Please elaborate on your theory. I don't really understand what you are saying or implying. Are you saying that a car that is 1.5 feet longer, 4.3 inches wider and ~400 pounds heavier than a gen 3 Prius yet accelerates 0-60 mph in 7.8 seconds (versus ~10) should be expected to get better than 47 mpg? The gen 3 Prius powertrain is shared with the smaller Lexus CT200h and the larger Prius v and they both get 42 mpg instead of the liftback's 50 mpg even though they presumably use the same transaxle and control laws (and same engine). The Prius v is 6 inches longer, 2 inches wider, and ~300 pounds heavier than the gen 3 Prius although it was 3.3 inches higher.
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
I agree about the length -- in this size vehicle that length difference doesn't seem to cause significant aero differences by itself. I gather that shorter vehicles can have aero problems though. The total drag area certainly matters but we don't have a carefully calculated table of that for these different vehicles. Have we seen roll-down numbers for gen 4 yet. I suppose they should have been published but I haven't noticed a discussion about them yet. The rated electric HP of the Ioniq is higher than the battery output of the gen 3 and gen 4 non-plugin Prius cars but you seem to be criticizing the Ioniq's electric hybridization. We do know that the gen 4 Prius electric motor output shrank and its batteries do not seem bigger. We don't know much about the Ioniq's hybrid battery output capability. It's true that the Malibu has had a stronger than average hybrid battery output. The pack is 1.5 kWh and is capable of 50-60 kW temporary peak output, I think. That may help them optimize regen braking and engine use in some cases. Your opinion of the Malibu Voltec transmission seems ideological rather than being data-driven and evidence-based. The older 2008-2013 RWD GM two-mode had 3 planetary gear sets and 4 clutches which caused higher internal friction loss. The Malibu uses 2 planetary gear sets (like the gen 3 Prius) and 2 clutches. The added 2 clutches versus the gen 3 Prius allows it to have a fixed gear ratio and a highway speed eCVT arrangement that reduces the electrical recirculating inefficiencies in the Prius design at highway speeds. From Toyota's recent patent filings we see that they are actively researching a similar Voltec-like transaxle with 2 planetaries and 2 clutches for future cars. Presumably they think a hydro electrical design might be better. I'm not sure the Ioniq has narrower electrical range or power than what Toyota is doing with gen 3 and gen 4. I see no evidence for this. The motors on Ioniq and Prius are probably sized to be big enough to take any available power from their battery packs. Where is the limitation? Is the mpg difference between the 15 and 17 inch wheels that unusual? Bigger wheels mean higher aero drag, larger tire contact patch areas so higher rolling resistance, and changes in overall gear ratios to the road that may fall out of the optimal design efficiency of the transmission. Is a Prius with 17 inch wheels vs the normal 15" that much less effected? I don't know.
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")
Final EPA numbers were released today in conjunction with the New York Auto Show. The city estimate went from 48 to 47 and the highway estimate went from 45 to 46. Overall, the combined ended up at 46 from 47. So, from the earlier preliminary estimate of 48/47/45 to 47/46/46. That's noticeably better than the similarly sized Camry hybrid which is 43/41/39 (city/comb/highway) with nearly the same HP and 0-60 performance. 2016 Chevrolet Malibu Hybrid Rated 46 mpg Combined
This is the first real drive review that I've seen from a YouTube vlogger. He got 63.4 mpg during at 10 mile drive although he's obviously taking it on easy hypermiling roads.
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.
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.
