Why the Camry Hybrid in one picture

But use all that power in a CAMRY - ie drive it like you stole it - and I suspect it wouldn't do anything like as well as a hard-driven PRIUS. Remember that PRIUS Gen 4 is considerably improved on the Gen 3 too.

PRIUS c is an old design - with cosmetic changes only since 2011. If they'd come out with a GEN2, it would probably have improved.

This is the Australian specification dataset - BEAR IN MIND - Camry needs 95 RON here - at about 11-15% more per litre:

 

I can’t know for certain, but my best guess is “$21k window sticker.”

I’m certain they could’ve made the c burn less fuel, deliver more power or even both. But it wouldn’t have been cheap, and the c was already a bit dear in a field of $17k subcompacts.

 

The engine in the Prius c is essentially the same one in the gen2 Prius. For the segment, cost was a major consideration, so it didn't get the latest and greatest. Remember, Toyota's ICE subcompact offering got no more than 4 speeds in the automatic.

Globally, it looks like the Aqua will be replaced with the new Yaris hybrid when it arrives.

edit: left out an important no.

 

Price point.

 

When I was buying earlier in the year, I had several criteria I was looking for;

1. Utility. Could it haul the Xmas tree to the dump? Three guys and clubs to the golf course? 5 people on short trips? 3 on long ones with luggage for 2 weeks?
2. Safety. Does it assist the driver in driving safely with things like blind sport monitor, lane keeping, smart following, backing camera and warnings, etc?
3, Eco reasonable. I wasn't going to get 60+ MPG on a car that was capable of what I wanted but was it reasonably eco friendly?
4. Affordable? I could have bought darn near any car but I'd be paranoid about what could happen to anything over $50k which ruled out Tesla.
5. Fun? Was it sufficiently different that it would amuse me for a couple of years? Have reasonable acceleration?
6. Available now?
7. Maintainable locally? That limited me as I live in a small town and there aren't a lot of brands with dealer's within 50 miles. GMC, Toyota, Ford, Nissan, Chrysler. Sorry Tesla.
8. Owners opinions were positive? Sorry Subi, CRV, etc.
9. Easy to get in and out of? I'm 76+. A higher entry/exit is a plus.

My opinions on what I bought is here, pluses and minuses. As honest as I can make 'em.

 

new hycam is an amazing feat of engineering, at a very reasonable price

 

@CamryDriver

The 1NZ-FXE gas engine in both generation 2 prius and prius c is good for 77hp. The difference is the battery. The liftback has the big 14-block traction battery which is allowed to contribute up to ~33hp in the best of circumstances.

The c has a smaller 10-block traction battery and can thus only contribute about 23hp in the best of circumstances.

The lousy highway MPG of the c is best written off to aerodynamics. If the car were less tall or longer, or both, it could be shaped to cut through the wind better.

But the point was to make a short-wheelbase city car with easy parking dynamics and it still needed to have headroom for normal humans.

And yes, there was (at least one) change in EPA economy measurements, with a significant one occurring around 2006-7. Everybody got downgraded.

 

2005 was the old epa test, same car.

my '04 was getting 60mpg one day, and 48 the next. very disappointing

 

These aren't like to like.
The major change to EPA tests for displayed fuel economy went into effect for 2008. Thus the difference in the 2005 and 2009 numbers, though if you had gone to Fueleconomy.gov, the 2005 displays the 2009 numbers
Then they tweaked the testing for MY2016. The Prius c was originally rated 53mpg highway and 46mpg city, and older models still display that at the EPA site.

The c battery was smaller to help fit it under the rear seat, amoung other things. It used the hybrid system from the gen3 Prius; smaller M/G2 with reduction gear. That also contributed to the lower power rating. The engine got some efficiency improvements by moving formally belt driven accessories to gear driven.

On Fuelly, the Prius c is getting better fuel economy than the gen2.
Toyota Prius C MPG - Actual MPG from 1,343 Toyota Prius C owners
Toyota Prius MPG - Actual MPG from 7,911 Toyota Prius owners

 

Yes, and at that it's a good car. There are lots of small couriers here using them, and as a private round-town runabout, they're quite popular.

 

Honestly, Toyota is probably the top automaker for incorporating its fuel saving innovations into its other vehicles. It often makes the hybrid "premium" look like a bad deal because the gasser model already gets top of the line fuel economy.

 

As others have pointed out, the EPA scale has changed several times over that timespan. The 2005 label had to be re-stated before 2009. The scale changed again between 2012 and now, but older labels were not re-stated that time.

Here is what the EPA now shows:


The 2012 and 2019 Prius 'c' shouldn't perform any differently, the underlying EPA scale has simply shifted to reflect today's more lead-footed drivers and increased congestion.

Click on the 2005's "View Original EPA MPG" link, and it shows this:

 

And they'll likely change again if EU (or UN actually I think) WLTP testing becomes global.

 

It's more $2000 to $3000 added to a car in a segment that starts under $20k really stands out.

Many look down on mild hybrids, but the cost makes them more acceptable to the general public.

 

I think you are putting too much stock in the "estimate" numbers.

All 4 of my C's have been able to beat the estimate figures.....WHEN it is driven in light city or rural traffic below 50 MPH.
And without taking any "special" measures to try and stretch the fuel.
Pretty sure that was their design target for that model.

While it is not frequent, I do occasionally see 60 MPG in the display; more usual to have mid-50s.
A few manual measurements indicate that the true figure when the display says 55 MPG is more like 51-52.

 

Compared with Full Hybrids (like PRIUS, RAV4) - I can't see much point in Mild Hybrids - the road tests I've read indicate only a moderate improvement in fuel efficiency - not enough to make it warrant the extra cost. It's a lot of complexity for little gain.