By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
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?