Official Toyota Prius PHEV thread

No, I think it was simply because they were being cheap...

cwerdna said:

Not sure if this has been discussed as I don't follow this thread much, but it just occurred to me the other day that another reason why Toyota might've gone w/such a small battery size/short AER range is that the chances of someone driving and partly depleting or draining the li-ion battery (to the level that the car allows) is very high.

Click to expand...

It may also be that making the pack any larger would have either required a major redesign of the rear of the car, or would have adversely affected handling. On our test drive I noted that the rear of the car feels like it's loaded with groceries even when empty in the PHEV, so imagine a heavier battery *and* a load in the rear...

Again, it goes back to Toyota trying to do it on the cheap rather than trying to do it properly... It has lots of the vestiges of a compliance car...

LeftieBiker said:

It may also be that making the pack any larger would have either required a major redesign of the rear of the car, or would have adversely affected handling. On our test drive I noted that the rear of the car feels like it's loaded with groceries even when empty in the PHEV, so imagine a heavier battery *and* a load in the rear...

Click to expand...

TomT said:

Again, it goes back to Toyota trying to do it on the cheap rather than trying to do it properly... It has lots of the vestiges of a compliance car...

LeftieBiker said:

It may also be that making the pack any larger would have either required a major redesign of the rear of the car, or would have adversely affected handling. On our test drive I noted that the rear of the car feels like it's loaded with groceries even when empty in the PHEV, so imagine a heavier battery *and* a load in the rear...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I think it may well be due to Toyota trying to continue the practice of emphasizing operating cost/TCO above all. They sponsored several studies which claimed to show that a 7 mile PHEV was the most cost-effective given the current conditions, which is undoubtedly correct but misses the point for the early adopters.

Perhaps in some parts of the country, but I knew few in this part that have only a 12 to 14 mile daily round-trip... We have a number of people at work with PIPs - no charging there - and all I hear is constant bitching about how they are constantly running out of juice and having to drive on gas... Apparently they didn't believe or understand how limited the electric range is... Two of them have traded for Volts.

GRA said:

They sponsored several studies which claimed to show that a 7 mile PHEV was the most cost-effective given the current conditions, which is undoubtedly correct but misses the point for the early adopters.

Click to expand...

Whether intentionally or by accident, Toyota has marketed the PHEV in such a way as to make it unappealing to the people they want to buy it. It isn't an EV, so it doesn't appeal to people who want to drive in electric mode, but it has "Plug-In" badges on it. It is much more work for most people than a typical hybrid, so they pass on it because it's too "EV-like." It should be marketed as a "Super-Hybrid" that can get 70-90MPG on commutes under 100 miles, while retaining unlimited range at 50+MPG. It should be targeted to people with short to moderate commutes (and a garage with an outlet free) who don't really want an EV, just fantastic gas mileage. It's also (along with the Volt) a great primary vehicle for families who have a Leaf or other EV.

^^^
FWIW, it's part of Toyota's ZEV compliance efforts (http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=6853" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false as the PiP is an enhAT-PZEV. Cars like the 04+ Prius, Prius v wagon, Camry Hybrid, etc. are AT-PZEV and also help.

It qualifies for CA green HOV stickers (http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/carpool/carpool.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false and despite selling in a very limited of states, still has a decent position in terms of US plug-in sales (http://www.hybridcars.com/august-2013-dashboard/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false.

It also seats 5 (vs. 4 of the Volt), doesn't lose much cargo space vs. the regular Prius (just the part above the spare tire and below the rear cargo floor/shelf), doesn't require premium (unlike the Volt), gets 50 mpg combined (vs. 37 mpg combined of the Volt), is cheaper than the Volt, and is still classified as a midsize car vs. the compact Volt.

But, yes, its EV range is very limited and it has limitations in terms of acceleration and max speed before the ICE kicks in.

I understand about compliance cars, and that Toyota didn't want the PHEV to be wildly popular. Still, they clearly miscalculated when they under-hyped and mis-advertised them, otherwise they wouldn't have ended up having to put them "on sale" to clear out last year's models. Good news for us, but bad news for the niche...

So much for advanced certain technologies... In the IIHS test of crash avoidance systems, "the Toyota Prius V wagon scored so poorly that it didn't qualify for an IIHS front crash prevention rating."

http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-autos-crash-tests-20130928,0,4466908.story" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

TomT said:

So much for advanced certain technologies... In the IIHS test of crash avoidance systems, "the Toyota Prius V wagon scored so poorly that it didn't qualify for an IIHS front crash prevention rating."

http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-autos-crash-tests-20130928,0,4466908.story" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Click to expand...

First off, the Prius v wagon has little to do w/the PiP (aka Plug-in Prius aka Prius PHEV/PHV). Second, I haven't had a chance to look into the details but http://priuschat.com/threads/iis-and-a-preliminary-report.130908/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; sums up what IIHS has been (oddly?) doing recently. I've noticed it too. I figured that IIHS was a relatively neutral/unbiased party, but one has to wonder.

Re: those "test results", well, probably 99+% of all other vehicles on US roads don't have any sort of auto-braking system, so they'd fail too.

http://priuschat.com/threads/iis-and-a-preliminary-report.130908/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; is some discussion about Toyota's systems can/will and cannot do.

From http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505266_162-57604931.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Toyota officials say that their Prius V does not have auto-braking technology, and they say that they don't advertise that it does - what they say is their vehicle has a pre-collision system that mitigates the effects of a crash.

Click to expand...

LeftieBiker said:

Whether intentionally or by accident, Toyota has marketed the PHEV in such a way as to make it unappealing to the people they want to buy it. It isn't an EV, so it doesn't appeal to people who want to drive in electric mode, but it has "Plug-In" badges on it. It is much more work for most people than a typical hybrid, so they pass on it because it's too "EV-like." It should be marketed as a "Super-Hybrid" that can get 70-90MPG on commutes under 100 miles, while retaining unlimited range at 50+MPG. It should be targeted to people with short to moderate commutes (and a garage with an outlet free) who don't really want an EV, just fantastic gas mileage. It's also (along with the Volt) a great primary vehicle for families who have a Leaf or other EV.

Click to expand...

Exactly. This is where Bob Lutz got it right. He's said that during development of the Volt, GM engineers came to him and wanted to make the car a parallel hybrid at freeway speeds, because that was most efficient. His reply was along the lines of "I know that would be most efficient, but you're missing the point. The early adopters who will buy this car want to drive electric as much as possible, even if that means that it's less efficient when using the ICE. So, no, you're not going to make it a parallel hybrid." (Although the engineers did manage to squeeze out some more efficiency in CS mode at freeway speeds, by having the ICE drive both the traction motor and the motor/generator, and through the latter the ring gear, IIRR).

This was a test of only vehicles with anti-collision systems and had nothing to do with crash worthiness per se. It was only intended to test how well the systems worked in practice. Thus, the 99% comment is irrelevant. I suggest reading the test criteria for more information...

cwerdna said:

Re: those "test results", well, probably 99+% of all other vehicles on US roads don't have any sort of auto-braking system, so they'd fail too.

Click to expand...

^^^
Re: crash worthiness, I'm well aware of the IIHS' crash tests that differ from NHTSAs (offset vs. entire width of front of car). The issue that bwilson4web has w/IIHS is them suddenly moving the goal posts (e.g. small overlap crash tests) which are brand new, and broadcasting that Toyotas do poorly on them. It almost seems like they moved the goal posts to intentionally put Toyota in a bad light.

Well, automakers optimize for crash tests, and IIHS did exactly the above...

Will look into more about the crash avoidance system tests, when I have a chance. Again, I am not clear what Toyota advertises and claims their systems will do/not do. It didn't seem clear even on Priuschat. I've never owned a Toyota w/PCS, let alone tested its capabilities. (I have tried out Priuses w/DRCC, LKA, LDW, IPA and the HUD. Those vehicles also had PCS, but I sure as heck wasn't going to try crashing in a test drive.)

Once again, for this particular test they did not crash the cars in to anything. They evaluated how well their anti-collision systems were at preventing a possible collision...

cwerdna said:

Re: crash worthiness, I'm well aware of the IIHS' crash tests that differ from NHTSAs (offset vs. entire width of front of car). The issue that bwilson4web has w/IIHS is them suddenly moving the goal posts (e.g. small overlap crash tests) which are brand new, and broadcasting that Toyotas do poorly on them. It almost seems like they moved the goal posts to intentionally put Toyota in a bad light.

Click to expand...

TomT said:

Once again, for this particular test they did not crash the cars in to anything. They evaluated how well their anti-collision systems were at preventing a possible collision...

Click to expand...

And according to http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505266_162-57604931.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Toyota officials say that their Prius V does not have auto-braking technology, and they say that they don't advertise that it does - what they say is their vehicle has a pre-collision system that mitigates the effects of a crash.

Click to expand...

Again, one has to wonder about IIHS' motives and funding. Recently, they seem to doing things intentionally to put Toyota in a bad light. I'm unclear about the capabilities and limitations of Toyota's PCS. If the reporting by CBS is accurate, then the IIHS "test" is the wrong test for the Prius v wagon.

The other thing they'd been intentionally doing to seemingly put Toyota in bad a light is what I already said re: small offset crash tests.

I've paid no attention to how Toyota has done in those tests since we have no particular interest in most-anything Toyota - we did early on look at the V when were were car shopping last year but dismissed it for a number of reasons - so I can't comment on their showing in that particular test... I would be suspect in general though that the IIHS has done anything to either favor or disfavor any particular vehicle or make...

cwerdna said:

The other thing they'd been intentionally doing to seemingly put Toyota in bad a light is what I already said re: small offset crash tests.

Click to expand...

On a happier note: After what seemed like endless hurdles and obstacles, my housemate got her "Sea Glass Pearl" PHEV this evening. The last hurdles were Esurance screwing up the insurance cards yet again (they did the same with my Leaf) and delaying us over an hour, and the dealership 'forgetting' to deduct our $1000 deposit from the total owed. Also, the car seems to be a Demo, with 111 miles on it before we drove it, but aside from a not-new-looking rear mat it seems to be in new condition, at least. I drove it the 22.5 miles home, and got 92 MPG (with about 3.5 miles left in EV range) in a mix of city streets, freeway and secondary road driving. We live in a valley and were going downhill the last several miles coming home, but I'm hopeful we can manage at least 70MPG in more normal driving...

TomT said:

I've paid no attention to how Toyota has done in those tests since we have no particular interest in most-anything Toyota - we did early on look at the V when were were car shopping last year but dismissed it for a number of reasons - so I can't comment on their showing in that particular test... I would be suspect in general though that the IIHS has done anything to either favor or disfavor any particular vehicle or make...

cwerdna said:

The other thing they'd been intentionally doing to seemingly put Toyota in bad a light is what I already said re: small offset crash tests.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

A few years ago, I would've totally agreed with you.

I can't believe I totally forgot about http://priuschat.com/threads/prius-v-rated-poor-on-new-iihs-small-overlap-frontal-crash-test.119761/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. This is the first example of moving the goal posts. Also, look at the headline. Other press outlets also had similar things to say. As I said, all major automakers (who sell in the US, Europe and Japan) optimize for known existing crash tests (e.g. NHTSA, Euro NCAP, IIHS offset (not small offset)). Despite all this, notice http://priuschat.com/threads/prius-v-rated-poor-on-new-iihs-small-overlap-frontal-crash-test.119761/#post-1705193" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;?

Then came the '13 Rav4: http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2013/07/new-toyota-rav4-does-poorly-in-crash-test/index.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. Also Google for rav4 iihs small offset. Now, we have the latest allegations about auto-braking on the Prius v wagon...

See a pattern? All of this came out of nowhere starting late 2012, it seems. Hmmm...

Aren't Honda (at least some of them) and Tesla about the only 2 who actually do decently in that new/rather odd corner crash test?

2014 PiP price reduced:
http://pressroom.toyota.com/releases/2014+toyota+prius+plug+in+starts+under+30k.htm

Base Prius Plug-in model MSRP reduced by $2,010 to $29,990
Prius Plug-in Advanced model MSRP reduced by $4,620 to $34,905
...
Toyota has reduced MSRP on the 2014 Prius Plug-in Hybrid by over $2,000, making the starting MSRP $29,990 (excluding DPH). This price repositioning on the base Prius Plug-in Hybrid is not accompanied by any reduction in vehicle content....

Click to expand...

For the advanced model, they did de-content it by moving some of its equipment to a package available on that model.