The tripmeter was reset at 11,010 feet elevation and ended at 5,343 feet. Loss of 5667 feet. Most of it was at highway speeds. Crawling along at 1mph in gridlocked Denver bottlenecks pulled the average speed reading down to 39. I did get about 43 mpg on the return ascent.
That is a great snap shot to beg off all the braggarts. The real question is what do you get on each tank per driving conditions? I find it impossible to get in the 70's in the rain, 60-70 MPH high way constant speeds, heavy load in the right seat or very large cat in the back seat. AC at 74 degrees and low fan doesn't seem to make a big difference.
And an excellent one to post to the old VW TDI Tank Wars contest, which had only a 15 mile distance requirement. They didn't bother to make a round trip or no-elevation-change requirement, so plenty of 'cheating' was possible.
Water on the road, especially standing water increases rolling resistance appreciably. My by the pencil and calculator method over 6000 miles is 62.45 mpg. The dash display says 63.7 My best fill up was 71.23 over 284.9 miles. The dash display reported 70.x. I think I have the most accurate dash display of anyone on this site. I also note that you have the Touring model which has the 17" tires. It is well established in other discussions on this site that the 17" tires use more gas, presumably they have higher rolling resistance.
Need a one on one comparison. You are probably right but I can get in the 70s very easy with the wide tires. Link to thread please. Thanks! Also I do not think it is well established yet. Need data from real world users that have both. I have seen speculation but no real data. My two can get in the 70s with no problem on a full tank check. Where did the edit buttons go? BTW I do get 74-77 under perfect conditions for a full tank.
Did not cheat on this trip back from the grocery store. This trip includes a 110 foot elevation gain. It was on a warm motor, and full battery from the 110 foot descent to the store. I was also was running light air conditioning on ECO setting. Much of the trip was 50-55mph.
Thank you! I knew the Level 3 test drive, 99.1 MPG, was inferior to the Level 2 ECO. You've shown exactly what I would have had to see to buy it: The "110.4 MPG" or something close would have been what it took. Bob Wilson
Right, And I don't eat pizza when nobody is looking. Give us a snap of a 500 mile tank! Test conditions: 1. two fat people in the car 2. AC on set to 73 degrees and fan on speed 2 3. Groceries in the back going one way 4. Mixed driving=City and HWY 5. Wife nagging at you when you here your favorite song on HD 6. Outside air temp= 79-99 degrees 7. Some rain but mostly dry 8. Two raw eggs under your feet 9. 42 PSI in all tires/cold or 85 degrees for me 10. Do not exceed 65 MPH 11. Experience at least one road rage Then I will show you mine and you can show me yours and lets see who is bigger
We use these benchmarks to measure the 'best case' that the car can achieve: Not necessary to add 494.3 miles as there is enough information to make this a reproducible benchmark: 5.7 miles 11 minutes 31 mph 110.4 MPG "110 foot elevation gain" Set up car: "warm motor" "110 foot descent" "light air conditioning" "ECO setting" [some rjw] "50-55mph" It is a fine benchmark and good enough although I would prefer 10 miles to even out natural variability. Certainly the price was right. <grins> The easiest way is to find a loop with a minimum of stops. Note the tire pressure and do one practice loop. Then reset the the trip meter and drive at a constant speed for 10 miles. Snapshot the trip meter and the problem is solved. Bob Wilson
Cheap data for sure and as long as people don't use this for hasty generalizations to make a inaccurate non substantiated generalized statement then that is fine. Conditions constantly vary and a 500 mile trip would be more accurate but still not the final word. I would say 20-40 cars that are identical in set up parameters and average the results will be of more value to a potential buyer. Maybe! Does not represent Real world driving IMHO but could be as you say a great bench mark focused specific very narrow look. However as an operational tester for years what counts is a user in real world conditions using the product as it was designed to be used in a fully realistic operational environment as a user would use the product on a daily basis. This type of testing is not even DT but more like developer data on product capabilities in a narrow field of parameters. Yes I can get 199MPG as well as everyone. Question is what do you really get? I will look for a test loop. Test track would be more appropriate. Wonder if they will let me on the runway
Are you saying this shows that the Two ECO indeed does better than other models? I would like that to be true. I will add that the two stop lights on the route smiled at me with green, and that this is a "best of" of the laps on this route. There are three summits on the route as well, two are rather gentle, , 10's of feet at the most.. It is not completely flat. My former '13 Prius c managed a "best of" on this lap of 94.x. The tires are set at 39/36. How about that 78% EV ratio? I am beginning to think that EV ratio is a time measure rather than a distance one. Here is what I really got so far, 6169.7 miles , 98.8 gallons, 62.45 mpg by the pencil/paper/calculator method. The display claims 63.6. This driving has been done in mountainous terrain with cool and cold temps only. Many trips involve elevation changes of around 6000 feet at highway speeds. I have to wonder how much better the mpg would be if I lived somewhere flat and warmer like SE Iowa where I recently visited relatives. Where I live with the attendant driving style demanded by route and terrain, 62.45 is remarkable.
Not by itself but with the EPA published roll-down coefficients and my Level 3 benchmark, yes. The Level 2 ECO is the Prius MPG champ. In a year or so I will rent or test drive a Level 2 and get a second benchmark on my test loop. But I am in no hurry. If we are lucky, Edmunds will do an all Prius 'smack-down.' Bob Wilson
