a lot of breaking and excelleration which was minimal going out we also drove about 200 miles at 80mph. The computer was also reset for the return trip. This mileage was based with 2 drivers myself and wife
Filled up my 3rd tank at 389 miles today, giving me once again an average of 24 mpg. I tried to beat my first tank of 433 miles, but not a chance. I am believing now that my dealer probably filled up the tank during the time I spent with the finance manager. I spent time and effort in trying to watch my driving habits to maximize MPG, and got an extra 41 miles on my tank from the last time. I used the pulse and glide after I found out about it, and got it right I think. I only use it for the last few miles before I reach work. My driving habits are: about 5-8 minutes going between 20-35 before hitting the freeway: about 5 minutes on the freeway going between 65-80+mph. Then the last stretch about 10 minutes to work at about 40 mph (my pulse and glide practice). I don't really know if 5 minutes on the freeway each day to work qualifies as highway miles in the longrun.
It seems your first 5-8 minutes can almost be done all in electric if road is flat and traffic condition cooperates. In our case, the car can use electric to maintain 20-35 easily. On the freeway, we notice 65 MPH as best speed, almost like the car is tuned for it. At 70 and over, the MPG number consistently drops to 22-24 MPG.
Our first 2 tanks also returned only 24 MPG and nothing we did could change anything. It was after those first 850+ miles and on our third tank that we notice a constant increase in MPG. We are now up into 27+ MPG. Will see how this goes when the tank is empty. Need to confirm the number using pen and paper.
I am curious if those folks getting higher mileage live where it is relatively hilly? I live in the Florida Panhandle and while we have a few hills here in town (the only ones in the entire state of Florida I think) - well, most people know what Florida is like. I took the HH up to south Georgia yesterday which is a drive of 30 miles each way and the posted speed on the local road was mostly 65 mph. I was playing with various driving techniques as suggested (when no one was behind me) but it was a fairly flat drive. I probably averaged about 24 to 25 mpg which included some town driving at both ends of the trip. I've got about 1800 miles on the HH at this point. I also noticed that gas used to be about 20 cents a gallon cheaper in Georgia was now only about 6 cents a gallon less.
I did ask hubby to check tire pressure this morning and I'll see if that is a factor.
OK, so my wife made the first trip to the gas station in the new HH. 378 miles on 15.2 gallons, which is 24.9 mpg. Not bad for the first tank, and we were "playing" a lot with the new toy and I'm sure later tanks will be better. We won't get the EPA numbers here in Houston anyway, since A/C is mandatory for much of the year, but if we can consistently be in the high 20s that'll be fine.
After inflating ALL TIRES to 32 PSI I noticed a subtle improvement in mileage.
Here are the results;
I really ran down to the bilge in the tank with a fillup of 16.302 gals which in a 17.2 gal tank left 0.898 gals till empty. Which theoretically, gave me a total range of 452.188 miles till flameout...
The mileage obtained of 26.29 MPG was quite an improvement vs approx 23 MPG prior to equalization of tire pressures.
I thought that I read somewhere on this thread or the Toyota site, that there was a device on the HH's that indicated low tire pressure, since it seems to play such a vital effect on mileage. I did not see any warning signs, idiot lights or otherwise..... :confuse:
Now for an experimental run @ 35 PSI to determine if any further fuel economy is obtained. :surprise:
ULEV-a month or so ago I started tabulating folks mpg postings.The average after about 13 was 25-26-after about 25 postings-same result.I got lazy after that,but I still eyeball the numbers.The average posted here is no less than 25 mpg.There is one main problem with this group of numbers. 1)The numbers are almost certainly digital readout numbers.A very few of the numbers are calculated. 3 folks gave both ,and the calculated numbers always seem to be less than the digital readout numbers(1-1.5 mpg,but a posting just a few posts up says his numbers were 5 mpg too "good").A good guess(based on numbers from a very methodical poster on the RX400 site) is 1 mpg too good.This is why I say 25-26 mpg.I can certainly do the addition and division and give a single number,but it won't reflect the "real" mpg(-calculated over many tanks). Bottom line-the HH's get 25 mpg on average in mixed driving.These are out of sight great numbers for such a fast midsized SUV-your 4 Runner is much smaller(interior) and worlds slower,and a LOT LESS CRASHWORTHY.. Many classes of vehicles peaked-mpg wise- in ~mid late 80's.Why? Weight and hp!Your 1990 Tacoma based 4 Runner was light(3500 lbs with no more than 190 hp-maybe less).Current 4 Runner is 900 lbs and 50-60 hp better.It is also infinitely more crashworthy,and the Highlanders are at least as crashworthy as the 4 Runners. I had a 1985 Corolla(carb still,no FI) manual transmission.It would get an honest 42 mpg at 70 mph with 5 adults squashed in it.It gave 30 mpg in heavy city driving.The Current Corolla with a manual will get the same city,and hy mpg despite being 4 valve heads with electronic controls and sensors-4 valve heads(the old one was OHC,but 2 valve).Why no improvement?Weight and power-2100 vs 2700 lbs and 60 hp vs 130 hp.The new Corolla is about the weight and interior room of an old Camry. My point-your 4 Runner is about the size(meaning interior room ,not length)-weight- acceleration-of a RAV 4,not a HH,Highlander or 4 Runner. Same story with old and new small Toyota truck.My 86-94-98 small trucks were all well(2560,2600,2780(EXT CAB) under 3000 lbs.The new Tacoma is no less than 3400 lbs in the smallest version. You should have just looked at the weight of the new HH and your old 4 Runner.Weight (and Hybrid vs non hybrid vs DIESEL) is the best way to predict city mpg.A Hybrid is about 25% better than an ICE-your vehicle is about 80% of the weight of the HH.You shouldn't have been surprised.HP, and number of cyl are secondary to weight.Want to predict your city mpg-check the weight.The weight advantage(600 lbs less) is why the CRV and the 4 cyl Highlander(about 600 lbs less) will get close to the HH in city mpg.Thanks.Charlie PS-Look at the weight.
Thank for yet again a highly informative as well as DETAILED post.
I agree that weight is a factor and until your post, did not know the exact difference. Now I know hy my HH 'drives like a tank' especially with the lower CG due to the batteries..
Safety sake as well, although I lent my olde 4Runner to a Lady last Winter who (in 4 W drive) promptly skidded thru a chain link fence including two posts and rammed two trees before coming to a stop.....The bull bar I added saved most of the front end however the fence ran up and totally over the vehicle...it was funny in a way, because she as well as the vehicle could not get out of the barbed wire enclosure.
When the out of state owners finally provided egress, She cranked right over and after checking for major damage, oil leaks etc. I drove her home.
Now thats a TRUCK even though it was the first SUV ...she still has 'cat scratches' all over, which I am slowly painting. Bottom line...like the Timex commercial..".Takes a Beating but keeps on Ticking"
Speaking of the 'Bottom Line' I have been responding to several individuals on this board who have ' flamed' me due to my questioning of a' >' GREATER THAN 30 mpg postings on this site.
While some have responded with good nature and somewhat ascerbic skepticism (OK by me) others who were found to be guilty of the very "exaggerations" I reported, have issued 'wagers' based on photos of their 'energy screen' as prima facie 'evidence' of GREATER THAN >30 mpg results.
Your post clearly indicates otherwise. (not to involve you in this 'flamethrowing' contest)
I'd just like to clarify that this has nothing to do with individual vehicles. If I drive my HH normally, I too get sub 25mpg mileage still to this day. No doubt. This is about technique and I feel confident that I could drive anyone's HH to 30+ and they could, too, if they P&G and squeeze the motors dry on each glide.
I would caution against averages of mpg (though I don’t doubt that it’s around 25mpg). More and more new users are coming online. I’d separate new and ‘old.’ I’ve had mine for two months and have over 4k. From what I’ve seen the longer you have this vehicle, the better your mpg gets and that’s been our point. Don’t be duped by averages because for the next year, with more new cars and drivers coming on, that’s not going to improve. Look at individual cars and drivers and you’ll see the mpg gets better over time.
As for flaming, that's the kettle and pot. We were all here happily talking about our own experience and sharing results when ulev accused us of errors and/or lies.
Funnily enough, when ulev or anyone else complains about sub 25mpg results neither I nor anyone else refutes them. We KNOW that's what you're getting because we ALL got those numbers too (and said so) earlier before we perfected our technique (and may be the car wore in). If we’re lying now, why weren’t we lying when, like you, we were complaining about low 20s before?
Having cleared up the emanation, now we can look at the original sin of creating fire here.
Filled up for the first time today. 329.6 miles, 14.835 gallons - 22.2 mpg
Mostly highway driving and it is the first tank. LOTS of A/C use - it was in the 90's for part of the week and I only had two morning trips where I could shut off the A/C.
I'm going to add a bit of air pressure - the tires all measure about 31 psi (the dealer probably filled them on the hot day that I picked it up) and I'm going to try 35.
The gas station attendant told me to fill it up - they were raising prices 10 cents tonight.
Just filled up my 4th tank, and am getting better at MPG. I thought it would be easier to just post my results on greenhyrid.com. I like the easy to read database they have. I got just over 400 miles to the tank this time. Not bad at all! To make this last 400 miles count a little more, I just threw all my speedwatching to the winds. I got burnt out trying to watch my every move, so I drove normally (about 10+ mph above normal speeds on the freeway) Amazingly I was able to hold on to about 35 mpg on the dash gage on the freeway going about 75mph. The pulse and glide was a neat trick for about 2 fillups, but it lost its pizazz. I am getting better mileage these days, and will probably try the P&G after 2k miles...
Filled up for the third time last evening. BTW, gas prices in SATX are down to $2.73/gal reg at Walmart so I paid $2.70 with the walmart card. The computer indicated that I was getting 27.6 mpg and I calculated that I was getting 27.37 mpg. A 1% difference! I have 1,020 miles on my HH and I pressurize all the tires to 38 PSI when all the tires are cold.
I am considering having the oil changed to remove any break-in grit. I know that the dealer states this is not necessary, but I am hoping some of you have opinions on this idea.
Getting 27 mpg during the first 1000 miles is impressive. We are in SJC area and got no better than 24 mpg for the first 1000.
We checked oil just yerterday and it is getting maple-syrup color so we are changing oil this weekend regardless of what the manual or dealer says. Our tires are still at 35 psi.
After 3000+ miles, we are finally able to accelerate gently from stop to about 33 mph on electric. ICE still kicks in as it closes on 35 mph. ICE used to kick in between 20-25 mph.
We are also finally able to maintain 40 mph on electric over most roads we use. Simply accelerate gently past 40 mph, let go of accelerator to turn off ICE, then press down gently to activate the electric. It feels great being able to drive 40 mph solely on electric. May be our HH just needs that much break-in.
We have also significantly changed our driving habit by switching to freeways that post 55 MPH limit and roads that are flatter. Few, if any, aggressive drivers take these roads around here and a commute is once again a relaxing journey. Very much like those old college days when there were few cars and many of us were working hard to pay our own way through school and maintain a simple old great American clunker. Driving was really a joy then before the rush-rush madness.
I took my HH to the dealer to have the oil changed at 1500 miles and he refused to do it. Too soon he said because the HH's engine works a lot less than a normal car's engine would. He said to wait until 3K at the earliest but he recommended that I stay with the 5K change...otherwise he said he'd bet money that the engine would be burning oil by 30K. Makes sense to me. BTW, I have about 3500 miles on my HH and mileage is still improving so it must still be breaking in.
We waited until 3500 miles for 1st change on our Hh. Since the ICE doesn't run all the time we are planning 5000 mile intervals for the future. Click 'n Clack (NPR) recently raised their reccomendation to 5K as well. And remember, most owner's manuals say 7500. I wouldn't do that unless I was using a synthetic, which I won't do until many, many miles have passed.
I've seen a few posts that mention what MPG you guys are getting based on fill-ups. If you're basing this on auto-shut off it is hardly exact or universal. Sometimes the first splash back will turn it off and you think it's full. For accuracy, I fill till I can see the gasoline coming up the tube. I can often get three gallons more sometimes only two . . . which means that you guys may be judging with a gallon missing or added on each fillup.
I've found the computer fairly accurate but, more importantly, it's very consistent. More consistent that auto cut-offs at different pumps and even different stations. While overtime you'll get an accurate measure, I don't see how you can judge one tank to the next if you're assuming you tank full when it auto stops.
Gazguzler, Can you please explain reasoning for the top off?
It seems the key is consistency. We fill up at approximately the same odometer miles (around 365 to 375 miles), with the fuel gauge pointing to approximately the same last quarter tank marker, get approximately same number of gallons each time tank to tank (within 0.215), MPG number on board reads approximately the same, within 1.2 MPG from fill-up to fill-up and we go to the same 2 gas stations in town but use different pumps.
If we are missing or adding a gallon at fill-up due to early shut-off, that should show up in odometer reading after 3 to 4 tanks?
While sensors in the car report measurements to a central computer, each sensor should perform independent measurements and report data points independently without first coordinating and "fixing" measurements with each other, true? If so, I am sure any fill-up discrepancies should show up as rather large differences after at most 2 to 3 tanks.
Just trying to understand this and make sure I did not miss anything. THanks in advance.
We are finally breaking the 28 MPG barrier after 3500 miles. It drops to 26 MPG whenever I drive "normally".
Forcing all that extra fuel into the tank/nozzel is not a good idea. There is an overflow problem that may cost you big $$$ if you continue to overfill. A service manager at a large Toyota dealer went over this at length in a seminar for new owners. It was confirmed by another mgr. at my local dealership whom I've known for over a decade. After the auto shut off, I put in just enough fuel to get to the next quarter ($.25, $.50, etc).
I've heard urban folklore about the dangers of overfilling the tank. Then the messenger leaves it there. But, like my 3-year-old, I invariably ask 'why?'
So far, that gets confused faces. If someone gives me a legitimate reason, I’d believe.
The closest thing I've heard to reality is that the tank is a rubberized plastic. The idea is that it could give too much pressure to the lines and/or burst.
I find that hard to believe. I can’t see how the lines and tank lining are engineered for a certain tolerance and two more gallons will rip them apart.
Again, if anyone has a better explanation, it’d be good for me (and everyone else to know).
To clarify, I only fill till I can see if I want an accurate MPG reading and to calibrate the onscreen MPG reading. Although, the last time I found gas at $2.29 (nearly 3 weeks ago), I overfilled and am still driving by $3.70 gas stations.
This gets us to discussion1’s discussion. The rubberized tank can expand which adds another dimension to the inaccuracy of fillup measurements. How many times have you started a fill and the autostop turns off the gas, even though you know it’s empty. So, you squeeze again. But when it’s near full and it cuts off, you accept that the autostop is right. It’s very imprecise.
The best measure to-date of this fact is that I can get anywhere from 2 to 3 gallons in after autostop. That means that there’s a gallon variance for the rest of you when you think you’ve filled. The computer’s far more accurate than that and that’s what I used now. It’s certainly the best way to measure tank-to-tank performance.
Of course the gas gauge is hopelessly inaccurate and nowhere near refined enough for measurements. You’ve got an inch to show 17 gallons.
Goes without saying that over many tanks you're going to get an accurate MPG because all this will even out. But you can't do tank-to-tank if your not sure you're at the same level each time . . . and nozzle autostop won't tell you that.
Thanks Gazguzler. I think you are saying that hand computation of MPG may not be accurate due to fill-up discrepancy. Right?
We agree with this observation. We have been getting consistent reading from on-board read-out and our manual calculation comes out real close to on-board MPG number, always within about 0.05 gallon. THis is good enough for us to believe the on-board MPG number.
I recently read that , at least here in AZ, the pumps accuracy have been challenged by the "authorities" (can't remember the correct name of the state agency at the moment) ...but they said thay have been finding pumps that read up to 10% high...this further complicates the calculations if not using the on-board computer to check MPG.
Gee, I thought that the "authorities" were responsible for certifying weights and measures. Around here (Philadelphia,PA) the counties have weights and measures folks who annually test and certify fuel pumps, supermarket scales, etc. For a fee, I'm sure, and to be sure these things are accurate.
Also around here, many pumps have a recovery system that, if I understand it right - I'm not an engineer - have a system with a return line that captures vapor and overfill to prevent vapor loss and spills. It's for pollution control. If I recall correctly, continuing to pump after cutoff to the point the tank is full will actually cause excess fuel to be recovered - back to the gas station..... These pumps are all marked clearly to go by cutoff and not overfill. - John
The service manager told me that there is an overflow system with some sort of filter involved. Consistently forcing too much fuel may clog the filter and interfere with the overflow relief. The bladder system in the Hh may be different. Perhaps someone can update us. The new owner's seminar where a service manager reviewed this concern was over a year ago but I will contact him for an update. I don't think he would waste 150 new owners with a 5 min. briefing if it wasn't real. After all, Toyota would generate more $ in their service business if they replaced more filters and purged the systems in the affected vehicles.
When you say "SATX", do you mean San Antonio? From which dealer did you buy your HiHy? I've been on the waiting list at Universal since Jan 05, and placed my order (not LTD, 2WD, bluestone with option pkg 1) in May. I'm still waiting... The salesman said Toyota is producing bluestone vehicles in very small quantities (I don't quite buy that), hence my wait. I have started to put in calls to dealers in Houston and Dallas, as my patience is waning. :mad:
Thank you very much for this post. It is really helpful as "old schoolers" claim an early first oil change is critical! Not anymore! Thank you, Toyota!
Zentropy, Sorry for the delay. Yes San Antonio. Go talk with Cal at Red McCombs Toyota. He is the number 1 Toyota Salesman in the country if not the world. Really! He has 5 assistants working for him. Tell him Randy sent you. There is a waiting list for the vehicles, but I just lucked out with mine. Walked in, saw it and bought it. Complete fluke. :shades:
Filled up at 1421 miles. I drove 301 on 3/4 of a tank and 177 miles was highway. Calculated mileage was 25 and the on-board computer stated 27.1 mpg. Still checking the pressure when tires are cold and pressurizing to 38 psi. Drive is fine with very low road noise.
I will have to try driving with the cruise on more. The only problem is that when the speed is less than say 35 mph, the cruise isn't suppose to work and the drivers in SATX don't seem to understand the difference between 45 and 60 mph in the city.
When cruising at either 25 or 30 or 35, our HH runs almost exclusively (>90%) on electric. Driving over the same roads without cruise, we have harder time making it run long distance on electric.
I almost titled this 'my abusive spouse' but i didn't want to offend the powers that be.
After almost 800 miles in 11 days of otherwise blissful ownership, i realize my wife and i a) need a 2nd HH, or b) Toyota needs to fix their software so that gas mileage is computed individually by driver. I thought memory seats would be nice, but what we really need is memory mpg. I get 31. My lovely wife gets 26.
i hope the almighty Toyota engineers are listening.
Hey Rick, What techniques do you use to get 31 mpg? What are the pressures in your tires? I read tonight that the Prius owners are recommending 42 Front and 40 back. Most likely to compensate for the heavier load in the front. Currently I have been maintaining 38 F&B. I've been able to prevent my wife from driving my hh so far. Based on her driving habits, I would expect the same results. Currently I am getting 27 mpg and I have almost 1700 miles.
I've been reading here for a while so I thought I'd share my results...I'm keeping a spreadsheet for mileage so I can see tank by tank and over time.
Best mileage: 36.64mpg, dunno what I did there, didn't wait til empty tank to fill up (Katrina) Worst mileage: 22.66 - lots of ICE, got stuck in Jersey right before a Giants/Jets game...that wasn't fun. Average mileage since 0 (now at 2700+): 26.63 Most recent mileage (last fillup): 29.44 Nav display currently 30.7 mpg. All figures above based on mileage traveled & # of gallons to fill up. Am very close to 30mpg alll the time, usually above 30mpg, according to Nav display. My commute is a mix of freeway, secondary, and neighborhoods. Helps to know the roads well so I can get the most out of the battery.
Have started to rely on cruise control for freeway travel, have found milage stays the same or increases slightly--the cruise control can use a lot less from the ICE than I can even when I try.
Have seen the "Don't put it in Neutral, it will run the battery down" message on the Nav display. Happens when the car is in drive and I open the door. That's the only time I see it.
I've been using 40/40 on the tire pressures - i've been meaning to experiment but i've got to get a better pressure gauge.
I'm a pretty leisurely driver for bay area commutes. I've been doing a pulse and glide maybe 25% of the time, but more importantly, i think, i try to anticipate hills, braking, etc. The one thing we've got going for us as drivers is that we know what's coming up ahead, for instance to time the speed when cresting a hill, that the onboard can't do. For instance, its a wasted opportunity to come over the top of a hill with a full battery, so i make sure i ease off during the last bit going up a hill to drain the battery as much as possible. I suspect, in all fairness to my beloved, i'm more willing to drive w/o the air conditioner than she. What i'm really curious about is whether mileage will vary with fuel quality. I've been using 91 (CA's highest) during break-in. It likely takes more energy to refine a gallon of 91 than of 87, I suspect other states have better gas from an mpg standpoint.
I drove my HH on a business trip yesterday. I live in VA Beach, VA and drove up to Springfield, VA. Tires are Integrity pumped up to 38 PSI. We have a little over 1,300 miles on the car. I use Premium fuel. It is a 4Wi. I gassed up and was on the highway within three miles. I used cruise control at 55 MPH for the first 30 or so miles, 60 MPH for about 10 miles, and then 65 for the rest of the trip. One way trip mileage was about 198 miles. Mileage at 55 mph was about 32 MPG. This dropped to about 30 at 60 MPH and down to 29.2 at 65 MPH. I hit rush hour traffic before Springfield and was able to go electric up to 40 MPH for quite a bit of time, probably 5-10 miles total. I hit 30 MPG entering the Metro Rail parking garage and hit 30.1 once I got to the top of the garage. I didn't realize it but I was electric the whole time in the garage. I didn't do any below speed limit driving, rush hour backup excluded. I moved with or faster than the other lanes of traffic. One the way home I was stuck in traffic for about ten miles and it was so bad that the ICE started three times to rechage the traction battery. I also ran into some rain. By the time I pulled in the driveway, the mileage had dropped to 29.1 average. I think the key is to keep an eye on traffic and let off the gas/cruise control as soon as you see brake lights ahead. I also would brake a little bit more than I typically do with my regular cars to allow a little bit of momentum once the traffic in front of me starts moving. I use enough brake pressure to allow max regen while minimizing frictional braking. Having 5 MPH in speed seems to make a big difference as far as eeking out as much electric drive as possible. My wife drives the HH mostly around town, suburbs really, where speed limits are between 35-45 MPH. Without really paying attention, she is able to get an average 27.5 MPG. I also agree with other posters about ease in maximizing electric as mileage increases. I'm not sure if the car learns because I don't think there has been much of a learning curve with my throttle foot. Since I consider this vehicle comparable to a Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited 4x4 which has 15/20 MPG EPA rating, we are extremely happy with the HH. It is also nicer since this is the first new car we have had in over 10 years!
Why us e premium? Even Clisk & Clack on NPR say to use the lowest octane fuel. I try to use Amoco or one of the top tier fuels explained in the link below.
I use BP (Amoco) Premium because the Owner's manual says to use it to get the most performance. Since the Power Split device acts as a CVT and there is no tachometer, I have no idea where the engine is running on the torque curve. I assume that the HH is setup to run the ICE at the most efficient power possible so I assume that the engine will run the most advanced timing possible which should occur using a higher octane fuel. Though it is different, I have a Volvo 940 Turbo and the knock sensors will retard the timing to prevent pinging if I use anything lower than Premium. I have not seen a thorough explanation of the HH like Graham Davies Prius technical discussion. Until someone can definitively tell me that the Premium will only make a difference under WOT situations, I will keep using Premium though I am sure that Regular will work fine for 90% of the time
I gotta go with the MIT guys (the Click & Clack, AKA the Tapit brothers, are engineering grads) And the automative bunch at Consumer Reports. Ditto for two Toyota service managers. They all reccomend the lowest allowable octane.
Because it is priced the same or lower than other majors around here, and comes really clean from BPs refineries, supposedly needing less additives in final processing. I'm confused about why they were not there too being that I've heard about Amoco being really clean forever. Old timers use to call it "white gas."
You're probably right but why would Toyota even waste the ink to recommend Premium? I can get away with regular in the Volvo, but the power and fuel economy will suffer. As far as Toyota service managers, my dealership service manager was a bit perplexed on starting the Highlander when we brought it in and other posts talk of dealer service personnel having no clue on how to set the various electronic options on the HH. I'll take their advice but always realize they may not have all the info. I also respect a degree from MIT but I don't know if Ray's Chemical Engineering degree dealt with combustion science and technology so I'll stick with the designer's recommendation. I've probably wasted more money on things than running Premium!
I agree. Amoco Premium's selling point for years was their detergents. Maybe it is like the bicycle helmet manufacturers. Many found the Snell rating too expensive and passed. I always bought helmets with the Snell rating but can no longer find helmets carrying it. The last one I had a a Snell B90A rating.
One of the service managers I network has been in his position over a decade, is extremely knowledgeable, and works for a Toyota dealership in a chain of several owned by the same guy. OK forget C & C, but CR? If my Hh accelerated any better, particulary uphill, I wouldn't notice. It almost pins you to the seat when the gas and electrics ramp up. Much of the torque, which is also awesome from 70 to a 100mph, is from the 2 electric motors, which don't use gas.
I haven't taken mine up that fast though I can believe that it could get to 100 MPH quickly. I agree with the torque from the motors at low speed. I guess we can agree to disagree.
It's not just at low speed. You can really drain the traction batteries in a hurry in spirted 65 to 85 mph interstate driving. The electrics come full on at even the highest speeds I've driven at, particullary like cruising at 80ish on a 70mph speed limit interstate. Get on one of those lonely expressways that loop around VA Beach to Nags Head and experience it for yourself. And you can spend the extra, for now, $.20 per gallon.
Yes, but you keep referencing the higher performance issue. If the ICE was a sophisticated power plant from BMW, Ford, etc. w/o hybrid systems, I would concede differences in performance. I don’t believe there’s any discernable difference among the different fuels. You think you’re improving performance by spending $3.50 more on every fill up and I don’t.
hhva, I think your last reply was to another poster. However, I guess I have owned and worked on American cars for too long. I consider a 24 Valve, direct ignition, dual overhead cam, variable intake valve timing V-6 engine running at 10:8.1 compression ratio to be sophisticated. My first car had a Dodge 383 runnning 10:1 compression that required premium. I do understand that there have been advances in combustion chamber design in the past 40 years. However, since you brought up BMW's, my daughter's 1994 BMW 318I with the M42 engine runs at 10.5:1 and requires premium fuel. I don't know if these engines have knock sensors so I've never tried to see if you could run a lower grade fuel. The old M-62 3.5L V-8's put out 245 HP using variable intake timing and 10:1 compression ratio and as far as I know require premium fuel. I'm not sure how much horsepower the BMW stock headers are worth, but the Toyota doesn't give up too much H.P. to a BMW. Of course the new BMW's that rev out to 7,000+ RPM are another story. Finally, this link: http://www.toyota.com/highlander/specs_hybrid.html says that the HP and torque figures were reached using premium fuel. To me, this says the engine timing and/or valve timing are varied to compensate for a lower grade fuel. How much of a difference it makes in my everyday driving is anyone's guess but since I ride my bicycle 9.3 miles each way to the commuter bus stop to go to work, I'm not going to sweat the extra $3.50 every two to three weeks.
Debating this, especially with tech data and specs seems a bit academic.
Let's easily and interestingly solve this. Why don't we all run the car on regular for one tank and then premium the next and look at our final MPG and do a couple of timed 0-60 runs.
That would definatley solve it and we'd know if it was worth doing for our HH and for all HHs.
I promise to do this test and report it. How 'bout the rest of ya?
Comments
While out there we put on 535 miles and got 27.2 this was in temperatures of 93 to 102 on Saturday A/C on always. Of the 535 miles about 225 where highway miles to the Jersey Shore. the rest of it was in the NYC area. This was reset mileage to 0 once we arrived out East.
8-15 We returned from NJ to Milwaukee Straight through again this time 852 miles in 90+ heat A/C on of course. we got 25.5 mpg. The difference was we had heavy traffic for about half the trip with a lot of breaking and excelleration which was minimal going out we also drove about 200 miles at 80mph. The computer was also reset for the return trip. This mileage was based with 2 drivers myself and wife
My driving habits are: about 5-8 minutes going between 20-35 before hitting the freeway: about 5 minutes on the freeway going between 65-80+mph. Then the last stretch about 10 minutes to work at about 40 mph (my pulse and glide practice). I don't really know if 5 minutes on the freeway each day to work qualifies as highway miles in the longrun.
Our first 2 tanks also returned only 24 MPG and nothing we did could change anything. It was after those first 850+ miles and on our third tank that we notice a constant increase in MPG. We are now up into 27+ MPG. Will see how this goes when the tank is empty. Need to confirm the number using pen and paper.
I did ask hubby to check tire pressure this morning and I'll see if that is a factor.
mmreid
Here are the results;
I really ran down to the bilge in the tank with a fillup of
16.302 gals which in a 17.2 gal tank left 0.898 gals till empty.
Which theoretically, gave me a total range of 452.188 miles till flameout...
The mileage obtained of 26.29 MPG was quite an improvement vs approx
23 MPG prior to equalization of tire pressures.
I thought that I read somewhere on this thread or the Toyota site, that there was a device on the HH's that indicated low tire pressure, since it seems to play such a vital effect on mileage. I did not see any warning signs, idiot lights or otherwise..... :confuse:
Now for an experimental run @ 35 PSI to determine if any further fuel economy is
obtained. :surprise:
1)The numbers are almost certainly digital readout numbers.A very few of the numbers are calculated. 3 folks gave both ,and the calculated numbers always seem to be less than the digital readout numbers(1-1.5 mpg,but a posting just a few posts up says his numbers were 5 mpg too "good").A good guess(based on numbers from a very methodical poster on the RX400 site) is 1 mpg too good.This is why I say 25-26 mpg.I can certainly do the addition and division and give a single number,but it won't reflect the "real" mpg(-calculated over many tanks).
Bottom line-the HH's get 25 mpg on average in mixed driving.These are out of sight great numbers for such a fast midsized SUV-your 4 Runner is much smaller(interior) and worlds slower,and a LOT LESS CRASHWORTHY..
Many classes of vehicles peaked-mpg wise- in ~mid late 80's.Why? Weight and hp!Your 1990 Tacoma based 4 Runner was light(3500 lbs with no more than 190 hp-maybe less).Current 4 Runner is 900 lbs and 50-60 hp better.It is also infinitely more crashworthy,and the Highlanders are at least as crashworthy as the 4 Runners.
I had a 1985 Corolla(carb still,no FI) manual transmission.It would get an honest 42 mpg at 70 mph with 5 adults squashed in it.It gave 30 mpg in heavy city driving.The Current Corolla with a manual will get the same city,and hy mpg despite being 4 valve heads with electronic controls and sensors-4 valve heads(the old one was OHC,but 2 valve).Why no improvement?Weight and power-2100 vs 2700 lbs and 60 hp vs 130 hp.The new Corolla is about the weight and interior room of an old Camry.
My point-your 4 Runner is about the size(meaning interior room ,not length)-weight- acceleration-of a RAV 4,not a HH,Highlander or 4 Runner.
Same story with old and new small Toyota truck.My 86-94-98 small trucks were all well(2560,2600,2780(EXT CAB) under 3000 lbs.The new Tacoma is no less than 3400 lbs in the smallest version.
You should have just looked at the weight of the new HH and your old 4 Runner.Weight (and Hybrid vs non hybrid vs DIESEL) is the best way to predict city mpg.A Hybrid is about 25% better than an ICE-your vehicle is about 80% of the weight of the HH.You shouldn't have been surprised.HP, and number of cyl are secondary to weight.Want to predict your city mpg-check the weight.The weight advantage(600 lbs less) is why the CRV and the 4 cyl Highlander(about 600 lbs less) will get close to the HH in city mpg.Thanks.Charlie
PS-Look at the weight.
Thank for yet again a highly informative as well as DETAILED post.
I agree that weight is a factor and until your post, did not know the exact difference.
Now I know hy my HH 'drives like a tank' especially with the lower CG due to the batteries..
Safety sake as well, although I lent my olde 4Runner to a Lady last Winter who (in 4 W drive) promptly skidded thru a chain link fence including two posts and rammed two trees before coming to a stop.....The bull bar I added saved most of the front end however the fence ran up and totally over the vehicle...it was funny in a way, because she as well as the vehicle could not get out of the barbed wire enclosure.
When the out of state owners finally provided egress, She cranked right over and after checking for major damage, oil leaks etc. I drove her home.
Now thats a TRUCK even though it was the first SUV ...she still has 'cat scratches' all over, which I am slowly painting. Bottom line...like the Timex commercial..".Takes a Beating but keeps on Ticking"
Speaking of the 'Bottom Line' I have been responding to several individuals on this board who have ' flamed' me due to my questioning of a' >' GREATER THAN 30 mpg postings on this site.
While some have responded with good nature and somewhat ascerbic skepticism (OK by me) others who were found to be guilty of the very "exaggerations" I reported, have issued 'wagers' based on photos of their 'energy screen' as prima facie 'evidence' of GREATER THAN >30 mpg results.
Your post clearly indicates otherwise. (not to involve you in this 'flamethrowing' contest)
All for the sake of TRUTH in MPG
I would caution against averages of mpg (though I don’t doubt that it’s around 25mpg). More and more new users are coming online. I’d separate new and ‘old.’ I’ve had mine for two months and have over 4k. From what I’ve seen the longer you have this vehicle, the better your mpg gets and that’s been our point. Don’t be duped by averages because for the next year, with more new cars and drivers coming on, that’s not going to improve. Look at individual cars and drivers and you’ll see the mpg gets better over time.
As for flaming, that's the kettle and pot. We were all here happily talking about our own experience and sharing results when ulev accused us of errors and/or lies.
Funnily enough, when ulev or anyone else complains about sub 25mpg results neither I nor anyone else refutes them. We KNOW that's what you're getting because we ALL got those numbers too (and said so) earlier before we perfected our technique (and may be the car wore in). If we’re lying now, why weren’t we lying when, like you, we were complaining about low 20s before?
Having cleared up the emanation, now we can look at the original sin of creating fire here.
Mostly highway driving and it is the first tank. LOTS of A/C use - it was in the 90's for part of the week and I only had two morning trips where I could shut off the A/C.
I'm going to add a bit of air pressure - the tires all measure about 31 psi (the dealer probably filled them on the hot day that I picked it up) and I'm going to try 35.
The gas station attendant told me to fill it up - they were raising prices 10 cents tonight.
The pulse and glide was a neat trick for about 2 fillups, but it lost its pizazz. I am getting better mileage these days, and will probably try the P&G after 2k miles...
http://www.greenhybrid.com/compare/mileage/car/1241.html
Mine is "Golden Eye"
I am considering having the oil changed to remove any break-in grit. I know that the dealer states this is not necessary, but I am hoping some of you have opinions on this idea.
We checked oil just yerterday and it is getting maple-syrup color so we are changing oil this weekend regardless of what the manual or dealer says. Our tires are still at 35 psi.
After 3000+ miles, we are finally able to accelerate gently from stop to about 33 mph on electric. ICE still kicks in as it closes on 35 mph. ICE used to kick in between 20-25 mph.
We are also finally able to maintain 40 mph on electric over most roads we use. Simply accelerate gently past 40 mph, let go of accelerator to turn off ICE, then press down gently to activate the electric. It feels great being able to drive 40 mph solely on electric. May be our HH just needs that much break-in.
We have also significantly changed our driving habit by switching to freeways that post 55 MPH limit and roads that are flatter. Few, if any, aggressive drivers take these roads around here and a commute is once again a relaxing journey. Very much like those old college days when there were few cars and many of us were working hard to pay our own way through school and maintain a simple old great American clunker. Driving was really a joy then before the rush-rush madness.
I've found the computer fairly accurate but, more importantly, it's very consistent. More consistent that auto cut-offs at different pumps and even different stations. While overtime you'll get an accurate measure, I don't see how you can judge one tank to the next if you're assuming you tank full when it auto stops.
Can you please explain reasoning for the top off?
It seems the key is consistency. We fill up at approximately the same odometer miles (around 365 to 375 miles), with the fuel gauge pointing to approximately the same last quarter tank marker, get approximately same number of gallons each time tank to tank (within 0.215), MPG number on board reads approximately the same, within 1.2 MPG from fill-up to fill-up and we go to the same 2 gas stations in town but use different pumps.
If we are missing or adding a gallon at fill-up due to early shut-off, that should show up in odometer reading after 3 to 4 tanks?
While sensors in the car report measurements to a central computer, each sensor should perform independent measurements and report data points independently without first coordinating and "fixing" measurements with each other, true? If so, I am sure any fill-up discrepancies should show up as rather large differences after at most 2 to 3 tanks.
Just trying to understand this and make sure I did not miss anything. THanks in advance.
We are finally breaking the 28 MPG barrier after 3500 miles. It drops to 26 MPG whenever I drive "normally".
So far, that gets confused faces. If someone gives me a legitimate reason, I’d believe.
The closest thing I've heard to reality is that the tank is a rubberized plastic. The idea is that it could give too much pressure to the lines and/or burst.
I find that hard to believe. I can’t see how the lines and tank lining are engineered for a certain tolerance and two more gallons will rip them apart.
Again, if anyone has a better explanation, it’d be good for me (and everyone else to know).
To clarify, I only fill till I can see if I want an accurate MPG reading and to calibrate the onscreen MPG reading. Although, the last time I found gas at $2.29 (nearly 3 weeks ago), I overfilled and am still driving by $3.70 gas stations.
This gets us to discussion1’s discussion. The rubberized tank can expand which adds another dimension to the inaccuracy of fillup measurements. How many times have you started a fill and the autostop turns off the gas, even though you know it’s empty. So, you squeeze again. But when it’s near full and it cuts off, you accept that the autostop is right. It’s very imprecise.
The best measure to-date of this fact is that I can get anywhere from 2 to 3 gallons in after autostop. That means that there’s a gallon variance for the rest of you when you think you’ve filled. The computer’s far more accurate than that and that’s what I used now. It’s certainly the best way to measure tank-to-tank performance.
Of course the gas gauge is hopelessly inaccurate and nowhere near refined enough for measurements. You’ve got an inch to show 17 gallons.
Goes without saying that over many tanks you're going to get an accurate MPG because all this will even out. But you can't do tank-to-tank if your not sure you're at the same level each time . . . and nozzle autostop won't tell you that.
I think you are saying that hand computation of MPG may not be accurate due to fill-up discrepancy. Right?
We agree with this observation. We have been getting consistent reading from on-board read-out and our manual calculation comes out real close to on-board MPG number, always within about 0.05 gallon. THis is good enough for us to believe the on-board MPG number.
Thanks!
Also around here, many pumps have a recovery system that, if I understand it right - I'm not an engineer - have a system with a return line that captures vapor and overfill to prevent vapor loss and spills. It's for pollution control. If I recall correctly, continuing to pump after cutoff to the point the tank is full will actually cause excess fuel to be recovered - back to the gas station..... These pumps are all marked clearly to go by cutoff and not overfill. - John
Go to http://www.greenhybrid.com/compare/mileage/
Sorry for the delay. Yes San Antonio. Go talk with Cal at Red McCombs Toyota. He is the number 1 Toyota Salesman in the country if not the world. Really! He has 5 assistants working for him. Tell him Randy sent you. There is a waiting list for the vehicles, but I just lucked out with mine. Walked in, saw it and bought it. Complete fluke. :shades:
I will have to try driving with the cruise on more. The only problem is that when the speed is less than say 35 mph, the cruise isn't suppose to work and the drivers in SATX don't seem to understand the difference between 45 and 60 mph in the city.
When cruising at either 25 or 30 or 35, our HH runs almost exclusively (>90%) on electric. Driving over the same roads without cruise, we have harder time making it run long distance on electric.
After almost 800 miles in 11 days of otherwise blissful ownership, i realize my wife and i a) need a 2nd HH, or b) Toyota needs to fix their software so that gas mileage is computed individually by driver. I thought memory seats would be nice, but what we really need is memory mpg. I get 31. My lovely wife gets 26.
i hope the almighty Toyota engineers are listening.
-- rick
What techniques do you use to get 31 mpg? What are the pressures in your tires?
I read tonight that the Prius owners are recommending 42 Front and 40 back. Most likely to compensate for the heavier load in the front. Currently I have been maintaining 38 F&B.
I've been able to prevent my wife from driving my hh so far. Based on her driving habits, I would expect the same results.
Best mileage: 36.64mpg, dunno what I did there, didn't wait til empty tank to fill up (Katrina)
Worst mileage: 22.66 - lots of ICE, got stuck in Jersey right before a Giants/Jets game...that wasn't fun.
Average mileage since 0 (now at 2700+): 26.63
Most recent mileage (last fillup): 29.44
Nav display currently 30.7 mpg.
All figures above based on mileage traveled & # of gallons to fill up. Am very close to 30mpg alll the time, usually above 30mpg, according to Nav display. My commute is a mix of freeway, secondary, and neighborhoods. Helps to know the roads well so I can get the most out of the battery.
Have started to rely on cruise control for freeway travel, have found milage stays the same or increases slightly--the cruise control can use a lot less from the ICE than I can even when I try.
Have seen the "Don't put it in Neutral, it will run the battery down" message on the Nav display. Happens when the car is in drive and I open the door. That's the only time I see it.
I'm a pretty leisurely driver for bay area commutes. I've been doing a pulse and glide maybe 25% of the time, but more importantly, i think, i try to anticipate hills, braking, etc. The one thing we've got going for us as drivers is that we know what's coming up ahead, for instance to time the speed when cresting a hill, that the onboard can't do. For instance, its a wasted opportunity to come over the top of a hill with a full battery, so i make sure i ease off during the last bit going up a hill to drain the battery as much as possible.
I suspect, in all fairness to my beloved, i'm more willing to drive w/o the air conditioner than she.
What i'm really curious about is whether mileage will vary with fuel quality. I've been using 91 (CA's highest) during break-in. It likely takes more energy to refine a gallon of 91 than of 87, I suspect other states have better gas from an mpg standpoint.
-- rick
I gassed up and was on the highway within three miles. I used cruise control at 55 MPH for the first 30 or so miles, 60 MPH for about 10 miles, and then 65 for the rest of the trip. One way trip mileage was about 198 miles.
Mileage at 55 mph was about 32 MPG. This dropped to about 30 at 60 MPH and down to 29.2 at 65 MPH.
I hit rush hour traffic before Springfield and was able to go electric up to 40 MPH for quite a bit of time, probably 5-10 miles total. I hit 30 MPG entering the Metro Rail parking garage and hit 30.1 once I got to the top of the garage. I didn't realize it but I was electric the whole time in the garage.
I didn't do any below speed limit driving, rush hour backup excluded. I moved with or faster than the other lanes of traffic.
One the way home I was stuck in traffic for about ten miles and it was so bad that the ICE started three times to rechage the traction battery. I also ran into some rain. By the time I pulled in the driveway, the mileage had dropped to 29.1 average.
I think the key is to keep an eye on traffic and let off the gas/cruise control as soon as you see brake lights ahead. I also would brake a little bit more than I typically do with my regular cars to allow a little bit of momentum once the traffic in front of me starts moving. I use enough brake pressure to allow max regen while minimizing frictional braking. Having 5 MPH in speed seems to make a big difference as far as eeking out as much electric drive as possible.
My wife drives the HH mostly around town, suburbs really, where speed limits are between 35-45 MPH. Without really paying attention, she is able to get an average 27.5 MPG. I also agree with other posters about ease in maximizing electric as mileage increases. I'm not sure if the car learns because I don't think there has been much of a learning curve with my throttle foot.
Since I consider this vehicle comparable to a Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited 4x4 which has 15/20 MPG EPA rating, we are extremely happy with the HH. It is also nicer since this is the first new car we have had in over 10 years!
I try to use Amoco or one of the top tier fuels explained in the link below.
http://www.toptiergas.com/
Though it is different, I have a Volvo 940 Turbo and the knock sensors will retard the timing to prevent pinging if I use anything lower than Premium.
I have not seen a thorough explanation of the HH like Graham Davies Prius technical discussion. Until someone can definitively tell me that the Premium will only make a difference under WOT situations, I will keep using Premium though I am sure that Regular will work fine for 90% of the time
I'm confused about why they were not there too being that I've heard about Amoco being really clean forever. Old timers use to call it "white gas."
As far as Toyota service managers, my dealership service manager was a bit perplexed on starting the Highlander when we brought it in and other posts talk of dealer service personnel having no clue on how to set the various electronic options on the HH. I'll take their advice but always realize they may not have all the info.
I also respect a degree from MIT but I don't know if Ray's Chemical Engineering degree dealt with combustion science and technology so I'll stick with the designer's recommendation. I've probably wasted more money on things than running Premium!
If my Hh accelerated any better, particulary uphill, I wouldn't notice. It almost pins you to the seat when the gas and electrics ramp up. Much of the torque, which is also awesome from 70 to a 100mph, is from the 2 electric motors, which don't use gas.
It just takes a bit for the energy the gas created to get to those motors.
I think your last reply was to another poster. However, I guess I have owned and worked on American cars for too long. I consider a 24 Valve, direct ignition, dual overhead cam, variable intake valve timing V-6 engine running at 10:8.1 compression ratio to be sophisticated.
My first car had a Dodge 383 runnning 10:1 compression that required premium. I do understand that there have been advances in combustion chamber design in the past 40 years.
However, since you brought up BMW's, my daughter's 1994 BMW 318I with the M42 engine runs at 10.5:1 and requires premium fuel. I don't know if these engines have knock sensors so I've never tried to see if you could run a lower grade fuel. The old M-62 3.5L V-8's put out 245 HP using variable intake timing and 10:1 compression ratio and as far as I know require premium fuel. I'm not sure how much horsepower the BMW stock headers are worth, but the Toyota doesn't give up too much H.P. to a BMW. Of course the new BMW's that rev out to 7,000+ RPM are another story.
Finally, this link: http://www.toyota.com/highlander/specs_hybrid.html says that the HP and torque figures were reached using premium fuel. To me, this says the engine timing and/or valve timing are varied to compensate for a lower grade fuel.
How much of a difference it makes in my everyday driving is anyone's guess but since I ride my bicycle 9.3 miles each way to the commuter bus stop to go to work, I'm not going to sweat the extra $3.50 every two to three weeks.
Let's easily and interestingly solve this. Why don't we all run the car on regular for one tank and then premium the next and look at our final MPG and do a couple of timed 0-60 runs.
That would definatley solve it and we'd know if it was worth doing for our HH and for all HHs.
I promise to do this test and report it. How 'bout the rest of ya?