Lexus Nx True Mpg

[Aztecs27]

10 hours ago, Goggy said:

Yes, that seems a reasonable mpg for an 2.5 litre SUV. A diesel may have bettered it slightly, but not by a huge amount and it would have been noisy. :)

The Rav4 Diesel sounds a lot like a tractor...I've never known Diesel engine noise like it to be honest! put us right off! 

[lee789]

RAV 4 Hybrid is a petrol. Wouldn't touch another diesel due to uncertainty over proposed tax increases, and on-going dpf issues due to ever more stringent EU emissions legislation.

[Martin J]

Like Paul also just back from a long Continental trip - 2000 miles through Spain.  Broadly similar consumption - around 38 mpg on autovias, and 42 mpg on 2 lane roads, about 40 mpg overall. Generally very impressive - quiet crusing on Spain's mostly beautifully surfaced roads, and the climate control kept the cabin cool even in 39 deg external shade temp in Extramadura and Andalucia. 

[Aztecs27]

Wife took the car on it's first proper run up north this weekend (300+ mile round trip) and the MPG reality check has hit us...the range when she left was 550 miles - when she got back, it was less than 100...so we got 400 miles out of a tank...which equates to 35ish mpg. She tells me she "never drove quicker than 80mph" and was in ECO the whole time...she did have a lot of traffic to contend with on the motorway though, which won't have helped. Not great, but not completely terrible....

and some quick comparison maths with the Mondeo, in which we would average about 550 miles a tank (70 litres) suggests that if the tank was the same size as the Mondeo, we'd only be about 40-50 miles worse than it...so I'm not too upset! I suspect we can creep it up to around 40mpg after we've put a few more miles in it. 
 

[DJP]

52 minutes ago, Aztecs27 said:

Wife took the car on it's first proper run up north this weekend (300+ mile round trip) and the MPG reality check has hit us...the range when she left was 550 miles - when she got back, it was less than 100...so we got 400 miles out of a tank...which equates to 35ish mpg. She tells me she "never drove quicker than 80mph" and was in ECO the whole time...she did have a lot of traffic to contend with on the motorway though, which won't have helped. Not great, but not completely terrible....

and some quick comparison maths with the Mondeo, in which we would average about 550 miles a tank (70 litres) suggests that if the tank was the same size as the Mondeo, we'd only be about 40-50 miles worse than it...so I'm not too upset! I suspect we can creep it up to around 40mpg after we've put a few more miles in it. 
 

 

TBH traffic on the motorway is quite helpful in terms of mpg, providing she's not flooring it and then braking sharply of course. The Battery is more helpful at the lower speeds and with the "pulse and glide" technique electric only can used a fair bit. I also think the ECO mode is a waste of time, the trade off in responsiveness of the accelerator is not reflected in mpg improvements, I'd keep it in Normal myself. MPG at 80 is not going to be pretty either...

 

 

[Aztecs27]

2 hours ago, DJP said:

 

TBH traffic on the motorway is quite helpful in terms of mpg, providing she's not flooring it and then braking sharply of course. The battery is more helpful at the lower speeds and with the "pulse and glide" technique electric only can used a fair bit. I also think the ECO mode is a waste of time, the trade off in responsiveness of the accelerator is not reflected in mpg improvements, I'd keep it in Normal myself. MPG at 80 is not going to be pretty either...

 

 

She has a heavy right foot, so I suspect she was! Good to know re: the ECO mode. It's certainly ridiculously unresponsive! 

Could be a lot worse from some of the things I've read on here, so not too worried (yet). Also done some more calcs on what we used to get in the Mondeo - the lifetime average (according to the car) was 45.0mpg - that would mean we'd be getting around 700 miles out of a tank, which I don't think we EVER did in over 5 years...more realistic (optimistic) figures are 600miles a tank, which would equate to roughly 38.5mpg actual...so I'm feeling a bit better about the whole thing. Was concerned our fuel bills would jump up massively, but I think we'll only be spending a bit extra each month...and we get to drive round in luxury; everyone's a winner. 

[Nelsthebass]

Wouldn't trust the range figures on the trip computer - I've yet to get more than just over 400 miles and as many people say, I get the higher range of mpg than most due to the miles I pile on it - I've covered 19000 miles since early December and the real tank to tank average is currently running at 39.47 since day one - recent averages have actually been higher - more like 41 as the car loosens up and the weather warms up......

[Aztecs27]

8 minutes ago, Nelsthebass said:

Wouldn't trust the range figures on the trip computer - I've yet to get more than just over 400 miles and as many people say, I get the higher range of mpg than most due to the miles I pile on it - I've covered 19000 miles since early December and the real tank to tank average is currently running at 39.47 since day one - recent averages have actually been higher - more like 41 as the car loosens up and the weather warms up......

If I can get anywhere near those numbers once we've found the knack of driving an auto/hybrid more efficiently, I'll be super happy! 

400 miles a tank equates to around 510 in my old car, so the difference is negligible and the pay off is the fact it's a much nicer/newer/safer car...so no complaints there.

are those numbers driving in Normal mode for the most part? 

[Nelsthebass]

I play around with the controller tbh - whilst in France and on the quieter D roads I left it in ECO and managed a genuine 46 on one tank but it does feel like you have a rubber ball stuck under the accelerator! In the main, the bulk of the 19000 miles has been done on Normal and the odd spurt of Sport - you have to learn to accelerate and then back off the revs/power meter as soon as possible and keep it as low in the ECO range to maximise economy. It can be a challenge but doesn't detract from driving around in superbly quiet and comfortable vehicle......

 

[Goggy]

I found in ECO mode it made a very small difference to MPG, but for me the car was less responsive, so I have not used it much at all, I just leave the car in NORMAL mode. I will try it out again on a longer journey to see if there is any significant difference. I find the MPG is much reduced at 80mph instead of 70. When the motorway to my daughters was all 50mph due to roadworks I found the car managed about 5mpg more. 

[Goggy]

Yesterday I did a 77 mile trip on ECO mode, then on the return journey I was in NORMAL mode. The journey was 75% motorway, the rest being mostly 'A' roads mainly with a speed limit of 70, but some at 50. It was light rain both journeys. Outward journey I kept at 70 all the time using cruise control, coming back I was late for a meeting so drove a bit faster, 75+. 

Outward journey 37.8, back was 37.5.

So hardly any difference and with the faster journey coming back I expected to be 35-36, but it was only a very small amount less. 

It's probably fair to say a mainly motorway journey is not the best option to use a ECO v NORMAL comparison check, but I still expected a bigger difference. I don't think I did anything else to affect the result, and the conditions were identical. 

I will do another some time, but maybe I will  try none motorway. 

Odd result that.

[Zotto]

Which was the altitude difference between the destinations? Mpg in hybrids is very sensitive to this, even if it's less noticeable at high speeds where power is used against air resistance.

[Goggy]

Start place was 250 feet, destination was 160 feet. So a difference of 90 feet.

[Zotto]

Not such a big difference, but  from 250 to 160 you should have better mpg than from 160 to 250, best results NOT using AC and cruise control.

[Goggy]

8 hours ago, Zotto said:

Not such a big difference, but  from 250 to 160 you should have better mpg than from 160 to 250, best results NOT using AC and cruise control.

Ahh right, so CC is not good for MPG then, okay. I'll do it again in the next few weeks and do as you say to see what I get. 

[DJP]

I can see why aircon hurts mpg but why is cruise control bad news?

Sent from my Iphone using Tapatalk

[ColinBarber]

On inclines you would typically let the vehicle slow slightly, and the opposite when going down which is more fuel efficient than trying to keep an exact speed. You can also take into account the road ahead and easy off if you are coming up to traffic.

[Zotto]

Air con uses till 2 kW of power, and power costs, while  ruise control tends to reach set speed usually too fast, and this also uses more power compared to the use of a light feet.

[Goggy]

Yes, a good point. :)

[Goggy]

I did a 350 mile round trip at the weekend. Roughly 50% motorway, 50% 'A' Roads. A few hold ups, but not many. Managed 41.5 mpg for the trip. I know my NX does 38 mpg at speed on a motorway, so I must have been up to the mid 40's on the 'A' roads to have a combined 41.5. Maybe the fact that the 'A' roads were mostly in very flat Norfolk and Suffolk helped. Not bad at all I thought. :)

[Aztecs27]

9 hours ago, Goggy said:

I did a 350 mile round trip at the weekend. Roughly 50% motorway, 50% 'A' Roads. A few hold ups, but not many. Managed 41.5 mpg for the trip. I know my NX does 38 mpg at speed on a motorway, so I must have been up to the mid 40's on the 'A' roads to have a combined 41.5. Maybe the fact that the 'A' roads were mostly in very flat Norfolk and Suffolk helped. Not bad at all I thought. :)

On my latest tank, according to the onboard computer, we're up at 40mpg (fluctuates between 40.1 and 40.7 depending on driving conditions), which I really cannot complain about. Mostly in Eco mode, as I'm in no rush to get anywhere - but had it in Sport and Normal when the situation has called for it. 

I'm going to stick in an extra 14 litres tonight to simulate the tank size of my Mondeo to get a closer comparison as to how long a tank will last (not 100% accurate, I appreciate; averaged a fill up every two weeks in the Ford unless we had any planned long trips)...so we won't be far away - which for a car which weighs nearly 500kg more than the Mondeo, is perfectly acceptable. :) 

[Sybaris]

Took my 200T F Sport on 2 120 mile runs.  I get 34.5 mpg on the motorway, keeping to 70mph.

Getting 20 to 23 in suburban and town driving.

[Zotto]

I drive a GS 300h, and I am very satisfied with mpg;  driving a NX (same engine) the point is  aerodynamics, far worse , and the ultimate secret to have good mpg is to avoid driving over 70 mph (75 on meter), air resistance increases with square of speed.

[syncropatrick]

40.7MPG

• 10 months in a NX300H F Sport.
• 8000 miles (7000 commuting, 1000 motorway).
• 15 mile commute over a 190meter hill, at least 10 times a week.
• commute road speed limits 20-70MPH.
• average speed 31MPH.
• Climate control always on in dual setting, front only. Windows always shut.
• Always in eco, but I do hoof it occasionally for fun (anyone else felt the rear wheels twitch momentarily before the 4WD traction control magic kicks in?)
• MPG improves when on motorway at 70, even with cruise control enabled.

[Sybaris]

My 200T F-Sport gets 34mpg on motorways.  Im happy enough because for me, put it in sports mode and it flies.