I told Toyota via my Quality Review on a screen to better understand and maybe manage the battery charging and use. I know in a Jeep Cherokee Hybrid, the user can determine using software how the battery is charged and I think used as well.
Only getting 17mpg
- Thread starter imbynee
- Start date
Once again, and it’s been said numerous times before, the hybrid system is not for economy. It is to compensate for the loss of horsepower and torque due to utilizing a four-cylinder engine. The only reason the electric motor is there is to boost the torque and the horsepower. No matter how you drive.m you are not gonna drive on battery with this thing unless you’re under 20 miles an hour or so. Sure the engine may shut down when you’re coasting or going downhill but for the most part you’re gonna be utilizing the four-cylinder turbo for 95% of your driving.
Well yes, but if that's the case they needed to give it a larger fuel tank. They gave it a tank that only makes sense if it gets pretty good (>20) mpg. Only really makes sense at >22 MPG.
The GX has a bigger fuel tank but worse mileage. Range about the same. It’s a wash.
I think many of us are still not used to the more recent trend of using turbochargers to maintain torque output when replacing a larger-displacement engine with a smaller engine in search of improved fuel economy. That better efficiency is achieved on paper but hard to replicate in real life - i.e., in many driving scenarios, it's hard to stay off boost (i.e., not use the turbo) and operate using only the 2.4L's natural output.
The highway rating is easy to achieve. The city (and thus the combined) is a challenge since most stop & go scenarios are going to cause you to apply enough throttle to involve the turbo, which then greatly accelerates fuel usage. If you instead can be very gentle with the throttle application, you'll notice much better mpg - but most of us don't have the patience for that.
Next time you're on the interstate, set the cruise to 75, drive mode to ECO, and alternate between watching the boost gauge and the real-time mpg gauge. On flat terrain, the engine will be running at about 1800 rpm, the turbo boost will be at 0, and the real-time mpg will be in excess of 30. On a downhill section, the mpg will spike up to the display's max of 60. On an uphill grade, you'll notice that the turbo comes on boost and the mpg declines sharply. But, assuming your trip doesn't involve a sustained climb in elevation, you'll be able to maintain 75 and average 24-25mpg.
My former LC ('02 100 series) struggled to maintain 14mpg on the highway. This '24 model has significantly better fuel efficiency and real-world acceleration.
The highway rating is easy to achieve. The city (and thus the combined) is a challenge since most stop & go scenarios are going to cause you to apply enough throttle to involve the turbo, which then greatly accelerates fuel usage. If you instead can be very gentle with the throttle application, you'll notice much better mpg - but most of us don't have the patience for that.
Next time you're on the interstate, set the cruise to 75, drive mode to ECO, and alternate between watching the boost gauge and the real-time mpg gauge. On flat terrain, the engine will be running at about 1800 rpm, the turbo boost will be at 0, and the real-time mpg will be in excess of 30. On a downhill section, the mpg will spike up to the display's max of 60. On an uphill grade, you'll notice that the turbo comes on boost and the mpg declines sharply. But, assuming your trip doesn't involve a sustained climb in elevation, you'll be able to maintain 75 and average 24-25mpg.
My former LC ('02 100 series) struggled to maintain 14mpg on the highway. This '24 model has significantly better fuel efficiency and real-world acceleration.
I'd say it's designed - as is the boost from the electric motor - to produce the low-range torque needed for climbing hills, maintaining traction, etc.
Without the electric motor, the 2.4 produces ~320lb ft of torque which is similar to that produced by the outgoing 4.6L V8 in the prior GX. You can't achieve anything close to that with a naturally aspirated 4-cyl engine. And the 2.4 turbo produces that torque peak at a much lower point in the rev range than the old GX's peak at 3500rpm. Note that with the electric motor, the new LC's 465 torque peak occurs at only 1700rpm. I'd say that's a good thing.
Without the electric motor, the 2.4 produces ~320lb ft of torque which is similar to that produced by the outgoing 4.6L V8 in the prior GX. You can't achieve anything close to that with a naturally aspirated 4-cyl engine. And the 2.4 turbo produces that torque peak at a much lower point in the rev range than the old GX's peak at 3500rpm. Note that with the electric motor, the new LC's 465 torque peak occurs at only 1700rpm. I'd say that's a good thing.
Some of us have low mileage issue and its not how we drive. Ive tried ALL the tricks mentioned. Super conservative, etc. still getting 17mpg. Freeway, city, soft foot, doesnt matter.
Never seen even 20 .
I think us in the 17 club have a issue. Programing, something else? Dont know.
Never seen even 20 .
I think us in the 17 club have a issue. Programing, something else? Dont know.
Looks a bit more like the farkle distribution to me...tic (tongue in cheek)
Yea ive picked up same mpg distribution from reading threads. Roughly 25% about 17 and rest about low 20’s.
havnt seen a correlation to geographic region, driving habits, etc.
people mostly got 20’s right off the bat or 17ish.
Could be programing or could be some aspect not properly engaging.
I'm a little suspicious that the turbo is less fuel efficient at higher elevation. (I have 0 data to back this up)
Could be. But Im at sea level. I even did some all freeway trips and no change 17.
Im leaning toward a programing issue with battery v engine.
Dont know how to check. The dealer is useless
Im leaning toward a programing issue with battery v engine.
Dont know how to check. The dealer is useless
How much the turbo is getting used during your normal driving?
I noticed huge MPG swings with absolutely minimal change on the gas pedal.
I try hard to keep the turbo down to zero as possible.
I am not sure I agree with that. 4 cylinder turbo (without the hybrid) has the same output as the outgoing V6. So the hybrid is not there for the loss of horsepower and torque, as there is no loss with respect to a realistic alternative. They were never going to put a turbo V6 or a V8.
Tacoma hybrid also gets 3/1 MPG boost in city/highway compared to turbo non-hybrid version. You can definitely go full electric at speeds much higher than 20 MPH for a reasonable time. There are also many non-driving related efficiency improvements from the hybrid system, such as turning the engine completely off while coasting going downhill and recovering the energy for running the AC compressor and car electronics from that energy. Basically any energy recovered during breaking is a net positive, as in a non-hybrid 100% of that energy is lost.
Yeah but the engine would be idling under those conditions on a non-hybrid as well. With hybrid, that energy is not wasted and used to charge the battery. On traditional Toyota hybrids, this is taken a step further and the engine stays at a rather high RPM even when complete stops since engine is more efficient at those RPMs.
I am not sure if they implemented this in the LC. But on regular Toyota hybrids, putting where you are going to the navigation improves MPG as the hybrid controller adjust charging/driving based on elevation change, traffic and historic driving data. Like if there is a long downslope section on the navigation path, it will drive the electric motor more before the downslope so that the battery has more capacity to charge with regenerative breaking.
People who get bad MPG should try putting in where they are going to the navigation to see if it helps.
People who get bad MPG should try putting in where they are going to the navigation to see if it helps.
Last edited:
Non-hybrid turbo produces ~325lb-ft around 1500 RPM, much earlier than the 4.6L V8.
Could the ethanol percentage factor into the mix. California uses what 10.68 percent while Texas is 10 percent. Of course those are max amounts and they could be less. I know If I use e85, which is a big difference, I get considerably less mpg. I could see that changing from 17 to 22 but .68 percent shouldn't be that much of a mpg drop.
I’m gonna say something controversial. It’s just anecdotal, obviously, but I filled up with shell gasoline 91 octane that’s as high as I could get premium …since I have got this LC. Slowly, my gas has improved as I got closer to 1200 miles on odometer from 17 to 19 a couple of times 20 MPG (briefly). I was running an errand in a different town and I filled up there. Phillip 66, 93 prem, it wasn’t until my second fill with the 93 that I noticed on the receipt it said 10% ethanol. So I considered that I shouldn’t use that again, and I filled back up with Shell 91 this week... the anecdotal thing that I have noticed even though it doesn’t probably make sense is that even with the E10 in the 93 octane I was getting around 21 and once I got 22 when I had filled up two times in a row with that, not briefly, but I was averaging that. And now I am back down to 20.l average- Like I said this is a statement that could be completely off that could be right on, but it makes me think about whether or not the octane value matters? With or without ethanol?
Similar threads
