2016 Malibu Hybrid First Drive Review

Length doesn't matter. The width only counts with the height, the cross section area because that relates to the aerodynamic drag. The extra weight should have only a minor effect given how strong the motor is for regeneration.

It will take a while before we get the roll-down coefficients. If they match what we're seeing with the Gen-3 and Gen-4, then the problem is the drive train.

FYI, I've pasted the comparison table here:

	model	ICE hp	EV hp	EV/ICE	City	Hwy
1	2010 Honda Insight	88	13	15%	40	43
2	2003 Honda Civic	85	13	15%	40	43
3	2015 Hyudai Sonata	154	51	33%	40	44
4	2016 Hyundai IONIQ	104	41	39%	48	46.8
5	2001 Prius	58	40	69%	42	41
6	2016 Prius	96	71	74%	54	50
7	2016 Prius Eco	96	71	74%	58	53
8	2010 Prius	98	80	82%	51	48
9	2016 Malibu Hybrid	122	101	83%	48	45
10	2004 Prius	76	67	88%	48	45

One of the problems with the Gen-1 and Gen-2 Prius was fuel enrichment to protect the catalytic converter and higher rpms needed by the 1.5 L engine. This was largely fixed by the Gen-3/Gen-4, 1.8 L engine, slower rpm for the same power, and cooled EGR. I would not be surprised if when the 2016 Malibu hybrid is finally up on the EPA web site they tweaked a few more MPGs.

Understand, I'm using a personal rule-of-thumb about the degree of hybridization. My expectation is the more electric power, there will be reduction of 'engine run time' with more time in the peak BSFC time. This means the engine can spend more time in peak BSFC range. This is an opinion shared by others:
http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/mte/epa-sae-govt-industry-vehicle-benchmark.pdf

• transmissions that map the vehicle energy requirements into the engine peak BSFC range
• broaden the engine peak BSFC range

The Malibu has more 'head room' for growth because of the stronger electric capability. Just I think their transmission is too complex and carries too much 'baggage' from their hydro-mechanical past. They also have a lot of weight savings available,

The Ioniq has a narrower range because of the limited electric power, leading to more engine operation in inefficient BSFC regions. I fear it may be optimized for the EPA test cycles only to fall down in 'real life.' That would explain the disparity in 15" and 17" wheel performance.

Personally for Toyota, I think the next wave is variable duration and angle intake valves along with further valve train friction reductions. This will broaden the peak BSFC without the technical challenges of turbo/super charging.

Bob Wilson

 

Hi Jeff,

Ad Hoc 0-60 mph | Page 3 | PriusChat

I am surprised by the linear drag coefficient, B (lbsf/mph), for the 2016 Prius. The other coefficients makes some sense but A (lbsf/mph**2) could be low:

• .24 (2016 coefficient) / .25 (2010 coefficient) * 0.01811 = 0.017386 vs EPA reported 0.013857

When doing curve fitting, it is possible to tweak coefficients and achieve an acceptable function. It is something I've had to do when dealing with excel 'trend line' function. The historical problem has been excel putting too much weight on the end points when they have an equal opportunity to have as much error as any other point.

One of my tricks with excel is to trim off the end points and see what happens to the formula. Then I put the revised formula into a column and plot the data and see what happens with the end points back in. Sad to say, I don't have Toyota's roll-down data points so I can't do this type of data 'sensitivity' analysis.

Earlier I used the 2010 coefficients and scaled the 2016 A coefficient to compare with Jason's video maximum acceleration. There was remarkable agreement. Then I did some field tests with our 2010 Prius and found the maximum engine rpm happens only if the car is going 76 mph. This explained the increased power seen in Jason's data. So I am skeptical of the 2016, EPA reported B and A coefficients.

I've been following GM's 'two-mode' transmission fiasco for years and remain disappointed.

Bob Wilson ("I see numbers")

 

excellent review! sounds about like our hycam mpg's. that's exactly my kind of driving, too bad he didn't give us a walk around, interior/exterior, trunk evaluation and etc.

 

Here you go.

 

thanks man!

 

While watching the video, I realized that I'm about a half an hour, or so, from there.

 

We are in a std Malibu right now waiting for our volt. The thing is huge. I can put the seat back and stretch my legs completely. I'm 5' 11" but leggy as 34 pants end up kinda short.

It is quiet, rather peppy with the 1.5 turbo, has a good sound system and quality ride with no rattles or wind noise.

I'd like it if it was smaller.

 

You want the Cruze then.
The previous Malibu model sold poorly because it was smaller by about 3 inches in length. It actually helped sell Cruzes, which wasn't GM's plan for the car.