I just read Motor Trend's review of the '16 Prius. According to their Chevron sponsored "Real MPG," the Gen 4 Prius Four Touring (Li-ion battery pack) is good for ~56mpg overall. (Note this was a non-Eco '16 Prius which is EPA-rated at 54/50mpg cty/hwy) 2016 Toyota Prius Four Touring First Test Review Out of curiosity, I wanted to see what the "Real MPG" was for the Gen 3 Prius... but the only model Motor Trend provides "Real MPG" test numbers for is the Prius C. What gives? Since the Gen 3 is EPA-rating is at 51/48mpg- I'm curious how the "Real MPG" numbers compare. Anyone care to provide an estimate (based on overall experience) for what Motor Trend's Gen 3 Prius' "Real MPG" numbers might be? My '11 Gen 3 has returned +49mpg (without trying) for 44k DD miles. I have gotten +56mpg tanks at times with some hyper-miling tricks, but not without pissing other drivers off (easy to do in & around DC). I'm curious to see how much better a Gen 4 Li-Ion could potentially be compared to my Gen 3. Thanks in advance.
some reviewers are saying it's much easier to beat the epa numbers in the gen4 than it was in the gen3. the pip has li-on, and i get high 60's to low 70's when not plugging in and driving like a grandma. and it weighs over 100 pounds more than hatch.
2013 Gen III Model Three with 17" Rims 49.9 MPG Average over 21K miles. Actual MPG since purchasing new. See my Fuelly for greater details.
Remember that the calculation of the mpg inside the car is usually 3-5% too high. So make sure the comparisons are between measured mpg or between computer reading mpg.
The Real MPG is a recent thing for MT. That's why they don't have the gen3 done. Fuelly's interface is still a bit clunky, but has the data you want. The average is around the 48 to 49mpg mark, IIRC.
O.K- did some digging with Motor Trend's Real MPG. Their online vehicle selector actually does provide the numbers for a 2014 Gen 3 Prius- they just wrongly picture a Prius C on the screen. The moderators are in the process of fixing the image mix-up. According to MT's "Real MPG" the Gen 3 is rated at 54.7mpg / 47.9mpg cty/hwy Compared to the '16 Gen 4 (Li-ion, non eco) Prius: 56.4mpg / 56.2mpg cty/hwy So, the Gen 4 provides roughly 3.1% better city mileage but a whopping 17.3% jump in the highway. That 1.5% improvement in ICE thermal efficiency, plus the lower Cd, lower mech friction tranny, & low RR tires really make an impact at highway speeds! For giggles, I compared this to the Fuelly numbers: Prius C weighted average is 47.9mpg Gen 3 Prius weighted average is 47.46mpg So, based MT's numbers & my guesstimates, the (Li-ion, non eco) Gen 4 should eventually avg right about +/~50mpg from the Fuelly crowd. Sure, YMMV, but this is a good baseline for comparison. Finally, based on everything I have read about the Gen 4, I'm not sure the Gen 4 Eco buyers will see much better mileage results than MT's estimates. In fact, I strongly suspect Toyota may end up having to revise their Eco estimates down to more closely match the rest of their Li-ion line-up... Simple physics suggests that there aren't enough vehicular improvements (lower RR tires @ higher inflation pressures, slightly lower weight, windshield coating?) to yield the Eco's higher mileage estimates (58/53mpg) when compared to the other Li-ion Prius models (54/50mpg).
Quip from C&D, and item I hadn't noticed before. " The Eco model also gets special infrared-blocking windshield glass, to reduce the air-conditioning load. And it uses special Dunlop Enasave 01 A/S 195/65-15 tires that have even less rolling resistance than the standard tires and are inflated to 39/36 psi front/rear rather than 36/35 psi." Better—But Still Not Fun—to Drive
I am glad MT is giving some help on measuring MPGs. Consumer Reports 33 MPG City for Gen3 is just plain nuts (44 overall).
I read somewhere, that the 4th gen finally has an accurate mpg display, maybe even reads slightly low. That'd be a marked and welcome departure from 3rd gen nonsense: I'm finding 7.5% error on average. It mighta been Danny's test drive, not sure. If someone recalls where this was reported, please post.
There's only one person that would measure this - Wayne Gerdes . cleanmpg isn't loading for me so I can't link it yet.
Why would Motor Trend's MPG numbers have any chance of being accurate at all? They are not specialized on testing MPG. The only accurate MPG tests other than those of EPA that I am aware of are the Consumer Reports tests. Consumer report tests are more accurate than EPA tests because they are road tests and they show that EPA MPG numbers for Prius are overestimated.
Folks, YMMV. So, take all the reviews, conjecture, & guesstimates made from said reviews with a grain of salt. MT has gone through great lengths & a corporate sponsorship to create their "Real MPG" numbers for every vehicle on the road, simply because many feel the EPA numbers are simply not accurate. But even MT's "Real MPG" numbers as well as Consumer Reports test numbers should be taken with a grain of salt... YMMV Based on the improvements Toyota has reported on their Gen 4 I am comfortable with the roughly 3.1% better city mileage MT's returned. However, I am highly skeptical about MT's whopping 17.3% MPG jump on the highway. Physics: A small 1.5% improvement in ICE thermal efficiency, an ever-so-slightly reported lower Cd, pumped-up lower RR tires, & a special windshield coating are insufficient to make that much of an impact at highway speeds. While RR & mech friction are ever-present, & improvements to these two would easily explain the 3.1% increase in city mileage, overcoming aero drag becomes the largest power requirement at highway speeds; power requirement increases with with the cube of velocity. Gen 4 aero drag was marginally reduced based on a smaller frontal area & claimed Cd reduction of .01. Cd*A for the Gen 4 is 6.28ft^2 vs. 6.58ft^2 for the Gen 3. A 4.56% reduction in CdA is commendable, yet not enough to make such a large MPG improvement at highway speeds. There has to be more. Could it be Toyota's reported lower friction tranny? Could it be the MT guys got lucky? Either way, seeing MT was able to get such good mileage with a non-eco Prius, I stand by my suggestion that Toyota will probably have to revise their Eco model MPG estimates from 58/53 mpg down to more closely match the rest of their Li-ion line-up models' 54/50mpg. Of course, there will be folks like Wayne who will blow all the EPA estimates out of the water. But, as previously stated, I think the average Fuelly contributor will most likely avg ~50mpg overall- which is a big improvement over what Fuelly drivers report for the current Gen 3 (47.5mpg) & the Prius C (49.4mpg) on Fuelly. Bottom line, I am very pleased with the first set of fuel economy numbers on the Gen 4. I look forward to trying to beat my own personal Gen 3 mileage records with my own Gen 4 someday. YMMV- but have fun!
3-5% ? I wish. Over 15K miles , my Prius is about 7% optimistic. That's about the only thing I dislike about the car.
it's easy to say that physics disproves toyota's eco claims. but it's more difficult to prove it. talk is cheap. perhaps you're discounting the rear wiper assembly?
Yeah it was Wayne Gerdes, and he consistently found calculated mpg slightly better than displayed. 2016 Toyota Prius First Drive Review - First Drive Results | CleanMPG
If CR is accurate for being road tests, MT should also be too. In fact, MT will be more accurate because they are measuring the fuel used by the emissions, using the same basic equipment that caught VW cheating diesels. CR will be useless for car to car comparisons. There is simply too many uncontrolled variables in their test. Being outside means that weather is an issue. They don't test in wet weather, but that still leaves wind and temperature differences. The use locally available fuel, which will change with the seasons in energy content. They don't disclose there test route in terms of acceleration rates and inclines, not do they say when the test happen with the environmental conditions. EPA tests are done indoors with climate control, and follow a precise 'route', with a standardized test fuel. It is open to cheating because of that, but it is the only way of getting results that are comparable between different models.
