Sienna a bit optimistic

[touringcamry]

It was even higher at the end of the trip.

Computer showed 33 MPG avg.

+16% compared to calculation based on what I filled and miles driven which came out to 28.5 MPG.

That was 5.6% above sticker rating (pre-2008 rating) of 27 MPG.

[RningOnFumes]

The way I see it, those numbers are hopefull at best. Even with my SG, I might be off by 2 to 5 mpg. It works great for the manufacturer because not many people will actually check the real numbers against what's up in the reading. And most people will be happy about it.

[gameguru1360]

Originally Posted by touringcamry

It was even higher at the end of the trip.

Computer showed 33 MPG avg.

+16% compared to calculation based on what I filled and miles driven which came out to 28.5 MPG.

That was 5.6% above sticker rating (pre-2008 rating) of 27 MPG.

did you use a fuel or oil additive to make it that high?? I've been using Marvel's Mystery oil only in the gas tank and have noticed a 1-2mpg increase. I've only used maybe about 8-16oz in the oil crankcase in between oil changes and the only thing I have noticed is that the engine does sound quieter and a bit smoother.

[touringcamry]

Originally Posted by gameguru1360

did you use a fuel or oil additive to make it that high?? I've been using Marvel's Mystery oil only in the gas tank and have noticed a 1-2mpg increase. I've only used maybe about 8-16oz in the oil crankcase in between oil changes and the only thing I have noticed is that the engine does sound quieter and a bit smoother.

Nothing has been done to the vehicle other than regular maintenance. Oil is whatever the dealer uses -- my mom bought the prepaid maintenance when she bought the vehicle.

I did a two drain and refills on the transmission around 42000 miles along with a radiator drain and refill, but that was it. These were premature, but I figured it couldn't hurt.

I use the Chevron Progard stuff maybe one a year, but that's about it really.

[htwo]

Add a high flow drop-in air filter. It's a good value for the money (about $30). I've noticed mileage increases on all my vehicles, but I rarely exceed 65mph - by choice. With the 5 speed you can better control the car, and thus get decent mileage, especially when compared to a similar auto unit. Good going!!

[worthywads]

EPA studies say even a filthy air filter doesn't decrease fuel economy, K&N says no increase either.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/pdfs/...02_26_2009.pdf

[htwo]

EPA tests their vehicles indoors. Which I think is wrong right there.

Everyone's version of dirty, or filthy is different. I used to change my air filter every oil change, for $4 it was good assurance and you can't go wrong. A higher flowing air filter can help at higher speed and rpm. EPA don't test for performance in vehicles, only best mileage - which is low rpm driving, so no, they won't notice better mileage at low rpm with a dirty air filter as the engine only sucks in as much air as it needs.

[worthywads]

Originally Posted by htwo

EPA tests their vehicles indoors. Which I think is wrong right there.

Everyone's version of dirty, or filthy is different. I used to change my air filter every oil change, for $4 it was good assurance and you can't go wrong. A higher flowing air filter can help at higher speed and rpm. EPA don't test for performance in vehicles, only best mileage - which is low rpm driving, so no, they won't notice better mileage at low rpm with a dirty air filter as the engine only sucks in as much air as it needs.

You obviously didn't even read the DOE study. Explain why testing vehicles indoors is wrong?, it's the only way to eliminate variability.

Where did you read that the DOE didn't test at higher speeds or rpm?, not this study, are you just making shit up? They did full throttle tests to 85 mph. They found that dirty filters reduce performance but had no effect on mpg. Carbureted vehicles yes, fuel injected NO.

"Wide-open throttle (WOT) tests were used to measure the changes in the filter pressure drop (Outlet DP). In a real-world application, the vacuum needed to set one of the air filter indicators would likely occur under heavy acceleration, such as merging onto an interstate, or climbing a steep grade. Therefore the level of restriction was set, using an artificial clogging technique described below, to achieve the desired Outlet DP during a WOT acceleration from idle to approximately 85 mph or a steady-speed (SS) WOT test in which the dynamometer was held at a fixed speed, 65 mph, and the throttle was held open for 10 seconds."

Hardly the low rpm claim you made up.

Changing you air filter every oil change is simply a waste of money if you expect to get improved mpg as a result. The epa correctly came up with specific definitions of degrees of clogged filter for comparison purposes, is that wrong right there too? For maximum power change a dirty air filter.

Here is direct from the K&N website:

http://www.knfilters.com/faq.htm

"We certainly understand why it is theoretically possible for a consumer to experience a mileage increase after installing a K&N air filter or intake system, however, we do not go so far as to make a general claim that our air filters and intake systems will provide an increase in mileage."

If they could do tests to show improvements they would, but the DOE concluded pretty convincingly that air filters don't improve or harm fuel economy.

[htwo]

You can believe what you want. I'm just stating what I read last fall, of which, was also published in a major automotive magazine (C&D I believe it was). Besides, the DOE doesn't apply where I live, USA only. Canada has similar tests but mileage is different as L/100km is more precise than MPG. The EPA should apply a GAL/100miles instead, as it would be more precise than MPG, but since people don't like change, I doubt that would happen unless the country votes on it.

If you take a towel, roll it up and stuff it into your air box, I guarantee that your mileage will plummet, if the vehicle can even hold idle. Yes, a towel is essentially thicker than your average air filter cellulose material. I used one on my '04 Jeep Wrangler when my airbox broke off (snorkel type), did a great job of keeping crap out, but mileage was terrible - lucky to get 14mpg on the highway staying under 90km/h. At that speed I get close to 20 with a higher flow unit installed. I'm sure vehicle tuning also plays a role in air movement as well, but that's another story.

[worthywads]

^

Oh brother!, science doesn't cross national borders in your world? Where is C&D published, it may not apply in Canada either.

There is nothing more precise about L/100km over mpg, it may be more useful but precision doesn't factor in. How is the inverse times 100 more precise.

Obviously at some level of restriction the engine won't run, but the DOE study didn't find that point where it reduced mpg, or L/100km if they chose to express fuel economy as such.

[htwo]

Science? What's that? No, not everything published in US tabloids works here, there are always changes, especially grammar. Canadians don't like science, take a look back at the Avro Arrow project for instance. Our wonderful government scrapped that awesome project and the engineers all moved south of the border to work for NASA. Go figure.

L/100km is more precise, as much as I prefer the US method, I will admit that the Metric system isn't the best, but for a couple things, it makes sense. MPG doesn't use anything beyond a decimal, if it did, then it would be as precise. Some things irk me, like knowing my one car is 4963.16mm long, or as I prefer - 195.4".

We all know Canadian auto magazines such as Automobile, and another one that I made the mistake of subscribing too that I can't remember, are more horrid than anything. My kids' colouring books are a better read. For the price of C&D, and/or MotorTrend, it's more than worth while to get updates about new and upcoming vehicles. They even have their own Canadian offices in London, Ontario!

Still, the article on the EPA that was published was a good read. If I can find the link I'll post it up.

[worthywads]

^

If you'd actually read the DOE study you'd see that they used shop rags similar to what you suggested to simulate dirty filters and even increasing them to the point of noticeable driveability the fuel injected vehicle showed no significant reduction in fuel economy.

And you can't get more precise than the outputs of the odometer and pump volume. My pump gives me gallons to 3 digits I assume your pumps gives imperial gallons to 3 decimals or liters to 3 decimals? My odometer miles to 1 decimal, I assume yours gives kilometers to 1 decimal. We both deal with 4 significant digits so I can comfortably publish my mpg to 2 decimal points, and you can express to 3 decimal points with L/100km, but 4 significant digits is equally precise. Sure if you pump tells you liters it is technically to 1/10 of a smaller volume and kilometers are shorter than miles so I'll give you that it could be more precise.

Of course if your pump goes to 2 decimals I take that back.

[htwo]

Yes, but the EPA doesn't publish MPG with decimal points, they just round it off, where as L/100km is published to one decimal point making it more precise. All pumps go to three decimal points, I'm sure once the penny is abolished and the five cent piece becomes the norm, people will be screaming even more then.

[worthywads]

Originally Posted by htwo

Yes, but the EPA doesn't publish MPG with decimal points, they just round it off, where as L/100km is published to one decimal point making it more precise. All pumps go to three decimal points, I'm sure once the penny is abolished and the five cent piece becomes the norm, people will be screaming even more then.

I see, you are saying for example my Tacoma US rating is 20/27 mpg but 11.5/8.0 L/100km. So a Prius US 48/45 and Canuck is 4.0/4.2......... same precision.

I can't believe we still stamp pennies. Then I rarely use cash.

[htwo]

Prius was just rear ended by an F150 on my way back from a lunch outing today. Prius was more or less a write off, bumper was pushed into the back seat of the car...it didn't look nice.

Do you have the 5 speed in the Taco? I was considering one to replace my AWD Durango now that I sold my 27' TT and really don't need the big V8. I looked at the GM 1500 but to get the crew cab I gotta get a V8, so I decided to keep the Durango for the time being. Toyota wants $34K for a base 2.7L FWD Highlander, which for that money I can get something similar for a lot less dough.

I believe it's either New Zealand or Austrailia that no longer uses the penny. It costs what, three cents of our taxpaying money to make a penny these days. Goods are obviously rounded to the nearest 5cents if paying cash, but I assume it still exists for electronic banking.