What are your thoughts on the Gen. 4 Prius?

I agree, you already haft the Gen 4 at $25k to 30K or more. The Lexus ct makes sense to a pretty small market, and it's not a cheap anything.

The step down to the Prius C is quite a step down. I think many buyers might see the Corolla as a happy medium, or perhaps this Scion IA, which is a tad smaller than the Corolla, higher mileage, and cheaper. Not sure what kind of deal Toyota has with Mazda on this car, as it is a rebadged Mazda 2.

Since the Prius C is already so affordable, one would think reworking the platform to make it more like the new Gen 4 would be a natural fit. The Prius C needs refinement in terms of ride, noise, engine in that order. To compare the choices, the Only thing I miss from a Prius C to the Scion ia is the cargo room. For the money, the C is a pretty darn decent choice.

 

I was going to make that comparison at one point, but thought some might find it excessive. The truth is, for all the lousy press the Mirage has gotten, many owners are quite fond of them, and they are very inexpensive both to purchase and operate, with unexpected space in such a tiny footprint and a surprisingly compliant ride for a cheap car on a small wheelbase. All the way round, I can say driving them back to back that I actually found the radically tiny Scion iQ a more comfortable and inoffensive car to drive than the Prius c (even a Four, which is what I tested), so a comparison to the Mirage is not out of the question. If the next Prius c isn't built on chopped TNGA with a somewhat downgraded suspension, they should't even bother (see comments on CT replacement below).

For all intents and purposes, the Prius c is a Yaris hybrid; the two have far more in common than a Prius and an Auris Hybrid (and that difference grew even greater with the Gen4). As near as I can tell the c is a marketing stunt, wrapping a Yaris Hybrid in Prius-shaped sheetmetal, because they figured (correctly, at least at first) that dumb Americans would pay more for it that way. The car is far from the worst thing I've ever driven, but it's certainly the worst for the price.

The Camry was a non-starter for us because of the trunk/boot. With its weirdly shaped Ford-style battery intrusion and a small pass through, instead of a full hatch with full fold-down seats, the Camry Hybrid is just less useful than the Prius LB, regardless of how many additional ping pong balls can be dumped into the CH's trunk (I've always wished Toyota had handled that better - a comparison with the trunk of the current Hyundai Sonata Hybrid is instructive). As to its other virtues, the Camry possesses those largely at the expense of fuel economy, and we preferred the MPG. If I found the Prius insufficiently plush, I'd probably opt to spend the extra dollars for the Avalon Hybrid (we did consider it before we got a chance to test-drive the Gen4 LB). The AH is both more comfortable and more useful than the CH, with identical highway mpg and less than 10% penalty around town.

If you mean the current Prius c, then good God, NO!! The Yaris/c is a fairly crappy platform, noticeably inferior to the Sonic. There ain't no amount of lipstick gonna pretty up that pig; seriously, it would be the most embarrassing luxo-mini since the Cadillac Cimarron, a no-doubter absolute downgrade from the CT. A better bet would be a crossover on a chopped TNGA platform (which I'm hoping will be used for the next Prius c, so shorter than Prius LB but taller in crossover form). That would still be clearly a class down from the NX but a MUCH better car.

 

The Prius c is longer wheelbase, however, than the actual Yaris, and likely will get better highway mileage due to better aerodynamics that the additional length enables. That added length probably does make it appealing to Americans, though. And, it's the best selling car in Japan, as the Toyota Aqua (no Prius badging required), so...

And, yeah, I should have clarified that I meant a Prius c-like, but lifted, vehicle on NGA-B (the Yaris-sized variant of TNGA - the Prius apparently being on NGA-C (which is the Corolla-sized variant)) with far, far higher quality.

 

Good point about the Aqua - the Japanese may be as big a sucker for a pretty (or at least Prius-shaped) face as their American brethren. But yeah, I just read you wrong - we're on the same page. And thanks for mentioning the correct NGA-B/C terminology I was too lazy to look up.

[COMPLETELY off topic - seeing that you're in Newark, just wondering - did anyone ever buy and/or move into the Big Basket? ]

 

As far as I know, nope.

 

Hello - Inferno here, Prius enthusiast with a Gen III 2010 at home along with a PiP 2012. I had the opportunity to test drive a base model Gen IV in my area (MA) which was > $25,000 (and my Gen 3 Package 3 was $24,500 when all said and done).

So - be aware I'm coming at this from a Gen III perspective...

To keep it simple I'll just list some bullet points.

Pros (Outside):

• It actually looks better in person and not too horrendous like the pics depict. I like this evolution in look for the Prius, the Gen 3 officially looks out dated.
• Of course with this model you're getting a 52 mpg combined vs 50 which is great, even if it's slight. I can't wait to drive the echo which gets 56mpg.
• I was told there's a better guard in the under carriage to prevent damage to bottoming out (not confirmed).
• The vehicle itself doesn't seem to sit lower even though it's reported 1 inch lower.
• There are "waves" on the Gen III (on the roof) supposedly for efficiency at high speeds but they oddly appear to be missing (maybe they didn't matter).
• Tires look great especially the new design, definitely stands out.
• Overall the car looks like a way sportier Prius!

Cons (Outside):

• I can't think of any! Good job Toyota! If I were to stretch for a con...maybe the fact it's more sedan-looking? But again, that's a huge stretch.

Pros (Inside):

• Being a base-model it sure feels nice to be inside this car. it looks like it's more luxurious than the Gen III base models, so that's great.
• Being a base-model we're also treated with a huge screen that's flushed with the console.
• I like the OSD in the middle and it's definitely more informative than the 80's computer look of the Prius.
• The front-seats feel extremely spatious.
• The view looks great, there definitely seems to be less blindspots in the front.
• The control panel console looks great and very sporty.
• I love the feel of the car overall, it feels edgier and the steering wheel is actually a nice small improvement in grip and style.
• Cupholders are nicer.

Cons (Inside):

• Now here's where I don't get what Toyota is doing and it seems to be a step backwards...
• There's no wifi charger in the base model for phones, but the footprint of that space seems less than the floating bride of the Gen III.
• The front compartments is missing the top which is a huge question mark, you only get the bottom compartment. My guess is the top one was removed because the trim of the dashboard flows into that side...it's a negative that I consider because of the loss of storage space.
• The middle console swings open from the driver's side which begs the question "why the heck would they do that?" As a passenger I may be inclined to help the driver out and grab something from the middle console, but this is not the case here and seems very driver centric (the person who will be, uhm, driving...)
• The backseats actually seem smaller in height. I'm a shorter person (5'4") and I bumped my head coming out of the car! Whereas a 6' person was doable in a Gen III, I feel like anyone above 5'6" will have some issues sitting in the back. Why Toyota?
• Upon looking at the space in the trunk area it does seem smaller...Another "Wth" moment. It's rated larger by the EPA compared to the Gen III and we've heard about the questionable ways they measure the space in the back - but it definitely looks a lot smaller (no scientific measurements here). It perhaps is a little longer, but it doesn't help that the height of the car comes down dramatically and therefore gives a more claustrophobic feeling.
• What's with the bottom part of the steering wheel? I must admit, I didn't get bothered while driving it...

Pros (Driving):

• The car is fun to drive, edgier, tighter and I can feel the EV motor accelerate faster than the wimpy Gen III one.
• I love the displays given upon driving, though it's not as self-explanatory as the Gen III - I had to play around with the control buttons on the steering wheel quite a bit to figure out what I was looking at.
• The big screen is a nice addition even though nav wasn't included, it's very clear and crisp and high quality - if this was the year 2010, I'd feel like this was a mid-level Lexus brand.
• Switching modes wasn't as bad as I thought (whereas the Gen III had 3 distinct buttons), this one had one to switch from Power, Normal and Eco. Power mode seems just as powerful as the Gen III, but I can tell in all modes 0-30 is a lot faster.
• Considering the base model - loved the back-up camera and the indicators for guiding me back.

Cons (Driving):

• Screens are a bit complicated.
• The center console is laid out nice, but the steering wheel could use improvement with its buttons (it is a bit confusing).

Overall - this is the Gen III Prius we wished we had minus a few questionable decisions.

• Why does the backseat feel more claustrophobic and shorter?
• Why does the trunk actually seem smaller?

I commend Toyota for the looks and improvements of fuel efficiency, but question them in practicality which I feel like was a base-band for Prii altogether. This car becomes less practical and more "cool". Coming from a Gen III I may stand firm and say, "why upgrade?" For 2 measily mpg? The eco may be a slightly different story, but I feel the negatives outweigh the positives in this case.

Toyota definitely brings the Gen IV with less utility and more fun to drive. I look at the improvements over the years regarding Prii, from Gen I to Gen III. I laud Toyota for the improvements. I see Gen III to Gen IV, I start questioning the so-called "improvements". Can this still be a family car? Yes. Worth the upgrade from Gen II? Most likely yes. Worth giving up your Gen III? I would say no.

I do research and do hear that the Gen IV has a larger range of MPG improvements, better than the Gen III.

However, on paper and after test-driving it, the Gen III feels more like a collectors edition - it is the pinnacle of Toyota's hybrid success, and it feels like the top of the curve that they are now plateaued. The Gen IV feels more like a horizontal state of improvement versus vertical. It's like the Gen IIIs more beautiful cousin. Looks better, better mpgs, but less utility (less space in the back, trunk and front compartments). Questionable design decisions prevent the Gen IV in my books from being a vertical improvement or "evolution".

Yes it looks more like a sedan, but was that what the Gen III was about? It is unfortunate the low gas prices might have an impact on hybrids...but Toyota really hit gold with the Gen III. It feels like a mixture of silver with the Gen IV but it's not enough for the 6 years it was in the pipeline. Overall, Toyota must've reached its goal, sportiness versus utility. Widespread appeal? We'll see...

I can foresee that maybe this will attract newer buyers, Gen III buyers? Less so. Newer buyers who have taller family and friends...? Good luck!

I am neither disappointed nor amazed by the Gen IV. It's like what I said...This is the more beautiful and slightly more efficient cousin of my Gen III, which I'm perfectly happy with.

 

Throughout you seem to be confusing the EPA ratings with "what you will get". They are just lab test numbers. IMO (having owned a 2011 Gen 3 for 5 years) the Gen 4 has a lot more mpg potential above the EPA rating than the Gen 3 does, thanks to various factors:
- a willingness to turn off the gas engine sooner after a cold start, as soon as the coolant reaches about 120F
- the ability to turn off the gas engine at speeds >46mph, all the way up to about 70mph
Mine has given me highway trip mpg's in the low 80's, which I could never have done in my Gen 3.

As a measure of the meaningfulness of the EPA numbers, the Gen 4 Model 2 ECO EPA ratings are 53 mpg highway, 58 city, but I get much better actual mpg on the highway than I do tooling around on errands (probably shorter trips, but still most of my local trips are 7 miles each way).

As for space, I have to take the clothes dryer I am donating to Habitat over to their "ReStore" shop, and measurements indicate it will fit in the back of my Gen 4.

I would say yes, absolutely.

 

nice write up inferno, thanks! too bad you didn't have a tape measure with you to measure the hatch, while you had the opportunity to line them up side by side. looking at the video done by the gentleman in hawaii, the hatch looked huge with him and his golf clubs in there.

 

Thanks for the great review!

I agree on the glove compartment, but then I looked at what I am keeping in there and how much I am using that stuff, and I don't really think I need to drag it around any more. Not to mention a huge map book I *never* used in 6 years of owning the car.

The trunk, I will miss the under floor storage - sure. But again, it is full with....stuff I hardly if ever use. And yes, the trunk is bigger - as confirmed also by other measurements done by italian and german magazine reviews, tape at hand.

As for fuel consumption, I think the EPA ratings are extremely conservative. In EU it is rated 25% more fuel efficient.
From what I read here and my impressions when I test drove it, I think that a good 25%+ improvement in all conditions to the Gen3 is possible - without too much effort. Gen3 feels already (since I first owned it) too willing to use the ICE and I have always felt the battery was not big enough to support EV gliding when it made sense (flat road, not really high speed), simply because it didn't manage.
The Hybrid ECO area (the lower half of the HSI indicator) is essentially unusable in regular driving in Gen3, as the electric motor can hardly, if at all, glide the car at speeds beyond 50km/h (30mph) most times. Only a solid charged battery allows that. That was not my impression on Gen4, which benefits from at least 5 years improvements in power electronics. And I can tell you, 5 years are a *LOT* (I work in the industry).

So, I did order a Gen4 to change my 6 years' old Gen3 with 100.000km (62k mi). Is the Gen3 "new", yes - but the design is meh (always been to me) and looks old to me already since months.
Do I need to change it? no. But I am sure I am not getting a worse car than Gen3, quite the contrary. The silence alone while driving, compared to Gen3, is already a reason itself to get the Gen4...Not mentioning the Safety Sense features. And all the energy savings from LED lights, improved AC and more efficient electronics.
Could I not afford it, I would still be very glad to drive a Gen3 which offers wonderful mpg even in diesel-land (see here).

And I live in a cold area: I am really curious to see how it will perform then, with the self closing grille. That's where the interesting stuff will show up.

 

Interesting, I forgot about the sound deadening portion. Also, I'm going from a family of 6 perspective (already too large for the car, but we constantly pack 5 while leaving the older one behind). And we pack everything from a stroller to misc other things. The trunk does seem longer, but less height, so I wonder how my stroller would do in there...

I wonder why EPA is falling short of real-world figures. It's supposed to be a standard 'real-world' figure. I like the fact that Prii always outperform them though.

The base car is also pricier than the base of my mid-level Gen III, which is odd. And will prices go up due to the Earthquake? I think on average on the fuelly, the car is like 11% more fuel efficient in general, worst mpg is like 49 mpg which I know can be like 39 for the Gen III.

It's a great car, but the back seat height kills it for me, trunk height...not sure until I pack it! Will the dealership let me do that?

 

cars can be programmed to the epa test, or not. it's only one set of driving experiences, hard to duplicate the many things that happen in real life.

 

Yes, EPA ratings are intended only to be used as a basis for comparisons between different vehicles, and may not reflect "real life", whatever that is, though the EPA tries. As an extreme example, the EPA combined rating on my 2006 MT Insight-I is 52mpg. I used it mostly for commuting and trips, and my lifetime average in it was 84mpg (and others got higher numbers). On a good day in the summer it would yield trips in the 100-110mpg range, in the winter staying above 80mpg was tough, and once battling into the teeth of a nor'easter it was down in the 40's. As far as I know we didn't leave the planet, so all of those were "real world".

Fuel economy is really a range, not a single number or even a few numbers.

The data on fuel economy websites is probably a better indicator of what might be expected than the EPA ratings are.

List price on my Model 2 ECO is $24,700. Unfortunately I gave the buyer the paperwork when I sold my 2011 Gen 3 Model Two, but as I recall its list price was only about $500 less than the new one's. And of course there was inflation over those 5 years. I was surprised that the price had not risen more.

 

a good way to get positive buzz from car mags is to have your vehicle do better than epa when they test drive it, cause they drive them hard, which the gen 4 did. conversely, if you game the epa numbers, you get negative buzz and a damaged reputation.

 

Do you still have the insight? I wonder if Honda just marketed it wrong, because those Real World Figures are ridiculous.

 

tough to sell a two seat non sports car. and i believe it had high pollution numbers.

 

An amazing car. I sold it last year. I retired so I wasn't commuting any more, and I had the Prius which had more room for carrying stuff (the Insight-I is a 2-seater).

Nope. The MT version was ULEV. It had lean burn (up to 25:1 air/fuel ratio), so it used a NOx trap because lean burn produces more nitrous oxides. Still very clean. The AT version lacked lean burn and so was SULEV.

 

I agree that the Gen III was the pinnacle of their success, but the Gen II was what really made the Prius take off and succeed. It was a normal, great car (and practical). It was the biggest improvement in the Prius family by far.

 

agreed, gen 2 was a tough act to follow. in fact, in the 12 years since it came out, no other manufacturer has even been able to accomplish it.

 

Right? This is something that continues to puzzle me. Only Ford has tried an approach similar to Toyota HSD, but the best they've come up with is the C-MAX, which definitely ain't no Prius. GM and Honda have focused on systems that depend more on electrical propulsion, but Voltec hasn't managed to match HSD efficiency, and while Honda's Accord Hybrid is quite impressive, its HEV cred comes at the expense of a half-sized trunk. Hyundai/Kia and some other manufacturers have been pursuing more cost-effective P2 configurations, and the Sonata Hybrid's real-world 40 MPG (in a conventional mid-size sedan) does bode well for the purpose-built Ioniq.

But none of these bests even the Gen2 Prius LB's overall combination of fuel economy, drivability, comfort, and utility, much less the Gen4.