Interesting. I'm at about 1200 miles now. I'm getting about 40-42 overall. One thing I've noticed is that the on board computer is accurate to within 0.5 mpg which judging by the posts here I never expected. On the whole, though, I'm a little disappointed in the mileage (emphasis on a little). I'd like to be up more around 45. The lion's share of my driving is a 22 mile drive to and from work, all but 2-3 miles of which are highway at 70mpg. During break-in, it was all 62 or less, no cruise. Then for a while I did 65 with cruise. Now I'm doing 70 with cruise. (Both are compromises from my usual 75 which I'm considering for the sake of decreased gas consumption.) Could be my mileage is in the lower 40s because I drive too fast to get the really good numbers. Maybe I should consider sticking to 65 but it really seemed unnecessarily slow in a 65 mph zone with everyone on the road going around me on both sides.<br><br>I think the other place I take a mileage "hit" is in an average of 1-2 short hops every day (maybe 1-2 miles or even a little less), like to get a drink at lunch time or between work sites.<br><br>I usually do accelerate hard, similar to the "pulse" style suggested here. I'll probably start doing it more consistently. <br><br>Any thoughts

I've got a similar distance in my commute. It's approximately 22 miles also. My average is about 50mpg. The average speed on the road varies between 35-60 miles per hour. Most of it is also on the freeway as well.<br><br>I've noticed that my mpg goes up "dramatically" when I don't constantly press on the accelerator pedal. I usually get up to speed and back off of the "gas" pedal which switches the engine over to electrical power. Driving the Prius like a gasoline powered car usually will give you mileage in the 40's. The trick is to trick the Prius into shifting to electrical mode instead of always applying pressure to the accelerator pedal.<br><br>Coast when you can. Build up speed before you get to a rise in the freeway and coast down the other side. Drive smoothly.<br><br>

I've been disappointed in my mileage. I drive 5 miles each way to work and that's most of my driving. Along the way I stop at several lights and it takes about 15 minutes to get to work. My mileage averages 36. I've been surprised that I seem to get better mileage when I mix in highway driving. <br><br>Does this sound correct or do I have a problem with my car?

&gt; I drive 5 miles each way to work and that's most of my driving. <br><br>Those are the exact conditions where Prius does the worst (which is still better than just about every other vehicle available).<br><br>Once it gets warmer out, MPG will go up. <br><br>Try driving to work sometime with your engine already warmed up (run an errand somewhere first). You'll discover improved MPG.<br><br>Also, don't forget about the in-your-face nature of the multi-display. It commonly points out weaknesses in all vehicles. Only you've never had data available in the past, so you had no idea that was actually happening.<br><br>JOHN<br><a href=http://john1701a.com target=new>http://john1701a.com</a>

You probably already know that the Prius gets better gas mileage in the city vs. the highway. The faster I go on the highway, the worse my gas mileage, all other things (such as terrain) being equal. So if you speed up, I think you'll find that you get worse gas mileage. If only the road was downhill both ways...

Taken

FYI, I drive about 7 miles to work, with about 5 of those on a highway. The first 5 minutes (getting to the highway) I get dreadful MPG, maybe 20. The next 5 minutes (includes a light or 2 plus accelerating onto the highway and most of the actual highway driving I get maybe 40. The next 5 (or fewer) which includes getting of the highway (ramp is downhill) and going into the work driveway, I get more like 50+.<br><br>In the summer it was much better. On my weekly 10-mile trip done with the car warm, it is better.<br><br>I don't think you have a problem.<br><br>Burns

At 38,000 miles I have a lifetime average of about 41 mpg driving fast. Take every opportunity to use cars great ability to coast. Lift your foot at speed and then appy just enough pressure to maintain speed. Lose speed going uphill and gain it on the way back down.<br><br>Leave the AC on auto and turn it off when its colder than 65 outside.<br><br>Following large SUVs and trucks will also help with milage. I find my milage goes up by about 3mpg when I am on the phone. (Not passing all the other cars)<br><br>Dave

Thought you might find this relevant:<br><br>4 people died yesterday in a pile-up on I495/95 as a result of a person who was talking on the cell phone. 3 of the people were minding their own business in the opposite lane with a median between that driver and them. Do everyone else a favor, if not yourself, and maybe find a better time to make that all important, very necessary, 'life-or-death' phone call.

I'm gonna be a gadfly on this one. The fact that the driver that caused the accident was using a cell phone does not prove the cell phone was the cause. Was the driver also using the car radio? Was the driver drinking coffee? Was the driver drunk? Was the driver lost? <br><br>There are at least a dozen easily identifiable potential distractions, but as soon as we discover someone was on the phone when an accident happened we conclude the phone was at fault. Another angle of this is that the same people who insist that cell phones cause accidents and must not be used while driving have never launched a campaign about, for example, changing the CD in your single disc CD player without pulling over. Is there solid evidence to support the hypothesis that cell phones cause accidents? Is there solid evidence to support the hypothesis that cell phones cause more accidents then messing with the radio/CD/tape player or eating a donut or any of the other things we might reasonably do while driving? I think if we're gonna make a rule that says "no talking on the phone while driving," we also have to have a rule about "no eating," and "pull over before you change your CD."

You sound a bit like you're in denial.

I wasn't sure if you are aware but the Oregon state drivers manual specifically states do not eat, drink, listen to headphones while driving in a car. A woman on a cell phone here (and continued to be on the cell phone after the accident) caused a 4 car pile up, with a truck that got flipped over onto another car. Luckily there were no fatalities in the Oregon wreck.<br><br>I think if a person uses a hands free unit and does NOT dial while driving that a cell phone can be used BUT due to the # of times a person with their right arm holding the phone to their left ear and deciding NOT to see me as they chat away IS a danger. I have had more near misses with cell phone drivers than non-cell phone drivers. I agree, when someone is talking they should be looking straight ahead NOT at the person talking, NOR should they look down at the radio OR at their food/drink.<br><br>However we do have enough documentation and DEATH caused by cell phones that it warrants some action. Here's a research project-find out what was the major leading cause of distractions for accidents and death BEFORE cell phones. Then we can compare the lesser of the two evils.

I'm sorry, but you are wrong.<br><br>I'll address this in no particular order. Their is a matter of practicability. It's hard enough to have the law require a seat belt, but we can just about barely do it. It would be extremely difficult to enfore law that say you can't eat while driving. Maybe writing it on the law books is a nice thought, but enforcing it would be difficult. I think it is just about as easy to enfore a cell phone law (New York) as it would be the seat belt law. Difficult, but not impossible.<br><br>I change CD's while driving, and one two occassions it almost got me in trouble, but I can manage it while driving. Because I make long highway trips, I got an mp3 player that now has about 20 hours of music. I no longer have to change a disc whiledriving.<br><br>I eat while driving. I do it mostly by "feel" I barely look at the food, wrapper, and I reach blindly for my drink. <br><br>I use a cell phone while driving. I never owned one before and i thought the law was stupid. If I can eat and adjust my stereo, why can't I make a call. Hell, you can look ahead while your talking! I got a cell phone for Christmas, and used it while driving. I could not believe how long I had to look away from the road to dial. It was amazing. It turns out that whereas a car is ergonomically designed to make stereo buttons as visible as possible, my phone was not. It took a good second or two for my eyes to adjust to the tiny keys before I could press any of them. <br><br>I now beleive in the problem and use voice dial mode.

&gt;I'm sorry, but you are wrong.<br><br>Give me a break. The most intelligent comment that can be made to this is "am not!"<br><br>In my opinion, your reasoning is flawed and this is the last I'll say on this topic. The premise to your reasoning is whatever you feel *you* can "handle" should be deemed reasonable for all drivers to attempt while driving (even if it's something that "almost got you in trouble") and anything you find distracting should be against the law.<br><br>&gt;I now beleive in the problem and use voice dial mode. <br><br>Whoopdy-do. You "believe" in the problem. Legislation should not be based on knee-jerk "beliefs" based on anecdotal reports. We don't "believe" seatbelts save lives. We know it on the basis of solid evidence. That's why the law is reasonable. I *suspect* that a variety of activities are distractions while driving and *believe* smart drivers should avoid those things but no one should be making *law* on the basis of what I *suspect* (nor even on the basis of what you suspect, even if you do think you should be the gold standard of what is and is not an acceptable distraction.)<br><br>&gt;It turns out that whereas<br> a car is ergonomically designed to make stereo buttons as visible as<br> possible. . .<br><br>This is the Prius we're talking about!

&gt;I wasn't sure if you are aware but the Oregon state drivers manual<br> specifically states do not eat, drink. . .<br><br>That doesent apply to Hawkmon, as it is widely known that he is uniquely able to eat by feel and reach for his drink blindly: "I eat while driving. I do it mostly by "feel" I barely look at the food, wrapper, and I reach blindly for my drink."<br><br>I think it is good advice not to use a cell phone while driving. I think it should be in all state driver's manuals and defensive driving courses, right alongside all the other advice about distractions. I would even be likely to support an insurance premium discount for people who install hands free units, just as many companies give discounts to people who take defensive driving courses. (I'm all for social engineering to encourage people to make smart healthy decisions.)<br><br>A law, however, that singles out this one distraction above all others would be a knee-jerk approach to legislation absent solid evidence that this is a menace requiring special attention.<br><br>Like Hawkmon, what you've offered is anecdotal reports of accidents which were "caused by" cell phones as your own experience that more "near misses" are with cell phone users than others. My experience is that my near misses are about 50-50 users and non users (but much more frequent with tailgaters than non-tailgaters) and no more common when I'm on the phone as when I'm off (but it's worth noting that I have developed the ability to use my phone by feel and pretty much blind).<br><br>Passing a law banning cell phones will make everyone feel swell about working to improve safety. I think we would make better use of our state troopers by cracking down on aggressive drivers (who have been the cause of almost every near miss I've been involved in phone or no phone) while using driver education and insurance incentives to encourage safe driving habits like avoiding phone use and other distracting activities while driving.

Always possible.<br><br>I do not dispute the notion that cell phones are a source of driver distraction. What I question is the logic of addressing this one cause of driver distraction with every tool society can muster, right up to legislation, while going into a societal state of denial about all the others (witness Hawkmon's denial of the import of every other distraction in his own driving once he had eliminated the two he decided to deal with). I think attacking this one source of distraction will allow us to dust off our hands, pat ourselves on the back and congratulate ourselves while we continue to read maps, apply makeup, eat messy jelly donuts, change the tape/CD, give our kid in the back seat a drink, reach over to the passenger floor to grab a tissue, gape at the beautiful guy/girl/car in the next lane. . . (not to mention drive too close and/or too fast, fail to use turn signals. . .)