Mistakes of a Newbie Hybrid Owner

I for one am intrested in the results of alt driving styles. If someone is willing to drive two different styles and do fill ups to doc. the results.

Do you know anyone who has evaluated this specific idea on the prius c? I think you have your opinion and don't want to be confused with any information that doesn't support your view.

IMO PriusChat is to encourage discussion of these type of questions. so lighten up. Their results will not be the final word on this topic. it will be specific to their dirving type/distance ect.. If their mpg is better then we can check to see if our mpg increases with quick acc. instead of slow acceleration.

it used to be common understood that steady speed gave the best mpg. that is not true on hybrids. So I think there is room for improvement of my understanding of this topic.

 

It is my understanding that the prius c actually de tunes the engine so it will warm up quicker. this reduces the amount of power the engine makes and may cause engine to use more fuel. So I think you may be correct.

To preserve the accuracy of your testing I would do a comparison without warming up. and later do after warming up engine. That way you would gain more info about both ways.

 

Sounds logical to me. keep us posted on the results.

My lifetime mpg on the computer is within 1 mpg, however I am not sure it is always accurate like for short times where the engine is accelerating. I think doing with the pump and odometer will be better.

 

If steady speed doesn't give the best mpg on hybrids, then why did Bob Wilson use cruise control on a flat road to develop his mpg chart? If that's not using steady speed I don't know what is.
My "view" only happens to be the conventional wisdom developed by the automotive industry and motoring commentators over decades, but if you want some results, read on.

A 16 mile return city trip, last Friday, fine, dry, calm weather, temperature 68-70F
Mostly multi-lane roads with 30, 40 and 50 mph limits, even mix. Fairly flat running, with a hill (100 ft elevation) to start and finish, light, steady traffic.
Driver and 1 passenger, tyres at 40/37 psi, gas E0, cold start.
43 traffic lights / roundabouts / give-way's - had to stop at 20 of them.
3 stops for a total of about 1 hour.

Driving Technique:
Cruise with traffic, light acceleration (60-75% on HSI pid, Torque Pro).
Fuel consumption (indicated):
67mpg - my Fuely tank calculations have shown the car to be 2mpg optimistic.

Now it's your turn....

 

The computer will be much more accurate than filling less than half a gallon at the pump.

 

Truth IS that neither method will be anywhere close to "accurate".
It might be interesting but it won't really prove anything........especially since the "pulse and glide" technique has been added to the picture.
Too many possible variables involved to make a good test.

My question about this statement was a serious one.
Do you have any real information about that study or are you going from memory here ??

I was actually driving a car back then and my recollection of the study is a bit different......in that I think it concluded that a firm acceleration at medium throttle was a tiny bit better than slowly creeping up to speed with almost no throttle.

 

Darn, I only got 84 mpg on half a dozen flat-running, round trips in the city since Xmas using cruise control - I just knew I was doing something wrong!

GT-I9300 ?

 

Only true if we live in hilly area. Same here in NY. We basiclly live on the mountains. lol. So cruise control is number one gas killer. But I can see that cruise control can do better in flat area like texas. Last time, I was there, i can see th highway disapperred from hoziron. Cruise control is so steady, and probably do better job than our leg.

Accidently, found this on the wiki. Toyota Prius/Driving tricks - Wikibooks, open books for an open world

" A gasoline ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) is more efficient (in terms of power produced/fuel consumption) when operating at higher effort due to smaller throttle losses."

Suprisingly, they said exactly what Dan said. Don't know how good is this wiki website. But for over 20 years of driving, I was always thinking opposite way. Where more gas injected to the engine, the more unburned gas came out the muffler.

 

You have to be careful though when it comes to efficiency. Better efficiency doesn't always mean less gas. Think of it this way. You have a garden hose with a nozzle on it. If you turn the nozzle to mist, it is nowhere near as efficient as if you just let the hose run full. But at the same time you are still using less gas.

 

MPG isn't the same as the efficiency of the engine. They're generally related, but not the same thing. The efficiency of the engine is based on the amount of power produced per gallon. An engine at or near WOT and at lower RPMs (around 1500-2500RPM) is where most engines are most efficient. Its known as Brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC). That's the logic behind brisk acceleration being better and why P&G is generally better than cruising with the throttle almost shut.

 

All these years we have been told to drive with cruise control on, to save gas and money, I guess that was incorrect all these years, who knew!

 

I know that... that's why I said it.

 

Well I'm getting 84 mpg with cruise, so when someone walks the walk, and demonstrates doing better than this, then I might believe it!

GT-I9300 ?

 

For more than half the drivers out there, cruise control is still an improvement, and for nearly no effort, so it is not really incorrect.

But plenty of us learned that there is room to do even better, without excessive effort.

 

My mistake, looking back at your post I'm not sure why I thought you were wrong.

If someone isn't focused on driving for mileage, cruise will likely get them better mileage. I'll P&G if I'm alone on the road, but I'll usually use cruise if I don't have enough room around me. I also use cruise on road trips, because there's not a whole lot you can do at 65-75mph. I would rather not have a sore foot when I get to my destination.