Consumer Report Video Review

Already a thread on this at 2013 Toyota Prius C doesn't get much love from Consumer Reports | PriusChat.

 

It's nice to have it in the c subforum, though, not just the News & Newbies subforum.

 

the problem with all the negative reviews of the C is based on price. they dont look at the car as a 15k sub-compact with a hybrid drivetrain, which bumps up the price quite a bit. instead they compare it to other cars, non-hybrids, within the same price. that is dumb and fundamentally wrong.

having said that their perspective is also skewed or dare i say biased when i comes to the handling. in the prius liftback they complain about the soft suspension. in this car it's too harsh. you cant win. they're looking for expensive BMW suspension tuning in a 20k hybrid. please....

the steering is ok. they say it lacks feedback, and that's true. however that's common with almost all EPS systems, even the new 991 911 is not immune to this. it isnt that big of a deal, especially in this kind of car. calling it "dead" is a bit harsh.

also notice they say almost nothing about the stellar MPG. people buy this car for that very reason, and yet they dont talk to much about it. other reviews mention that they can easily beat the EPA listed mpg. this review doesnt. instead they waste time talking about the cheap flap in the seat... really?

 

For the first time in a long time, I have to question the independence of Consumer Reports, or at least the reviewer of this car. As a subscriber, I have the advantage of having read the full report. It arrived in the mail today. It claims what it calls an "excellent" overall mileage of 43, and a "steller" city rating of 37 mpg! Is that a transposition of digits? Is it a typesetter mistake? As I get older, I tend to transpose letters much more frequently, but the reviewer, based on this video, is much too young to suffer from such an affliction. But he must have meant 73 MPG not 37! As a Prius C owner of two months and 4000 miles, I appreciate the superlatives, but what planet is this guy on? 37 MPG in the city? That is simply not possible.

In my 8 tanks of gasoline, I have never averaged less than 46 MPG. I am a fast driver who likes to maintain 75 or better or the highway , and may be one of the few Prius owners with a radar detector on the dash. When I trash the car with complete abandon and no regards to gas mileage, ( admittedly, much harder to do now that I have to stare at those dash displays showing me the dramatic effect) I get in the high 40s for MPG. When I drive a bit more cautiously, but still over the speed limits, I average 55 MPG. If I baby it, I get better than 60, and on some city stretches, have gotten in the mid to high 70s. 37 MPG in the city? Poppyclock! What did he do? Drag race from every stop sign and stop light? Did he have the dash display on ODO by mistake, where it resets each time the car is turned off. Something is wrong here.

While I believe he exaggerates the wind and road noise considerably, I can't really take issue with the rest of his comments, as these are subjective aspects of the cars behavior. But his conclusion that it is "fuel efficient, but it's not a deal" , and rating it lower than the Honda Insight, is well - an insult.

 

The review reminds me of why I usually dismiss Consumer Reports for car reviews. Stick to vacuum cleaners and washer/dryers, CR. You suck at car reviews.

 

I have the issue too but haven't looked at it in detail. It is excellent and stellar when you compare it to the results they got for all the other top performers at The most fuel-efficient cars and Best & worst fuel economy. In fact, NO other non-PHEV/non-EV even gets 37 mpg on their city test.

As I've posted many times before, the last page of http://www.consumersunion.org/Oct_CR_Fuel_Economy.pdf describes their test vs. the old EPA test. Their city test is pretty darn harsh. They intentionally don't hypermile or drive any cars differently for better mileage. How we test has a brief video (under Fuel Economy).

 

I have read the How We Test article, and don't see anything unusual in their methods. At least there's nothing that stands out as an explanation for the vast difference in their city measure of 37 MPG and the real world results people have reported at this forum using both the built in MPG readings and manually calculated results that typically range from the low 50s to the mid 70s for city use.

I also remember reading how disappointed Toyota was when the EPA rating for city mileage came in at only 53. They even considered delaying the introduction of the car to get it retested, but decided against it. Not sure what Consumer Reports is doing, but it certainly doesn't match owner results. You can always quibble with their opinions on ride quality, and road and wind noise, as we each have out own threshold where they become unacceptable, but MPG should be MPG. I can appreciate that they test every car the same way and that 37 is the best they have measured yet, but for it to be so far from real world results has to be even more disturbing to Toyota than the much closer to reality EPA result.

 

The reviews of the Prius c seem split between people willing accept the way a hybrid encourages you to reign in your lead foot in favor of great mileage and those who insist on trying to drive it like a muscle car and being disappointed. Those who enjoy the great mileage don't seem to mind the plasticky interior and strain to get up a steep hill. Consumer reports virtually ignored their mileage results and insisted on reviewing it as a highway car when its strength is city driving. Encouraging people to buy a used standard prius disregards the main reasons many of us bought the c in the first place, size and city mileage. There just aren't any other subcompacts that get 50mpg (or even 37) in the city. Also, maybe I've been driving economy cars for too long, but what cars don't have plasticky interiors? I rather like all of the blue accents and interior that will withstand the occasional scuff.

 

I believe the reason why the city numbers are so low is that the test is so short.

Obviously the first run is on a cold engine. It's unclear if they power down between each run and how long cool down period is (if any) between runs/testers. Short drives kill mileage. That's likely the culprit.

I do want to make a correction about no other non-PHEV/non-EV gets a better city number. It's possible the 1st gen Insight got better numbers, but I don't have them and it was discontinued years ago.

 

The CR City MPG test sounds a lot like my commute. I drive a 1998 Civic. Since 2005, about 95-100% of my driving has been a very short commute: 5-6 miles total, 10-15 minutes of all stop-and-go, never over 35MPH, and about 3000 miles annually. We use my wife's car for longer trips. Prior to 2005 my driving was more mixed and I was getting about 28 MPG overall and 40 MPG on the highway. With the much shorter commute since 2005, my overall MPG has dropped to about 22 MPG. CR rated my 1998 Civic at 21 City, so that's pretty darned close.

As a side note, I am OCD about maintenance on my Civic, try to use A/C and heat sparingly, no jackrabbit starts, I leave at 7 AM to avoid traffic. In other words, I'm not driving it like a sports car. But I do have to park outside, so in the winter I can't get around having to waste fuel defrosting and defogging. And I know I've gotten much better mileage with this same car years ago, so my only conclusion is that the short commute is the difference that is killing the MPGs.

I have been doing quite a bit of research about new cars. My car is fine, but I figure it can't last forever and I like to know what car I would buy next if something happened to my Civic tomorrow. I was very anxious to see the CR City MPG number for the C. I figure with my short commute, it sounds like I'd get between 37-40 MPG. I mention 40, as I have read others on this forum who have a very short commute are getting around 40 and the lowest two cars listed on Fuelly.com are getting around 40.

So, 37-40 MPG still isn't great, but it's the best that's out there (and loads better than the 22 MPG I'm getting now) and at what I'd consider an affordable price (~21K for the C2). My main objective for my next car is not to buy the cheapest car, but to buy the greenest car available. I compared a Fit to the C and value-wise the Fit makes more sense given my annual mileage and the price of gas at the moment. I calculated that it would take about 14 years for me to make up the extra cost of the C vs. the Fit in gas savings. Again, for others, I'm sure you'd break even a lot sooner, but with my low annual mileage and lower MPGs it would take me longer. But again, that's not why I'd buy a C. I'd do it because it was the greenest car given my situation.

I test drove a C in March and loved it. I had no problem with the interior. It's got a place to plug in my iPod. That works for me. Rear visibility? Take the headrests out. Wind and road noise? I'm not going above 35 MPH hardly ever - what the heck do I care?

Another option I am considering is the Mitsubishi i. I test drove one and loved it too. I have no problem with "no bells and whistles" transportation and with my commute, the ~60 mile range of the i wouldn't be an issue. After the tax credit, I figure the i would be about 2K more than a C. Electricity costs are very cheap here, so I'd save a lot there. The i as also rated as the greenest car available, with the C right behind it (at least according to this site):

greenercars.org | the greenest vehicles of 2011

The C is listed below the table with an asterisk.

Also, this site rates the C and i as the best eco-value

Finding the best eco-values — AutoEcoRating

The other issue for the Mitsu i is that it's not emission-free, as one has to take into account the energy used to produce the electricity. I found this excellent report that calculates how electric cars compare to ICE engines, emissions-wise.

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_vehicles/electric-car-global-warming-emissions-report.pdf

It was a bit difficult to ascertain a true apples-to-apples comparison as some of the tables show equivalent emissions for a LEAF which is not as efficient as a Mitsu i and my short commute affects my MPGs so much. Also, they have electric grid "regions" listed and not individual states. I contacted my utility company and my electricity does not come from the wider grid region, which would have made the electricity production a lot greener. I live in Kentucky, which is a beautiful state, but also uses 93% coal to produce electricity.

Here's how each state stacks up:

http://www.getenergyactive.org/fuel/state.htm

So, using that long report listed above, I roughly figured out that in Kentucky a Mistu i would produce emissions that were equivalent to an ICE car that gets around 38 MPG - just about the same as the C, given my driving. Only West Virginia uses more coal, and in pretty much every other state except KY and WV and with my short commute, the i would probably be a greener choice. So, if the emissions for me are about equal, the C makes more sense given it's unlimited range, lower price and relatively luxurious interior compared to the spartan i.

Sorry this is so long-winded, but like I said I've been researching for a while.

Bottom line, for me, if my Civic dies tomorrow, I'll likely be getting a C.

Oh, and I need to see a Moonglow in person. The C I drove was gray. I love my white Civic and the Moonglow C2 sounds like exactly what I'd want.

Love reading this forum. Very informative. Thanks.

 

FWIW, my commute is just over 3 miles in the city, max speed 40, takes about 10 minutes, and I'm averaging around 50 mpg. My mileage is also slowly increasing, and I often have trips over 60. So if you end up getting the c, you still may see fantastic numbers with your short commute, especially if you actively try to get better mpg, which is not hard, and which CR did not do.

Assuming I'm no longer living in an apartment by the time I replace my c, I will definitely be looking into an electric vehicle. A huge percentage of our electricity is hydro power, so it's pretty green

 

Ashley,
I figure the 37-40 would be at the bottom end of what I'd get and it's great to hear that someone else with a short commute like mine gets much better than that. That pretty well seals the deal for me and the C over the i. Jealous about your green power.

 

I sometimes wonder about ANY car reviewer on most ANY car (save the ones with guts and lower mpg's).

To be honest, there are tons of cars under 21K that have lots of "flash". And I wish that Toyota would get on aboard in making cars that stand out over the likes of Hyundai and others. But reliability and resell count for a lot as well. And CR discounts the pain at the pump. I will take my over 50mpg average P2 over any other of their other top picks that they want to compare it to. Toyota missed the boat in not doing a CVT in the Prius C IMO.

 

"

CITY MPG​

Our tests. These tests are stop-and-go city-driving simulations on our test track, which has a total of 18 stops and 4 minutes of total idle time. Top speed is 40 mph. Two different testers each drive three runs for a total of six 2-minute, 40-second trials on every test vehicle. Total test time is approximately 16 minutes."​

Yes - short runs. Didn't do the math on the first read. If I am interpreting this correctly, a city "run" is about 127 seconds long, of which, 40 seconds is spent at idle during three stops. So actual driving time for each run is only about 87 seconds. With three stops, that's 3 29 second long periods of movement, meaning three sessions of getting the car moving from a stop, which, as we all have witnessed watching the dash displays is when the MPG reading is at it's lowest, followed by a very short cruise, and then the slow down for the next stop. Rinse and repeat 6 times, take an average, and you get 37 MPG.

​

 

What do you mean by that?

 

Interesting, that CR review. I felt like the car they were describing was nothing like the Prius C (PrC) I own. I'm getting about 52 mpg in a relatively short commute (6 miles), not the middling 30-something 40-something they quoted. I found the front seat roomy and comfortable, best seat of the 4 cars I've owned in my adult life. The back seat has more room than my old 2001 Forester, which they recommended as best small SUV. For the city driving I do, too, the PrC is a lot quieter than the old Forester ever was. I find the PrC steering fine and not insensitive like the Prius Liftback my dad owns or the Prius V I test drove, though I'm not tossing the car around.

Perhaps you are second-guessing whether they really want to buy a PrC after the CR review. If you are going to be ok with a small car and the less zoom it has in order to get outstanding gas mileage, don't worry. Test drive it yourself; I bet you'll be plenty happy with it, as I am.

Tom

 

Honestly if you make an effort to get good mileage, and it sounds like you do in your Civic, you'll destroy 40mpg. I just took a 3-4 mile round trip drive through town (to pizza pickup!) and I got seriously 79.8mpg. I drove the speed limit and didn't impede any of the traffic behind me when accelerating, but I did try to drive on battery only whenever possible. Cold start too, so on the drive TO pizza I basically used no battery because the car hadn't warmed up enough for it to kick on.

I thought it *did* have a CVT... I don't know much about the the engine, but I've never felt it shift ever, even when accelerating uphill to get onto the interstate. Am I confused about what a CVT is? Haha wouldn't surprise me.

 

My bad... it does have a CVT....

 

Exactly! = I Totally agree with you!