50+mpg trips

[Recumpence]

My best day yet.

 

I pretty much have this car figured out...........

 

Matt

[Adair]

My best day yet.

 

I pretty much have this car figured out...........

 

Matt

Uh, yeah. I think that's a colossal understatement Matt!!! Way to go..........AGAIN! :rockon:  :worship:  :happy feet:  :salute:

[fotomoto]

My best day yet.

 

 

:worship:

[ScubaDadMiami]

Fotomoto said it best.  Wow!

[salsaguy]

we're not worthy dude. totally awesome!!!

[Recumpence]

Well, I can tell you this;

 

Rain totally messes up mileage. It is pouring rain today and my mileage is 53.1mpg.     Bummer.........

 

Matt

[Adair]

Well, I can tell you this;

 

Rain totally messes up mileage. It is pouring rain today and my mileage is 53.1mpg.     Bummer.........

 

Matt

You're breakin' my heart Matt!

[SnitGTS]

What do I win for this?

 

 

Granted it was a short trip and it seemed to be mostly downhill, but damn!  I bet if I tried again and a few things went a little different I could top 100!  Return trip was 38.5 mpg.

[fotomoto]

What do I win for this?

 

The satisfaction of a a job well done!   ;)

 

Even including the low return leg you still netted 67mpg combined! :rockon:

[SnowStorm]

The satisfaction of a a job well done!   ;)

 

Even including the low return leg you still netted 67mpg combined! :rockon:

Hate to be "picky" but you can't "average" MPG values like we're used to doing (mpg1 + mpg2)/2.  You have to take the reciprocals and average those then flip it back over.  So you get 1/[(1/95.5 + 1/38.5)/2] = 54.9 mpg.  Or written more simply, 2/(1/95.5 + 1/38.5) = 54.9.  The correct value, unfortunately, always comes out lower.  And, of course, the distance has to be the same for both or its still wrong.

 

Now if we used L/100km (like Laurel does) then you could do it the "normal" way and it works.  Just another reason why we should use L/100km!

[SnitGTS]

The return trip was a little further because we went a different way trying to avoid going uphill the whole way, I think it was 5.3 miles but I'm not 100% sure.

[Recumpence]

I know. I had a 102mpg trip yesterday. It was 3.1 miles. It was not downhill. But, it was 25mph where I started with a 3/4 full battery and ended with a 1/2 full battery.

 

Though these trips do not do anything to represent anything remotely resmbling real world driving, they are still cool to see.   :)

 

Of course, then there are those 2 miles trips to the store that run the engine the whole way while starting with a dead battery in cold weather going up hill and registers 9mpg. Those are depressing.........    ;)

 

Matt

[plus 3 golfer]

Hate to be "picky" but you can't "average" MPG values like we're used to doing (mpg1 + mpg2)/2. ....

Somewhat like the "trick" question on the SAT: Car 1 and Car 2 travels from A to B and leave at the same time.  For the first 1/2 of the trip, Car 2 travels at 10 mph slower than Car 1 and for the last 1/2 of the trip Car 2 travels 10 mph faster than Car 1.  Which is correct?

 

1) Car 1 and Car 2 arrive at B at the same time.

2) Car 1 arrives at B before Car 2.

3) Car 2 arrives at B before Car 1

4) There's not enough information to determine which car arrives first.

 

Time is proportional to the reciprocal of speed. MPG FE is proportional to the reciprocal of gallons.  That's why I always say what matters in not ones FE on a specific trip but ones fuelly numbers and if one is going to post high FE numbers, at least do it for a round trip to negate elevation and other factors.  

 

This is also why in post 38 above, I posted a pic of my  69.1 mpg out trip and a pic of  the overall round trip of 53.8 mpg knowing that if I posted a pic of the out leg showing 69.1 mpg and a pic of the return leg of 43.5 mpg (instead of the round trip) people would do a simple average of the legs which would be incorrect. Then, I asked which one accurately depicts the capability of the C-Max? 

 

I'll say this again in different words, if the purpose of this thread is to show others the capability of the C-Max, showing pics of high mileage, one way trips doesn't accomplish this.  If it's for one's ego then fine. But, don't we really want to be credible for those contemplating the purchase of a C-Max.  Is this thread really any different than Ford touting the EPA numbers?  Time will tell whether the C-Max fleet will get close to the EPA numbers.  

[fotomoto]

I'll say this again in different words, if the purpose of this thread is to show others the capability of the C-Max, showing pics of high mileage, one way trips doesn't accomplish this.  If it's for one's ego then fine. But, don't we really want to be credible for those contemplating the purchase of a C-Max.  Is this thread really any different than Ford touting the EPA numbers?  Time will tell whether the C-Max fleet will get close to the EPA numbers.  

 

 

First of all, thanks Snow for the correction on the math.  I knew my simple averaging wasn't the best way to do it but it's been WAY too long to remember the formula(s).   :sad:

 

Second, I philosophically disagree with the concept that trip summary pics don't serve a meaningful purpose or are intentionally misleading.   Many of my submissions ARE round trips regardless of the length as I don't necessarily have to turn my car off when, for example, dropping/picking up my kids, drive-thru pickups, etc.   My entry in post #95 of this thread was submitted to show folks that even cold start trips can surpass 50.  That's my entire morning commute leg.  How is that misleading?  It's real world results.  

 

As I've pointed out towards the beginning of this thread, the average trip in the US is around 10-13 miles.  Toyota is even using this data to help justify the the EV range of its plug-in Prius.   If that doesn't conform to your definition of what a normal trip length is so be it.  Being in Arizona, like me here in Texas, our concepts of distance can be a little skewed.  LOL  

 

 

 

This is also why in post 38 above, I posted a pic of my  69.1 mpg out trip and a pic of  the overall round trip of 53.8 mpg knowing that if I posted a pic of the out leg showing 69.1 mpg and a pic of the return leg of 43.5 mpg (instead of the round trip) people would do a simple average of the legs which would be incorrect. Then, I asked which one accurately depicts the capability of the C-Max? 

 

Well we're dealing with the limitations of the C-Max trip summary display.  If you'd like, you could reset trip1 or 2 before your trip and show that.    :camera:

[SnowStorm]

I would agree that round trips should be used to show the cars "capability".  But the trip summary right there in front of you every shutdown just pulls you in!  Maybe some day there will be an automatic "round trip summary" that goes back to the last time you were at the same point - no matter how many stops/starts were in between.  EV+ already has to log the location of stops.  For now, it seems the best "proof" would be photos at both the beginning and end of round trips showing SOC at the same (or higher) point.

[plus 3 golfer]

SOC can also be significant especially on short trips. For example, two free miles (SOC drops from beginning to end of trip) on a 10 mile trip that would normally be 45 mpg (with the same beginning and ending SOC) would increase to 56.25 mpg (45*10/8).

 

fotomoto, even round trips aren't the bottom line.  The capability is what ones overall FE is over many miles (at least a tank).  I do like the 600 mile and 700 mile tanks as that certainly gives a better picture of the C-Max capability. However, not many are achieving those  on a consistent basis. 600 mile tanks can be achieved at less than a 45 mpg average (actual not the displayed mpg).  Yet very few average 45 mpg (fuelly bar chart now shows 14 out of 191 at 45 or better and if I counted correctly 5 above 47).  The point is that until such time as the average fleet approaches 47 mpg (I'll drop that to 44 mpg), one can show lots of pics of short, high mileage trips but I doubt skeptics will change to believers. 

 

Our opinions can differ about what is misleading.  IMHO, if the fleet doesn't beat the Prius V average FE after one year, Ford misled the public.  And I'm hoping the C-Max will beat the Prius V as virtually all reviews (as I do) give a significant edge to the C-Max in performance and comfort.  But a quick look at about 300, 2012 and 2013 Prius Vs shows an average of about 42 mpg. The C-max needs to pick up about 3 mpg in about 5 months. :)

Edited May 23, 2013 by Plus 3 Golfer

[Recumpence]

I have nearly 3,800 miles recorded on my trip one at 52.8mpg.

 

I would say 3,800 miles is a good sample size for what is possible for the C-Max. It may not be possible for everyone in all driving circumstances. But it is possible.

 

Matt

[fotomoto]

OK this isn't a Trip Summary display and thus violates the spirit of this thread.  This is the AVG meter which I reset before leaving the garage and included my morning commute, noon errands and lunch, and the afternoon commute.  Total distance was approx. 50-55 miles. Aircon set to auto/74f.  This was my first time to break the 50mpg barrier for the entire day!  

 

 

 

I'm beginning to think the car really, really likes warm weather. (understatement)

[Recumpence]

All hybrids REALLY like warm weather. :)

 

Matt

[Adair]

ADAIR likes REALLY warm weather  :happy feet:

[fotomoto]

  Yet very few average 45 mpg (fuelly bar chart now shows 14 out of 191 at 45 or better and if I counted correctly 5 above 47).  The point is that until such time as the average fleet approaches 47 mpg (I'll drop that to 44 mpg), one can show lots of pics of short, high mileage trips but I doubt skeptics will change to believers.

 

 

Although it's really all we've got, I have little confidence in fuelly since it's self reported.  For example, this CMax entry  http://www.fuelly.com/driver/jpunt/cmax   has one tank at 3.7mpg.  Yes three point seven.  Obviously the guy misplaced a decimal but why he doesn't correct it is beyond me.   :headscratch:     Uggh, this one is worse,  way worse:  http://www.fuelly.com/driver/gmtrainer/cruze

Edited May 24, 2013 by fotomoto

[zhackwyatt]

Although it's really all we've got, I have little confidence in fuelly since it's self reported.  For example, this CMax entry  http://www.fuelly.com/driver/jpunt/cmax   has one tank at 3.7mpg.  Yes three point seven.  Obviously the guy misplaced a decimal but why he doesn't correct it is beyond me.   :headscratch:     Uggh, this one is worse,  way worse:  http://www.fuelly.com/driver/gmtrainer/cruze

I sent the first one a Fuelly Mail message.  Fingers crossed he'll fix it.

[nsteblay]

51.8 on my drive home from work today.  21 miles mixed freeway and highway.  Lots of stop and go but periods of 70+ MPH.  Didn't try to drive efficient just went with the traffic.  The car is broken in and running great.  Mileage has been fantastic since the weather got warm.  

[fotomoto]

51.8 on my drive home from work today.  21 miles mixed freeway and highway.  Lots of stop and go but periods of 70+ MPH.  Didn't try to drive efficient just went with the traffic.  The car is broken in and running great.  Mileage has been fantastic since the weather got warm.  

 

NICE!  Hybrids love stop/go traffic.  While others are idling away needlessly and using up their brakes, the CMax is moving silently along on EV or regen'ing back into the batt.  One almost looks forward to traffic jams.  NAW, who am I kidding? :nonono:   But at least the efficiency makes it a little more bearable.

[SnowStorm]

NICE!  Hybrids love stop/go traffic.  While others are idling away needlessly and using up their brakes, the CMax is moving silently along on EV or regen'ing back into the batt.  One almost looks forward to traffic jams.  NAW, who am I kidding? :nonono:   But at least the efficiency makes it a little more bearable.

It is so much more relaxing now in the C-Max when sitting at lights or stuck in traffic.  The inefficiency of the "old days" bugged me more than the lost time.