MSN Autos criticizes Prius for small gas tank!(?)

Agreed, but isn't that where the 2 gallon cushion comes in? I mean, you get to 500 miles at 10 gallons or so if you get the rated MPG, right?

 

What needs to be added to the discussion is the safety issue of carrying around a relatively huge amount of dangerous fuel for a car that does not need to haul it around. Next problem is where does the space get removed to increase the fuel capacity....less legroom anyone?

Toyota has been in the business long enough to know exactly the best tradeoff of space, safety, cost, and functionality. As much as I would like to not stop at a gas station (ever), I would not have liked the extra cost and loss of space.

 

The only "critism" I saw was a red "-" on tank size. It was a statistical comparison and indeed it is a "-". It got "+'s_ for FE.

It's an observation that needed to be pointed out as many of us buying a Prius had indeed hoped for a range similar to the FFH. I personally would have liked to be able to get 600+ miles per tank (with a 47 mpg average)

 

This discussion will change dramatically when we begin talking about a 'total' Electric Vehicle. We wouldn't be talking about a 500 mile tank full, we will be grateful for a 100 mile recharge range. Be thankful for the blessings we have.

 

Fuel tanks are sized by range, not capacity. Except for special use, it makes no sense to drive around with excess fuel. It only takes up space and adds weight.

Taking this to its limit, should we criticize darelldd's EV because it has no fuel tank?

Tom

 

Picky Picky Picky!

 

You are mistaken- fuel tanks are sized by capacity. Range of a full tank is a property of the car as a whole. You can't go into a parts store and ask for a 200 mile tank just as you don't go to the supermarket and buy a 2 day container of milk.

Read the link posted in the OP- the metric in question is fuel capacity measured in gallons. In fact, range is a completely separate category where the Prius receives a plus.

MSN has decided more is better, and though I would say there's no reason to cry about this mostly insignificant point it apparently it struck a nerve. If 20-30 pounds worth of fuel is so important to you, then don't fill your tank to full. With a larger tank at least you have more choice in determining your own range to weight ratio.

The same point can be made for EVs- since the fuel needed for an EV is electricity, we'd have to know the amount of charge the vehicle can hold compared to other vehicles to make that judgment. Even if the vehicle in question is the most efficient EV on earth, it would be a negative if you had to stop and recharge every 10 minutes of use.

 

You also have a problem with stale gas if they had fitted the car with a wishful 18 gallon tank.

For example me: I have 60 liter / 15.8 gallon tank in my soon to be departed 87 Volvo 740 Turbo wagon. I drive on average just under nineteen miles a day in the car. Now look at my situation with a new Prius.
With my Volvo I fill up every 16-17 days at 20-21 mpg or 300 miles.

Prius gets say 525 miles per tank / 18.75 miles per day = 28 days per tank. Guys that is four weeks or 28 days per tank of gas.

If the Prius had a 60 liter /15.8 gallon tank that would extend the range to 750 miles or having to fill up every 40 days or close to every six weeks.

 

I think you missed Tom's point, though it would have been better said: The mfg's tank selection for a vehicle is sized by range. They aren't going to throw a tank in that would only get the vehicle 100 miles (unless an EV ). Something between 350 and 600 miles seems to be the 'range'. An H2 has a 32 gallon tank to approach the low end of that range, the H3 23 gallons. The Prius has an 11.9 gallon tank to make the high end.

 

I think everyone is reading too much into this. (Prius Paranoia?) The negative is just a comparison to the cars it is in comparison with. Maybe I missed it but I didn't see them hammering on the Prius. I simply saw a red "-". And as it compares to the other midsized cars it is indeed a significantly smaller tank. The rating was on capacity. It is a small tank regardless of the range and FE of the car. Small is small.

 

I've never really understood the desire for owning an economy car when one drives less than 7500 miles per year.

 

I wouldn't sweat the MSN review. It's actually very positive. The negative on the fuel tank capacity is just an automatic as they compare capacity to the average. That's no big deal. If you can't do the simple math of 50 mpg x 11.9 and figure out that you'll have superior driving range?

The thing that bothers me is the idiot reviews from owners on MSN. 99% are fine, but you always get the idiot that reviews super low, with no explanation, (just a hater) or what I dislike, is the person that reviews negatively because they "almost" bought a Prius but discovered they liked Vehicle "B" better...The reviews are suppose to be from Owners, not people that "almost" owned a Prius. These two elements skew the ratings down. I don't care if you REALLY own a Prius and have criticism or rate lower, I just hate non-owners and plain idiots lowering the overall score just because they are stupid.

 

The 2010 Prius in the next six or seven years will replace my 97 960 as my dedicated highway car. Then I'll replace the Prius with a more efficient hybrid for around town.

I drive down to Florida and back three to four times a year. That means 7500-10,000 miles a year gets put on my 960.

So between both cars I'm racking up 16K-18K miles a year.

 

Why not? First of all The Prius is a mid-size vehicle, suitable for a family, not a typical econo-box. Plus economy is good for anyone and everyone. It's all relative.

Lifestyles and driving demands can also change unexpectedly. You can switch jobs, or move and suddenly you are putting many more miles on your vehicle.

There's no minimum requirement for wanting to be economical.

 

Isn't the red mark for torque 105 lbs a little misleading as well since it only includes the ICE and leaves off the impact of the hybrid battery ?