What I don't like about the Prius Prime

To say another way, they don't care for them.

Has there been any issues with Li-ion traction batteries to date? There the Leaf's in hot climates, but PHEVs have more of a buffer in SOC for protection. I admit I had concerns with the Ford Energi's on introduction. They seemed to have the widest range of SOC in a PHEV at the time. Has there been any issues with them?

I know Toyota has claimed that Li-ion isn't ready, and there are scenarios for hybrids in which NiMH could be a better choice, but they are also heavily invested in NiMH production down to the nickle mines.

 

with li-on in all but one level of usa gen 4, it would be hard to hunk they still believe that.

 

Not to my knowledge except as you mentioned.

 

This is certainly a fair point. I guess I'd say two things in response.

The first is that I'm being selfish. Having a 4-passenger BEV for all my commuting and most of my shopping and weekend errand-running, I have a particular set of requirements for the 2nd car in the garage, plug-in or not. It needs to be the road trip car, because that i-MiEV ain't leavin' town. I'd also strongly prefer it to provide the 5-passenger capability that the BEV lacks. The changes from the PiP to the Prime move Toyota's PHEV in the wrong direction on every count, so my initial unease about pulling the trigger on the LB before seeing the Plug-in have been greatly allayed - the Prime is all wrong for me, not even worth a look. A little more AER is nice, sure - but it's not nearly as good as the reduced seating and trunk space is bad.

Second, even putting aside my very specific use case, it just feels to me like the Prime's specific compromises miss anything resembling a sweet spot. If it does avoid the "teeny AER" criticisms you mention, it's not by a lot. Matching Ford's Energi models doesn't exactly put them in the thick of things when the Volt's rockin' 50 mi. of AER. Sure, the Volt might be way out beyond where Toyota wants to go right now, but given that Toyota's made that judgment, my argument is that it's foolish to give up the only practical advantages the PiP had. This is especially irksome because the Prime fixed what was for me the PiP's biggest shortcoming as a PHEV (aside from not being sold in my state) - effectively zero AER, because its milquetoast MG was no more capable of driving the car through traffic than the non-plugin's identical setup (i.e., hit an upward slope, pass somebody crawling along below the speed limit, hit the go pedal with a tad too much gusto, and up spins the ICE). The Prime really will burn no gas if your itinerary is within its AER, and that's a pretty big win. But that win loses a lot of its luster if it comes at the price of so little trunk space that the non-plugin side of its mission is compromised. The Prime just didn't gain enough in AER over the PiP to make up for what it sacrifices in real-world utility.

So to your point, I think what makes this compromise worse and harder to explain than, e.g., 16 mi. AER with a full trunk and back seat, is that Toyota's making customers give up as much as Volt buyers do, but not delivering commensurate AER goods. I would agree that in and of itself more AER is a good thing, but Toyota's chosen not to be competitive on that metric. Given that, while the shorter AER would be weak from a marketing perspective, at least there would be specific advantages on the other side of the ledger that could help close the deal for some shoppers. Now there aren't.

 

Your post certainly reflects my feelings. I don't buy a car to fit the manufacture's priorities, I buy it to match my priorities. Over the years I've bought a 2001, 2007, and 2010 Prius (all still in full use). They were the best match for the priorities of all the drivers involved.

But priorities evolve. The advantage of EVs is only going to get better and ICE vehicles have reached the point of decreasing sustainability. The immediate payoff of EVs (for me) is home charging. The eventual payoff is solar energy sourcing if and when the situation arrives. This is huge.

With both the PiP and the Prime, I'm not really sure what Toyota's priorities are, but they sure have gone in an opposite direction. This is extremely sad. While the purpose of a corporation is to "make money", it also the reason companies avoid critical technology shifts. (I have a brother who worked in the film processing business...till he left for obvious reasons.)

 

i think most of us were expecting greater aer, to some extent or other, without any other compromises. now whatever the focus groups told them, i have no idea, but they didn't have any 'skin in the game', as a famous priuschatter once said.

 

I feel the same way. I think it has more to do with the amount of risk one is willing to take going for a long trip rather than old vs. new school.

 

I'll add my worthless anecdote that I choose the PiP because it sacrifices very little compared to the regular Prius. If the PiP did not have the same utility as the standard Prius, I wouldn't have been interested. At that point, I might as well bought a different vehicle such as a Ford Energi, or VW TDI.

The floor in the PiP is flat with the folded down seats, allowing me to sleep in the back. I'd probably remove the spare tire in the standard Prius since I've never had a flat tire due to sidewall damage, and all other damage can be repaired with a $2 plug kit.

 

That's far from worthless - I think it's the central point. The PiP, much-mocked as it was in some EV-enthusiast quarters, was pretty much "All the EV range we can fit into the vehicle without compromise." It wasn't a lot, but you gave up nothing (except a spare tire and some $$$) to get it. Compared to that, the Prime's giving us a bit more (and better) AER, but at the expense of doing exactly what the PiP didn't - compromising core functionality.

 

and i thought the chassis redesign would allow for the increased aer, without any compromises.

plus, i figured after 5 years, toyota could sell 8 kWh for little more than 4 kWh. or maybe 7 kWh would double the range due to increased efficiency.

 

You weren't alone. A lot of us were expecting a much better product than the "let's hang some batteries on the side" quick-and-dirty PiP. As it stands, I now have more respect for the PiP, despite its lack of curvy rear window glass and a luxurious center console in back.

 

People have unrealistic expectations about technology. There are certain limits to energy density (among other performance characteristics) that nature has imposed in her rules of chemical reactions. Like all things, battery technology has a diminishing return on investment, meaning that simply throwing more research money at the problem is less and less likely to reveal significant improvement.

The Prime had to double the capacity to double the range because it allows a higher performance EV mode. Despite efficiency improvements, allowing the vehicle to accelerate more quickly and travel at higher speeds on the highway will require more energy.

Future cost reductions in battery technology will have more to do with economies of scale than groundbreaking discoveries in chemical reactions.

I agree that Toyota should have figured out how to design the chassis to accommodate the battery without sacrificing utility as much as it did.

 

so you're saying, for us slowpokes, my current 16 miles should become 40+?

 

I wouldn't be surprised to see some getting 40+. My guess is that I'd get somewhere around 35 miles if I drove the same as I do now, but I might be more tempted to use those electrons when I have more power and range available.

 

That's called not understanding purpose... which is interesting, since the problem is usually not understanding audience.

Anywho, availability of short-term middle seating was never on the priority list. That higher & harder cushion wasn't sighted as necessary. It was a "nice to have" though.

Prius focused on need. The fact that it also delivered a few wants is what pushed it into the mainstream and kept it there... profitably, without any special incentives.

Core functionality was:

- Reliability
- Affordability
- Clean Emissions
- Great Efficiency

Later came the ability to transport cargo much larger inside than you could using a vehicle with a trunk.

All that still holds true.

 

I do not know if this helps anyone but you can get one of these

 

Considering how far the Volt has come in terms of battery size, packaging, and cost, what we were shown at the unveiling of the Prime was disappointing. For a battery pack of less than half of the capacity of the gen2 Volt's, the Prime appears to have the same level of compromises.

 

it's obvious prime is intended to attack a new audience, one that is unfamiliar with pip hatch space and rear seat. it's just disappointing to long time prius/pip buyers who have supported toyota's effort. ah well, you always hurt the one you love.