2016 Prius first drive - Consumer Reports

[SnowStorm]

Saw a new Prius V today - one ugly car.  The styling needed some cultivation - not slash and burn!  I know everyone's entitled to their own opinion - beauty's in the eye of the beholder (if their is any!) and all that, but really, what's with so many car stylists taking out all their aggressions and general ill will on the front of the poor car?  Perhaps its to hold down on repair bills - you hit something, get out, have a look, shrug and say, "no worse than before"!

[C-MaxSea]

The  Super Bowl Ad with the Bandits and Cops was laughable, it took a New Prius Cop car to pull over a  New Prius. What a joke, the new Prius has less HP, I guess to make it get better HWY MPG, 50 vs 48mpg. :drop: :redcard: 

 

 Paul

Well said Paul - Marketing & the 'art of illusion'.  If it ain't fast, create the illusion that it is - that's all it takes ('I'll take a blue one please'....). 

 

I had a conversation with an employee with our Sound Transit - a construction management entity created for managing some of our public transit projects.  He noted the joke in their office was whether the Priii they had would make it up some of our steep hills - they were relieved to have some C-Maxes which managed the hills easily.

 

Nick 

Edited February 9, 2016 by C-MaxSea

[scottwood2]

I am not a fan of the Prius but I do think they made some nice improvements to the interior.  I actually think the exterior is better too.   Still not my favorite.  

 

Of the reviews I have seen they seem think it is quicker off the line.   I think they are saying that the 0 to 30 MPH is faster.  The overall refinement of the car in general is better too.  Stiffer to give better handling but they also say this is no sports car. 

[fbov]

It will be interesting to see what kind of EV system it has. Same with the Rav4. I've been looking at the AVT data on hybrid batteries, and there's an interesting observation. All batteries that meet EPA goals for power and energy delivery are lithium-ion. I only went back to 2010, but both Ford Fusion (5.5 Ah, 1.5 KWh) and Prius II (6.5 Ah, 1.3 KWh) NiMH HVBs have capacity on par with their Li-ion descendants, but they can't deliver against the EPA goal of 25kW@ 300Wh, averaging less than 20kW@ 300Wh.

 

BTW, the C-Max battery leads in every performance category. It's not the highest capacity, but it runs at the highest system voltage, can deliver 55kW@300Wh, and is pushing 1000Wh@25kW. There's also no trend in the charge/discharge characteristics at 50% SOC. It's the kind of data you'd like to see.

 

HAve fun,

Frank

Edited February 23, 2016 by fbov

[plus 3 golfer]

It will be interesting to see what kind of EV system it has. Same with the Rav4. I've been looking at the AVT data on hybrid batteries, and there's an interesting observation. All batteries that meet EPA goals for power and energy delivery are lithium-ion. I only went back to 2010, but both Ford Fusion (5.5 Ah, 1.5 KWh) and Prius II (6.5 Ah, 1.3 KWh) NiMH HVBs have capacity on par with their Li-ion descendants, but they can't deliver against the EPA goal of 25Wh@ 300kW, averaging less than 20Wh@ 300kW.

 

BTW, the C-Max battery leads in every performance category. It's not the highest capacity, but it runs at the highest system voltage, can deliver 55Wh@300kW, and is pushing 1000kW@25Wh. There's also no trend in the charge/discharge characteristics at 50% SOC. It's the kind of data you'd like to see.

 

HAve fun,

Frank

Frank, you've got the Wh and kW labels reversed (eg, 25 Wh should be 25 kW and 300 kW should be 300 Wh).  Then, the numbers make sense. :)   There's a lot of good info in the AVT data.  

 

One interesting piece of data is the regeneration efficiency of the Prius iii.  DOE says for regeneration:  "...system losses can be determined as the difference between energy available from the vehicle and energy into the battery.Although each component of loss cannot be determined, the total system loss can be measured by this method. Also, it should be noted that this calculation does not take into account losses at the battery due to charge inefficiency and that the charge current limitations of the battery may prevent all of the regenerative energy from being captured, thus forcing the use of friction braking."  

 

DOE calculates about 20% losses to get the energy available from the vehicle into the battery.  If we assume another 20% losses to get the energy from the HVB to the wheels, the likely maximum overall efficiency of the coasting regen process would be 64% = (0.8*0.8).   This supports the regen braking modeling studies / tests I've read and as I've said in the thread on coasting in N vs D, indicates why coasting in N should yield significantly better FE than coasting in D.  

[ptjones]

I thought I saw somewhere in FORD's literature that it possible to get up to 80% back from regen braking.  The research I have been doing says ICE is at best 30% efficient vs Electric Motor at 70% efficient.  So Regen/EV only gets 56% efficiency which makes coasting look even better.  Unfortunately coasting can only be done when it's safe to do so, but  I'm getting good at it so I'm able to get lower 50's mpg with temps in the 30-50's*F on this tank. :) 

 

Paul 

[stevedebi]

The Prius has always been ugly in my opinion. It is just worse in this latest model.

 

I compared the Prius V when shopping for my C-Max. I'm sure I could have squeezed 50 MPG in town, but the interior felt cheap, and it was very bus-like when driving. Not nearly enough visibility back in the rear.

[obob]

The Prius has always been ugly in my opinion. It is just worse in this latest model.

 

I compared the Prius V when shopping for my C-Max. I'm sure I could have squeezed 50 MPG in town, but the interior felt cheap, and it was very bus-like when driving. Not nearly enough visibility back in the rear.

 

I never test drove the Prius V.  I did test sit in one.  The lack of headroom in my opinion makes the car unsafe for tall drivers.  I would not be surprised if the C-Max does get canned.  It probably has been a selling disappointment for Ford.  Small cars with lots of headroom often don't make it.  No more Nissan Cube, and the Scion xB may be gone too, though I never really looked at it after it was redesigned and in my opinion made too gangster-like for my tastes.  I have thought of buying a car that has insufficient headroom and customizing the seat.

Edited February 15, 2016 by obob

[plus 3 golfer]

I thought I saw somewhere in FORD's literature that it possible to get up to 80% back from regen braking.  The research I have been doing says ICE is at best 30% efficient vs Electric Motor at 70% efficient.  So Regen/EV only gets 56% efficiency which makes coasting look even better.  Unfortunately coasting can only be done when it's safe to do so, but  I'm getting good at it so I'm able to get lower 50's mpg with temps in the 30-50's*F on this tank. :)

Ford's statement of 80% is likely the efficiency to capture and store the available kinetic energy of the moving C-Max in the HVB via regen braking.   Thus, there are likely 20% losses in the C-Max just like DOE calculated for the Prius.  In normal coasting in D or in regen braking, capturing and returning 64% of the available KE is very good when compared to friction braking or engine braking where none of the energy of the moving vehicle is captured.  Also, remember there are still drag forces that slow the car down.  The associated energy with these drag forces would not be part of the available kinetic energy to be captured by regen.

 

I think we now have a good number as to the overall efficiency of capturing regen energy and returning it to energy at the wheels.  Your 50+ mpg is testament to the FE benefit of coasting in N albeit not always "safe" to do.

Edited February 9, 2016 by Plus 3 Golfer

[ptjones]

Plus 3 Golfer ["I think we now have a good number as to the overall efficiency of capturing regen energy and returning it to energy at the wheels.  Your 50+ mpg is testament to the FE benefit of coasting in N albeit not always "safe" to do."]

 

I use coasting mainly going down hill and then going into EV on the level to maintain speed as long as I can before going back to ICE.  For me my use of coasting is safe IMO or otherwise I don't do it.  For my trip back and forth from Home to Work of 7 miles coasting is worth 2-3 mpg.  This morning with OT 34*F, SOC 32%, WT 107*F at start and at work OT 34*F, SOC 44%, WT 180*F I got 41.3 mpg (4.4 miles EV)  which brakes down to about 2.4 mile coasting, 2 miles EV and 2.6 miles ICE.  My Work seems to be higher elevation than Home. Probably average in low 60's mpg going home. My SOC is usually higher at work.

 

It is a shame that FORD decided to pay owners off for overrated gas mileage instead of improving the car.  As I have shown it is possible to improve FE with very little money spent by around 5 mpg which would make the numbers 42HWY/47 CITY/combined 45 mpg.  Don't think people would have complained.  One thing I don't understand is they rate the FFH at 41HWY/44CITY/ Combined 42mpg have in driven both FFH may get 1-2 mpg better HWY, but it doesn't get better CITY mpg's, I saw about 1 mpg less.  For me the CMAX is a better overall platform IMO.

 

Paul

Edited February 9, 2016 by ptjones

[fbov]

Frank, you've got the Wh and kW labels reversed

My bad.

[djc]

I'd been thinking a bit about energy use charging vs. coasting;  thanks for the posts here on experiments.

As I remember, my Dad's 1946 Fraser had "freewheeling" - it would automatically coast (perhaps this could be turned on and off?).  I see there is a Wikipedia article on it, and how it can be done mechanically.  With electronic controls, there might be easier implementations 70 years later.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freewheel

[nsteblay]

The anti-suv seating position talked about in the Green Cars report is what I don't like about the Prius.  The C-Max feels so much like an SUV with its higher profile and headroom.  Especially now that cars are getting bigger again I appreciate that higher profile.  I'm getting 43.7 MPG year-over-year now with my 2013 in Minnesota.  I can't believe that the Toyota is that far in front.  Wouldn't trade the power, styling and comfort for those few MPGs.

Edited February 14, 2016 by nsteblay

[ptjones]

Well I finally saw my first 2016 Prius in AR on I-40, what a bazaar looking read end and then the  front end too.  ;)  I don't see how it can get improved coefficient of drag numbers.  :headscratch:  :shrug:

 

Paul

[SnowStorm]

Well I finally saw my first 2016 Prius in AR on I-40, what a bazaar looking read end and then the  front end too.  ;)  I don't see how it can get improved coefficient of drag numbers.  :headscratch:  :shrug:

 

Paul

Maybe its sort of like the reason helicopters can fly - they're so ugly the earth repels them!  With certain cars, the air molecules see them coming, are terrified and just jump out of the way!  Voilà - low Cd.

[fbov]

Forum upgrade... "quote" is not working and "link" (which has a new format window) freezes the tab until you refresh it.

 

Paul, aerodynamics does what it wants, not that we think it should do. If not, why did Toyota put the BMW i8 hood on the Prius?

 

Frank

[ptjones]

The shape deviates from the tear drop form we are accustom of seeing. The car is so boxy, straight lines, I wonder if they did a better job on the bottom of the car.  The front end isn't smooth or contoured, maybe it doesn't matter that much.   :shrug:  :headscratch:

 

Paul

[fbov]

We're accustomed to the tear-drop shape because it's the optimum for one specific application, a surface blister (as for engine clearance in the MG-C). The blister has twice the drag of a body in free space. When you let air underneath, the drag doubles. When you add wheels and tires, internal airflow and perturbations for windows, you're 10x the free-body drag.

 

Once there's wheels, and a windshield, intakes and exhausts, there are a lot of solutions. A flow-splitting hood, pushing air to the side of the windshield, may become as common as raised A-pillars.

 

Have fun,

Frank