Mine one is a new touring just got 800 for the odo and my fuel consumption is 13L/100. Mostly drive in pacific hwy from chatswood to hornsby. medium traffic. quiet high for my fuel consumption compare to 9.9. how about u guys?

Hey mate. Welcome to the forums.

To make it easier for everyone to compare figures, we already have a couple of threads running:

Aurion average fuel consumption
Fuel Use?????
Best Fuel for Aurion's

DJ should be a section moderator here

Last year I posted one Excel file and this is a photo of the ODO. I took this photo around Feb/09 but could not find a proper cable to transfer it to my laptop - Get a new phone today with cable included therefore I can show this photo. Probably my best result (running from Dandenong to Moe - Vic). 99% of the time I use 98RON petrol - My car: Presara.



In general, I can get around 10l/100.

BH

come on, the 9.9L/100km is the combined figure
its useless

for highway driving use the Urban figure
for freeway driving, look at the Extra figure

and for city driving, use this formula: (2 x Urban) + (3 x Extra) / 3.5

some "Urban" figures for other cars (greenvehicleguide.gov.au)

Corolla 1.8 auto 9.7L
Mazda3 2.0 auto 11.3L
Lancer 2.4 auto 12.3L
Falcon 4.0 auto 14.5L
Commodore 3.6 auto 14.7L

Yeah I think that the advertised "Combined" figure is a fraud , looking at the figures above I feel happier about my 1996 2.2L Camry averaging about 11 - 11.5 Litres per 100 klms , and thats mainly driving from the inner west of Melb to the city outskrts and back.

yeah well if i feather the loud pedal i get at best 10.6L/100km in a start stop traffic during peak hrs @ around Archerfield...

combine figure would have involved some uncongested highway and urban driving to bring it closer to 9.9L/100km on board reading...

Actually AS is a fault because they have to meet that standard before put up the sticker.

BH

Sorry for another post, I can't edit the above post

Just doing a 6,000kms round trip from Melbourne to Adelaide, to Sydney, then Brisbane, to Canberra and the back to Melbourne with around 45,000kms (now 51,000kms) in 16 days, I still get around 7.8l/100 even running at max legal speed on M8, A20, A1 ....

BH

That's better than what I got. When I drove to Melbourne from Brisbane (14 hour pace) my fuel consumption was up around 9.89l/100km. On the return trip though keeping to the maximum speed limit (18.5 hour pace), my fuel consumption averaged 8.12l/100km.

just filled mine for the first time and was very impressed-average 8.8 from memory which was better than expected considering i was running her in with a mix of medium speeds and high speeds,as said very impressed.

this is the 3rd tank but due to dealer stuffing me round with accessories etc he gave me 2 tanks for free which was nice of him but only after i pushed for some freebies though-lol

anyways cheers corey

I know this is an old thread but i hope you are still monitoring....

Anyway, I have a 2009 AT-X and as such I have NO trip computer (quite cheap on Toyotas part). Anyway, i assume everyone is using their trip computer rather than mathematically to work out their average (which I believe 6.6l/100km as posted in a pic is impossible)? I just wanted to point out that the trip computer is quite an inaccurate way of measuring true avg fuel consumption (i.e to be accurate it should the total of how much fuel it actually squirts into the combustion chamber which would then result in a 100% accurate fuel reading)
The trip meter rather uses:
* Instantaneous reading at the time by the fuel guage
* KM travelled since car was started till time now.

The aurion fuel guage is inaccurate - i will get around 200Km on the hwy in the 1st quarter tank, in next 1/4 tank about 150, about 150 again and then i forget the last quarter tank - not accurate figures but you get the idea. So if you do an avg using trip computer in the first 250km of driving you get an amazing figure, but do it later it gets worse and more realisitic.

What I do it (on all cars i have owned) I use the standard mathematical formula which is:

F = Fuel used in litres
D = disance travelled in km
AVG = average fuel used per 100/km

avg = (f / d) x 100

eg. d = 500km ; f = 45 litres then avg =
avg = (45 / 500) x 100)
= 9 litres / 100km

For best accuracy i always reset the trip meter to "0' after refilling the tank to full (1st click on bowser).
When i refill, i refill to first click on the same bowser (and check that the fuel guage goes past full to indicate tank is very full).

Its not 100% accurate but it gives you [I would think] approx. 99% accuarate - this way you take out inaccuate fuel guages, car on a slight slope, etc. and any possible shonky car manufacturer mathematical equasions that their trip computer may be using.


So i was wondering would anyone be willing to make a fair comparison between what the trip meter reports and what the real life figures give. Its just i dont have anythng tangible to compare with....

Just curious - i would do myself f i had a trip compoutrer - damn those Toyota budget cuts.....

I avg. 9.3/100km going from about 100km past Singleton (NSW) up north down to Canberra (approx. 620km in total) including hwy and about 120km of city driving - kept to about 5k/hr over road speed limits - except in 40,50,60 and 70 zones, kept them @ 100%...

going on my last full to empty 54 ltr 524 km 10.3 combined city and hwy standard exhaust and intake, now modded will try this run again.

I think everyone here is aware that the average fuel consumption (as given by the dash reading) is not the most idea way to measure it. The main reason why we tend to use it is to get an idea of how much vairation we get between tanks and by comparing these figures to others that are getting their reading from there, we can get a general idea on fuel consumption.

This is why I also started the following thread in which others can contribute their actual calculated fuel consumption:

Aurion average fuel consumption

And just for you knowledge, for the ones that have the average fuel consumption display, the ECU calculates this based on the distance driven since refueling and the fuel consumption volume (from fuel injection signals from the No.1 injector). This makes it a tiny bit more accurate than you may have originally thought.


Actually, we do have a thread running called:

Accuracy of Fuel Consumption

A couple of members have mentioned there that their in dash reading is around 0.5-0.65 litres/100km off from the actual measured value. This is roughly about the same accuracy as mine.

Thanks for the info. (and quick response) that is a lot more accurate than i thought. The only reason it throws me was "distance driven since refueling", what data does it use when you only partially fill the fuel tank [say 20 litres]... I guess it solely relies on the accuracy of the fuel guage? Also, how does it do a tank avg (i assume it resets the tank avg when it detect a large increase in fuel] but what level triggers this as there is no way for you to tell it to reset?

These questions ponder my mind.....

Pretty much. It has to be reasonably accurate to a certain level of error to be able to give decent results as we have found.


Yup, it resets when you fill the tank with a sufficient level of fuel. Usually a rise in about 20 litres of fuel is required to give the consumption meter a good reset though. As for it's ability to detect an increase in fuel, the gauge detects a change when about 7 litres or more of fuel is added to the tank from my experience. Adding less than that would go pretty much un-noticed.

Anyways, for those that choose not to do manual calculations, this is a fairly decent way of gauging their fuel consumption. It's not like we are submitting scientific data or anything. A manual calculation will always be the most accurate, and those that truly care about such figures will do it this way.

It's kind of like those calorie meters on treadmills. They aren't accurate at all, but if you have the same settings each time, then you can use it to compare with previous values you have obtained.

i always do the same as u mav,
have always done this and the economy i get on the open road with some city traffic is roughly around the 8-9 litres per 100km's

the only time i get better than this is when we cruise roughly around the 110km/hr mark for extended times,eg-between country town and we get high 7's

you should never trust the electronic gauges in cars 100%,rough gauging is ok

cheers corey

Thanks DJKOR & corhijas.

It is nice to know my car is doing as supposed to [in the fuel area].

Filling your fuel tank and expecting it to be the same level every time is like filling those 5 liter mower tins with the pull out plastic spouts.
You can never get it the same every time.

Hot days mean expansion of the fuel and more fuel vapors robbing valuable fuel space.

Going till the first click is useless as that just means you are pushing more fuel in that can comfortably go in through that small pipe into the tank creating some back pressure making the pump think it is full. How many times have you filled the car and it has clicked off with bugger all fuel going into the tank.

As I mentioned in another fuel topic in this area of the owners forum, electronic gauges have a % accuracy and a +/- of the least significant error on the least significant digit. You may as well forget about your fuel gauge as it is easily the most inaccurate thing in your car. Distance traveled is electronic so again has errors.

I am amazed that the fuel consumption debate has multiple threads going, I guess there is one for each way you believe is the most accurate. When the key determining factor is the person diving and their version of how far, how much and how they thought they drove the car and what conditions were involved.

Most of these are as inaccurate as the gauges - go figure that one.

You seem really into this fuel economy craze there fuel miser? Why didn't you buy a hybrid or something

One thing I can say is that I didn't buy my Aurion for it's fuel economy.

On a side note, my fuel average is calculated over the life that I've had the car. Probably more accurate than any other measurement out there because obviously the more distance you travel and the more fuel you use, the lesser the error due to those factors you have mentioned.

Hey Fuel Miser....

"Hot days mean expansion of the fuel and more fuel vapors robbing valuable fuel space" i agree but it will be minimal.

But yes you are right, at the end of the day there are too many variables for accuracy of compariable results - as such we are comparing as best we can with the "tools" availlable to us....

x2

i always try to fill the tank is all i can say

we all do things our own way and what suits us at the time-lol

i am still happy with the way she goes though

cheers all

How is it that when I give a different perspective I am thought of as an extremist?
I was involved in a thread approx 12 months or more ago, was the first to explain how the fuel consumption was calculated by the car using injector 1. At that time I was also seen as an extremist.
Hybrid, are they enviro friendly? in the current configuration I don't think much of them. They may be ok for driving around the local shopping carpark, with throw away batteries, $40k to buy they are not a serious car for the future.
SIDI what a joke, who doesn't have "spark igniton", direct injection been around for a long time. Holden could only manage to drop from 10.9l combined to 9.9l with barely an extra 10kW of power.
Why did I buy an Aurion? As a family car with some go. Do I regret buying it? Never. Am I likely to mod it? No because the package and reliability Toyota has built into this and other cars from the same manufacturer gives me piece of mind.
Am I an extremist? No, just a realist. Age and experience are great teachers, some learn early some have money to burn in the end it is a car with finite possibilities for legal road use.
Except that my views are as valid as the next guys.

Hi guys, I just got a new Presara, and so did my parents.

I am a rep and use the car alot with traffic city link and average driving, so far I have done 1600km in 3 weeks by average has been showing up as 11.2-11.4

My parents however only drive the car to and from work and rarely on weekends their average has been 13.2 -14.1 they have had the car for 4 weeks and only done 700klm.

I am not sure if this indicates anything but thought it might help, it seems the more you drive the this thing the cheaper it is.

Thanks

Maybe it's your username that gives the impression rather than difference in perspective.


Give it another few thousand k's to let it settle in. I would suggest to run her in hard, but that's another story on it's own.

On a side note relating to that question before about the average fuel consumption meter accuracy, I did some tank-by-tank tests recently. For reference, I filled the tank to the first click, pulled the nossel out and waited 5 seconds and pumped again till it clicks again.

From that, I have found my meter to be accurate to within 0.3 l/100km of a manual calculation. Not too bad in my opinion.

If your parents are only doing short trips in traffic and stop starting at traffic lights, this would explain the higher consumption, this is why on new vehicles today the sticker gives an average for city and highway as well as a combined figure. not forgetting that the readout resets everytime you fill the tank.

Thanks heaps................

another tank 55 ltr 503 km 10.9 still happy with that.