Mpg figures please 1.8 hybrid ?

[Speedster123]

Mpg figures please 1.8 hybrid ? 😁

[Chriss27]

Depends on the time of year, I would say high 60s in summer as an average and then around 60 in winter.

[AndrueC]

Summer is mid to high 60s, can drop down into 50s during winter.

[Redwards]

I have had my car 10 weeks now and covered over 3000 miles.

I am averaging 69.9 mpg.

Extremely happy with this.

[Chippy01]

I have 40,000 miles tracked on my fuelly account since I got my 1.8 hybrid Corolla new in May 2019.
Worst tank was 51.45mpg, best tank was 67.56mpg.

Fuelly is showing my tank average over 93 tank fills as 60.0mpg.

Not too shabby, really.

[Velvet--Glove]

22 hours ago, AndrueC said:

Summer is mid to high 60s, can drop down into 50s during winter.

These sorts of figures are my experience too with a 2019 1.8 Corolla Hybrid hatchback.

I am what you might call a steady, relaxed sort of driver. I think driving style makes a difference to overall consumption and certainly seasonal variations are factor too - cold weather gives lower mpg.

[Roy124]

Velvet Glove, I would have agreed with you regarding driving styles until my recent holiday in Cornwall.  First leg, 140 miles, 56 mph, 63 mpg.  Then 75 miles, 50 mph, 63 mpg.

Next leg 17 miles, 28 mph, 60 mpg then 27 miles, 39 mph, 65 mpg, finally 92 miles, 41 mph, 59 mpg.

Coming home, 100 miles, 43 mpg, 64 mpg then 63 mpg (My Toyota lost the detail.

it's pretty clear that the consumption varied not a lot regardless of average speed.  As for summer and winter variation, absolutely, colder weather costs about 8 mpg. The other variable is the fuel used; I have stuck with Shell 95 octane fuel.  It costs more but our local Shell is cheapest I have found.  I also refuel at about 10-12 litres a time to get my £1 discount every 10 fills.

[AndrueC]

It also depends whether you are going by the dash or the pump. I always go by the pump and most of the time I think the dash is about 5% to 10% over optimistic. I filled up last weekend and the dash was showing 64 mpg. By my calculation it was actually 61 - not surprising given the recent wet and cool weather.

But at times the dash can be woefully inaccurate. Several times now I've driven to North Wales (about 180 miles) at a steady 60 mph. After arriving I drive to a few local destinations then fill up. The car will usually be claiming over 70 mpg but by the pump it comes out in the low 60s. It would appear that the long steady drive causes its estimation to be badly off.

[Chriss27]

You would have thought these days the in car mpg would be reasonably accurate and not be 5-10% out, do they not test their accuracy when designing the car ?

[AndrueC]

53 minutes ago, Chriss27 said:

You would have thought these days the in car mpg would be reasonably accurate and not be 5-10% out, do they not test their accuracy when designing the car ?

Apparently it's just not a simple thing to measure. I think it's typically based on how long the injectors were open and what the RPM was or somesuch. 10% tolerance seems typical. It's the silly 30% that I have seen several times now which is puzzling.

 

[KandS]

Purely from an engineer position, not car related, if I was to asked how to measure mpg, I would fit a flow sensor to the fuel line, measure volume of fuel, and calculate from distance travelled. Only inaccuracies would be from tolerance of sensor variations due to change of temperature. Just my thoughts, no idea how toyota work it out 

[KandS]

Back to the original question, my 2019 gave 66.8mpg over the two years of ownership. As displayed, never reset after the first 1k miles 

[AndrueC]

11 hours ago, KandS said:

Purely from an engineer position, not car related, if I was to asked how to measure mpg, I would fit a flow sensor to the fuel line, measure volume of fuel, and calculate from distance travelled. Only inaccuracies would be from tolerance of sensor variations due to change of temperature. Just my thoughts, no idea how toyota work it out 

But do cars need a fuel flow sensor for anything else? Because if not it's an additional expense and something else that can fail. Perhaps it could fail catastrophically and block the fuel line. There are bound to be more accurate ways to measure fuel consumption but aside from the occasional oddity my Corolla has always been 'accurate enough'. Tyre wear is always going to mean a degree of inaccuracy anyway due to the effect of reducing wheel circumference on the odometer readings.

[Clockwork]

At the risk of being extremely boring, adding a fuel flowmeter would make little or no improvement, in my opinion.  I believe that fuel usage is measured by counting the operations of the fuel injectors and that will produce a fairly accurate measurement of volumetric flow.  There are a number of variables to be considered which have an adverse effect on MPG calculations starting with the built in error in the speedometer.  Other factors to be considered include the type of tyre, tyre inflation, tyre wear, tyre temperature and very significantly, the calorific value of the fuel.  I have no idea what variance in calorific value to expect between different batches and brands of fuel but I would be prepared to wager that it wouldn't be negligible.

Personally, I wouldn't waste my time taking secondary measurements.  While it's easy to pick holes in the calculation done by the vehicle computer, it should be good enough for typical comparisons that you might want to make eg summer to winter, different driving styles etc..

[Woofwoof]

On 7/8/2021 at 9:53 PM, KandS said:

Purely from an engineer position, not car related, if I was to asked how to measure mpg, I would fit a flow sensor to the fuel line, measure volume of fuel, and calculate from distance travelled. Only inaccuracies would be from tolerance of sensor variations due to change of temperature. Just my thoughts, no idea how toyota work it out 

If the mpg is calculated based on the Speedo and the Speedo is over calculates then the mpg will also be recorded as inaccurate 

[Trewithy]

I have been using Super E5 petrol and have never seen the dash reading lower than 62mpg for a tank full, the highest this summer was 71mpg.  However, due to price increases, my last fill was with regular E5 and the current consumption is now 55mpg.  The drop is more likely due to the colder weather making the engine run longer to supply heat to the cabin.  The change to E10 may only have made a small contribution to that drop. 

[ACameron]

today took longer 43min / 25ml - mostly motorway & dual carriageway route with long uphill stage..... 52.1mpg  , returned non-motorway 58min 16ml route 83.1 mpg