Boy am I jealous. I still can't get over 34.8 Mpg. Pulse and Glide, whatever. It is just very tough to find many places to be able to drive under 30 without being run over. Plus the acceleration is so weak staying in EV mode that the people behind me blow their horns.

Boy, the display really has another unexpected value for me. I learned of the difference between Tier 1 and other qualities of gas through this board. Because of this I've made it a point to primarily fill up with Tier 1... but sometimes you just can't and you have to take whatever you can. I've found the display lets us see immediately that lower quality gas destroys MPG significantly. I never had a clue it would make such a difference... but with the display you can see the difference right away.

I've literally found it drops 4-5 miles off our MPG.

I seem to average 35 to 36 MPG with Exxon and BP, 36 to 37 MPG with Sunoco, and 37 to 38 MPG with Shell. (All regular) There are still too many other factors to consider, but I do see a big difference in Shell gas. Unfortunately all New Jersey gas has ethanol additives during certain months.

i'm sure u can tell after few month of good band gas and cheap one... i have always used Shell but there is a few month i have used costco gas on my Solara when the gas was so HIGH $$$ but after using 3 or 4 month the engine start to dancing now back to SHELL and almost back to normal

Resurrecting this thread...

In my last tank, the computer display showed 37.1 mpg but my actual calculation was 33.6. This is a large (3.5 mpg) difference. I always reset the display at each tank. This is the largest delta yet. I also checked my tires and they are at 35 PSI, so I don't see a problem there.

I have also noticed that the mpg goes up when I am using cruise control.

I tend to believe that computer display is more accurate although many on this forum state that a combination of hand calculation and display are more accurate. The only way to have a 100% accurate comparison would be to have a direct connection to the fuel line with an exact measuring device as the tank (mythbusters). I don't think anyone is willing to put that to the test, but it would end the debate once and for all.

On any one tank, I wouldn't rely too much on the hand calculation; that method is only reliable when averaged over multiple tanks. I've seen differences of 2-3 mpg in the hand calculated numbers, depending on how "light" the last refueling was, whereas the computer appears to be precise to within about 0.25 mpg.

The computer is more precise, but not necessarily more accurate; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy for an example of the distinction between the two.