MISC questions about the Plug-in

Wow, you are quite the guy. You are truly the epitome of an internet troll and I'm sure why we are feeding you on here.

 

I remember an article about the CHP and the I-5 south of the El Toro Y, and the spokeswoman saying "if you're going less than 80mph, we probably won't even look at you."

On 65mph roads in SoCal, I've never seen anyone pulled over for driving 75mph. Now, in rural areas where the posted limit is 70mph, if you're going 85mph you'll definitely see Mr. CHPs. In general, I try to not exceed 78mph and so far, so good. (Knocking on wood.)

It is a fact that people driving the speed limit in the #1 lane are more of a hazard than those who have to go around these self-proclaimed CHPs.

 

agreed. i keep the his below the hv point to keep the ice off as i'm rolling in. if you need acceleration, this isn't ideal.

 

You don't. There is ONE Li-ion traction battery, that's LOGICALLY managed as two separate pools in the PiP software. Think of this as having two drive letters (partitions) on your PC, only the relative size of the respective partitions is dynamically allocated.

 

you're completely confused, where are you getting your information bill norton?

 

Just like rxlaw said, it's one battery but is displayed with the illusion of two, for some "Logical" reason....

And the standard Prius has Ni-MH batteries.

Both with a simple fan blowing cabin temp air through the battery pack.

 

You never take long road trips, huh Bill?

 

The logical reason is that when there isn't enough battery capacity to drive in EV mode the display shifts to look like a regular Prius hybrid, as is familiar to the millions of Toyota customers. When in this mode the driver may be able to drive in EV for short periods, but the ICE may also come. The battery display, in this case gives you an indication of the relative amount of battery capacity you have: high battery means EV may be possible; low battery probably means the ICE may come on even when stopped.

Yes, the small NiMH battery in all the various Toyota hybrids only needs a simple fan. More complicated than that means more expensive and something more to go wrong. Over ~17 years, the low replacement rate for the NiMH batteries has proved this to be the case, I would think.

In the PIP, the 4.4 Kwh Li-ion battery also uses a simple fan rather than a more complex cooling system needed by cars with bigger batteries that have a higher charging rate. We have yet to see what the longevity of these batteries is. Maybe Toyota will need to replace some (a lot?) of them before the 10 yr warranty expires. Or maybe not. But simple means, less cost, less prone to malfunction, smaller, lighter and more efficient to charge.

Mike

 

I have watched (via torque) battery temps pretty closely and have been pleasantly surprised to see temps barely move upward upon usage...much, much less than I was used to seeing in the regular Gen3 Prius I used to have.

 

If I recall the diagrams and my brief forays under the floorcovers, it's actually an array of 3 squarish fans along the rear ducting air in from the passenger side, which also seems to have a larger blower motor drawing from the larger intake in the RH rear seat.

The LH rear seat has a vent just below the seat (also intake, I believe), but not sure where that one's going to. I suspect it's just an additional channel for the LH side of the Li-Ion.

 

I would be in the market for a Prius Plug-in with an extended EV range, say 40+ miles on a charge. I know that Toyota has already thrown cold water on the idea, but I don't think I'm alone in this opinion.

 

they'll come around when they see someone else making money at it.

 

Sometimes people drive the speed limit because they believe it is safer. Of course, they should always stay in the furthest right lane unless in the act of passing.

 

I drive at or under the speed limit, and I do stay in the right lane as much as possible, because:

1. I get better mileage.
2. It is the law.
3. It keeps me out of that inflationary speed mindset, that inevitably leads to lane jumping, tail gating and so on.
4. I stand a better chance of not dying or killing someone.
5. I get better mileage.

 

You're fortunate you live in an area and drive in the kind of roads and in traffic where that it's possible.
On major roadways here (NY) - that could prove disastrous, and from what I've read here and on other forums in areas like LA, Atlanta, Chicago it would be equally dangerous to other drivers as well as yourself.
I'd like to stay at the limit for all the reasons you listed, but it's simply not feasible on all roads.

 

It wouldn't be a problem if everyone respected the speed limit. Personally, I favor higher speed limits; the arguments for lowering the speed limits are mostly an exercise in infinite regression, therefore they always argue for lower speed-limits, and an unrealistic expectation of safety. I believe that if the upper speed limit was closer to what competent drivers are actually able to maintain, there would be a lot less speeding. For the idiots however, I see a place for more photo-radar.

I see no reason why technology can't provide us with a safer, higher speed limit. Electronic collision warning, vehicle spacing, traction control and better crash safety can all contribute to giving us a shorter and safer commute time, by allowing us to travel faster.

 

What actual MPH or KM/H are you specifically referring?

There's a huge safety different when it comes to the highway itself. Some simply have too many hills, turns, and ramps to allow for faster. Others, it's no big deal.

Think about how many decades it will take before all the vehicles on the road have that technology standard. We're in for a very long wait.

And even then, some road conditions make the current limit dangerous. Regulations for how the technology work will take equally as long to work out. Liability...

 

I don't know what the roads are like where you are, but here, they all have to pass a standard, and therefore get a standard speed limit, based on the class of road. Any road, or part of the road which fails to meet that standard has a lower speed limit specified by signs.

My argument is that those limits can be raised, because it would eliminate a lot of frustration which causes accidents, and also that technology can allow for safer travel at higher speeds.