Toyota Highlander Hybrid MPG-Real World Numbers
With the price of gas being what it is, your real world mileage is becoming more important than the estimates on the sticker. This is the place to talk about your real world on the road results!
0
Comments
Richard
Wes
Thanks for the reply. After 600 miles in my Ford Escape SUV Hybrid I have averaged 34 mpg both cith and freeway. This is double the 17mpg I averaged on my 2002 Jeep Cherokee.
Richard
The trip home is largely uphill. There was more traffic and it was about 5 minutes longer than the trip in. The MPG was about 32.
Clearly, one can directly effect, and significantly, the mpg reported by the on board gauges, through driving habits. I have been driving for 35 years and never a speeding ticket. I am generally careful anyway. That said, the realization of the potential economy is very, very impressive.
Thanks for posting your experiences - I really thought that by modifying driving habits, where possible, that one could get above the posted mpg estimates. You have shown that it is possible.
So how about some numbers?Let us know if they are calculated or Digital.The type of driving you do would be nice to know also. Mentioning if it is 2 or 4 wheel drive would also be nice.
Oh,I'm very interested in the HH.I currently have a Pilot,Titan,Prizm.2 motorcycles.The Pilot gets 12-14.5 mpg in true-heavy-city driving(EPA is 17-22)(worse in summer,of course-New Orleans is hot).On the bright side,the Pilot gets 22.4 mpg at 73 mph with the AC blasting and about 1000 lbs of payload- 2 adults,2 greyhounds,kitten,MTB bike etc)(recent trip to Flagstaff,AZ-3100 miles)
I would love to have something comparable to it that got an honest 22 mpg city,and 27+ at 73 mph on the hy.Thanks.Charlie ps phoebe -isis the greyhounds,not me. PPS-Give me numbers-please!!
Hope this explains.
Ken
On a separate issue, SUN ROOF. I get a loud noise like having a window open slightly. Also, it made the music sound very muffled. Is this the way it's suppose to be? I hope mine is a defect.
As for the sunroof issue, it's the same thing that all modern cars have with the aerodynamics. Try cracking open one of the rear windows and It should go away. There are lots of posts on almost every board for almost every manufacturer asking about this issue, and it's just a matter of a sealed box having inequal pressures and trying to equalize.
Hope this helps.
Ken
I've been waiting and saving for at least a year for it so I'm just amazed how quickly and easily it fell into my lap since I was only on the lists since last week.
I stopped by my dealer to check out my new HH 4wdi.
As we were sitting in the vehicle in 95+ degree weather, the sales person showed me how to 'start' the car. It was somewhat strange to note that no ICE started when the key went 'all the way.' However, just as we were about to depart, the ICE kicked in...it seems due to the AC having a heavier load due to the hi temp, the battery needed a 'boost.'
Has anyone out there gotten mileage for a HH FULL TANK of fuel ??? :confuse:
Reading some of these posts my Tundra X-tra cab gets a most respectable 16.8 mpg...consistently. I have gotten to 380 miles at the fuel light, so I presume that my Tundra would go 400 miles on a tank. My hope is that I can get at least 600 miles on the HH tank..a 50% increase. Would make the 'pain' of aquisition much easier to take...
Wes
Wes
Why would you drive a new vehicle so fast prior to it's break-in ??
I was always taught that for the first 1000 miles or so vary the speed between 55-65.
High speed "break ins" can't be healthy for your car.
Now,you will never find an auto company that would endorse 90mph break in,but I wouldn't lose any sleep over a brief trip to 90mph(120 hp) in a 260+ hp vehicle.I'm not from the "run it like you are renting it" school of break in,but it isn't too important anymore.Might be more important to get the 1st oil change done early to remove leftovers from manu and that 90 mph run(of course,that is what an oil filter is for,but oil is cheap,metal expensive).Charlie
I talked to many service managers and mechanics there and they basically said the same thing that phoebeisis said. As long as you vary your speed, do not push it to the high end of engine's capabilities, and follow your maintenance schedule, there will be no negative impact to the engine.
To each his/her own I guess.
I think I'll keep my new Highlander Hybrid (that I'll pick up in 3 weeks), within the 55-65mph range for the first 1000.
Can't wait to get it !!!
Well, it's only a couple higher than my 2003 CR-V, which is of similar class. ICE only, of course. On the highway I get about 26-27.
Won't mention the cost differential... oops, I just did, OK. About 15K for the base model, 13K for the premium CR-V. That is a fair amount of gas to break even at only 2-5 MPG better for the hybrid.
apples and oranges.
Ken
Many people get confused by the exterior sizes; the Highlander looks bigger, but the CR-V has a simply amazing use of the interior space. The Highlander is larger, but not as much as it appears on the outside. I should also point out that the Highlander ICE is also available with an I4 as the base engine. They weigh almost the exact same, and the I4 engines have almost identical power and torque. However, with the CR-V, you can get all of the top-of-the line add-ons with an I4; I believe that Toyota only offers the high end items with the V6.
I cross shopped the Highlander in 2003, and choose the CR-V. I preferred the Honda due to the driving characteristics and general interior layout. I especially like the CR-V turning radius of 33.8 feet, as opposed to the Highlander at 37.4. The vehicle is nimble.
The only thing correct about your comparison is the 3rd seat. You didn't mention the towing capacities, where the Toyota has the advantage, but then the Honda wasn't really meant for towing.
Toyota tunes their suspension for ride, while Honda tunes for performance. It is a matter of preference. The ride is the main reason I went with the CR-V.
To get back on topic, the problem with any SUV hybrid is the weight and large frontal area. It is going to drag down the MPG every time. The fact that Toyota didn't mate the hybrid with the I4 is a serious detriment to MPG. The resulting hybrid is disappointing, when you consider that an ICE only vehicle in the same vehicle class can come close to the same mileage.
To stay on topic, in my humble opinion, (and others as well) it would take way too many years to save enough fuel to make economic sense of the current Hybrid costs. I suspect that most purchasers are buying for the technology, and cross shopping more expensive SUVs than CR-Vs or gas highlanders...I am fascinated/enamored with the technology myself, and if I could justify 40K for a vehicle, I might have considered it....I just can't justify it....Remember, the Hybrid highlander also has significant gains in performance.
just my 2 cents
I was impressed by the Highlander, and it did ride very smoothly. But I found the Honda I4 peppier (I think they have a newer I4 now than in 2003). I wouldn't want anyone thinking that I was anti-Highlander. It is a matter of preference.
Like you, I cannot find myself justifying 36-40K for a vehicle just to get the technology.
But Toyota could have built for better MPG, by using the I4 instead of the V6 for the HH.
I guess the marketing folks at toyota were trying to hedge their bets- not banking solely on the HP junkies or the greenies. "it gets good gas mileage and as a side benefit, it has lots of punch." or "I like the HP of this SUV, and the good gas mileage is icing on the cake."
I personally would have liked to have seen the highlander geared more towards gas mileage and the RX more towards performance. but no one at toyota asked me
The CRV is very nice-a typical Honda-fuel efficient, well designed,good ergos.what's not to like!?It is classed as a SMALL SUV so I didn't consider it much.In AWD version CReports shows it as getting 15mpg in their harsh city loop,and 29mpg in their hy loop.I can backup the pitiful city mpg that all midsized SUV's get.The 10 mpg "better" is assuming 75% city.
The Highlander is about the same-just a little bigger
Honda CRV 181" LONG,70" WIDE-AWD 3600 LBS
Highlander 184" long, 72" wide-AWD 4000LBS.
Honda CR-V CReports AWD 15 CITY 29HY
Toyota Highlander V-6 AWD 13 CITY 25 HY
I'm very curious what sort of numbers CR gets for the AWD HH.My guess 21city 32 hy for the AWD version.CR's city loop is very,very "CITY".I bet most HH folks will get 23-27 mpg time after time on their everday driving.A Prius gets 35 city in CR's harsh city loop(a Corolla gets 20,I think).I
The 10 mpg better is my distillation of what most midsized SUV's get if they spend a lot of time in the city-like I do-say 75% city.
A $38000 HH will break even over a $30000 Highlander(or any other midsized with city mpg like the Highlander V-6) at about 120000 miles-ignoring tax breaks,and ignoring the $$ you could make on that $8000.It also assumes $2.50/gal gasoline.$2.50 is probably too low for the average price of gas over the next 6-7 years,but who knows??It also assumes 15vs 25mpg.
Now you are also getting one of the fastest SUVs on the road!The ZILLION dollar Porche is quicker-the Armada is about the same 7.2(and 10 mg city)..It is much faster than-Trailblazer-;Highlander V-6;Pilot;Tahoe:Suburban;Explorer;Expedition;Durango;Excursion;Toureg;EscaladeMost MB;
The HH is a Q-ship!Not a big concern for socially responsible folks,but still nice to be able to accelerate and get ahead of someone who won't let you come over when you need to change lanes for an offramp!!
10 mpg difference and 120000 miles still seem right to me.Charlie
You will find that the CR-V is listed as a mid-size SUV, due to the interior volume.
The original quote compared it to a Toyota Echo, a totally bad comparison. While a bit smaller externally than the HH, the internal sizes are close enough that they can be used for the same purposes, with the exception of that third row.
Your MPG quotations are for the CR-V FWD. For reference, I get about 22 in town, 27 at 80 MPH, and over 30 at 60-65. The 2005 model has a new 5 speed transmission, which probably does better than my 2003 4 speed in town.
Consumer Reports is notorious about gunning the engine on their vehicles. I do not use their numbers for that reason. I used the real world numbers as reported on this site.
I am basing my comments about the difference on what people have posted as real world mileage: as low as 28 MPG, that is actual mileage. But I will grant a generous 5 MPG over my CR-V. It still takes a long time to recover the cost of hybridization. I actually think that your "10 MPG" is too low when compared to, say, a Ford Explorer. But I was comparing it to my CR-V, driven conservatively.
You have to remember that the CR-V, even the top-of-the line SE, can be had for under 23K. That is at least 15K less than your minimum for HH, and about 17K less than most people seem to be reporting. Trying to recover 15K dollars with only 5 MPG mileage improvement is very difficult.
I tried my best to tart up a gas only Highlander Limited 4WD on the Toyota website to match the equivalent Hybrid model and the difference in MSRP was around $2500. This is about $1000 more than the difference in price between getting a V6 and a V8 in a 4-Runner. To my understanding, unlike Honda, fuel economy has never been the prime objective in Toyota's Hybrid designs. It just comes along for the ride. The objective with the HH was V8 performance with a V6, so you could consider this a $1000 premium for a vehicle that gets better fuel economy and runs much cleaner than the standard V6 model. If you consider the fuel economy it would get with a V8, so much the better.
Of course this doesn't take into account incentives and discounts available on the gas only model that are not available on the Hybrid or included "options" that you may not want. This was done using a Central Atlantic Zip code and options packages vary by region, so your mileage may vary.
The CR-V is a fine SUV.It can be the smallest midsized SUV in the Phoebeisis lineup!
Everyone is now happy.Thanks.Charlie PS What will my Pilot be now that the CR-V is midsized??
This type of 'in your face' mockery belongs elseware....
This site is productive for all participants if we dispense with the 'commentary' and stick to the subject matter.
Everyone is now happy.Thanks.Charlie PS What will my Pilot be now that the CR-V is midsized??"
Well, I suppose the pilot could be the smallest full sized SUV?
I would have to say that I was very surprised when I started researching my vehicles in 2003 and didn't see the CR-V in the "compact" listing.
This type of 'in your face' mockery belongs elseware....
This site is productive for all participants if we dispense with the 'commentary' and stick to the subject matter."
Exactly my sentiments as well. Sorry if I went a bit "over the top". I try and use logic at all times. I really hate it when I let people get me going...
Apologies where needed...
No kidding-the CR-V is about as good as it gets for a really handy sized people-thing hauler.(check CR they are practically sales people for it).I eyeballed it when I was Eyeballing the Pilot-Highlander.It failed the 2 greyhounds behind the second seat fit test.Now,since the mutts can command the entire back of the car,I'm eyeing it again(son won't travel with us anymore)
The Pilot is a roomy midsize.It gets very good HY mpg-better than EPA 22 at 73 mph).It gets miserable city mpg (13-15)-especially in humid New Orleans with AC blasting 9 months of the year.Of the 22000 miles-12300 have been trips-interstate-,so the average is 18mpg.(Well,I'm lying,we used a roof basket on the 1st 2 trips-16.5 mpg-terrible;the second two trips I jury rigged something to ride on the rea bumper-22.4mpg-huge difference)Thanks.(Didn't mean to come off so snooty-sarcastic-sorry about that)-Charlie
296 mile 99% hwy loop. +30.5 digi readout mpg vs 30.1 calulated mpg. Of course, the calc number has error in it (do you mark at the valve shut off, or top off?). The 30.1 is the average of the extra .5 gal that seems to be able to be 'squeezed' into the tank during the topping off period. I have a very light foot and was avg 60 -70 mph with light AC use. That said, calc was never HIGHER than digi. Overall mpg for 712 miles is 30.5 per the digi About 48% is hwy driving. Sounds like it is in the EPA range for me and can be effected by driver attention and effort.
The reason I bought the HH is complicated and certainly goes beyond any potential savings on gas expenditures. I feel that if it was an mpg-alone issue for me I never would have purchased this vehicle. The decision was a basket of factors including mpg, power, technology, interior appointments, seating for 7. Seating for 7 is way overstated (but who knew?). Anyway, I am overjoyed with the purchase and the result. Early adoptors always pay more. More in price and in risk. This time I feel it worked out for me. I have boxes full of other stuff that did not. The car exceeds on all but the 3rd row. I would do it again.
You might look like a genius if gas hits 4/gal.Even if it doesn't suddenly spike to $4,If it slowly picks 5 cents every month, the prices of the HH might not drop in a year.Toyota probably can't up production very fast.If the demand stays good because of $3+ gas;then the price drop might not happen.I can see a lot of folks dumping their Suburbans-Expeditions-Tahoes and turning to a vehicle that doesn't require a $75 fill up every week.A lot of folks will never do the arithmetic;they will just see the $75 fill up every week and just decide to heck with it.
A crude eyeballing shows the early average to be about 27-28 mpg.The lowest report is about 24.5-not bad!!They look like they are closer to EPA numbers than the Prius.I am really curious to see some pure city numbers.The Prius delivers about 65%-70% of it's city EPA(60).Thanks.Charlie
Thanks for the thoughts I hope that gas does not reach $4/gal. If it does I bet a lot of other petro-based, required goods, in the US get very expensive. My other cars are a 2003 Civic HYbrid and a 2002 Honda CRV. Both nice cars, quality products that deliver well against their specific objectives that are distinctly different, I would guess, from the HH's.
An earlier poster appropriately noted that the HH is just fun to drive. Well said. It is just fun to drive.
Thanks for the reply.
Larry
.
2)765 30.7 257 AWD
3)777 26.4
4)794 24.6
5)795 27.8 320 2WD
6)805 27.9
7)833 24.8 48
8)842 25.5 HY 29 CITY 1000 MILES TOTAL
9)851 30.1 296
10)862 31.8 100
Might have missed some-the 1st number is the message-2nd is mpg -3rd is distance -then the drivetrain-awd and 2wd.Pretty good numbers-some calculated some dig,I think.
27.8 and 26.4 are the 5th and 6th numbers of 10
Of course these numbers are biased-maybe no one will report their 18 mpg tank.Maybe there aren't any 18 mpg fillups?I haven't noticed any shrinking violets here;I expect to hear a loud whine for the 1st sub 20 fillup.
Please report every fillup you care to report-multiple reports gladly accepted.I would love to see a low number-don't be shy.These are awfully good numbers-ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING THIS IS FULL AC SEASON??
In the summer the with our Pilot the AC consumes ~6% of every gallon of gas in city driving.Lotta volume to cool-lotta glass.
Thanks.Charlie
My second fill up was at 13.5 gallons with 365 miles so that was 27 mpg and a good part of that was the end of my long drive.
Unfortunately, to get to work, I have a good size hill to go over and I come home the back way so I don't get that coasting advantage. So I'm curious on what the numbers will be for this tank.
751 25 AWD
765 30.7 AWD
777 26.4
794 24.6 CURRENT LOW
795 27.8 320 2WD
805 27.9
833 24.8 48
842 25.5 HIGHWAY
842 29 CITY
851 30.1 296
862 31.8 100 CURRENT HIGH
900 28.5
901 27 365
1ST numbers is message number;2nd is mpg,3rd distance,if known.Drivetrain type and city or hy noted as posted.
No aspersions cast at low.24mpg + is a heck of a low for a 4200 lb vehicle.Thanks.Charlie
I noted that the vehicle was very smooth in the transitions from ICE to Batt and back again, as I drove on I-94. It was also rock steady... as some 32 wheel steel-haulers passed us at speed.
I 'eyeballed' the gas gauge to be at 3/4 full and made a WASG of 1/4 of 17.2 gals = 4.3 gals @ 125 miles = 29.069767 MPG !!!
I realize that this is not quite 'accurate,' but it sures sounds good for mostly freeway mileage.
In comparison to my 4.7L Tundra, the HH HAS the acceleration of a V-8, feels SOLID on the road and is comfortable for four persons + some gear.
Despite some reservations prior to aquistion (mainly the MSRP Price)
I LIKE IT !!!
In comparison with my Tundra, my only complaint was a lack of a 'coin holder,' which in these parts (tollroads) is a neccesity...I thought that a coin insert would work well in the unneeded (perhaps unnecessary in these times) ashtray..are ya listening Toyota ??? :surprise:
HH Ltd AWD, w/NAV
Calculator in car shows 25.5 mpg on the 330 miles driven on this tank.
Actual calculated: 24.1 mpg
Prior tank, got about 24.5 and car's calculator and my calculations came out about the same. Total of 1st three fill ups (with amount pumped ranging from 12-15 gallon on each fill-up) and drove on these three tanks a total of 1015 miles.
Steve
Driving was mostly city/suburbs, not a lot of heavy traffic and about 15% hwy only.