Some insider notes on the 2017 Prius Prime

Actually that CMAX/E looks pretty roomy...hard to say without a tape measure on the real car. Wish someone would pull into my driveway with a couple Gen4's and a Volt and a Cmax and maybe a Tesla then I would write and article on true cargo space. Wish some auto mag would do that for us, but they seem content to go with the published BS from the EPA specs.

 

When I first joined PriusChat, I've had insightful discussions with him, but since the release of the plug ins, he has gotten obtuse and heavy on Toyota support.

Toyota uses HSD on all their hybrids now. It is no different than Ford using that little leaf symbol on their flex-fuel vehicles, hybrids, and maybe CNG cars. They even use it for their FCEVs, and I expect they'd use it on a BEV if they thought only a minority would call BS. it is also similar to brands using the same labels for the various trim levels. Though Toyota thinks the Prius line needs a separate one here.

Ford was the first to use a trademark name instead of PHV, PHEV, or plug in for their PHEV models, and they did so since the initial release of their offerings.

Before your time noob. There was a discussion about PHEV to hybrid take rate a couple years since the cars first came out. The PiP and Volt sales figures were around 10% of the 60%, to account for the PiPs limited release, of Prius sales and Cruze sales, respectively. The Energi's were 13% to 15% of their hybrids. This could simply be because the 20 miles AER is the sweet spot between desire and price, though.

Guess this depends on location and such, but I've seen more advertising for Toyota hybrids than Fords.
Ford screwed themselves with their MPG manipulations.

I concede this could be the case. The PHEV choices were more limited back then. The Energi figures still look good, but the Sonata PHEV has only just come to market, and may not even be on dealer lots everywhere yet. With the Prime, Ioniq, and Kia offerings coming, we will get to see if the Energi's can hold their place. Then there will be new models replacing them a couple years after that.

The shelf in the C-max appears to come up higher than the Prime's cargo floor, but that under cubby might allow better versatility in packing stuff. With the Prime possibly having the same total volume of cargo space, it will come down to what the buyer expects to transport.


By all accounts MyTouch was a horrible system, and dragged down all Ford and Lincoln models. Some of the per car issues in CR for Ford cars can be traced to it; not that it was broken, but because it was such a poorly designed system that it was hard to use.

For actual sales, pricing will be a factor. The new Volt greatly closes the price gap, and I expect the prime to start around where the PiP was at, so it will have around a $1500 advantage. With the Toyota reputation, the Prime should do better than the C-max. Not too surprising considering the PiP did well against it. This can only be counted on for a year or two though. The C-max is a gen1 PHEV, and Ford will redesign or replace it with a gen2 sooner than later.

Now, for a little mental exercise, how does your opinion of the C-max Energi compared to the Volt and Prime change when you consider that it isn't a dedicated hybrid, but an ICE conversion?

They don't do more than take pictures of suitcases or puffalumps in the back because the EPA measurements were performed according to an SAE standard. You and a bunch of journalists going at it with a tape measure would just get result in results over a wide variation.

Now, the SAE has revised versions of the standard that the EPA uses. Some manufacturers actually use those for the specs in market releases. Which is why a Jeep Cherokee with lower values than a Rav4 might actually hold the same amount. But until the EPA switches to something like they use for trunks with standard size boxes instead of a tape measure, it is what it is.

 

It's the reverse. Other automakers have wandered away from the affordability and offering something for the mainstream. Toyota always held true to that goal.

There are many who don't give any importance to business, focusing solely on engineering instead.

In other words, they see little value in high-volume sales and profitability. The heavy dependence on tax-credits is an obvious sign of that.

 

I see more Toyota hybrid ads as well - my point was that Ford promotes their hybrids more than anybody else but Toyota, so they're not exactly hiding their light under a bushel. Ford's certainly paying a price among the Priuscenti et al for their early MPG shenanigans, but I think there are still a lot of people out there that assume a C-MAX is closer to Prius-level efficiency than it is, and Ford's launch-time duplicity shaped a lot of that.

It doesn't - I always knew it was a euro-market ICEV people-mover brought stateside only in hybrid form. Even if one didn't know that, the raised floor on the hybrid would be a big clue. Had the car been purpose-built it would be a laughing-stock, but as a conversion it's better than many. As you can tell, I've never been a fan, having been so disappointed with the reality vs. pre-launch expectations, then further disillusioned with the restated fuel economy. Next to the updated Volt and Prius, it looks even weaker.

Ford's hard to figure for me. They talk a good game, but what's actually delivered seems a bit slapped together. I've never had much respect for the "build-to-order if you absolutely insist on buying it" Focus-E, the C-MAX is a yawn, and the Energis disappoint, somehow managing to have highish pricing, mediocre AER, and seriously compromised cargo space. It's better than FCA's "Please don't buy our EVs so we can argue nobody wants them" shtick, but I think surprisingly weak next to GM's "better late than never" lineup for next year.

 

Let me clarify, I haven't seen a Ford hybrid ad since the release in 2013.

I'm viewing it from the other direction in regards to the Prime. The C-max Energi is a three year old, first generation PHEV model that was built upon an ICE platform, and the only thing the Prime seems to have over it is fuel economy, but it also loses the fifth seat.

Ford likely felt pressure from the release of the 2nd gen Camry hybrid, saw that they could bend the rules, and thought they could get away with it like VW.

Which is a shame because the reviews of the Escape hybrid and gen1 Fusion hybrid were always positive.

Financials need to be considered. Ford nearly went under before the 2008 recession. They managed to make it, but could have been better off lasting to the recession, and then declaring bankruptcy. New GM doesn't have the burden of old GM's debts holding their alternate fuel and other programs.

The Focus is a compliance plus car. It exists because of CARB's ZEV program, but Ford is willing to sell it nationwide. Which is a step up compared to others. At this time, it appears the C-max is meerly a stop gap until Ford could put more resources into hybrids. Canceling the Escape hybrid is still puzzling though. Perhaps they had the same focus group that told Toyota that getting rid of the middle rear seat was a great idea.

Two of your criticisms here on the Energis also apply to the Prime, and I think the one pricing will too once the final price is released. Twentyish miles of EV range seem to be the sweet spot between cost, packaging, and price. Though I think the packaging could have been done better on the Prime.

Like with the Volt, Ford is increasing the fuel economy and range on the Fusion Energi a bit with software tweaks for 2017. It and the C-max came old a couple years after the Volt and Leaf, so we have to wait for any real changes until the redesign. Right now, they are cashing in on the low gas prices with a V6 AWD ICE version. There are rumors of a dedicated hybrid and PHEV platform being develop, but i don't think we hear anything about it for another year at least.

 

Agree with all the above. My lack of enthusiasm for the C-MAX/E shouldn't be taken as Prime boosterism. When I saw the Prime's configuration in the reveal I just about choked on my soda - there is no excuse for that joke of a trunk in a "new from the ground up for 2016" PHEV. They may as well have spray painted I'M A HALF-HEARTED AFTERTHOUGHT along the sides - but hey, cool rear hatch glass, huh?

While I do think the Prime has its niche (I've seen at least a couple of posters in here and one of my co-workers for whom it's a good fit even if priced at Volt levels), it's going to be a pretty tiny one. Thing is, I think Toyota knows that and fully intends it. If you think about it, the PiP was grudgingly produced and tepidly marketed (not to mention literally withheld from most states), with a strong feeling of "Okay, if you really insist, here's your damned plug-in." Now it's more like "Okay, if you really insist, you can have your damned plug-in, but only as a wretched excess luxury product." That's part of why I think the Prime will not be priced to sell.

Face it - Toyota just hates plug-ins, and they desperately want to believe they will fail (re: Mirai, a product that otherwise reflects what could only be described as magical thinking). It seems like a corporate value, so it's hard to say when that changes - presumably before it wrecks the company.

 

funny how fuel economy doesn't seem to matter. well, maybe that's true when you're going after the mass market. why bother at all?.

 

The thing about high fuel economy is that the 2 to 3 mpg the Prime might have lost to have a full rear seat does not work out to much more gas saved. That is before factoring in the EV miles with no gas use. 52mpg saves 15 gallons of gas over 13,000 miles compared to 49mpg. It does save around 90 gallons compared to the 38mpg rating the C-max Energi get.

But these are plug ins, and I hope most will be plugging them in. A twenty mile AER can add up to 5200 miles saying the car is only driven 5 days a week. That leaves 7800 miles to be covered by gas. The Prime will now save roughly 45 gallons over the C-max. AT California gas prices, that is $112.50. Not chump change, but not much for someone that can afford a new $30k+ car.

The 50+mpg label is a marketing advantage. It isn't enough of one to get the large majority of car buyers to buy a Prius over cars getting 30mpg or less. Then when it comes to PHEV shoppers, the car having enough EV range to cover most of their daily use is a bigger priority. hybrid fuel economy comes after that somewhere for them.

 

That's a long line of reasoning which doesn't explain what we have actually seen.

Think about the sales of RAV4 hybrid. You'd be much better off with a Prius. It's futile to get ordinary people to agree with your logic though. Don't waste your time. They simply aren't interested.

It amazes me how that is so hard to accept. That's reality though. People will find an excuse to justify their choice. The switch from wagon & minivan to SUV happened. Like it or not, that's the way it is.

We must endorse technology & approach that brings about change. Too bad if it isn't the way you want it.

 

Falling for greenwash spin requires the necessity to disregard certain facts.

The most obvious is that batteries are still expense. Why would a top automaker sell a vehicle at a substantial loss? It just plain doesn't make any sense. Yet, some truly believe a miracle will happen and competing directly against traditional offerings without tax-credits is realistic.

The other blatant denial is believing electricity is clean & abundant everywhere. It's a cold, hard fact that we still have very dirty energy sources thriving. It's also a hash reality to accept the fact that there are many who don't have plugs available.

Claims that Toyota's approach of offering a modest-sized pluggable battery in a vehicle which seems like more of a hybrid are greenwashing attempts. You have to ignore the EV acceleration, the EV top speed, the EV heating & cooling system for that to be affective.

Complete disregard of those attributes with an argument of just short EV range borders on desperation.

At least those trying to figure out packaging choice are looking at the approach decision with reasonable assessment.

 

It's widely believed that Toyota is massively subsidizing the Mirai, whereas you've got BEVs that are on a per-unit scale profitable (even if you've got cases like Tesla turning around and plowing the profits and then some back into developing the next model).

True, there's the federal and state subsidies involved, although Tesla's trying to price the Model 3 so it doesn't need them.

 

Mirai isn't targeted at the mainstream. It's a long-term project. There isn't an intention for high-volume. There isn't a goal of profitability. Yet.

None of that is true for EV offerings.

The hope from GM and Nissan and Hyundai is very much to have their EV be purchased by ordinary consumers who would have otherwise purchased something else from their dealers lot.

 

I wasn't arguing that the Prime was a better choice than the C-max Energi because it saved so much gas. I was arguing that the gas saved was too small of amount to choose the Prime on alone.

And also to show that Toyota's decision to drop the fifth seat to keep efficiency up, which is their explanation for it Here's why the Prime has 4 seats | PriusChat, amounts to very little difference in the real world. If a Prime with five seats got 49mpg instead on 52mpg, only 15 more gallons of gas would be used over 13,000 miles. That is under the assumption that the car is never plugged in.

My disappointment in Toyota over the Prius Prime has nothing to do with the way I want things. It is because they slacked off, and choose to build a PHEV that competes with the competition of the past.

The Toyota name on a PHEV will help grow the segment, as long as it isn't over priced. No one has said Toyota shouldn't build a plug in. The Prime moniker instead of Plug In could make sales easier; it seems to have worked for Ford with Energi. The Prime has an electric heat pump. Not a first for plug ins, but one for PHEVs. Increased applications can lead to lower costs for all.

What other technologies and the approaches does the Prime have that will bring about change?

Better packaging of the battery isn't one. Loss of space and functionality between ICE and plain hybrid versions has been a criticism and reason not to switch since the first Civic hybrid. Toyota appears to simply not to tackle it on the Prime at all from what we've seen.

On other topics, you have been clear that plug ins will need to compete without, and not depend on, incentives. With what is seen between the generations, why do you think the Volt isn't moving towards that goal? There isn't any evidence that it costs more to build than what GM has it priced to sell.

 

What part of TRADITIONAL VEHICLES is so difficult to accept? They are the true competition, not other plug-in choices. It's blatant denial & dismissal of that which is putting pressure on the adoption of plugging. Focusing on the wrong thing results in a holding back progress. It absolutely amazes me how something seemingly so obvious continues to be a problem.

I haven't been saying that. My statement all the way through gen-1 offering was "too little, too slowly". The rollout of gen-2 didn't improve upon that either.

 

Yet another John-ruined thread. Hello "unwatch thread" button.

 

Would you prefer staying within the niche realm? Breaking out into the mainstream isn't anywhere near as exciting, but it is a worthy goal.

 

And the Prime won't break into the mainstream. There's only one vehicle with a plug announced for the US market, that in 2016 stands a chance of doing that, and that's the Outlander PHEV. (Which, actually, has rather clever battery packaging, unlike the Prime.)

 

How are you drawing those conclusions?

 

I pointed out that people have stuck with the traditional car instead of getting a hybrid because of the lose of space and flexibility in packing cargo. So how is focusing on how the Prime poorly packages its battery so that it loses the same or more space and functionality that an older PHEV built upon an ICE platform ignoring that the competition is traditional vehicles?

Highest efficiency on gasoline and electric is nice, but that isn't just what got the plain old Prius to where is today. It was also a versatile platform for hauling people and stuff. It would not have done as well if was a small sedan without fold rear seats like the Civic. Then even with the high efficiency and flexible usability, the Prius is still out sold by the Corolla. The Prime has the efficiency, but cuts but on that usability.

How is that supposed to appeal to buyers of traditional vehicles? A change in the marketing approach can gain some sales, but it can't overcome what car buyers will see in the showroom. They'll the missing middle rear seat. This was a deal breaker for some Volt shoppers, and was so before the PiP was available. Targeting an older demographic is fine, they likely have more cash, but they are also likely to be grandparents. Then they'll see the noticably raised cargo floor.

A PHEV requires compromises in its design, but looking at the Prius Prime, it appears that Toyota made no attempt to minimize those compromises.

The gen2 improved ICE and electric efficiency while improving performance, increased EV range, and addressed the criticism over the 4 seats only. All while lowering the base price by $6000 or so. That is still "too little, too slowly." It is fine for Toyota to make "incremental changes" between generations, but not for everybody else? Or is that just GM?

 

For starters, the Prime's battery layout presents serious compromises to cargo space, and the seating configuration reduces flexibility of the vehicle (especially for families). (I'm not saying that the Volt's a winner here either, for what it's worth - cargo space is decent, but the seating configuration, despite nominally having a fifth seat (which does enable some child seat configurations that are impossible in the Prime), is otherwise worse than the Prime.) Ultimately, this relegates the Prime to being a second car for many people that are interested in it. A lot of the disappointment in the Prime is that you have to make both compromises in the seating layout as well as cargo area, and you still only get 8.8 kWh - basically, your arguments about the Volt being compromised and unable to reach the mainstream due to having too much battery appear to also apply to the Prime.

Then, you get into the trends in the greater automotive market - something that Jalopnik's called the "sedanocalypse". Customers are flocking to crossovers in droves, and the Prime isn't a crossover. And, note that the Liftback is alternating between roughly equal to the same month last year, and a ~20% drop in sales from the same month last year - and that's with a new generation being out, which typically greatly increases sales. If the Liftback can't succeed in the mainstream, why would the Prime?

Finally, you've got the messaging that Toyota's sending, that the Prime is a luxury Prius. This is reinforced by things like the complex rear glass, and the carbon fiber hatch. This indicates that MSRP will likely be rather high, and there won't be full incentives available to the Prime. That will reduce the amount of sales even to those that weren't deterred by the Prime's weaknesses in capability (either from the direction of AER or from the direction of seating and cargo), or by the fact that it's not a crossover.

Conversely, while I'd guess somewhere between 15-20 mi AER for the Outlander PHEV - less than the Prime - it's far better packaged. Essentially zero reduction in passenger space, and zero reduction in cargo space, for its 12 kWh battery (mounted under the floor). This means that ultimately, it's a more useful vehicle than the Prime. And, it's a vehicle in the automotive class that the mainstream is rapidly shifting towards, away from cars in general - crossovers. Oh, and it has AWD, too, which a lot of people prioritize having in the US market (misguidedly, sure, but it's a thing that people want).

Pricing's the only thing I'm not sure on. In the UK market, the Outlander PHEV starts at £34,249 before tax credits (£2500 there) in GX3h trim. Mitsubishi doesn't have anything comparable to the US Outlander's powertrains (2.4 I4 or 3.0 V6 gasoline with CVT) in the UK market, most Outlanders there having a 2.2 I4 turbodiesel with 6-speed manual or automatic, but I'll use the 2.2 diesel with automatic in GX3 trim to compare. It's £29,249 in the UK, making the PHEV 117% of the price of the diesel automatic at the same trim level. GX3 looks to be comparable to the American SE S-AWC trim level, at $25,995, and 117% of that is $30,439, before tax credits (at approximately $5836 federal). While I don't think it'd go for that cheap, if it did, that would undercut the Volt by a fair amount - even considering the Volt's additional tax credit - while having three rows of seating and AWD. And, frankly, I think that would undercut the Prime by even more, before or after the Prime's $4502 tax credit.