Archives

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/2/Australian_flag.jpg Responding to consumers, Prius opted for performance over fuel economy in the 2010 Prius. (smh.com.au/environment/global-warming/prius-drivers-put-foot-down-over-cars-performance-20090706-daiu.html)

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/523/2010_Red_Toyota_Prius_in_NAPA_Valley.jpgRichard Blackburn - SMH (smh.com.au) - July 7, 2009

How did we survive twenty years ago without this performance? -- Ed.

Buyers of hybrid cars aren't as concerned about the environment as they would like us to believe, according to the maker of the world's most popular brand.

At the launch of the new Toyota Prius in Sydney yesterday, the car's chief engineer, Akihiko Otsuka, admitted the company had opted for a bigger, more powerful engine because customers had demanded it.

Mr Otsuka said the car, which remains the most fuel-efficient in Australia, could have been designed to use less fuel than the 3.9 litres per 100 kilometres it achieves. "However, customers told us they wanted more performance," he said.... http://www.smh.com.au/environment/global-warming/prius-drivers-put-foot-down-over-cars-performance-20090706-daiu.html

To put it another way, if the 2010 Prius had the same performance of the 2009 Prius, the gain in fuel economy would be enough for it to outright beat my 2000 Honda Insight.

I don’t get it, maybe I’m just old and ignorant. Folks want to buy an economical vehicle but they want it to be more powerful not more economical? Or do they want it to be both more powerful AND more economical? I’ll get right on that… $20,000 vehicle getting 100 mpg while doing zero to next stop sign in under 5 seconds. Possibly these customers surveyed just want to LOOK like they are concerned and bought an economical form of transportation while they cruise along at 15 over the psl. :(

I would think there are enough alternative ‘fast’ vehicles out there for them to choose from. I guess there are not enough folks who are actually concerned with using less fuel to make Toyota or whoever take notice and give us more of what we would like to buy. Meaning economy over performance.

I would be interested in knowing what the buyer demand is/was for the base model of the Yaris over the loaded version. I believe it is the only vehicle you can buy in the US where electric windows or even an arm rest are options. Sure other vehicles claim them as options and you pay for them but would you ever see one of those vehicles w/out them on a dealers lot? :eyebrow:

As general information, the many celebrated cup holders and three dashboard ‘glove compartments’ are standard on the base model Yaris. :D

I would be interested in knowing what the buyer demand is/was for the base model of the Yaris over the loaded version. I believe it is the only vehicle you can buy in the US where electric windows or even an arm rest are options. Sure other vehicles claim them as options and you pay for them but would you ever see one of those vehicles w/out them on a dealers lot? :eyebrow:

As general information, the many celebrated cup holders and three dashboard ‘glove compartments’ are standard on the base model Yaris. :D

I don't know of an internet site where you can check Toyota's dealer stock, but I have one for GM cars. They rolled out a Cobalt "Value Leader" model, which is an LS trim but without AC and floor mats. Cost is about $1000 less. East of the Mississippi, there are exactly 45 of them. Compare that to the thousands of LS models and thousands more of the LT and SS models.

The strippo cars don't sell for much less money than that "next step up" that dealers urge you to take, so there are only a few dozen within 1000 miles of anyone's home. It's unfortunate, and it makes any "starting at $1x,xxx MSRP" ads deceptive because you need to fly to the nearest dealer that has one and take a couple of days to drive it home.

Toyota did an admirable job adding the performance that consumers demanded while increasing fuel economy. While it's sad that they could have kept the 1.5 engine and recalibrated it for even better FE, we can say at least they didn't lose any MPG's while boosting that all important "0-60" number.

Why is it we don't get power plant options on smaller, non-sports cars? You can have the eco option or the power option...

I also wonder if Prius customers or potential customers wanted more power

With a Prius, performance is the fuel economy. Isn't it?

I'm happy I can pass another car just fine with my Prius, and still get 50+ mpg every single day. Now that's performance.

Harry

Why do people want performance on cars so much?

Bear with me a moment.

If people grew up when zero to sixty was typically fifteen seconds, they would be happy with the performance of a Prius II - the last twenty years or so of street NASCAR racing has messed up our priorities.

I also wonder if Prius customers or potential customers wanted more power

I think you may be on to something there. They want to bring in new customers, and not just repeat prius buyers.

Why do people want performance on cars so much?

Bear with me a moment.

If people grew up when zero to sixty was typically fifteen seconds, they would be happy with the performance of a Prius II - the last twenty years or so of street NASCAR racing has messed up our priorities.

Because the 33 mpg Fusion they advertise on the TV can get 0-60 in mucho faster.

Because the 33 mpg Fusion they advertise on the TV can get 0-60 in mucho faster.It was not around in anything outside sports cars before 1985 - that's my point.

Anyone that believes max FE is going to be achieved while getting single-digit 0-60 times got problems unrelated to the car. ;)

I just knew it was BS when Toyota said they upsized the engine to allow the engine to operate in a more efficient power band. That could theoretically be true in some conditions, but it seemed like a load of hooey at the time and sadly I've been proven right.

But its European competitors are full of BS, too, when they claim their diesels are just as clean and efficient as hybrids. I thought those guys had finally gotten past their knee-jerk anti-hybrid stance.

I'm not really surprised by all this. People want to show off their "green" cred because it's fashionable (at least in this part of the country) but most aren't willing to make any actual sacrifice. Most people figure they can count themselves green enough if they simply separate their recyclables. Far fewer are willing to downsize their vehicles, drive more sensibly, or turn down their heat and put on the Jimmy Carter sweater. We don't want to actually take care of our health, we just want to pop a pill and hope we get better. We don't want to slow down and wake up, we just want the vehicle to somehow magically turn our bad driving habits into good FE. Watching most Priuses in action I don't see a lot of behavior that resembles hypermiling, that's for sure. No surprise many consumers want something faster, and would rather the P-III's efficiency improvements go towards improving acceleration than improving fuel economy vs. the P-II.

I would echo all of the above comments that it would be nice to see multiple power options offered on hybrids (as on many ICE-only cars) and I think eventually we'll see that. Of course then the tradeoff between 'performance' and fuel economy would be there on display for all to see.

The increase in power of the the ICE makes it less of a load on the HSD. They reduced the size of the MG to balance the package. They didn't do anything to make it a street racer. Changes such as the increase in power, center console, tilt/telescope, and adjustable seat height all are items that buyers and potential buyers alike have all requested. Pulling the hills in Virginia, West Virginia, and Kentucky are much less strained due to the more power from the ICE.

They wanted to increase their market share which is a goal of all manufacturers. The GenII did not appeal to the younger 20-30 age group and the 0-60mph time was one of the negatives mentioned by that group.

I appreciate the changes in design, power, and technology that is incorporated in the 2010.

I agree with msirach. The 2010 is a huge improvement. I drive with a feel for economy 99% of the time and my numbers reflect that, but refuse to own a car that is no fun on the occasional highway romp, or twisty back road.

The GenII did not appeal to the younger 20-30 age group

We need hippies Gen2

Note to myself: question if the writer has expert knowledge on hybrids or hypermiling.

As Delta Flyer has said, our 0 - 60 expectations have certainly changed over the years.

Some quick research shows that many V8 powered American cars in the 70's were running > 11 sec. 0-60s, including some early Mustangs and Camaros. In the 80's the typical Toyotas or Hondas were doing between 12 and 13 sec. By the mid-90's these were down to 10 - 11 sec.

I drove many cars in the past that were in the 12 sec. range so I guess that's why I don't find my HCHII too slow. At least I know that 5,000 rpm is no problem if I feel the need to stomp on it.

I think Toyota has made a reasonable decision to boost the power of the ICE so the Prius III can maintain the highway speeds that some drivers feel they "need".

Cheers,

Roger

Wish I had a small supercharged diesel engine in my Echo, with a hydraulic launch assisit and idle start stop. Good for 65 MPG, with more than acceptable acceleration.

regards
gary

I guess my input was lost on translation. I specifically asked for handling, not power!

I'll gladly take 45 mpg over 25 mpg any day.

Still, it's nice to know that there are ponies on call when the situation arises. There have been situations on the highway where a brief WOT blast has kept me from being rear-ended by somebody flying by the left-lane cars while in the right lane. I'd much rather ruin a record tank than get rammed off the road.

Although with gas going higher, that decision to go for performance rather than FE might bite them in the tail.

I think Yota also has plans for a smaller hybrid (http://www.hybridcars.com/news/toyota-confirms-plans-low-cost-hybrid-25681.html) later, so they may be trying to get a little more product differentiation by adding horsepower here and saving the super-econo package for the smaller car of the future.

If people grew up when zero to sixty was typically fifteen seconds, they would be happy with the performance of a Prius II - the last twenty years or so of street NASCAR racing has messed up our priorities.
Just looked some numbers up, to give perspective
First my car 1998 Opel (Saturn) Astra: 0-60 17s
Then the top 10 of most searched cars on a dutch website (I think is a good overview of what driving around here (except the prius that's more out of curiosity I think)
VW Golf: 13s9s
BMW 3: 9.1s
Audi A4: 10.5s
AudiA3: 11.8s
VW Passat: 12.4s
Skoda Octavia: 12.3s
Opel Insignia: 12.9s
Toyota Prius: 10.4s
Audi A6: 8.2s
Ford Focus: 11.9s

So that is the ballpark. I don't have any trouble accelerating fast enough if I have to (try to avoid that, as I'm hypermiling) with my 17s
Americans are just spoiled. If every car on the road takes 12s instead of 6 there would be less racing from traffic light to traffic light.

Toyota is just as guilty as all the other manufacturers of helping
*create* that ersatz "demand" through marketing. By pandering to
an innate human competitiveness, they've all been working toward
this since like 1930 or so. But the yearly fatality figures clearly
show that it is completely MISPLACED, and the auto companies are
largely responsible for letting far more people kill themselves
and each other than was ever warranted.

_H*

Ditto on what Hobbit said.

In the beginning of the wave of Japanese imports after the energy cirsis of the early seventies, the Japanese auto manufacturers had it right. Then they adopted the Detroit philosophy about the time old man Honda died. I think it was 1991. It took a while for them to bring the change to the Dealerships but in the next decade it was fairly complete.

The recent meeting between Mr. Toyoda and the board was hopefully a reversal of the process, but then we all know how much energy is wasted in changing the inertial state of most objects.

regards
gary

Another ditto to what Hobbit said. And TomMig too. It's overcompetitiveness gone awry, we're spoiled, and it just leads to way more wasted gas. Couple of personal stories re: slow cars:

The first new car my parents ever bought was a 1980 Skylark, the Buick version of the famous/notorious X-cars. They got the 4cyl MT version, tested at 14 seconds 0-60. I distinctly remember my dad commenting during the initial test drive that its acceleration was "peppy." My, how expectations have changed.

Last year we sold my wife's 1983 Volvo diesel, a midsized car with only 86 horsepower that took 18 seconds to do 0-60. Although we sometimes had to wait for bigger gaps when pulling out onto busy highways, and we needed a 55mph running start at the Sunset tunnels if we hoped to still be doing 55mph at Sylvan Summit, it was never a significant inconvenience and there was certainly NEVER a time when we needed more power.

Most of the cars I have owned have been capable of 0-60 between 9 and 11 seconds, a level acceleration that used to be considered "fast". Now auto editors consider it slow and complain that vehicles with this power/weight ratio sound "strained" when accelerating and climbing hills. Geez, we are freaking spoiled in this country now.

The first new car my parents ever bought was a 1980 Skylark, the Buick version of the famous/notorious X-cars. They got the 4cyl MT version, tested at 14 seconds 0-60. I distinctly remember my dad commenting during the initial test drive that its acceleration was "peppy." My, how expectations have changed.

Last year we sold my wife's 1983 Volvo diesel, a midsized car with only 86 horsepower that took 18 seconds to do 0-60. Although we sometimes had to wait for bigger gaps when pulling out onto busy highways, and we needed a 55mph running start at the Sunset tunnels if we hoped to still be doing 55mph at Sylvan Summit, it was never a significant inconvenience and there was certainly NEVER a time when we needed more power.

Most of the cars I have owned have been capable of 0-60 between 9 and 11 seconds, a level acceleration that used to be considered "fast". Now auto editors consider it slow and complain that vehicles with this power/weight ratio sound "strained" when accelerating and climbing hills. Geez, we are freaking spoiled in this country now.

Years ago, I had a Chevy Caprice with a 350 Olds Diesel. 3 speed Metric Grenade AT and 2.56:1 rear end. All of 105hp at 3600rpm. And 205 lbft at 1800rpm. As you noted in the Volvo diesel, you tend to plan for larger gaps in traffic, and I would avoid short onramps. But few other full size six seaters of the day could get 30mpg as that Chevy could.

My current car was panned as having "tepid" or "lackluster" acceleration (0-60 is just under 9 seconds, or so they say), in spite of having 200hp, a 20% shorter first gear, 3.29:1 final drive, and a weight about the same as the old Caprice. Well, maybe I need to look up "tepid" because without the traction control switched on, it will fry the front tires through first gear. For a simple five seater hatchback, exactly how fast is it supposed to go?! Who cares if the competition gets to 60 in only 7 or 8 seconds? If I had a dollar for every 300hp Porsche or BMW that drove out in front of me and died (so much for using the hp you paid for), I would go out and buy a fleet of hybrids and festoon them with bumper stickers proclaiming "I may be slow, but I'm ahead of you".

Let's start a campaign - "If the press hates it, it has to be good!"

I know from my own personal experience that a powerful car makes me a different driver.

I now only own economy cars, and rarely if ever use the acceleration available. In fact I might go through a whole tank of fuel and never see 4k RPM., rarely oover 3k.

It is sad when you realize the improvements in performance of small engines allow us to have the best of both worlds.

A high perfromance 57 Chevy from the factory barely beat 0-60 in 10 seconds.

A 340S 70 Barracuda was good for 7 seconds 0-60.

The limiting factor in those days was tires and traction.

My 58 VW probably took 20seconds, or longer, to reach 60 MPH, without a headwind.

My 63 Valient with the small 170 CI slant six was once driven on a drag strip to a national record of 17.5 seconds. The same car would not go faster than 40 MPH up some grades in the mountains, but it did get close to 28 MPG in an era when few cars did that well.

regards
gary