Featured SPOTTED! *UNWRAPPED* 2016 Prius spotted this morning!

At least to me, the tail looks a bit lower with the slight added length. I think all they did is removing a little bit of the c pillar blindspot by adding a small window.

 

To avoid Toyota/Ford/whoever else patent issues, and/or to save on production costs. Making a variant step transmissions will have a lower investment than making an entirely different transmission.

At a glance, Hyundai's system is IMA and eAssist combined, but better. The main motor replaces the torque converter on the transmission. It is powerful enough to make the car a full hybrid. There is also clutches, unlike Honda's IMA, that let the motor decouple from the engine and transmission to reduce parasitic loses from spinning things when they aren't used.

Then there is the HSG, hybrid starter generator, that basically is what it is named. It replaces the starter and alternator, and does some of the functions that the MG1 does in the HSD.

 

I've got the feeling it's going to be a little harder to get the hatch to close, carrying certain cargo. It looks more concave.

 

That's an artifact of the vertical position at which the two images were taken, which is not the same.

 

The hoodline by the A pillar looks lower, probably due to reducing size of the components. I bet they found even more space by placing the battery in a different location, under the rear seat, chassis, etc... Currently: Passenger Volume 94 ft3 (Hatchback) Luggage Volume 22 ft3 (Hatchback)

 

Or like Prius+ or Alpha, in the armrest compartment between the front seats.

With that extra space in the back, I hope Gen4 PiP can retain the spare tire.

 

Ah - didn't realize those were imperial gallons - so divide by 1.2
91.2/1.2=76 mpg
74.3/1.2=61.9 mpg

 

I respect others opinion ....

Personally, I favor the bottom. I very much dislike the roof peak having been moved forward. To my eye, the transition from the hood to the passenger compartment is more "graceful" and pleasing on the G3. Also notice in the top view, by moving the roof peak forward, it necessiatted a concave rear hatch. Not very attractive in my POV.
In addition, the shape of the rear door side glass seems proportionally awkward. The rear edge is significantly shorter than the leading edge. In addition, the window is shorter front to back. I'm sure they did that because otherwise, the rear of the window would have diminished to only several inches.

Can you tell I am not enamored with the G4?

It wold be fascinating to know what the (reportedly) rejected design looked like. I would be especially interested to know if the hideous head lights and tail lights, and the "floating roof" came about after the "boss man" dictated a re-design. Fortunately, I have moved on, and will not purchase a G4. But that does not mean that I am not interested, and very much want the G4 to be the success that the G3 was.

 

If it is the projected frontal area looking face on, it doesn't seem like there is much room to maneuver as the height and width are pretty much set by car height and width, leaving only the Cd as a variable that can be modified.

 

Ironically, they are the only automaker going all out attempting to offer the hybrid system as an option throughout their entire passenger product-line.

 

Well, different cars (and trucks) have very different projected frontal areas.

I recently spoke to someone who works with many of the major auto makers. One thing that stuck out was that Toyota was "by far the most aggressive".

 

Yeah I'm sure Hyundai doesn't want to give Toyota any extra money. Yet, if yhis is like an IMA, wouldn't they have to pay Homda for patent infringement? I'm sure Toyota will you a very efficient emgine in the Gen 4, the hsd will be improved, too.

Oh really? I wonder what they based that on? Most of the press anf the car fanboy magazines say just the opposite. Amazing in the fact they should be the most aggressive they have the biggest bank account.

 

Yep, Toyota is probably the most aggressive followed by Hyundai IMO.

 

Uh, aggressive by *whose* automotive standards: USA or Japanese? And, in what category: design or engineering?

USA = tame design?
JAPAN = aggressive engineering?

 

When has that audience cared about the overall well being of the company?

When it comes down to the bottom-line... selling high-volume profitable vehicles... they aren't slightest bit intereseted.

The trophy-mentality doesn't pay the bills.

 

Walking the dog this morning, noticed this Hyundai headlight sculpture. I think Prius gen IV headlight is worse tho.

 

We are used to seeing gen. 3 Pris following gen 4. Prius test mules,but since when do they follow hundais too?
Toyota is closley watching their competitors that's for sure !

 

Engineering. I don't care about design.

 

Because of lowered hoodline, designers have to be creative. Remember the Prius c concept, headlights integrated from the dash;

Now, based on what I have read here so far, PC Chatters do not really like anything they are not familiar with.

Notice you put a ? after each phrase.
What Automotive standards?
Design definition = to plan and make something for a specific use or purpose, It's Function!

Tame or not tame, is a matter of opinion since there is no criteria that would guarantee everyone is going to like it. A great design is functional.

 

I would take 20+ mi EV range.

Another thing to consider is that the standard Prius Gen4 could get a small bump in it's battery capacity for additional buffering without plugging in. For the next PiP, this plus increased battery energy density to weight plus shedding the non-battery weight of the system as you describe and we could still potentially have 30+ mi EV range.

Agree, this is a bit optimistic of a wish.