Long road trip results

Very impressive numbers! Welcome aboard BTW.

 

Wow, nice job, this was not an ordinary trip and despite weather conditions, you still managed an average of 59 mpg for the entire trip, way more than the official 48 highway. This is twice what I average when I drive from Orlando to New York(1100 miles) in an '07 Camry, average 28 mpg. Well, I can't wait for the 2012 PHV to start putting similar numbers.

 

I am finishing a trip from Texas to Colorado (Ouray area) and back and did some regional averages. A stretch of I-40 in New Mexico had an apocalyptic oblique head wind (sand, tumble weeds, trucks leaning dangerously), while steadily gaining altitude and traveling 75-80mph: 32mpg

Climbing and descending steeply many thousands of feet in the mountains around Ouray on 550 and 62 averaged 55mpg. The "B" braking mode helped control speed on the down slope. Smoking brakes (down) and failing to keep pace (up) were not a problem.

I was also impressed with the traction on steep dirt roads. The clearance was a problem. I had to be vigilant for ruts and rocks.

 

59 mpg from NY to Orlando... That's only about 2 tanks of fuel!
I am going to Cape Kennedy next month to see the final Shuttle launch. I hope I get the same mileage from about 90 miles north of NYC.

 

I'm intrigued. By this time next year, I'm hoping to report a +1,900 mile trip from LA to Minneapolis with my new PHV without plugging in. Having info like this to compare with will make the trip especially interesting.

What does "overinflated" mean? My tires are rated at 50 PSI max. So running them at 44/42 is well within specs. What were yours?

Also, what were the typical cruising speeds? I don't have experience maintaining travel faster than 70 MPH, since that's the limit around here and there simply isn't enough open country here to go faster for long anyway.
.

 

Nice results. I am curious, what speeds did you maintain to achieve these results? Did you use cruise or just P&G?

/randy

 

Sweet numbers bro!

 

This just sounds fishy at best was it 25 degrees Celsius? Also, you were likely doing mountain driving which kills mileage...

:fish2::fish2::fish2::fish2::fish2::fish2::fish2::fish2: Here fishy fishy....

 

Remember, snow doesn't exist at 25 degrees celcius

Also remember, if you go up mountains, you come down as well... I can speak from experience that I got better fuel economy in mountainous territory because of a hard ride up but a long drawn out ride down. In Phoenix (where I live) I drove up South mountain and back down, ending in 100+ MPG.

 

As long it's not short trips, I find I get better mileage in-town, at moderate speeds. In nice weather, I can push it down to 3.8~3.9 liters per 100 kilometers, displayed, if I really concentrate on coasting, driving with load, etc.

We did a recent road trip of 1100~1200 kilometers, I think the mileage settled down to 4.4 liters per 100 km. Hit a bit of upgrade and it would start to climb again. That's in areas with either 90 or 100 kilometer limits. I'd typically stay around 10 km under the limit, and even let it fall off a bit more on short upgrades, especially if there was no one behind us.

That 4.4 liters per 100 km translates to a bit over 53 miles per US gallon.

Now, on that road trip, the dash would say 4.1, but calculated was 4.4. Are those numbers you're getting calculated? Or a mix of calc and gauges? Or just gauges?

FWIW, I really wish Toyota would fix this, it would make mileage discussion more straight forward.

 

If you go up a mountain then come back down the same way then in theory you can do no better than double the mpg you got going up it. So if you get 30mpg going up then come back down using zero fuel or energy then you can achieve 60mpg. 100mpg shouldn't be possible unless you achieved 50mpg going up the hill in which case that is not a hill, it's a lump in the road.

 

This 2x image theory applies only when the up and down sections are images of each other. Round trips on the same road are the ideal test of this.

When a short steep hard uphill is paired with a long gradual descent -- a one way trip, or a loop returning by a different route -- better results are possible. Non-hybrids also hypermile very well in such situations.

 

I totally agree but since the majority of the inclines/declines I see are pretty much a mirror image with minor variations I felt that the theory applies in most cases. The grapevine in Southern California is a good exception to this theory. In most cases I doubt you will experience much of a difference.

 

You are pretty goofy with your numbers. And BTW I typically get infinite MPG mileage going down hill (infinity being a far larger number than 100).

If you are really looking for good mileage, remove the hub caps (3.14 MPG increase), add the shark fin antenna (.8 MPG), and tint your windows (.9 MPG).

 

I specifically stated going up and down the same side with similar grade characteristics. Sure you if come up say over the eastern Sierra grade then come down the western side you can achieve better numbers but if the grade and length is the same then you cannot achieve 100+mpg. It just isn't mathematically possible.

I play this game every day while driving from Woodland to Auburn. After passing Rocklin you go up a medium grade which drops MPG to approx. 30-32mpg over the 13 miles. Coming down from Auburn to Rocklin you can achieve 100+ but your average mpg for both up and down the hill is closer to 50-60mpg.