2017 Prius Prime Photos

do you have some data or toyota info?

 

The value on the EPA site is a number determined by SAE J1100, the 1975 version, which gets rounded to a whole number. The manufacturer takes the measurement, and submits it. It is used for defining what EPA size segment the car fits in. Note: the EPA uses vehicle weight for trucks, SUVs, and vans, not interior volume.

"Why is it so hard to compare cargo space? It's because different automakers follow different cargo space accounting methods. The methodology in question, called SAE J1100 Motor Vehicle Dimensions, is rooted in SAE drafting standards from 1963. A formal version was approved in 1973 with comprehensive revision in 1975. Eight subsequent versions came between 1984 and 2009, explained Neil Mitchell, a senior design engineer at GM. But there's little consistency as to which version automakers use. Toyota said it employs the 1975 version, which it says the EPA mandates for cargo volumes that classify a car as subcompact, compact and so on. Hyundai said it uses the 2002 version; Honda said it uses the 2005 version. Chrysler, GM and Ford said they use the 2009 version." - bolded by me
Read more at Why Cargo Specs Can Stretch the Truth

The latest versions are mostly clarifying what to do with the rear seat positions.

EPA trunk measurement uses standardized boxes to measure usable cargo space. These be comparable to what the EU values.

 

Is this really the final production car or are they still images of the prototype ?
Why was launch delayed if they didn't change anything ?

 

reportedly slow delivery of the carbon fibre hatch lid...nother thread

 

Like everything else, they'll (Toyota) learn, adjust, and incorporate the latest from what came previous. It'll be like the solar roof. By the time it gets to the US, it'll be more like 200W and cheaper. Probably in time for the refresh with the 5th seat or they'll offer the solar package and have 4 seats or no solar roof and have 5 seats.

 

i'm hoping the final production car will have a flat hatch.

 

Not just for cargo space, but wouldn't it be better to have the battery completely beneath the cabin area? In a severe rear end crash, the way it is, would the battery be compromised? I would hate to have battery fluid spraying me down while I was waiting for the EMTs to get me out of the wreck. This concerns me due to my two totalled rear-end crashes. I sincerely hope they have thoroughly crash tested this setup.

Come on Toyota, do some market research here in the good ol' USA. Give us full cargo space, matrix array or laser headlights, and maybe a choice between 50+ EV miles or a 5th seat.

 

That's one of the biggest misconception about batteries, particularly nickel or lithium based batteries. Unlike flooded cell batteries like lead acid, there is no free flowing fluids enough to "spray" anything. Sorry but you'd have more worries about the gasoline tank rupturing and catching fire. The second biggest danger would be whiplash or other physical injuries if there was enough force to rupture that battery compartment. In fact the battery compartment might be the only whole part left over since Toyota designed such a rigid cage.

 

I haven't seen any design info so I don't know how well it's designed. And I was being a little (a lot) melodramatic. I understand lithium is not a liquid, but lithium ion batteries are known to be susceptible to violent failure. Look at the recent Galaxy note 7 problems. I'm sure Toyota has designed that battery compartment well, it just seems to make more sense to move it forward for the extra level of protection.

This is why I worry a little:

 

i like gm and tesla's idea of putting it on the down low.

 

Too big to put it anywhere else.

Those fires have to do with the electrolyte catching fire after either a short circuit (internal to the cell) or unusually high temperatures that aren't managed well. Typically the electrolytes in modern Lion batteries are based on Ethylene carbonate which has a flash point of 150C. Most manufacturers add something to the electrolyte which adjusts the temperature either higher or lower. This also typically makes it dissolve (carry) more lithium or less so it has more energy. However most fires are caused by rupturing of the casing and separators by internal swelling of the anode or cathode if poorly constructed which allows the electrolyte to be exposed to oxygen.

 

are you saying it's better to have it up high, and tesla/gm would have if the batteries were smaller?

 

No. With that big of a mass it was actually optimal for them to put it as low as possible. For a smaller battery it makes more sense to put it as close to the rear axle as possible. Makes for better handling in both cases. As far as safety is concerned you use that large mass to your advantage (Tesla, Bolt, BMW i3, etc.) and build that as part of the frame. Or in the case of the smaller battery (Toyota Plug-in Prius, Toyota Prime, Ford C-Max Energi, etc.) the rear axle helps protect that area as well as the battery compartment since the battery compartment is right over the rear axle. Also the reason why a little cargo space is lost. Chevy Volt and BMW i8 make the battery run in a tunnel under the passenger compartment, but both have passenger and cargo compromises.

 

As mentioned by Drash there is an organic solvent in Li batteries, which upon serious damage of a bad accident could catch on fire. But gaso vehicles have flammability issue too. One would think a fire due to Li battery in an accident would be a fairly slow developing fire, such that I'd have to guess much less chance of getting trapped inside, but it could happen in theory only. I don't think actual experience with LI batts has revealed any real-life cases where the batt caught fire before the occupants got out. The only solution to your problem would be ban all flammables for car propulsion, and that leaves BEV with NiMH batts (and no ICE or FVC) as the only allowable way to propel a vehicle.

If you say an Li batt car could catch fire in your garage, that's also true, but again all vehicles have this issue. The questions becomes real-life experience which to date has been excellent with Li.

PS- You should worry a little as car fires is an issue. But Li batts not the cause of that issue. In risk assessment, often times it's not the true risk people worry about, it is their comfort with the risk, which can easily be zero tolerance for less familiar but very low risk activities; and people have high risk tolerance for familiar activities that are highly risky.

 

...assuming the glass is weaker than the carbon fiber.

 

Not worried about it more than the Prius for day to day cargo use, but more about where the technician put the tape measure.