backtop

Print 122 comment(s) - last by Alexvrb.. on May 3 at 5:55 PM
Toyota plans to go full-bore with third-generation Prius.

When someone tosses around the word "hybrid", one vehicle typically first comes to mind: the Toyota Prius. The first generation model was introduced in ‘00 as a '01 model while the second generation model came out in '03 as an '04 model.

The original Prius got Americans talking about hybrid vehicles, but it was the second generation model that really set things in motion for Toyota and its aim to equip the bulk of its lineup with hybrid technology. The second generation Prius -- classified as a mid-size sedan -- manages to achieve EPA ratings of 48 MPG/45 MPG city/highway thanks to its 1.5-liter gasoline engine and its hybrid-electric system.

Toyota is looking to boost the appeal and size of the third generation Prius which is due to be unveiled at the 2009 Detroit Auto Show. The vehicle will catch the disease that seems to afflict every new vehicle redesign these days:  further increases in exterior dimensions. According to AutoObserver, the next Prius will gain roughly four inches in length and an inch in width.

The larger Prius will also be powered by a new 1.8 liter gasoline engine. Power will increase from 75 HP today to around 100 HP. This will push the combined gasoline engine/Hybrid Synergy Drive combination to 160 HP. The increased displacement should allow the third generation Prius to accelerate faster and should squash any performance complaints leveled against the current model.

As stated in previous DailyTech articles, the third generation Prius will continue using nickel-metal hydride batteries for its initial run. Toyota will switch over to more efficient lithium-ion batteries as soon as performance, safety, and production concerns are ironed out. The use of lithium-ion batteries should also allow for better packing efficiencies and a longer driving range when operating in electric-only mode.

In addition, Toyota is also looking to expand the Prius family to include two additional models. Toyota is tossing around the idea of Prius vehicles both larger and smaller than the upcoming third generation model.

Toyota's Prius is a vehicle that is quite polarizing to automotive enthusiasts. In one camp, you have adoring owners/fans who love the fuel efficiency and the idea that they are driving a "green vehicle." Detractors, however, like to point out the "smugness" of Prius drivers; the odd, tadpole-esque design of the vehicle; and the fact that diesel vehicles can approach, match, or exceed the levels achieved by the Prius.

The third generation model likely will do nothing to stop these two camps from throwing rocks at each other while Toyota continues to rack up sales and bask in the spotlight as an "environmentally friendly" automaker.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Hmm
By Spivonious on 4/29/2008 4:19:08 PM , Rating: 3
So they make the car bigger, give it a bigger engine....I smell decreasing gas mileage. They better hope it stays above 40 or no one with half a brain will be buying a Prius.




RE: Hmm
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 4/29/2008 4:22:16 PM , Rating: 4
I don't get why they need to make it bigger. I mean, isn't that what the Camry Hybrid is for?

I guess people just need to be "unique" and have it with a Prius badge/design.


RE: Hmm
By giantpandaman2 on 4/29/2008 4:51:43 PM , Rating: 4
They made it bigger but not significantly heavier. This is probably in preparation for Toyota to segment the Prius into a brand. The source article states that two new models, a small Prius and a luxury one, are in the works.

Personally, I'm wondering what's keeping Toyota from putting a turbo or using direct injection with the Synergy drive. Would it make the engines too complex? I really wish some engineers would do an interview of Toyota's design team so we could see a bit more about their views of the future of automotive fuel efficiency.


RE: Hmm
By Spuke on 4/29/2008 5:09:14 PM , Rating: 2
DI isn't complex at all, mechanically. The only added part is the high pressure, cam driven fuel pump. Everything else is just a replacement of what would already be there (fuel lines, injectors, etc).


RE: Hmm
By Andrevas on 4/29/2008 5:27:05 PM , Rating: 2
a direct injected miller cycle (atkinson cycle w/ forced induction) engine would be nice, however the actual fuel mileage benefits of current DI setups remain to be seen until technology to operate stratified injection modes can be perfected.

stratified injection is where the real fuel savings are at.


RE: Hmm
By Spuke on 4/29/2008 6:39:13 PM , Rating: 2
My car (Pontiac Solstice GXP) gets at least 2-3 mpg better in real world driving than the non-DI version of the same car. In some cases it's MUCH better than 2-3 mpg. My old car (04 Nissan Sentra) got decent gas mileage on short runs but crappy mileage on medium runs especially with some city driving mixed in. My present car gets better gas on all types of driving except for long runs where my old Sentra would get about 2-3 mpg better but only if my foot was really light. I can drive my present car like I stole and it seems to not really be affected much by it. Others with the same car (Solstice GXP) and much lighter feet report 33-34 mpg hwy driving.


RE: Hmm
By Alexvrb on 4/29/2008 9:27:50 PM , Rating: 2
You are trying to say that DI is more fuel efficient based on a comparison between the built-up and better tuned 2.0L DI turbocharged+intercooled Ecotec vs the cheaper non-DI 2.4L naturally aspirated Ecotec?

If you look at both designs, you'll quickly realize that there are other factors which are a lot more important. I would say that current DI implementations do more to increase horsepower than to improve mileage. It also means added complexity and somewhat increased initial cost. The cost of replacing the fuel injectors would certainly be much higher as well. Down the road, costs will come down. Hopefully improved DI designs will also show up.


RE: Hmm
By Spuke on 4/29/2008 10:21:13 PM , Rating: 2
Then look at a comparable, high-tech motor like the Honda K20. The Ecotec DI 4 STILL gets better fuel mileage. Compare the Cadillac DI V6 with it's non-DI equivalent. Better fuel mileage.


RE: Hmm
By Spuke on 4/29/2008 10:29:29 PM , Rating: 2
Like I stated above, there isn't any added complexity, mechanically. You add a fuel pump on one of the cams. That's it. If mileage isn't improved by DI's use how does a car that gets 80 more hp than it's NA equivalent get better real world fuel economy? I've owned 2.0L and 2.5L 4's and none of them get the mileage this car gets. Even when I'm using a lot of boost, the mileage is better. My "old" 2.5L's mileage would tank to the low 20's if I drove it like I do this car. GM and Ford are releasing DI, turbo'd small displacement engines so they can drastically improve fuel economy but still have similar power as today's larger displacement engines.


RE: Hmm
By Alexvrb on 4/30/2008 3:24:57 PM , Rating: 2
"Mechanically"? If by that you mean that both engines have fuel injectors, you are correct. They're completely different injectors, they've been relocated, and they handle MUCH higher heat and pressure. In your specific case, Fit is right, they are geared slightly differently. Your engine is also turbocharged and intercooled from the get-go. So DI aside, the other differences between a GXP and a non-GXP are really making the difference.

Your best comparison is the DI 3.6L vs the non-DI 3.6L. On the same car, with the same trans, MPG rating is essentially the same or slightly worse with DI.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/compx2008f.jsp?year...

I'm not saying DI hurts mileage, and it will evolve and become more useful (power and mileage improvements, cost parity). But current implementations don't seem to improve mileage, and they do add cost, otherwise GM and other companies would be putting them in all their engines. Why have an option, wouldn't it be cheaper to produce only one 3.6L? Especially since it would give all the cars using it an edge in both power and fuel economy? They'll start with their performance versions of the engines, taking advantage of the power improvements. As the technology matures and improves, they'll put it into more vehicles.


RE: Hmm
By Spuke on 4/30/2008 4:09:30 PM , Rating: 2
If there's a price premium on DI, it's REALLY small. If you compare my car to the NA Solstice, there's maybe a $1500 difference in price. And before some of you guys look at the sticker prices and say I'm wrong, realize that you have compare similarly equipped cars. There's equipment that's standard on the turbo model that is either non-existent or optional on the non-turbo model.

BTW, GM and Ford are planning to introduce a whole line of DI, turbo engines for small cars up to 1/2 trucks.


RE: Hmm
By FITCamaro on 4/30/2008 9:43:34 AM , Rating: 2
The Solstice GXP with the turbocharged engine has a much lower 5th gear ratio than the 5 speed or automatic in the non-turbo Solstice. That is likely why its top gear mileage is better. It doesn't really have anything to do with tuning though. The direct injection probably helps a little but I would say the differences in gear ratios is the biggest factor.


RE: Hmm
By Spuke on 4/30/2008 4:14:32 PM , Rating: 2
It's not just top end mileage. Across the board in ALL driving situations, the turbo's mileage is better. This verified by actual owners, not DT speculation.


RE: Hmm
By Andrevas on 4/29/2008 9:31:20 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't say you would get no improvement in mileage with DI, but the gains are small compared to an engine running in a stratified injection mode


RE: Hmm
By Samus on 4/30/2008 6:31:08 AM , Rating: 2
Miller cycle would allow them to have more power with less displacement...so they wouldn't need an increased engine size (1.5l vs 1.8l) so make more power.

Miller cycle added 60% more power to the last-gen Mazda Millenia, and the non-Miller cycle model had 30% more displacement.

Fuel consumption remained nearly identical between the two engines. The only difference was it being two seconds faster 0-60, huge when you consider the weight of the Millenia.


RE: Hmm
By wookie1 on 4/30/2008 12:33:01 PM , Rating: 2
One way that you get better mileage with DI is that you can run a higher compression ratio. This provides additional fuel efficiency (and modest power increase also). For example, I have an '07 VW GTI, which has a 2.0L turbo. If I recall, the compression ratio is 10.5:1, which is normally on the high end for a naturally aspirated engine, much less a turbocharged engine.


RE: Hmm
By Souka on 4/29/2008 4:51:53 PM , Rating: 3
NextGen Camry will be bigger than current gen..... the cycle goes on.

today's 08 Honda Civic is bigger than a 1998 Accord

Today's 08 Ford Escape is almost big as a 1995 Explorer (what I drive)

"progress"

:)


RE: Hmm
By Polynikes on 4/29/2008 5:14:41 PM , Rating: 2
I absolutely hate that trend.


RE: Hmm
By Oregonian2 on 4/29/2008 5:51:59 PM , Rating: 2
Prefer cars to shrink until they're all "smart cars"?
To me a car too big is like having a job that pays too much.


RE: Hmm
By jlips6 on 4/29/2008 6:38:20 PM , Rating: 3
at four bucks a gallon you'd better have a job that pays too much.


RE: Hmm
By Spuke on 4/29/2008 6:41:21 PM , Rating: 2
Yep and when gas gets to $7+ a gallon, even a fuel efficient car will cost a ton to fill up.


RE: Hmm
By FITCamaro on 4/30/2008 9:45:35 AM , Rating: 2
It's pretty pathetic that my Cobalt costs over $40 to fill up.


RE: Hmm
By jlips6 on 4/30/2008 1:29:33 PM , Rating: 2
my $300 trek costs me $0.00 to fill up, and if I just do regular maitnance, (which I do myself) it'll last me god knows how many miles. So far I'm up to 750, and it still feels brand new.


RE: Hmm
By Odeen on 4/29/2008 11:59:26 PM , Rating: 2
Umm.. are you kidding?

If your job pays "too much" you can always spend the money on more or better things, or invest it and have the money later.

On the other hand, if your car is "too big", all you're doing is going from point A to point B and arriving with an extra ton of metal in tow. What's the point of having a bigger car unless you're actually using the space more often than not?


RE: Hmm
By Oregonian2 on 4/30/2008 12:58:51 PM , Rating: 2
First of all, "using the space more often than not" makes no sense if one doesn't have it. If one doesn't have it, then one can NEVER use it.

As to space, it exists whether a car surrounds it or not. I'd rather have it inside the car where I could use it when needed, even if not all the time. Wife and I each have a car. One is bigger than the other so when we need the space it's available. I'll agree that it's not as economically efficient to have both of them big. But see below.

Note too that we're talking ONLY about size of the car -- not indirection through assumptions. IOW I'm not saying I want cars that have lower fuel efficiency, that would be only an assumption about size effects. Given the identical fuel efficiency and cost to purchase, and all other things being equal I'll go for the bigger car in a second. Talking about size as an independent feature, I like to have it.

If I can have higher gas mileage AND a larger car I prefer that even more, and from reports above one will be getting both with the new version.


RE: Hmm
By timmiser on 4/30/2008 5:04:52 AM , Rating: 3
Then you should love the Hummer! H1 -> H2 -> H3... They just keep getting smaller. (and uglier!)


RE: Hmm
By daftrok on 4/29/2008 5:40:53 PM , Rating: 2
Can't they just make a hybrid that looks like a car? Oh wait:

http://www.productwiki.com/upload/images/2007_hond...


RE: Hmm
By Runiteshark on 4/29/2008 8:32:16 PM , Rating: 2
Mugen Civic + Hybrid = AWESOME.

And for reference:

http://www.autoblog.com/media/2006/11/mugen_si_sed...


RE: Hmm
By Calin on 4/30/2008 2:46:04 AM , Rating: 2
The original VW Polo was small, the current VW Polo is as big as the original Golf. The current Golf is bigger than the first Passat.
The place of the small car (lost by VW Polo due to its increase) was taken by VW Lupo.

As people get older, their cars get bigger, and new cars take the place of smaller cars.


RE: Hmm
By Squibby on 4/29/2008 5:02:39 PM , Rating: 2
The Camry Hybrid is a slightly different take on the hybrid idea—it’s an existing car with hybrid technology added to it, but theoretically nothing taken away, as opposed to a car designed from the ground up with good mileage as a primary goal. The Camry Hybrid doesn’t give up too much performance (it still puts out 187hp total), but it doesn’t gain much mileage either (it just gets 33/34 MPG). A Prius, on the other hand, is all about the mileage, and performance can be sacrificed to get there (as shown by its tiny 76hp engine). The bigger Prius would have the same design tenant (mileage > performance), and buyers can choose if they want a better performing car or a more fuel efficient one.


RE: Hmm
By tastyratz on 4/29/2008 5:18:35 PM , Rating: 2
a redesign... that needs a redesign.

Right now a Prius just doesn't net enough gains in factory form to be fully worth it. The epa estimate numbers are grossly inflated over actual performance. All cars shoot high and get low when it comes to mileage, it just seem the Prius labels it a little higher proportionally so expect a surprise on your first tank.

This is borderline just a publicity stunt vehicle. Just enough to say it is but not enough to make an impact.

There is no reason whatsoever they shouldn't be direct injected diesel with a turbo for the high end model. Toyota is well known for being innovative in many fields and has been for many years but when it comes to gas mileage I am seeing better innovations right now from GM (and I have a personal distaste for domestic brand vehicles)

I mean hell, even if they kept the gas the Prius isn't even e85 flex fuel.

So sorry to point out you blend in here Toyota.

(just to add again I am a strong believer in the import vehicle options and generally find myself bias'ed against domestic's when comparing a toyta or honda)


RE: Hmm
By mdogs444 on 4/29/2008 5:39:38 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
I mean hell, even if they kept the gas the Prius isn't even e85 flex fuel.

I hate to burst your bubble, but there is a reason that Toyota and Honda do not engineer for E85 Flex Fuel. Its because its crap. Requires modification to the engine, gets less mileage, gets less performance, and the benefits (if you even dare to call them that) do not outweigh the cost difference of gasoline.

Not to mention the increase in food prices. I dont know about you, but i'd rather eat than drive.


RE: Hmm
By Denigrate on 4/29/2008 5:49:10 PM , Rating: 1
Might as well add that E85 actually spews more polutants than petrol.


RE: Hmm
By Runiteshark on 4/29/2008 6:16:28 PM , Rating: 3
Remind me how hard it is to replace the rubber fuel lines with stainless steel fuel lines?

Do you know how to unscrew a hose, and screw it back in? Then you know how to change a fuel line, congratulations.

The only change is that high ethanol content over a period of time are the possibility of the rubber degrading.


RE: Hmm
By Spuke on 4/29/2008 6:47:14 PM , Rating: 1
It's not as simple as that and telling people it is can be dangerous to them. How about telling them that the fuel lines have fuel in them and must be drained prior to disconnecting them? All we need is someone disconnecting their fuel lines, getting gas spilled on a hot engine part and suing DT because some a$$hole told them it was simple.


RE: Hmm
By TomZ on 4/29/2008 6:53:09 PM , Rating: 3
I disagree; anyone who takes auto service or upgrade advice from DT comments probably deserves whatever happens.


RE: Hmm
By Reclaimer77 on 4/29/2008 7:25:24 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Do you know how to unscrew a hose, and screw it back in? Then you know how to change a fuel line, congratulations.


Have you actually LOOKED inside a modern engine bay lately ?


RE: Hmm
By Runiteshark on 4/29/2008 8:08:42 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, I recently put stainless steel braided lines on my Acura RSX Type-S (K20A2).

I also replaced the clutch line and the brake lines, and also put in a Walbro 255lph fuel pump. It works nicely with my 770CC fuel injectors.

Ok ok I'll admit it wasn't as easy as just unscrewing it and putting in the new line, but anyone who actually intends to do something like this I'd expect them to research it in depth and find out how to do it properly. However its the same with computers, when you tell someone "all you have to do is open up a browser and download torrents", you are obviously skipping steps, but you'd expect them to research that.

Thinking about it, perhaps you are right, people are idiots.


RE: Hmm
By Reclaimer77 on 4/29/2008 8:18:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Thinking about it, perhaps you are right, people are idiots.


Flex fuel and hybrid cars are proof enough of that :)


RE: Hmm
By Runiteshark on 4/29/2008 8:29:08 PM , Rating: 1
I love my car, 22-28mpg depending on how I drive. In the city 22mpg, and on the highway 28. If I go into VTEC though, my mileage probably drops to about 12-14 (if that).

The joys of a 376hp Honda motor. I'll take your Vette', Porsche (Not the top end 911 :( ), Audi, Lotus, etc and still get good gas mileage and spend a fraction of the amount for the same speed.

I can't wait until I get a bigger turbo. (GT35R)


RE: Hmm
By Spuke on 4/29/2008 9:05:31 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The joys of a 376hp Honda motor.
That's an awesome motor. Back in 03, I planned to swap in a K20 into a EG Civic hatch. At the time, some train wrecked a bunch of RSX's or something like that and you could get the motors really cheap. I was just going to do a mild build: cams, header, CAI, Hondata. All I really wanted was somewhere around 220whp. The wife convinced me to just get a new car instead and I ended up with a Spec V. Of course, that was after I had spend some money buying some of the parts that I never got all of money back on. Oh well.


RE: Hmm
By Runiteshark on 4/29/2008 9:36:14 PM , Rating: 2
With all that and decent tuning you can easily get 235-240. Depends on what cams you choose.

You should of done the swap. I've driven several Spec-V's and honestly, after having VTEC and so forth, its hard to get into a regular car where you don't have that boost after a certain RPM. Its like there is nothing there :(


RE: Hmm
By Spuke on 4/29/2008 10:36:20 PM , Rating: 2
The Spec V was fun but not as fast as I would've liked. I wanted to turbo it but a friend talked me out of it. Weak motor in stock form. Nothing like the old SR20.


RE: Hmm
By 16nm on 4/29/2008 8:30:31 PM , Rating: 2
I recently saw on Motorweek on PBS that you must also change the valve guides and valve seats when modifying your car to burn E85 or ethanol. It's not just a simple matter of changing your fuel lines, fuel pump, fuel injectors, reprogramming your car's computer, etc. Apparently, the valves are designed to work with the greater lubricating properties of gasoline. The expense involved in doing this conversion is so great that it is much, much cheaper to simply sell your car and buy a brand new E85 compatible one. And this does not even consider the greater compression and short stroke you must have to make ethanol as efficient as gasoline due to its greater octane and burn rate (something current E85 cars do not do since they must be gas friendly).


RE: Hmm
By Runiteshark on 4/29/2008 8:56:38 PM , Rating: 2
That doesn't make much sense to me. I replaced my valves, valve guides, retainers, and seals (Blueprint kit) and I see 0 reason to modify anything at all (I could of just as well used the stock set).

The only thing that the Intake valves do is add in the air/fuel mix, and I don't see how they need any external lubrication from the fuel mixture. In addition I've seen plenty of K24 blocks with K20A2 heads running on E85 or E100 without any modifications to the valvetrain (other then putting the k20a2 head on the k24 block).

I'm not to familiar with American motors, but I doubt their intake setup is any different, other then having a single exhaust and intake valve versus the 2 on my setup.

Setup
Blueprint Valvetrain Kit
Blueprint Headstud kit
Blueprint K20 Sleeves
Brian Crower Turbo cams
Carrillo A-Beam rods
Injen 3.5" SRI
RBC Intake manifold
Wiseco 9.7:1 87mm Pistons (obviously the block is bored)
Skunk2 Fuel Rail
Precision Fuel Injectors 780cc (Not 770, I was incorrect earlier)
T3T4 Turbo setup w/ Tial 44 Wastegate, HKS SSQV BOV, 3" Piping, I don't remember what intercooler I went with.

I'm pushing about 376hp and 247ft lbs of torque, and this is pretty tame. My setup can take more, (a lot more) but I'm really working towards longevity. My biggest problem is the T3T4 I've got now which will be replaced soon by a Garrett GT35R. So yeah.


RE: Hmm
By Alexvrb on 4/29/2008 10:21:08 PM , Rating: 2
There's a reason "lead substitute" (Sodium, Phosphorus, or Potassium, with Sodium usually being the most effective replacement) is on the shelves at parts stores, think about it. Valve seats weren't always hardened. Leaded fuel cushioned valves much better than unleaded. You can obviously upgrade older engines to run fine with unleaded, or else just use a good lead substitute. Fuel still acts as a lubricant and cooling agent for other parts of a modern car, however (such as the fuel pump).

Anyway, for valves+seats in most current engines, it isn't as big a deal. It's not as drastic a change as leaded to unleaded. The seats are fine with 10% blended fuels and they're probably fine with E85. The bigger issues are things like whether your computer and injection system can deliver enough to avoid a serious lean condition.

Perhaps Motorweek was probably making a blanket statement and/or dealing with older engine designs, extremely high performance motors, etc. Some stock valve seats might take issue with long-term E85 use under heavy abuse, then again they might not.

The engines that will benefit the most from E85 are certainly blown engines. The only strong point of ethanol is its very high octane rating. NA engines suck with E85, by comparison, especially since they have to be tuned to run on ordinary fuels OR E85. So they can't be super high compression.


RE: Hmm
By Runiteshark on 4/30/2008 1:28:32 AM , Rating: 2
It is a very bad idea to run E85 in any kind of performance car (atleast in my situation) or any kind of high throughput motor (or really anything you run hard) without proper ecu adjustments for the fuel you use.

In stock form, my motor leans out a bit in the 4000-5000 rpm range, nothing dangerous but leans out. Combine that with E85, and you can have problems, quickly.

Honestly, I'm at a bit of a loss why the WRX STIs, Solstices, Whatever that saturn thing is, Cobalt etc don't take advantage and make an E85 only vehicle with much higher boost to take advantage of the octane.

I can only run at 370-80hp on regular 91 octane gas, atleast without some form of ignition retardation (which makes it feel a bit loose for my tastes). If I put 110 octane race gas, I easily do 530-550hp without issues.

My biggest issue right now is I run a way lean at 9200-10000 rpm (cutoff at 10200), so I stay out of that range. The only way to solve that is with bigger injectors, which means less mpg...

In addition, to your comment about blown engines:

A motorsports company up here has a k24 block with a k2a2 head, totally built running on E100 or racing alcohol with 16.5:1 compression and 34psi of boost . The thing is a top fuel dragster setup, and is a truly frightening thing to behold (both in sight, and sound). It has to be rebuilt after every event obviously, but is absolutely amazing the power output that comes out of a 340lb total motor assembly (turbo, exhaust, block, etc).


RE: Hmm
By Alexvrb on 4/30/2008 3:46:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It is a very bad idea to run E85 in any kind of performance car (atleast in my situation) or any kind of high throughput motor (or really anything you run hard) without proper ecu adjustments for the fuel you use.
Like I said above, it's a bad idea to run E85 in just about any engine without proper tuning and possibly fuel system modifications, especially if you dog it.
quote:
Honestly, I'm at a bit of a loss why the WRX STIs, Solstices, Whatever that saturn thing is, Cobalt etc don't take advantage and make an E85 only vehicle with much higher boost to take advantage of the octane.
I'm not surprised at all. I can't even buy E85 around here, and when the government stops subsidizing it, E85 will be even more expensive. It takes a lot of energy to produce right now. Eventually they may be able to use other methods to produce E85 which are not only more energy efficient and cost efficient, but also don't drive up the price of food. Anyway, that's why E85-only Solstice/Sky turbo models don't exist. That's also why they came out with flexfuel, all flex vehicles can run on regular gas, or on E85 (at the cost of reduced mileage).

Of course... a turbocharged flex engine wouldn't be a bad idea, they already have advanced enough preignition detection and timing adjustment. Reading through my friend's owner's manual, you can use 87 octane in a Solstice GXP without any harm, although you will lose a little power. I imagine that they could do the same in a flexfuel version, which would be able to handle anywhere between 0-85% ethanol and adjust boost and timing accordingly.


RE: Hmm
By Spuke on 4/30/2008 4:21:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
you can use 87 octane in a Solstice GXP without any harm, although you will lose a little power
You lose about 20 hp and, from actual owners reports, there are certain situations where you will experience knock running 87. I fail to see the reason for using 87 octane (in this car) other than an emergency situation where no other octane gas is available. If you want to save money on gas, get a fuel efficient car.


RE: Hmm
By Runiteshark on 4/30/2008 6:49:23 PM , Rating: 2
I still can't believe a 2.5l I4 with a turbo is only putting out a piddly 260hp. Think about it this way, A 2l K series motor puts out about 210 flat stock with stock everything.

The other thing I can't believe is how pathetic the exhaust systems on the Cobalt, Skyy, and Solstice are. \

It really puts the piddly 260hp figure into perspective. I went out and drove all 3 myself (Except the turbo Cobalt, because it was supercharged at the time) and I really wasn't impressed. I was expecting something like the Neon SRT4 (the old style) which was a bit heavy, combined with the light weight thats intrinsic of their body chassis.

I think the Honda motors spoiled me and I expect too much now :(


RE: Hmm
By Spuke on 4/30/2008 7:28:15 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I still can't believe a 2.5l I4 with a turbo is only putting out a piddly 260hp.
Are you talking about Subaru? The Solstice GXP and Sky Redline are 2.0L motors with 260 hp and 260 lb-ft of torque. I love the K series but even the 300whp NA monsters aren't getting 260 lb-ft of torque. In the 1/4, the Neon SRT4 and the Solstice GXP/Sky Redline are equal. Even track newbs are matching the magazine 14 flat times. The experienced guys are getting 13.7-13.8. Not too bad for a bone stock car with shitty stock tires (most owners have them swapped for better one's). And since it's a turbo, more hp than stock can be had with a tune and exhaust.

Throw in an slightly larger intercooler and your crankin out 290whp. The stock turbo is super tiny though and it's probably only good for 320whp. But the Solstice GXP/Sky Redline stock block is good to at least 450whp, maybe even 500. And the STOCK fuel system is good for some ungodly high hp. Some calculated it to be close 1000hp!!


RE: Hmm
By Alexvrb on 5/3/2008 5:55:13 PM , Rating: 1
Also runite... I don't believe you've really driven all 3 yourself or you'd know how much torque (FLAT 260 torque from about 2K-5.5K) those things make. They keep up with SRT4s no problem. Even the SRT4 forums have mad respect for GM's 2.0L.

Or maybe you gauge everything from a running start and a butt dyno. :P


RE: Hmm
By Alexvrb on 5/3/2008 5:52:15 PM , Rating: 2
Light detonation under load is considered acceptable for a lot of engines even when using the recommended octane. Using regular instead of the recommended premium and getting virtually no knock on a turbocharged engine is amazing. But I wasn't saying "USE 87 OCTANE IT R TEH WIN!!1". You'll lose power AND efficiency, negating any cost benefits and its less fun to drive.

My point is that it can handle the situation well for a turbocharged engine, so I believe that with minimal modification they could make a flex fuel version, which would probably get better fuel economy with 91/93 gasoline, but may get better power and still decent economy on E85. Since, unlike naturally aspirated flex fuel engines, a little extra boost would allow them to extract more power from the E85 than simply playing with the timing in a NA engine.

That's all. I'm just saying I think they could make a flex version and have it work decent, better than current flex engines.


RE: Hmm
By Alexstarfire on 4/29/2008 8:51:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The epa estimate numbers are grossly inflated over actual performance.


Yea, and that's not bullshit if I ever heard it. I'll have you know that my last gen Prius gets better milage than the old EPA ratings on the current gen Prius. The EPA says my car should get 52/45 on the old ratings and 42/41 on the new ones, while on this gen Prius it should get 60/51 on the old ratings and 48/45 on the new ones. My current average MPG is over 55. That is significantly over the current EPA rating for my car. True, I don't drive it on the highway that much, but when I drive it at 80 MPH on the freeway I still average about 48MPG. That still puts it over the ratings. I'll put it this way, I've never gotten a tank that's been under the rating, EVER.

Just because you floor it when the light turns green and speed the entire time until you get 100 ft away from the next red light doesn't mean that everyone does. I usually drive the speed limit or slightly over, so it's not like I'm a freakin snail.

You just need to learn how to drive better.


RE: Hmm
By WileCoyote on 4/30/2008 1:24:52 AM , Rating: 3
Uh, driving to save gas is not "driving better." Your driving style should be based on getting from point A to point B as safe, legal, and courteous to your fellow drivers as possible. Drive smart, not stupid. A driving style based on saving gas is driving stupid.


RE: Hmm
By ChronoReverse on 4/30/2008 11:35:13 AM , Rating: 2
With that said, safe driving usually isn't too hard on the gas. There are situations where you will burn a bit more gas but overall it should be less than weaving in and out of traffic and stomping the accelerator.


RE: Hmm
By MadMaster on 4/30/2008 10:53:54 PM , Rating: 2
Yep, depending on how wasteful your (bad) driving style, you could save 1-2 mpg by just driving more efficiently.

Less breaks, more cruise, more 55 mph, etc.


RE: Hmm
By Spuke on 5/1/2008 12:11:15 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Less breaks, more cruise, more 55 mph, etc.
55 mph is not necessarily the speed to get the best fuel mileage for your car. For my car it was determined that the best fuel mileage occurs a bit under 65 mph. 55-60 mph lugs the engine in 5th gear. You need to determine through testing what speed gives the best mileage but don't be so staunch in maintaining that speed that you become discourteous to other drivers.


RE: Hmm
By Spivonious on 5/1/2008 12:00:23 PM , Rating: 2
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but wouldn't driving the car at a constant speed at the lowest possible RPM give the best fuel efficiency? So if I'm at 2000RPM at 55mph and 300RPM at 70mph, wouldn't 55 be a better choice?


RE: Hmm
By Spuke on 5/1/2008 2:51:11 PM , Rating: 2
It mostly depends on where that engines efficiency range is and that's not necessarily speed dependent. The bad thing about speed is wind drag which make the car work hard to keep moving or to accelerate. A lugging engine is NOT running efficiently. A constant speed at the engines efficiency peak would provide the best fuel mileage.


RE: Hmm
By Alexstarfire on 5/2/2008 8:03:36 PM , Rating: 2
I shouldn't have to drive 10 MPH over the speed limit just to "be safe." I follow the law when I drive, even though nearly everyone around me doesn't. How about everyone else stop breaking the law that way I wouldn't have to speed to "be safe."


RE: Hmm
By djc208 on 4/30/2008 8:38:53 AM , Rating: 2
The Camry hybrid has been discontinued for 09 anyway, and as someone else pointed out it wasn't designed as a bigger Prius, it was meant to be similar to the Lexus 400h where they use the electric motor to "fake" having a bigger engine.

The hybrid Camry was touted as V6 performance with 4-cylinder fuel economy. Technically the 4-cylinder Camry is cheaper and gets about the same mileage, vs the hybrid which actually has as good or better performance than the V6 Camry.


RE: Hmm
By Spuke on 4/30/2008 12:17:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't get why they need to make it bigger. I mean, isn't that what the Camry Hybrid is for?
Because, they want more sales. People that buy the Camry Hybrid aren't buying Prius'. Most people think the Prius is too small and considering that the Accord and Camry are the best selling cars, people have voted with their dollars what they want in a car.

So, Toyota will accommodate them with a larger vehicle and bring in more sales. Considering that the Prius is a higher margin vehicle, expanding the line-up to include more Prius' (larger and more luxurious versions) is a smart move.

I wouldn't be surprised if their ultimate plan would be to slowly replace the Camry. The Camry currently sells over 400k units a year. I'm sure that Toyota would LOVE to have the Prius selling in those numbers but with a higher profit margin.


RE: Hmm
By Smartless on 4/29/2008 4:37:19 PM , Rating: 2
Careful I also smell an increase in SMUG.


RE: Hmm
By Smartless on 4/29/2008 4:49:04 PM , Rating: 1
Sorry forgot to add my favorite line.
"And the city of San Francisco has disappeared up its own @sshole."


RE: Hmm
By mdogs444 on 4/29/08, Rating: -1
RE: Hmm
By LatinMessiah on 4/29/2008 9:33:57 PM , Rating: 1
You mean SMOG. Honest mistake.


RE: Hmm
By arazok on 4/29/2008 4:46:06 PM , Rating: 5
It has to be larger to fit the inflated heads of it's owners.


RE: Hmm
By feelingshorter on 4/29/2008 11:35:43 PM , Rating: 2
This isn't some 100k Lexus hybrid (flashy), nor is it comparable to some overpriced product with no features. This is a "every day," middle class affordable product that is designed to get high gas efficiency.

The only people with inflated heads are the ones that drive their trucks, (or SUV) pay more for gas, and are now unleashing their hate on others who had the sense to go with a small hybrid.

I admit the Prius is ugly, but i'd still buy one. Why do I care how a car looks as long as it gets me from A to B and saves me money so i can spend it on food, entertainment, books, and tuition.


RE: Hmm
By ChronoReverse on 4/30/2008 11:36:31 AM , Rating: 2
As long as you were planning to get a sedan sized like an Accord or Camry in the first place.


RE: Hmm
By Spuke on 4/30/2008 11:47:45 AM , Rating: 2
It will only save you money if you are replacing an existing vehicle. If you have two cars, say one truck and one sedan, and you buy ANOTHER car (Prius), you aren't saving any money. In fact, you just spent MORE money. Car payments (cash or finance) and maintenance costs are hell of a lot more than gas.

If you have a car that's near its replacement time, by all means get a more fuel efficient car. I would even say get a CHEAPER, more fuel efficient car. You save a LOT more money that way.

If your present car or cars are paid off and you want to add another eco car, that's still more money out your pocket (car payment when you had none before). Evaluate your budget and determine whether or not you are actually saving money (if this is your goal).


RE: Hmm
By MadMaster on 4/30/2008 10:50:50 PM , Rating: 2
Well..

If you have a suburban that gets 10 mpg. You get a prius that gets 40 mpg.

Every 100 miles,
Suburban = $30
Prius = $7.50
Savings = $22.50

After 100,000 miles that's $22,500 saved. And the savings goes up as gas prices go up (predicting 4 dollars a gallon this summer). This is also assuming all else equal...


RE: Hmm
By Spuke on 5/1/2008 12:29:58 AM , Rating: 2
And the difference in CAR PAYMENTS (and maintenance costs) negates the money saved in fuel. I'll say it again for the reading challenged. Unless you are replacing a vehicle with a more fuel efficient one, you are NOT saving any money. If you ADD a vehicle you ARE increasing your costs NOT reducing them.

If your old vheicle was a Suburban and you're replacing it with a Prius, then you will saving money. Lower car payments and better fuel economy. This is just an example as most people are trading their large SUV's for mid-size one's.

I would like to get my wife a more fuel efficient car for commutes but, even with the present cost of gas, it would require more money out of our pockets. We really don't need a third car which would increase our car insurance and maintenance costs not to mention having to make another car payment.


RE: Hmm
By Murst on 4/29/2008 4:51:31 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I smell decreasing gas mileage

According to http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/29/next-gen-toyota... , it has a 10% increase in fuel efficiency. Also, check out the prototype look. It'd be pretty neat if it actually looked something like that.


RE: Hmm
By darkangelism on 4/29/2008 5:26:29 PM , Rating: 2
10% seems realistic, thats about the difference between a Gen1 prius and a Gen2 prius.


RE: Hmm
By jlips6 on 4/29/2008 6:39:32 PM , Rating: 2
my god. It has jowls.


RE: Hmm
By armax1980 on 5/1/2008 9:55:13 PM , Rating: 2
what the prius need is a diesel-electric hybrid.


mpg increase?
By Verran on 4/29/2008 4:28:55 PM , Rating: 2
The article title mentions an increase in mileage, but I don't see numbers anywhere nor any real mention for the how/why of an increase. What is that part of the headline based on?




RE: mpg increase?
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 4/29/2008 4:36:26 PM , Rating: 2
It's from the source article (AutoObserver)


RE: mpg increase?
By Verran on 4/29/2008 4:50:42 PM , Rating: 4
I see... But why is it in your headline if it's not in your article? I just found that weird.

Furthermore, why leave that out? You know the first question anyone's going to have for a new hybrid is "What's the MPG?"

I'll quote it here for others:
quote:
As such, the next Prius will be significantly faster, especially off the line and in low to mid range. But advances with the motor, battery and recharging inside Toyota's trick Hybrid Synergy Drive means economy won't be adversely affected.

Quite the reverse, in fact. While the current Prius posts a class-leading 35.5 km/l in Japan's 10.15-mode fuel cycle (equal to 83.5 mpg in the US), Toyota's reported target with the Mk 3 Prius is a stellar 40 km/l (94 mpg) in the same cycle.


RE: mpg increase?
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 4/29/2008 5:02:01 PM , Rating: 2
First of all, the Euro MPG estimates quoted in the source article have no real relation to U.S. EPA numbers so the figures are misleading. Even taking into account that the article says 83.5 MPG in "U.S. MPG", what U.S. market vehicle do you know of that gets 80+ MPG? ;)

Secondly, increases in efficiency won't come from the gasoline engine; it's going to be larger and more powerful and likely more thirsty. The increases will come from the lithium-ion battery (which will come after the initial introduction of the third generation model).

The range increases under all-electric power due to the more efficient battery were noted in the article.


RE: mpg increase?
By Freezetronius on 4/29/2008 5:05:43 PM , Rating: 1
If its close to 10% increase as Toyota says it is, thats around a 58city/60highway mileage. Pretty damn impressive if you ask me. Im anxious to see what Honda will bring to the table with the CR-X. They won't take this fight sitting out.


RE: mpg increase?
By omnicronx on 4/29/2008 7:15:15 PM , Rating: 2
Did you read of word of what he just wrote?


RE: mpg increase?
By RogueSpear on 4/29/2008 7:22:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The increases will come from the lithium-ion battery (which will come after the initial introduction of the third generation model).


I can't find anything in the source article that would lead to this conclusion, yet it seems stated as though it's a known fact. From what I've read elsewhere, the 10% increase in efficiency comes from a combination of better aerodynamics, a re-engineered electrical system, and improvements in the software controlling the hybrid system. While this as well may or may not be true, I still don't see how you could extrapolate from the source article what you said in the quote above.


RE: mpg increase?
By MadMaster on 4/29/2008 10:46:20 PM , Rating: 2
I think what Brandon is referring to is the plug-in hybrid ability.

Toyota has been kicking around the idea of doing a plug in hybrid (like the volt) in the Prius, but nothing is concrete. They probably aren't going to do plug in without reliable lithium ion or lithium iron phosphate batteries (the safety issue).


RE: mpg increase?
By Jedi2155 on 4/30/2008 12:27:56 AM , Rating: 2
The increase in efficiency probably due to the electrical system being redone. There were a LOT of bottlenecks in the current and previous systems in terms of loss efficiency that is technically easy to change.

One of the biggest benefits is probably better battery design and increased capacity of the battery. As well as larger capacitors and a bigger electric motor recapture the energy from braking.

The current design has a huge bottleneck in the regenerative braking front due to it being unable to recapture all the energy and store it into batteries. You can't quickly fast charge the batteries as they would otherwise heat up real quick plus degrade faster.

One way to solve was to switch to ultra/super capacitors which allows to the energy to be temporary stored in the caps and allow the energy to be transferred to the main battery system over a longer period. A larger battery pack also helps as it will be able to charge more quickly without overheating.

Also, having a larger electric motor (part of the increase horsepower) means having a more powerful drive train for one thing (the current gen Prius has a 50kw (67 hp) electric motor coupled with a 57kw (76hp) gas motor for combined 82kw (110 hp) power output (losses in combining multiple sources) while the new 4th gen Prius will have a 75kw (100 hp) engine with larger electric motor (probably about 75 kw (100 hp) as well. This larger electric motor can provide greater braking power thus increasing the longevity of the brake pads as well as increase the power recovered.

Another area of improvement is the wear leveling algorithms on the batteries. Toyota had designed the system with the hope that it will last the life of the vehicle. The current system prevents the batteries from being deep discharged and over heated, so they are never fully depleted. They're actually usually still at about 50% capacity when the battery bar reports empty thus preserving the life of the battery.

These increases in battery capacity helps in allow more time in electric only mode and offset the gas engine during normal use.

Lastly the '09 Prius was rumored to be originally designed with lithium batteries in mind....however due to Toyota's decision to hold off lithium packs due to safety issues, they had to redesign system back for a larger and less powerful NiMH packs resulting in smaller gains than originally hoped for in the efficiency department and larger weight. This was also the cause of the delay from a late 2008 to spring 2009 release.

That's where the 10% of the increase MPG came from.


Typo
By rangerdavid on 4/29/2008 4:53:35 PM , Rating: 2
"back" vs. "bask" in sunlight, last sentence.

... Also, even if some diesels have similar MPGs, don't they emit more pollutants per mile driven? Burn a gallon of gas to go 50 miles, and a gallon of diesel to do the same - and which leave the larger cloud of pollutants behind?

Honest question, I don't know, since diesel has come a long way from where it was (dirty) decades ago.




RE: Typo
By Freezetronius on 4/29/2008 5:01:16 PM , Rating: 1
From what i've read, its come ALONG way since its early conception. Most people freak out about diesel due to the heavy hydrocarbons as a result of its thicker crude resutling in the famous "black smoke" people see belched out of a diesels when someone rams the accelerator.


RE: Typo
By Natfly on 4/29/2008 5:26:46 PM , Rating: 3
Diesel is higher in energy concentration, containing more carbon. So in the process of burning it emits more CO2 than an equivalent volume of gasoline.

I grabbed this:
quote:
CO2 emissions from a gallon of gasoline = 2,421 grams x 0.99 x (44/12) = 8,788 grams = 8.8 kg/gallon = 19.4 pounds/gallon

CO2 emissions from a gallon of diesel = 2,778 grams x 0.99 x (44/12) = 10,084 grams = 10.1 kg/gallon = 22.2 pounds/gallon

from here: http://www.matternetwork.com/2007/10/carbon-tax-di...

Also, diesel contains sulfur and when burned leaves behind soot. With electronic monitoring, better catalytic converters, and low sulfur fuels diesel is definitely better than it was before but still dirtier than gasoline.


RE: Typo
By SoCalBoomer on 4/29/2008 5:50:50 PM , Rating: 3
Until you go ultra-low sulfer (like Europeans) and then it gets much better. There are also additives that can be used which cut down on the soot - I use them in my truck on the occasions when I drive it (typically to help a friend move. . .) and I don't belch black soot.

In any case, smaller, more efficient diesels are just that. Can't wait until we get them over here!


RE: Typo
By MadMaster on 4/29/2008 7:04:01 PM , Rating: 2
Soot and CO2 are completely different.

Ultra-low sulfur is just that, ultra low SULFUR, not ultra low CO2.

Even with this, diesel still runs a little bit more efficient per CO2 emissions...


RE: Typo
By Zapp Brannigan on 4/29/2008 6:53:58 PM , Rating: 2
very true, but you go further on a gallon of diesel so it equals out, plus if you have a particulate filter then you give off no soot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particulate_filter


RE: Typo
By Kougar on 4/30/2008 10:24:29 AM , Rating: 2
Hm, but do you go farther enough to justify paying the ~60 cents per gallon higher price of diesel? ;)


RE: Typo
By deanlol on 4/30/2008 2:19:06 PM , Rating: 2
To augment Zap, since diesel has higher energy content, you don't burn as much fuel to go the same distance, thus less CO2. So to go, say, 50 miles, you actually produce less CO2 in the diesel.

But when it comes to a gas hybrid, the gas hybrid will get better CO2 emissions (assuming it isn't a V8 hybrid).

I used to be a big proponent of diesels, but to get them cleaned up (soot, nox), a lot of power and fuel economy has been robbed, and the price driven up. And so on a passenger car, the advantage is very little. In the US, a lot more R&D is going into hybrids rather than diesels (I assume), so I suspect that the gas-hybrid will soon clearly outclass straight diesels.

I still see diesels as a good avenue for heavy vehicles (SUV's, trucks).


RE: Typo
By Spuke on 4/30/2008 4:24:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In the US, a lot more R&D is going into hybrids rather than diesels (I assume), so I suspect that the gas-hybrid will soon clearly outclass straight diesels.
You assume wrong. There's a lot more R&D in diesels than hybrids. R&D isn't isolated to a country either.


What about the 2009 Fit 1.3L?
By 16nm on 4/29/2008 4:27:29 PM , Rating: 2
I don't understand why Honda do not bring the 1.3L version of the 2009 Fit over here. They claim it gets 55 miles to the US Gallon running plain unleaded!!! England is very lucky to be getting this gas sipper.




RE: What about the 2009 Fit 1.3L?
By vapore0n on 4/29/2008 4:51:06 PM , Rating: 1
over here in the US they need to bring a car that can get out of the way of itself, before it gets crushed by the massive SUV trailing inches from your bumper.


RE: What about the 2009 Fit 1.3L?
By 91TTZ on 4/29/2008 6:02:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't understand why Honda do not bring the 1.3L version of the 2009 Fit over here. They claim it gets 55 miles to the US Gallon running plain unleaded!!! England is very lucky to be getting this gas sipper.


As others have pointed out, you can't compare the mpg figures that Europe has to ours.

For one, their gallon is larger. Secondly, our fuel economy tests are more stringent and produce lower numbers.


RE: What about the 2009 Fit 1.3L?
By phil126 on 4/29/2008 8:01:18 PM , Rating: 2
Also their regular is not our regular. They have higher octane levels even at "regular"


RE: What about the 2009 Fit 1.3L?
By Murst on 4/30/2008 1:06:44 AM , Rating: 2
I'm actually curious if this is really the case. I realize that when you go to the gas station in Europe, the numbers are higher... but if you read the fine print, in Europe it says something to the effect of "average" while if you read the sticker in the USA, it says "minimum".

So they may in fact be the exact same gasoline, but since we report minimum levels of (whatever it is), and they report average, theirs would almost certainly be higher.

Its just something I noticed while comparing stickers at gas stations though, and for all I know, they really do have a higher quality gasoline. One thing is for sure though... their gasoline is very expensive :). We complain about gasoline that approaches $4/gal, but I doubt a single country in Europe even has gas that's 2x as expensive. Its more like 3x to 4x over there.


RE: What about the 2009 Fit 1.3L?
By 16nm on 4/29/2008 8:12:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
For one, their gallon is larger.

One US Gallon is one US Gallon. It does not matter where you are.
quote:
Secondly, our fuel economy tests are more stringent and produce lower numbers.

If Europeans are able to squeeze 55 miles out of a US gallon then I think I will be able to figure it out, too. I'll gladly give up some acceleration for such a dramatic increase in the MPG. Besides, the reports are that the 1.3L is pretty peppy. We don't need slow, complicated, expensive hybrid designs as much as we need a simple, fuel efficient one.


RE: What about the 2009 Fit 1.3L?
By Spuke on 4/29/2008 11:40:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Besides, the reports are that the 1.3L is pretty peppy.
A car that does 0-60 mph in 11.1 seconds is no where near peppy. I've owned cars that slow and I was constantly reminded of how slow they were everytime I was behind the wheel. A fuel efficient car does not need to be that slow. With todays tech you can have decent acceleration and good fuel economy. It's not one or the other. The old 1989 Honda CRX Si did 0-60 in the mid 8 second range (that's "peppy") and STILL got over 40 mpg. With todays tech, cars should better that acceleration AND get better fuel mileage too.

Oh I forgot, you guys gotta have your friggin airbags, navigation, and 10,000 speaker stereo's as STANDARD equipment.


Chevy Volt
By EglsFly on 4/29/2008 5:38:05 PM , Rating: 3
Personally, I am looking forward to the Chevy Volt. It is suppose to be out in 2 years (2010). Runs on pure electricity, only uses a gas powered "generator" when the battery is depleted. This allows for a fixed RPM engine, much different than other hybrids which still rely on a variable RPM motor to drive the car.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7b7De5yQSg

Some additional details:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tRIstJeOGQ

For my commute, which is 9 miles each way. I will never need gasoline. :-)




RE: Chevy Volt
By Freezetronius on 4/29/2008 6:30:02 PM , Rating: 1
Problem is, its a Chevy


RE: Chevy Volt
By Geraldo8022 on 4/29/2008 8:19:17 PM , Rating: 2
So what is wrong with a Chevy? I have had Chevys go over 300,000 miles.
When I vote with my dollars it is going to be for an all electric car like the Volt, because it is very possible that in the not too distant future you won't be able to buy gasoline for any amount of money. The Middle East, Wahhabists, Iran nuclear program, etc.: all can combine to make the supply shut off.
I can fuel an electric vehicle by electricity generated from wind, solar, and on my property, water turbine. Sure it costs to keep those things up and it will cost for batteries, at least to eventually replace them. But I'll be driving when many are setting. I don't know why most don't see this and start demanding such cars.


RE: Chevy Volt
By MadMaster on 4/29/2008 8:25:06 PM , Rating: 2
The average consumer is too scared to bet on unproven technology. But will buy one if it is proven...

But Tesla did fill first year orders of like 1000??

Basically, the problem is not that there is no demand. It's that non are being sold... (until now). In a few years, there will be MANY models available, and they will sell like CRAZY... But that's a few years out...


RE: Chevy Volt
By Spuke on 5/1/2008 12:33:47 AM , Rating: 2
The Volt is a very interesting car. I won't buy one unless my wife wants one but the tech is very interesting. You guys do know that the base price on the Volt is up $35k now, right?


RE: Chevy Volt
By Freezetronius on 4/29/2008 11:46:56 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, for me, its Honda or nothing.


hmm...
By Souka on 4/29/2008 4:59:09 PM , Rating: 2
fact that diesel vehicles can approach, match, or exceed the levels achieved by the Prius.

True... heck, VW has a 90mpg 2-cyl diesel in the works.. but....

Thinking of gas prices last time I filled up... Reg Unleaded ran me $3.45 and Diesel ran $4.55...%32 more in cost.

So if I had a 40mpg Prius, a diesel would need to get almost 54mpg to break even with anual fuel costs...

And finally... I owned a 96 4-door VW Golf back in the day...1.8 or 2.0 L 4-cyl... it got low 30's city, and about 40mpg hwy on regular gas... I guess not much has changed... just marketing pushing "greener" choices...




RE: hmm...
By mikefarinha on 4/29/2008 5:25:37 PM , Rating: 2
Another thing people don't realize about diesel vs gas is that it takes more oil to make a gallon of diesel than a gallon of gas. I don't remember the exact numbers but it's like 30%-50% more oil.


RE: hmm...
By Oregonian2 on 4/29/2008 5:59:03 PM , Rating: 2
Don't think it's a matter of "using" more oil, it's a matter of what you get when the oil is "split" into the various things it makes. I also understand that the "borders" between one product and the next can be moved a bit to increase or reduce the yield of any particular product and is done depending upon relative demand. IOW if diesel fuel was needed more they could make more of it per unit crude (at the expense of something else).


RE: hmm...
By Alexstarfire on 4/29/2008 9:00:01 PM , Rating: 2
Actually they have. I bet that car you had in 96 is much small than the cars you get today. It looks like nothing has changed if you look strickly at the MPG ratings, but you have to look at more than that. Of course, I'd like to have the same size car and better MPG, but of course that simply isn't allowed.


MPG vs Diesel
By scorpio1980 on 4/29/2008 5:28:17 PM , Rating: 2
Its nice for Toyota to do a "refresh" on the Prius, but is a "bigger luxury model" necessary ? It's like the rich bastard that drives his Lexus 600h - A 300+ horsepower V8 hybrid that still sucks gas. I understand that people want to go green, but at what expense ? I would like to buy a hybrid, but not pay a $8000 premium over the "non hybrid" model. Most people say they are buying a hybrid to save the planet, but lets be honest and say we do it to save money on gas. Buth with the premium to pay for them, it would take 5 years to make up the difference in costs.

Note on Diesel: Saw a special on tv about it, and they had a new synthetic form of diesel that people were DRINKING like wine to prove how clean it is.




RE: MPG vs Diesel
By EglsFly on 4/29/2008 6:11:54 PM , Rating: 2
Right now Diesel is .50C more a gallon than regular gasoline, so it is going to have to be that much more efficient to make up the difference.

Personally, I could care less about the go "Green" part, especially since I think that the whole global warming topic is blown out of proportion versus reality. My main goal would be to reduce consumption of imported oil which is a real issue. I do not like the idea of being dependent on radical middle east countries.


RE: MPG vs Diesel
By Reclaimer77 on 4/29/2008 8:23:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think that the whole global warming topic is blown out of proportion versus reality.


SHhhh !! They are calling it " Climate Change Crisis " now. Did you get the memo ? :P


ring ring, it's reality calling
By The Boston Dangler on 4/30/2008 7:30:27 AM , Rating: 2
"The increased displacement should allow the third generation Prius to accelerate faster and should squash any performance complaints leveled against the current model."

it's a very slow car. is your statement constructed to give the impression that those that find the car slow are in the lowest percentile minority, and wrong? you sound like an apple pr spinmaster.

"Detractors, however, like to point out the "smugness" of Prius drivers; the odd, tadpole-esque design of the vehicle; and the fact that diesel vehicles can approach, match, or exceed the levels achieved by the Prius."

as a detractor, i'd like to point out the fact that there ain't no free lunch. although it's miserly economy is to be applauded, there is a significant eviromental impact from the production and retirement of batteries. pollution is shifted away and hidden from the end user.

secondly, given that the batteries will only give you about 6 good years, and the high cost of replacement batteries, the car ($21k base model) is entirely disposable. nobody with 2 brain cells will buy a used hybrid with faulty batteries. just push it to the boneyard and run before you get stuck with the battery disposal fee.

finally, the production and disposal of batteries consumes a great deal of power. where does that power come from? in the US, chances are it comes from coal. if you think the answer lies in plugging your car into a 120V or 240V outlet overnight, you're crazy. when californians start paying the real price of electricity, that fantasy will evaporate faster than ethanol/formerly our food supply.




RE: ring ring, it's reality calling
By Spuke on 4/30/2008 12:09:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
when californians start paying the real price of electricity, that fantasy will evaporate faster than ethanol/formerly our food supply.
Real price of electricity? Electricity has never been cheap here in the 10 years that I've been a resident. Arizona and other surrounding states are MUCH cheaper than us. I could never afford to run my A/C like my in laws in Phoenix do.


A + B = DP
By BruceLeet on 4/29/2008 6:30:15 PM , Rating: 2
You put a jewish man in a hybrid and you get a Dailytech Picture.

That seriously made l o l.




Diesel Hybrid
By iFX on 4/29/2008 9:42:38 PM , Rating: 2
Gas hybrids don't interest me much but a diesel hybrid offering at least 75 mpg would.




Mileage
By Screwballl on 4/30/2008 11:48:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
the fact that diesel vehicles can approach, match, or exceed the levels achieved by the Prius.


So can gasoline vehicles.
I had a 1979 Chevy Luv truck 4x4 that had the Isuzu 1.8L 4 cylinder gas engine. That truck got 40 mpg around town and close to 50mpg on the highway. Even when using 4 wheel drive in the winter still saw over 35mpg.
So whats the difference between then and now? Emission reduction requirements. All the extra emission equipment increases fuel consumption and reduced mileage 25-40%...
I also had a 1976 GMC 1/2 ton 2wd truck with a 350ci V8 that averaged around 25mpg in town and 34mpg on the highway. Adjust the carb to lean out the fuel mixture a little bit, have a good flowing exhaust system without the catalytic converter and stay off the gas pedal.
Or how about a 1989 Oldsmobile Cutlass Ciera with a 2.5L 4 cylinder? Remove the Catalytic converter, disconnect the O2 sensor and I got 42mpg highway and 36mpg city (although the "check engine" light did get mildly annoying).

There is plenty of potential with existing older vehicles if people just knew a few key things to remove or disconnect and they can seriously increase their gas mileage... most of the time it is simply staying off the gas pedal.




Still 35mph and under?
By seaquake2 on 4/30/2008 12:02:32 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder if the new Prius will still use battery only if you are going 35mph or under?

They really need to do what GM is doing and come out with a 2 mode hybrid system.

I hope when they switch over to Lithium-Ion batteries they will be able to allow one to travel faster then 35mph and use only battery power.




Hmm to late
By Freezetronius on 4/29/2008 4:53:20 PM , Rating: 1
I was looking to get a much more fuel efficent vehicle then my V6 Accord and I finally drove a Prius and was pretty damn impressed but the interior was a a complete turnoff. Even the cool LCD screen couldn't save its "blandness" Exterior was fine by my book

But I've been in love with the 8th gen Civic coupe since day one so I picked up my new one two weeks ago and couldn't be happier.

Maybe after a few years of the new Prius vs Honda CR-X going at eachother, i'll go hybrid. The technology is going to be insane the next 5 years.




"It seems as though my state-funded math degree has failed me. Let the lashings commence." -- DailyTech Editor-in-Chief Kristopher Kubicki











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki