Fuel consumption: what are the real figures?

Anywhere I read a fuel consumption of 1.6L / 100km. But with a tank of 45L this would mean a range of 2800 km.
My dealer could not make clear what the real fuel consumption is.
In the Netherlands this is an item, because of a high gas price.
Does anybody know if figuures are available form Japan, where the Outlander PHEV already is available?

Does anyone know what the Outlanders PHEV's real combined fuel consumption, and efficiency is?

The Dutch brochure says this:-

Branstofverbruik ( gecombineerd) 1.9 l/100km - combined fuel consumption
Branstofverbruik in hybride modus 5.4 l/100km - combined fuel consumption in hybrid mode

Actieradius elektrisch 52 km distance in electric only mode
Actieradius elektrische en benzine 824km distance in combined electric and petrol mode.

5.4 l/100km is the same as 824 km with a 45 litre tank.

But the real point here is that it depends on how you use the PHEV. You can't compare it to a conventional petrol only gearbox-and-clutch car.

If you commute from Rotterdam to Groningen and back every day then you are looking at 5.4l/100kms, but if your commute is only within your local "bebouwde kom" and you can recharge both at work and at home then the fuel consumption is going to be very low.

For the person, like me, who will be able to use the PHEV to replace a conventional 4x4 or heavy people carrier, the difference for short journeys will be dramatic. My current Renault Espace with a 3.5 l V6 is surprisingly frugal on long journeys - 10l/100km - but on short trips where the engine never gets hot it is a real guzzler. Replacing my Espace with a PHEV should allow me to nearly halve the consumption on long journeys but on the short trips the improvement should be dramatic.

The real point about a hybrid is this: An internal combustion engine (ICE) has no power and no torque at zero revs. The electric motor on the other hand has maximum torque at zero revs. For the last century we have used the ICE because of the available of an easily transportable high energy-density fuel, namely petrol ( or diesel) and the poor energy densities available with batteries.

If a motor car only had to drive along the highway at 120kms an hour and do nothing else then the car designers could have optimised the ICE to have its maximum efficiency at that speed. Unfortunately we have to somehow get up to 120kms/hr from zero with an engine that has no power or torque at low revs. So to overcome that the car designers produced gearboxes, clutches and torque converters; and tuned the engine for performance over a broad range of revs, instead of efficiency at one speed.

What Mitsubishi have done with the PHEV is tune an ICE for maximum efficiency at one speed -highway speed - and then they have used electric motors, batteries and generators to cover for the ICE's weaknesses, instead of using gearboxes and clutches. When petrol cost 35 US cents a US gallon ( 1970) there wasn't any benefit in doing this, but today with the price of fuel where it is and the commitments of governments to reduce carbon dioxide emission the cost/benefit equation looks very different.

The PHEV allows you to do this:-

Charge the batteries when the car is not in use and then for short journeys not use any petrol at all. A real 0l/100kms.

If your journey is maybe 100kms but consists of a lot of low speed start-stop driving then instead of letting the engine run continuously you only use the battery and electric motor as is needed. No wasteful using the ICE motor when its not needed. Only when the batteries are running low does the ICE start up and run at optimum efficiency to recharge the batteries.

Once on the highway at 120km/hour the ICE then comes into action to drive the car along at the optimum efficiency of the ICE. If acceleration is needed then the electric motors kick in to compensate for the lack of a gearbox. When slowing down the batteries can convert the excess kinetic energy back into battery power instead of wasted heat on the disc brakes.

The principles that Mitsubishi are using are thoroughly sound and the improvements they are promising seem perfectly reasonable. Its not magic, its solid engineering and I am sure that there are many automotive engineers who would like to do the same thing but are prevented from doing so by conservative management.

Of course in the winter fuel will be needed to heat the passenger compartment. I doubt that at this stage Mitsubishi are running the air-conditioning unit as an inverter, but I am sure that will come in the not too distant future.

Whether it is right for you depends very much on how you would use it.

It's 1.9 L PLUS 13.4 kWh per 100 kilometers!
The 827 kilometer (some sources claim 824 kms) combined range consists of 52 electric powered kms plus 775 gasoline only kms. 45 L : 7.75 = ~ 5.8 L per 100 kms (hybrid mode only consumption/no external battery charge).
If you do 1/3 of your travel in hybrid mode -and- 2/3 in full electric mode, you might get anywhere close to that 1.9 L value (resulting number of the ECE Norm R 101 formula)
Now, I was able to get 6.7 L / 100 km in winter (ca. 4ºC) and partly alpine terrain in hybrid mode only (no external battery charge). In addition to ~ 4 kWh / 100 kms electrical energy from external charging I got 5.5 L / 100 km. This was the overall measured result after 1714 kilometers in a temperature range of - 18ºC up to + 6ºC. You can call up the detailed results on http://www.spritmonitor.de
I'm pretty sure these values can be significantly improved at warmer temperatures.
In EV-drive you're looking at a consumption in the vicinity of 20 kWh.
My winter EV drive only figures so far were 44 kms in fairly flat terrain and 39 kms
covering a hill with a vertical gain/drop of 400 meters.
These numbers have been achieved with pretty efficient driving (hypermiling).
Non efficient driving might increase the consumption by > 60%!
Always keep in mind: SPEED kills RANGE!

I can't find any figures for running the ICE to charge the battery but without driving, e.g. idling in services.

I also can't find any figures (wood for trees?) for how fast the drive battery charges from "notional empty" when in Battery Charge mode in the more normal scenario of driving forward.

I am not suggesting that charging when idling would be time efficient or cost efficient or emissions-efficient ..... but how does one know w/o any figures?

Common sense (ha ha ha) suggests that idling the engine is much less load than pushing 2 tonnes up a hill @ 50mph / 80km/hr.
Does the lower idling load improve the charge rate vs when driving, or simply use less fuel ?

tim said:

I can't find any figures for running the ICE to charge the battery but without driving, e.g. idling in services.

I also can't find any figures (wood for trees?) for how fast the drive battery charges from "notional empty" when in Battery Charge mode in the more normal scenario of driving forward.

I am not suggesting that charging when idling would be time efficient or cost efficient or emissions-efficient ..... but how does one know w/o any figures?

Common sense (ha ha ha) suggests that idling the engine is much less load than pushing 2 tonnes up a hill @ 50mph / 80km/hr.
Does the lower idling load improve the charge rate vs when driving, or simply use less fuel ?

Click to expand...

running the engine specifically to charge the battery seems to make little sense - you are simply adding the losses inherent in the battery to the overall energy budget. If you know that you've got some heavy duty motoring coming up such as a lot of hill climbing or towing that will benefit from the dual energy sources, then it may make sense to charge the batteries from the engine while in motion, but otherwise it seems to make most sense to use up your charge, then run in serial hybrid until you get near a charging point.

I can't find any figures for running the ICE to charge the battery but without driving, e.g. idling in services

Click to expand...

Why on earth would you want to do this? :?

maddogsetc said:

I can't find any figures for running the ICE to charge the battery but without driving, e.g. idling in services

Click to expand...

Why on earth would you want to do this? :?

Click to expand...

I thought I clearly acknowledged 3 reasons why I might not
And certainly didn't say I did want to.
This whole forum represents a quest to understand more, I'm just intrigued where on the equation this lies.

maby said:

running the engine specifically to charge the battery seems to make little sense - you are simply adding the losses inherent in the battery to the overall energy budget. If you know that you've got some heavy duty motoring coming up such as a lot of hill climbing or towing that will benefit from the dual energy sources, then it may make sense to charge the batteries from the engine while in motion, but otherwise it seems to make most sense to use up your charge, then run in serial hybrid until you get near a charging point.

Click to expand...

I agree that "it seems to make most sense".
I was looking for data about it.
I'm not an engineer and there are many parts of the energy equation which defy logic.
So just looking to clarify it in pounds & pence, and in emissions.

I thought I clearly acknowledged 3 reasons why I might not
And certainly didn't say I did want to.
This whole forum represents a quest to understand more, I'm just intrigued where on the equation this lies.

Click to expand...

Don't think you are likely to find any data on this - if you really want to know I guess you could try it yourself and find out

I was going to say there are no situations where it would offer any advantage but I have just thought of one ie. if for some reason you found yourself at the foot of a mountainous drive with no charge available, maybe with a caravan attached. Then I guess you might want to sit at the bottom and top the battery up at idle before tackling the climb.

Ok.. If I understand the question, I think I know the answer... It takes 3 litres to charge from 'empty' to 80% using the ICE. I'm not sure how long, but I think it's about 40 minutes, but I can't see that being right as that would mean there's one hell of an alternator on board...

thegurio said:

..It takes 3 litres to charge from 'empty' to 80% using the ICE....

Click to expand...

That is better efficiency than I had feared. If you normally get, say, 20 miles from a 100% charge, the 3 litre to 80% charge "costs" 24 mpg.
Not something to use every day, but if you have to go into a low emissions zone and have no other method to charge the car.....

Kev.

BeerHunter said:

thegurio said:

..It takes 3 litres to charge from 'empty' to 80% using the ICE....

Click to expand...

That is better efficiency than I had feared. If you normally get, say, 20 miles from a 100% charge, the 3 litre to 80% charge "costs" 24 mpg.
Not something to use every day, but if you have to go into a low emissions zone and have no other method to charge the car.....

Kev.

Click to expand...

You are the second person that has mentioned this - are there any "Low Emissions Zones" that actually measure the output of your vehicle? I travel in London (and was involved in the development and implementation of the London LEZ) - it is not policed - it just depends on the emissions data drawn from the DVLA database for each vehicle. When our Outlander arrives, I anticipate driving into London occasionally - I will not be too concerned whether or not I have charge to operate as an EV while I'm there - the DVLA listing will be enough to justify my claim for exemption.

maby,

There are more and more LEZs appearing all the time. Check out http://urbanaccessregulations.eu/
However, I agree they are not normally well policed at the moment. It can only be a matter of time before they are!

Kev.

maddogsetc said:

Don't think you are likely to find any data on this - if you really want to know I guess you could try it yourself and find out

Click to expand...

True. If I get bored or profligate !
It will be difficult to measure how much fuel used for what output.
So at best inconclusive.

It takes 3 litres to charge from 'empty' to 80% using the ICE. I'm not sure how long, but I think it's about 40 minutes

Click to expand...

Where did you get that data from Gurio? And is that 40 minutes at idle, or 40 minutes whilst on the move?

but I can't see that being right as that would mean there's one hell of an alternator on board

Click to expand...

It does seem very fast - almost rapid-charger speed? Although, to be fair, the motors are the 'alternator' so perhaps it's not as daft as it sounds?

maddogsetc said:

It takes 3 litres to charge from 'empty' to 80% using the ICE. I'm not sure how long, but I think it's about 40 minutes

Click to expand...

Where did you get that data from Gurio? And is that 40 minutes at idle, or 40 minutes whilst on the move?

Click to expand...

I think the specs even says 30 mins to 80%, It will be the fastest while stationary or low speeds and take longer at highway speeds.

maddogsetc said:

but I can't see that being right as that would mean there's one hell of an alternator on board

Click to expand...

It does seem very fast - almost rapid-charger speed? Although, to be fair, the motors are the 'alternator' so perhaps it's not as daft as it sounds?

Click to expand...

Yup, 82 kw worth of "alternator", thats what the petrol motor is for, generate power...

the motors are the 'alternator' so perhaps it's not as daft as it sounds?

Click to expand...

Yup, 82 kw worth of "alternator", thats what the petrol motor is for, generate power...

Click to expand...

I'm talking gibberish of course, the motors only generate power through regen braking. Fragge is quite correct - the petrol engine's primary purpose is to power the generator, which is a hefty bit of kit as you can see in this thread: http://www.myoutlanderphev.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=129

maddogsetc said:

It takes 3 litres to charge from 'empty' to 80% using the ICE. I'm not sure how long, but I think it's about 40 minutes

Click to expand...

Where did you get that data from Gurio? And is that 40 minutes at idle, or 40 minutes whilst on the move?

but I can't see that being right as that would mean there's one hell of an alternator on board

Click to expand...

It does seem very fast - almost rapid-charger speed? Although, to be fair, the motors are the 'alternator' so perhaps it's not as daft as it sounds?

Click to expand...

I got it from the dealer, who got it from the training course they did a few weeks earlier. I may not have the time 100% right! but I definitely remember the litres.

Keep in mind that using 3 litres of petrol to charge the battery is an expensive way to do it. There is no reason to use the CHARGE mode unless you really have to.