Fuel Economy

[why?]

haven't seen anything about it yet. I know it's been fully tested on the Nürburgring, but haven't heard anything about deliveries.

[nookandcrannycar]

Originally Posted by why?

haven't seen anything about it yet. I know it's been fully tested on the Nürburgring, but haven't heard anything about deliveries.

, and thanks for the reply.

[Idahotom]

Originally Posted by why?

Almost all cars will be able to adjust for higher octane gasoline, so their will be some benefit.

If one wants to waste their money on premium fuel for an engine it is not needed for, thinking they are getting "extra power", I don't have a problem with that. I'll continue to use regular.

[roxy1]

just took a trip to Indy and back today. 426 miles/9.42 gallons used=45.22 mpg. this was about 5% true city, 70% highway at 60-68 mph, and 25% rural roads at 40-55 mph. 2014 5 speed manual.

87 octane (with ethanol, of course). we are still using winter blend gas here, and it was in the upper 20's to upper 30's during the trip temperature wise(early morning trip).

im happy with that, but not surprised, as I keep pretty good mileage records and this is not out of the ordinary for such a trip. I have never seen any mpg advantage with higher octane and with the yaris don't see any performance advantages. so, imo, higher octane is a flat out waste of money.

[why?]

Originally Posted by Idahotom

If one wants to waste their money on premium fuel for an engine it is not needed for, thinking they are getting "extra power", I don't have a problem with that. I'll continue to use regular.

Funny how all the epa tests and all mpg tests are done with 93 octane. I wonder why. How many centuries old is that quote? Or are you too scared to admit that?

[Rigaud]

Been 2-1/2 months now I have my 2009 Yaris, quite impressed with it so far. Been using it for ski trips to do Alpine Touring so I have had a roof rack with skis and sometimes even a pulk sled on the roof. My worse was 8.8L/100km on a 2,000km trip and recently my best was 6.6L/100km with no roof rack. Winter tires, cold air, some snow at times on the roads and good cross winds make it for the worse conditions to get good economy. On a short 320km trip this winter I did manage to get 5.6L/100km. With warmer weather, summer wheels on I'm quite confident I'll hit 5L.

[roxy1]

Originally Posted by why?

Funny how all the epa tests and all mpg tests are done with 93 octane. I wonder why. How many centuries old is that quote? Or are you too scared to admit that?

my brother in law sets up some of the testing for FCA (ie Fiat/Chrysler). they do that because 93 octane is commonly the gas available to them that is ethanol free. the ethanol free gas gives the best fuel efficiency. it has NOTHING to do with the higher octane.

[why?]

Originally Posted by roxy1

my brother in law sets up some of the testing for FCA (ie Fiat/Chrysler). they do that because 93 octane is commonly the gas available to them that is ethanol free. the ethanol free gas gives the best fuel efficiency. it has NOTHING to do with the higher octane.

believe that if you want, but it simply is not true. That excuse doesn't work when you realize they have always used 93.

[dj92]

Some time ago, I tried 98 fuel (was just 3% more expensive than the standard 95 (lowest we get here)).
Guess what?
I felt no difference, the mileage remained the same, too.

[YHWilliam09]

Originally Posted by dj92

Some time ago, I tried 98 fuel (was just 3% more expensive than the standard 95 (lowest we get here)).
Guess what?
I felt no difference, the mileage remained the same, too.

I don't know what's actually better, but you can't always feel a difference even when there could be one. It could be a subtle difference, and subtle differences have positive impacts in the long run, not to mention a lot of subtle differences add up to a big difference. To really know the difference though, you'd have to do actual testing with a good sample size and accurately recorded numbers. This will tell you the real difference despite what you might feel or not feel.

[why?]

Originally Posted by dj92

Some time ago, I tried 98 fuel (was just 3% more expensive than the standard 95 (lowest we get here)).
Guess what?
I felt no difference, the mileage remained the same, too.

honestly, unless you run it on a dyno constantly there is not going to be any difference you can actually feel, and gas mileage changes so much for every degree of temperature, every time the wind blows, etc, that seeing a difference in gas mileage will be hard outside of a lab, which uses computers to drive the car over a pre-programmed course.

Especially with a near stock Yaris. Now add a turbo and a tuner and that is an entire different story.

The only thing I do is try to use different types of fuels because different gas companies use different additives, and those theoretically might help extend and make the engine more healthy. I have no idea if it is true or not, but it does not hurt my mileage.

Unless you are testing something with instruments, higher octane gas for our near stock Yaris is kind of silly.

[roxy1]

Originally Posted by why?

believe that if you want, but it simply is not true. That excuse doesn't work when you realize they have always used 93.

that is also not true. they commonly used 87 octane on many cars before there was ethanol in it.

[why?]

Originally Posted by roxy1

that is also not true. they commonly used 87 octane on many cars before there was ethanol in it.

sure they did. I remember reading that on all the car ads, oh wait, no I don't. every single one made sure you knew it was always 93.

[roxy1]

Originally Posted by why?

sure they did. I remember reading that on all the car ads, oh wait, no I don't. every single one made sure you knew it was always 93.

starting in 2004, the EPA started using indolene across the board, a standardized test gasoline free of additives. it has a MON of 87 and RON of 96.5, thus yielding a pump octane of 91.5. before 2004 they used a variety of octanes, depending on what a given car was designed to run on.

using an ethanol free/additive free test gasoline give the best possible mpg numbers. the higher octane itself does squat for mpg numbers.

if I fill up with an ethanol free gasoline I will immediately realize a 7%-10& increase in fuel economy for that tank. my records over the last 15 years also tell me filling up with a higher octane fuel that has ethanol gains me absolutely no measurable fuel efficiency gain over 87 octane.

[why?]

Originally Posted by roxy1

starting in 2004, the EPA started using indolene across the board, a standardized test gasoline free of additives. it has a MON of 87 and RON of 96.5, thus yielding a pump octane of 91.5. before 2004 they used a variety of octanes, depending on what a given car was designed to run on.

using an ethanol free/additive free test gasoline give the best possible mpg numbers. the higher octane itself does squat for mpg numbers.

if I fill up with an ethanol free gasoline I will immediately realize a 7%-10& increase in fuel economy for that tank. my records over the last 15 years also tell me filling up with a higher octane fuel that has ethanol gains me absolutely no measurable fuel efficiency gain over 87 octane.

of course using an ethanol free gas is better. Try finding a station that has that though. I never argued using higher octane would give anyone any gains. I actually know how cars work. Modern cars do not have the ability to adjust enough stock for any higher octane.

Look, the EPA itself doesn't actually do any testing, the manufacturers do. The EPA just writes how the testing has to be done. And we all know the test itself is total bs. IF this was not the case we would not have a rash of automakers being sued over gas mileage figures, we would have a rash of lawsuits involving the EPA, because the test is totally bogus and does not apply to the real world in any way.

[dragoonmc]

There is a reason that all of those numbers are followed up by "EPA estimated mileage" because the manufacturers know that it is extremely dependent on fuel as well as a host of other variables. EPA tests are very tightly controlled so you can have a level playing field on those numbers as well as the emissions have to be within the allowable regulations.

[why?]

Originally Posted by dragoonmc

There is a reason that all of those numbers are followed up by "EPA estimated mileage" because the manufacturers know that it is extremely dependent on fuel as well as a host of other variables. EPA tests are very tightly controlled so you can have a level playing field on those numbers as well as the emissions have to be within the allowable regulations.

True, but the numbers have zero to do with what happens in the real world, unless you let a computer do all your driving and you never ever go over 40 mph. Not to mention never driving in non perfect weather conditions or ever even going outside a lab. The EPA test gets such stupid numbers they need to do a whole host of random math to get the numbers they publish.

[roxy1]

Originally Posted by why?

of course using an ethanol free gas is better. Try finding a station that has that though. I never argued using higher octane would give anyone any gains. I actually know how cars work. Modern cars do not have the ability to adjust enough stock for any higher octane.

Look, the EPA itself doesn't actually do any testing, the manufacturers do. The EPA just writes how the testing has to be done. And we all know the test itself is total bs. IF this was not the case we would not have a rash of automakers being sued over gas mileage figures, we would have a rash of lawsuits involving the EPA, because the test is totally bogus and does not apply to the real world in any way.

I understand all of this. I would say that since they revised the testing criteria in 2008 the numbers are closer to reality.

the 2nd gen yaris that had been rated at 34/40 got changed to 29/36 under the new criteria. personally, I had always beaten the old highway numbers without that much effort in all my Toyotas. the post 2008 highway numbers are very easy top beat now, imo.

there are definitely some cars out where hitting the epa numbers is harder, but even in my 2012 veloster and accent I could beat the numbers without too much hassle. it is much easier to do so in the yaris, as was the case with my fiat 500.

I suppose the epa tests could be better designed to reflect drivers who keep their foot on the gas until they are 50 feet from stop signs/lights, accelerate hard out of every stop, exceed the speed limit by 10+ mph all day, don't maintain their vehicles, etc, etc...However, i don't think the current numbers are too unrealistic for drivers who don't do those things.