New engine MPG

[Kitt]

So, I started to measure the MPG on my new car and the results were shocking: my 11 year Old manual Yaris had 25 MPG, the new one (automatic) 14 mpg. Both have the same 1.3 engine. I know manual transmissions lead to a lower MPG versus the automatic but not that much.

I've also heard that the car tends to consume more during break in period. Can somebody tell me if this is right?

[Rigaud]

So, I started to measure the MPG on my new car and the results were shocking: my 11 year Old manual Yaris had 25 MPG, the new one (automatic) 14 mpg. Both have the same 1.3 engine. I know manual transmissions lead to a lower MPG versus the automatic but not that much.

I've also heard that the car tends to consume more during break in period. Can somebody tell me if this is right?

Opposite.....manual is better for MPG!!!

[NYC-SE]

Both of those numbers are way low. How are you measuring MPG? Something is wrong somewhere.

[IllusionX]

City traffic only, AC on all the time. I'm not surprised by the numbers.

Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk

[NYC-SE]

City traffic only, AC on all the time. I'm not surprised by the numbers.

Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk

14 MPG!!! I've driven trucks that did better than that. I drive in NYC traffic, with an auto transmission, the LOWEST tank I ever got on the Yaris was 28.8 MPG. Something is wrong with Kitt's calculations, either that or he parks the car with the engine running.

[WeeYari]

Driving with shift lever in 3 and not D? It happens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[nortonfb]

What is the terrain like? Mountains? Uphill both ways?
I never had less than 30mpg driving 90 mph.

[Kitt]

I set the TRIP A odometer at 0 when I fill up, then I drive until the tank is almost empty, as much as I can drive. Then I divide the odometer millage between 11 gallons and that gives me the MPG right?
In other words, I can drive my '05 with a full tank for about 270.9 miles and the '15 gives me about 158 miles with a full tank. Both with ac on, same distance, i'll say moderate traffic at an average speed of 55mph and a regular terrain.

please let me know if I am doing the math wrong or something else. I'd really appreciate it

[Kitt]

Opposite.....manual is better for MPG!!!

correct, sorry for that

[Kitt]

14 MPG!!! I've driven trucks that did better than that. I drive in NYC traffic, with an auto transmission, the LOWEST tank I ever got on the Yaris was 28.8 MPG. Something is wrong with Kitt's calculations, either that or he parks the car with the engine running.

not really sure what happens, I even put it on neutral whenever I'm on a stop light or not moving the car in traffic.

Driving with shift lever in 3 and not D? It happens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

nope, I change it to 3 sometimes but i return it so it can shift to 4th

[IllusionX]

I set the TRIP A odometer at 0 when I fill up, then I drive until the tank is almost empty, as much as I can drive. Then I divide the odometer millage between 11 gallons and that gives me the MPG right?
In other words, I can drive my '05 with a full tank for about 270.9 miles and the '15 gives me about 158 miles with a full tank. Both with ac on, same distance, i'll say moderate traffic at an average speed of 55mph and a regular terrain.

please let me know if I am doing the math wrong or something else. I'd really appreciate it
Well, its kinda wrong. Because there is a little over a gallon in the tank when the light comes on.

I would calculate with reset trip, and drive until you fill up, and divide it with how much you filled until first click.

Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk

[Kitt]

I'll check it that way to see if there is any difference and keep you guys posted. That would fix the low mpg values on both cars, however, the gap between both cars is still huge, regardless of the wrong initial values, keeping in mind that i am using the same method for both cars. the numbers should be close, if not the same. We are talking about 112 miles more.

I would also like to add that this is the first tank that I measure, so I have to keep tracking them to get an average.

[NYC-SE]

What does the trip computer show for MPG?

[Kalispel]

95% of my daily driving is "City Driving" (little/no severe 'traffic jam' type driving though), and my Average MPG Display indicates that I am averaging 38.x MPG. The amount of gas that I am purchasing weekly to fill back up validates those numbers.

[Kitt]

What does the trip computer show for MPG?

Mine does not come with a consumption display so I have to do it manually.

[NYC-SE]

Mine does not come with a consumption display so I have to do it manually.

Hmmm. I thought all new cars had one. Anyway I just realized that Panama City is not Panama City Florida but Panama City Panama in your case which got me thinking. You guys are on the metric system, correct? Kilometers on the odometer and Liters on the pump right? I'm sure there must be some mistake in your calculations, most likely converting from KPL to MPG. When you fill up next time post your mileage as KPL.

BTW 1KPL=2.352MPG

[Kitt]

We measure it as kilometers per gallon, so I do the conversion from km to miles and do the rest of the math as usual

[bgkz25]

I thought the standard measurements are either mpg (miles per imperial gallon) or kpl (km per liter). I was wrong, it's different where you're at, metric and english.

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

[Kitt]

What I'm trying to state is:
1. Both cars ('05 and '15) have a 11 gallon tank and a 2nz-fe - 1.3l engine.
2. I can drive 435.1km (270 mi) with my '05 and 253.9km (157.7mi) with my '15 yaris.
3. My dealer says it is normal since the engine is in a break-in period, but after that it should give me a better fuel consumption.

That said, is this true?

[nortonfb]

That is a very dramatic difference if you look at the raw numbers.
About 127 miles for 11 gallons that is almost 11.4 miles per gallon.
Doesn't sound correct to me but I'm no engineer.
I would contact Toyota just to see what they say.

[Kitt]

they told me to keep tracking it until the 1000km checkup, and they said that the fuel consumption should improve, which doesn't make sense to me. I've searched the web regarding this and i've found sites that confirm that break-in engines tend to consume more fuel but there are also other sites from other countries were this model is sold and they also complain about the high FC, and their numbers are almost the same than mine. So I guess i'll wait to see what happens

[Bluevitz-rs]

the metric reading is Litres/100km

[Kar98]

City traffic only, AC on all the time. I'm not surprised by the numbers.

Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk

I am. Mine is 90% city mileage, often stop and go, then stop, then 90 mph. A/C is on near enough year round. And I'm getting 35 mpg all day long. Manual five speed, 1.5 l, 106 hp.

[Kalispel]

I am. Mine is 90% city mileage, often stop and go, then stop, then 90 mph. A/C is on near enough year round. And I'm getting 35 mpg all day long. Manual five speed, 1.5 l, 106 hp.

Same here. 95% city/town driving, with only occasional hops onto the highway to jump down a few exits. AC has been on every day since I bought the car about 6 weeks ago, in the blazing summer Phoenix, AZ heat. 38 MPG average so far - and that is during my so-called "Break In Period" (my car only has about 1300 total miles on it thus far).

You would have to be stuck in total gridlock for hours daily to get that low of MPG on a Yaris.

[nookandcrannycar]

then stop, then 90 mph.

:laugh::eek::biggrin:

[Rigaud]

I am. Mine is 90% city mileage, often stop and go, then stop, then 90 mph. A/C is on near enough year round. And I'm getting 35 mpg all day long. Manual five speed, 1.5 l, 106 hp.
Yup........I do 340 - 400 miles on 9.8 US gallons all the time. I average 75mph but I also go way over that speed on every that and red line it.

[IllusionX]

Well, I do avg 28-30mpg, but never with AC on. Stop and go, no traffic. 1.5L manual, brisk driving 2500-3000rpm shiftsm

Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk

[Kitt]

I've noticed most of you have 1.5l engines. Would that make any difference vs the 1.3?

[NYC-SE]

What I'm trying to state is:
1. Both cars ('05 and '15) have a 11 gallon tank and a 2nz-fe - 1.3l engine.
2. I can drive 435.1km (270 mi) with my '05 and 253.9km (157.7mi) with my '15 yaris.
3. My dealer says it is normal since the engine is in a break-in period, but after that it should give me a better fuel consumption.

That said, is this true?

At first glance BOTH these numbers look low but in fact they really tell us very little. Until we know, EXACTLY, how many gallons of fuel were burned to go those 157 or 270 miles we can not make valid comparisons. Perhaps you're simply filling up the '15 sooner, maybe the gas gauge is not accurate, and you think it is empty when in fact it is half full, etc.

It is true that a new engine will burn a LITTLE more fuel during break-in, but the mileage numbers and range that you are reporting are very, very low. In fact they are so low that I immediately question the accuracy of the data. I am not calling you a liar, I am simply saying that these numbers have not been placed in their proper context. A car that was showing those numbers would almost certainly be displaying other signs of trouble. Yet you say it is performing normally in all other aspects, no check engine light, no rough running, etc. Correct?

The only other thing I can think of that would result in the numbers you are showing without any other performance issues would be if someone was siphoning gas out of your tank.

Do like Toyota suggested, track it over a few months and see. Make sure to use the exact amount of fuel added at the pump in your calculations. Don't guesstimate.

P.S. If anything I would expect the 1.3 engine to be more fuel efficient than the 1.5

[Kar98]

P.S. If anything I would expect the 1.3 engine to be more fuel efficient than the 1.5

Dunno about that. My wife has that 1.33 engine in her Scion and it gets a couple mpg less than my Yaris. Her car is smaller, but also has the CVT.

[NYC-SE]

Dunno about that. My wife has that 1.33 engine in her Scion and it gets a couple mpg less than my Yaris. Her car is smaller, but also has the CVT.

I think in the IQ the aerodynamics also come into play. Anyway I have no hard data on FE vis-à-vis 1.5 vs. 1.3, was just my gut feeling. I would think that in the same car the 1.3 would be slightly more efficient than the 1.5, all other things being equal.

[NYC-SE]

Kitt, a quick question...Is there any way to toggle between kilometers and miles on your odometer display? Is there any chance that your odometer is actually displaying MILES?

Looking at the range numbers you quoted 253 is not that far off from 270 IF the 253 number you see displayed is actually miles that you are mistaking for kilometers. Just a thought.

[Kitt]

Kitt, a quick question...Is there any way to toggle between kilometers and miles on your odometer display? Is there any chance that your odometer is actually displaying MILES?

Looking at the range numbers you quoted 253 is not that far off from 270 IF the 253 number you see displayed is actually miles that you are mistaking for kilometers. Just a thought.

The car display is in kilometers, I did the conversion so you can have an idea but, the raw numbers out of the odometer show kilometers, I believe there should be a way to make it show miles but it seems like it would involve reprograming of the ECU and/or combination meter.

[Kitt]

At first glance BOTH these numbers look low but in fact they really tell us very little. Until we know, EXACTLY, how many gallons of fuel were burned to go those 157 or 270 miles we can not make valid comparisons. Perhaps you're simply filling up the '15 sooner, maybe the gas gauge is not accurate, and you think it is empty when in fact it is half full, etc.

It is true that a new engine will burn a LITTLE more fuel during break-in, but the mileage numbers and range that you are reporting are very, very low. In fact they are so low that I immediately question the accuracy of the data. I am not calling you a liar, I am simply saying that these numbers have not been placed in their proper context. A car that was showing those numbers would almost certainly be displaying other signs of trouble. Yet you say it is performing normally in all other aspects, no check engine light, no rough running, etc. Correct?

The only other thing I can think of that would result in the numbers you are showing without any other performance issues would be if someone was siphoning gas out of your tank.

Do like Toyota suggested, track it over a few months and see. Make sure to use the exact amount of fuel added at the pump in your calculations. Don't guesstimate.

P.S. If anything I would expect the 1.3 engine to be more fuel efficient than the 1.5

ok, so next fill up i will write down the odometer reading and will do the math with the reading on the next fillup and keep you guys posted. I will also write down the reading on the pump and I will do my best to use the same one, so I can get the numbers as accurate as possile.

[Kar98]

Most people just reset trip 1 in the odometer when they fill up, and take note of that number every time they visit the gas station. Drive drive drive, fuel gauge starts to blink, fill up with roughly ten gallons. Divide number of miles in trip 1 display by number of gallons (usually around ten in my case), get mpg.

[Kitt]

and that is exactly what I've been doing, and I am surprised that also the FP on my old Yaris are low but it has always been like this. The only times I get it to show a higher performance is when I drive long distances

[Kitt]

Just to keep you guys posted - I was able to drive 275 km (171 mi) with a full tank. So it looks like it improved slightly, or I'll say it is still within the error margin.

[Kar98]

That's ridiculous. Something is seriously wrong either with your car or your country's fuel supply.

A full tank of gas should give you at least 320 miles (512 km) before the gauge starts flashing.

[BLKHILLSGUY]

Are you using cheap gas? Ethanol? Switch gas stations. Those discount gas stations really aren't a discount.

[Kitt]

we used to have ethanol here but later on the government decided to stop using it. We have 91 and 95 octanes here, toyota said I can use either, I am using 95, and it is not the same station. Now that I recall, I opened a thread regarding this a while ago, before I purchased the car. (http://yarisworld.com/forums/showthread.php?t=54822) In comparison, according to the specs, my first yaris weighs 2943 pounds and the new one, 3306 pounds, 363 pounds more than the old one. I was told then that it may impact slightly the fuel consumption but not this!!.

[NYC-SE]

This just does not make sense. Do you still have your old car? If so zero out your odometer and then drive somewhere a good distance away. Get that number. Then take your new car, zero out that odometer and drive the EXACT same route. Get that number. Are they the same?

If you don't have the old car try a GPS unit. Zero out the GPS distance traveled and the odometer on the new car and drive. Are the numbers the same when you stop?

I'm willing to bet your odometer is actually showing miles.

[Kitt]

yes, I'm totally agree with you. It's as weird as it sounds but both cars are set for kilometers. In fact, I use waze very often and it shows the speed and it is pretty much the same as my odometer. I have a scangauge in the old one and the speed is acurate as well.

I just took these pictures of both odometers and they both say KM/H

http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h147/snakepitmaiden/2B05C79D-6C38-4819-9A7E-8C5466F9F5DF.jpg (http://s63.photobucket.com/user/snakepitmaiden/media/2B05C79D-6C38-4819-9A7E-8C5466F9F5DF.jpg.html)
http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h147/snakepitmaiden/BD4FBBA2-6CA4-4735-844E-5C6CF68E8429.jpg (http://s63.photobucket.com/user/snakepitmaiden/media/BD4FBBA2-6CA4-4735-844E-5C6CF68E8429.jpg.html)

[Bluevitz-rs]

we used to have ethanol here but later on the government decided to stop using it. We have 91 and 95 octanes here, toyota said I can use either, I am using 95, and it is not the same station. Now that I recall, I opened a thread regarding this a while ago, before I purchased the car. (http://yarisworld.com/forums/showthread.php?t=54822) In comparison, according to the specs, my first yaris weighs 2943 pounds and the new one, 3306 pounds, 363 pounds more than the old one. I was told then that it may impact slightly the fuel consumption but not this!!.

That is the GVWR (Gross Vehicle Weight Rating) not the curb weight. They only weigh in at a bit over 2000 lbs. and the new one about 2300.

[NYC-SE]

Just to keep you guys posted - I was able to drive 275 km (171 mi) with a full tank. So it looks like it improved slightly, or I'll say it is still within the error margin.
How many gallons did you use?

[NYC-SE]

yes, I'm totally agree with you. It's as weird as it sounds but both cars are set for kilometers. In fact, I use waze very often and it shows the speed and it is pretty much the same as my odometer. I have a scangauge in the old one and the speed is acurate as well.

I just took these pictures of both odometers and they both say KM/H

http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h147/snakepitmaiden/2B05C79D-6C38-4819-9A7E-8C5466F9F5DF.jpg (http://s63.photobucket.com/user/snakepitmaiden/media/2B05C79D-6C38-4819-9A7E-8C5466F9F5DF.jpg.html)
http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h147/snakepitmaiden/BD4FBBA2-6CA4-4735-844E-5C6CF68E8429.jpg (http://s63.photobucket.com/user/snakepitmaiden/media/BD4FBBA2-6CA4-4735-844E-5C6CF68E8429.jpg.html)
That's speed. We need to verify distance. Even though pic shows km it is possible that it is inaccurate.

Granted I'm grabbing at straws but something is wrong here.

[NYC-SE]

What kind of rpms are you turning? Could transmission be stuck in a low gear?

[Kitt]

That's speed. We need to verify distance. Even though pic shows km it is possible that it is inaccurate.

Granted I'm grabbing at straws but something is wrong here.

again, there is definetly something wrong here and I was praying that it was the odometer showing miles instead of kms but.. no.

Did the test with my cellphone's gps but it is showing the same

http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h147/snakepitmaiden/F4A23D1B-730F-4F8C-9C8F-9EF191ED53E6.jpg (http://s63.photobucket.com/user/snakepitmaiden/media/F4A23D1B-730F-4F8C-9C8F-9EF191ED53E6.jpg.html)
http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h147/snakepitmaiden/F3A938FF-F6BF-4243-9644-F87CDE8DCEC7.png (http://s63.photobucket.com/user/snakepitmaiden/media/F3A938FF-F6BF-4243-9644-F87CDE8DCEC7.png.html)

What kind of rpms are you turning? Could transmission be stuck in a low gear?

I don't drive it at more than 2k, always try to maintain the eco indicator on.


How many gallons did you use?
I misplaced the paper where I wrote it down but it was about 10 gallons

That is the GVWR (Gross Vehicle Weight Rating) not the curb weight. They only weigh in at a bit over 2000 lbs. and the new one about 2300.
which is not a great difference.

It finaly got 1000 km, so I am taking it on monday to the dealer.

[IllusionX]

20mins to do 4.8km? That's major traffic. I would say it is normal to do just under 300km with a full tank with AC on.

Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk

[NYC-SE]

Yeah that does seem like heavy traffic. That might have something to do with it. If all your driving was in those conditions your MPGs would certainly be low. But I thought you said that normally you drive in moderate traffic.

Otherwise I'm at a loss. Like I said before any engine showing those numbers would almost certainly be showing other signs of trouble. With a new engine that seems unlikely.

Undetected fuel leak?

I don't know. Let Toyota figure it out but something is definitely wrong. I never saw less than 28.8 MPG and this was in heavy city traffic. Good luck.

[nortonfb]

Just a wild thought. Check your air filter for being restricted or wrong direction,
Maybe just wrong filter.

[Bluevitz-rs]

Just a wild thought. Check your air filter for being restricted or wrong direction,
Maybe just wrong filter.

A blocked air filter will only restrict power output. It has little to no effect on mileage.

I did an experiment when I worked for Toyota to simulate a mouse nest in the airbox by putting duct tape over all but 1 square inch of the filter before there was a reduction in power from a V6 Highlander. Because the mass air flow meter only reads what's going into then engine.

[Kitt]

20mins to do 4.8km? That's major traffic. I would say it is normal to do just under 300km with a full tank with AC on.

Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk

Nah, that's not my usual traffic, I got a traffic jam on the way that kept me stoped for a while.

[Kitt]

Yeah that does seem like heavy traffic. That might have something to do with it. If all your driving was in those conditions your MPGs would certainly be low. But I thought you said that normally you drive in moderate traffic.

Otherwise I'm at a loss. Like I said before any engine showing those numbers would almost certainly be showing other signs of trouble. With a new engine that seems unlikely.

Undetected fuel leak?

I don't know. Let Toyota figure it out but something is definitely wrong. I never saw less than 28.8 MPG and this was in heavy city traffic. Good luck.

Yeah, i'm taking it to the dealer tomorow. I'll let you guys know how it went

[WeeYari]

Just a question;

In this vehicle's short life, has it ever been allowed out to really stretch its legs? I mean gone out and done a good long drive, getting up to decent uninterrupted cruising speeds. Or has it done nothing but short, slow trips?

[Kitt]

Just a question;

In this vehicle's short life, has it ever been allowed out to really stretch its legs? I mean gone out and done a good long drive, getting up to decent uninterrupted cruising speeds. Or has it done nothing but short, slow trips?

Short drives for now, but I'm planning a long trip soon

[WeeYari]

Hard to properly break in a new vehicle if all it is doing since leaving the dealership is short hops.

[Kitt]

Hard to properly break in a new vehicle if all it is doing since leaving the dealership is short hops.
Not short hoops, actually I drive about 45km round trip, on a daily basis, weekends are a different story tho. But I will do a long trip soon, like I said

So I just came from the dealer and they said the timing is ok, the spark plugs wear looks normal and all the other values seem to be ok. However, they said the performance I reported is not normal. They said they will get the official fuel performance values from Toyota for that car and they will let me know. Meanwhile I should keep logging the numbers, I'll try to be as much precise as I can and I will also do a long trip to see how it goes. I did asked them to give me the test results and their comments written for further reference.

[Kitt]

So, after several tanks and a visit to the dealer, the fuel performance improved. It is doing, if not close, the same as my 2005. I know some of you guys still say that my old one's fuel consumption is still high, and I believe that this is due to the fact that my cars are 1.3l engine (2nz).

Anyhow, I am not sure if things improved due to the fact that the engine is broken in, i've done some long distance trips, or the dealer did something on the ECU, things started to improve after they "checked" it. They told me that all the values were within the parameters but I think they did something to the ECU's programing.

[NYC-SE]

Whatever the reason I'm glad to hear that the MPGs are up.