Rough Guide To Mpg

[DjRav]

Hi,

I can only go by my own (diesel) fuel use and what I've seen on this forum, but as a general rule it seems that on a "good" day, in summer, round town, driven "nicely" the 2.2 D4D Rav should achieve 45 MPG. Driven hard it'll drop substantially. In winter it'll also drop significantly. 

Sucking eggs;

I always fill the same- fill till the pump clicks off, wait a few seconds and fill till it clicks off again. This way you'll be filling the same every time. I then take the amount in litres multiply by 0.22 to give the gallons. Then miles divided by gallons= MPG!

What I have noticed though is a strange "rough guide" to MPG without the need of a calculator;

450 miles using 45L would be 45 MPG

440 miles using 44L would be 45 MPG

430 miles using 43L would be 45 MPG

Etc

Then for every L used over = 1 MPG less

Eg 440 miles travelled taking 45 litres to fill would be 44 MPG "roughly"!

Try it for yourself and see.

Dave 

[abraxas]

That looks about righht. One imperial gallon is about 4.5l. making 45 mog the "sweet spot" where ratio is 10:1...

What I've noticed, is that I have no chance of ever getting anywhere near 400 miles out of a full tank :(

:)

[Hoovie]

That looks about righht. One imperial gallon is about 4.5l. making 45 mog the "sweet spot" where ratio is 10:1...

What I've noticed, is that I have no chance of ever getting anywhere near 400 miles out of a full tank :(

:)

I like it when I get to 300 miles on mine!!

That was one great thing about the Qashqai .... over 600 miles to a tank! means you are able to chose your fillup points a lot better rather then end up doing at the minimum a 'splash and dash' at motorway prices :(

[Gods_gift]

It's a shame someone has come with an auxilary retro fit tank for the Rav (under boot floor). Id fit one so I could tow for longer or do a long trip for holidays to france.

[Gods_gift]

Forgot to ask why is fuel economy worse in winter? Shouldnt you get more power from an engine because cold air is more dense?

An does anyone know if Toyota change ratios between regions or is it one size fits all? Reason I ask is because in Europe we typically drive quicker than the US and APAC so I assume the fuel economy might be better sitting in a different gear say in a 50 in 5th rather than 6th (even though the engine would be doing less rpm in 6th). My guess is that in 5th in a 50 the power band/ turbo would be more efficient than in 6th.

[CharlieFarlie]

That looks about righht. One imperial gallon is about 4.5l. making 45 mog the "sweet spot" where ratio is 10:1... What I've noticed, is that I have no chance of ever getting anywhere near 400 miles out of a full tank :( :)

I like it when I get to 300 miles on mine!! That was one great thing about the Qashqai .... over 600 miles to a tank! means you are able to chose your fillup points a lot better rather then end up doing at the minimum a 'splash and dash' at motorway prices :(

Your MPG has put Me off a new SR.. My next car has to be an automatic.. and the MPG You are getting is just as bad as My Mates brand new Mitsubishi Shogun.... The Shogun has far more kit .. The biggest sunroof I've ever seen on a car and a spare wheel.. The interior is better than any Japanese car I have been in and the ride quality is just in another league....

The Shogun is a few bob more to buy and Yes expensive to run but definitely no worse than the Automatic Diesel Rav.. The Shogun has a 3.2 Diesel ..

Whatever is going on with the 2.2 Rav with its auto box ?? 150 BHP from a 2.2 is a little on the low side so no stress there ??

Blimey My Jag with its 3.0 V6 Twin turbo and 315 BHP does way more than 32 to 34 and that's an auto ?? Crazy !!

On topic My Rav does 42/43 on the motorway and 35 to 38 round town but to achieve those figures it has to be driven carefully and is aided by the Lindop tuning box which surely has to be an investment given its strong resale price and the extra MPG.. And of course the far better smoother power delivery ???

[Hoovie]

right .. start typing again after the last 20 minutes of typing was discarded by the forum!!

The RAV4 has a fuel tank of 60 litres I think? which means a theoretical range of 450 miles if my current figure of 34MPG is maintained.

With the way the gauges work, warnign probably comes on at 1/4 left so that range becomes a pessimistic 320miles.

I tend to fill up if the tank is under 1/2 full and I am passing a suitable garage.

Now the SR150 with the auto box is smooooooth and I would be very surprised if the T180 with or without a chip was smoother.

Speaking of the chip, if the chip was fitted to your T180 mostly provide better economy rather then power (I have mostly read negative comments on T180 economy and yours is more the exception I think), then if a chip - should one be available (I don't know, but would think so) - be fitted to the 150 Engine then it may be valid to assume a similar percentage benefit as on the T180? so say 15% improvement I think I have seen mentoned? taking the actual SR150 economy to just under 40mpg potentially?

Hmmm. Think I will have to investgate the chip thing!

Overall though, no, the economy of the SR Auto is not steller but TBH I decided it was not something I was overally concerned with in the overall selection.

[CharlieFarlie]

right .. start typing again after the last 20 minutes of typing was discarded by the forum!!

The RAV4 has a fuel tank of 60 litres I think? which means a theoretical range of 450 miles if my current figure of 34MPG is maintained.

With the way the gauges work, warnign probably comes on at 1/4 left so that range becomes a pessimistic 320miles.

I tend to fill up if the tank is under 1/2 full and I am passing a suitable garage.

Now the SR150 with the auto box is smooooooth and I would be very surprised if the T180 with or without a chip was smoother.

Speaking of the chip, if the chip was fitted to your T180 mostly provide better economy rather then power (I have mostly read negative comments on T180 economy and yours is more the exception I think), then if a chip - should one be available (I don't know, but would think so) - be fitted to the 150 Engine then it may be valid to assume a similar percentage benefit as on the T180? so say 15% improvement I think I have seen mentoned? taking the actual SR150 economy to just under 40mpg potentially?

Hmmm. Think I will have to investgate the chip thing!

Overall though, no, the economy of the SR Auto is not steller but TBH I decided it was not something I was overally concerned with in the overall selection.

David. The power delivery of a T180 is stunning and HUGELY improved with the Lindop chip... Think of Your own car with another 30 BHP it is after all the same engine ...............

Yes the SR is smooth but no smoother than an manual transmission except the transmission just makes the car feel more civilised..

My fuel economy figures are likely reasonable because I drive the car so steady.. Plus it is an indisputable fact that the cars with out the engines being replaced are far less fuel efficient...

There is I feel certain a tuning box for the 150 engine .. With respect the 150 auto needs a hike in power as it is a slow car. That would not bother Me as I use the Rav as the day to day workhorse. The Jag is the speed machine.

My current thoughts are that if I am to have a car with auto trans that does low 30s to the gallon then it might as well be a big well equipped car with a big engine.............................. Your MPG would not suit Me one little bit mate as current annual mileage is approaching 30.000

[Hoovie]

I had a look on line after my post and I saw Lindop do a chip for the 150 engine in the Avensis - Will be onto Kingo in the morning to check on the RAV side :)

Charlie, if I were doing your miles, then I don't think I would have the SR either!

[CharlieFarlie]

I had a look on line after my post and I saw Lindop do a chip for the 150 engine in the Avensis - Will be onto Kingo in the morning to check on the RAV side :)

Charlie, if I were doing your miles, then I don't think I would have the SR either!

If I am going to have big car consumption I want a big car comfort and the extra space and equipment that goes with it...

BUT I do have a very serious question ... Why ?? Why and how can a modest 2.2 litre diesel engine producing modest power drink so much !Removed! fuel ???

Honestly My Jag producing over twice as much power and nigh on twice as much torque from an engine with two more cylinders an extra 800 cc and another turbo absolutely slaughter the Ravs fuel figures ?? The Jag must be heavier as well ??

[DominicPriestley]

I'd be interested in a tuning box for my X-TR 150 if one were available.

[webleymk3]

I had a look on line after my post and I saw Lindop do a chip for the 150 engine in the Avensis - Will be onto Kingo in the morning to check on the RAV side :)

Charlie, if I were doing your miles, then I don't think I would have the SR either!

If I am going to have big car consumption I want a big car comfort and the extra space and equipment that goes with it...

BUT I do have a very serious question ... Why ?? Why and how can a modest 2.2 litre diesel engine producing modest power drink so much bloody fuel ???

Honestly My Jag producing over twice as much power and nigh on twice as much torque from an engine with two more cylinders an extra 800 cc and another turbo absolutely slaughter the Ravs fuel figures ?? The Jag must be heavier as well ??

Charlie. I have to be honest i ask the same question..

I'd like a tuning box but Mrs Wibblers thinks that Toyota are the experts and as such will have built the engine to run to it's optimal performance... not convinced myself...

[Hoovie]

Isn't it the case that a car - any car - gets tuned by the maker to meet a wide range of parameters for all the areas it is sold and a tuning chip allows the extremes that are not needed to be removed (such as operating it +40C or -30C) and the engine map gets more 'focused' (poor description I know but that in principle?)

[local hero]

I Don't know if Lindop have a "chip" yet, but i have seen one for the 150 rav, gives 182bhp and 420 torques, so should be a tad quicker than a Std 180 engine, no time now but i will find it to-night. Stew

[bitman]

I had a look on line after my post and I saw Lindop do a chip for the 150 engine in the Avensis - Will be onto Kingo in the morning to check on the RAV side :)

Charlie, if I were doing your miles, then I don't think I would have the SR either!

If I am going to have big car consumption I want a big car comfort and the extra space and equipment that goes with it...

BUT I do have a very serious question ... Why ?? Why and how can a modest 2.2 litre diesel engine producing modest power drink so much !Removed! fuel ???

Honestly My Jag producing over twice as much power and nigh on twice as much torque from an engine with two more cylinders an extra 800 cc and another turbo absolutely slaughter the Ravs fuel figures ?? The Jag must be heavier as well ??

the new 2012 mercedes m-class ml 250 will beat that with ease; 165 co2 & 44.8 combined mpg

[Hoovie]

I had a look on line after my post and I saw Lindop do a chip for the 150 engine in the Avensis - Will be onto Kingo in the morning to check on the RAV side :)

Charlie, if I were doing your miles, then I don't think I would have the SR either!

If I am going to have big car consumption I want a big car comfort and the extra space and equipment that goes with it...

BUT I do have a very serious question ... Why ?? Why and how can a modest 2.2 litre diesel engine producing modest power drink so much !Removed! fuel ???

Honestly My Jag producing over twice as much power and nigh on twice as much torque from an engine with two more cylinders an extra 800 cc and another turbo absolutely slaughter the Ravs fuel figures ?? The Jag must be heavier as well ??

the new 2012 mercedes m-class ml 250 will beat that with ease; 165 co2 & 44.8 combined mpg

The current ML looks very nice and I was kind of tempted myself, but too much money and not a great rep anymore. - the official mpg for the ML over the RAV is only 5mpg (15%), not a massive amount.

[anchorman]

With the SR you are back to the D-CAT again. With a 180 it offsets the additional emmissions from the increased power. With the SR it offsets the emmissions from the auto box. Either way it puts neat fuel into the exhaust. I wonder what the effect of unplugging the 5th injector would be?

[shcm]

I wonder what the effect of unplugging the 5th injector would be?

DTC! P1386 :P

Seriously, I know what you mean. I've never liked the idea of burning fuel in the exhaust to control emissions. It's doing nothing to move the vehicle (reheat perhaps? :D) Got to be a better way..........

[Big Kev]

With the SR you are back to the D-CAT again. With a 180 it offsets the additional emmissions from the increased power. With the SR it offsets the emmissions from the auto box. Either way it puts neat fuel into the exhaust. I wonder what the effect of unplugging the 5th injector would be?

...."I wonder what the effect of unplugging....."

Name and address NOT witheld.....totally changed.......wasn't planned....

[shcm]

...."I wonder what the effect of unplugging....."

Kev, isn't "unplugged" an acoustic session? Well, I'd expect some sound effects from such a procedure.

[bitman]

I had a look on line after my post and I saw Lindop do a chip for the 150 engine in the Avensis - Will be onto Kingo in the morning to check on the RAV side :)

Charlie, if I were doing your miles, then I don't think I would have the SR either!

If I am going to have big car consumption I want a big car comfort and the extra space and equipment that goes with it...

BUT I do have a very serious question ... Why ?? Why and how can a modest 2.2 litre diesel engine producing modest power drink so much !Removed! fuel ???

Honestly My Jag producing over twice as much power and nigh on twice as much torque from an engine with two more cylinders an extra 800 cc and another turbo absolutely slaughter the Ravs fuel figures ?? The Jag must be heavier as well ??

the new 2012 mercedes m-class ml 250 will beat that with ease; 165 co2 & 44.8 combined mpg

The current ML looks very nice and I was kind of tempted myself, but too much money and not a great rep anymore. - the official mpg for the ML over the RAV is only 5mpg (15%), not a massive amount.

I had a look on line after my post and I saw Lindop do a chip for the 150 engine in the Avensis - Will be onto Kingo in the morning to check on the RAV side :)

Charlie, if I were doing your miles, then I don't think I would have the SR either!

If I am going to have big car consumption I want a big car comfort and the extra space and equipment that goes with it...

BUT I do have a very serious question ... Why ?? Why and how can a modest 2.2 litre diesel engine producing modest power drink so much !Removed! fuel ???

Honestly My Jag producing over twice as much power and nigh on twice as much torque from an engine with two more cylinders an extra 800 cc and another turbo absolutely slaughter the Ravs fuel figures ?? The Jag must be heavier as well ??

the new 2012 mercedes m-class ml 250 will beat that with ease; 165 co2 & 44.8 combined mpg

The current ML looks very nice and I was kind of tempted myself, but too much money and not a great rep anymore. - the official mpg for the ML over the RAV is only 5mpg (15%), not a massive amount.

@hoovie; it's not only the better mpg the ml has but also it's in a lower tax band with 165 co2!

also why a 1650kg rav4 has 186 co2 and the ml 250 of 2150kg has only 165 co2 is be joined me and i have to agree with charlie that toyota cars do not have very good eco value. even those so called lexus hibride cars aren't that good with their mpg / co2 figures.

sure the ml is much more expensive then a rav4 but by the end of the day you get more and it's a one off payment.

just bear in mind that fuel and tax will only going up and up and up. i can predict that over 5 years diesel will be about £2 a litre if not more! so it makes sense to look around for a better mpg / co2 vehicle. this is where you driving monies is going up in smoke or you save money.

now don't miss understand me that we now all have to buy a ml. NO, but we need to send a clear message to those car manufacturers to do better. watch out for ford with their new 2012 / 2013 line with eco boost engines coming up!!!

[Hoovie]

I guess for ultimate economy with power, the BMW Diesel is the way to go. But I would not buy one personally.

ML - you get more for your money - maybe, maybe not - the way german premium cars are spec'ed, that is not a given by any means. And with a £15,000 premium on the buy price, that is an extra £10,000 lost on depreciation probably if you keep the vehicle 5 years - that is a hell of a lot of fuel you would have to be saving to make it worthwhile on the better economy front

I watched a bit of an episode of Top Gear the other week (usually avoid as cannot stand the style of the program TBH) and it ***** about buying a premium used car for same price as cheapest new car on sale in UK. One of them bought a 9 year old Merc that was New RRP at £160k I think is was, and bought for under £7K - at only 9 years old!! Now that is a depreciation I wouldn't want.

[DjRav]

It's not a case of Rav V ML. In it's "class" the Rav is high up in the economy stakes. I bought mine because of it's MPG figures.

You'll always find something more economic, but I'll tell you what, there's more that do worse than the Rav!

Dave

(PS I personally found the ML a bit plastic!)

[Hoovie]

For many many years I had promised myself a Merc when I hit 40, but when that time came, I decided I wasn't old enough for one :)

And then 10 years later, I decided to treat myself to a new car and I *could* have got a 270ML if I wanted, but the RAV4 ticked all the boxes for me

(brand image is not one box I have any interest in or care about)

[Stupidmia]

right .. start typing again after the last 20 minutes of typing was discarded by the forum!!

The RAV4 has a fuel tank of 60 litres I think? which means a theoretical range of 450 miles if my current figure of 34MPG is maintained.

With the way the gauges work, warnign probably comes on at 1/4 left so that range becomes a pessimistic 320miles.

I tend to fill up if the tank is under 1/2 full and I am passing a suitable garage.

Now the SR150 with the auto box is smooooooth and I would be very surprised if the T180 with or without a chip was smoother.

Speaking of the chip, if the chip was fitted to your T180 mostly provide better economy rather then power (I have mostly read negative comments on T180 economy and yours is more the exception I think), then if a chip - should one be available (I don't know, but would think so) - be fitted to the 150 Engine then it may be valid to assume a similar percentage benefit as on the T180? so say 15% improvement I think I have seen mentoned? taking the actual SR150 economy to just under 40mpg potentially?

Hmmm. Think I will have to investgate the chip thing!

Overall though, no, the economy of the SR Auto is not steller but TBH I decided it was not something I was overally concerned with in the overall selection.

David. The power delivery of a T180 is stunning and HUGELY improved with the Lindop chip... Think of Your own car with another 30 BHP it is after all the same engine ...............

Yes the SR is smooth but no smoother than an manual transmission except the transmission just makes the car feel more civilised..

My fuel economy figures are likely reasonable because I drive the car so steady.. Plus it is an indisputable fact that the cars with out the engines being replaced are far less fuel efficient...

There is I feel certain a tuning box for the 150 engine .. With respect the 150 auto needs a hike in power as it is a slow car. That would not bother Me as I use the Rav as the day to day workhorse. The Jag is the speed machine.

My current thoughts are that if I am to have a car with auto trans that does low 30s to the gallon then it might as well be a big well equipped car with a big engine.............................. Your MPG would not suit Me one little bit mate as current annual mileage is approaching 30.000

After reading posts like these and asking Big Kev for his opinion....I think I am gonna have to get a Lindop (or similar) on my Rav4 SR180.

Been thinking about it lately and was originally going to leave it to around insurance renewal next year...but now I realise that for the sake of the insurance co robbing a little extra off me for the remainder of the current policy, it has got to be worth it because of the enjoyment I am missing out on!!

Still got to consider the outlay for the tuning box....£375 is a lot of dosh....so I will wait to see if any Lindops or Tunits come up for sale 2nd hand anywhere first over the coming weeks.....but it's gonna be hard waiting now it's on my mind!!