Dashboard: Jun-Sep 2013

What lower speeds are you specifically referring to? It sounds like just 50 to 60.

In that case, using HV mode still makes more sense. Efficiency of the plug-in model exceeds that of the Gen-3. The better battery helps, even when not tapping into the plug-supplied electricity.

Seeing how low the engine RPM is at 65 mph, it doesn't seem EV-BOOST would be the most efficient choice slower. You'd be surprised how well tuned HV mode actually is... which makes you question the benefit of EV at faster speeds. Some sort of blending would be better overall.

 

Just questioning the choice of the higher speed for the US. If the intended operation is as an EV of city streets and hybrid on the highway, why even raise it from the 50something in Europe and Japan? Better numbers on the window sticker? The 62mph is getting into the highway range of speeds, and could lend to confusion on how Toyota intended for the car to operate.

 

There is no if. That question was answered even before rollout. It is a PLUG-IN HYBRID, not an EV. It's the best of both worlds, blending for optimal efficiency.

 

True generally, but there are strategies for dealing with that. The Chevy Spark EV uses a motor optimized for torque and then they use steeper gearing so they get good low speed acceleration while using lower motor rpms at highway speed. The Chevy Volt combines the output of both electric motors, each at lower more-efficient rpms, at road speeds above 60 mph. Custom EV conversions usually keep an original manual transmission and shift between a couple of the higher gears.

 

I think when PiP turns on the ICE, the traction motor changes from MG2 to MG1. MG1 would be spinning slower due to ICE revving at least 990 rpm. It makes it more efficient than MG2 to blend.

 

I see that stated frequently but I'd love to see the empirical data and the calculations to support that theory under different optimization parameters. Optimally efficient on what basis -- distance travelled on gasoline, energy cost, direct and indirect CO2 emissions, something else?

Or does it just start the gas engine when it hits the power output limitations on the battery and the free-spin limitations of other components on the HSD and then optimize for BSFC at the combined total power output requested.

 

What about the question? If blending for optimal efficiency, why have two different speed thresholds for different markets? The ICE, motors, and rest of the drive train are the same, thus the efficiency parameters are the same for the hardware.

I guess it could be because of the higher octane in those markets, that ICE gets an efficiency boost. Which makes it better to use the ICE sooner. In which case, would a NA Prius or PPI see better fuel economy burning premium? The EV Now mode(which negates the its only a plug in hybrid) is also brought up. A lower speed threshold could allow for more charge to be available when arriving at where the mode is required. Was efficiency compromised there or here with the higher speed?

 

Starting the definition nonsense again... Goodbye.

 

A snipe in response to your yelling, and the rest of my post can be ignored.
Fine.
When I was using EV in relation to the PPI it is merely the descriptive of the mode it is in. The term that everybody, including Toyota, uses. Is there a better one to cover the times that the car is using the traction motor to propel itself, without the ICE running, by electricity from an outside source?

 

Trollbait, remember that Prius' #1 priority is to reduce emission (well to wheel). Fuel efficiency is just the side benefit.

If US grid emission is lower than of other countries, our EV speed should be higher before gas blends.

Emission is also the reason why we see eco-plastic dash made from plants rather than petroleum, despite feeling cheap and prone to scratches. Another example is the faux leather.

Everything was built so there is a balance/harmony between man, machine and nature. I know that was from the Prius ad.

 

Don't you see the pattern? Seriously. It's played out several times now. Maybe that isn't obvious, but the lack of any conclusion should be.

It's a worldwide market which is actively changing. Toyota's improvement goals cannot be achieved on paper. So no matter how much you speculate, it just plain doesn't matter. That avenue has already been exhausted. There's nothing left. Everything that could possibly be tested in a testing environment already has been tested.

Understand why Toyota's choices were made? They selected the best approaches for each audience based on research information collected and released each configuration into each region. It's real-world data that will influence the next decisions. They will observe and adapt.

No amount of online posting will change that reality. The "best" arguments just plain don't work. With all the driver, traffic, distance, temperature, and other differences, there's simply no other way of finding out what's effective without actually trying. So, that's what they're doing.

See it now?

 

I've always seen it. Do you?

It was put forward that the Prius Plug In was the better PHV because in prioritized overall efficiency and/or emissions without sacrificing ultility. Reports of people being disappointed with EV operation were met with announcements that they just understand it. Pointing out that the design had engineering and/or cost compromises was seen as slander.

Grid emissions could play a part in market differences in the operation of the car if emissions are the primary concern. They don't if it is about efficiency. It is mostly to meet regulation, subsidies, and market demands. Toyota engineers could strive for optimal efficiency, but are doing so under constraints. Cost is a fair one to be under. The others are reasonable if the goal is to sell more product. It just means the optimal needs a bigger footnote.

Except for the price, I think the PPI met its design goals nicely. I just wish Toyota would show more interest in selling it.

 

Compromises have been PRESENTED as a shortcoming, rather than a tradeoff.

The rub is they are looked back upon as the reader having SEEN them that way, when those of us who were there know that isn't what actually happened.

It's sad when the normal course of upgrading is deemed as a failure... which is why goals are asked for so often. We all remember the how Volt didn't meet the targets set for 2010, 2011, or 2012. No need to bring those up anymore. But why is requesting thoughts about goals for 2014 still treated the same way?

The answer should be obvious.

 

If enough people are asking Toyota for more EV range for them to consider it, then it is a shortcoming in the current model. When it was first released, it was expensive. Speculation before hand had the plug in price in the $3000 to $5000 range higher than the liftback. Which was a fair guess considering conversion prices and what Toyota could leverage with their size. But it was higher, and then it was loaded up with features to pad the bottom line. The lowest trim exceeded $30,000.

If it had been priced like a PHV for the people, the view might have been more trade offs versus shortcomings. But the higher price made it easier to compare to the Volt. It was the Insight II all over again. The sales were reflecting that over the past year.

The price cut brought the plug premium more inline with what was expected, and sales have improved. Still would like to see a lower trim, but I want nationwide availability first.

 

Transposing the situation misses the point.

 

That being?

Perhaps it is felt like short comings because the faithful couldn't admit there were compromises back then. That the PPI was just perfect as Toyota intended, and other paths were wrong.

PPI sales have improved. Maybe availability will expand next year.

 

Goals were clearly stated.

Goals were clearly met.

 

Except sales.

 

And customer satisfaction, apparently.

 

Reading claims that the plug-in Prius had different goals is quite vindicating. It's easy to spin now, long after the fact. But I documented what was said back then, in great detail. I know how Volt was hype to deliver 50 MPG after depletion and a 40-mile range prior to that... all for an affordable & profitable price. Instead, cost was much higher, range took a massive hit in the winter, MPG afterward was much lower, and the engine didn't even achieve a green emission rating.

Seeing Prius hit much closer to the mark and also be a larger vehicle makes it understandable why some would go to great lengths to preserve reputation. We even knew the damage-control effort would be so thorough, some would accuse Prius supporters of doing the very same thing.

Fortunately, we know what actually happened. We know what is happening now. There isn't even much to argue with either. One of the complaints about the Volt design early on what it's lack of flexibility. The platform took a one-size-fits-all approach. What business could thrive with such lack of diversity?

The topic here is sales. Toyota has deliver an array of engine, motor, battery configurations. That variety of offerings has worked well to confirm the HSD design. The next step as been taken by expanding battery choice and including a plug. We see Ford striving to do the very same thing. Honda would like to as well.

That leaves GM in an awkward position without a clear direction of how to proceed. Options are quite limited. That's why there is so much resistance to discussion about 2014.