Toyota Corolla 2.0 Excel Hybrid Enormous Fuel Consumption

[Popalulu]

Only had my 2ltr for a month but 800 miles and averaging 53 with best journey at 61.4 but usually around 55 unless using fast duel roads or motorways. I usually have it in eco mode (although Normal seems very similar). I pop it into sport for when I need to overtake then return to eco. I did find super unleaded gave me a tiny bit more MPG but not worth 14-16p a litre more 😞

[TonyHSD]

1 hour ago, Ampex196 said:

Corolla 2.0 Touring Design Sept 2019 5,100 miles

Fuel consumption excessive avg. 42-44 mpg first winter period - around 650 miles since delivery.I traded in a 2012 Auris T-Spirit which would average 55-60 mpg over winter and easily 65-70 mpg in summer months.  I'd expected some trade-off with the 2.0 litre hybrid; around 5 mpg I was told.  Consumption is actually higher by around 14-15 mpg.

I can only suspect a fault.  Stoneacre, Silverlink are unwilling to investigate free of charge:  Disgusting, having just spent £25K with them.

Though the car is a lot quicker than the old Auris, I do drive it sympathetically and use brakes as little as possible except for occasional firm applications to maintain disc surfaces in good condition and prevent sticking calipers.

I find that both the Auris and Corolla's handling benefits from sightly higher (around 3 psi) than recommended tyre pressures.  Particularly with the Vredestein Quatrac 5s' this sharpens cornering and of course reduces rolling resistance.  With the Falkens' as factory fitted to the Corolla the difference is less obvious.

I think there is no fault with the car and in current cold weather 42-44mpg especially if it’s a TS is normal consumption. The 1.8 hybrid even the older version will seat around 10mpg more in most scenarios. 122 vs 136 vs 180hp consumption cannot be the same, eventually if you drive in town mostly with very light acceleration all 3 above can be similar as they will remain a lot in ev drive but once on the open roads then the latest 1.8 will beat them all.

[bigmarvloyal]

I've my 2.0 TS for a week now and averaging 55mpg and that's with me blasting it when I hit an empty stretch (love the acceleration!) 

What I don't understand is that I'm in EV say 50% of the time... Does this mean my actual enging MPG is on around 27?

[trashman1965]

Nope - it means while the ignition is on, thats how long the EV has been....so if its 50% and your journey was an hour, 50% the engine wasn't even running 🙂

Bear in mind this does include "idle" or stationary time at lights etc., when typically the engine wont be running.

[AndrueC]

28 minutes ago, bigmarvloyal said:

I've my 2.0 TS for a week now and averaging 55mpg and that's with me blasting it when I hit an empty stretch (love the acceleration!) 

What I don't understand is that I'm in EV say 50% of the time... Does this mean my actual enging MPG is on around 27?

No your average mpg is calculated as <total fuel burnt> divided by <total distance travelled>.

It does not take into account how long the ICE ran for. You can't really calculate what the actual ICE MPG is because it's impossible to isolate the ICE without disabling the electrical system and that renders the information incorrect anyway.

[Catlover]

1 hour ago, bigmarvloyal said:

I've my 2.0 TS for a week now and averaging 55mpg and that's with me blasting it when I hit an empty stretch (love the acceleration!) 

What I don't understand is that I'm in EV say 50% of the time... Does this mean my actual enging MPG is on around 27?

Hi Stewart, where do you get the figure of 50% from. Are you estimating that  or is the car menu telling you.? If you guessing you could be way out, especially if you say you are blasting it, and especially as it is the 2.0 Corolla.

My Prius can sometimes show 50% electric, but not often, and I don’t blast it (well, maybe an odd occasion) and it is the more economic 1.8 engine.

[Extreme_One]

2 hours ago, Catlover said:

where do you get the figure of 50% from.

50% sounds about right.

I've done just over 3k in just over 8 weeks and I'm at 49%

 

[AndrueC]

19 minutes ago, Extreme_One said:

50% sounds about right.

I've done just over 3k in just over 8 weeks and I'm at 49%

 

Ooh, I can beat that:

[Extreme_One]

4 minutes ago, AndrueC said:

Ooh, I can beat that:

Haha  I'm not surprised. 👍

 

I've come to the conclusion I'm not actually very good at Hybrid driving. My average MPG is shameful. 😝

In my defence it's a company car so I don't really pay for the fuel or the servicing. 😜

 

 

 

[AndrueC]

If you want good fuel consumption, try the 1.8:

Though I think there's a couple of taxi drivers on here who will beat that.

[Extreme_One]

7 minutes ago, AndrueC said:

If you want good fuel consumption, try the 1.8:

Prefer the extra power, and as I don't pay for the fuel ... 🤠

[Rambler56]

I've got 13500 miles on the clock now and MyT is showing an overall average of 50.2mpg and 80/100 hybrid score and 49/100 EV time.  I don't race, I use the active cruise a lot of the time, but always aim to make progress (as my HGV driving instructor kept telling me to do many years ago).  At least a third of my mileage is long distance runs which hit the fuel consumption to some degree as opposed to the better mpg on the shorter trips.  I could get better economy from my car if I tried but I like to get from A to B as relaxed and as comfortable as I can be (main benefits of the car to me), so use pulse and glide a bit, use ACC often which can reduce economy, and don't pay too much attention to the analytics which give questionable results anyway.  Slide the centre armrest forward, get comfortable, turn up the music a bit, and enjoy the journey😉

[bigmarvloyal]

4 hours ago, AndrueC said:

No your average mpg is calculated as <total fuel burnt> divided by <total distance travelled>.

It does not take into account how long the ICE ran for. You can't really calculate what the actual ICE MPG is because it's impossible to isolate the ICE without disabling the electrical system and that renders the information incorrect anyway.

Thank you. 

 

So, imagine I took the electric element of the car away and it was just a normal 2.0 petrol. Are we seeing 50mpg?

 

Sorry I'm being thick lol 

[TonyHSD]

19 minutes ago, bigmarvloyal said:

Thank you. 

 

So, imagine I took the electric element of the car away and it was just a normal 2.0 petrol. Are we seeing 50mpg?

 

Sorry I'm being thick lol 

No, you won’t be able to get 50mpg if it was only the engine in, perhaps 40-43mpg at it’s best imo. There are us version available with that motor and cvt and they do around 30-35mpg us combine 

[MarcusWatson]

Icon Tech 1.8 HB

[Gray86]

40 minutes ago, bigmarvloyal said:

Thank you. 

 

So, imagine I took the electric element of the car away and it was just a normal 2.0 petrol. Are we seeing 50mpg?

 

Sorry I'm being thick lol 

Bear in mind that when the ICE is running, it is also generating electricity, which will take some of the efficiency away. If you did a journey where the ICE was running the whole time (and generating), it will be more inefficient than an equivalent  ICE engine, without the hybrid system. The hybrid system relies on using the energy sources to best advantage to give overall efficiency improvements. 

[Ampex196]

32 minutes ago, TonyHSD said:

No, you won’t be able to get 50mpg if it was only the engine in, perhaps 40-43mpg at it’s best imo. There are us version available with that motor and cvt and they do around 30-35mpg us combine 

You cannot take away the electric 'element'.  If it were absent, the Atkinson cycle engine alone would give very poor performance.  Both methods of propulsion are necessary with electric always providing the starting torque and the petrol engine sharing the load as needed

[KIMURA TD]

1 hour ago, AndrueC said:

Agree.

I am using 1.8L Hybrid.  good fuel consumption !😁

 

If you want good fuel consumption, try the 1.8:

Though I think there's a couple of taxi drivers on here who will beat that.

 

[Ampex196]

5 hours ago, AndrueC said:

No your average mpg is calculated as <total fuel burnt> divided by <total distance travelled>.

It does not take into account how long the ICE ran for. You can't really calculate what the actual ICE MPG is because it's impossible to isolate the ICE without disabling the electrical system and that renders the information incorrect anyway.

I might just try the old established method to measure fuel consumption to absolute accuracy.

With the old Auris, I liked the 'B' position on the floating quadrant to provide retardation on downhill gradients.  I do not like the 'paddles' on the Corolla: Far better to move the selector quadrant to the right to force 'virtual' lower ratios if needed.

[Ampex196]

On 2/18/2020 at 9:00 AM, AndrueC said:

The most important thing to learn to improve fuel consumption - on any vehicle - is acceleration sense and in particular 'driving without brakes'. Hybrid systems do mitigate the losses from braking but they can't recover all the energy. Thus it is still better to avoid the use of brakes and to maintain a constant average speed as long as possible. Every time a vehicle changes speed energy is expended or lost.

https://www.todaysmotorvehicles.com/article/driving-without-brakes/

My driving instructor told me, over 30 years ago, that "brakes are for stopping and correcting mistakes". There should be no need to use brakes when approaching bends and ideally you shouldn't use them much at junctions, especially not roundabouts.

One of the unsung benefits of this is improved safety. In order to 'drive without brakes' you need to develop an increased acceleration sense and traffic awareness. This implicitly makes you a safer driver. In addition by minimising use of brakes in normal driving you maintain a reserve of braking effort for emergencies. Most drivers use nearly all their braking force when approaching a junction. If something untoward happens they have little ability to brake harder. Using DWB techniques, however, most of the time you'll barely be feathering the brakes and will always have large amounts of braking capacity to call on should the need arise (and you'll likely be travelling slower as well).

You had a good driving instructor.  Overuse of brakes was once always considered bad driving.  In the old days you 'changed down' gears to slow down.  Many cars had barely effective drum brakes at all corners with twin leading shoes at the front and leading/trailing at the rear.  When hot, they were prone to so called 'fading' which, when it happened, was not pleasant.

[TonyHSD]

55 minutes ago, Ampex196 said:

You cannot take away the electric 'element'.  If it were absent, the Atkinson cycle engine alone would give very poor performance.  Both methods of propulsion are necessary with electric always providing the starting torque and the petrol engine sharing the load as needed

Yes we know that,  but he is asking if we imagine we take the electric motors away and we don’t have to imagine it as there are real options available on other markets, the exact same engine just made to run on Otto and Atkinson cycles as needed and deliver the same power output without needing the electric motors and so is the case with latest Yaris 1.5 only petrol option available in other countries with direct injection and same power without  the hybrid part., the only difference is lower mpg. 👍

[Ampex196]

13 hours ago, TonyHSD said:

Yes we know that,  but he is asking if we imagine we take the electric motors away and we don’t have to imagine it as there are real options available on other markets, the exact same engine just made to run on Otto and Atkinson cycles as needed and deliver the same power output without needing the electric motors and so is the case with latest Yaris 1.5 only petrol option available in other countries with direct injection and same power without  the hybrid part., the only difference is lower mpg. 👍

I have noted that the Battery charge bargraph indicator on the Corolla 2.0 behaves very differently from the older Auris 1.8.  The Corolla guage rarely goes much above 50& (usually between 2 & 4 segments) while driving, though it does climb while stationery with the hybrid system running.  Pure EV mode is often not manually selectable.

With the 1.8 Auris, the indicator would cycle, generally between 40 & 90% occasionally hitting 100%. EV mode was usually available if required, eg. for car park crawls etc.

Before declaring a fault, I'd be curious to know if other owners have similar experiences  ??

Both vehicles use NiMh batteries whereas (except the saloon) the new 1.8 Corolla uses Li-Ion with a much lower capacity, ie. 3.6 AmpHr against 6.5 AmpHr for the 2.0 with NiMh.

[Ampex196]

22 hours ago, TonyHSD said:

I think there is no fault with the car and in current cold weather 42-44mpg especially if it’s a TS is normal consumption. The 1.8 hybrid even the older version will seat around 10mpg more in most scenarios. 122 vs 136 vs 180hp consumption cannot be the same, eventually if you drive in town mostly with very light acceleration all 3 above can be similar as they will remain a lot in ev drive but once on the open roads then the latest 1.8 will beat them all.

Thanks Tony, I've a distinct feeling you could be right.  re-quote:-

I have noted that the Battery charge bargraph indicator on the Corolla 2.0 behaves very differently from the older Auris 1.8.  The Corolla guage rarely goes much above 50& (usually between 2 & 4 segments) while driving, though it does climb while stationery with the hybrid system running.  Pure EV mode is often not manually selectable.

With the 1.8 Auris, the indicator would cycle, generally between 40 & 90% occasionally hitting 100%. EV mode was usually available if required, eg. for car park crawls etc.

Before declaring a fault, I'd be curious to know if other owners have similar experiences  ??

Both vehicles use NiMh batteries whereas (except the saloon) the new 1.8 Corolla uses Li-Ion with a much lower capacity, ie. 3.6 AmpHr against 6.5 AmpHr for the 2.0 with NiMh.

PS  My member profile still shows the old 2012 Auris sold last November. I'm guessing this is can be edited?

The mpg indication has not been reset for several days now and seems to have settled between 43-44 mpg.  I might give 98 octane E5 petrol a try.

[Catlover]

2 hours ago, Ampex196 said:

PS  My member profile still shows the old 2012 Auris sold last November. I'm guessing this is can be edited?

 

Yes it can John.  Go to your avatar, then towards top right click on edit profile.

[AndrueC]

3 hours ago, Ampex196 said:

I have noted that the battery charge bargraph indicator on the Corolla 2.0 behaves very differently from the older Auris 1.8.  The Corolla guage rarely goes much above 50& (usually between 2 & 4 segments) while driving, though it does climb while stationery with the hybrid system running.  Pure EV mode is often not manually selectable.

With the 1.8 Auris, the indicator would cycle, generally between 40 & 90% occasionally hitting 100%. EV mode was usually available if required, eg. for car park crawls etc.

Before declaring a fault, I'd be curious to know if other owners have similar experiences  ??

Both vehicles use NiMh batteries whereas (except the saloon) the new 1.8 Corolla uses Li-Ion with a much lower capacity, ie. 3.6 AmpHr against 6.5 AmpHr for the 2.0 with NiMh.

That's much the same behaviour in the 1.8. So it must be another feature of the 2.0.

The charge gauge on my Corolla rarely reaches the top bar but it has a few times. It needs a long downhill stretch to do that and where I live there just aren't enough long/steep hills. But it's common to have all but the top bar filled in. I've hardly ever tried the EV switch but as long as the engine is warm I have no difficulty getting it into EV. Just lift off then gently reapply the accelerator, keeping the green bar on the ECO gauge within the EV section.

I don't think I've ever seen it drop below two bars.