I'd say this rates VERY high on the BS scale..........

 

They didn't figure anything out, the EPA tests in a closed environment with no wind resistance, which Hybrids are particularly susceptible too when it comes to effecting gas mileage. Don't blame Toyota, they're required by law to post the EPA numbers, blame the EPA for running unrealistic tests.

 

I didn't see it mentioned here yet, but IIRC the EPA highway mileage is calculated at 45mph. With the xB's profile causing a bit of wind resistence at "normal" highway speed, that's where the discrepency is likely caused. Obviously the faster you go the more wind resistence is going to lower mpg.

 

i'm getting 32 mpg here (about 40% city, 60% highway)... i used motoman's break-in method (drove around town in high rpm's for 30 miles then changed the oil and filter) and my box is stock.

 

Lets not forget that when you change your stock wheel and tire size,the results will reflect accordingly.
Im sure this doesnt fix everyone.I have 18's on my B.
I have gotten as well as just over 300 out of a tank.My average is around 240-260.
I usually fill up when my light comes on.
It can only improve the more miles you rack up!
Less friction internally.Which means less work for the little engine that might!

 

Don't forget that the EPA tests are also done with one person in the vehicle and zero cargo weight... on an absolutely flat stretch of highway... windows UP with NO AIR. This testing procedure is done on every single make and model.

Not exactly real world, eh? Toyota did not lie to anyone... the EPA numbers are what they are. If you drive up a hill, with a lead foot, and use the air conditioner with 3 other passengers and their stuff crammed in the back of your car, your EPA "estimates" will get hosed every time.

BTW, my Prius customers are averaging 53 mpg combined on cars that have over 3k miles. I did have one Prius customer average 54 mpgs on a 1200 mile trip the first weekend he had the car. It is what it is, and it depends on the driver and habits.

Peace...

 

Sorry, double post. :oops:

 

yeah i'm getting about 25-29 mpg on my auto box. i wasn't really expecting to get into the 30 mile range because of the lack of aerodynamics on the box. it's still much better than my 4-runner was doing so i'm happy.

 

A few here have already replied in a similar manner, thought I may add some to it.

The EPA runs all the cars on a test course that is designed to "simulate" real world driving heh, maybe in their world they are the only car on the road but not mine. It measures emissions during the test, rather than the actual fuel consumed, calculating consumption from that. The vehicle is on a dyno more or less for the trip, it does include idling, etc. in an attempt to simulate rush hour traffic

What it does NOT include, is the poor-quality air that is taken in during the rush hour, hills, curves, etc. That are present in every day life. It doesn't take into account that the consumer just filled his car with 10% ethanol gasoline, while reducing emissions, has the side effect of producing less power per gallon, so more is consumed per mile. It also doesn't take into account the driver. Everyone driving the same course would most likely get a different number, simply due to the differences in human nature.

The real strength of their testing however, is the ability to put all cars on a level playing field so to speak. All the cars go through the same exact irrelevant run, so comparing cars becomes really quite easy.

Is it accurate? Well no, reasons given above. In addition they deduct a percentage from the calculated MPG. As the MPG increases, the deduction will be greater (because 10% of 50 is greater than 10% of 30), so cars that test well are punished so to speak. It also doesn't adjust for manufacturers that do a better job of supressing emissions than others. I do not know how well Toyota plays that game, nor any manufacturer for that matter. I do know that emissions output varies from company to company with similar engines, so there are variables there too.

Someone posted above that they have an intake and that they hoped that it would improve mileage. It really should. The smaller the engine, the more effect intake and exhaust changes have on the vehicle. This is largely due to smaller engines not having the mass that larger engines do to do the breathing for them. Less flywheel/recriprocating mass, less air momentum, and so on, make smaller engines work to breathe. Not saying to run out to your dealer and get a filter but it really will pay for itself in the long run. Tradeoffs in manufacture try to offend the least amount of people. So intakes supress noise (and thus airflow) in order to please the crowd that hates intake woosh. Exhausts are excessively quiet (in my opinion) for the same reason. But the freedom to change your ride to make it unique is well within your power so long as its legal in your area.

So if you read this far on yet another of my encyclopedic posts, thanks. Comments are welcome. If you read only the last line then take away that the EPA measurements are only useful to compare vehicles you purchase, and not reflective of what you actually get driving.

Mike

ps oh the epa link-- http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/dearmfr/gasmel.pdf

 

Ummm, EPA tests are done on a roller dyno, not on the road. Check out:

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/mpg/40p0600.pdf

for the procedure.

George

 

He stated that.

 

Where? I read "on an absolutely flat stretch of highway", not "on a dyno".

 

"The vehicle is on a dyno more or less for the trip, it does include idling, etc. in an attempt to simulate rush hour traffic...."

Time to go back to reading comprehension :twisted:

 

He was referring to the dealer that posted before me, not to my post. :D

Mike

 

As has been pointed out, that wasn't the post I was referring to. In any case, the run is done completely on a dyno, not "more or less", not "a flat stretch of road", etc.

 

George just has to get in the last jab

"More or less" in my statement as the epa's own lit states that its a dyno, similar to a treadmill. What is it? Well, its a dyno more or less. Not the kind of dyno you use to measure horsepower, their kind of dyno.

Mike

 

Not jabbing, just setting the facts straight.

There is a considerable difference between this document:

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/dearmfr/gasmel.pdf

which was written by PR people to be understood by the general public, and the document that actually defines the testing procedure:

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/mpg/40p0600.pdf

which requires a bit more work to understand.

 

Sorry that I got some little ******* in a wringer.

Okay, so it is done on a dyno... which simulates a flat stretch of road.

Semantics, semantics, semantics. Get over it.

 

the dyno can simulate going up and down hills, a flat stretch of road can not.

.02

 

Just be thankful that it wasn't a little lower on your anatomy!