31.2 mpg on a chill night, how did I do?

A “nearly” chill night during hot Texas summer, over 30 miles local drive, a/c set at 68F, photo took at 28.2 milestone with 31.2 mpg (lil downhill just for a good number).
This baby is fairly new with 170 miles in total, obviously haven't properly break in.
Hope this gives my fellow cruisers some confident boost on the fuel economy.

abt said:

A “nearly” chill night during hot Texas summer, over 30 miles local drive, a/c set at 68F, photo took at 28.2 milestone with 31.2 mpg (lil downhill just for a good number).
This baby is fairly new with 170 miles in total, obviously haven't properly break in.
Hope this gives my fellow cruisers some confident boost on the fuel economy.
View attachment 8091

Click to expand...

I am curious how you changed your dash background to that photo? Or is that the front facing camera? Haven't figured out how to change the background yet on mine.

davidtxhc said:

I am curious how you changed your dash background to that photo? Or is that the front facing camera? Haven't figured out how to change the background yet on mine.

Click to expand...

I forgot where exactly it is in the menu system, but you can customize your gauges. There are different layouts and themes. Sorry for the not great picture, but this is an example of the style I use most often.

abt said:

A “nearly” chill night during hot Texas summer, over 30 miles local drive, a/c set at 68F, photo took at 28.2 milestone with 31.2 mpg (lil downhill just for a good number).
This baby is fairly new with 170 miles in total, obviously haven't properly break in.
Hope this gives my fellow cruisers some confident boost on the fuel economy.
View attachment 8091

Click to expand...

Are you on the ECO mode? I kind of wonder what will be the fuel efficiency between ECO and NORMAL mode?

abt said:

A “nearly” chill night during hot Texas summer, over 30 miles local drive, a/c set at 68F, photo took at 28.2 milestone with 31.2 mpg (lil downhill just for a good number).
This baby is fairly new with 170 miles in total, obviously haven't properly break in.
Hope this gives my fellow cruisers some confident boost on the fuel economy.
View attachment 8091

Click to expand...

I am really curious how you got 31mpg - I have never gotten better than the low 20s and that is when I am mostly going downhill.

davidtxhc said:

I am curious how you changed your dash background to that photo? Or is that the front facing camera? Haven't figured out how to change the background yet on mine.

Click to expand...

The gauge selection settings are found in the center display area right behind the steering wheel. Just hold the "OK" button until that screen becomes selectable, then go to "Settings." Press the "OK" button and scroll down to select "Meter Settings." Press the "OK" button again and scroll down to "Meter Type." Press the "OK" button one more time and you can choose from 3 different types of gauges you want displayed.

KurtW said:

I am really curious how you got 31mpg - I have never gotten better than the low 20s and that is when I am mostly going downhill.

Click to expand...

When we brought our Blue LC back from Arizona, we gassed up in Heber, AZ and, on the 43-mile drive to Holbrook, AZ, averaged 31 mpgs. It was a 2-lane, 65 mph road with no traffic and little up and down terrain. BUT, Heber is at 6,667' elevation and Holbrook is at 5,027'. Even gentle drops in elevation can really make a big difference.

Colorado said:

When we brought our Blue LC back from Arizona, we gassed up in Heber, AZ and, on the 43-mile drive to Holbrook, AZ, averaged 31 mpgs. It was a 2-lane, 65 mph road with no traffic and little up and down terrain. BUT, Heber is at 6,667' elevation and Holbrook is at 5,027'. Even gentle drops in elevation can really make a big difference.

Click to expand...

I expect altitude will make a difference in fuel economy. While the turbo boost will compensate somewhat for the lower air density, the drag of a vehicle is proportional to air density. At sea level on a standard day the air density is 1.23 kg/m^3. At 2,000 m (6562'), the value drops to 1.01 kg/m^3, 82% of the value at sea level. The drag will decrease at the same rate (82% of the sea level value at the same speed). I've noticed this with my RDX - we always get substantially better fuel economy at altitude than we do in St. Louis (466' above sea level.)

Drag is also proportional to the speed squared. So, doubling your speed from 35 mph to 70 mph will quadruple the drag. It's one of the reasons why we get such poor mpg when moving our brick at a speed of 70-80 mph.

The relationship between our speed and mpg is not linear. So, even though we have less drag at altitude, the performance of the engine also varies with altitude (even with a turbocharger.) Somewhere an engineer at Toyota probably has a graph that shows the speed for maximum range (mpg) vs. altitude.