Hybrid fuel consumption

[FROSTYBALLS]

Isn't part of the answer to compete more effectively with electric cars in terms of driveability, performance, etc.

[Cyker]

6 hours ago, Stopeter44 said:

How you describe the previous Yaris and the over assisted steering, is how I would describe the "Universal Asian (built) Small Car". I've come from a 208 facelift to the Yaris, and while the steering does feel lighter than the 208, which is ironic for a heavier car (not by much, but yes indeed), I think the balance is about right.

It's not so much the lightness, but the amount of feedback I get through the wheel - When I say overassisted I mean the electric motor is providing too much assistance for me to 'feel the road' through the wheel.

For me, the Mk1 diesel with its hydraulic power steering had the perfect balance of assist and feedback - Until the Mk2, every car I'd had had hydraulic power steering and I just assumed that was normal. Didn't get why 'purists' kept harping on about how hydraulic is superior to electric, until I got the Mk2 and my first taste of electric power steering - It was effortless to steer at low speeds and made parking very easy, but it was like steering with a gaming wheel. Both the Mk2 and Mk4's EPAS provide very little feedback compared to the Mk1 and my old Fiesta; It was much easier to feel if the car is e.g. starting to understeer or if the surface you're on has changed through subtle shifts in steering feel in the older cars, whereas in the Mk4 I'm getting that feedback more through feeling how the chassis shifts.

 

5 hours ago, Anthony Poli said:

From what I remember, Toyota hybrids were being given bad reviews and feedback for being not sporty enough. So Toyota started using bigger engines in and sacrificing mpg. 

TBH I tended to agree with those earlier reviews - IMHO they woefully underspecced the engines (ICE and MGs) in earlier HSDs which made the cars really un-fun to drive, and IMHO actually made them less efficient - You want the ICE to be in it's most efficient rev range when on the motorway but the early HSDs couldn't maintain high speeds at those RPM and had to run at much higher revs which cost them a lot of mpg.

IIRC the Mk2 Prius actually had worse mpg at motorway speeds than some of their petrol cars!

This switch in tactics to put in more powerful motors and engines has really paid off with the TNGA-platform hybrids. They perform the way I wanted them to perform and are also much more efficient in the real world compared to the older ones - The best of both worlds! It's so rare to be able to have your cake and eat it too!

It sucks that it took them this long to figure this out, but it was well worth the wait, for me at least - I can see with my Mk4 that, when the ICE is running, it'll try and stick at 2000rpm no matter what speed I'm cruising at from 20mph to 70, only going above that if I ask it to accelerate faster (And boy can it do that with gusto now  ). This has made it obscenely frugal, but at the same time a lot more responsive and punchy than you'd expect from a hybrid; Again, the best of both worlds!

I just wish they'd figured this out earlier - Hybrids wouldn't have this stigma for being slow and unengaging and a lot more people would be driving them now I reckon...

 

[mintymiller]

I'm running a 2017 Toyota Auris hybrid estate. In the warmer months last year, it was averaging around 60 MPG (on E5); so far this (relatively mild) winter, it's been averaging around 46MPG (mostly on E10). Mixed urban/open road driving. These values are from the car's instruments, not brim to brim and I think not unexpected for real world driving. It's obvious from the more frequent engine starts in slow urban driving that fuel consumption takes a hit from heating demands with the colder weather, but I do wonder what the impact of E10 has been on fuel consumption and paradoxically, whether the switch to it means we're actually causing more pollution than with E5! I don't think I'll know that before the summer!    

[Anthony Poli]

15 minutes ago, mintymiller said:

I'm running a 2017 Toyota Auris hybrid estate. In the warmer months last year, it was averaging around 60 MPG (on E5); so far this (relatively mild) winter, it's been averaging around 46MPG (mostly on E10). Mixed urban/open road driving. These values are from the car's instruments, not brim to brim and I think not unexpected for real world driving. It's obvious from the more frequent engine starts in slow urban driving that fuel consumption takes a hit from heating demands with the colder weather, but I do wonder what the impact of E10 has been on fuel consumption and paradoxically, whether the switch to it means we're actually causing more pollution than with E5! I don't think I'll know that before the summer!    

The impact is creating more CO2 as you burn more, the car will take a bit longer to reach temperature. E5 in winter I lost 50 mile from a tank full, E10 in winter I lost nearly 100 mile. Plus the increased noise pollution, as the engine was louder with the E10.

[Catlover]

Still using E5 from Costco

[TonyHSD]

E5 from Tesco and my Auris does an average 4mpg better than last year, but savings not most important although adds up to me any mile or mpg but the performance and general drivability of the car has changed noticeably and I think E5 99 is more suitable for hybrids especially older ones👌

[mintymiller]

23 hours ago, Anthony Poli said:

The impact is creating more CO2 as you burn more, the car will take a bit longer to reach temperature. E5 in winter I lost 50 mile from a tank full, E10 in winter I lost nearly 100 mile. Plus the increased noise pollution, as the engine was louder with the E10.

So, what on earth is the point of moving over to E10? I get that it's supposed to mean we use less fossil fuel, but if it actually leads to more fossil fuel being burned through poorer efficiency (and  more CO2 being released), then what is the point?  It seems like whoever thought that introducing more bioethanol into the mix would reduce the environmental impact of fossil fuel extraction hadn't done their homework!

[Anthony Poli]

17 minutes ago, mintymiller said:

So, what on earth is the point of moving over to E10? I get that it's supposed to mean we use less fossil fuel, but if it actually leads to more fossil fuel being burned through poorer efficiency (and  more CO2 being released), then what is the point?  It seems like whoever thought that introducing more bioethanol into the mix would reduce the environmental impact of fossil fuel extraction hadn't done their homework!

The term greenwashing comes to mind.

[Stopeter44]

On 1/20/2022 at 10:50 AM, mintymiller said:

So, what on earth is the point of moving over to E10? I get that it's supposed to mean we use less fossil fuel, but if it actually leads to more fossil fuel being burned through poorer efficiency (and  more CO2 being released), then what is the point?  It seems like whoever thought that introducing more bioethanol into the mix would reduce the environmental impact of fossil fuel extraction hadn't done their homework!

You could look at this report :

E10 vs the others

The report is quite long, and It's conclusion, though, states that there's roughly 4% difference between E0 consumption and E10 consumption. I skimmed through the document, because the language lost me for the most part. I understand that not only does the lower calorific value have an effect, but also the higher resistance to pre-ignition. It also states that broadly similar fuels had up to 2% differences, and some cars adapted better to E10 than others.

E5 vs E10 ? I don't know, E10 is my normal and has been for 6 years or so. When E10 was introduced I was driving a diesel car, so I had no previous experience to go on, and I have not yet driven my Yaris on E5, but the previous car may have been smoother of E5, but I couldn't swear to it.

I had thought that since the calorific value difference was about 1% between E5 and E10 then there would be no perceptible difference in fuel consumption. I know that Anthony Poli tracked his fuel consumption over several years, the differences of 50 to 100 miles per tank are consistent with what I read in the report.

I calculated what the extra costs would be, E5 vs E10, for a full tank, and assuming I could get 700 km out of a full tank with a base of 4L/100 km with E10, and a cost difference of 1,70€ for E10 and 1,78€ for E5 :

• 1% - 1,7€
• 2% - 1,2€
• 3% - 0,74€
• 4% - 0,25€

I'm sure my methodology is questionable, but I assumed that E5 was going to more economic and assumed I'd use 1%, 2%, etc less fuel for the 700 km. OTOH, I don't see how, in the real world, I could possibly make such a comparison. Anthony's data hints at as much as 5%, or more, advantage to E5 over E10. I will definitely be giving E5 a try for the next fill up, but the weather will be warmer so ... who know ?

 

[Roy124]

2 hours ago, Stopeter44 said:

but the weather will be warmer so ... who know ?

And therein lies the rub. None of us drive in repeatable conditions to prove it one way or the other. 

[FROSTYBALLS]

2 hours ago, Stopeter44 said:

I will definitely be giving E5 a try for the next fill up

Bear in mind there will still be an amount of E10 remaining, so your next few fills will end up being a mixture of E5 and E10 ...

[TonyHSD]

1 hour ago, Roy124 said:

And therein lies the rub. None of us drive in repeatable conditions to prove it one way or the other. 

I do and I can tell for sure, my car is running purely on E5 99 Tesco Momentum since October,  same garage, same pump, 3 times a week filling up from this place. (Receipts available). I am positive that the car performs better with E5 and does better mpg 50-52mpg currently on my driving style (80% mixture of motorways, A roads and country lanes, 20% in town including London and rush hours, plus hours in ready mode for heating, the ice is running for a minute or two every 10 minutes and I am still doing better than previous years (46-50mpg), I can’t say for sure if this is as a result of ethanol content or the higher octane or combination of both, performance like the old Auris drives like 2.0 Corolla where with E10 drives like Prius gen 2 with 1.5 engine 😉🧐🤭 . Also with E5 I have almost no knocking from the engine where with poor quality and with e10 I often got this horrible knocking in certain conditions which is typical for my MY hybrid drive train. Last night I pushed to the limit for experiment to see if any issues will pop up since I had some previously and to my surprise the car did accelerate very quickly, smoothly and without any pulsating or hybrid warning messages. I am sticking with this fuel for now. 🔥⛽️🏎🏁

[Roy124]

Tony, admittedly you are going from warmer October into colder January which should show an increase in consumption whereas you show no difference. 

But the majority of us are not able to drive identical profiles and consistent weather conditions. 

[TonyHSD]

22 minutes ago, Roy124 said:

Tony, admittedly you are going from warmer October into colder January which should show an increase in consumption whereas you show no difference. 

But the majority of us are not able to drive identical profiles and consistent weather conditions. 

That’s right Roy, weather changes and so the fuel consumption 👍 the thing with me is that I do the same driving  and in every winter my efficiency goes from 60mpg in the summer down to 50mpg this time of the year, but since I use E5 exclusively the efficiency seems better than previous years.(2-4mpg up).  I drive the same car, same tyres, same driving conditions, same places , everything is the same but only different fuel. Last year I was using mostly BP 95 E5, but since they switched to E10 95 I did try few times and noticed a difference in performance and decided to try Tesco and I like the car more how it drives ever since. 

[Stopeter44]

3 hours ago, FROSTYBALLS said:

Bear in mind there will still be an amount of E10 remaining, so your next few fills will end up being a mixture of E5 and E10 ...

Yes, that's true. There'll be roughly 8 litres or so of E10, so if I add 28 litres of E5, that should make E6 (and a bit) ! 😁

[Cyker]

8 hours ago, mintymiller said:

So, what on earth is the point of moving over to E10? I get that it's supposed to mean we use less fossil fuel, but if it actually leads to more fossil fuel being burned through poorer efficiency (and  more CO2 being released), then what is the point?  It seems like whoever thought that introducing more bioethanol into the mix would reduce the environmental impact of fossil fuel extraction hadn't done their homework!

7 hours ago, Anthony Poli said:

The term greenwashing comes to mind.

The only real benefit of bioethanol is we can make more, whereas petrol is limited to how much we can pump out of the ground (Unless it gets so expensive that synthesizing it becomes economically viable...!)

I think it's mainly done for money - Ethanol should be cheaper than petrol, but somehow they're claiming it's more expensive and put prices up even more which increases the tax the government get from fuels.

Almost all these legislations citing environment issues as the reason have just been about a money grab so far. The other one that's got me apoplectically angry is Sadiq Khan - Having failed to shaft us for millions with the ULEZ extension, due to everyone switching cars to older petrol engines, he's now trying to make us all pay £2 a day to drive in London. So now we're all driving cleaner cars, he wants to charge us EVEN MORE. Anyone who still thinks any of his policies are about the environment are just idiots - He clearly doesn't give a damn about the environment, it's purely a money grab.

I really hope all tradesmen, mobile techs, hauliers etc. boycott London and just refuse to drive into here if he really implements that. Talk about biting the hand that feeds...!

 

[trashman1965]

Just to throw a spanner in...

My first long drive in my 2.0 Corolla I filled with E10 by mistake and so far that tankful has been the best recorded MPG....I will be doing same trip again in a week or two, so will be similar conditions and will see what happens with E5. Normally I only use E5 and have used V-Power since 2016 or earlier and definitely both Auris' felt better on V-Power than normal unleaded. Just a bit smoother and responsive and slightly better MPG, nothing to outweigh the cost difference, but as I am relatively "low" mileage driver, the improved experience was/is worth the extra cost.

[Rav4ster]

I have been using E10 for several years while on trips in Europe and both hybrids: Prius MK2 and Auris MK2, had about 4 mpg drop. Seeing the same mpg drop in UK since switching to E10.

[Roy124]

27 minutes ago, trashman1965 said:

Just to throw a spanner in...

My first long drive in my 2.0 Corolla I filled with E10 by mistake and so far that tankful has been the best recorded MPG....I will be doing same trip again in a week or two, so will be similar conditions and will see what happens with E5.

First long trip is a clue. Theoretically the E5 on the next trip should be better. 

[mcntosh]

1 hour ago, trashman1965 said:

 Normally I only use E5 and have used V-Power since 2016 or earlier and definitely both Auris' felt better on V-Power than normal unleaded. Just a bit smoother and responsive and slightly better MPG, nothing to outweigh the cost difference, but as I am relatively "low" mileage driver, the improved experience was/is worth the extra cost.

This is interesting because I tend to buy Shell Fuelsave (E10) but have been wondering about trying Vpower for this reason, apart from any MPG improvement. 

[trashman1965]

1 hour ago, Roy124 said:

First long trip is a clue. Theoretically the E5 on the next trip should be better. 

Yeah will be interesting to see, but the long trip was not all that different (mixed motorway, dual carriageway, minor roads)  on a daily/weekly basis - it even had several stop/starts. But yeah I will be sure to fill E5 and compare.

[trashman1965]

1 hour ago, mcntosh said:

This is interesting because I tend to buy Shell Fuelsave (E10) but have been wondering about trying Vpower for this reason, apart from any MPG improvement. 

The smoothness was specific around cruise speed - ie moving from hybrid EV/ICE with ICE generating power and hybrid EV/ICE with ICE not generating power. Compare being at 70, lift off and coast then gently reapply throttle - when the ICE goes from turning but not adding power to adding power, Shell V-Power is just a touch smoother....at least IMHO 🙂

The 2.0 Corolla is a different scenario as you can be at 70 without the engine turning, just electric (I forget what it is ..80...90???) where you would repeat the above in the 2.0

My research continues but V-Power was preferable for me on 2x 1.8 Auris

[Cyker]

I think the older cars prefer E5 as that's what they were designed to run on, but the new ones were definitely designed to run on E10 - Mine's not running any noticeably different than when it was on E5, and even when I chucked some V-Power in it from empty for a run to my bro's it didn't make any noticeable difference to mpg or driving feel.

(Couldn't bring myself to do that more often with fuel prices being what they are - I'm paying more for 28L of petrol than I did for 38L of diesel in my Mk1 D4D!!  )

[Catlover]

14 minutes ago, Cyker said:

 

(Couldn't bring myself to do that more often with fuel prices being what they are - I'm paying more for 28L of petrol than I did for 38L of diesel in my Mk1 D4D!!  )

How many years ago was that?

[Cyker]

Long enough ago that I still had hair then!