backtop


Print 47 comment(s) - last by mindless1.. on Oct 16 at 2:13 AM


Prius MPV teaser  (Source: Toyota)

Prius MPV under heavy camouflage  (Source: Auto Spies)
Toyota is looking to expand its Prius lineup

Rumors of an MPV or minivan based on Toyota's popular Prius have been swirling around for quite some time. Given that current 5-seat Prius is capable of 50 mpg, it's seems reasonable to think that a slightly larger vehicle with additional seating/cargo capacity would be welcome in the marketplace (with a slight hit to overall fuel economy).

Today, Edmunds Inside Line has some of the first spy photos of the MPV counterpart to the Prius hatchback. According to the publication, the vehicle will seat seven passengers and will be similar in size to such vehicles as the Mazda 5 and the Kia Rondo. The Mazda 5 in particular is quite popular with small families as it is closer in size to the original Chrysler minivans that debuted in the mid-80s instead of the gargantuan Siennas, Odysseys, and Caravans prowling the streets today.

Given that the MPV will share much in common with the standard Prius, we expect to see the same 1.8-liter gasoline engine used and a new lithium-ion battery pack for added power and range (while at the same time saving weight). It shouldn't be too difficult for the MPV to achieve greater than 40 mpg combined (city/highway), but we'll just have to wait for the final EPA numbers to come in when the vehicle is released next year.

When the Prius MPV does hit U.S. streets, it will likely be joined by a similar offering from General Motors: the Chevrolet Volt MPV5. The "crossover" variant of the standard Volt sedan seats five people and can travel up to 35 miles on battery power alone.

Updated 10/11/2010

Toyota has just posted a teaser shot of it upcoming Prius MPV on its Facebook page.

 



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: one thing...
By mindless1 on 10/7/2010 3:12:39 PM , Rating: -1
No they aren't "recyclable", they are just taken back and reused in a finite cycle where only the lithium is made into medicine which is then later in a dump.

You don't seem to grasp that 10 years might as well be 8 or 20 years, either way it is a trivial difference in time span in the grand scheme of things because we need a permanent solution instead of moving from one material in a waste dump to yet another and another as we exhaust our finances and natural resources.

You do not have factual information about real world brake performance because the average long distance driver is not driving a hybrid, a lab or estimate is not real world data of 80K km, and for that matter in idealized estimates a regular ice engine with a conservative driver has their brakes last quite a while too, AND generally they only require a $25 set of brake pads for the first few service cycles.

$25 is in the grand scheme of things, a trivial maintenance item to consider when contrasting cars that cost several thousand dollars more.

Go ahead and claim you will get any of the *new* subsystems on an electric or hybrid fixed for less than a few hudred dollars.

THAT is one key factor, cars are not always scrapped only because they were totalled in a wreck but rather the cost to repair them is weighed against their resale value. 10 years for a $40K car, $4K a year plus repair costs, IS REALLY EXPENSIVE!

If you want to discount the savings from less gas, my counter proposal is drive less. People can't claim they're going green if they choose to put a lot of miles on any kind of automobile per year.

Lastly, if the battery fails under warranty do you get a "new" one? NO! You get either a pro-rated discount on a very expensive new battery or a swap for a refurbished/reconditioned/used, whatever you want to call it. That's not manufacturer confidence so much as it is making the pitch to move some vehicles, all they have to do is make enough profit on the battery pack that they can afford to warrant it forever and they would even though scientifically speaking we do know that before 10 years are up you will not be satisfied with the traveling range of th vehicle in any but ideal driving environments... when that range is already too little for lots of people when it is brand new.

In the case of hybrids if you're running the ICE to recharge practically all the time, all you have left is a very slightly more efficient but much more expensive vehicle.

The engine cannot be assumed to last longer because it is designed for efficiency charging, and smaller in comparison to what is found in an ICE car, as well as the transmission link needing to be smaller because they all have to fit with the space of a downsized car in addition to the battery pack, wheel motors, passenger compartment, etc.

In the end, a hybrid vehicle is not an answer, it is well-wishing attempts to ignore the need for moderation in travel and what will happen 10 years from now.

I for one, am glad there are hybrids. These owners beta-testing them will result in a more mature industry and support infrastructure eventually so by the time I buy one I am not one of the beta-testers.

Hint: The first couple generations of any radically changed automobile design have pretty bad flaws. That's been the case for over a century and the trend isn't expected to change any year soon.


RE: one thing...
By Alexstarfire on 10/11/2010 2:47:02 PM , Rating: 2
I can't speak for other companies, but for Toyota you would actually get a brand new battery if yours went out under warranty. Though, I'm a bit confused by what you meant by "new" battery. Obviously if the battery needing to be replaced is no longer manufactured then you can't get a brand new replacement battery. Best you could get is a used/refurb/reconditioned battery. If by "new" battery you mean ones used in newer cars then it's obvious they wouldn't do that. It's usually not as simple as just putting in the new battery and that's that. They wouldn't pay for modifying the car to accept the new battery. Useless the battery they give you to replace the failed one will die in less than the remaining time of the original warranty then I don't see the issue. Granted, even in that situation you'd just get another battery for free. Much more of a pain than anything else.

Also, the answer isn't necessarily simple as driving less. Some jobs simply require a lot of travel. For most people I'd agree that you should simply drive less. A lot of information can be derived from cab drivers who have driven hybrids. Can't say much about longevity since even now it's only been about a decade since hybrids really debuted. I can say that they have all fared very well so far.

Given your definition of recycle there are very few things that would meet your qualifications. A hybrid may not be a long term solution, but we don't really have a true long term solution even on the drawing board. A hybrid to me seems to be a better solution than a regular car, but it's still a problem that needs to be solved.

If hybrids are truly still in their beta-testing phase then I'd say they are much better off than anyone realizes. I don't believe this to be the case considering the state of several hybrids.


RE: one thing...
By mindless1 on 10/16/2010 2:13:38 AM , Rating: 2
No, no jobs require driving more. You can't have it both ways, can't pretend you are green and still choosing a job where you have to drive a lot.

SO, you want an excuse to feel better about being irresponsible. SORRY but NO, we all have real choices to make and one is to not be so full of excuses as to drive long distances regularly.

THAT is where the difference is between people who ruin the planet and those who don't, that some make excuses claiming "I need to" and others just DON'T DO IT.

Read those last three words carefully because you just don't get it and it is offensive to pretend you have an argument until you start to follow a truly conservative lifestyle - if you claim such things are needed via choosing automobiles, etc.

If you have to travel more than 20 miles a day, you are an idiot. Yes, I mean idiot no matter what excuse. We all choose where to live, what job to have, how to budget travel to stores, etc. Only an idiot needs to waste resources to do what everyone else DOES NOT NEED TO.

HINT: If you can't do it, you are dumber, not smarter with some excuse. I should mention this is not directed at the poster I replied to but rather anyone dumb enough to think they can argue that they "Need" to travel long distances. Only an idiot can't meet all their life needs without excessive travel in any first world country.

In fact, an intelligent person who isn't sick can almost ( slightly below average) live entirely without a care because they have the common sense to locate themselves close enough to a metropolitan area that "most" things they need are only a few blocks away.

BUT, that would require thinking instead of excuses.


"I'm an Internet expert too. It's all right to wire the industrial zone only, but there are many problems if other regions of the North are wired." -- North Korean Supreme Commander Kim Jong-il














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki