So how popular is the Toyota Prius in your area? (1 Viewer)

[Ray Chuang]

Here in California, the Prius is very commonly seen. I see them at least 6-7 times a day just driving around town.

Of course, my brother drives a first-generation model, so....

 

[Zen Butler]

Jack, there are a fair amount of Prius's in this area. Personally, though in this beach community and neighboring(Seal Beach, Sunset, Huntington), I've seen a lot of GEM vehicles; which is completely electric. Top Speed is 25 MPH. We have had an increase of interest in mods for these which I do. Reflashing the ECU and regearing the differential brings them up to a performance of 37-40MPH. Weak to say the least and really only good for short neighborhood "puts." More inland where I work though, I see a wide array of hybrids on the road.
The problem with the Toyota is simply a shortage in my area. Toyota could sell even more if they had the inventory. I have friends in Toyota and dealers are limited to a few units.
Personally, I like the Ford Escape hybrid. The problem is(and it is well known) is a shortage on replacement components such as battery packs.
The Prius, for a science fiction fan is a trip to drive at first. It has the the look and the whoosh of the future. This though wears thin after a few drives; much like what happened with the very limited GEM car.
Toyota, although the epitomy of reliability, had not nailed it with the Prius. The car was buggy and has had it's share of software issues. Though, in all fairness, I have NOT driven the newer models. Hybrids are all the rage but I'm not buying yet. I'm thinking of picking up the Suzuki Boulevard C90 and ride that out until we see hydrogen fuel. Which could be?...

 

[Zen Butler]

Steve, you mentioned how well the Prius drives in the city but could you describe the climb through the "Grapevine?" It wasn't a bit of "dog" rolling through there.

 

[BrianW]

Todd, I completely agree, as far as typical CVT designs go. This is certainly true of typical CVT designs that employ belts or chains in sliding pulleys, or controlled slip designs, and still require a clutch or other mechanism to disengage the engine from the drive shaft. But that's not true of the Prius' design. I think it's unfortunate that the Prius gearbox is even called a CVT, since it doesn't use any of these fragile, power-robbing gimmicks. Unlike more common CVT designs, the Prius gearbox can handle more than 400 ft-lbs of torque without even struggling, is more compact, and doesn't require any sliding, slipping, belts, or chains to accomplish its mission like other CVTs. Really, it's almost as reliable as a drive shaft.

You won't see the Prius gearbox design in a Corvette or other supercar, however, not because it can't handle the power, but simply because it requires an electric motor in addition to the gasoline engine for it to work. Unfortunately, without the electric motor controlling the level of engagement between the sun and ring gears, the Prius gearbox is just a high-powered salad spinner -- bad for Corvettes, but great for hybrid cars of any power level.

 

[MarkHastings]

I was going to say the same about south western CT. There are a lot of Prius's in that area and they all share the roads with all of the Hummers (which seem to becoming annoyingly popular :rolleyes)

 

[Al.Anderson]

What a bunch of malarky. They throw around pseudo facts without any proff. You notice how they never say what the heck went into the computaion of "development energy costs". The Hummer doesn't have sophicated parts so it uses less energy to manufacture? My old oil burner had no moving parts, could have made it myself with a lathe - but it consumed 150% more energy than my modern one. My immediate reaction was this was a paid-for analysis. I did a search on the company and came up with this:

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=63

"Reason has an associated environment website (www.newenvironmentalism.org) which promotes conservative environmental policies. The page links to articles on websites for organizations such as CEI, the Heartland Institute and Tech Central Station. It also has a section praising the environmental stewardship of corporations such as ExxonMobil. Reason's Magazine also badmouths the environmental movement and promotes the interests of Reason's corporate contributers."

I know it's only one commentary on Reason.org. But that and common sense pretty much does it for me.

 

[Todd Hochard]

I should mention that the Tahoe is the most fuel-efficient SUV of that size at 16/22mpg. The new one, that is- the old ones are below that quite a bit.

 

[Jimi C]

". In the 1910s, it took over 20l of displacement to build an engine that made 200hp- now it's done, naturally aspirated with just under two."

What company makes that engine? Never heard of such a small engine getting 200hp stock without some kind of forced injection. Hell, My 2001 has a 3.0L V6 that only gets 155hp.

 

[Garrett Lundy]

Any of the motorcycle engine companies can make that kind of power/liter. Very few turbos on two wheels......

 

[Todd Hochard]

Now that I think of it, I can't think of any US-spec cars pushing 200hp from 1.9l or less. However, the original S2000 motor was 2.0l, and it was 240hp- that was 2001, IIRC. I bought my '02 TL-S in 2001, and it has 260hp- 3.2l V6. The new IS350, with 3.5l V6, comes in at 306hp. There's essentially no need for a big displacement anymore, for cars.

 

[ChristopherG]

This is called an ad hominem. Provide something that refutes this on a more scientific basis.

 

[Scott L]

What on earth kind of car is that? A 1989 Ford Taurus SHO sports 220hp with a 3.0L V6.

 

[RobertR]

Haven't seen many Priuses in the Riverside area. I know a guy at work who has one, and he seems happy with it.

 

[Ray Chuang]

Honda's K20Z3 engine on the 2006 Honda Civic Si coupé is rated at 197 bhp (SAE 08/04 net). Honda did it by using a fairly high compression ratio and variable-valve timing (i-VTEC system). Mind you, you need to rev the engine to around 6500 rpm to get that horsepower, though.

Today, Honda has done a pretty job generating lots of power from a four-cylinder engine. The 1.8-liter engine on the 2006 Civic is rated at 140 bhp, yet gets 30 mpg city, 40 mpg highway; the 2.4-liter engine on the 2006 Accord is rated at 166 bhp, yet gets 24 mpg city, 34 mpg highway.

 

[Al.Anderson]

Not really ad hominem, since I was mostly saying they didn't show any facts. A whitepaper such as they wrote should should show or reference data. All they did was say "the calculations show we're right". I would need to see the calculations; or at least what went into the calulations. Their entire essay is cleverly worded opinion.

It was only after I tired of their unsupported opinion that I suspected they had an agenda. I did support my declaration that they had an agenda by my link. So I have one more fact they they do.

Until they show the methodology for the calculation, I'll go with the fact that they have an alternative agenda and are funded by the very industries they are trying to justify.

 

[Jimi C]

"Quote:
My 2001 has a 3.0L V6 that only gets 155hp.

What on earth kind of car is that? A 1989 Ford Taurus SHO sports 220hp with a 3.0L V6."


Its a Ford Taurus with the base model engine. The "Vulcan", its the same engine that they used in the 86' Taurus and its the same engine thats used in the 07' Taurus. It was also used in the Aerostar and Ranger trucks. Its just your basic push rod style engine. That 220hp SHO engine used dohc, it was the same block if im not mistaken. The V8 used in later Taurus SHO's was a 3.5L and only pushed out 235hp.

Im pretty sure Im driving the least powerful modern sedan on the planet. Does have around 185lbft of torque though and it gets decent gas mileage.

 

[RobertR]

The Reason article says a number of interesting things:


Saying they have an agenda doesn't change facts, nor does it invalidate their analysis. The claim would have to be that the facts are wrong (or they made up things) or that the analytical methodology is wrong. Demonstrating those kind of errors would be the proper response, not simply saying they have an agenda (who doesn't have an agenda?).

 

[BrianW]

I would call the analysis flawed in that their conclusion depends heavily on the number of miles each vehicle remains in service before being scrapped, and with these cars (including Hummers) being fairly new, they're essentially guessing what the vehicles' longevity will be. (In addition, there does need to be a correction: Toyota has claimed not that the Prius will last 100,000 miles, but that the battery packs will, which is no reason to scrap the entire car as asserted by the study. Indeed, customers are finding that the battery packs are lasting far beyond the 100,000 miles claimed -- as are the cars themselves.)

The analysis also, in my opinion, improperly penalizes hybrids for not sharing components with other cars and for requiring more complex assembly techniques. This is tantamount to assessing a penalty for simply being a new technology. This not only doesn't make sense, but it is something that time will always remedy. Not sharing components with other stuff and being more complex is something that is true of every new-technology product that has ever been introduced. What technology is fully mature right out the door? In time, hybrid vehicles will share components with many other vehicles (namely, hybrid vehicles) as the technology matures, more production ramps up, and designs are simplified.

Had this same analysis been applied to cordless phones when they first came out, the conclusion would have been that cordless phones are not a technology worth having.


Edit: After re-reading my post, I realized that I'm making essentially the same argument in my second point that Todd made in post #19:Sorry to steal your thunder, Todd.

 

[RobertR]

Now that's more like it, Brian.

 

[Jay H]

I just returned from hiking various peaks in the Sierras of CA and NV and OR, out of CA,NV, and OR, gas in CA is insane, saw prices of $3.39 for regular in CA!!!! versus about $3.00 in NV and price as low as $2.75 in OR. All in the span of 2 weeks while I was climbing Mt Whitney, Shasta, and Mt Hood.

Jay