Prius c is 'Aqua' in Japan. Will return 94mpg japan cycle (61 us)

It actually became available toward the end of the model year. When I ordered mine in March, it wasn't available. The dealer called me in September or October and said it was available as an after-sale add on since it was becoming available in the later builds. It was not available in March.

 

I want one.

 

Hmm, another GenII '07/50,000 miles owner thinking about the c.

Here's what I like about my GenII (April 07) over the c

53/57 mpg (winter/summer) I don't see 65 mpg as a major improvement.
Backup camera
MFD
Speed console near the driver's seat (not at the center)
Quiet (function of size)
Value 15,500, paid off.

Here's what I don't like about my GenII compare to the c.

Driver's seat/position/seats/lack of telescopic steering wheel.
Older, odd looks.
Mechanical issues with many pumps being somewhat problematic
Battery fan unprotected/no filter

Conclusion: I am thinking of adding aftermarket seats on my GenII to make it feel newer

 

Your car is rated at 46 combined. If you're pulling 9 more than that due to driving habits you would expect a car rated at 61 mpg to do substantially better than that--closer to 70 I should think.

 

Hmm, my guess is that it will not be that simple, particularly because my mpg is a function of a specific highway/city mileage ratio, not some 35 mph gliding routine.

We don't know how the shortened c will behave on the highway and my guess is that, given how smaller cars struggle with aerodynamics at high speeds, mpg gains on the highway will be modest. Instead the reduced weight and more efficient Gen III engine should help with gliding in the city.

 

I'm curious, where do you get this idea from? A smaller car generally has a smaller CdA, which means less power is needed to push it through the air. Which generally means better mpg for the same size motor (especially with lower weight).

 

It is generally thought that it is more difficult to make shorter cars (lengthwise) as aerodynamic as longer cars. And, as you likely know, aerodynamics plays a greater role in fuel efficiency in highway driving than it does in stop-and-go driving.

(Why Do Subcompacts and Compacts Get Such Similar Mileage? - KickingTires)

In most cases . . . compact cars are significantly larger, heavier and more powerful than their subcompact siblings. Why then is their gas mileage so similar? At the auto show, I posed the question to automakers and analysts. The simple answer: aerodynamics.

“Keep in mind that technology will help both [highway and city mileage], but not at the same rates,” said Mike O’Brien, Hyundai’s vice president of product planning. “The city number is going to be the bigger difference when you go a class up in car size.”

Conversely, the fight for better highway mileage goes against what O’Brien calls “road load,” a combination of the vehicle’s frontal size, tire friction and drag.

In some cases, it’s actually harder to eke out better highway mileage in a subcompact car, said IHS Global Insight analyst Aaron Bragman.

“When you have a B-segment [subcompact] car, it’s very hard to make it aerodynamic, given how short it is and how many of them end abruptly,” Bragman said.

 

That makes sense, but is a relative comparison still; even though he says "it's actually harder" I cannot think of a subcompact at this time that gets inferior mileage to its compact brethren of the same vintage. I do see on fueleconomy.gov that the accent is not rated any better than the Elantra, though.

 

The point is that the gain in mpg from lower weight will be more evident in lower speeds than in highway speed. So the c is more likely to offer significant mpg advantages to those who drive in the city than on the highway. I don't think it will be "worse" on the highway because the weight reduction does help. But it doesn't help as much because of the lack of improvement on aerodynamics.

 

Just compare the Prius and CT200 fuel economy. They have the same drive train and nearly the same weight. Different wheels and tires play a part, but most of the economy difference is in their shape. That larger rear area on the CT200 means a larger low pressure zone that can actually pull back on the car as it moves forward.

Those two are also close in length. The c will be shorter which gives less length for a kammback to be effective while maintaining cargo and rear passenger space. The Honda CRX, Insight, and CRZ pull it off by dropping the rear seat. Sedan versions tend to have a better rear aero than their hatch siblings because they don't have a square end.

Hatchbacks are great for utility, but they can have nearly all the areo penalties of a SUV.

 

I correct myself. The amazing aqua color is actually available in all trim levels but the L trim level comes only in aqua.

 

Introduction draws a bit closer:

2013 Toyota Prius C: Higher MPG, Lower Price, And Sportier

 

Now they're (TMC) saying 83mpg

 

TMC press release

 

The 94 mpg quoted in the title of this thread was referring to the 10-15 cycle.
In Japan, they have two tests cycles:
The (older) 10-15 cycle in which the aqua returned 40 km/l (about 94 mpg), and the (newer) JC08 cycle in which the aqua returned 35.4 km/l (about 83 mpg).

 

My poor math skills says there's a (crude) .65 conversion factor going from JC08 to EPA. So the latest 83mpg figure released from Toyota converts to (drum roll): 54mpg.

 

Yeah, that should be ballpark, but ... from the rumors the highway engine will be less efficient on the highway portion than the current 1.8L. The cd is 0.28 so even with a smaller frontal area it should have a higher cdA. I'm guessing the highway miles won't exceed the gen III liftback's 48mpg, which will leave us with a combined mileage around 52mpg.

 

Of course, that's just the EPA mileage. The smaller displacement should allow much better mileage for drivers who keep their speed down.

 

Interesting that they don't mention anything about a sunroof. They seem to be showing one in the pre-production promos here.

 

Just an educated guess at EPA. We should know the real numbers soon enough. The prius c should get better lower speed mileage because lower weight.

On the smaller engine displacement getting better milage, that would be only if all things were equal, and that is not likely the case. The 1.5l appears to be largely unchanged from the prius gen II, and the gen III engine is more efficient on a range of power levels. Toyota can update the 1.5L and make it more efficient on a future version. I hope the bsfc curves are out soon, the we will know if the improved egr or other things were done to make 1NZ more efficient. It is a less expensive, lighter, and smaller engine. A combination of these reasons may be why toyota chose it, but I would suspect lower cost for it and the rest of the hsd.

You can see on the graph the 1.8L gets 220 g/kwh over a range as big as the 1.5 gets 230 g/kwh. The 1.8L engine is more efficient at lower power levels, and quieter at higher power levels.
http://ecomodder.com/wiki/index.php...n_(BSFC)_Maps#Toyota_Prius_1.8L_2ZR-FXE_2010-