I shot this Prius sporting a Turbo badge a few years back, and laughed it off as a humorous oxymoron. But then last night, as I was driving home from Portland down flat and straight I-5 in the TSX, monitoring my speed and fuel economy to see at what steady speed I could still break 30 mpg (80-81 mph), it occurred to me: I can’t be the only person who loves both high speed and high efficiency. So why doesn’t Toyota build a sporty Prius, one that can hit 0-60 in say six seconds, and still break 40 mpg at 80 mph? It can’t be that hard.
I’ve been a fan of highly aerodynamic cars since I first encountered Tatras as a little kid. Their superb aerodynamics made them fast beyond anything else in their displacement class. They were just the thing for a fast run on the new German autobahns.
Many love to hate on the Prius’ shape, but I suspect that has more to do with its image. If the Prius had been built as a high performance sedan, using its superb aerodynamics for speed, I suspect there would be less negativity. It’s the Tatra of its time. Now it just needs a bit more oomph, although a stock Prius will hit 112 or more. Not quite enough for a serious blast on the autobahn or the Oregon high desert.
And its 0-60 of some 10 seconds or more is hardly breathtaking. So how about a bit of performance upgrading, which really doesn’t have to effect efficiency materially. A turbo on the Atkinson-cycle 1.8L four to boost it up to some 130-140 hp. And a bigger battery and electric motor from Toyota’s parts bin, as used in one of their bigger hybrids, to augment the gas engine even more on acceleration.
It should be pretty easy to get that 0-60 time down to around 6 seconds, and top speed up to 130+, on a continuous basis, even when the battery gives out. And round out the package with steering and suspension upgrades, as well as a bit more bodywork to make it obvious that this is not just an eco-weenie-mobile.
Given that current low gas prices are bound to affect Prius sales negatively, creating an Eco-Sport Turbo Prius seems like a viable undertaking, one that would round out the Prius family and wouldn’t cost that much to put together. It’s the perfect bridge between performance and efficiency. I can’t be the only one that likes to roll down the road fast and economically, watching both the speedometer and average mpg readout.
Why doesn’t Toyota build a sporty Prius? Because they’re not Honda.
While 0-60 in around 9 seconds is an improvement, I wouldn’t exactly call the CR-Z sporty. It still gets outrun by minivans.
Until you have to brake for a corner – and get round it!
But then, if all that mattered was to win the traffic light drag race you wouldn’t be looking at a CR-Z.
Still, the CR-Z’s generally dismal sales are not a strong incentive for someone else to try something conceptually similar in this realm (high-end exotic hybrids notwithstanding).
Toyota doesn’t make sporty anything anymore, except in Scion guise.
I have trouble reconciling Epicurean sports cars with eco-Puritanism, which is why the CRZ puzzles me. But I do give Honda points for trying different things now & then, like the S2000 & NSX, whereas Toyota these days usually plays it safe. However, Toyota has Honda beat in dedicated hybrids.
What would an Epicurean sports car be? The real Epicurus valued simple pleasures. He was said to most enjoy a simple dish of lentils, along with a fair bit of wine and, most importantly, intellectual discussions with friends.
If Epicurus were alive today he might drive a car like my ’93 Miata. A car that I find more enjoyable than my old BMW M5. It’s simple, incredibly fun, reliable, and economical.
A Prius with sway bars, great shocks, and wider tires might also be right up his ally should he want to take more friends along.
I’ve actually been tempted to buy one just so I could set it up that way. BTW, did you know that Toyota already offers a handling and body kit for the Prius.
Indeed, the Miata is a perfected British sports car. Even the Stoics at Consumer Reports agree!
Surely you jest…. did you forget about the formidable Corolla S?
All I’ve heard about the CR-Z though seemed to indicate that it wasn’t actually sporty at all. It had the looks but not the guts. Granted I’ve never driven one…but I don’t think the total sales flop was only due to the odd styling.
The CRZ used the Insight’s drivetrain, which was not really up to snuff to start with.
The CRZ’s biggest flaw is its’ body, it should have used the same 5-door 5-seat one as the Insight.
Being a two-seater both excludes a lot of people who would want a mildly sporty, manual transmission hybrid but need a family car and means the body writes “sports car” checks the chassis and powertrain can’t cash.
If the CRZ had used the Insight’s body, all you would have ended up with is an Insight with a manual gearbox and a slightly better suspension, considering it already used the Insight drivetrain…
I really think that would’ve been the way to go… combine the best of both into a “Insight Si” or something in addition to the regular one, and skip the CR-Z altogether. The CR-Z was pitched like a CRX successor (which it was horrible at) while being, in reality, more of a 1g Insight successor (which it also wasn’t very good at). The Insight was pitched as a 2nd gen Insight and it was just a Civic Hybrid in a Prius-esque shell. Years from now, they’ll both be case studies for misinterpreting internet-based research.
Honda’s IMA system is now two generations behind the current technology and was already old when it debuted in the 2g Insight and CR-Z, so both cars were compromised severely to compete on MPG. Same goes for the Civic Hybrid, sales of which have fallen off a cliff in recent years. A 2g Insight with the CR-Z’s manual transmission and (new) supercharger options, tweaked suspension and slightly different look probably wouldn’t have been a huge sales success, but I think it would have been quirky and lovable in exactly the same way the original Insight was.
Or they could have skipped both, put that money into updating the Civic Hybrid and brought over the Fit Hybrid rather than the CR-Z, which probably would have been the smartest move.
“Or they could have skipped both, put that money into updating the Civic Hybrid and brought over the Fit Hybrid rather than the CR-Z, which probably would have been the smartest move.”
AGREE! Honda fans have been BEGGING for a new CRX. The CR-Z was an abysmal failure in that respect. The Fit would’ve made more sense if they still want to go hybrid, whereas a conventional ICE could easily be offered for the CR-Z. If they did an Si version too, it would sell like crazy.
I don’t really think a new CRX would have gone over well either, although it probably would have sold at least a little better than the CR-Z. No matter how good a car it could have been, it would’ve gotten trashed for being too heavy, too soft, too big, too ugly, too expensive and basically anything else you could say about any car that isn’t a brand new 1988 CRX Si.
And if Honda actually did manage to build something approximating that (which they never would), it’d get trashed for being too slow, too noisy, too cramped, too thirsty, too ugly, too uncomfortable, unsafe and still too expensive (for its size).
A huge part of the original’s success was being in the right place at the right time. Hondas were the hottest thing out there back then and there were lots of Boomers with disposable income and no kids/young kids. Many of them grew up in households with only one car, so having a station wagon or a minivan at home and a CRX to drive back and forth to work wouldn’t have seemed as impractical as it does now. British and Italian roadsters were only a recent casualty, and I’m sure the CRX scooped up a lot of people who would have been buying MGs or Fiats a few years earlier.
I’m surprised there isn’t already a “SUPER Fit RS Type-Z” or something like that in Japan. They used to do hi-po versions of every single model not too long ago, but it wouldn’t take much to put it together. The regular Fit is already the closest thing there’s been to an ’80s Honda since the ’80s.
I think the lack of a Fit Si is probably a reflection of the domestic market, which is not looking very healthy. The Fit was the second bestselling non-minicar in Japan last year, but that only amounted to like 208K. Even if you add in ROW sales, I think it’s something like 350K, 360K. That’s not bad, but it means that any sporty variant would have to be developed on the cheap or it would be likely to lose money.
Speaking strictly in measure of performance, seeing picture three causes me to wonder why Scion didn’t take the body and use drivetrain based on Xb in it?
I’ve always suspected that a conventional-engined Prius would offer similar economics when taking into consideration the lower purchase price it would have.
Consumer Reports (and others) gave the Prius lowest total operating costs for five year ownership due to low depreciation fuel costs. Of course, with cheaper gas now, those numbers might not hold up now.
Come to Vancouver. At least 90% of the taxis here are the Toyota Prius. The reason one chooses a vehicle for taxi use has little to do with fanboism (although with the dumb ones, that may not be the case), it’s all about a functional, reliable car that is cheap to run. I am informed by taxi guys here that the Prius has no problem getting 5 L/100 km in Vancouver traffic, which is amazing. There is simply nothing cheaper to run, and resale values are so high it makes buy new worth it.
Taxis are limited to six years here. This translates to about 750,000 km. The cars do not need new batteries at this point. They are actually sold on and taxi friends and family take them as cheap, reliable beaters.
Keep in mind taxis spend a lot of time idling and in the core city, which is ideally suited for hybrids. Most consumers don’t have the same use patterns.
It’s that high resale that makes me question the sense of buying a used Prius. Although it is certainly a pro when buying new.
When Prius became taxi, interior volume in taxi became unacceptablely low…
So I saved few numbers of private taxis operating Impala, even Accord. The trip is less miserable comparing to Prius
@Phil: Clearly you’ve never driven in Los Angeles…
(The Prius is also a very common taxicab around here, although I don’t know if that has to do with running costs or various local incentives/mandates for fleets to adopt low-emissions vehicles.)
Toyota offered 300,000km warranties to taxi operators on the Camry hybrid here it put Fords factory cabs out of business in NZ.
In the Seattle are I had thought that the Prius had almost completely replaced Panthers in Taxi use based on the steady stream of them I see heading too and from the airport. However in the last month I’ve been going to downtown Seattle on a daily basis and there the Panthers still rule. On the freeways leading to the airport I might see 1 Panther for every 20 or so Prius but downtown it is the exact opposite. Personally I’d think it would be the exact opposite since there is a lot of stop and go in downtown and the tight traffic certainly favors a smaller car. In fact I take my Mountaineer down town and won’t take my Panthers just because it is narrower and shorter.
But we don’t know how a conventionally powered Prius, using the same small low-resistance tires and aerodynamic shape would fare. Nobody has done that because the shortcomings of the Prius aren’t acceptable in a gas-powered car in that price range.
Compare it to the Fiesta 1.0 Eco Boost. I bet the Fiesta as just about as aerodynamic as the Prius (can’t find the numbers). But the key thing is the city mileage. The Prius has an EPA rating of 51 in the city, 48 hwy, 50 combined. The Fiesta 1.0 EcoBoost has a city rating of 31, 43 hwy, 36 combined.
The lack of hybrid tech really hurts the Fiesta in the city, and even on the highway, the Prius still has a decided advantage. Admittedly, the Prius’ EPA numbers are generally not representative of normal driving, which yields about 42-44mpg.
The point being that a slippery, low drag body is not enough. The hybrid technology, including the Atkinson cycle engine makes the difference.
For city driving, yes, a hybrid has an undeniable advantage. Not so in highway use though.
From what I can find, Prius has a cd of .25. Ford Fiesta .33. That’s a significant difference. The Fiesta also costs $7,000 less.
I checked the Cd and frontal area figures and the Prius has more than 20 percent less drag area than the Fiesta. The Fiesta has a slightly smaller frontal area (it is a smaller car, after all), but the higher drag coefficient still makes for a larger CdA.
It would definately need serious wheel and suspension upgrades, maybe to the chassis as well. An interesting idea though. Tesla has shown us that eco doesn’t need to be so mind-numbingly mundane.
Basically, the BMW SportHybrid with a more aero body.
CAFE numbers probably aren’t great, although real world might be.
If you used a turbo could you not get away with a smaller gas motor, which would make a dent in hauling those batteries around?
That would seem more in the goal of Prius-dom rather than a performance version.
Probably not without losing efficiency. The Prius’ Atkinson cycle engine is optimized for efficient running. If it were smaller,, the turbo would have to kick in more often. When the Prius went from a 1.5 L to 1.8L, efficiency still went up a bit.
Maybe with some new other tricks.
The Lexus CT isn’t too far off the mark of being a performance Prius. 0-60 in 9.8 seconds could be knocked down with a mild turbo.
While I like the occasional burst of speed as much as anyone, the real day-to-day need for 0-60 in 6 seconds or so is way over rated. Anything that can do make 60 in 12 seconds or less will be seen as a competent driver by 80% or more of its owner base.
I’ve always been puzzled at how un-luxurious the CT is for a Lexus. The C-pillar treatment drives me crazy. Is it trying to look like a sedan? I get they’re trying to appeal to city dwellers looking for a high mpgs and the Lexus image, but it’s an awful little amount of car for $32,000. At least it pulls off the Spindle Grille best of any Lexus.
Man, that Tatra sure looks like a Chrysler Airflow.
The one that puzzles me is why there isn’t a diesel Prius. Considering that the Prius’ electric benefit is most acute in city driving, a diesel engine would seem to handle highway driving much more efficiently than a gas engine and you’d have the best of both worlds.
The biggest problem would be the constant cycling on and off in town, and maybe even the business about the Prius ECM constantly adjusting the balance between the engine and motor for optimum efficiency. I guess diesels don’t handle that aspect very well.
In that respect, the car that could really use a diesel is the Volt since it’s a dedicated EV with an engine ‘back-up’. IOW, when the Volt runs out of battery, it simply switches over to the engine. There isn’t any of the Prius switching back and forth, balancing act with the Volt.
A diesel Prius makes no sense. The Atkinson cycle engine in the Prius approaches diesel efficiency, without the big bump in cost (about $2k more for a diesel). That’s why nobody builds diesel hybrids except one model by Peugeot, which ends up not being such a stellar performer.
It’s just not worth it. both because of the cost and the very marginal improvement in efficiency. Never mind the much higher cost of diesel in North America.
I understand that NVH issues with diesel engines in start/stop operation cannot be overcome with existing technology. The highly valued seemlessness of the Prius system would be compromised.
Isn’t there also a Volvo turbodiesel hybrid?
Johannes Dutch mentioned it further down. Mercedes-Benz does diesel hybrids, too (including a plug-in diesel hybrid S-Class).
I can’t imagine that diesel engines are as amenable to starting/stopping frequently as their gas counterparts are, but otherwise that seems like the most ideal combo in terms of pure efficiency. In the U.S., it really is pointless because of the cost of fuel, but I’m surprised there aren’t at least a few more of them in Europe.
Well, my understanding is that the principal rationale for cars like the Peugeot or Volvo in Europe is to appeal to business users concerned less with fuel economy per se than with minimizing CO2-based road taxes or benefit-in-kind taxes. The difficulty is that there are a bunch of non-hybrid models that can squeak under the same cutoffs for less money upfront.
Also, some markets levy a tax penalty on diesels (I don’t think France does, but the U.K. does, although I don’t know if there’s an exemption for hybrids). In those markets, a turbodiesel hybrid user will still pay more than the owner of a petrol car (hybrid or not) in the same emissions band, which makes the diesel hybrid a tougher sell.
Even with the higher cost of diesel fuel, it seems like those cars so equipped are still popular enough and sell pretty well in the US. It’s unfortunate that the limitations of a diesel engine combined with a hybrid can’t be overcome with the main one being the problem of a diesel starting anywhere nearly as quick as a gas engine for start-stop use.
A turbocharged engine would probably improve performance, but increase fuel consumption. The Cadillac ATS with base engine (2.5 L 4 with 3.45: axle ratio) is rated 33 highway. The turbo 2 L 4 with 3.27:1 axle ratio is rated 30 highway.
That may not be the best comparison, as those engines are different in other ways as well. But even if a turbo Prius knocked 2 mpg off its highway rating, that would still make it exceptionally efficient.
It all depends on the goal. Many of the Ford EcoBoost options have higher MPG ratings than the non turbo engine. Properly set up a turbo can reduce the pumping loss, but that is the whole idea behind the Atkinson cycle engine used in the Prius and other hybrids. However decreasing the engine size and strapping the right turbo system on it could increase the MPG and performance if that was the intended goal, but in a Prius I just don’t see enough takers to make it a profitable endeavor.
I’m not sold on Ford’s EcoBoost strategy yet. I really love the thought of the new 2.7 F-150 getting near-minivan mileage while offering better performance than my current 5.4. That’s an incredible achievement. But I’m not convinced a small displacement direct-injected twin turbo will hold up over the long haul.
Throw in engine-stop-start to complicate oil delivery issues for the inertial spinning turbo impeller, and longevity is a fantasy.
The Prius uses a simulated Atkinson cycle I think, rather than a real one, although the final result should be similar. I don’t see how pumping loss is reduced, unless you are running a lean burn at low power settings, which is possible with direct injection.
Not sure what a simulated Atkinson cycle means, but Prius has always used a real one. Atkinson cycle kills low-end torque, which the electric motor has in abundance.
I read recently (in a comment here maybe) that when an Atkinson cycle cylinder is pushing intake charge back up the manifold, it contributes intake to the next cylinder to fire. Maybe that’s what reduces pumping losses.
Not to mention that the engine almost never runs with closed or nearly-closed throttle.
Modern so-called Atkinson Cycle engines are not true to the original patented Atkinson cycle, but have some of the benefits by delaying valve timing. We covered that here: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/the-atkinson-and-miller-cycle-engines-not-exactly-how-they-started-out-to-be/
The basic concept of the Atkinson cycle is that the expansion stroke is longer than the compression stroke. The modern implementation differs from Atkinson’s original implementation in that it uses late closing of the intake valve to achieve the short compression stroke. This results in the piston pushing some of the intake air charge back into the manifold, essentially forcing it into the next cylinder in the firing order. That is what reduces the pumping loss.
The other results are that the compression ratio and displacement are artificially elevated. The static compression ratio is calculated based on the swept volume and the combustion chamber size. The displacement is also calculated based on the swept volume of the piston. Since the intake valve closes very late relative to the conventional Otto cycle the actual compression pressure is lower and the amount of air ingested is less than the swept volume. Of course the conventional naturally aspirated Otto cycle engine does not achieve its static compression ratio or ingest the full volume of the cylinder because the throttle prevents the cylinder from filling completely. That throttle results in piston creating a vacuum. This means that the cylinder is filled with air that is less dense than air at atmospheric pressure. This is commonly referred to as an engine’s volumetric efficiency or VE.
My brother just bought a Fiesta SFE with the wonky 3 cylinder turbo “ecoboost” motor, and that’s quite literally the first thing I thought – why didn’t they offer this motor with a hybrid system? It would be a fantastic combo as that motor is shockingly powerful and efficient, combine it with a good hybrid system and it would likely be slightly slower, but way more thrifty, than a Fiesta ST. On the little ecoboost motor alone he pulls around 40mpg highway and well over 30 city.
I should write that car up, it’s one of the most shocking vehicles I’ve been in lately.
That said, it’s funny you bring up this topic – I recommended that my sister finally replace her 200+k mile ’99 Accord with a new Prius C. I used to hate the Prius but time has shown them to be almost shockingly reliable, and for someone who uses a car strictly as an appliance (or, abuses..) like my sister it really makes a ton of sense.
” why didn’t they offer this motor with a hybrid system?”
Easy: cost.
Decent point, but man I wonder if it could be done effectively. It was a pretty cheap car to begin with..
That and the Fiesta really doesn’t have the interior volume to spare for a battery pack.
That’s what’s ironic: cheap econoboxes in the past usually had the best MPG, for they had the same basic driveline technology as larger cars, so physics favored the smaller. But now, things are more complicated, and cheap cars often lack technology that boosts mileage, leaving them no better than larger compacts in efficiency, which is one reason why CR deprecates several Japanese superminis against their compact siblings (Mazda2, Toyota Yaris, Nissan Versa).
The Prius C’s main virtue vs. the Prius is price, not MPG, & being based on the Yaris, CR doesn’t like it, either. You Get What You Pay For.
One of the biggest problems is that a longer shape/body is intrinsically more aerodynamic. Short small cars generally don’t do as well on the highway mileage numbers for that reason. In town real-world mileage should/will be better.
Interesting – I didn’t realize that CR wasn’t a fan of the C. I’ve been trying to steer her towards a Toyota Certified Prius V, maybe if I can dig the CR article up that will firmly push her in that direction…
CR’s “abstract”:
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/toyota/prius-c.htm
The magazine is often on file at public libraries.
We recommended the Prius to my sister-in-law in LA, & she likes hers (bought used), other than that it seems to attract keying vandalism. I really wish that didn’t become politicized.
Almost nobody is a fan of the Prius C. It’s essentially a Yaris, with a modified body and the hybrid system. It’s very economical, but is rather crude, as a car, like the Yaris. The regular Prius is a substantially more refined and comfortable car.
The Prius C, called Aqua in the JDM, is one of the bestselling cars in Japan. I think the Prius is still No. 1 there, but the Aqua was a strong second last time I looked.
I’m not trying to diss the Prius C, as it is a decent-enough city car. But its ride and some other qualities seem to make it a substantial notch below the Prius. If minimum exterior dimensions aren’t critical, I do feel it’s well worth a couple thousand more to get the regular Prius.
Prius c gets about the same MPG as the regular Prius, for thousands less. It also has conventional shifter and parking brake lever, for people who dislike the regular Prius’ non-standard setup.
Let me amend that: In 2014, the Aqua was the bestselling non-kei in Japan, narrowly beating out the Fit. The Prius has fallen to No. 3, which I think probably says something about the state of the Japanese economy right now; mini-car sales are up quite a bit since 2012, which appears to have come directly out of sales of larger vehicles.
Because the Prius C is a really pointless car. The regular sized Prius offers excellent gas mileage plus decent storage space(even with the battery pack)
The Prius C is small, cramped, overpriced for what it is and is a Yaris with a electric engine.(If you must buy a subcompact Toyota, then buy the Yaris as it is cheaper)
The Prius C/Aqua is only “pointless” in a narrow middle-American context. It’s not about being more efficient than the standard Prius, it’s about being smaller. The Prius is a D-segment car and fairly large; the Aqua is aimed at urban users who want something more wieldy and easier to park. Admittedly, if you live in the suburbs and have a driveway or a garage, that may be irrelevant, but if you regularly deal with narrow city streets and fend-for-yourself street parking, it’s not.
A Prius with a turbo? Here’s a better idea: a high MPG hybrid vehicle with decent acceleration that doesn’t look like a used bar of soap.
In other words, a car that looks and handles like an S2000 or Miata, but gets better gas mileage.
The “used bar of soap” look is of course what makes it so aerodynamic.
I’m intrigued by the idea of a “Sporty” Prius, as a halo car. Toyota does need to revitalize their brand a bit, and a Prius with some suspension mods and a turbo might not be a terrible idea. I’ve driven a 2nd-generation Prius and I didn’t like it one bit, but if they made a version that handled better, they might sell even more Prii.
Why not a 750cc turbo-supercharged 3 cyl? If the name of the game is efficiency, boost the bsfc by making the combustion cycle more efficient and make the engine smaller. I don’t see why a motor of this size wouldn’t make 100 hp and an acceptable amount of torque, the sportbikes already do.
And yes, have a turbocharger feeding air into a supecharger feeding air into the intake. With direct fuel injection and appropriate computerized fuel management, you should see a significant mpg boost over what the Prius gets now. Screw normal air pressure!
Tell Toyota that.
I’m afraid they’ve optimized the Prius’ Atkinson cycle engine to a point where I seriously doubt a smaller engine with boost could improve on it.
Keep in mind that when Toyota increased the displacement of the Prius’ engine from 1.5 to 1.8 l with the gen3 model, efficiency actually improved. It allowed the engine to run in its optimal speed more often.
A gas engine running on boost is not necessarily more efficient than an unboosted one. It works well for the EPA tests, hence the move to downsizing to smaller boosted engines. But I’m not sure it would work for the Prius. It will be interesting to see what Toyota does with the future generations of the Prius. They have every incentive to keep increasing its efficiency and EPA numbers, to stay ahead of the pack.
I’d not researched the Prius before, I was under the impression it was using a normal 4 stroke cycle. So what I’m advocating would be a turbocharged Miller cycle engine if I’m understanding Wikipedia correctly. I did find a source that disputes the claim that Toyota is using the Atkinson cycle. They said that Toyota is merely varying the valve timing.
http://www.animatedengines.com/atkinson.html
Beware, the gif is mesmerizing! Check out the other engines as well. My favorite is the Gnome rotary.
The Prius discussion at the bottom of that page is correct. It is an Atkinson cycle and it’s done with intake valve timing, not with different strokes. (For different folks?)
Atkinson & Stirling are named after Englishmen. The other engine types are named after Germans: Otto, Diesel, Wankel.
Off topic, but the Tesla is named after the inventor of its AC induction motor, a Serbian-American.
While the Prius does use variable valve timing that is not why they call it an Atkinson cycle since it always has late intake valve closing, they just vary how late the intake valve closes. Two different things that are just used together in this case.
A Miller cycle also uses late intake valve closing. However it uses forced induction to continue stuffing air into the cylinder during that extra time the intake valve is open. An Atkinson cycle makes the engine act like its displacement is smaller than the swept volume while a Miller cycle makes the engine act like its displacement is larger than the swept volume.
Fiat has a two-cylinder 875cc “TwinAir” engine in some European models, although from what I’ve seen online, its real-world mileage isn’t necessarily any better than the 1-liter triples’. It is supposedly a fun engine to drive, though.
Interestingly, I think VAG is dumping their “Twin-Charger” engines in favor of regular turbocharging. I’m assuming the twin-charger setup’s complexity and cost are getting to be too much relative to the benefits.
The base Prius purchase price is roughly $20,000, a base Yaris is $15,000. The Prius has a 53/46 fuel rating, the Yaris gets 30/37. Assuming that both vehicles are driven 150,000 miles with an averaged mpg with fuel at the current price, the Yaris will cost you $8567 in fuel, while the Prius will cost $5997. Since I tend to average the highway MPG in my daily driving with a stick and some mild hypermiling techniques, the obvious choice for me would be the Yaris.
I wonder how many of us drive Prius for the high technology efficiency and low CO2, rather than pure cents per mile. I know I always have.
Having driven a rental Yaris and a Prius, I find the Prius much more comfortable. And it has a far higher quality feel, well worth the higher price, at least to me.
The other odd thing about a Prius is that it’s a car that doesn’t telegraph financial status. I know young dirt bags and super-rich old guys (and gals) who drive them.
That’s the right approach: Will one make up the price penalty in fuel savings over a typical ownership period, assuming other things equal? There are several variables involved, which is why the answer will vary considerably across buyers (e.g. state gas taxes). For my part, I’d compare a Corolla, Mazda3, or Civic/Fit to a Prius, not a Yaris, which seems a size smaller.
Last time I did this the Prius made little sense for me, but maybe the price spread is less now (though gas is cheaper). I did notice that used Priuses had high mileage, which is a hint.
Traditionally the Prius has very high resale value so you really need to factor that in too. How/where you drive also has a big impact, if your driving mainly consists of “city” type driving the advantage of the Prius is higher than if your driving is mainly of the “hwy” type. A hybrid of the Prius style variety can beat the EPA ratings provided you do the right type of hypermiling. It is not the same as Hypermilling a conventional car. To maximize the MPG of a hybrid using the type of drive system used in the Prius you want to do “pulse and glide” and that means accelerating at a rate that induces maximum electrical assist and maximizing the regenerative braking and engine off time. With our Fusion Hybrid we are able to meet the city rating in mixed driving that includes a lot of hwy time during the warmer part of the year when AC is needed rather than heat. In the winter when heat is needed it is easy to suck all of the heat out of the engine requiring it to idle to maintain the minimum operating temp. Combined with the longer warm up time there is a significant reduction in MPG down about to the combined rating.
I’ve always expected someone to build a high-performance hybrid, I’m surprised no one has. If Toyota’s not interested maybe Ford should do it, their full hybrid technology is nearly as good as Toyota’s.
Boosting the engine would only help with top speed. Unless you live in Germany or eastern Oregon, Nevada or Montana, you probably never get the chance to go much over 80.
Hybrid acceleration comes from the electric side. Bigger motor, electronics and a bigger battery to feed the higher current that translates into higher torque. A plug-in hybrid with its bigger battery is the way to go.
Ford should build a sharp two-door coupe on its C-Max Energi Plugin platform. Lower the roofline to get drag area down and make it a proper sports car.
What about this one?
Er, aside from the i8 Sean posted below, see also the oddly named Ferrari LaFerrari, Porsche 918 Spyder, McLaren P1, and the recently discontinued (?) Mercedes-AMG SLS Electric Drive. Obviously, these are very expensive hyper-exotics, but it is apparently the Latest Thing there.
The SLS was an EV…
But there’s also quite a few luxury cars that offer impressive performance + hybrid power… BMW ActiveHybrid3, Acura RLX Sport Hybrid, Lexus GS350h, Infiniti M35h (or whatever it’s called now), Porsche Panamera e-Hybrid, Mercedes-Benz E400 Hybrid… probably some others I’m forgetting.
Oops, you’re right — I had thought the Electric Drive was a hybrid, but it was just electric.
I think the M35h is now called Q70 hybrid (small “h”) abroad, Nissan Fuga at home. (No, I can’t keep track of the Q designations either. I can only assume Nissan hired some ex-Lincoln brand managers…)
The Ford system is more advanced than what Toyota is currently using. They have designed the system so that their cars can shut the engine off at a higher or much higher road speed. For example the first generation Fusion can go engine off at up to ~45mph. The current version and the Cmax can do engine of at over 60mph thanks to the fact that they use the same eCVT in the energi as the regular versions.
The first Accord hybrid was a “performance hybrid” they paired their IMA with a higher HP version of the standard Accord’s V6 making it more powerful and quicker than the V6 Accord. The MPG improvement was minimal. The market did not embrace the original Accord hybrid. The newest Accord hybrid returns to the traditional focus of hybrids effeciency. Their power transmision concept is more advanced while being simpler than the eCVT used by Ford making it able of engine off operation at any speed and reducing frictional losses and eliminating the need for the traction MG to draw power from the engine to run the range MG to make the connection between the engine and wheels possible. .
How about the Prius powertrain in a MR2-like mid-engine body?
Even without a turbo, 134hp should be plenty in a lightweight 2 seater.
What about a pure IC engined Prius? I know it’s heresy but if you ditch the weight and complexity of the hybrid bits you don’t need a lot of engine to be fast, as numerous repowered original Honda Insights have shown.
Hybrid batteries are surprisingly small, just two kWh or so, maybe a hundred pounds. The motor/generators and gearbox take the place of the conventional transmission, so they don’t add much weight either.
1st-gen Insight is a tiny car, made mostly of aluminum. It was a quick project to beat the Prius to the US market, so they got most of the mileage just by being extremely small, light and slippery.
Even if it’s no more efficient than a Corolla, it’s more useful – Toyota’s lacked a nonhybrid C-segment hatchback or wagon since they discontinued the Matrix.
Oh, wait, they still make the secondgen xB (now that the Dodge Avenger’s discontinued, the Kia Sedona replaced and a new Land Rover LR2 is on the way the xB is the king of “you mean they still make those?”)
As I pointed out elsewhere, a Fiesta 1.0L EcoBoost is roughly comparable to the Prius, but only gets 31 mpg city/ 43 highway (EPA). The Prius gets 51/48. The hybrid tech is a critical part of that big difference.
The hybrid system is neither that heavy or nor complex, BTW.
“The hybrid system is neither that heavy or nor complex, BTW.”
Totally agree. Toyota “Hybrid Synergy Drive” replaces a lot of conventional mechanical complexity with software complexity. The system is actually very mechanically simple and low maintenance.
No belts. No torque converter. No clutch.
This website has great animation to explain the design:
http://eahart.com/prius/psd/
The stereotype is wrong. Many car nerds and enthusiasts appreciate the Prius’ engineering elegance.
The Ford/Toyota style hybrid system is heavy. Those two motor/generators make the transaxle heavier than a conventional 4-6sp transaxle. Add in the inverter and battery pack and it does add significant weight. For example the 2010 Fusion or Camry hybrid weighs in at ~3700lbs while the 4cyl AT versions tip the scales at about ~3400lbs. About a 9% increase in vehicle weight, which is not insignificant. Mechanically the eCVT is less complex than a conventional planetary automatic. Electrically they are way more complex.
” I can’t be the only person who loves both high speed and high efficiency.”
You’re not the only one. My wife’s car is a 2010 Prius but it’s really is our primary family car that gets used for the majority of our combined driving. As great and problem free as this car has been over the past 90K miles, I wish it were more lively. Although it’s performance is adequate when maxed out, the lack of torque can be tiresome when trying to briskly accelerate, two lane pass or climb hills. It’s no fun having the ICE wound up in these cars. Overall, I really don’t enjoy driving the car, but I do love the low cost of ownership, and the top notch reliability. Compared to the Civic we replaced our overall fuel costs have been reduced by approx. 50%. Further, it has more leg room (important for us tall folks), and far more cargo area.
I don’t know if a turbo is the solution, but I definitely purchase one if they offered it. It’d be nice if they offered something like the Camry Hybrid drivetrain in the Prius. The Camry Hybrid doesn’t get much worse mileage than the Prius, but it’s performance is superior to the base 4 cylinder car and MUCH better than the Prius. The Gen IV Prius is supposed to be based on the Camry platform, so I suspect it should have improved driving dynamics. I will say for everyday driving a Gen III is fine though. We’ll likely be updating our car in a couple of years, and hopefully the new Prius will have better performance for the next generation. We’ll probably need to move to something bigger like Prius V and with the current drivetrain that car would just be too lethargic for my tastes.
For reference, here are some performance times from Consumer Reports. These numbers would be for the current generations. Keep in mind CR usually gets lower performance results than most other magazines. They do however seem to get fairly accurate real world MPGs.
Prius
0-60: 10.6 secs
1/4 mile: 18.0 sec @ 79 MPH
Overall MPG: 44 MPG
Camry 4 cyl
0-60: 8.4 secs
1/4 mile: 16.5 sec @ 87 MPH
Overall MPG: 27 MPG
Camry Hybrid
0-60: 7.6 sec
1/4 mile: 15.9 sec @ 92 MPH
Overall MPG: 38 MPG
VW Jetta TDI
0-60: 9.5 sec
1/4 mile: 17.3 sec @ 83 MPH
Overall MPG: 34 MPG
Civic
0-60: 9.6 sec
1/4 mile: 17.5 sec @ 85 MPH
Overall MPG: 30 MPG
Ford Fiesta (1.3 Turbo)
0-60: 9 sec
1/4 Mile: 17.2 secs @ 83 MPH
Overall MPG: 35 MPG
I agree; installing the Camry hybrid’s power train might do the trick very well. Although it might lose a bit more efficiency than a turbo on the Prius’ 1.8L, but that is pure speculation. If Toyota chose to do something like this, I’m sure they’d find the optimum configuration.
Yes, exactly. Just checked, 2014 Prius is 500 pounds lighter (3042) than 2014 Camry Hybrid (3525)
Performance can be a lot of things. Before I am ready to buy my next car I think I need to look into what this guy did just a bit deeper. If you can tow two cruisers I’m pretty sure you can haul a round bale of hay or a ton of gravel or dirt. Could be the car that allows us to do well with just one.
http://blog.uship.com/just-for-fun/earth-day-2012-uship-prius-trucker/
I don’t think a turbo is the way to go. I think the best potential for everyday speed is in the battery pack and/or motors. Of course for sustained highway driving you are right. I don’t think I want to buy a ticket to participate in the turbo debate but it’s pretty interesting.
Perplexing question Paul.
While that is interesting, I’m very leery of people who think they know better than the engineers who designed the vehicle. People like that are typically a danger to everyone else on the road.
I cant see a ‘Performance hybrid’ as making any sense, let alone having much mass appeal. The crowd that makes up the ‘eco-weenies’ as Paul puts it and the ‘spreadsheet enthusiasts’ are pretty diametrically opposed to car nuts and performance freaks. Two completely different sets of values, two completely different philosophies. Its like mixing oil and water. I mean if Kotex were to come out with something like razors aimed at men…how well do you think that would fly?
Im not saying performance enthusiasts don’t want mpgs also…theres just nothing in it for anyone to specify LESS efficiency. But when I read earlier today that the Challenger Scat Pack with the 485 hp 392 Hemi is good for 25 mpg on the highway…I was floored. Considering that a ho-hum midsize sedan cant really do THAT much better (32-35 on average? Maybe?), it makes you wonder who’s the real gas guzzler.
Here’s a thought: For less money, the Dart with 1.4L turbo and manual trans is good for 27/39. That’s right in the range of what a ‘turbo hybrid’ would end up…and probably would still get trounced in acceleration and handling for more money/complexity. Of course that’s all theoretical, unless someone has figures on the Jetta turbo hybrid…
Knowing your proclivities well, I didn’t exactly expect it to make any sense to you 🙂
Here’s a thought: For less money, the Dart with 1.4L turbo and manual trans is good for 27/39. That’s right in the range of what a ‘turbo hybrid’ would end up
No it wouldn’t. You’re missing the whole point here. A Prius is rated at 51 mpg in the city, and adding a turbo that only kicks in at higher acceleration/speed should have little or no impact on its EPA ratings. The Dart’s 27 city rating is miles behind the Prius’ 51, never mind its 48 mpg highway rating. Way off the mark, and the point of the discussion.
To tack onto this point, the reason hybrids are able to achieve such lofty MPG figures is the same reason they have huge potential for performance applications.
A large part of a 485HP Dodge Challenger being able to get 25MPG on the highway is having a ridiculously tall overdrive gear that keeps the revs far away from the point where the engine actually makes 485HP. That’s the trick to all those great highway MPG figures, whether it’s a V8 or turbo four: low and constant revs. For all the driving situations where you don’t have cruise control locked at 60 for extended periods of time, that fuel economy drops precipitously… and although modern engines typically have extremely flat torque curves, high HP still means high revs.
An electric motor, on the other hand, makes 100% of its torque from 0rpm. No ICE can match that, and anything that comes close will inevitably have to make huge sacrifices in top-end power. Obviously, no ICE can match it for efficiency either. That’s why it makes all too much sense from both an economy and performance standpoint to combine both of them.
I’m sure MoparRocker74 hasn’t noticed, but hybrids now exist at both ends of the spectrum. They’re currently both the most efficient and fastest all-out performance cars you can buy. The middle ground is sparsely populated, but the hurdles there are now less a matter of cost and technology than they are mainstream perception. Lots of people still seem to think that hybrids are voodoo, or a conspiracy, or insanely complex, or I-don’t-know-WTF-what… Toyota could be in a position to change that with exactly the type of car suggested here. The Prius already is mainstream, it’s not just anarchist fringe tree huggers buying them – Toyota has sold over 200k of them between all variants in each of the last three years. Dodge sells about a quarter of that worth of Challengers per year, how many of them are SRT-8s or Hellcats? Probably not even half… maybe that doesn’t have much mass appeal either.
As far as what “car nuts” are interested in, I know I didn’t get interested in cars so that I could one day wear a uniform or be someone else’s outdated stereotype.
“A large part of a 485HP Dodge Challenger being able to get 25MPG on the highway is having a ridiculously tall overdrive gear that keeps the revs far away from the point where the engine actually makes 485HP. ”
I believe part of that is the new TF-8 transmission. The 6.4 doesn’t even have cylinder shutoff. The 5.7 can do even better and will still raise your blood pressure in a hurry.
“Dodge sells about a quarter of that worth of Challengers per year, how many of them are SRT-8s or Hellcats? Probably not even half… maybe that doesn’t have much mass appeal either.”
Mass appeal isn’t the issue here…its cost to buy and insurance. Of course the V6 model dominates sales. Its more attainable. In the case of it and the Charger V6 models youll get similar mpgs as the blandmobiles but better performance and styling. Taste being subjective of course.
Yes, the 33% overdrive top gear that allows a Challenger to get 25MPG on an EPA highway cycle test is… literally part of the 8-speed transmission.
“Knowing your proclivities well, I didn’t exactly expect it to make any sense to you :)”
Really? I thought you hadn’t noticed! haha!
” A Prius is rated at 51 mpg in the city, and adding a turbo that only kicks in at higher acceleration/speed should have little or no impact on its EPA ratings. The Dart’s 27 city rating is miles behind the Prius’ 51, never mind its 48 mpg highway rating. Way off the mark, and the point of the discussion.”
Ive heard hwy mpg as low as 45 on the prius. Now, that COULDVE been combined. And what I didn’t point out is that given how ‘most’ users drive (combined hwy/city) that high city figure is rarely achieved….except in the case of taxi/courier services, or those who commute bumper to bumper. My point is that while you COULD engineer up a turbo/hybrid prius….you could achieve similar results by just using an ICE that is tuned for efficiency over performance. The reality is, turbos can in fact help increase mpgs but are usually tuned and marketed towards performance and enthusiasts.
Ive heard hwy mpg as low as 45 on the prius. Now, that COULDVE been combined. And what I didn’t point out is that given how ‘most’ users drive (combined hwy/city) that high city figure is rarely achieved….except in the case of taxi/courier services, or those who commute bumper to bumper. My point is that while you COULD engineer up a turbo/hybrid prius….you could achieve similar results by just using an ICE that is tuned for efficiency over performance.
No, you couldn’t – or if you did, it would never be able to match the performance of a hybrid. It’s not just a matter of an engine being efficient, it’s that the engine doesn’t have to work and/or work as hard in the type of system that a Prius utilizes.
Like I was trying to explain up above, you can coax a powerful engine into returning good mileage at a constant speed over long distances, but that disappears once you do any other type of driving. Accelerating from a dead stop is where an ICE is least efficient, and it also happens to be where an electric motor (as part of a hybrid drivetrain) is most efficient. The Prius (and most hybrids) can run purely on electric power for a good chunk of the time in low-speed driving, and when more is needed the engine can be started and kept near optimal speed all the time rather than having to do all the work of accelerating off-idle.
How could an ICE possibly compete with that, without giving up an enormous level of performance? Remember, with electric power you’re getting 100% torque available instantly. Adding a turbo to that system isn’t going to have a huge impact on efficiency, because the engine just isn’t working all that hard most of the time.
Not everyone who drives a Hybrid is an eco-weenie. Some people just want a roomy, reliable, low cost family car that gets great gas mileage. In our case, owning a hybrid helps offset the expense of our truck. Further, when it comes to overall lifetime fuel mileage, there is nothing that remotely comes close to the Prius, unless you drive exclusively on the highway.
No one’s saying ‘everyone’. Theyre the biggest piece of the pie though, for better or worse.
I hear what youre saying on roomy/reliable, etc. But if the goal is to pinch every nickel till the buffalo screams…why not an older clean corolla or camry? Itd be a HELL of a lot cheaper to buy in, and what little fuel penalty would be more than offset by the intial buy-in.
Around here, most Prius drivers actually seem to be older retired people. People on fixed incomes looking for something with low fuel costs.
When we ended up with our car, we looked at the Corolla and Camry and equivalents Our choice wasn’t all about the ultimate cheap car for low cost of ownership. Comfort, room, cargo space, were important. Further we have a long commute and put many miles on a car annually. However, we didn’t want to get worse mileage than the Civic we replaced. The Corolla was too small, too little leg room, and too small trunk, which was the same reason we wanted to sell the Civic. The Camry was decent for interior room, trunk was a little small, and fuel economy around town was worse. The Prius was in the same price point as the Camry’s (and other midsizes) we looked at, but had decent from leg room, and great cargo area. The hatch and folding seat are very useful.
However, if they still made a Camry or Accord wagon that may have been our top choice. I would appreciate the extra comfort of a midsize chassis.
FWIW, our old Civic had a overall lifetime fuel average of about 29-30 MPG. Sure it’d get about 40MPG highway in the summer. But factor in the around time driving, cold winter starts, rural commuting, and the car got that over the 100K we had it. The Prius under the same conditions is about 45-46MPG overall. The big difference with this car is that when you drive around town, the MPG’s don’t drop. However, we still see slightly lower city MPG’s than highway despite what the EPA ratings state. I know in consumer reports tests, they also saw significantly lower city MPGs vs Highway. The only way to get the EPA numbers in town is to drive VERY lethargically.
“Of course that’s all theoretical, unless someone has figures on the Jetta turbo hybrid…”
Ask and you shall receive. Here are the specs from Consumer Reports tests, not EPA figures:
0-60: 8.1 secs
1/4 mile: 16.3 secs @89 MPH
Overall MPG: 37 MPG
My issue with this car is VW’s reliability record and it’s limited cargo space.
I think there could be a market for a turbo Prius, although I think a unique body would be required to shake off the regular Prius’s image. Something stretched a bit, longer, lower, and wider to not look as chunky.
I think that’s missing the point. That would be very expensive to develop a whole new car, and the market undoubtedly isn’t there to support that.
You’re also missing another point: by offering a genuine sporty Prius, it’s precisely a way to broaden the Prius’ appeal, and shake off some of that image. In fact, that’s probably the biggest point/benefit.
As cars like the Tesla have shown that high-efficiency cars can be fast and fun to drive, Toyota needs to enhance/expand the Prius’ image in that direction.
Despite proposing a whole new Ford up above, even though Honda’s whole new hybrid CR-X flopped, I agree, Toyota should do it. Amp up the motor and controller of the plug-in Prius (bigger battery already), and give it all the handling bits.
How about Toyota just offer a genuinely sporty anything?
Yeah, FRS, but that’s a Scion… and it doesn’t compare well against the MR2 or Supra at their respective bests.
How about Toyota just offer a genuinely sporty anything?
This!
Toyota as a brand is what is desperately lacking a sporty image, it’s not the Prius. The Prius is a cog in the bland machine, but so is the Camry and Corolla. Scion as a brand, from my perspective, was created with the desired INTENT to cement the Toyota brand in the USA as a dependable appliance maker, relegating the remaining spice within the company to Scion and Lexus, leaving Toyota in a position of the safe economical smart buys, the maytag of cars.
So the Camry SE V6, with 267 hp and 0-60 in 5.8 sec (0.2 seconds slower than a 2015 Mustang EcoBoost) doesn’t exist in your mind, I guess.
And what do the other manufacturers offer in that price/category that’s so divinely sporty and exciting (other than the Accord Sport)?
Where’s the Supra? Where’s The Celica? Where’s the MR2? I can think of a few very sporty current Toyotas but they’re certainly not wearing Toyota Badges.
I am perfectly aware of the V6 Camry, but it’s still a Camry. Is it quick? Compared to Cars 20 years ago? Sure.Compared to any current similarly equipped car in it’s class? Not really, it’s pretty much average for it’s class. It’s the sporty variant of a bland sedan, not a sports sedan.
The Scion brand was created because Toyota was getting nervous that the average buyer age of its entry-level cars was like mid-40s, which is the kind of thing that makes marketing people very twitchy. The idea of Scion was not that it would be a sporty brand (the original xA and xB certainly were not and the tC only marginally qualified — it was a coupe, yes, but it was basically a two-door Toyota Avensis, which is not exactly the second coming of the A80 Supra), but that it would offer funky-looking, cheap, “easy to buy” (read: relatively few major options but lots of dealer customizing stuff) cars to try to hook the 20something buyers who weren’t buying the Yaris and Corolla, at least as new cars. Based on the rapidly declining sales, it hasn’t worked so well.
Offering the 86 as a Scion (which is only in the U.S. and I assume Canada) was, I’m pretty sure, a desperation move to try to get some attention to what by all appearances is a dying brand. The FR-S is really more expensive than Scion’s target buyer would be likely to afford, so I think the goal was to try to make it a showroom draw. The 86 is sold as a Toyota everywhere else, so the idea that it’s some kind of conspiracy to protect the dullness of the Toyota brand really doesn’t track.
The only reason Toyota hasn’t resurrected any of its sporty nameplates (Celica, Supra, MR2) is that its previous efforts sold poorly. The 86 was was a leap in that regard, and it’s hardly been a runaway hit despite being exactly what the audience said it wanted. The business case for the others is pretty hard to see. If there were a big enough market, Toyota would back in and so would a bunch of others.
In the hunt for an all-green image Toyota got rid of all their sporty models in the blink of an eye. No more T-Sport versions of their hatchbacks, no more MR2, no more Celica. A (naturally aspirated) 2.0 liter 4 cylinder is their biggest gasoline engine right now.
Green-image or not, they do have a Big Fat Land Cruiser with a V8 diesel in their showrooms of course. 🙂
@Johannes: Same thing I said to Matt: Toyota dropped the sporty models because they sold poorly. The MR2/MR-S expired after about eight years of ho-hum reviews and shrinking sales. The T-Sports didn’t sell either and European critics generally didn’t have many nice things to say about them. Last-place comparison test finishes don’t do much for the corporate morale or sales momentum.
And again, they have the GT 86, which is as pure a sporty car as they’ve had since the original 2000GT, which even British critics like (an astounding thing for a Japanese car), and which Europeans are apparently not buying.
@ AUWM, the real bottom-line is this: Europeans don’t buy Japanese cars anymore, sporty or not, except the low-profit margins small A- and B-segment models.
That is: Germans buy German cars, the French buy French cars and the Italians buy Italian cars. And Euro-countries with no car industry of their own (like the Netherlands and Belgium) buy a nice mixture of all those brands. The European made car-lineup is endless: from a 2 or 3 cylinder mini to a V12 limousine.
The Japanese brands had a fair share of the market, in all segments. Those days are over, roughly since the late nineties.
The D-segment Toyota Avensis might not get a successor, it just doesn’t sell, unlike the E-Carina or first gen Avensis. The Camry was withdrawn from the market 10 years ago. The HiAce van and Dyna light trucks: not available anymore. The ProAce van is a rebadged Euro-van. Diesel engines from BMW.
In other words: what Volkswagen is in North America is Toyota in Europe. Soon. Other Japanese brands already have walked that route.
@Johannes: From that, it sounds like Toyota in Europe is closer to the position Mitsubishi is in here. Volkswagen is not doing terribly in the U.S. — they’re not nearly as strong as they want to be (or as strong as they are in Germany or the U.K.), but they’re hardly circling the drain.
Toyota and all the Japanese automakers are in a very tough spot in Europe. European tastes are quite different than American or Japanese tastes, but sales and market potential don’t justify making the kind of investment that Hyundai has made in its European offerings and the value of the yen doesn’t make it easy to wrest a price advantage. Home-market sales of larger cars are generally awful — Japanese buyers are opting for kei cars because the costs of ownership are much lower — and so the Japanese automakers’ main stronghold is the U.S.
As a car, Prius is a technological masterpiece, and Toyota is to be commended for its investments in R&D. For some applications like taxi service, there is no better option.
As a cultural icon, Prius is offputting for many. Few motorheads like to be around smug Prius owners who claim to support “sustainability” and wear organic underwear–those who are “greener than thou”—especially when one understands that the production of Prius is anything but eco-friendly. These sentiments were clearly visible in the HotRod Roadkill episode that unleashed lots of juvenile hate toward Toyota’s technological and marketing masterstroke: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7DFzl6ZU5k
Umm, the $7500 federal tax credit is for true electric cars, not the Prius. The plug-in Prius qualifies for a $2500 fed tax credit. None for the regular Prius.
Plug-in hybrid with a turbo charger, this 215 + 70 = 285 hp Volvo V60. The 215 horses come from a diesel engine. But it does have a turbo charger. And it’s fast.
And expensive.
Yes.
Here’s another thing, though–maybe the reason Toyota doesn’t make a “sporty” Prius is because of image dilution. Right now, people who dislike cars often drive Prii because they’re seen as the lesser evil. The not-so-carlike car. If you can’t get along without a car, but don’t want to feel you’re compromising your ideals as an environmentalist/cyclist/hipster/anti-big-oil-crusader/whathaveyou, you get a Prius. (Or a Leaf or an Insight but they’re bit players in this opera.) The Prius has quite a following among people who’d rather not own a car at all, but have to. And that has everything to do with its shiny green image.
If you introduce a “sporting” model, even if it’s *almost* as efficient as its siblings, even if it’s still a Prius, you’re bound to dilute the brand for the people I just mentioned, and run the risk of losing their allegiance. That’s a large group of people and a rather precarious allegiance. Do you risk upsetting them for what would really be a niche model? I think not.
It’s a better-reasoned version of Ford’s explanation for discontinuing the Taurus SHO with the 2000 refresh–they wanted the car to be synonymous with safety, reliability, and practicality, and a performance version ran counter to that image. A performance Prius equally wouldn’t fit the green image Toyota has carefully cultivated for the brand.
I disagree. The Tesla S is the hot car with the moneyed Silicon-Valley types and elsewhere. It’s environmental creds are a critical part of that. But its tremendous performance comes without an environmental penalty.
I don’t want to sound superior or dismissive, but I do think that way too many folks have the wrong idea about their stereotype of the Prius driver. In certain parts of the country, a lot of people simply want to feel they are being somewhat more environmentally responsible without wearing a hairshirt. The common stereotype is too narrow. The Prius is not just a tree-hugger mobile. It’s a mainstream car, and the best selling one in a number of cities.
There’s no reason to think that a sport model that offers better performance without any substantial efficiency trade-off would somehow diminish the Priu’s reputation. Quite the opposite: it would enhance it: Wow! Toyota can make the Prius be fast, fun and economical! What a deal.
Do you really think that folks who make certain life-style choices based on environmental issues don’t have fun? You think they’re all old finger-wagging hippie spinsters (an oxymoron, but you get my point)?
Some old hippie spinsters have lots of fun!
Everyone’s idea of ‘fun’ is a lot different. Old finger wagging hippie spinsters might get their laughs very differently from a lead foot metalhead. Just sayin!
I don’t think it’s that they don’t have fun–I just feel like, for certain Prius drivers, the whole idea of a car is slightly anathema and that those drivers are more comfortable seeing it as a large appliance. They’re rejecting traditional “car culture” of which things like sportiness and fun-to-drive seem to belong. These are not self-flogging ascetics I’m describing–they’re just folks who see cars as a somewhat necessary evil. I’m sure most of them are quite enjoyable in other aspects of life!
But maybe you’re right; perhaps I’m letting the more “look at me” part of the Prius crowd paint the rest of the drivers with the wrong brush. This may be in part due to a friend who rather proudly held no driver’s license and got around almost completely by bike and train, then found himself with a job out in the suburbs and had to get his license and acquire a car. Of course he ended up with a Prius, amdist claims of “this is the only way I could live with it”. (He’s not a bad guy at all but that whole episode annoyed the crap out of me…)
In all honesty the Prius really is the ideal choice for lots and lots of people. If it weren’t for the fact that she thinks they’re ugly, my wife might be driving one…
Here’s the thing: For a lot of people, the principal selling points for any new car are that it work dependably and not cost them an arm and a leg beyond the actual car payment. If you live in a big sprawling urban area like L.A., where public transit is spotty (it’s pretty good in certain corridors, but barely an option in others), those qualities are necessities, not “nice to have.” If you have a lengthy commute and few options other than commuting, you also get very nervous about the price of fuel going up because you still have to get to work even if gas prices double.
There is an unfortunate tendency among enthusiasts to assume those priorities translate into disdain for the car culture stuff on which enthusiasts put a lot of emphasis. There are a few people for whom that’s true, but I think for far more of the population, the idea of having a fun, exciting car is not undesirable so much as impractical and/or inaccessible. Even a lot of millennials, for all the unreasonable hate middle-aged enthusiasts have for their generation, would like to have a cool car — it’s just that they know that for financial and practical reasons, that falls into the same daydream category as a mansion with a swimming pool or having their student loans paid off.
Chris I agree with your point, but only to a point. My take is that it risks diluting Toyota’s brand image, not the Prii model image. Toyota is the safe choice, they have created an iron clad image of reliability, efficiency, value, and low depreciation, with little pretensions for anything else unnecessary like fun, sportiness or excitement. Those traits stereotypically do tend to have negative impacts on reliability, efficiency, value and depreciation in most instances, so in order to still have a footing in those kinds of cars the Lexus and Scion brands were created to take the Toyota badge off the grilles/hoods of cars that might effect people’s typical perception of what makes Toyota cars such a good choice.
I really don’t think a performance option would dilute the Prius brand. Like it or not, Prius owners share a lot of stereotypes with “traditional” Subaru owners. Outbacks and Foresters festooned with bumper stickers for any number of (usually left-of-center) causes and candidates. The same sorts of folks who hate the very idea of privately owned automobiles, but own one out of necessity.
What was very likely sitting in the showroom when those folks signed on the dotted line for that Outback or Forester? That’s right. World Rally Blue, 305 hp and a rear deck wing the size of New Jersey. Yet they still wrote that check, just as they probably had two or three (or more) times before. And provided Subaru’s recent sales success (particularly in non-traditional markets) doesn’t take them too mainstream, in another 200,000 miles or so they’ll peel off the old bumper stickers, head back to that same showroom with an STi or BRZ sitting in it and write another check.
” The Prius has quite a following among people who’d rather not own a car at all, but have to. And that has everything to do with its shiny green image.”
I think youre dead on with this. The same exact debate is raging among Jeep fanatics. The CUV ‘cute utes’ do make money for the brand, and that’s what funds the hardcore stuff like the Wrangler and on some level the Grand Cherokee. Jeep’s brand image is that of a no compromise hardcore offroad vehicle. Even though a sizeable portion of Wranglers don’t hit the trails, that doesn’t matter. Its a piece of that pie. Dumbing down the CUVs to what a suburban soccer mom encounters is a put off to the long time Jeep faithful. Those same CUVs could just as easily be moved over to Dodge or Chrysler…the money all goes in the same pot.
If Toyota wants to ‘go green’ with the prius then they should go whole hog. Toss out any sporty pretensions and go full appliance…that’s what their crowd wants, and they have the market nearly to themselves.
I agree that Toyota wouldn’t want to dilute the Prius’ image. Fact is one of the reasons that some people choose the Prius is to shout “I’m saving the earth”. That is one of the reasons that Toyota has made the Prius into a sub brand. I believe that is the reason that Ford has made the CMax hybrid or plug-in hybrid only in the US versions. A lot of hybrid buyers do not want their car to be mistaken for a non hybrid.
The “regular” model Prius is not very popular here anymore. People rather have a Yaris (B-segment hatchback) or Auris (C-segment hatchback and wagon) with Toyota’s hybrid-technology.
interesting piece and observation.
I havent got the numbers to hand but in Europe many 3/5 series, A4, C class and Jaguar XF are now turbo diesel for reasons of economy and power.
Anecdotally, the Lexus/Toyota hybrids cannot match these for economy in daily use, or image for that matter.
Anecdotally, the Lexus/Toyota hybrids cannot match these for economy in daily use
Never trust anecdotal mileage claims made by owners of their cars, especially diesel or hybrid owners, as they all tend to exaggerate to justify their purchase decision. Read some good comparison reviews instead 🙂
The Prius’ superior mileage compared to a VW Golf/Jetta diesel has been documented in numerous objective reports and reviews. And the heavier cars you mention are even further behind.
Diesels are obviously popular in Europe, since diesel fuel is cheaper due to tax subsidies, and the overall higher fuel prices in Europe only exaggerate the diesel’s better economy over a conventional gas engine.
But the diesel’s peak is here, or already past. Please note that all the European manufacturers are gearing up to build more hybrids and plug-in hybrids, and with a very few exception, they are all gas powered.
Paris,London and other parts of Europe are threatening to ban diesels altogether. It might take a while, but the diesel’s eventual market share decline is almost guaranteed. And it will be at the hands of gas-hybrids and EVs.
Just today there’s a big article in the Telegraph saying that London will ban diesels within a decade: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/11280067/London-will-follow-Paris-and-ban-diesel-cars-campaigners-warn.html
Until now, the Euro standards have made allowances for diesel engines’ higher NOx emissions in exchange for lower CO/CO2 emissions, but the gap is getting narrower. The Euro 6 standards that recently went into effect have diesel NOx limits that are less than half of the Euro 5 standards and only a little higher than for spark ignition engines. I assume that’s probably going to end up making diesels even more expensive, which combined with concerns in urban areas about particulate emissions and financial disincentives like the U.K.’s diesel surcharge on BIK tax rates is likely to lead to the results Paul is predicting.
Remember the old saying “Your Mileage May Vary”? Have you ever considered that someone who purchases a vehicle based on its MPG will tend to drive it in a more efficient manner than someone who’s main concern is not MPG? The other fact is that the type of driving done and the style to achieve maximum MPG is different between conventional gas powered cars, diesels, and hybrids are different. So again a person who chooses a hybrid or diesel may have done so because their particular driving matches that type where that particular vehicle does its best.
I’m not saying that there aren’t those that tend to exaggerate or quote their all time best mpg as their everyday results to justify their purchase just that not everyone does so but so do certain numbers of drivers of conventional cars.
I’m no engineer but, in a sense, is not the Prius already “turbocharged”? When the gas engine and electric motor are working in tandem, the electric is providing the boost that the 98 hp lump hasn’t got. The Prius’s real problem is how weak-kneed that gas engine is; and in terms of sportiness, CVT is never the answer. The next Prius should come with some weight savings in the form of Li+ batteries; I hope they spend that weight savings in NVH reduction myself.
The way they work is completely different, but in practice they’re at least kind-of similar ideas. With a hybrid, you get optimal efficiency when the ICE is either off or not working hard, with a turbo it’s keeping the engine out of boost.
The “CVT” in Toyota hybrids is integral to how it works, no getting around that. It’s not integral to hybrids in general, but it is the most efficient way to do it.
Right, there’s confusion over “CVT” with hybrids. Partial hybrids have conventional transmissions, full hybrids don’t.
Full hybrids (Toyota, Ford) just have a constant-mesh planetary gearset (marked S C R below) linking motor generators, engine and driveline. It drives like a CVT but there is no CVT there, no belts, pulleys, clutches, bands, etc. Simple, reliable and optimally efficient.
Partial hybrids (Honda, etc.) just have a single motor-generator where the flywheel goes, to boost engine output and recapture energy on engine braking. Since the engine crankshaft is still the output, it needs a transmission. They often use the belt-and-variable-pulleys type of CVT like non-hybrids do.
The eCVT as currently used by Ford and Toyota is the most efficient and durable way to do a CVT. It is definitely not the most efficient way to hybrid. The most efficient way to hybrid currently in use is the Accord hybrid. The Accord’s system allows engine off operation at any speed thanks to using a clutch to disengage the engine from the wheels.
The eCVT has an issue in that the range MG can overspeed and thus sets a maximum engine off speed based on exactly how they design it. The other reason the eCVT is less efficient is because during steady state cruising the traction MG must generate the power to run the range MG to create the connection between the engine and the wheels. Doing so results in some of the engine power being wasted to power the transmission. A planetary gear set with 6 sets of teeth in constant mesh also results in more frictional losses than the direct connection between the engine and trans that happens in the current Accord hybrid in steady state cruising above a certain speed. For a little more efficiency they could add a simple 2sp spur gear trans to the mix. Honda has traditionally used spur gears instead of planetariums in their “conventional” automatics due to the inherently lower frictional losses. Have a reduction set for connecting the engine to the wheels at lower speeds and a direct coupling for higher speeds.
The Accord system is very elegant; the best hybrid system yet.
I have to read up on the Accord Hybrid, I only have a vague idea of how it works.
I haven’t actually seen too many of them, and I assumed they’d be a huge hit. Honda Accords in general are extremely popular here (I believe it’s the best selling car overall in the region), but as far as hybrids go, the Fusion and Camry outsell it by a huge margin.
The Accord is very simple. There is a MG connected to the crank shaft, it is used to start the engine and generate electricity. There is a second MG connected to the differential that drives the car and does the regen braking. Between the 2 motors is a clutch that allows the engine to connect to the wheels when the vehicle speed is high enough. So at low speeds it is a serial hybrid and at higher speeds it is a parallel hybrid.
It is expensive because it is only available in a fully loaded trim. It is probably hampered at least a bit by the fact that Honda has about the worst reputation for hybrids. The original Civic hybrid only got a few MPG more and the batteries are known to fail early and fail often. The original Civic hybrid actually has lower resale value than the standard Civic. The first Accord hybrid provided only minimal MPG improvement since it was more performance oriented.
http://eahart.com/prius/psd/
You know, I should really try to score a ride in a Prius sometime.
I’ve been in a Volt, which was weirdly quiet.
I’ve driven a Smart Car, which has a weird transmission.
Either of those weird things I’d get used to quickly I’m sure. Prius seems even less weird.
Or maybe I should forget it and try to score a ride in a Tatra.
I’ve driven a first-gen Prius (briefly) and recently rode in a current gen Prius taxi.
Both were impressive in the smoothness and seamlessness of power delivery. The current gen is small (two adults and an adolescent in the backseat was mighty tight and I’m not the biggest person by any means) and the one I rode in had several alarming rattles in it already.
Conversely, I also rode in a Camry hybrid taxi earlier that day. It was a better size and just seemed screwed together better. It had 58,000 miles of downtown Chicago use; I could not tell the mileage on the Prius. Both appeared wonderfully suited for the job they were doing and the driver of the Prius enjoyed it much more than cabs he has driven previously.
I’m with you; a ride in a Tatra would entice me much more!
I’ve driven a Volt and I’ve driven a 2nd-generation Prius, and I prefer the Volt. The Volt just had a better overall feel to it, and I liked the fact that it was a plug-in hybrid. Now that Toyota makes a plug-in version, the gap has narrowed a bit IMHO.
Yeah but the PIP is a lame plug in, with a very limited range, ~10mi or so and a limit to the rate of acceleration in pure EV mode. Push the throttle too hard and the ICE will fire up. Once it fires up then it must continue to run until it reaches a minimum operating temp due to emissions reasons. The Volt on the other hand has full acceleration in EV mode and a ~40mi range. If all you drive is ~10 mi per day then you’ll never ever recoup the additional cost of the plug in option.
I just checked the calculator on EPA.gov and based on current fuel prices the Prius Plug-In would actually cost me $46 more per year in electric/gas than the regular Prius would! I drive less than 10 miles a day, I was sure there would have been some difference there. A Volt would cost $84 more than a regular Prius! Although with a Volt, I’d only have to fill it up one time per year, which means it’d be returning an amazing 510 “MPG” (not MPGe, the Prius Plug-In: 127 “MPG”).
Of course, regular gasoline won’t be $2.25/gallon forever and I also pay the highest electric rates in the country, so this is purely a function of those wacky prices. I do like the fact that Toyota even offers the Plug-In version at all, half-assed as it may be, and I’m sure the next generation will be a huge improvement.
rode in 2 prius taxis. Neither was anything special or interesting in any way. I mean nothing to grab a persons interest or attention whatsoever. Just a quiet tin box that glides one place to the next. An appliance, thru and thru.
–The first gen was about 2 years ago. Felt not much different than a corolla…tightly built but tinny and kinda flimsy feeling. And with 4 people in it I seriously thought I was going to have to get out and push.
–The last was that station wagon looking one. The interior felt as fragile as a MPC model kit. Not nearly as underpowered but still agonizingly slow.
But hey, I’ll NEVER try to sell my opinion on these things as ‘unbiased’. If you don’t like something going into it, youll find reasons not to like it. If youre truly itching to try one, go for it.
This article has generated more than the usual number of comments. Lots of interesting ideas, mixed in with a surprising (to me) amount of the old hybrid hate stuff – the “smug” Prius owner stereotype.
To some people the very existence of hybrids implies criticism of their motoring “carbon footprint”. It’s to be expected that those people will react angrily to what they see as an attack on their lifestyle. But that’s old hat and they should get over themselves. Hybrids are mainstream – I doubt more than a very small proportion of Prius owners ever thought that their car purchase contributed to “saving the Planet”.
Back to the article….
The original two seat Honda Insight has a very enthusiastic user base. A small number of owners have turbocharged their Insights – I think with good results from both a performance and fuel efficiency point of view. Anyone interested can read about it on Insightcentral.
A bit more mainstream – the CR-Z can now be had with a supercharger from HPD. Installation by a dealer preserves the factory warranty. Apparently, 0-60 is about 7.5 seconds. Despite the improvement I doubt that many will take up the option. It is a significant added cost (about $5k I think) and the CR-Z has flaws other than performance. It sells in small numbers only.
Still, I expect Honda and other manufacturers will keep trying to expand hybrid (and other “alternative” fuelled cars) into the sports/performance car world – in both the expensive and not-so-expensive markets. I’ve no doubt some are working on turbo (and super) charged petrol-electric hybrids – hopefully with results we can look forward to.
You have touched on the two points I was going to raise Ghillie. I have only ever seen one or two of the original Honda Insights, and I wonder just how rough-riding etc they are, and whether they could be made ‘fun’. I think there have been some Insights in the US converted to ‘normal’ Honda engines, and that sounds much better.
The next Prius being based on the Camry sounds interesting, but there is definitely the potential to do a 2nd-gen xB and make it too heavy and ruin it. I think the current size is a good compromise really. The 2.5L hybrid powertrain would go a long way to giving the current-size Prius much better performance, and would be an ‘easy’ option.
Otherwise perhaps a Harley Davidson Prius perhaps? As seen at the 24 hours of Lemons…
OMG that’s hilarious!
(Link here)
Should have at least went with an 88 inch Twin Cam…
I don’t like the shape of the Prius, but that applies to a lot of other cars as well. What I really don’t like about the Prius is that it is a hybrid. I am a 100% certified internal combustion gearhead, hot rodder, and amateur drag racer, and I find the whole concept of an electric car to be disgusting. I got into cars (and motorcycles) when I was a kid, literally because they has gas powered internal combustion engines. Then as I got older, I got into vintage vehicles because new ones had to much technology, electronics, emissions crap, and safety devices. And to me anyway, they no longer feel like what I think driving a car should feel like. I have never driven a Prius, but I can imagine it feeling and sounding something like a golf cart.
I totally get it, there’s a lot to love in the sight, sound, smell and feel of gasoline machinery I agree.
I’ve always loved electricity, the magic and power of it, and I love the amazing computer technology we have too.
Someday you’ll drive a car like the Tesla S, and while I don’t expect you’ll like it as much as I did (link), it won’t feel like a golf cart. To each their own.
I definitely understand the allure of the Model S, I never got a chance to drive one but I did get a spirited ride in one with one of my friends coworkers and it is indeed blisteringly fast all out, BUT the thing that got me was exactly what I expected, it was like playing an arcade game on mute, with the added force of acceleration on my body(which was admittedly, surprising). It didn’t seem any funner to be the driver next to me than it was as a passenger however, and I have to imagine that gets pretty dull after a while to have zero mechanical feedback or noise.
That’s me though, I love mechanical things, I love the way it can be improvised, improved upon and tinkered with either a little or a lot of money depending on how fancy you want to get. Electricity, which I do embrace when it comes to fuel injection and the like, I generally have a contentious relationship with. I suck at math so ohms law is just a guessing game to me, I have terrible luck with batteries, and since they are magic they aren’t fixable with duct tape and super glue when they decide to not hold a charge, and worst of all is when something breaks there’s no such thing as a “rebuild” for it, just throw out and replace (I’m none to fond of that with modern ICE cars either). I still don’t have/want a smartphone either, I’m an anomaly among 26 year olds, so that giant ipad center stack in the Tesla is just ridiculous to me lol
Toyota Prius GT300: http://blog.toyota.co.uk/meet-the-worlds-fastest-toyota-prius
3.4l V8 + Hybrid Synergy Drive, custom mid-engine/rear drive race chassis:
Even though I’m that guy who drives a GTI with the info display stick on “Avg. MPG” all the time, Paul’s Prius GT doesn’t appeal to me at all. It would be the worst of both worlds. What I want is the feeling of a performance car– tight steering, taut suspension, flat cornering, and seats that allow you to enjoy all that. Speed isn’t the goal, because on today’s traffic and cop-infested roads, the only thing holding most of us back is our better judgement.
A faster Prius would be faster, but it would still be a weird, fishy thing with narrow tires, poor visibility and controls that put you at a distance. What I’d rather see is an eco-GTI, with narrow tires and long gearing, plus about 40 less HP. Should be good for 40 MPG on the highway, I’d bet. Hey, that might be an even smaller niche than a Prius GT!
The closest thing to a “Sporty Hybrid” Toyota offers (excluding Lexus) …
http://www.toyota.com/configurator/#!/series/camry/grade/Hybrid%20SE
17-in. alloy wheels with Graphite finish
Sport suspension
Sport fabric SofTex®-trimmed front seats
Plus an upright greenhouse for excellent visibility all around.
What I always wonder about hybrids is, why not get rid of the ICE altogether.
Put a soup can sized turbine in there, spin the generator to 20000 rpm and be done with it. Turbines are lighter, more efficient, simpler and more reliable. Smaller and lighter allows a bigger battery pack and electric motor for more power. I know exhaust heat is an issue, but I am sure we could overcome it. Also turbines run on almost any fuel and stop and start without a hitch. If emissions are a concern it could run on LPG, or even hydrogen, with almost no modification.
Where is the turbine hybrid?
Well, there are a few hybrids now where the engine exists purely to recharge the batteries — the BMW i3 I think is the main one. (The Volt also sort of works this way, but the engine can contribute to motive power as well.)
It’s an odd tradeoff. Having an on-board generator (of whatever kind) is potentially a more efficient way to recharge the batteries than plugging into an external grid, where you have the losses involved in the transmission of electricity from the plant to the outlet. However, I don’t know that it’s necessarily more efficient in terms of useful work obtained per gallon of fuel. In some cases, it might be, since you don’t waste much fuel at idle or part-throttle (in which regimens a turbine is actually less efficient than a piston engine), but it’s not a simple question.
I think it’s easy to underestimate how much energy is involved in moving a vehicle weighing one and a quarter tons or more. As a point of comparison, a 2015 Nissan Leaf, by its EPA specs, uses 30 kWh per 100 miles traveled while a Tesla Model S 85D uses 34 kWH per 100 miles. That’s quite a bit of juice, and that’s on the EPA combined cycle. Throw in lots of acceleration, hill climbing, and use of the heater (which is not a free lunch with an EV the way it is with water-cooled engines) and it’s quite a bit more.
Oh, I would definitely want to plug it in. Anything else is just stupid. I will take hydro generated power over anything else all day long. The turbine would just be for long trips etc. it should be illegal to make a battery powered car you can’t plug in.
My point is that if you’re comparing well-to-wheel energy use, EVs and plugin hybrids are potentially less efficient than having an onboard generator because you’re losing a lot of energy in transmission. If your power is coming from solar, wind, or hydroelectric/geothermal plants that aren’t burning fuel, that’s not unreasonable — obviously, running a car with pure solar energy isn’t very feasible except as a science project — but there is a common assumption that if you’re getting juice from the grid it’s (a) somehow less energy and (b) somehow free, not least in terms of environmental impact.
Ya, I think we basically agree there.
Where I live (Yukon Territory, Canada) if a car can’t go 500 K on a “refuel” it is not only useless, but a liability. It is -31c right now, being stranded on a highway is not a good thing.
Ironic you mentioned heaters! I bet the waste heat from a turbine could be put to good use!
I really miss my old Plymouth Fury. It would start at -45 c (not plugged in) and thaw the windshield 5 minutes later! Best winter car ever.
My point was that an ICE is really big and complex for just using occasionally to charge the battery.
And that turbines rock!
After 640kms today my 17 year old 31 year old engine design Citroen took in 26L of fuel I need a hybrid Why thats highway miles in traffic overtaking when ever I feel like it not hypermiling.
they have. it’s called the prius G’s ( i mean i want one of them, to be honest) and it’s JDM ONLY because the concept is great, but this is america, where everyone’s got big “TRUHGS” with cummins turbo diesels in them because “IT’S THE ONLY GOOD MOTOR BLAH BLAH BLAH” so my point is that you would be considered a ricer but someone who gets laughed at. a lot.