Image From the 4G press event (MPG and HP)

Hold your horses (power)

Facts:
- Gen3 newer got anywhere near rated system power on a dyno, even in theory (based on battery current from OBD) it could only do 95 kW but on the wheels that translated only to something more than 80 kW
- some countries tax their cars based on power, so why would you over rate the actual horse power on the wheels? Lower rating for those countries is actually advantage and VW is a pioneer in this regard

In my book power is down only for rated ICE power, but the fact is that Torque is up and HSD is using it to keep the revs down.

As for Wayne Gerdes, he stepped over to the dark side (diesel), he is obsessed with steady state speed MPG and from that image we can not conclude anything meaningful in that regard, because we don't know how much MPG reading is off and we don't see average speed over that 5.6 miles - but he tried to indicate it's 70 mph.

 

First, 'I see numbers' and am probably 2-3 years out from considering the 2016 model. But this is what the pirated numbers reveal:

	city	combined	highway	model
1	51 MPG (100%)	50 MPG (100%)	48 MPG (100%)	2010 Prius Nov 18

The wheel size doesn't matter as much as the 'revs/mile' and that is a function of the tire.

I look forward to the Argonne Labs benchmarks. Combined with the new car features, a used 2016 Eco bought in 2018 with worn out tires would be a perfect fit.

Bob Wilson

 

Wouldn't EPA account difference in tyre diameter?

 

So basically Gen3 -> Gen4 = parity.

MPG gain is marginal, within error. You could gain 3mpg on G3 by switching out Ecopias to Energy Savers. Power ratings and weight almost identical, so there will be no charge in straight line performance. Less body roll, more advanced rear suspension, but since Gen3 handling is insurance liability/component cost limited, not much gain to be expected. So parity on core model it will be down to price, ergonomics and (dubious) styling to determine if Gen4 is better car.

ECO looks like improvement, but gains come at decreased performance and increased price by how much?

 

Well you can switch tires also on Gen4, also 50 MPG rating was for gen3 with 15" wheels, 17" was not tested and it delivered at least 5% less MPG in real life compared to 15".

Basicly we should be comparing Gen3 with Gen4 ECO version, Gen3 "Touring" version doesn't have EPA rating.

 

BTW not surprised EPA numbers do not show same increase as JC08. Aqua had shown higher rating on JC08 to be barely on par on EPA.

Merged.

it is not a question of switching tires it is about gain being within noise level. Average US driver drives 1000mi a month, so we are talking 3/4gal a month, $1.50 in current prices.

 

At current US prices I don't know why you are not all driving large SUVs or biger V8 cars?

Fuel economy from Gen3 was also a minor improvement compared to Gen2, hypermilers could even do better in Gen2, power improvement was big on paper, but only around 250 rpm lower "droning" sound from the engine, every one praised that cubic improvement. With updated 1.8 engine rpm will be kept 600 rpm lower for the same load - that is a big improvement that people will definitely notice, other noticeable thing will be sound proofing - it will feel like a completely different car compared to Gen3.

Some complain about performance but at the same time are afraid to push that pedal to the floor, some are complaining about road handling but are completely happy with SUV handling abilities.

I'm completely happy what is under the skin but I don't like the styling, hope they will transplant this soon in one of the European bodies.

 

we have Gen3 and Prius C which basically has a Gen2 powerplant in 500lbs lighter body, and power difference is huge, especially when you have more than one person in. One has enough to keep up with traffic another does not.

 

Because we aren't sociopaths?

I think SUVs, minivans, or large cars are fine if someone is actually utilizing them to drive several people and their luggage or sporting gear. Not so great if mostly driven around with one or two occupants as commuter cars.

I'm looking forward to more non-conventional powertrain options in this space. The latest generation hybrids that get 47-52 mpg in a Prius, Accord, or Malibu ought to enable near 40 mpg crossovers. Toyota really needs to update their 2.5L Camry hybrid powertrain that is also used in the RAV4 hybrid and others. They can do better now.

 

on related how 52mpg Gen4 will stack up against 46mpg Malibu?

 

.. lets wait what comes out of those estimated 45+ MPG for Malibu. I like what Honda did with Accord hybrid, but it's not availible in EU and I hear the price is not that competitive.

Prius C drivetrain is not the same as Gen2 Prius. Gen2 Prius was more relining on the battery (also bigger than Prius C), masking under performance of the ICE, under medium load up the hill it would drain the battery, Prius C or Gen3 won't do that unless you floor it.

 

it is required for EPA, but only if package with larger wheels is significant part of sales... so with G3, they had to show EPA that 17" wheels package is minor part of sales... I dont know what it means in numbers, but I think that major package has to be 70% or over.. On the other hand, with Avalon, Camry, etc, their heavier packages are larger part of sales so they have to report both.

So Eco model is likely not going to be like Eco model in Japan... it will just be base model with less equipment and thus less weight and smaller wheels, which will end up being more efficient than 17" well equipped model.





























Merged.

nope... i would guess just lighter and smaller wheels.... 121hp and Danny's comment is likely due to the fact that it wont be slower than G3 or something like that.

 

Well remember I am from Germany and on our Highways (Autobahn) we can go as fast as the car is capable of unless a road sign limits us .
Most of the time I drive the Prius very fuel efficiently,but there are times were I just like to go a bit faster and believe it or not, even then the Prius has surprisingly good fuel economy considering driving conditions and is better than most of its competitors !

 

They supposedly reduced weight enough in the ECO model to put the car in a different fuel efficiency testing category, with a more easy going testing regimen. According to Ken1784.

In other words, the ECO's improvement in mpg is due in large part to the different testing method.

 

The Malibu hybrid EPA was announced as 48/45/47 city/highway/combined. The Accord hybrid is 50/45/47. Camry hybrid is 43/39/41. The Camry is slightly more power and slightly faster 0-60 mph but it's within a 10% margin.

I'm not sure why the Accord hybrid is in short supply or more expensive due to the hybrid powertrain aspect other than being new and low manufacturing volume. The pricing of the Malibu hybrid should be announced soon with availability in spring next year.

 

I recall the Ford Fusion Hybrid also had a 47 mpg avg, which was not true. I hope the 2016 Malibu Hybrid is more accurate on its 47 mpg.

 

agreed. we always hear a lot about the coming 'prius killers' from the current 'prius haters'. there's a lot of wishful thinking going around.

 

I think Gen 2 to Gen 3 is major jump in many ways compared to G3 to G4.

Power is increased considerably, size is increased, passenger space as well as luggage space. It has bigger engine, more power, and better acceleration and despite all this gained MPG. Mid range power is much better compared to Gen 2.

Where as G4, no considerable change in engine size/power, less powerful motors, same old/same old battery (same capacity, hardly few few pounds lighter). Only considerable thing I see is rear suspension.

For all the statement released over years for G4, Toyota should be ashamed off G4. Folks can dispute what they want, but it has been all over press like this
20% lighter
20% efficient,
more power,
better handling (this we still have to see) etc..

Being pragmatic, I was expecting weight to be inline with Gen 2. (about 7%, instead of 20% reduction). Nope, nothing better in weight, same as Gen 3, Power is less, now we know MPG is no better (within margin of error). Improvements are marginal at best.

For the all the hitech talk Toyota did, powertrain improvements are miniscule at best, realistically I am expecting to see some gains in city because of EGR changes, and highway because of Cd, nothing more, but at the cost of performance. I am really disappointed.

 

Not true. I personally interviewed senior GM engineer Greg Hubbard at September's Volt media drive event in Sausalito north of San Francisco. Here are the approximate causes of reduced mpg versus the Malibu listed in this article:

Why the 2016 Chevy Malibu Hybrid Gets Better MPG Than The 2016 Chevy Volt

* 2 mpg due to lack of exhaust gas heat recovery hardware

* 2 mpg due to using iron-based permanent magnets in the smaller motor instead of rare-earth metals

* 1 mpg due to performance tuning that favors a more fluid EV-like driving experience even in hybrid mode

The heat recovery hardware in the Malibu was left off of the Volt for cost reduction reasons.

The magnets in the smaller motor (like the Prius MG1) of the Volt have good characteristics for EV driving in combination with MG2 but in hybrid duty their rpm and torque efficiency profile in the motor is not as good. This is a cost reduction and cost stability issue since ferrite (iron-based) magnets are cheaper.

The performance tuning favors heavier use of the Volt's large battery and motors during hybrid mode acceleration to make the powertrain more responsive but the downside is more battery energy is used and needs to be replenished later from the engine which leads to increased mechanical to electrical energy conversion.

The Volt is also using a somewhat different engine family for its 1.5L engine versus the 1.8L engine in the Malibu. It's possible there will be an SAE technical paper next spring giving more details on the new Malibu engine that could, for instance, have some internal improved thermal efficiency.

The bottom line is that the gas powertrain in a car like the Volt with 53 miles of EV range is rarely used so they favored cost reduction over maximizing hybrid mpg. I'm inclined to agree with this tradeoff.

Although I did some of the reporting for this article I'm not credited.