Wrapper

My Camry with an I-4 automatic was rated at 25/31, and I routinely got
27/28 around town and the aforementioned 40+ on the highway when I took
it easy, upper 30s otherwise. Your mileage should improve to better
than you are getting now.


ns wrote:[color=blue]
> OK, my mistake: I fell into the same trap (almost) as those space craft
> designers - in Canada, the gallon is 5 quarts, not 4 as is in the US
> (duh!).
> So, the quoted 40/50 is based on the British (and Canadian) definition
> of a gallon.
> My calculation was based on the US version (3.78 litres/gallon), so teh
> 38.5 mpg is actually very good for an engine that is sitting @ 1,500
> km, and is meshed with an automatic transmission.
>
> Thanks for paying attention to the 'fine' detail - it is not the first
> time this has happened (anyone remembers the Gimly glider?).
>
>
> Mark wrote:[color=green]
> > EPA ratings are 34/40 for the manual and 34/39 with an automatic, so it
> > seems you are doing OK. 50 mpg seems a little optimistic, although I
> > was personally able to get well over 40 mpg out of my 1987 Camry on the
> > highway if I took it easy (a bigger and heavier car at 2800 lbs vs.
> > 2300 for the Yaris). So it seems we haven't come very far in 20 years
> > at all.
> >
> > [url]http://www.automedia.com/2007/Toyota/Yaris/dsm20060501ty/1/[/url]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ns wrote:[color=darkred]
> > > Don Fearn wrote:
> > > > I think it was "Mark" <bogusmailmark@yahoo.com> who stated:
> > > >
> > > > >ns wrote:
> > > > >> Yes, 'brown' fuse is blown fuse - lol.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> As promised, I have the initial long distance/highway consumption
> > > > >> results: 6.1 L/100 km (or 38.5 mpg) - not even close to the
> > > > >> 'advertised' 40 (city)/50 (highway) mpg, and I didn't floor it at all
> > > > >> (not a lead foot). My only hope is that these are initial numbers and
> > > > >> will improve with time.
> > > >
> > > > You can count on that. As an engine is broken in, its mileage
> > > > typically improves. My xB certainly did; from 27 mpg for its first
> > > > five or so tankfuls to about 33-35 mpg for its mileage over this
> > > > summer. It still might not reach the advertised mileage, though; they
> > > > are usually pretty optimistic.
> > > >
> > > > [FIXED the post positioning]
> > > >
> > > > >100 km is not nearly far enough to measure the mileage accurately. At
> > > > >least run a full tank of gas and let us know.
> > > >
> > > > I don't believe that ns meant he only went 100 km. The "6.1 L/100 km"
> > > > is an expression of mileage, not an expression of distance traveled.
> > > >
> > > > -Don
> > > >
> > >
> > > Don, you are correct: we drove close to 1,500 km. The 6.1 L/100 km is
> > > the equivalent expression of 38.5 mpg.
> > > I sure hope that this figure will improve. I'm aware of the rosy lenses
> > > the EPA (or in our case, Transport Canada) and the manufacturer are
> > > wearing when they tout these numbers (no accessories switched on,
> > > windows closed, DRL disabled - I'm familiar with all those tricks).[/color][/color][/color]