Prius Deal Breaker

There is a difference, but it is VERY slight ... and like I said, I believe it's just a downgrade in graphics on the map ... not resolution truly. Like Dianne said ... it's not a deal breaker in the least. Drama queen I'd say.

 

Which is practically unnecessary since there's an instant fuel economy meter which will show you when the engine is off. The only problem would be if you're trying to make sure the engine is charging the battery while driving down the road.

 

I'm with carl...there are now so many things that have turned me of to the 10. i had s 2008 and now I dont what to do. Toyota is blowing up and besides the car I want is now pushing $34K ! Cmon!

 

Hmmm... I've no idea why they don't sell solar /w ATP in the US. Probably either:

(a) The touring body (though basicaaly the same as the non-touring one) has issues with the sun roof, which is why package V has no solar, but the non-touring ATP in Canada has one, or

(b) It's a marketing segmentation move (though the logic escapes me).

 

+1

 

The new 2010 screen is not sharp, dull and muted in fact. When you want to look at the map it should be clear and sharp. The disappointing screen resolution in itself would not be a deal breaker, however, I like the whole color touchscreen functionality on a big screen, not all the extra buttons and small dash monotone displays of consumption and energy--deal breaker for going from 48 to 51 MPG.

However, as for the hi-tech packages, there are reasons for this such as the weight difference. The solar panel adds 62 lbs of weight. Combined with the larger tires and extras on the "technology" package, Toyota could not rate the solar package at the same efficiency. I am sure there are also other considerations where they could not combine the 2 pkg options.

 

DANG TIDELAND..........got your point...............now, talk to the people at SMT (santa monica toyota) AND you get your point across.

If i can get the two combined, i'll get 18"rims.....................customized. it should peak about the same as my 08's with 17s. ha?????????

time for a nice stiff drink....TIDELAND.....blue or green label WALKER?

 

The screen resolution is certainly better than the '04, if not quite as crisp as the 06-09.

Its a cost cutting thing...when you deliver a vehicle with such content at such a low price (package to package it is CHEAPER than the gen II, which is almost unheard of in the industry) there have to be costs cut somewhere. You've got a vehicle with technologies available you can't touch for nearly three times the purchase price, LED headlamps, auto-park assist, the radar cruise. Thankfully this time they skimped a little on a screen instead of deleting seat adjustments...

 

The only "theory" as to why the moonroof and 17" wheels are not paired is to ensure all models of the car get the same mileage by keeping weight down. Whatever the downside of officially saying the 'touring' model gets 48MPG while the rest get 50 MPG (even though this is conventional wisdom) I haven't heard a good explanation.

Not sure why they wouldn't just use a lighter alloy and jack the price up a bit more on their 'loaded' model but whatever. You can easily get lighter 17" wheels aftermarket added to your IV if you absolutely must not lose one MPG. The 15" wheels are like 14 pounds, you don't have to spend a lot to hit that weight in 17" size.

 

Can you read the bloody screen?
Yes?
No bloody issue then is it?

 

i have no issue at all with the screen. it is "soft" as opposed to "crisp" or "harsh". completely readable. a huge upgrade over my gen 1.

also the bluetooth was flawless and easy (relatively) to sync up to my blackberry and to transfer contacts). It also did very well with the vioce commands.

 

It's "Horses for Courses"

Why argue about personal preferences? If one is happy with the Gen III interior layout and setup, then no worries.

Personally, I compared a Gen III against a 2009 Touring with a package #6, and decided that I was happier with the 2009 Touring. It handles better than the standard Gen III, and I prefer the ergonomics of the Gen II interior.

Toyota had to make decisions on what to include to meet given price points. Trust me, they are not losing any money with the Gen III over the Gen II.

 

a LOT has been said about the readability of the screens. now the energy screen is smaller and positioned farther away than the classic screen, but on the classic screens there was also complaints, comments, suggestions, etc; that the screen could have shown more info. now if that had not been an issue, then CANVIEW and Scangauge would have not had a market right?? well they did and if the Screen resolution issues could have been solved, CANVIEW would have done 10 times more business on the 2006+ MY's.

now the problem engineers face is putting too much info on one screen due to the obvious safety issues which is probably why something like CANVIEW or Super MID will not be offered by Toyota.

so now we have a lot of tough issues the engineers had to deal with. to be honest with ya, i

1) cant say i am 100% satisfied with all the screen layouts...not really sure that ANY design could achieve that anyway.

2)can easily see that the package options dont fill all the cracks as far as specific customer needs.... AT, solar "restrictions" (add ons, etc. whatever you want to call it) i can understand the AT only being on the top trim level, but the sunroof should be offered on all but the very basic package)

3)money is tight. although the intro price of the 2010 has been dropped, its obvious that the 2010 still costs more money. most here are paying more because of how quick the package costs add up

but all in all; the real question becomes if i were the engineer, how would i have solved the problems?

things i see that were improved AND based on what was said here.

1)first and most important and the basis of most of the changes made to the interior; keeping the hands on the wheel and eyes on the road.

the new setup allows you to change your monitoring screens without having to touch the MFD. i used to toggle back and forth on SPM (still do when i drive it on those rare occasions) the consumption and energy screens. granted, not a huge change, but the 2010 does put it more inline with the road view. allows changes to screen without taking hands off wheel, etc. ergonomically much better. now i question the "1980's computer green screen" tech. sure, its cheap and more importantly a very low power method of display, but even those ancient monitors had 16 colors.

the center console; i wish the cupholders had been positioned a bit higher up, leave the shifter on the dash where it was. granted it was a reach, but not used often enough (dont flame me hypermilers and other "neutral" drivers!@!), but then again, one thing i noticed, the cup holders dont really fit my cup (Motor City Casino coffee mug!!) anyway. the handle on the side makes it not settle in very well, making it spill-able if too full.

but it does move the controls of many things back to "legacy" familiarity, including heater, radio, etc. now having two scan options on the steering wheel is an oversight. going from one pre-set to another is a no-brainer, but should be a way to do a frequency scan as well especially when presets only work while cruising your own neighborhood.

all in all, lots of tough issues that are not as easily solved as one might think.