Page 3 of 3

Re: Fuel economy at highway speed phev vs ice model

Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2023 4:29 pm
by nrayanov
Hasenphever wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 7:21 am See the first post in this thread.
See my other comments in this thread to get the whole picture.

Re: Fuel economy at highway speed phev vs ice model

Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2023 10:38 am
by Hasenphever
nrayanov wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 4:29 pm
Hasenphever wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 7:21 am See the first post in this thread.
See my other comments in this thread to get the whole picture.
I did, and thanked you for those comments. You indicated you could provide more insight with the actual numbers. For ease of reference they are:
2023 Outlander ICE gets 7.9 litres per 100km, PHEV gets 8.7. (delta PHEV is +0.8 l/100km)
2023 Rav 4 ICE gets 6.9 litres per 100km , Rav 4 PHEV gets 6.4, (delta PHEV is -0.5 l/100km)

So far I've concluded that the presence of a transmission is more efficient in transferring power than the ICE acting as a generator for the battery and then transferring to the motor(s). The presence of a transmission also aids the RAV4 PHEV in the ability to go into parallel mode more often than the Outlander PHEV, widening the gap in the delta between PHEV and ICE on the respective platforms.

Re: Fuel economy at highway speed phev vs ice model

Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2023 1:37 am
by malindarayy
Congratulations, first of all, and I'm also new here, but after reading the responses, I know I have come to the right place. Everyone is supportive and shares their experience. Looking forward to gaining more knowledge here.

Re: Fuel economy at highway speed phev vs ice model

Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2023 5:19 pm
by nrayanov
Hasenphever wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 10:38 am So far I've concluded that the presence of a transmission is more efficient in transferring power than the ICE acting as a generator for the battery and then transferring to the motor(s). The presence of a transmission also aids the RAV4 PHEV in the ability to go into parallel mode more often than the Outlander PHEV, widening the gap in the delta between PHEV and ICE on the respective platforms.
The focus of these vehicles is totally different. Hence the different fuel economy figures.

Toyota is electrifying a gas-powered vehicle by making it more sustainable.
Mitsubishi is building an electric vehicle with a gas-powered generator on board.

The Toyota RAV4 Prime is more efficient, it's also smaller and lighter, and well, faster from 0 to 100 km.
I'm worried Toyota might have issues with the RAV4 Prime batteries when they start aging if their consumers travel a lot with depleted batteries, because of the constant on and off of the ICE thanks to the eCVT. Not blaming the eCVT, I think it's a great concept, it's the batteries that need to improve and catch up.
I have tested the Toyota RAV4 Prime and liked it, apart from the fact it spins the front wheels when you press hard on the gas pedal. Its price and almost 2 years waiting list are what pulled me off. But it's over 300 horsepower and takes around 5 seconds to 100 km/h so that's part of the deal.

The Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV (the new one) is more prominent, it's a seven-seater, has much better 4WD/AWD capabilities, and looks way more luxurious and premium inside than the industrial looks of the RAV4 Prime. The interior of the Outlander is quieter and the car's behavior is more predictable. It's a great family car. It's also a serious improvement compared to the last-generation Outlander PHEV.

In the end, it's up to the users. I think both cars are steps in the right direction.

One last thing to keep in mind, Mitsubishi are purposely putting worse fuel economy figures than the actuals because of their past history with issues where they reported economy features that were hard to achieve. There were lawsuits and serious fines, so they are making sure they won't get there again. Or, well, Nissan is making sure.

Re: Fuel economy at highway speed phev vs ice model

Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2023 10:15 pm
by Hasenphever
nrayanov wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 5:19 pm
The focus of these vehicles is totally different. Hence the different fuel economy figures.

Toyota is electrifying a gas-powered vehicle by making it more sustainable.
Mitsubishi is building an electric vehicle with a gas-powered generator on board.
Right, that is understood. However, hoping for the additional insight on why the Rav4 PHEV model to ICE model fuel economy is better than the Outlander PHEV model to ICE model. In particular why the Outlander PHEV fuel economy is worse than the ICE. This can't be solely based on history since they would be conservative across the board, both PHEV and non-PHEV models.

Re: Fuel economy at highway speed phev vs ice model

Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2023 8:36 pm
by Trex
Hasenphever wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 10:15 pm
Right, that is understood. However, hoping for the additional insight on why the Rav4 PHEV model to ICE model fuel economy is better than the Outlander PHEV model to ICE model. In particular why the Outlander PHEV fuel economy is worse than the ICE. This can't be solely based on history since they would be conservative across the board, both PHEV and non-PHEV models.
Ok these figures that are being thrown around for the Outlander are not what we see in Australia.

8.1lts/100kms as per Mitsi's figures for standard Outlander compared to approx 6.7lts/100kms for the Phev as seen in this video on a trip from Adelaide to Melbourne of about 800kms) at 100-110kms/hr. See about 19.45 into video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xqvl8Z8XeTU

Now some of that trip probably includes battery use but there is no way a standard Outlander here is more efficient than the Phev.

Re: Fuel economy at highway speed phev vs ice model

Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2023 9:49 am
by mellobob
I got our 2023 GT last week and had the pleasure of taking it for a nice trip with a total 300km travelled. The temp was a balmy -2C and we went over the 1775m Kootenay Pass .. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kootenay_Pass . Due to the crap road conditions we never got to go much faster than 100km.

So, my overall impressions? It was a delight to drive! I toggled between SAVE and NORMAL and ended up running out of battery a few km from home. Overall I got 5.8 l/100km.

I'm pretty sure that I'd do much better on a "normal" stretch of road. Maybe the middle 5s? Mind you, I might drive faster in this case and that would bring the economy down. OTOH, 2 massive hill climbs are pretty expensive :)

I tried using the one-pedal mode and do like it. However, if you are going to use cruise I would suggest that you turn off the pedal mode before leaving it ... it's quite a shock to turn off cruise and have the car almost braking since your foot is not on the gas pedal :)

Re: Fuel economy at highway speed phev vs ice model

Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2023 2:44 pm
by AndyInOz
5.8 kilometers per one hundred litres?

I assume that you're using a jet engine and took one fortieth of a second to get there!

:D

PS. Best typo ever!

Re: Fuel economy at highway speed phev vs ice model

Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2023 3:41 pm
by djohan100
Hasenphever wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 10:15 pm
nrayanov wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 5:19 pm
The focus of these vehicles is totally different. Hence the different fuel economy figures.

Toyota is electrifying a gas-powered vehicle by making it more sustainable.
Mitsubishi is building an electric vehicle with a gas-powered generator on board.
Right, that is understood. However, hoping for the additional insight on why the Rav4 PHEV model to ICE model fuel economy is better than the Outlander PHEV model to ICE model. In particular why the Outlander PHEV fuel economy is worse than the ICE. This can't be solely based on history since they would be conservative across the board, both PHEV and non-PHEV models.
I read that the Outlander ICE use different engine that the Outlander PHEV, are we comparing Apple to Oranges then?
Outlander ICE engine is Nissan Rogue based, while the Outlander PHEV is derivative from the 2018 Outlander PHEV

Re: Fuel economy at highway speed phev vs ice model

Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2023 9:18 am
by mellobob
AndyInOz wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 2:44 pm 5.8 kilometers per one hundred litres?

I assume that you're using a jet engine and took one fortieth of a second to get there!

:D

PS. Best typo ever!
Hey, fixed it :) My little brain was so excited that I made a mistake. Oh well ... at least I didn't try to convert that to stone and hundredweight to make it understandable for you folks down south :)