Mileage hit vs Prius is too severe

Anything that gets folks into cars with better mileage numbers is OK with me. As for me, my Fit doesn't accelerate much faster than a Prius, so it's not like I'm running around burning rubber.

I do, however, have a second car in the works. It weighs about 2,400 lbs., with approximately 450 horsepower. Every so often I'll go to the track and get it out of my system.

 

Man, ending a comment like that with Peace is a little like hippies expectorating on soldiers returning from Vietnam in the 60's.

Yeh, I'm critical, I don't deny it. I'm a bit disappointed with the GIII and that clanking startup issue and the way Toyota kind of swept it under the carpet. And I have some regrets that I don't have my GII Prius any longer. But I've never been a Prius fangirl, and I'm willing to acknowledge the pluses and minuses of the cars.

In comparison to some of the hyper-positive automotive opinions expressed here, it's not difficult to see how you'd construe a more realistic assessment as negative.

 

Pinto, no doubt true once in a while, but your comments are not 'realistic', whatever that means. By all means throw out your 2 cents of personal preference, but I can do without the generalizations and attitude, thanks all the same.

 

Well, there's always ignore.

 

The smaller an engine that moves a given load, all things equal, the better the fuel economy. This concept is why cars that are able to shut off cylinders, making the other cylinders work harder, get better mileage. Engines increase efficiency as they move toward maximum output.

--

Remember also that once at speed on the highway weight is effectively irrelevant. The primary force working against the powertrain is wind resistance. Therefore if the V is worse on the highway than the Prius (it is), either the gearing has changed and/or the greater wind signature is to blame.

Plenty of power is a relative term, as is gutless; holds no meaning without comparison. The Prius is slower than most (all?) minivans , most econo-boxes, probably all midsize cars, etc. In practice 10-10.5 0-60 is actually plenty for the typical person, but it is relative. And since it competes in a market with other vehicles, relative to those, it is indeed gutless. We're just accustomed to more power than we "need", which is also subjective. I think it's a great car, but it's not fast compared to other cars. And with fast not being a qualitative state, it's only by comparison to other cars it holds meaning.

 

Prius v (wagon) also has more ground clearance. Higher up from the ground is also bad for the aerodynamic. You want to be low to the ground as much as possible.

 

This describes my situation almost perfectly. I have a 10 year old Sienna that I am downsizing from. I will be picking up my Prius v (3) on Monday. I saw the Prius v at the NY auto show earlier this year and have been waiting for it to become available.

I live in the suburbs and have two kids both long past the car seat stage. I was looking for the most economical wagon. I need the extra space and the standard Prius hatchback just did not work for my needs.

The only real alternative that I found was the Hyundai Elantra Touring which matches the Prius v dimensions very closely. I did not look at any of the small SUVs for reasons of fuel economy.

 

Throttle response != how fast a car is. I see this on the 4Runner forums all the time. Toyota tuned the throttle to be very lazy to help with the gas mileage. People give it half throttle (relative to the gas pedal position) and say the vehicle is slow. The 4600lbs barge does 0-60 in 7.8 seconds, FFS, in CR's testing. Stop pussyfooting about and push the gas pedal all the way down* and modern cars will easily 'get out of their own way'. 15 years ago, an 8 second 0-60 time was where sports cars were. We can surely handle 10 sec 0-60 times in our cars meant to carry us to work and our kids to soccer practice.

*Or, in the case of the Prius, push the power mode button

/sunday rant

 

I prefer Power Mode. And still some drivers pull out and pass me on the right. But only the ones in a hurry to go nowhere and do nothing fast.

Blech, I no like ECO mode. Makes the Prius feel totally gutless. Don't like pressing the pedal and not much happens. Then have to really press the pedal. Not my cup of tea. Some must like it and that's fine. Normal mode little too soft for me.

3 choices, personal preference. Few years ago, sportbike mfrs starting putting mode switches on bikes.

 

Oh I missed that. Was driving a Jetta all through the 90s.

We're so spoiled on weather here in SF Bay Area. Don't have to rely on A/C or heat very much. They sometimes talk about how 'the big one' (quake) could hit, so that's a big equalizer, I guess

 

That stlll will only get you,what, 0-60 in 10 sec? LOL!

 

Can someone kindly explain how a 17" wheel (i.e. RIM not tire diameter) make less fuel economy??

forgive the numbers i'm about to throw out - purely example - not entirely accurate...

but let's say I have a 195/75-15 ... and a 215/50-17 ... the only real difference would be how much sidewall of the tire there is and possibly the width of the tread. 195 is width and 75 being percentage of the width in height. obviously a bigger rim has a smaller sidewall so that ratio number will be smaller. but the overall tire would be the same diameter would it not?

They would have to program the speedo for every possible tire combination on the market if that were the case.

 

It has been explained quite a bit on this forum and others but I don't blame you for not being able to find the info.

The main factors determining mpg loss from upsized wheels:

Increased rotational inertia. The further you push mass away from the center of the wheel axis the more energy that is required to spin the wheel. Think about a figure skater who pulls their arms in tight and immediately start spinning faster. Because 17" tires weight a lot more than 15" tires and because the sidewalls are shorter, you are pushing weight further from the axis.

Increased section width leading to higher friction and rolling resistance. Rolling reistance is a huge deal with these cars.

Tire design and compound that is designed more for performance (this is slowly changing, however)

Increased overall weight because 17" wheels, on average, weigh more than 15s. Same goes for larger tires. Without spending a lot of money on featherweight wheels the best one could hope for is approx. +6lbs per wheel/tire compared to OEM 15s.

See this video for a better explanation on rotational inertia

Rotational Inertia

The Science of Wheel Performance | HRE Performance Wheels

 

the 15" wheel is only 6" wide. 17" Prius wheels are 7" wide. The 17" tire and wheel combo weigh a few lbs. more each than the 15". That rotational mass plus the extra 20mm of tire contacting road adds up to a few less MPGs.

 

rotational inertia differences are felt in city driving, because brakes are used.

The increase in tyre width is a big deal. 195/175 = 11% more rolling resistance (RR) all by itself. Since tyre RR is around 25% of total highway speed friction and up to 50% of city driving friction, combined driving MPG can be expected to drop 3-4%.

I find it amusing, and a bit exasperating, to see the car manufacturers sweat and toil to improve fuel economy by 5% (while adding $1000 to the car price) and then turn around and spend it without much thought on something as stupid as tyre aesthetics.

 

EPA estimates are one thing, real world mileage is another. I had a Gen. 2 Prius and now I have the V. For identical routes, I get better mileage with the V. To me, I have the usefulness of a small SUV and greater comfort with the V.

 

I wonder if your 2005 had an issue. It should get better mpg than the v. Did you ever check the 12v battery?