Consumer Reports Rating of 2010 Prius

Thanks Darren.

BTW, if I recall correctly, 80 was also the numerical score Consumer Reports gave to the Gen II Touring Edition Prius.

The Gen II Standard Prius received a significantly lower score.

 

32 city??? How did they do that? I live in LA and drive in all sorts of crappy traffic and cannot imagine getting anything under 45mpg unless I drove 0-60 as fast as possible from a cold start and then turned off the car.

 

My first speculation was that the CR "City" route saddles a ridge:

1. start at middle of slope and drive over top to opposite slope - gives a combination of acceleration and upgrade load, the worst fuel consumption.
2. half way down opposite slope, come to a stop - worst possible energy loss from braking and over-loaded regeneration.
3. turn to run parallel ridge - illusion of a 'flat'
4. turn back to top and repeat first step

A driving protocol like this goes a long way to explaining how they can get such low "City" mileage. There is no way to test this hypothesis but there is a way to make a functional equivalent.

One of the classic indications of a hybrid, using the original EPA rating, was a City rating that was significantly higher than the Highway rating. This was because at lower average City speeds, engine efficiencies, and regenerative braking reduced the amount of energy lost to more than make up for any inertial losses:

	Column 1	Column 2	Column 3	Column 4
0	%City/Hwy	City	Hwy	Model Yr
1	118%	60	51	Prius 04
2	116%	52	45	Prius 03
3	102%	48	47	Civic hybrid 03
4	101%	57	56	Insight 03

.
Now the EPA decided to make the City tests more difficult by adding air conditioner, colder temperatures, and higher speeds. So this is what a happens to the same vehicles with the new protocol:

	Column 1	Column 2	Column 3	Column 4
0	%City/Hwy	City	Hwy	Model Yr
1	107%	48	45	Prius 04
2	102%	42	41	Prius 03
3	93%	40	43	Civic hybrid 03
4	91%	45	49	Insight 03

.
The rankings don't change but everything shifts down. But that is not what we are seeing with Consumer Reports:

	Column 1	Column 2	Column 3	Column 4
0	%City/Hwy	City	Hwy	Model Yr
1	106%	51	48	Prius 2010 EPA
2	58%	32	55	Prius 2010 CR

.
Based upon initial mph vs MPG, the 2010 Prius highway performance corresponds to:

• ~75 mph - EPA speed
• ~65 mph - CR speed

But the part that does not make a lick of sense is the City mileage:

• 51 MPG - EPA City
• 32 MPG - CR City

However, we can make sense if we make a few simple data points:

1. "M" MPG at a given mph average speed
2. "N" MPG climbing a standard hill at the same average speed

Now I have hill climb fuel consumption at 55 mph, a bit high for City travel, and highway mileage at 55 mph:

• 16.7 MPG @55 mph up 8.3% grade (1.2 miles up Brindley Mt.)
• 60.1 MPG @55 mph on flat

So I should be able to replicate their respective City mileage by doing the following route at 55 mph:

	Column 1	Column 2	Column 3	Column 4
0	MPG target	flat mi.	climb mi.	test group
1	52.0	5.2	1.2	EPA City
2	32.0	0.7	1.2	CR City

.
Understand this is just a rough model but it gives a clue in the ratio of climb to flat distance as to how the CR City test likely compares to the EPA City test.

Bob Wilson

 

Nice analogy Bob!

Bryan

 

CR report seems to contradict itself. they have 44 mpg average, but their own road test gives them 53 mpg??? that is nearly 25% difference with THEIR Numbers. i guess we can say that the road test is mostly highway then

i do like their evaluations since they are not slanted towards performance like so many other car reviews, but how they get 32 mpg in the city is beyond me. i could actually get in the low 40's in the SPM in severe conditions but that i attribute heavily to the fact that it does not regen under 8 mph. the 2010 regens at all speeds so stop and crawl traffic does not provide as severe a penalty.

i guess what i need to do is jack rabbit thru the secondary downtown streets. you know the ones with the stop sign every block. maybe i could get into the 30's that way...its either that or hope for temps in the teens.

now we could use Bob's line of thinking and normally when accelerating i get anywhere from say 15 to 25 mpg... then i hit my cruising speed of like 35 mph then it goes to anywhere from 45 to 75 mpg.

to average 32 mph we would have to be accelerating approximately 2/3 of the time we drove, which means they were basically driving from light to light going no more than a few blocks at a time.

 

32 mpg in a Prius? 29 in a Insight? Wow. Maybe they're letting the cars cool down overnight and then jumping in and driving 4 or 5 miles. Driven with any shred of control, I can't imagine a Prius at operating temperature getting anything near 32 mpg.

 

Brake hard often, try to drive on electric as much as possible, tailgate and apply brakes often, basic bad driving.

Is there a benchmark vehicle to compare the loop consumption to, say a 6 cylinder family car? They need a benchmark that you can say their normal consumption on the city test is XX% higher than the EPA test results. Without knowing a benchmark the test is meaningless.

 

After looking at the NHW20 'score' that stood in stark contrast to the owner reports, I kept wondering how they could rate it so low. I remember putting together a spreadsheet of CR rankings to try and reverse engineer how they could generate such scores. The only hypothesis that seemed to make sense was 'handling' and possibly 'safety rating.' The NHW20 didn't have perfect scores in side impacts and rear passenger safety and some models lacked side impact air bags. But nothing else even came close when looking across multiple vehicles.

Now we've seen other automotive reviewers who also put a higher rating on 'handling', their perception of how the Prius steers. So in an automotive writer's world, the Prius comes in with a lower score due to their thinking about how cars should respond to steering inputs, bumps and turns. For example, Cars.com (and MotorWeek) used:

	Column 1	Column 2
0	points	variable
1	10	price
2	10	fuel costs
3	10	interior quality
4	10	cargo space
5	20	driving comfort
6	20	ride quality
7	20	driving fun

.
​

This evaluation is stacked so a "comfy chair" would be a serious contender:

	Column 1	Column 2	Column 3
0	points	score	variable
1	10	10	price
2	10	10	fuel costs
3	10	10	interior quality
4	10	5	cargo space (only coins behind the seat)
5	20	0	driving comfort (hard to drive a comfy chair)
6	20	20	ride quality
7	20	20	driving fun (with optional Monte Python)

.​

So as far as the Consumer Reports 'score' is concerned, it stands in stark contrast to the Consumer Reports annual readership survey putting the Prius as first choice for the past 5 years running. Nothing in the past five years has dissuaded the Consumer Reports automotive writers from their opinion of what makes a good car including their own readership.

It could be Prius owners are more risk-averse to the price of gas than many other drivers. One hurricane through the Gulf of Mexico or Louisiana and Texas coasts (Katrina,) a political (Arab/Israel) or business speculator (2008 price run-up) problem and suddenly we're back in $4/gal+ gasoline. We've seen such prices twice in the past 5 years and it would be foolish to think we won't again. So Prius owners buy by what we think is important and not necessarily what a writer thinks is important.

From what we can tell, auto sales are still driven by the public regardless of the automotive press. CNW Marketing was unable to save the Hummer. Free endorsements by automotive press has not resulted in Prius sitting unsold on the dealer lots. In short, many of the automotive press are marginalizing themselves ... much like my thoughts when I see "People," "Esquire," and a host of similar 'life-style' publications. They have an absolute right to be wrong ... just as we don't have to drink their kool aid.

Bob Wilson

 

CR sees itself as 'the protector' and 'the debunker'. It tries to go out of its way to show the warts of whatever it tests in order to show the Consumer what bad things might happen before the Consumer spends any money.

It's testing protocols might be specious but as long as they're consistent on every vehicle then the tests are OK for their purposes. Any of us can get 34 MPG in a Prius any day of the week in City driving. Pretend that you're a stay-at-home parent and make 4 daily trips of 4 miles each over 12 hours. That's the single worst situation for any vehicle because the ICE never gets up to optimum operating temperatutre.

To me the key metric that we all see is the 150 mi trip result. It comes to 53 MPG. Voila. The vehicle is warmed up and the vehicle is being used to its best capabilities. That's actually a fair presentation IMO.
To the Consumer: Here's the worst case scenario.....and here's a best case scenario....YMMV.

 

CR actually HAS dinged the Prius in the past, for performance/handling ... by rating it lower than much worse cars, simply because the worse cars 'handled' better.
I give you, the CR 2009 'buyer's guide' for example:





.

 

I'm not a spiteful guy, but glad I made the decision not to renew my CR membership (at $26 / year) last month. I was finding it not that useful to me anymore. I've subscribed to CR for well over 20 years.

Now, seeing these unfair and IMO untrue 2010 Prius ratings it must have been an omen.

I can understand Car&Driver type mags slamming Prius, but CR?

When I begin getting letters from them to rejoin, I will mention this topic as one reason I didn't re-up.

 

Trying to figure out the 32 MPG City...worst I've ever gotten in my 09 was 32 in the city while driving in 95 degree temps with air on and heavy traffic.
Perhaps that's how they tested the 2010...

 

With respect to CR's auto reviews, one might be excused for wondering if the right hand knows what the left hand is doing... or should I say "thinking".

CR just rated the Chevy Mailbu V6, another "family sedan" with an overall score of 83. A few observations:

1. Malibu's price range is listed as $21,605 - $26,880 with a tested vehicle price of $28,045. Maybe the extra cost was for prepaid towing. (Malibu isn't the only one listed this way; there are some from Honda and Toyota, also.)
2. Expected reliability rating was "very good'. If one looks at Malibu's reliability history (per CR) one finds a completely different story. For '99 - '03 it received the worst rating; '04 next to worst; '05 - '08 mediocre. Now, one shouldn't conclude improvement, but rather more and more problems over time. So, how does CR come up with this? Have they started selectively politicizing their ratings?
3. Owner satisfaction is listed as "very good". I've spoken and written of this before. Owner satisfaction is a relative assessment. If you were to ask 100 Prius owners and 100 Malibu owners about, say, satisfaction with reliability, you might find that Toyota owners are much more satisfied than Malibu owners, but maybe not. Now the "maybe not" may have nothing to do with statistical reliability, but rather with expectations. If these Malibu owners haven't had the pleasure of owning a truly reliable vehicle such as a Toyota or Honda, then their frame of reference will be skewed much differently, i.e., lower expectations, from that of a Prius owner. If these 200 owners were then to swap vehicles for five years and then swap back, you might find that the Prius owners have an even greater appreciation for Toyota reliability (once they get out of therapy for Malibu-related reliability deprivation). On the other hand, the Malibu owners would likely begin to complain about the unreliability of their Chevy's and they'd unload any of their GM penny stock.

At times, one really must wonder just how independent (or perhaps, expert) CR's auto ratings really are.

Greg

 

I have no insight into this - haven't seen the Prius writeup nor really consumed their auto reviews recently.

BUT, might this be a conscious attempt on CR's part to appease what might be the majority of their subscribers - and "Buy American"?

 

Here are the full performance-test results:

Toyota Prius
IV 4-cyl CVT



Overview Tested Model 2010 IV 4-door hatchback, 1.8-liter Four hybrid, CVT Tires as tested Yokohama Avid S33, size P195/65R15 89S Owner Satisfaction Predicted Reliability Owner Costs Safety Antilock brakes Standard Traction control Standard Stability control Standard Daytime running lights Not available Tire pressure monitor Available Safety belts Center-rear belt 3-point Pretensioners, front/rear Yes/no Air bags Occupant-sensing system Front Side bags, front/rear Standard/no Side curtain air bags Standard Accident alert system Not available Crash and rollover tests IIHS offset-crash test Good IIHS side-crash test with side airbags Good IIHS side-crash test without side air bags NA Gov't front-crash test, driver Gov't front-crash test, front pass. Gov't side-crash test, driver Gov't side-crash test, rear pass. Gov't rollover test, 2WD Gov't rollover test, 4WD NA Performance Acceleration 0 to 30 mph, sec. 3.7 0 to 60 mph, sec. 10.6 45 to 65 mph, sec. 6.3 Quarter-mile, sec 18.0 Quarter-mile, mph 79.3 Transmission RPM at 60 mph 1,800 Routine handling Emergency handling Avoidance maneuver, max speed 52.5 Braking Braking from 60 mph dry, ft. 133 Braking from 60 mph wet, ft. 147 Headlights Comfort/convenience Ride Noise Driving position Front seat comfort Front shoulder room, in 55.0 Front leg room, in 41.5 Front head room, in 5.0 Rear seat comfort Rear shoulder room, in 52.0 Rear fore-aft room, in 28.0 Rear head room, in 2.0 Third seat comfort NA Third seat shoulder room, in NA Third seat fore-aft room, in NA Third seat head room, in NA Front access Rear access Third access NA Controls and display Interior fit and finish Trunk/Cargo Area Luggage/cargo capacity, cu. ft. 3+1 Climate system Fuel Economy CR's overall mileage, mpg 44 CR's city/highway, mpg 32 / 55 CR's 150-mile trip, mpg 53 Annual fuel 270 gal. / $675 Cruising range, mi. 605 Fuel capacity, gal. 11.9 Fuel type Regular EPA city, mpg 51 EPA highway, mpg 48 Specifications Length, in. 176 Width, in. 69 Height, in. 59 Wheelbase, in. 106 Turning circle, ft. 37 Road clearance, in. 4.5 Curb weight, lb. 3,115 Percent weight, front/rear 60 / 40 Max. load, lb. 825 Typical Towing capacity, lb. NR Warranty Basic 3/36 Powertrain 5/60 Rust through 5/unlimited Roadside aid 3/36

 

Compare the above with previous model years:
2008
Toyota Prius
Touring 4-cyl CVT
2004
Toyota Prius
Base 4-cyl CVT
2001
Toyota Prius
4-cyl CVT



Overview Seating 2 front, 3 rear 2 front, 3 rear 2 front, 3 rear Tested Model 2008 Touring 4-door hatchback, 1.5-liter Four hybrid, CVT (Toyota Prius) 2004 Base 4-door hatchback, 1.5-liter Four hybrid, CVT (Toyota Prius) 2001 sedan, 1.5-liter Four hybrid, CVT (Toyota Prius) Tires as tested Bridgestone Turanza EL400, size P195/55R16 86V Goodyear Integrity, size P185/65R15 86S Bridgestone Potenza RE92, size P175/65R14 84S Performance Acceleration 0 to 30 mph, sec. 3.8 3.7 4.3 0 to 60 mph, sec. 10.6 10.5 12.7 45 to 65 mph, sec. 6.2 6.4 7.0 Quarter-mile, sec 18.1 18.1 19.3 Quarter-mile, mph 78.4 78.3 74.6 Transmission RPM at 60 mph 2,305 3,495 1,500 Routine handling Emergency handling Avoidance maneuver, max speed 53.5 50.5 48.0 Braking Braking from 60 mph dry, ft. 133 143 138 Braking from 60 mph wet, ft. 140 152 154 Headlights NA Comfort/convenience Ride Noise Driving position Front seat comfort Front shoulder room, in 55.0 55.0 53.5 Front leg room, in 40.5 40.5 40.0 Front head room, in 4.0 4.0 3.5 Rear seat comfort Rear shoulder room, in 52.5 52.5 52.5 Rear fore-aft room, in 30.0 30.0 27.0 Rear head room, in 2.0 2.0 1.5 Third seat comfort NA NA NA Third seat shoulder room, in NA NA NA Third seat fore-aft room, in NA NA NA Third seat head room, in NA NA NA Front access Rear access Third access NA NA NA Controls and display Interior fit and finish Trunk/Cargo Area Luggage/cargo capacity, cu. ft. 3+1 3+1 3+1 Climate System Fuel Economy CR's overall mileage, mpg 42 44 41 CR's city/highway, mpg 34 / 47 35 / 50 30 / 49 CR's 150-mile trip, mpg 48 48 48 Annual fuel 285 gal. / $715 275 gal. / $685 295 gal. / $740 Cruising range, mi. 535 545 545 Fuel capacity, gal. 11.9 11.9 11.9 Fuel type Regular Regular Regular EPA city, mpg NA NA NA EPA highway, mpg NA NA NA Safety Crash and rollover tests IIHS offset-crash test Good Good NA Gov't front-crash test, driver Gov't front-crash test, front pass. Gov't side-crash test, driver NA Gov't side-crash test, rear pass. NA Specifications Length, in. 175 175 170 Width, in. 69 68 67 Height, in. 58 58 NA Wheelbase, in. 106 106 100 Turning circle, ft. 37 37 34 Road clearance, in. 4.5 3.5 3.5 Curb weight, lb. 2,965 2,950 2,750 Percent weight, front/rear 60 / 40 59 / 41 60 / 40 Max. load, lb. 810 825 800 Typical Towing capacity, lb. NR NR NR

 

As I've posted in another thread, the last page of http://www.consumersunion.org/Oct_CR_Fuel_Economy.pdf goes into a little more detail about their fuel economy tests.

 

Here are some results of 6 cylinder family cars in CR testing:
07 Camry XLE: 16/32, 23 overall; 29 mpg for 150 mile trip
07 Nissan Altima 3.5SE: 16/30, 23 overall; 27 for 150 mile trip
08 Honda Accord EX-L: 15/30, 21 overall; 26 for 150 mile trip
08 Chevy Malibu LTZ: 13/30, 20 overall; 25 for 150 mile trip
10 Ford Fusion SEL: 14/31, 22 overall; 28 for 15 mile trip

All have automatics except the Altima which had a CVT.