Average Miles per Tank?

Since this topic is rapidly evolving into a new misconception, I've come up with a canned response that (hopefully) addresses what the actual situation is fairly well. And since I'll end up using it over and over again to keep the misconception from getting out of hand, I'd obviously like some feedback on it...



There are a number of people that believe the hybrid system will deliver increased travel distance. That simply isn't true. Range is actually similar to what many people traditionally get.

That gauge was setup to provide indication of fuel-level for 9 gallons of non-emergency use. You drive until the "Add Fuel" message is displayed, then refill the tank. That provides an expectation, based on the MPG shown on the Multi-Display, of roughly:

40 MPG = 360 miles
41 MPG = 369 miles
42 MPG = 378 miles
43 MPG = 387 miles
44 MPG = 396 miles
45 MPG = 405 miles
46 MPG = 414 miles
47 MPG = 423 miles
48 MPG = 432 miles
49 MPG = 441 miles
50 MPG = 450 miles
51 MPG = 459 miles
52 MPG = 468 miles
53 MPG = 477 miles
54 MPG = 486 miles
55 MPG = 495 miles

So basically, you are getting distance potential comparable to that of a traditional gasoline-powered automatic-transmission midsize car.

Expecting more has become a new misconception, due to the misleading EPA estimates for MPG. Though, you really do have reserve capacity beyond the 9 gallons. But it varies based on temperature (due to the bladder inside, used for evaporative emission reduction) and how gas is physically pumped into the tank. So don't plan on routinely using it. "Think Nine and You'll Be Fine."

.

 

> I also want a visual (not some estimate I'm required to calculate) estimate of actual usable fuel remaining

You have one, the gauge itself.

But rather than refueling at the 1/4 mark, you wait until it begins to flash.

Reserve fuel is still available, just like it was with your traditional vehicle. The only actual difference is 1/4 now reads as a flashing block, a simple cosmetic change making the indication of when to refuel easier to notice.

 

> I can only get a MAX of 8.3 gallons

If you are only getting 42 MPG, that provides a range of 350 miles.

So I ask the same question I did on the other group: "Why do you feel Prius should deliver a refill distance greater than a traditional vehicle?"

I got 50 MPG in my classic Prius throughout last summer. So it is quite realistic to expect at least that with my 2004. Your 8.3 gallons would provide 415 miles. Why is that considered bad? My Taurus could only travel 300 miles before draining the tank completely drive.

And of course, if you achieve mid 50's like some of the southern owners are currently reporting, you'll get darn close to that 500 mile range.

Please provide a reason for wanting more and we'll pick up the discussion from there (since everything else has already been hashed out on Yahoo).

 

There is some evaporation that takes place during refueling, so going perhaps 20% further on a tank means that I can reduce my evaporative refuelling emissions by 20% ... I'd say that's reason enough.

I refuelled over the weekend because I was on my last bar (before it blinked). I didn't know how far I'd gone because when I took my car in for its body work they disconnected the battery and I lost my current tank info. I put in a whopping 4.4 gallons.

I'm used to the car "reserving" a little fuel, in my last car I never put more than 9 gallons into it (it held 11) even when it went below E. But I kinda wanted something a smidge more accurate. But if I had a choice, I'm glad it's conservative.

 

i still think toyota blew it not to add more fuel capacity on the prius. i think the psychological value of being able to travel great (greater than traditional car) distances on a single tank is huge. also, there's the very real value of not having to constantly stop at gas stations. 300-400 miles per tank is simply average, not spectacular. not everyone is concerned about evaporative or other emissions. some people just want to go a long ways (and hopefully do so with only a little bit of fuel). i think the extra weight of 2-6 extra gallons (and the slight reduction in fuel economy that would result from this) would be worth it. i doubt people would care as much about the less-than-advertised fuel economy if the range was markedly better.

 

It's still not clear to me that anyone actually knows how much fuel fits in the '04 tank. If the gauge is simply inaccurate, then driving extra miles beyond the flashing bar would be okay. If the tank/bladder is holding less, then my routine fill ups at 6.5 gallons when the bar starts flashing would be prudent. Imagine this kind of dilemna in a 747 somewhere over the Pacific...

My '03 is consistent, at least, and I routinely go 500 miles on a tank. I am refueling my '04 at around 340-360 because that's when the light starts flashing.

And while it may not be a major issue, the Toyota ads and descriptions of the '04 routinely mentioned a 600 mile crusing range. My mileage is nowhere nearly that good (I get 50-52 REAL MGP out of my '03 and the best I can do in my '04 paying VERY close attention to how I drive is around 50). Not complaining, mind you, just not what I had been led to believe.

 

> mentioned a 600 mile crusing range

All the advertisements I've even seen for the 2004 said "over 500". 600 is not correct.

Perhaps you mistyped the number.

 

The furthest (sic) I've gone on one tank of gas is 542 miles. The average per tank for me is 460.36 miles after 25 tanks.

I did run out of gas on one of those -- not the 542 miles -- but I did it on purpose to see how far I could go and what would happen.

As to how much fuel fits in the tank...

On three occassions I have forced the issue and put more than 11 gallons into the tank. The most I've ever put in the tank is 11.575 gallons.

:naughty:

 

just a quick thought for you folks that like to tempt fate and top off your tank after the pump has automatically shut off. when you spill over even a cup of gasoline, you are dramatically increasing your emissions on a sulev car like a prius (that is, relative to the amount a sulev emits, a cup of gasoline wasted and evaporated is huge). so, if you really care about emissions, you might want to reconsider topping your tanks. the small increase in range probably isn't worth it.

 

I am totally with you there. And I'm glad you bought it up. I couldn't find any info on the net about how much of our VOC pollution is due to refuelling evaporation, but I can only figure that it amounts to some measurable percentage - and most of that is probably something that can be controlled by careful refuelling. It has been one of my concerns with trying to get more gas in the car and is the reason that I can't put more gas in the tank - I'd rather not have a spill over.

I was very skittish about trying it yesterday so when I filled, I held the pump handle instead of using the auto feature and had it on a trickle and even then only tried once after the auto shut off to get more in. I figured if it didn't want more after the first try, I wasn't going to argue.

But I have to wonder why I've never been able to put more than 7 gallons in my tank, even when it tells me I'm low on gas.

Either the bladder is limiting my capacity to 9 gallons or so (figuring that it beeps the first time when you have a quarter of a tank left) or it's got far more gas in it when it says it's on empty.

For a car that is supposed to have a range of 500 miles, and I'm only getting 240 - that's twice as much refuelling evaporative emissions than I had planned for, without spills. Obviously my range will improve as my mileage does - but even at an optomistic 50 mpg, I'd only get getting 350 miles to the tank.

 

I'm still running on a tank that 'gave back' some gasoline due to over-filling.

This time, I matched the 130-or-so miles that it took to have the first bar on the gas gauge go out on the free tank I got from the dealer. This implies that *they* filled it to the brim and maybe beyond too.

I'm no environmental purist, so if they offer a tank under warranty with no bladder and a seal around the opening that doesn't hide these overfills when using broken fillers, I'm going to get in line to have it installed...

 

According to Toyota, the tank capacity is around 45L (I'll translate the units in Americanese at the end, sorry ) in the Canadian Prius. The quoted combined consumption is 4.1L/100Km (according Canadian Resources Ministry tests) but I expect around 5.0L/100Km.

This means that I should expect to travel 900Km from totally full to totally
dry. That's pretty far from the 600 odd Km (400 miles) you're talking about. 300 Km is like 1.5 to 2 weeks worth of travel in my case.

For me, this means I have to fill up at about the same rate as I did on the old car. I expected that one great advantage of the Prius would be to be able to take advantage of lower fuel rates when they come by. In the Montréal region, gas prices vary greatly (sometimes $ 0.10 CAD / L in a single day). And we don't pay $ 1.50 USD per gal, it's more like $ 0.71 CAD to $ 0.85 CAD per liter. So, yes... I would very much welcome a more precise and less "conservative" fuel gauge.

And it's not that the car cannot deliver a "better than conventional car" range, it's just that we feel unsafe doing so. At worst, what could happen is that people become accustomed to the "early alert" and actually do go out of fuel because they don't know how much more they can travel.

Between you and me, don't you think that Toyota can come up with a solution to this issue? I think it's not super important (I'd like to see disk breaks in the back more than a better fuel gauge for eg.) but I don't think that it's too much to ask for.

PS::
Americanese units:
45L = 11.89US Gal. = 9.9 Imp. Gal.
4.1L/100Km = 57.53Mi / Gal
5.0L/100Km = 47.07Mi / Gal
900Km = 559.23Mi
300Km = 186.41Mi
$ 0.71 CAD / L = $ 2.69 CAD / US Gal.
$ 0.85 CAD / L = $ 3.22 CAD / US Gal.
$ 0.10 CAD / L = $ 0.38 CAD / US Gal.