Understanding my HCH

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Aug 26, 2004 | 03:55 AM
  #1  
billyt1963's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Active Enthusiast
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 193
From: Chattanooga, TN
Default

Last night was I was running errands and the car was doing something odd. Understand it was not a bad odd, but a very good odd. It seemed that the car was being very efficient. It seems like every time I looked at the FCD it was in the 80 and up range. Having had the car less than 3 weeks I had not seen this before, but I did like seeing it. Does anyone have any ideas as to what might have been happening so that I can do this more often?

Billy
 
Old Aug 26, 2004 | 02:56 PM
  #2  
Hot_Georgia_2004's Avatar
Ridiculously Active Enthusiast
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,797
From: Atlanta, Ga
Default

My HCH will maintain about 80MPG going on flat level ground, no wind, no ac etc and traveling about 53MPH.

I'm not sure of the environment you were driving in or if this is a round trip figure but some ideas:

1. Driving around 53MPH on flat level ground no ac etc
2. Going on a slight decline on a one way trip
On some parts of my trip I can sustain 80-120(max) MPG over several miles for a slight decline. (Payback is the hills at the end)
3. Strong tailwind

Perhaps some other members have any other ideas?
 
Old Aug 26, 2004 | 03:19 PM
  #3  
lars-ss's Avatar
Ridiculously Active Enthusiast
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,430
From: Phoenix, AZ
Default

Originally posted by billyt1963@Aug 26th 2004 @ 5:55 AM
Last night was I was running errands and the car was doing something odd. Understand it was not a bad odd, but a very good odd. It seemed that the car was being very efficient. It seems like every time I looked at the FCD it was in the 80 and up range. Having had the car less than 3 weeks I had not seen this before, but I did like seeing it. Does anyone have any ideas as to what might have been happening so that I can do this more often?

Billy
Right after a fillup last week, I had a stretch of 2.6 miles on a road I "thought" was FLAT.
But it must have been on a slight decline, because I hit 87.8 MPG on the digital display. I took a picture of the display to prove it....but do not know how to post a pic on this board if it's not an url....so you'll just have to trust me !!!
Laterz........
 
Old Aug 26, 2004 | 04:36 PM
  #4  
billyt1963's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Active Enthusiast
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 193
From: Chattanooga, TN
Default

Thanks everyone for the replies. I guess I may have mentioned the wrong display. I meant that the bar graph was showing 80 and up not the display for the MPG over the trip. Sorry for the confusion.

Billy
 
Old Aug 26, 2004 | 05:42 PM
  #5  
Hot_Georgia_2004's Avatar
Ridiculously Active Enthusiast
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,797
From: Atlanta, Ga
Default

Thanks Billy.
I thought it was the instant bar graph.
Sounds like you are on your way to getting good results.
 
Old Aug 27, 2004 | 08:31 AM
  #6  
lars-ss's Avatar
Ridiculously Active Enthusiast
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,430
From: Phoenix, AZ
Default

You will notice that "real-time mileage bar" go all over the place. When you are coasting, it should peg at 120+. When you are starting from a stop, it will hover around 20 mpg.

I have noticed in my manual tranny 2004 HCH that when I use the cruise control, the mileage bar consistently stays UP HIGHER than when I just use my foot to control speed.

I think this proves that on this particular car, the computer does a much better job on flat roads at controlling speed and charging the battery than using your foot.

Could you other drivers test that and see if you get similar results, meaning on the same stretch of road, use the cruise and use the foot and compare the mileage bar? I have seen posts on this board and others that seem to indicate that using the cruise is LESS EFFECTIVE at achieving high MPG numbers - but if that is so, I think that may be true ONLY on the CVT trannies, not the manual tranny.

Thanks Gents.....
 
Old Aug 27, 2004 | 02:53 PM
  #7  
Stevo12886's Avatar
Ridiculously Active Enthusiast
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 808
From: Gainesville, GA
Default

lars,
I think its true for hills, not flats.
Cheers,
Steven
 
Old Aug 27, 2004 | 02:58 PM
  #8  
lars-ss's Avatar
Ridiculously Active Enthusiast
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,430
From: Phoenix, AZ
Default

Originally posted by Stevo12886@Aug 27th 2004 @ 4:53 PM
lars,
I think its true for hills, not flats.
Cheers,
Steven
you mean the cruise works better on flats? True, because the cruise on hills works harder at maintaining a speed and uses more gas to keep you on same speed up hills...I'm in Phoenix - it's all flats - or mostly all flats.....
 
Old Aug 28, 2004 | 02:19 PM
  #9  
Stevo12886's Avatar
Ridiculously Active Enthusiast
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 808
From: Gainesville, GA
Default

lars,
Yah, thats what a meant, sry for not being more clear. Cruise for flats, load for hills.
Cheers,
Steven
 
Related Topics
Thread
Topic Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
bwilson4web
Journalism & The Media
0
Feb 16, 2009 09:22 AM
FastMover
Fuel Economy & Emissions
3
Jan 1, 2008 02:33 PM
bwilson4web
Fuel Economy & Emissions
17
Dec 10, 2007 03:12 PM
dougie
HCH II-Specific Discussions
11
Feb 7, 2007 06:27 AM
diver110
Toyota Highlander Hybrid
8
Apr 13, 2006 09:06 AM



Contact Us -

  • Your Privacy Choices
  • Manage Preferences
  • Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

    When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

    © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands


    All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:35 AM.