Hybrid Range and MPG concerns

27957 Views 84 Replies 23 Participants Last post by invaderc1, Jul 24, 2017

willrobinson

Discussion Starter · May 1, 2017

We have had our PacHy for four days, and I have concerns about the range and mileage we are seeing. I will try to post a longer description tonight, but the gist of it is, the van is reporting a hybrid (gas) range of only 391 miles on a full tank. That is far below the advertised 533. My wife took a road trip this weekend, and the van reported averaging only 26.2 MPG over about 550 miles. But even that MPG would yield a range of 430 hybrid miles (16.5 gallon tank capacity * 26.2). Beyond that, when she got to work this morning, it showed that she had driven 12 hybrid miles, but the hybrid range had dropped 29 miles (391 down to 362). The only firm conclusion I can draw is that the on-board mileage and range calculations are not accurate. My concern is that the gas mileage may not be anything close to the 32 MPG advertised. I did not make my wife write down the number of gallons she put in the tank on her trip, so I have not done a manual calculation yet, but I will try to do that tonight. If anyone else can post their experiences/observations, that would be really helpful. Also, I originally started a similar thread (titled "Hybrid Range") in the PacHy General forum, but another member alerted me that it should be here - I'm hoping I can get some feedback from other owners so I can understand if it's me, my PacHy, all PacHys, or just the on-board calculations.

61 - 80 of 85 Posts

ElectricGuy

· #61 · May 18, 2017

Dpacifica said:
On my Hybrid only mpg test yesterday, I averaged right at 32 mpg calculated over 88 miles. I was happy with this result since it was a mixture of city and highway driving even with 15 minutes of idling; so very real world for my regular situations. However, the display for estimated range is still quite mind boggling. At 32 mpg, I would expect my real world range on a 16.5 gallon tank to be 16.5*32 = 528 miles. Let's say the van is conservative with the estimate and gives you your estimated range to 2.5 gallons remaining; that would be 14*32 = 448 miles giving you at least 60 miles to find a gas station once "empty". Seems reasonable to me.

What the display gave me on the other hand, is 248 MTE before filling up and 311 MTE after. I would have thought they could at least give me my 88 miles back that I actually went on that amount of gas. If I continue at 32 mpg, the 311 MTE indication would leave me around 6.78 gallons (or 217 miles) in reserve to find a gas station.

Is it really necessary to warn people this early? Is the MTE indicator of any use being this conservative or am I missing something?

Regardless of this, I am otherwise loving this van. Just thought I would share what I have discovered through my experiences so far.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think MTE takes into account that you might have to drive 311 miles up hill?
It really makes no sense.

Dpacifica

· #62 · May 18, 2017

ElectricGuy said:
I think MTE takes into account that you might have to drive 311 miles up hill?

It really makes no sense.

You might be on to something, if it is a gentle uphill climb for 311 miles then maybe I could get about 18.85 mpg (311/18.85=16.5).

This video by Mopar is all the more annoying at this point.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

RobbW

· #63 · May 18, 2017

What we need to determine is FCA's calculation for the estimated range. The total estimated range on my i-MiEV is calculated based on the previous 12 miles of driving. So, if I was doing anything during those previous 12 miles that was less efficient (e.g. jackrabbit starts, speeding, heavy AC or heat usage, etc.), it would negatively affect my total remaining range.

It's also possible that the estimated range calculation in the PacHy is a "learning" function. It may recalculate the range as it learns your particular driving style. It may also take several fill-ups before it starts displaying a more accurate estimate based on your "learned" driving style. Unfortunately, one major downfall to this "learning" concept is that if you have multiple drivers of your PacHy who have significantly different driving styles, it may take even longer for it to learn the styles, if ever. My wife and I both drive our PacHy a roughly equal amount of time. Our driving styles are very different from each other. I'm always trying everything I can to maximize our MPG and am pretty OCD about it. My wife couldn't care less. She just gets in and drives like it's any other car.

See less See more

ElectricGuy

· #64 · May 18, 2017

Why can't it be simple?

What if there was an EV indicator and an ICE indicator? When running on electric that light comes on. When running on the ICE that light comes on. If using both, they both come one.

Then when you view the history it could show numbers for all 3. I know it already gets show miles for gas and miles for battery, but even those numbers seem off.

OCPacifica

· #65 · May 18, 2017

I've been looking at the EV Hybrid page while driving on no charge and charge and it does sort of tell you what is being used and what is not. Most times you'll see watts from just the battery in E driving, and then when you have no charge, it will switch between pulling watts from engine and battery. In non-EV mode, most times you will see a combo of battery and engine, depending on how much regen you have done.

It really makes you appreciate the engineering of how it moves power from ICE to battery to axle and vice versa.

RobbW

· #66 · May 18, 2017

ElectricGuy said:
Why can't it be simple?

Actually, it IS simple. The PacHy is displaying one blended MPG number that is relatively easy to understand for the masses. It is only us OCD geeks who really care about getting to the nitty gritty of how it is all calculated that are complaining that it is so complicated to decipher. If FCA had decided to split the values between EV and ICE and display them separately, then the general population would be complaining, "Why don't they just give us one simple number that takes it all into consideration?" The average driver isn't going to care how much of the MPG number is derived from pure EV miles and how much is from ICE miles. Same way they probably don't care that there is a more efficient way to drive PHEVs to maximize your range/economy. The average driver just wants to get into the PacHy and drive it like any other car without having to worry about anything. They want to glance at one simple number every once in a while to assure themselves they are getting decent MPG. That's it.

We geeks are the ones who demand more. And as far as FCA is concerned, our population isn't large enough to worry about placating us. Not that I even fault FCA for that, because it's true. I think they did well enough to satisfy most of my curiosities about the inner workings of the PacHy. It's just my OCD side that is drooling for more!

See less See more

ElectricGuy

· #67 · May 19, 2017

So "Simple" in this case means "useless"? I think even the masses look at the estimated range and say, "what the heck?"!

RobbW

· #68 · May 24, 2017

ElectricGuy said:
So "Simple" in this case means "useless"? I think even the masses look at the estimated range and say, "what the heck?"!

Not really. The "LCD" masses most likely only give a cursory glance at the estimated range to make sure they have enough fuel to get where they're going and back, or at least to a fueling station along the way. Then they just hop in the vehicle and drive as they always have.

The thing I like about this thread and others like it on the forums (i.e. questions/concerns about efficiency and range) is that it demonstrates the mind-shift that occurs in EV/PHEV drivers. Now that there is an EV component to their vehicles, drivers are suddenly more aware and concerned about fuel economy, range, driving efficiency, and maximizing the variables! Owning an EV completely changes your attitude toward driving. It becomes a game to maximize your numbers, extend your range, get the most miles out of your charge, find little ways to increase your efficiency. I wish every driver would have these concerns whether they drive an EV or not.

I'm actually very glad that my first experience with owning/driving a "green" car was with an all-electric BEV. I've owned and driven my Mitsu i-MiEV for four years now. Being all-electric, there is no option to stop off at the corner gas station to add fuel and extend your range. I had to become very adept at carefully planning my trips and driving as efficiently as possible. I think that has helped me take to driving our new PacHy as efficiently as possible right from the get-go, even though I now have the option to simply and easily add fuel if/when necessary.

It has also given me a new appreciation for fellow PHEV drivers/owners. Before we had our PacHy, my main vehicle was my Mitsu i-MiEV. If/when I absolutely needed a charge while we were out and about, I would get so angry when I saw plug-in hybrid vehicles (e.g. Chevy Volt) taking up precious and limited charging stations. It bothered me because those plug-in hybrids didn't *NEED* to charge as they had gasoline backups. However, I absolutely *RELIED* upon charging stations. I never once went so far as to unplug a PHEV in order to give myself a charge, even in an emergency situation. But I sure did grumble and hurl profanities at the cars! Now that we have a PHEV ourselves, I totally understand that we are, indeed, one large "green" family. And we are all doing our parts to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels as much as possible. I don't begrudge PHEVs for plugging in like I used to, even if I'm desperately searching for a charger while driving my i-MiEV!

See less See more

Reactions: 3

dontspamneil

· #69 · Jun 6, 2017

Another datapoint about the (in)accuracy of the range listed by the onboard computer.

This Saturday I drove from LA to Santa Barbara and back. At the start of the trip, I had only about 30% battery charged, 3/4 full tank of gas, and total range was listed as 202 miles. I'm not sure of the breakdown of electric and gas miles at that point.

After about 15 minutes of freeway driving, the battery was exhausted and the ICE kicked on. 50 miles later, the MTE range was listed as 204 miles! Eventually it did start going down, but the end result is that after 175 miles of driving (there and back) the range had gone from 202 miles, to 140... And almost all of that was on gas. It used a little more than 1/4 tank, by the way.

So I'd take the listed range with more than a few grains of salt...

snorth

· #70 · Jun 6, 2017

dontspamneil said:
Another datapoint about the (in)accuracy of the range listed by the onboard computer.

This Saturday I drove from LA to Santa Barbara and back. At the start of the trip, I had only about 30% battery charged, 3/4 full tank of gas, and total range was listed as 202 miles. I'm not sure of the breakdown of electric and gas miles at that point.

After about 15 minutes of freeway driving, the battery was exhausted and the ICE kicked on. 50 miles later, the MTE range was listed as 204 miles! Eventually it did start going down, but the end result is that after 175 miles of driving (there and back) the range had gone from 202 miles, to 140... And almost all of that was on gas. It used a little more than 1/4 tank, by the way.

So I'd take the listed range with more than a few grains of salt...

And the bottom line is that you got much better than what the computer estimated, correct?

dontspamneil

· #71 · Jun 6, 2017

snorth said:
And the bottom line is that you got much better than what the computer estimated, correct?

I got massively better than the computer range indicated. I drove 175 miles (mostly on gas) and the range to empty only dropped 62 miles...

Dpacifica

· #72 · Jun 6, 2017

dontspamneil said:
I got massively better than the computer range indicated. I drove 175 miles (mostly on gas) and the range to empty only dropped 62 miles...

I have had similar experiences with the range. It gets closer and closer to reality as you approach the bottom on the tank, but I would much appreciate seeing around 500 on a full tank as would be accurate. I have found the dial itself to be accurate though; so at 1/8th full it took just under 14 gallons. From now on I will likely ignore the range and just pay attention to the dial and how efficiently I am driving.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reactions: 1

TAB Mech

· #73 · Jun 19, 2017

You are comparing a diesel which achieves it best mileage rating with hwy driving to a hybrid that achieves its best mileage in stop and go situations. So the posted range will be based upon a mixture of hwy and stop/go set by the EPA. Need to look that info up. So your trip shows like a majority of hwy driving which you will find lower mileage range with the hybrid then the posted range.

Dpacifica

· #74 · Jun 20, 2017

TAB Mech said:
You are comparing a diesel which achieves it best mileage rating with hwy driving to a hybrid that achieves its best mileage in stop and go situations. So the posted range will be based upon a mixture of hwy and stop/go set by the EPA. Need to look that info up. So your trip shows like a majority of hwy driving which you will find lower mileage range with the hybrid then the posted range.

The PacHy is rated 33mpg highway and 32mpg city which oddly enough just barely favors highway driving.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reactions: 1

gory

· #75 · Jun 21, 2017

TAB Mech said:
...achieves it best mileage rating with hwy driving to a hybrid that achieves its best mileage in stop and go situations...

Not sure if you mean something else, but I don't think this is possible with ANY vehicle we have now to have better city mileage over it's highway mileage. Which law is it? Thermodynamics, conservation of energy? Come on somebody help me out. Can't remember my highschool physics. Regardless, city mileage vs. non-hybrids will always favour hybrids, given the same vehicle, but highway mileage vs. non-hybrids, may favour non-hybrids.

Dpacifica

· #76 · Jun 21, 2017

gory said:
Not sure if you mean something else, but I don't think this is possible with ANY vehicle we have now to have better city mileage over it's highway mileage. Which law is it? Thermodynamics, conservation of energy? Come on somebody help me out. Can't remember my highschool physics. Regardless, city mileage vs. non-hybrids will always favour hybrids, given the same vehicle, but highway mileage vs. non-hybrids, may favour non-hybrids.

I think that they mean hybrids typically have a higher mpg rating for city driving. That has been the case for all hybrids I have driven previous to this PacHy where it has only a slightly better mpg rating on highway than city. With a plug in, they can display just one mpg rating which is the combined which is why it is not obvious that the highway rating is actually better than the city rating for this particular hybrid.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

TMaclay

· #77 · Jun 21, 2017

gory said:
Not sure if you mean something else, but I don't think this is possible with ANY vehicle we have now to have better city mileage over it's highway mileage. Which law is it? Thermodynamics, conservation of energy? Come on somebody help me out. Can't remember my highschool physics. Regardless, city mileage vs. non-hybrids will always favour hybrids, given the same vehicle, but highway mileage vs. non-hybrids, may favour non-hybrids.

Highway miles are principally spent fighting increased aerodynamic drag which goes up with the velocity squared. There is a friction component of aerodynamic drag as well as losses in the drive train and tire rolling resistance which also increase with speed but much less so. The mileage determinations for highway tests are based on fairly modest speeds (about 50 MPH) so the test results for highway mileage are going to be higher than most folks will see in the real world. FWIW my first sighting of a 2017 Pacifica was getting passed by a white one doing about 100 MPH while I was at 75 on the interstate(Whassat!). That's a fourfold increase in that component of drag compared to what the modest govt bureaucrat chooses as a representative highway speed. Here the 9 speed tranny in the gas version which I think someone said gets to 9 @ well above 80 MPH is going to be pretty competitive with the heavier hybrid. The hybrid has more efficiency losses in the electrical powertrain but the engine delivers power through a continuously variable transmission at nearer it's ideal RPM and load. The hybrid tranny is really a power split device which lets the engine (ICE) run at optimum load & RPM with some ICE power going directly to the wheels and some going to either the battery(with some conversion/storage losses) for reuse or via the electric motor to the wheels. It also has the slightly more efficient Atkinson cycle engine.

Around town, it's stop and go and much lower speed. There's a factor of 4 difference in aero drag at 25 compared to 50 MPH. The hybrid excels at capturing and reusing energy from the stopping aspect as well as benefits from the continuously variable transmission whereas the gas version runs the engine in lower gears and less efficient RPM's and loses all the energy spent to accelerate when it stops.

In both cases, the Pacifica hybrid wins the government tests compared to it's gas counterpart. At real world highway speeds, it may be a different story although I suspect the hybrid will still do better at higher speeds due to less power going through lossy conversion to/from the battery. What matters to me more is the dramatically lower gasoline (carbon emission) use in routine driving due to the PHEV aspect.

See less See more

Reactions: 1

OCPacifica

· #78 · Jun 21, 2017

Practically speaking, a hybrid should have better MPG in both city and highway over a non-hybrid for the simple reason that it doesn't use gasoline as often, even in highway driving.

When the battery has charge, in the case of the Pacifica, at cruising speeds on the highway, it uses the electric motors. When there is no charge, it uses the gas engine but at the same time, the battery will get regen'd and when there is enough charge, use the electric motors again. It may not be enough for any lengthy drive but even the smallest reduction in usage of the gas engine will result in better MPG for the hybrid.

At least that is what I observed in my usage over the last month or so.

Reactions: 1

gory

· #79 · Jun 22, 2017

I guess the gearing is different between the hybrid and gas versions, but if the two cars were equal and given a depleted battery state, I just can't figure how you could get better highway mileage with the hybrid when you will always lose some minimal amount of energy when running transferring energy from one form to another. Gas engine driving a generator to charge a battery to drive a motor to spin wheels, definitely results in lower power output than gas spinning wheels. Some energy is always lost to inefficiency and heat.

OCPacifica

· #80 · Jun 22, 2017

In a depleted state, the battery isn't just being charged by the gas engine. Whenever you take your foot off the pedal or brake, there is regen energy too.

Some other member posted that their home is elevated and the entire trip downhill can regenerate their battery some x percentage.

61 - 80 of 85 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.