Gas mileage w/your LS ?

1990 LS400 (210K) Sticker 18 City / 23 Highway ACTUAL 14-15 City / 24 -25 Highway

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 21:24:32 GMT, wdg@[206.180.145.133] (New Owner) graced this newsgroup with:

'02 LS430, 38k - 18 City/23 hwy

I get about 16-17 in the city on my 2004 LS430 that I run on 90 octane (I'm so cheap that I mix half 87 and half 93). And that's here in Pittsburgh, with S-T-E-E-P hills all day long. By comparison, my wife's 2003 Mercury Mountaineer AWD (Ford Explorer clone) gets 13-14 MPG city and my daughter's

2005 Honda CR-V (AWD) gets 20-22 MPG city (but it only has 2500 miles and isn't broken in yet).

In almost 2 years of ownership, I honestly have not yet taken it on the highway for any major run. So I can't tell you the highway mileage.

'92 LS400.

~16 mpg "city" (small city traffic)

~24 mpg highway (70-75 mph)

Not very good, really.

Our 200 GMC Yukon XL get 20.5 mpg highway (no comment what it gets "city".

Our 330i gets 20 mpg city and 33 mpg highway under same conditions. (Yes, I know it's a smaller car).

i have a 04 ls430 with 2k miles. i use regular gas and get approximately

500 miles to the tank(fill to the top and empty all the way) driving a combination of both city and highway to work. with a 22 gallon tank, that works out to be roughly 22.7 mpg

Your highway situation is exactly the same as mine (never can "quite" get 25 mpg), but MY car (90 LS400) is not going to give 16 mpg City under any circumstances (well except all downhill ... maybe). I alternate between premium and mid-grade EXCEPT if I will be doing any 'lane' passing - then I stick to premium. I do always insist on 5w30 (3500-5000 mi; regular old Valvaline), keep the tire pressure on the high (40-42 front / 38-40 back) side, and clean/replace the air filter regularly. My Brother In Laws 02 LS430 gets less than 10% better.

Nothing wrong w/24 highway. The LS is a heavy V8 powered boat. 70~75 may be a little heavy-footed, but if you're getting 24 at that speed you might get 25~26 at 55. I'm not preaching tho, I can't drive 55 either.

Just my 2¢ worth, IMO driving the tank all the way down to the dregs is unwise. You may pay very dearly for that practice one day. Also with spot gas shortages lately we find ourselves consciously looking to top-off frequently. I sleep better knowing the tanks are full.

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 20:45:24 GMT, wdg@[206.180.145.133] (New Owner) graced this newsgroup with:

ditto my feeling. Running the tank nearly dry isn't good for the filter and increases the probability of condensation it the tank.

Also, with the almost daily increase of prices at the pump, I too haven't let the tank get any lower than 3/4 full.

I'm also not sure about running regular (87 octane) in an engine that requires 91 or better octane. I'd think you'd get a lot of pre-detonation and subsequently, poor mpg (not to mention what it may be doing to the engine).

Why?

It sounds like you're subscribing to the rubbish theory about "the sludge at the bottom of the tank being picked up and sent to the engine".

That *is* a rubbish theory.

Think about it: if the fuel pickup is at the bottom, it's always picking up any crap that makes its way into your fuel tank--even when your tank is full.

Running the gasoline in your tank to the bottom has nothing to do with whether your fuel pickup pulls any sediment out of the tank. The sediment is already there, no matter what.

And that's why the fuel pickup *isn't* at the bottom of the tank.

The car runs fine on 87, just will not have the torque/power. The ECU automatically adjusts the timing to compensate for any octane problem. At

87 you're only 4 octane points below recommended and since it *DOESN'T* detonate I really don't think there's much harm. If you're concerned then buy the middle grade (89 octane usually). However, we've had this discussion and it's my feeling that if the 20¢ a gallon delta between premium and regular is an issue for you, then maybe you're driving a car you can't really afford to be driving. The 20¢ delta has been there for years. Why is it suddenly an issue at $3 a gallon when it wasn't an issue for you at $1.50? On a 20-gallon fillup the out of pocket difference is the same $4 it always was. Who are you trying to kid?

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 23:54:22 GMT, wdg@[206.180.145.133] (New Owner) graced this newsgroup with:

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I "can't afford" premium. I merely stated that running a lower octane may not be the best idea.

Incidentally, if sounds more of *you* being concerned about the 20 cent delta, not me. May it's *you* that should consider driving a car car that you can't afford.

Sorry, was not my intention to make the implication

My LS is a '96, current book value probably less than $10k tho it only has

55k on the clock. No one but the Lexus shop has ever touched that car, including oil changes. Oh, I take that back, I did buy some new Michelins for is a while back at NTB.

My wife drives the car only to and from the neighborhood grocery store and a nearby mall. Why else only 55k in almost 10 years. No more than she drives it a tankful of 93 octane premium once every 5~6 weeks is not an issue.

Not really complaining (OK, a little), but I would have expected a LOT better highway mileage vs. a Yukon XL which is a 5,000+ lb. brick. At best, it's 20% better. Trick may be that the Yukon's engine is so torque rich it is turning under 2,000 rpm at highway speeds.

With the Yukon, if I lock in cruise control at 65 mph, I get 22 mpg. Rather amazing for something that big. And that with two passengers and several hundred pounds of cargo. If only it did at least 15 mpg city.

We need diesels in the U.S.

- GRL

I really don't know what affordability has to do with anything.... my cars troughout the years

1978 trans am 400... regular gas no problem 1984 300zx regular gas no problem 1985 toyota cressida regular gas no problem 1994 supra twin turbo regular gas no problem 1992 camry s/w v6 regular gas no problem 1995 geo prizm lsi regular gas no problem currently 1995 supra twin turbo (don't use it much) so i mix regular and super of course 2004 ls 430 regular gas no problem so far

As somenoe here says the computer adjust for regular gas.... I have always use regular and never had any problem, does'nt matter which manufacturer.

Is that a US or a UK gallon? Either way, it is too much for an LS.

For me, slow highway traffic (90-95 km/h) gives about 9.5 l / 100 km. Faster highway traffic (120 km/h) is about 12 l / 100 km. With the higher gas prices, I have tried to do my part and drive a bit slower on the highway, without blocking other traffic, of course.

Mixed traffic, 2 x 10 km a day, half highway, half city, gives

13.5 l/100 km during summer and up to 16 l/100 km in the winter time.

My readings are from a 1994 (1st gen) LS 400.

I've been reading this /gas mileage/can't afford gas/run the tank 'til it's dry/ thread since inception.

I heard recently, on the radio, that CR(Consumer Reports) had an article on why vehicle posted mpg, may or may not, agree with actual results.

Here's the link:

26206503194 But, it may require a registration, and will certainly require a subscription for additional information. I've pasted the brief story, just to avoid a useless registration.

Formatting may be pretty bad, but you'll get the idea....

Gary

---------------------------------------------------------- October 2005 Fuel economy Why you're not getting the mpg you expect

For years, automakers have been criticized for producing vehicles that get so-so gas mileage. But as gas prices climb and consumers seek more miles per gallon, it turns out that fuel economy is much worse than it appears--50 percent less on some models, a new Consumer Reports analysis reveals. Drivers who track their own fuel economy have long known that their results seldom match the gas mileage claimed by the Environmental Protection Agency on new-car stickers. Our study, based on years of real-world road tests over thousands of miles, quantifies the problem across a wide swath of makes and models.

We compared the claimed EPA fuel economy with the mileage per gallon we measured for 303 cars and trucks for model-years 2000 to 2006. Our selection represents a good cross-section of mainstream, high-volume vehicles. We looked at city, highway, and overall mpg.

Highlights of our study:

. Shortfalls in mpg occurred in 90 percent of vehicles we tested and included most makes and models.

. The largest discrepancy between claimed and actual mpg involved city driving. Some models we tested fell short of claimed city mpg by 35 to 50 percent.

. Hybrids, whose selling point is fuel thriftiness, had some of the biggest disparities, with fuel economy averaging 19 mpg below the EPA city rating.

. The EPA ratings are the result of 1970s-era test assumptions that don't account for how people drive today. Automakers also test prototype vehicles that can yield better mileage than a consumer could get.

. Despite federal certification, it appears that U.S. vehicle fleets, all cars and light trucks produced in one model year, don't meet government fuel-economy standards. For example, fleet mpg for 2003-model-year vehicles we studied was overstated by 30 percent.

For consumers, the news means that their vehicles typically cost hundreds more per year to operate than they were led to believe. Put another way, when gas in August 2005 hit $2.37 per gallon, the mpg shortchange effectively boosted the price for some motorists to $3.13 per gallon.

For the nation, where the fleet average fuel economy is near its lowest point in 17 years, the findings suggest that the country is far short of its energy goals.

"We are concerned about the differences," Margo Oge, director of the EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality, said of our study. "I think we can do a better job to help consumers assess actual fuel economy."

----------------------------------------------------------

For complete Ratings and recommendations of appliances, cars & trucks, electronic gear, and much more, subscribe today and have access to all of ConsumerReports.org.

Well I took her car this week for my daily commute to and from the office (about 2/3 of the trip is freeway miles at steady speeds, 60~65). I'm happy to say that I achieved 18 mpg with it. Probably would have been much better had it not been for the 1/3 of daily trip over city streets, with lots of stop & go.