LC250 hybrid real MPG (4 Viewers)

[Corbet]

What mode were you in eco, sport or normal? In Eco I. Yet to drop below 20. If I adjust that it seems to drop quickly. I’m yet to take it on a real road trip for HWY miles. So far that’s with my daily commute.

I suspect removing the little air dams have had more effect on your truck than the tires when looking at MPG at 80MPH.

 

[ryanjl]

Eco mode. On the way to Colorado, I was facing a headwind and obviously mostly going uphill. Had the cruise set at 80 and it was sometimes dropping gears to get up hills.

One the way home, I dropped it to 77 to 78mph and was mostly going downhill. RPMs were at 1950ish most of the way.

*Both of these statistics are on the relatively flat and strait sections of I-70 in western Kansas and eastern Colorado. All bets are off once I'm west of Denver.

 

[AndrewTK]

I have driven mine round trip from OKC to Dallas 3 times in the fist 3 weeks of ownership, ~500 miles each trip. Pretty consistently seeing 21-22 on the highway cruising at 75, last week I got 24 on the way home with a decent tail wind and this week I was around 20 with a head wind. It seems like there are opportunities on the highway for the electric motor to kick in (slight inclines that just require a bit more power) but so far I havent seen it happen, just seeing the turbo spool up when more power is needed. I have mostly run in Eco mode on the highway, around town I swap to normal to bump the AC up.

 

[wngrog]

My daughter was home this weekend so I checked her mileage.

17.8

That was about 1300 since I checked it last.

87 octane. Mostly city.

 

[Oakleyguy]

Just got back from Colorado.

Started from home in KC with around 1,000 miles on the odometer. I have removed the front air dam thingies and put on 275/70/18 E-rated Falken Wildpeaks, so I expect a little worse MPG. Was also driving with my XL-sized mountain bike hanging off the back on a 1Up hitch-mounted rack, and probably around 600 pounds worth of luggage and occupants. Cruise set on 80 mph.

Was getting 13.7 mpg on the way to Colorado, according to the carputer. That's way worse than I was expecting. On the way home today, I calculated the last stretch myself and wound up with around 14.2 mpg. Still bad.

Before I changed the tires, the stock tires were getting me around 19.5 mpg in town according to the carputer. I never really checked in-town with the Falkens as I picked them up about a week before I left town, and never checked highway MPG with the original tires because I never took a highway trip with them.

I didn't really buy this Land Cruiser for the MPG savings, as ultimately the price of gas is a drop in the bucket compared to the price of a new car. But where this really plays a factor is in the 18-gallon fuel tank. I was having to stop far more than I would like to refuel. Speaking-of, other commenters are correct: the vehicle's "miles remaining" ticker is way off. Today I refueled once when it said I had 11 miles remaining and only put around 14.5 gallons in.

My hope is that there is something with the powertrain that takes some miles to fully break in. But I'm at almost 3,000 miles now. Surely some heavier and bigger tires didn't put that big of a dent in the MPG?

As a not-apples-to-hybrid comparison;

My LCDC trip from Denver through GJ to Ouray/Telluride roundtrip mileage was a touch over 17MPG in the GX. That does include the four days of trails I did while there. I was pretty shocked at how well it did on fuel.

Tires: 275/70/18 KO2 E
Gear: about 300-400# of junk+recovery gear, fridge, food, drawers, compressor etc.
1UP Bike rack with two bikes
1 Adult and one kid

 

[ryanjl]

I'll experiment over the coming months to see what sort of MPG I get in various situations.

The air-dam thingies are easy to take off (and presumably put back on), so I may try that.

Will also lose the bike rack for longer trips where I'm not taking my bike.

Will also monitor around-town MPG to see if the MPG is closer to as-advertised, which would indicate if it's a aerodynamics issue that arises at highway speeds.

 

[alohabs]

I have driven mine round trip from OKC to Dallas 3 times in the fist 3 weeks of ownership, ~500 miles each trip. Pretty consistently seeing 21-22 on the highway cruising at 75, last week I got 24 on the way home with a decent tail wind and this week I was around 20 with a head wind. It seems like there are opportunities on the highway for the electric motor to kick in (slight inclines that just require a bit more power) but so far I havent seen it happen, just seeing the turbo spool up when more power is needed. I have mostly run in Eco mode on the highway, around town I swap to normal to bump the AC up.

You can drive in Eco mode with the AC eco mode turned off. Page 478 of owners manual. Not sure if it hurts mpg to turn off eco mode of ac/heat. I just know its an option.

 

[jay3253]

I have seen several people say the fuel gage range to empty is way off. When that hits zero miles of range you have 2 more gallons of fuel left. That is why you only fill 16 gallons when the range is zero.

 

[NinjahGoose]

Just got back from Colorado.

Started from home in KC with around 1,000 miles on the odometer. I have removed the front air dam thingies and put on 275/70/18 E-rated Falken Wildpeaks, so I expect a little worse MPG. Was also driving with my XL-sized mountain bike hanging off the back on a 1Up hitch-mounted rack, and probably around 600 pounds worth of luggage and occupants. Cruise set on 80 mph.

Was getting 13.7 mpg on the way to Colorado, according to the carputer. That's way worse than I was expecting. On the way home today, I calculated the last stretch myself and wound up with around 14.2 mpg. Still bad.

Before I changed the tires, the stock tires were getting me around 19.5 mpg in town according to the carputer. I never really checked in-town with the Falkens as I picked them up about a week before I left town, and never checked highway MPG with the original tires because I never took a highway trip with them.

I didn't really buy this Land Cruiser for the MPG savings, as ultimately the price of gas is a drop in the bucket compared to the price of a new car. But where this really plays a factor is in the 18-gallon fuel tank. I was having to stop far more than I would like to refuel. Speaking-of, other commenters are correct: the vehicle's "miles remaining" ticker is way off. Today I refueled once when it said I had 11 miles remaining and only put around 14.5 gallons in.

My hope is that there is something with the powertrain that takes some miles to fully break in. But I'm at almost 3,000 miles now. Surely some heavier and bigger tires didn't put that big of a dent in the MPG?

You put on tires that are about 20lb's heavier than stock. Those Falken's are HEAVY, even for E load tires. I'm not surprised you're getting low teens in fuel economy.

If you watch the video Icon put out about which offset they recommend for the LC they mention not going beyond a 6 ply (C-Load) tire.

 

[ryanjl]

You put on tires that are about 20lb's heavier than stock. Those Falken's are HEAVY, even for E load tires. I'm not surprised you're getting low teens in fuel economy.

If you watch the video Icon put out about which offset they recommend for the LC they mention not going beyond a 6 ply (C-Load) tire.

The tires are heavy, but they are the same weight as the BFG AT3s and within a pound or two of other E-rated tires. Even then, the weight of the tires should not account for a 10mpg (nearly 42%) drop from the stated highway MPG.

I expected a MPG drop, but 42% is ridiculous. I have put heavy, E-rated tires on several other vehicles and, at most, have experienced a 2-3 mpg drop. Most times, it's 2.

 

[NinjahGoose]

The tires are heavy, but they are the same weight as the BFG AT3s and within a pound or two of other E-rated tires. Even then, the weight of the tires should not account for a 10mpg (nearly 42%) drop from the stated highway MPG.

I expected a MPG drop, but 42% is ridiculous. I have put heavy, E-rated tires on several other vehicles and, at most, have experienced a 2-3 mpg drop. Most times, it's 2.

Do you have a 1958, LC, or FE? If it’s a 1958 you increased the size by 3” and weight by over 20lbs. It’s going to be a huge hit on range. Plus, Icon and Westcott are on record saying that people should not go beyond a 6 ply tire for the 250.

I’ve seen people say they only lose about 2mpg when switching to and E load tire. I lost 4-5 mpg when I had Nitto Terra Grapplers on my 4Runner, and I’ve lost 3mpg on my Sequoia by switching to 275/70r18 KO3’s. That’s also switching to much light than stock FN Wheels.

Lighter/smaller vehicles seem to be impacted more by adding so much unsprung weight.

 

[krice118]

A 3-4 mpg hit ona 250 is probably the same as 2 on a 4Runner. If you look at % lost….

2/17 = 17%
4/22 = 18%

 

[McDuff123]

A 3-4 mpg hit ona 250 is probably the same as 2 on a 4Runner. If you look at % lost….

2/17 = 17%
4/22 = 18%

Math is hard
2/17 is more like 11-12%

 

[krice118]

Twas early I saw .117 and my early morning brain saw 17%

 

[McDuff123]

Just got back from Colorado.

Started from home in KC with around 1,000 miles on the odometer. I have removed the front air dam thingies and put on 275/70/18 E-rated Falken Wildpeaks, so I expect a little worse MPG. Was also driving with my XL-sized mountain bike hanging off the back on a 1Up hitch-mounted rack, and probably around 600 pounds worth of luggage and occupants. Cruise set on 80 mph.

Was getting 13.7 mpg on the way to Colorado, according to the carputer. That's way worse than I was expecting. On the way home today, I calculated the last stretch myself and wound up with around 14.2 mpg. Still bad.

Before I changed the tires, the stock tires were getting me around 19.5 mpg in town according to the carputer. I never really checked in-town with the Falkens as I picked them up about a week before I left town, and never checked highway MPG with the original tires because I never took a highway trip with them.

I didn't really buy this Land Cruiser for the MPG savings, as ultimately the price of gas is a drop in the bucket compared to the price of a new car. But where this really plays a factor is in the 18-gallon fuel tank. I was having to stop far more than I would like to refuel. Speaking-of, other commenters are correct: the vehicle's "miles remaining" ticker is way off. Today I refueled once when it said I had 11 miles remaining and only put around 14.5 gallons in.

My hope is that there is something with the powertrain that takes some miles to fully break in. But I'm at almost 3,000 miles now. Surely some heavier and bigger tires didn't put that big of a dent in the MPG?

Let’s see…
A brick-shaped vehicle, with a bike on the back to further disrupt any aero that the brick had, loaded with 600 lbs of stuff, going 80 mph on much larger and heavier tires without the benefit of the air dams.
Yep, 13-14 mpg sounds about right.
Each of those factors has its own penalty. Combine them and watch mileage drop like a rock.
What would be more interesting and helpful is if you’d care to reproduce the trip, eliminating 1 variable at a time to determine the worst offenders.
My bet is on speed, then tires.

 

[McDuff123]

Twas early I saw .117 and my early morning brain saw 17%

Just razzin’ ya.

 

[ryanjl]

Let’s see…
A brick-shaped vehicle, with a bike on the back to further disrupt any aero that the brick had, loaded with 600 lbs of stuff, going 80 mph on much larger and heavier tires without the benefit of the air dams.
Yep, 13-14 mpg sounds about right.
Each of those factors has its own penalty. Combine them and watch mileage drop like a rock.
What would be more interesting and helpful is if you’d care to reproduce the trip, eliminating 1 variable at a time to determine the worst offenders.
My bet is on speed, then tires.

It's already a "brick shaped vehicle" when it gets its "official" promoted MPG rating, so that's an immaterial consideration when we are discussing a difference in MPG between the promoted rating and what I'm getting.

So that leaves: (1) air dams; (2) tires; and (3) bike rack.

Sometime in the next month or two I'll have another highway trip. I'll throw the air dams back on and lose the bike rack and see how much that changes things.

 

[MotoDave]

EPA highway MPG rating is based on a drive cycle that only briefly touches 80 mph, average speed is below 65. I'm not sure any vehicle will match the EPA rating when driven at typical 75mph+ highways speeds.

That said i've owned both a Tundra with 34" tires and a GX460 with 32's, and both got in the same 14-15 mpg range at 75-80 mph speeds. Disappointing that the smaller engine and hybrid system don't seem to have improved this in the real world.

 

[NinjahGoose]

It's already a "brick shaped vehicle" when it gets its "official" promoted MPG rating, so that's an immaterial consideration when we are discussing a difference in MPG between the promoted rating and what I'm getting.

So that leaves: (1) air dams; (2) tires; and (3) bike rack.

Sometime in the next month or two I'll have another highway trip. I'll throw the air dams back on and lose the bike rack and see how much that changes things.

My assumption is that the air dams and bike have about a negligible impact on the efficiency. This isn't an EV where changing the aero, even a little, has severe penalties to range. Adding almost 100lbs in unsprung weight is the biggest factor. Plus, the hybrid does nothing when driving at a steady state, like on the highway, it's only there to fill in gaps in the power curve. You still have the equivalent to an extreme hot hatches (Golf R, Focus RS, or WRX STI territory) worth of power under the hood, even they're not known as fuel efficient.

 

[McDuff123]

It's already a "brick shaped vehicle" when it gets its "official" promoted MPG rating, so that's an immaterial consideration when we are discussing a difference in MPG between the promoted rating and what I'm getting.

It would be immaterial if the tested speeds were identical .
MPG tests are conducted at much lower speeds, ideal for getting the highest rated MPG.something like 45 or 50.
80 mph requires a huge amount of additional energy to maintain…air resistance quadruples when speed doubles.
Not arguing, just saying I’m not surprised by the results you saw.