Frozen at 49 mph.... since 1/19/14

What I found interesting is that my father in law rented a New Corolla and drove it from Phoenix to LA and averaged 49 miles per gallon, again with the cruise set a 80 mph. Although it's a completely differing terrain and the reverse route probably yields lower numbers, I think it demonstrates that Prius really isn't intended for great highway numbers. Primarily because you aren't recouping much if any energy when your cruising at speed. Which of course is why regular cars yield much better numbers on the highway, due to steady state conditions.

 

I had an '09 Corolla, and I was occasionally able to extract that kind of mileage out of it by driving at a constant speed on the highway. I believe some of the benefit comes from being in the slipstream of a heavy stream of traffic. I'm sure I also had a bit of a tailwind at the time.

 

Agreed

 

You guys want a video? Not sure how to demonstrate for you. When I drive 60 mph, even over steep grades, my MPG without any EV miles runs around 60 - 65.

 

Again, your numbers are outliers from what others have reported.

When you say "60-65MPG" when driving 60mph over steep grades, is this based on display or based on actual fuel fill volume/miles traveled?

 

The display, which is always 3 - 5 MPG over reality, so you could say 55 - 60 MPG at 60 MPH.

To be more specific, I have a 49.5-mile round trip drive I make every week or two that involves 1266 feet of elevation gain and 1992 feet of elevation loss (668 feet of NET elevation gain assuming 30% recovery downhill) in one direction, and 1887 feet of elevation gain and 1179 feet of elevation loss on the return (1533 feet of NET elevation gain). The steepest grade is around 6.5%. At the beginning of the drive I set my Trip B to zero and when I return my Trip B reads 49.5 miles, 63 MPG.

I am not hypermiling or anything. I set the cruise control at 60 mph and take a ride. On the city streets I try to stay in "stealth" mode as much as possible. That's it. If I really wanted to push it I bet I could get 70 MPG.

 

This may seem like a dumb question, but was the fuel economy number a result of an average for that trip, or is it the average of driving over a much longer period?

 

Interesting. But when I do the math (+1266-1992+1887-1179) it would appear you're 18 feet lower than where you started. I know L.A. has a problem with potholes, but ... ;-)

 

Earthquakes. Everytime he leaves, there is a 2.0 or so, and it sinks...

I'm guessing roundoff error. The numbers are probably deltas from GPS readings -- take height 1 at time 1 and height 2 one minute later; if height 1 > height 2 add (height 1 - height 2) to the elevation gain column, otherwise subtract it from the elevation loss column. 18 feet out of 2000 or so suggests two digit accuracy.

 

Yeah, but 18 feet here and 18 feet there, and pretty soon you're looking at a real cliff.

 

Not a dumb question. It was the actual mileage for that single trip. Again these numbers may be slightly better than the return trip. I felt they were pretty impressive considering his speed.

 

It's a separated Interstate most of the way. The mountainous part has slightly different routes depending on which direction of travel.

 

Talking about the Grapevine, I'm guessing.

 

210 through Sunland/Tujunga area. The westbound side is a little higher I think. But there are also surely rounding and GPS errors in there too. 18 feet discrepancy over 49.5 miles isn't bad.

 

I could drive up an 18' hill using a hell of a lot less fuel.