What I don't like about the Prius Prime

Tideland Prius - That was a long explanation for a rather simple question.

I agree, there are many (if not most) of the public that do not understand much (if anything) about hybrids and EV (and etc).
But I suspect most of the PC writers (beyond the 7 active experts) are very knowledgable about the subject. I have been impressed with the explanations, charts, and especially that sources are identified when making comments.

What I perceive is a reduced (general) interest in hybrids by the public. Yesterday I saw a chart that list 2016 sales for all hybrid makes, and there is a general decline among all the brands (a few exceptions). Gasoline prices are cited. True, they are down, but here in the mountain west they are rising. I think there is lower interest even on PC. Every day I must search to find new comments among all the threads.

There are a lot of exciting vehicles on the market. Many with improved fuel efficiency. (The new Malibu is a most attractive car) meanwhile, Toyota is offering really strange looking vehicles (the new Corolla as well as the Prius hatchback). I think Toyota needs to 'shuffle' the design department.

 

I do not know: my hybrid fervor gets a recharge (excuse the pun) at every red light, sitting silent, surrounded by idling, exhausting dinosaurs with radiator fans cycling on/off, on/off...

 

Okay, Prime for plug in makes sense. I think the introduction of it with the Prius Prime is muddled. Comments by Toyota from the unveiling left me with the impression that Prime meant a more upscale model in addition to the plug; the Buick Prius if you will. Which rings the higher price bells. The Energis may not come in the lowest trim line as the hybrids, but Ford appeared to just stress that these were just the plug in versions and nothing more. "It has a bigger battery than the hybrid" is a plain and simple explanation for lost cargo space and higher cost.

Many seem unaware on the technical details for ICE cars, so Prime equals plug in is likely a good idea. The idea seems to have worked for Ford in selling their PHEVs. Then Toyota goes a couple steps further with a different exterior and interior from the Prius, Iconic. Does the fancier embellishments mean a higher price beyond the larger battery? Will future Prime's, like a Rav4, get the same treatment?

I like the new Corolla.

I don't think interest in hybrids is down, but it is more that they are old hat. The gas prices make it harder to justify the increased cost, and loss of trunk can cost a sale, but the hybrid market has been narrow in terms of car segments for awhile now. There is the Prius, C-max, and then a handful of midsize sedans for the most part. The Prius wagon gives more cargo room, but is still obviously a Pruis without the super high MPG. The Prius c was popular, in part, for being the cheapest hybrid out there; the econo segment it is in is more sensitive to the hybrid price premium with lower car prices, and many of the ICE models doing quite well on fuel economy.

So the hybrid market has been stagnant for several years now. Then the Rav4 hybrid arrived this year. It is doing very well, and might be the first hybrid to rival Prius sales in the US. Yet there is still no affordable hybrids in the larger SUV, crossover, minivan, and truck segments.

More and more of those ICE models are going to stop doing that in time.

 

Prius hybrid still seems to make great sense as a practical car for which buyers sacrifice nearly nothing for 50 MPG vehicles - most competing vehicles require a sacrifice of cargo space in the trunk. But some people want to buy American, and some Prius owners have now shifted over to Plug-Ins. Toyota still selling 70-75% of the hybrids sold in the USA. Also Congress is pushing plug-ins over hybrids, so Hybrids are forging a hard knock life in the USA, and doing pretty well.

 

Not without bigger batteries they aren't - are you saying every ICEV will soon be at least a mild hybrid? If so, that sounds like a vindication for hybrid tech, which for some time Toyota has been convinced is the future of ICEV tech.

Hybrids can shut down their engines at will because they can move on electric power, and "strong hybrids" like the Prius generally start from a full stop on electric and "push start" the ICE (this is a gross oversimplification, so I shall suffer whatever corrections are incoming - I know we are like that [sigh]). Start/stop also has bad consequences for ICEV accessories - even if you have electric A/C, it would quickly draw more power than a starter battery carries. So I think at least a mild "hybrid" configuration would be needed to move the needle on that - I'm just not sure if that's what you were saying.

While I agree with Toyota that ICEVs do need to go that way, where Toyota and I part ways is what we think comes next. I tend to think the incremental progress of battery tech and charging infrastructure will make BEVs ever more practical, with PHEVs as a useful bridge technology, while Toyota believes the Hydrogen Fairy is going to visit us and make the gross impracticalities of H2FC magically disappear. I suppose both positions are equally valid .

 

There is talk of actually going to 48 volt mild hybrid systems with electric accessories, though, on a lot of ICEVs. And, there's stop-start, but as you say, with belt-driven AC, it can't shut down with AC running (at least while the compressor needs to run).

 

That same talk has been around since before Prius rolled out here, back in 2000. In fact, that approach was an argument against Prius, claiming the hybrid system wasn't worth the effort.

 

Yep. I remember reading a Wired article about GM taking a Prius apart: With the Prius, says electrical engineer Michael Cutajar, "Toyota took a Corolla and added huge amounts of cost and complexity. They don't make any money on it." That was in 2006. Fast forward a decade and look who will have an easier time selling a plug-in. Many Toyota dealers now have many types of hybrids on their lot and I probably will have an easier time buying a Prime than I did my Plug-in Prius. Most GM dealers would rather sell you a Silverado, Tahoe, Suburban, Arcadia, Enclave, Yukon, Escalade, etc., etc.. In the first place you have to go to a specific GM dealership - like Chevrolet (or Cadillac but I'm not even going to touch that). And then your choices of hybrids are limited to 2 vehicles, Malibu Hybrid and Volt. And if you go to the GM website nothing about the word hybrid is even mentioned. Not like the Toyota web site that lists Hybrids as a vehicle type. So underneath the Hybrid vehicle type the Prime will be listed right along with the other Prius family.

 

What does increasing use of "mild hybrid" technology have to do with dis'ing the Prius?

The real mystery to me is why after more than a decade of unqualified success by Toyota's Prius line, it still has no meaningful competition, despite all the brain-dead media rambling about why the Prius is in trouble because the world ain't what it used to be, and now there are plenty of other hybrids and high MPG vehicles out there, blah, blah, blah. This is all rubbish, of course - perhaps that should have happened, but the fact is it didn't.

There is literally nothing on the market that does what the Gen4 Prius LB does, not even roughly. When the closest thing to competition in the U.S. market looks like Ford's clunky C-MAX, which falls short of the Gen4 LB across the board, I have to wonder what those journalists are smoking. I did quite a bit of research and window-shopping while waiting for the Gen4, concerned that it might not meet expectations, and found that nobody had even caught up to the Gen3, much less improved on it. When I finally saw the Gen4, then got more details, and at last was able to drive a Gen4 for myself, I saw how much further Toyota had moved the goalposts, and I bought the car without hesitation.

While I consider the Prime very much a niche (perhaps slice of a niche) product, the LB is as mainstream as it gets. It is a rolling case study for Toyota's argument on the efficiency of hybrid technology, and all the Stop-Start mild hybrid electrified accessory developments are an acknowledgment that Toyota has won that argument. I see no relationship between that reality and the denialist fantasies of Prius bashers c. 2000.

 

it's cheaper to make a car that 'almost' get 50 mpg, and you can sell them with other attractive features. but it may also be that no one has figured out how to engineer a system as efficient as hsd.

 

I've not actually driven a C-Max, but I wouldn't be surprised if it actually did have better handling than the Gen 3, and it's definitely got a lot more power. (And, really, it's aimed a little more at the Prius v than the standard Prius.)

As far as whether the Liftback is mainstream... that really depends on where you are, I think, it's not nationally mainstream like a Camry or a RAV4 is. (Really, crossovers are themselves completely mainstream, and I list both the Camry and RAV4 because they outsell the Liftback. IIRC, the Accord and CR-V do, too.) It has weird styling (even if you like it, which for the Gen 2, and after a while, the Gen 4, I do), and it's a liftback instead of a sedan, which reduces mainstream appeal in the US. In this neck of the woods, it's for people who do a lot of driving, or are treehuggers. (It used to just be for treehuggers, though.)

Hyundai is working on the Ioniq, as an attempt at a direct Prius competitor, but I wonder how well that will actually work in the market.

In any case, hybrid sales are down, because gas being cheap makes people not care that much about fuel efficiency, and Americans seem to want either larger sedans, crossovers, or pickups, and aren't willing to pay the hybrid premium (which absolutely exists, and in sedans, it also manifests in lost trunk space - that's even true of the Toyota hybrid sedans, except for the IS 300h that we don't get). I mean, a friend actually just traded in his Buick LaCrosse eAssist on a Hyundai Santa Fe Sport 2.0T, largely because of the cargo space, and the MPG not being that important, but wanting more performance. And, he didn't want a RAV4, so that ruled that out. (Which then gets into, the US market doesn't have much in the way of big efficient wagons, especially not accessibly priced, whereas you get a hell of a lot for your money in a crossover, and if you don't want a RAV4, that's it for accessibly priced hybrid crossovers, you're looking at straight ICE.) And, I think the sales being down is affecting the liftback - Toyota's already offering $0 down, 0.0% APR, 60 month financing, or $1500 on the hood, in the Gen 4's first model year.

Edit: Yes, it is - despite being a new generation, the Liftback was down 21.2% in May, up 1.1% in April, 14.3% down in March, 1.4% up in February, and 13.4% down in January, compared to those months in 2015. That's incredibly horrible for a new generation of a car.

 

that's how they advertised the c max when it first came out. turns out no one cared. i think it will be the same for prius and prime. a lot of smack talk, but buyers who want power and handling won't put their money where their mouth is. toyota succumbed to 'focus groups' who have no skin in the game.

 

The thing is that a lot of buyers are styling-sensitive, too, though, and Toyota's design language doesn't resonate with a lot of people that care about design language (this isn't just the Prius's problem).

I don't know that the improved handling alone will attract that many buyers, the slow-car-fast segment of the market being rather tiny in the US, and usually buying used cars, not new cars. It's certainly moved the Prius from a "no way in hell" (or a "buy a used Gen 2 that's dirt cheap and mod the crap out of it just to see if it's possible to make one fun to drive") to a "very strongly considering buying new" for me, though, and I doubt that it's hurt anything for the Prius's marketplace.

And, a lot of people like to get craploads of convenience features in their cars, and the hybrid premium eats into the convenience features that they can afford. Combine that with hybrids not being cool...

Note, of course, that this is actually not that far off of the topic of the Prime - first you have to convince people to get into a hybrid at all, after all. The Prime will appeal to three markets, I think - Californians who want HOV stickers and may never plug it in, Prius loyalists who want a plug-in experience, and some people who specifically want a plug-in but aren't ready to dive in to the deep end of a BEV, and don't like the other PHEV products on the market.

 

...then we can finally say Prime time is here for Toyota plug-ins

 

In markets were fuel was always expensive, auto start/stop was an option before hybrids arrived. With hybrids, such systems are now labeled micro-hybrids. To run the accessories, and also extend starter battery life, the car needs a bigger battery at the very least. The Malibu between the eAssist one and the current one had start/stop standard, and GM installed a second, deep discharge battery with isolator in the trunk.

I'll say more below, because it ventures into mild hybrids, but I'll say I view the hybrid groups this way; strong/full hybrids can start the car, and propel it purely on EV, only being limited by the battery. Mild hybrids don't have the power to move the car at all; they are start/stop with regen braking at the basic level, that might include actually engine off coasting. Any mild system that can add electric boost to the ICE for propulsion can be called an assist hybrid.

The lines between ICE and hybrid are already blurring, and most car buyers won't care exactly what their car is.

That's their regen system, but I don't think we get their start/stop one, which is a technical marvel by itself, in North America.

There was once talk of going 48 volt for cars back when the accessory loads started getting bigger.

The only reason ICE cars don't have an electric A/C is because they would have to run their engine to power it anyway. Start putting in bigger batteries, or capacitors, and putting in electric A/C should be a no brainer.

Mild hybrid systems are cheaper than a full one. GM is test selling some Chevy and GMC pick ups in California with their latest eAssist; it only adds $500 to the truck's price. Full hybrid premiums are still in the couple thousand dollar range. The question is whether the majority of car buyers feel the lower fuel economy gains will be worth paying even that lower amount.

I have a couple issues with Toyota's NA site. One is that they list their hybrids separate from the other cars Other makes might have a separate hybrid subgroup, but they also list the hybrid model under the other appropriate subgroup; the hybrid sedan is in with the sedans, the SUV one in with the ICE SUVs, etc.

After all is said and done, a hybrid without a plug gets all its energy from a fossil fuel(for now) like a plain old ICE. Going forward, more and more ICE models will be implementing start/stop or regen braking, and even go mild hybrid. Continuing to treat hybrids as separate by the maker will have the consumers treat them as something separate and different. We are approaching 2 decades since the Prius arrived. If you want hybrids to be mainstream, lump in with the mainstream ICE, and car buyers might stop focusing on what makes them different, and not want to be seen as different for buying one.

Not even Toyota has caught up to the Prius. Only the Prius c has gotten the 50mpg combined rating, too. This makes them the high end outlier for fuel economy. Throw in the Prius being the most successful and recognized hybrid to date, and you get what I call Prius Glasses; people looking down at other hybrids, of other makes mostly, because they don't get the Prius' numbers, and ignoring that such are an improvement over the ICE models. Aside for that previously mentioned c, no other Toyota or Lexus hybrid gets as great fuel economy either.

Depends on how you feel about how long it took to get a Rav4 hybrid, and still no minivan one for NA.

 

And another problem is that we report fuel economy in distance per fuel, not fuel per distance, and this makes large improvements in efficiency in an inefficient vehicle look small, and it makes small improvements in efficiency in an already efficient vehicle look big.

EPA mileage on the Silverado 1500 eAssist 2WD is 18/20/24 city/combined/highway, versus 16/18/22 for a Silverado C1500 5.3 liter with the 8-speed automatic.

People are going to look at that and say, "but it only does 2 mpg better? Why should I buy it?"

Let's compare to, say, the Prius Eco versus the standard Prius. 58/56/53 highway for the Eco, 54/52/50 for the standard Prius - 3-4 mpg better, averaging 4 mpg - so the $500 premium for a Silverado eAssist looks bad compared to the $500 premium for a Two Eco (that said, other than losing the rear wiper and spare tire, you gain other features for your $500 on the Two Eco). But, that doesn't tell the whole story.

Now, the next thing to say is, what about the percentage improvement?

For the Silverado, that's 12.5%/11.1%/9.1%. For the Prius, that's 7.4%/7.7%/6.0% (obviously, there's rounding errors creeping into the EPA figures)... now that's weighting things in favor of the Silverado, but even that doesn't tell the whole story - it's indicating that the Silverado is somewhere around 1.5-1.7 tmes the improvement as the Prius is.

So, European standards tend to use liters per 100 kilometers for fuel consumption, and that's what I'm going to do here, except I'll Americanize the units to gallons per 100 miles - really, it's 100 divided by the mpg.

The Silverado eAssist now gets 5.56/5.00/4.17 gallons per 100 miles, the standard truck gets 6.25/5.56/4.55, for a savings of 0.69/0.56/0.38 gallons per 100 miles. The Prius Eco now gets 1.72/1.79/1.89 gal/100 mi, the standard Prius gets 1.85/1.92/2.00 gal/100 mi, for a savings of 0.13/0.14/0.11 gal/100 mi, and this shows the real fuel savings - the $500 premium on the Silverado eAssist saves you 3-5x the fuel that the $500 premium on the Prius Eco does, even though the MPG representation makes it look like it saves 0.5x the fuel, and a percentage of MPG representation makes it look like it saves 1.5-1.7x the fuel.

 

LOL, Canada also uses the same L/100km standard as Europe, and it does make good sense (as metric generally does). I think you make a good case for it.

 

Superior drivability has been the C-MAX calling card from Day 1, but Ford's misstated MPG concealed the cost of its more responsive drivetrain during that critical first year; it's become a lot clearer since then that there's no free lunch (and it's only gotten worse compared with the Gen4 LB - 42cty/37hwy is not in the ballpark with 54/50), but first impressions do linger. I haven't seen an A/B of the C-MAX and Gen4 yet, but I'm sure real-world acceleration feel (as opposed to track numbers) has narrowed a bit, and any handling gap narrowed a lot more. The people-mover looks of the C-MAX might be preferred by some over the Starship Prius aesthetic, but it's not clear to me that the "dull vs. weird" styling trade-off is a slam-dunk win for the C-MAX.

As to comparisons with the v, I think that would be wishful thinking on Ford's part. At best the body type splits the difference between LB and v, and the volume of cargo space shaved by even the hybrid's raised floor (forget the Energi, which clearly has less utility than a Prius LB) tips the scale further from the v.

That's a reasonable assessment, so I should clarify what I meant by "mainstream". In saying that the Gen4 LB is a mainstream vehicle, I'm referring to the use cases it functionally addresses, not the vagaries of U.S. consumer sentiment. The Prius LB can comfortably transport four adults and a fair load of clean cargo (no gravel or manure please), or two adults and a freaking huge load, and it does this with bleeding-edge fuel efficiency and rock-solid reliability, at an average selling price well below the $34k U.S. new vehicle average.

The fact that U.S. buyers are truck-philic and hatch-phobic is less a matter of taste than a mental condition, as evidenced by the infantile CUV phenomenon (e.g., Ford couldn't sell consumers the perfectly fine Freestyle station wagon, aka Taurus X, until they put it in a cute little SUV costume and called it the Explorer - and if you didn't know that, check Ford D3 platform - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). The Prius' failure to align with all this unreason does nothing to diminish its suitability for most U.S. households. I don't think the same will be true of the Prime, which is why I characterized it as less mainstream.

This is all very true. My own earlier comments were kind of a drive-by in an exchange between someone saying how nice it was to sit quietly at a red light instead of rumbling and belching fumes, and a response that ICEVs are increasingly not doing those things. My reaction was that to the extent that's true, it's only because those ICEVs are in fact becoming hybrids. As you note here, the difference is becoming more one of degree than kind - eventually, every ICEV will be a hybrid of one sort other, so the term hybrid might just fall from the automotive lexicon as electric A/C, start-stop, and engine-assist all become the norm (eAWD is a nice option that I also hope to see more widely adopted).

At that point, the Prius won't be a technological freak, just a particularly efficiency-focused model. I think that niche is likely to remain viable, because the Prius LB's efficiency goes far beyond the hybrid drivetrain, including choice of materials and body form that value fuel economy over lowest cost, pure styling, and other considerations. As has already been noted in this thread, while other hybrids achieve significant improvements in fuel economy over their non-hybrid model-mates, the lack of this full-vehicle commitment to efficiency has yielded predictably unimpressive final results (e.g., the problems noted with the C-MAX above).

Somewhere between the mild hybrid e-assist systems and Toyota's HSD, I'm interested to see how far companies like Hyundai can take parallel two-clutch (P2) designs. The latest Sonata hybrid looks like a meaningful step forward, and the Ioniq and Niro promise further refinement/improvement. If they can deliver near-HSD fuel economy at little more than e-assist costs, this might hit the near-term sweet spot of cost efficiency needed for wide adoption. Much as I love driving electric, I don't think the "gas-powered EV" design of the Malibu and Accord is as likely to win the race (it makes more sense for the Volt, which usually runs as an EV and so is less concerned with hybrid MPG), but it's too early to be sure.