backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 111 comment(s) - last by darkpuppet.. on Jul 18 at 5:14 PM

400,000km in a Toyota Prius (Source: Gerry Kahrmann, CanWest News Service)
Prius travels 400,000km in 24 months

When it comes to stop-and-go traffic, hybrid vehicles are at their best in fuel efficiency. Traditional internal combustion engines (ICE) run constantly in traffic and as a result consume fuel and emit pollutants into the atmosphere.

Hybrids, on the other hand, operate on battery power when at a standstill. True hybrids like the Toyota Prius and Ford Escape Hybrid can travel at moderate speeds around town under full electric power -- as long as the battery is charged.

The reduction in fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions were enough for New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg to declare that all yellow cabs would be hybrids by 2012.

"There's an awful lot of taxicabs on the streets of New York City obviously, so it makes a real big difference," said Bloomberg in late May. "These cars just sit there in traffic sometimes, belching fumes; this does a lot less. It's a lot better for all of us."

When it comes to the Toyota Prius, a Vancouver cab driver has shown that the mid-sized hybrid is up to the task of taxi duty. Andrew Grant and his partner operate a 2004 Prius that roams the streets 22 to 24 hours a day.

According to Grant, the Prius just surpassed the 400,000 kilometer (248,548 mile) mark. The Prius accomplished this feat by consuming just 10 to 15 liters of gasoline per 12-hour shift as opposed to 35 to 55 liters for traditional ICE taxis.

Over a 24-month period, the Prius had one-third less maintenance costs and there were no failures of the hybrid powertrain during 400,000 kilometers of driving. The lower maintenance costs coupled with a fuel savings of roughly 1,500 liters per month means that the Prius paid for itself in less than 24 months.

Grant's 2004 Prius is now the highest-mileage second generation Prius on the road. Not surprisingly, Toyota is interested in checking out the vehicle so it will soon be shipped to Toyota's Japanese headquarters for research.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Uh...
By Duraz0rz on 7/13/2007 12:05:40 PM , Rating: 2
Wow...so I think if there were any doubts about the durability of a hybrid system, this would blow those statements out of the water.




RE: Uh...
By MDE on 7/13/2007 12:33:48 PM , Rating: 4
You see one example (two, since this is the second-highest mileage 2G Prius according to TFA) and you're sold on the durability of it? I could probably find two examples of Prius lemons to discount these high mileage models. We need numbers on a bigger sample. Time may also cause the batteries to deteriorate, there really isn't a good way to estimate the wear of normal driving, except by driving them normally for an extended period of time.


RE: Uh...
By Duraz0rz on 7/13/2007 12:43:18 PM , Rating: 5
I think it's quite safe to assume that, if you put 160,000 km/year on a car and it's stood up this well, especially against the demands that taxi drivers usually place their cars in, it is a fairly good indicator of how well it can stand up.

Batteries may wear out over time, but they wear out far faster when you discharge and recharge them constantly. And with the amount of city driving he was doing, probably, that would be quite a lot of cycles by then.


RE: Uh...
By boobot on 7/13/2007 12:50:19 PM , Rating: 2
And you would never make a good forecaster or statistician. As mentioned above If we were to write a story on a Prius that had complete failures would this be indicitive of the Prius being a lemon?


RE: Uh...
By geddarkstorm on 7/13/2007 1:31:14 PM , Rating: 5
I think you're missing the point. This shows, irrefutably, the potential the hardware and system has. These are relatively new vehicles, so the numbers of Prius that have driven nearly that much can't be high yet. But the article stated that the thing had received only 2/3rds (1/3rd less) the standard maintenance of a ICE. That alone says a lot.

Whatever the statistics, that's irrelevant if we're talking about what the hardware could do, what it could live up to, which is what this shows. Toyota wants to look at it, obviously they want to see how so much wear has effected it and why it's done so good. There will always be lemons in every brand of vehicle, and I can show you any brand of vehicle with dozens of lemon stories, as there'll always be defects in manufacture and design (and I guarantee you, you won't be able to forecast which new vehicle will last better than another except in extreme cases, maybe, so don't even try that card). But for a design and standard manufactured piece of equipment to do this good is very warming. This is the positive control, now we know what can be, and it's certainly better than a lot of ICE brands. I'd like you to show me a Ford Focus that could go that far without major repairs and replacements (no new engine/new power train), and this one being the second Prius shows it isn't a fluke.

Really, the reason this is so remarkable to me is because of the inherent complexity of hybrid design. You wouldn't expect it to do this well--but the fact it is shows our technology has sufficiently developed and these may well be a good buy. The hybrid system is proving itself. And yes, I've taken college statistics. Consumers will be most concerned with the standard mean for this vehicle's performance and longevity, but engineers and designers will be most interested in these cases where they did so remarkably well for any design, and then to learn from that success in designing superior vehicles to come next.


RE: Uh...
By pixelslave on 7/13/2007 2:39:48 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Toyota wants to look at it, obviously they want to see how so much wear has effected it and why it's done so good.


I hope what they are not trying to look for a way to make the Prius LESS reliable so that (1) they don't spend extra money on making it so good; (2) Prius drivers will upgrade to another Prius faster.


RE: Uh...
By SiliconAddict on 7/14/07, Rating: -1
RE: Uh...
By kenji4life on 7/14/2007 6:42:58 PM , Rating: 3
It's called planned obsolescence. This hasn't been practiced so much since the Japanese companies started booming. It is however one of the reasons that the 'big 3' or 'detroit 3' fell behind. I think that GM/Chrysler/Ford have been trying hard to bury their past. They have for the most part finally come to realize that planned obsolescence just gives them a bad reputation. With the world blooming in the auto market now more than ever (look at hyundai) It's definitely in BIG3's best interest to build reliable cars. Unfortunately companies don't always act in the customer's best interest when they are focused (read: tunnel vision) on the bottom line.


RE: Uh...
By TomZ on 7/14/07, Rating: 0
RE: Uh...
By kenji4life on 7/16/2007 5:55:09 AM , Rating: 3
Don't know if you realize it, but your statement proves my point to a certain degree. By definition, if you design a car to go a certain number of miles, that is planned obsolescence.

Perhaps automotive engineers just didn't know what they were doing? Doubt that. It's more likely this:

The bottom line (read: making as much money as possible, despite the customer). If a company can make a car that will last at least until the warranty is up, they will save money in two or more ways.

1. lower cost of parts (they don't have to over-engineer a car if it only needs to last 3 years)

that leads us to:

2. lower cost of repairs (they don't have to repair vehicles under warranty if the parts last at least until the warranty is up)

bonus: if the owner brings out of warranty car to be repaired at the dealership, anyone knows the "stealership" makes a killing on these repairs.

That my friend is planned obsolescence. Ever hear the chevy guy talk about how much fords break down, ford guys talk about how much chevy's break down, and dodge guys talk about how much faster their dodge is than the fords or chevys (while the ford/chevy guys talk about how much dodge breaks down). Well, the truth is that all 3 of them break down; and none of the three are really faster..

Want to hear the "Japanese Scenario"?

1. Build the car with highest quality possible parts. Sell the car on it's reliability which is built on reputation. More people buy and production goes up with demand, lowering production costs and raising overall profits

2. Because oem parts are high quality, aftermarket parts are frowned upon because of their inferiority to oem. oem parts in turn sell for a premium because owners realize the parts are better.

bonus: Buyers realize they can get an overall better value buying from a reliable Japanese brand (cars and their parts alike)

result: American car companies feel the hit and are forced to rethink their business plan, along with strong lobbying to gov't. (Think hardcore import tax laws)

result #2: Japanese car companies move production to states so that they can skirt import laws.

result #3: Japanese car companies continue to gain market share, further diversifying the market and allowing more companies to break into the market (eg hyundai, kia)

Now don't take what I write too personally. I have no hatred towards any companies (although I tend to buy from some more than others).
I've owned vehicles from GM, Ford, Chrysler, Honda, Nissan, Subaru, Toyota, Volvo, Mercedes, Kawasaki, Suzuki (motorcycles on the latter 2) All of these vehicles, for the most part were reliable and didn't have many problems. This had a lot to do with how they were treated and maintained.
If I had a choice of which one to pick not to break down on me at the worst time it would be a hard choice. My favorite, the Nissan may be my last choice; but that is because I am the hardest on it. I might pick the GMC pickup or the Subaru 3 banger. Perhaps I'd go with the Honda just because they never seem to let me down.
Even with everything that has gone wrong with my Nissan, it was a direct result of me replacing the OEM parts with questionable aftermarket ones. This perhaps just proves my point more than ever.

One of my dad's Volvos had well over 500k miles on it. Just goes to show that a well cared for vehicle has much more potential than one that is abused. Know what finally stopped that Volvo? It was a guy running a red light. My dad got out without a scratch.

But I have seen many cars from all sides of our muddy pond break down. In the end, I believe that planned obsolescence has long ago went the way of the Caveman: gone but not forgotten.


RE: Uh...
By TomZ on 7/16/2007 8:19:58 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
By definition, if you design a car to go a certain number of miles, that is planned obsolescence.

You're close, but not correct. Planned obsolence in that case would mean that something in the car is designed to break after 100K miles. That is completely different than everything in the car being designed to last at least 100K miles (except for tires, break pads, oil, etc).

It's really a question of cost. If you try to design for something way past 100K miles, like they do for heavy-duty highway trucks, it just ends up costing a lot more. For trucks, that cost is justified, but for cars, people generally don't want cars that run that long. That's because old cars are worn looking inside and out, their style is out of date, new models are much improved over old models, and I think some people (not all) get tired of driving the same car for many years.

Finally, anecdotal evidence of quality is very misleading, and you can't really use it to judge overall quality. For every 500K mile Volvo story, you'll find another guy with 500K Buick story, or whatever. Just search the web, you'll find these kinds of "testimonials" for every brand. These stories are fun, but they don't tell you much about the statistical probability of you running into problems or not with that particular model. You have to look to actual reliability statistics for that.


RE: Uh...
By kenji4life on 7/16/2007 4:41:56 PM , Rating: 2
It's funny because as I got to the end of my writing last night I started to realize that the quality of the parts/vehicle is a small factor in the larger equation, where the owner of the vehicle is the most important variable.

That doesn't mean that the USA has never practiced planned obsolescence. I don't think for a minute they do now, on the kind of scale that they may have in the past. But I never thought of it as "designed to break" so much as "designed not to last". This is shown in my original arguement.

BTW I agree with you on the 'anecdotal' experience (is that a word?). I believe that Volvo is a prime example to somewhat displace the arguement that 'for every volvo, there's a buick'. Do buick owners have a high mileage club?
Volvo has a high mileage club. I'm willing to bet that if you do the numbers, there are a large percentage more high mileage volvos than there are high mileage buicks. Does buick make a sticker that says "500k club" or "1 million miles club"? I doubt it. This goes to show that while oftentimes it's only an isolated incident, there is also the case where quality is the #1 factor.

Don't forget, I'm not biased towards any company. But if you told me that you had 500k on your mitsubishi eclipse (original motor); I would be shocked. If you told me you had 500k on your GMC Pickup, I'd be less than surprised. If you told me that you had 500k on your Volvo, I'd just say welcome to the club.


RE: Uh...
By kenji4life on 7/16/2007 4:47:39 PM , Rating: 1
OTOH, If you told me that your __anycar__ broke down, I'd question your ability to maintain your car properly. If your car was one that I knew to have reliability problems, I might give you more credit and simply recommend that you buy a different brand/car that has a better reputation.


RE: Uh...
By TomZ on 7/16/2007 5:56:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you told me that your __anycar__ broke down, I'd question your ability to maintain your car properly

Huh? You're blaming all design and manufacturing problems on the user now? LOL.

I've got an appt. later this week with Toyota dealer to try to have them fix the DVD player again (in warranty). You think I could have somehow prevented the problem with that?

Also on my Toyota, they have a premature tire wear problem with the run-flats, so they'll be replacing all the tires. Could I have prevented that also?

I agree that some problems can be prevented, but a large majority cannot.


RE: Uh...
By kenji4life on 7/16/2007 6:40:30 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry, did I ever say that? If you re-read my comments you'll see that I did not. I'll be the first person to tell you that companies put low quality parts in cars to save money. Often there are also just flaws which should have been worked out before they were released.

Don't think for a minute that you can blame most car failures on the manufacturer, though. A well maintained piece of crap will not always run better than the over-engineered dream car that's poorly mistreated and poorly maintained, but this is not my arguement.

Simply, you take two cars and both have no major problems to begin with: the car which is abused and not well maintained will break down before the car that is treated the opposite.

Where do you get the idea that I'm blaming the user for everything? I'm not going to tell you: "Oh, you blew a fuse. You shouldn't be using your headlights so much."; But I will tell you: "Oh, you blew a fuse. Maybe you should be more careful about putting aftermarket bulbs in your headlights."

Everyone knows that parts fail, and I would never argue otherwise. If I was that crazy, I'd probably believe that all cars which are well maintained should last forever. . .
There's only so much you can do you live a healthy life, but in the end it's futile because death is inevitable.


RE: Uh...
By Calin on 7/17/2007 3:11:27 AM , Rating: 2
And something more: if a car goes strong after 100k, its resale value is greater - so if you use your car only 100k, you get more money back (towards your new car)


RE: Uh...
By kenji4life on 7/17/2007 9:15:41 PM