113 MPG Next-Gen Prius???

[BrewSwillis]

Here are the numbers they came up with:

4cyl Accord Auto  12.0L/100KM

Escape 4Cyl Auto 10.7L/100KM

Hybrid Accord Auto 9.1L/100KM

4cyl Camry Auto  8.9L/100KM

Hybrid Escape CVT  7.5L/100KM

VW Jetta TDI Turbo Diesel, Manual  6.8L/100KM

Prius            5.2L/100KM (54MPG)

The point is that the 4cyl Camry (which is no gas guzzler) gets ~75% worse fuel economy than the Prius.

Big deal! They find the one area where a small hybrid is sure to win........stop and go city/suburb driving....and then it's supposed to be a suprise when it does win?? Is the hybrid supposed to be validated by this? If all you use your vehicle for is stop and go city driving, then a hybrid or fully electric vehicle is the vehicle of choice. If you drive on the highway, then you should get a deisel or small displacement engine.

[LTB51]

Big deal!  They find the one area where a small hybrid is sure to win........stop and go city/suburb driving....and then it's supposed to be a suprise when it does win??  Is the hybrid supposed to be validated by this? If all you use your vehicle for is stop and go city driving, then a hybrid or fully electric vehicle is the vehicle of choice.  If you drive on the highway, then you should get a deisel or small displacement engine.

You forgot to mention that long-haul truckers shouldn't use a prius to haul livestock.

Unbelievable.

Yes, you are right, a large portionof people (the majority?) should buy a hybrid. Thanks for pointing that out.

PS. They never even made it into the city. There was some highway driving. Their average speed was much higher than my average speed (I am all city driving). The test could have favoured the hybrids even more.

Edited April 18, 2006 by LTB51

[LTB51]

Because they are not cost-effective, have over-inflated MPG ratings, because running the AC/heat drops them down to fuel economy numbers that standard cars can reach, because they are not panacea, because they are funny looking, because they are not fun, because they are a fad for the PC population...

But do you have any good reasons?

[goblue1999]

Maybe EPA estimates will be 113, but that means you're looking at about 70 in real world driving (going by the drop off seen in the current one). 70 is obviously really good, but I highly doubt it will get 113 in real-world driving.

One of my teachers has a Prius and doesn't even get 40MPG.

They can get 193mpg, I'll still run them off the road with my Suburban.

[goblue1999]

Global Peak Oil production will make $5-6/gallon gasoline a reality by the end of the decade, just as GM is bringing out its V-8 Zetas.  Believe me, we'll all be driving little hybrids soon (or we'll want to be driving one).  Meanwhile, the economy will suck, we'll be bogged down in more wars, and chances are our government will stage another 9/11 to keep us all in line.  Get ready to give up your Camaros for good.

Just hope the staged 9/11 is in a more liberal city next time, maybe LA.

[BDKCIDPA]

They can get 193mpg, I'll still run them off the road with my Suburban.

So are you a mormon with 10 kids and 4 wives, or do you just have a 5 inch penis and hope to compensate with a large box of a car? Maybe you use it to hunt down Joseph Smith or Jesus in the woods of whatever backwards town you come from.

Anxiously awaiting your reply,

The guy who will get a Prius to help keep poors like yourself from starving to death as the result of CO2 emissions

[Intrepidation]

So are you a mormon with 10 kids and 4 wives, or do you just have a 5 inch penis and hope to compensate with a large box of a car? Maybe you use it to hunt down Joseph Smith or Jesus in the woods of whatever backwards town you come from.

Anxiously awaiting your reply,

The guy who will get a Prius to help keep poors like yourself from starving to death as the result of CO2 emissions

Wow, one idiotic post replied to another. By the way, the Prius does more damage to the environment than a Hummer thanks to that battery, you aren't doing anyone a favor. You also wouldn't "starve" because of CO2, you would suffocate from it. There's a small difference. Buy a small car that gets good gas mileage, or shut up with the hypocrisy.

Edit:

Holy crap this thread is old...you dug it up just to make a retarded post like that?

Edited June 1, 2007 by Dodgefan

[Satty]

Mormon=/=moron, moron

[PurdueGuy]

To maybe get back on topic... it occurred to me how Toyota could get these kind of mpg numbers in the next hybrid, and it's so obvious that someone should have seen it before. Plug-in hybrid. They probably can't make it get significantly better mileage without some sort of trick like this.

[Drew Dowdell]

Also, remember hybrids are also considerably cleaner than regular cars..(aren't some of them classified as ULEVs?). People focus on the gas mileage but forget about the cleanliness aspect...

How about all the filthy diesel buses and big trucks? They probably produce more way more particulate emissions than cars..

you mean SULEV. There are lots of ULEVs and SULEVs... GM's 3800 is SULEV I think.

Most Hybrids are SULEVs, but Ford has even gotten their Focus so clean that it also qualifies as a PZLEV. This means that a Ford Focus is cleaner when it's running than anything in 68's garage that's not running.

[Drew Dowdell]

Because they are not cost-effective, have over-inflated MPG ratings, because running the AC/heat drops them down to fuel economy numbers that standard cars can reach, because they are not panacea, because they are funny looking, because they are not fun, because they are a fad for the PC population...

To address each of your points.

They can be cost effective, your mileage may vary.

MPG ratings by the EPA, new for 2008.

Running the A/C drops mileage on standard cars too.

They are a step in the right direction

Saturn Aura Green-line, Escape Hybrid

650hp Mini-Cooper hybrid concept, Chevy Volt, Tesla Roadster

So is the iPod.

Look, there is nothing wrong with wanting to use less of a non-renewable fuel. Hybrids are just one of many ways to do that. I'm still waiting for my E85, Active Fuel Management, hybrid Chevy Avalanche......

[Drew Dowdell]

I would have liked to see GM use it's Direct Injection technology to make it's engines more efficient rather than more powerful. I'm quite happy with the power available in my current CTS and really don't see the need for a 300hp V6. I would have preferred that GM keep the power ratings the same, but used the DI to bump up the MPG quite a bit.

Would anyone really have a problem with a 260hp CTS that gets 33mpg highway?

[Windy-57]

They can be cost effective, your mileage may vary.

By and large, they are not cost effective. Saying mileage may vary is a gross understatement. I know the argument goes "If you drive it correctly...", but that's just it, the average driver won't, they'll drive the way they always have.

Also, another big thing that people seem to be overlooking is while 100mpg sounds great, that's based on a plug-in system. How much is it going to increase your utility bills when you start plugging in your car every night.

Still, I agree with your direction Oldsmoboi, these are the early steps of innovation toward a greater good. I truly believe that someday, no matter what system (hydrogen, ethanol or petroleum) triumphs, all cars will have some form of a hybrid system. The only question left is how far the efficiency of these systems can be stretched and how quickly costs can be lowered.

[aaaantoine]

I, for one, welcome the possibility of a 100+ MPG car. If Toyota can pull it off, good for them. Such a feat would light a firecracker under the asses of their competitors.

... I still wouldn't buy one, though. Damn eyesores.

[siegen]

I, for one, welcome the possibility of a 100+ MPG car.

Go buy a manual transmission Insight and only drive on the highway. :AH-HA_wink:

[aaaantoine]

Heh, I should perhaps make my remarks more clear.

I, for one, welcome the possibility of a 100+ MPG car that seats more than two and doesn't look like ass.

Not that the Toyota meets all those conditions, but I have needs, you know.

[CaddyXLR-V]

I would have liked to see GM use it's Direct Injection technology to make it's engines more efficient rather than more powerful. I'm quite happy with the power available in my current CTS and really don't see the need for a 300hp V6. I would have preferred that GM keep the power ratings the same, but used the DI to bump up the MPG quite a bit.

Would anyone really have a problem with a 260hp CTS that gets 33mpg highway?

Well since DI affects the HP more than it affects the fuel efficiency, the only way to get what would want, would be to use a smaller engine like the 2.8L with DI.

[Drew Dowdell]

Well since DI affects the HP more than it affects the fuel efficiency, the only way to get what would want, would be to use a smaller engine like the 2.8L with DI.

except the 2.8 seems to get the same mileage as the 3.6... which baffles me.

[CaddyXLR-V]

except the 2.8 seems to get the same mileage as the 3.6... which baffles me.

Maybe GM should just use the 2.0L turbo DI from the Solstice GXP.

[Oracle of Delphi]

And what, exactly, is "lithiumion"?

I think he means Lithium Ion! :rotflmao: