Featured That's Progress: How the 2024 Toyota Prius Prime Compares to the Original 2001 Prius

It would be interesting to see this kind of analysis from the perspective of Toyota's books... The potential and promise of Gen1 Prius as it ramped up to the golden age of Gen2 when Toyota was selling 25K of them a month in the US alone for years and years must of looked great on Toyota's spreadsheet. It made them one of the few automakers to survive the 2008 economic crisis without much damage.

But if you looked at Toyota's books today, as well as how severe the production limits are for Gen5 Prius, it'd be pretty clear that Toyota is way more vulnerable than other automakers when it comes to the next economic downturn.

 

Other than the fact that Toyota has record sales and sells more vehicles worldwide than anyone. More than a million more than number 2 VW and essentially as many as GM and Ford combined.

 

I like the 2001's heat/vent controls:

 

It's interesting to see the comparison. The lower price is definitely a plus because if you want a good fuel mileage car for saving money then you're also going to want the whole car to be cheaper, and the Prius was not and still is not an economy car. But at least it's closer and now has other things to offer that may appeal to those who are looking for more than just good fuel mileage, such as more acceleration.

Personally the main thing that I like about the new Prius is the Prime version. Being able to plug in is what I would like to have in a hybrid. And especially if I could forgo using the ICE entirely, even for heat, as I have short distance drives around town that never heat up an ICE to running temperatures.

If I'm going to get a non-plugin Hybrid then for me it's not worth the $4,500 to get a Prius over a Corolla hybrid. The Corolla's 1.8L engine has too much power already and is already a ginormous boat of a car and the Prius doesn't have any more seating than the Corolla does. And the difference in fuel costs plus car costs would mean I'd have to drive 450,000 miles to break even as I'd only save about $1,000 per every 100,000 miles in fuel at $4 per gallon (which it's at $3.10 right now) if I got a Prius instead of a Corolla Hybrid.

I am dreading the controls and lack of media inputs on any new Toyota, or any new car for that matter.

 

I applaud comparing the march of progress after my 2003 Prius. However, the Gen I Prius was competing against other 2001-2003 cars and really set a mark of 52 MPG that remains a challenge today. That my 2017 Prius Prime could only achieve 56 MPG highlights the built-in Prius limit.

So my last Prius, a Prime, is much better than many others, I still traded the 2017 Prius Prime to get a car with more than twice that mileage and features.

Bob Wilson

 

My 1985 VW MK2 N/A diesel Golf got sometimes over 60mpg on the highway. The Mitsubishi Mirage can get some 43mpg, and at one point it was selling for under $10,000 brand new here in the USA. A 1993 Geo Metro could get over 40mph on the highway and cost some $17,000 in today's money.

A Prime should be able to get well over 100 MPGe if used mostly on EV miles. Everyone's mileage may vary.

I can't get over 35mpg in the Avalon hybrid, and it's rated at 40mpg.

But personally I don't get the financial argument of such great fuel mileage in modern vehicles when the purchase cost is so high, especially when talking about EV's.

 

I can see why they got rid of it... It's so simple and easy to use! Lol... In my near 200K miles on my Gen2 the most dangerous thing that takes my eyes off the road for too long is that stupid touch screen controller. I wouldn't even have to take my eyes off the road at all if I had those Gen1 controls!

 

For those of us who only buy used... It matters... You covered some of the best high MPG non-hybrid cars ever built in your post, but you did leave the Honda CRX out, which to this day had some of the best MPGs of any gasoline engine ever built. An amazing technology that deserved a longer production run than 1983-1991.

"The original 1.3-liter car (chassis code AE532) had an EPA highway mileage rating of 52 miles per U.S. gallon (4.5 L/100 km; 62 mpg‑imp)[4] in 1984 and was reported to often achieve over 70 miles per U.S. gallon (3.4 L/100 km; 84 mpg‑imp) in favorable driving conditions. The later 1.5-liter American-market CRX HF (high fuel economy) model (chassis codes EC1 and AF) could also reliably achieve very good gas mileage, more than a decade before gas-electric hybrids appeared on the market..." Honda CR-X - Wikipedia

 

I've only bought used, but I'm a bit shell shocked after the things that happened in the used car industry since COVID onward. There's a good chance that whenever I get another car it will have to be used. But if I do get a used car I have some strict expectations. It has to have a good reputation for reliability. And I have to have access to it's maintenance records. And it has to have followed the more often oil change interval in the owner's manual. I will not buy another car that got yearly oil changes ever again, especially if it's a Toyota.

To me, these points are more important than fuel mileage. There's no point in getting a low mile used car that gets stellar fuel mileage if in 3 months it's going to need an $11,000 repair.

I almost bought a used Honda CRX once for $600 back in the day. As a 2 seater I felt that I shouldn't put it on the list here since someone who's considering a Prius might consider less than 4 or 5 seats to be impractical. The Honda PCX also gets 100mpg, but it's a scooter.

 

We have to remember the MPG numbers were adjusted downward in 2008. This is especially true for hybrids - my 2006 Prius was the first car I got that I didn't beat the EPA estimates.
So comparing the MPG from before vs. after 2008 is a bit of comparing apples to oranges.

 

This is a fair point. EPA updated its internal testing procedures twice in recent memory, 2017 and 2008 (there were additional updates before 2008). In general, the EPA fuel economy was less after the update than before, since the changes made were meant better reflect real world driving and to adhere to updated Federal standards for automobile fuel economy.

Additionally, cars intended for the American market have definitely gotten larger and heavier over time. Some of this is consumer preferences, but required safety equipment over the years also plays a role. The cumulative weight of these additional requirements over the years impacts fuel economy and is another factor that complicates comparisons across time.

 

The numbers for older cars on Fueleconomy.gov have been adjusted to be comparable to the results of new models.

 

Not all of them, though. The adjustments really depends on the model year of the vehicle; since someone above mentioned a Honda CRX, I thought we were reaching back in time quite a bit.

But this doesn’t change the fact that we’re both correct to a certain extent. From the EPA site for the most recent methodology change:

“You may see 2016 vehicles with the old fuel economy estimates on the window sticker along side 2017 vehicles with estimates based on the new calculations. To help you compare vehicles with new and older ratings more easily, the estimates in Find and Compare Cars have been adjusted:

• The original estimates for model year 2011–2016 vehicles have been adjusted to match the revised 2017 calculations.
  • The ratings for most vehicles are unchanged.
  • Ratings changes are small for affected vehicles. Some go down by 1 to 2 mpg.
• Ratings for 2008–2010 model year vehicles are still based on the 2008 methodology.
• Estimates for model years 1984–2007 have been adjusted to be consistent with the 2008 methodology.”

 

The changes for 2017 were minor ones to the rules for the pretesting procedures. Much of it was clarifying things, as that lack of clarity is what lead to Hyundai running into issues with their figures. The biggest change was in the coast down test; the start speeds increased to 70mph from 50mph. That's why the changes were mostly in the 1 to 2 mpg range. The EPA likely had more important things for employees to do than adjust older models for it.

The 2008 change was the big one that introduced the three supplementary test cycles. It is the reason my 55mpg combined 2005 Prius went to 46mpg, and the CRX HF dropped to 44mpg from 52mpg. All the cars there have been adjusted to account for the 2008 change. While my old Prius and the CRX might be 1 to 2 mpg worse when comparing to the new Prius than the posted numbers, they might not be. That error isn't going to obscure the progress made in the new model to get its ratings.

 

Those are all good points; thank you for the detailed explanation!

And the progress made in the 5th generation Prius is certainly appreciated by myself and lots of others. I’m not a car enthusiast or anything remotely close to that, but I do find myself enjoying the time behind the wheel of my 2024 Prius Prime.

 

2001 was amazing. 2004 was the biggest leap and everything since then has been incremental

 

Yes was about to respond they should be comparing it to the gen II. 1997 which got exported in 2001 was really a proof of concept. It was expensive and first steps after a quick prototype. The prius shape, real efficiency improvements, better car behavior and higher tech didn't come until my 2004 gen II. It was an unique car for the time, but didn't even compare well to the gen II.

The 2024 my prius prime improves many things - first it really is a hybrid you can use gas or electric or a combination of both ;-) NVH and efficiency of the hybrid system is improved as is responsiveness for acceleration and braking even in EV mode. The price adjusted for inflation is slightly below that of the gen II but content is much higher. More features including dynamic cruise control and better safety systems and better sound system.


Still some people will notice that some things went down hill. Interior space is similar but passenger volume decreased, while cargo volume increased. This mainly comes down to less headroom on the 2024 prime. It is physically bigger and heavier, and some will prefer the smaller tires of the gen II. All in all its a big improvement, but competition is here now. They needed to differentiate it versus the camry hybrid, corolla hybrid, rav4 hybrid and prime. I was suprised they compressed headroom and made it less aerodynamic than the previous model but that seems to be in the interest of styling.

 

I drove the 2002 model for 17 years. I'd covered about 175,000 miles when I traded it in. I enjoyed the 2017 model (prime) for 4 and a half years before trading it in on a 2024 (prime) model. My opinion is that the generation 1.5 had more impact on on car development than any other model because of the masterful blending of power management and energy storage. It managed outstanding MPG while also reducing tailpipe emissions to SULEV (Super Ultra Low Emission Vehicle) levels. All this while driving the same way that you'd drive any other car. Except for the odd gear shift... And the centrally mounted instrument cluster.

We see mention on this forum of cars like the 1980's Honda CRX which sacrificed passenger seating and higher emissions to gain excellent MPG. It's not the same. It was nowhere near as clean burning as the Prius.

What I find odd is the frequent reference to how small or slow the Gen 1 Prius was/is. I've measured against other cars of the era, and a Honda Civic was nearly the same size. The Insight was a two seater so THAT was small and limited. Now we hear people mentioning that the Prius Primes are "small" cars. I suspect that they are only small when compared to an SUV.

 

Perspective depends on a lot of factors. There are things a 1965 VW Beetle and the Hummer EV have in common. There are things that may be a deal breaker in just one trim difference of the same make and model, but not on a different trim.

The Prius gets good fuel mileage. So did the Honda CRX, some VW diesels, the Geo Metro, etc. No, they're not the same, but do have some similarities.

Personally, as a Toyota Hybrid owner I'd consider something like a Honda Fit, Toyota Yaris, Nissan Versa, Chevy Spark or even a Mitsubishi Mirage. I got my Avalon mainly because I could afford it and because it gets good fuel mileage.