Model 3 reveal effect on other luxury car sales

[McRat]

The New Prius Prime 4 Seat Sedan -

On EV power, the Toyota-claimed EV range is claimed to be 25. So far, they have had trouble matching EPA numbers on other EV efforts.

On EV power, the 0-60 mph acceleration occurs in 15 seconds. A quarterhorse would beat one in a drag race.
If the ICE is blasting at full scream and the battery is fully charged, and both are set to Kill, the Prius is capable of a lackluster 10 second 0-60 time. About a dead heat with a MSRP $12,995 econobox with 4 hamster wheels up front.

While this is better than the last NiMH one cheek (1/2 ass) effort, it's not yet on par with cars sold in late 2010 in it's PHEV class.

The Prius is why the stereotype of Green Cars being slow, sluggish in corners, and goofy looking, came from. We are still trying to repair that damage. An EREV does NOT have to be ugly, does NOT have to handle like dump truck, and does NOT have to pull over to let bicycles pass them.

 

[Neohippy]

The New Prius Prime 4 Seat Sedan -

On EV power, the Toyota-claimed EV range is claimed to be 25. So far, they have had trouble matching EPA numbers on other EV efforts.

On EV power, the 0-60 mph acceleration occurs in 15 seconds. A quarterhorse would beat one in a drag race.
If the ICE is blasting at full scream and the battery is fully charged, and both are set to Kill, the Prius is capable of a lackluster 10 second 0-60 time. About a dead heat with a MSRP $12,995 econobox with 4 hamster wheels up front.

While this is better than the last NiMH one cheek (1/2 ass) effort, it's not yet on par with cars sold in late 2010 in it's PHEV class.

The Prius is why the stereotype of Green Cars being slow, sluggish in corners, and goofy looking, came from. We are still trying to repair that damage. An EREV does NOT have to be ugly, does NOT have to handle like dump truck, and does NOT have to pull over to let bicycles pass them.

It's just as slow as every other Prius. It also get more mpg then anything on the road and has Toyota reliability. Not a bad car

 

[McRat]

It's just as slow as every other Prius. It also get more mpg then anything on the road and has Toyota reliability. Not a bad car

It's not a bad moving appliance as long as performance and fun are considered evil. NO DANCING!!!! Calling it a car is a bit of a stretch though. I'm not sure they last forever. Like a bad 2 hour movie, it just "feels" like forever.

It's 2016, almost 2017. Cars are well over 100 years old now. You don't have to drive boring cars anymore unless you like boredom. Toyota put lipstick on it's pig, but it still won't dance.

 

[RubberToe]

Hmmm... Toyota sold around 2,100,000 vehicles in the US during 2015, up from 2,000,000 in 2014, and 1,900,000 in 2013. 30,000 units amounts to roughly 1.4% of their US sales last year. But since they also build around 10,000,000 vehicles for annual worldwide sales, it also represents 0.3% of their total annual sales worldwide. Like the BOLT for GM, less than a rounding error. Thus, no real commitment at all.

Confucius Say: Even the longest journey begins with a single Prius Prime being driven off the dealer's lot.

RT

 

[McRat]

Confucius Say: Even the longest journey begins with a single Prius Prime being driven off the dealer's lot.

RT

The longest journey begins with trying to drive a Prius coast to coast...

 

[Red Sage]

The longest journey begins with trying to drive a Prius coast to coast...

Would it be wrong if I'd prefer to take that trip in a circa 1990 Honda CR-X HF or even a 2015 Honda CR-Z?

 

[Red Sage]

Confucius Say: Even the longest journey begins with a single Prius Prime being driven off the dealer's lot.

Confucius Say: "Don't quote me boy, cuz I ain't sed $#!+..." Oh, wait... That wasn't Confucius...

 

[jonnyg]

The longest journey begins with trying to drive a Prius coast to coast...

What about trying to drive a Leaf coast to coast?

 

[McRat]

What about trying to drive a Leaf coast to coast?

Since you must use a car carrier service, fly first class in style.

My biggest beef with the Toyota Prius Plug In is that it perpetuates the myth that environmentally friendly cars must suck. Toyota did not HAVE to make substandard EREV. They chose to field another entry that competes with last place.

Obviously Tesla has proven Green Doesn't Suck in spades, but truth is, few people ever even consider looking or test driving any kind of EV/EREV/PHEV/Hybrid because of the reputation build up over 15 years. Green Cars Suck. They look like arse, and behave like nerds. People who enjoy driving do not buy them, only people who are forced to drive and want everybody to know it. And Toyota lead the charge.

Today, you can buy a Green car that acts and feels sporty. But most people do not know that. All they know is Green Cars Suck. Thanks Toyota. You wanted to prove EVs weren't the future, and you almost succeeded. Your second attempt at trashing Green cars, the Fuel Cell Mirai will probably do as much damage as the Prius.

Here's the typical family discussion:

"I heard there are hybrid cars that get better mileage. Should we get one?"
"Well, they cost $3000 more and that buys a lot of gas. They have an expensive battery that needs replacing."
"You're right, we only drive 12,000 miles a year per car, it would never pay for itself. But does the $3000 buy us a better car?"
"Uh, well... They look odd, they aren't as peppy, they aren't nimble, the ride isn't stellar."
"But they are green and help save the planet."
"They get a bit better mileage than regular cars, but not by a lot. On the freeway we commute on, the savings is very little."

 

[N5329K]

Not sure where all the Prius bashing is coming from. It's a light, very efficient car designed to move people and stuff with a minimal use of gasoline and it hits all those marks. My Gen 1 has been reliable and since it has a real rear window visibility is fine. My V has more interior space than an E class Mercedes wagon and has a lifetime 49.6 MPG (instead of 16 for the Mercedes). It's perfectly comfortable on long trips, cavernous and cheap to run. Now, both these cars would be useless in stoplight antler-bashing contests. Neither do they fly.
I've been waiting for a real flying car for a long, long time.
Robin

 

[McRat]

... Now, both these cars would be useless in stoplight antler-bashing contests. ...
View attachment 197775

It's not antler bashing in California. There are some very short on-ramps, many mountain roads, lots of grades, and even situations where getting out of the way of others increases your safety. The whole "space cushion" concept of driving is easier when you have the choice of either braking or accelerating to keep a cushion distance on all sides.

I'm not talking supercar acceleration. Just average acceleration compared to the typical family car. The Prius lacks this, especially the PiP when running on electricity. This is where cars like the Model S and Chevrolet Volt excel. They can accelerate in all situations, all altitudes, instantly, with at least average performance. At high altitude, EV power really shines, especially when passing. One of the cars holding up the parade is often a Prius. Lacking forced induction, it's power falls off as altitude increases. A notable flaw with all naturally aspired ICE cars, but more pronounced with the Prius.

I see no real advantage of a Prius when compared to base models of ICE cars that sell for far less. The higher sticker price does not pay for itself in operational costs per mile.

Toyota COULD have made a car that had over 100kW of EV power. They just didn't. They have no intention of competing against Civics.

BTW - The Honda I took to work today has a lifetime MPG of >65mpg, and will pass a truck going 20 mph up a narrow mountain road with authority at over 8,000' altitude, been there, done that, no T-shirt though. I would not suggest it for most drivers though since it sucks to ride in the rain.

 

[N5329K]

Well, my experience has been a bit different (and just about all of it has been here in California). The 2002 Prius was, and remains, the only car I've owned that paid for itself in simple fuel savings. Not just the delta dollars for the hybrid system. The entire car.
As for merging, or finding that safe cushion of space, it's never been a problem. As you said, you can speed up to find one or slow down. And slowing down is something a Prius does very well.
Robin

 

[McRat]

Eons ago, my Chevrolet Sprint would get 45-50 mpg highway at >70mph, and I put 180,000 miles on it with nothing but oil/filters, tires, and one set of brakes. It cost <$6000 including all taxes. Not only did that car pay for itself, using the IRS allowed mileage deduction, it was a profit center every year. I had it 3 years, IIRC. For bigger loads, we used a second vehicle, a commercial van that hit 15mpg on a good day.

Exactly how is a Prius with 20 years more technology under it's belt that much better?

 

[McRat]

If you are near Orange County, go to the Anaheim Car Show. Drive the Volt and drive the Prius Prime. Let us know what you think.

 

[Red Sage]

If you are near Orange County, go to the Anaheim Car Show. Drive the Volt and drive the Prius Prime. Let us know what you think.

Meh. I might go. I've got a good Buddy in Costa Mesa. I'm sure his two-year-old Son would like to see his 'Uncle Ron' this weekend. It's just that I now have no interest in ICE vehicles at all, and that's what is bound to be predominant at the show.

 

[Neohippy]

Eons ago, my Chevrolet Sprint would get 45-50 mpg highway at >70mph, and I put 180,000 miles on it with nothing but oil/filters, tires, and one set of brakes. It cost <$6000 including all taxes. Not only did that car pay for itself, using the IRS allowed mileage deduction, it was a profit center every year. I had it 3 years, IIRC. For bigger loads, we used a second vehicle, a commercial van that hit 15mpg on a good day.

Exactly how is a Prius with 20 years more technology under it's belt that much better?

I would think you would understand it's the cars are heavier now because of safety laws. Honda was getting 50mpg in 1988 but I wouldn't want to get hit by a 4,000lb car in one of those. Think of the range you could get if today's cars were 2,000lbs

 

[Red Sage]

I would think you would understand it's the cars are heavier now because of safety laws. Honda was getting 50mpg in 1988 but I wouldn't want to get hit by a 4,000lb car in one of those. Think of the range you could get if today's cars were 2,000lbs

Here the thing is... There were at least three crash tests that were introduced specifically to KILL HONDAS. That was because the 1990 Honda Accord hit the Trifecta by: 1) Meeting CAFE regulations as a Midsize car; 2) Meeting CARB requirements for classification as a Zero Harmful Emissions vehicle; and 3) Meeting all requirements for NTSB/NHTSA crash tests by passing with flying colors. Because of those points, it went on to become the best selling passenger car in the US.

That incensed the rest of the traditional automobile manufacturers, who all insisted that all those goals were IMPOSSIBLE to accomplish, especially as far as the Detroit Big Three were concerned. They complained the Accord wasn't 'really' Midsize, because it wasn't as huge as American makes -- but they were wrong, because the EPA size classifications are based on interior volume for passengers and cargo, not overall weight, wheelbase, or length of the car. They lobbied, for the first time EVER, to have CAFE requirements raised, so the car no longer met the minimums on its own. They asked that CARB test the cars again and then change the regulations so that items previously considered not harmful were reclassified to be harmful at a fraction of the output from the Honda's tailpipe. And they created new crash tests that had never been used before and lobbied the NTSB/NHTSA to adopt those as well: 1) offset frontal; 2) pole into driver's side door; and 3) rollover testing with a minimal requirement that the roof of a vehicle be able to support up to five times the weight of the car as a whole.

Honda's cars were already SAFE. They had ACED the original crash tests. These new tests were pretty much entirely unnecessary. Especially the rollover requirement, and pole into driver's side door. Because with the double wishbone suspension at all four corners, and low center of gravity, Hondas didn't rollover. And there was already a test that simulated a T-Bone collision with another car.

The result of these changes to safety regulations was that cars from all major manufacturers got a whole lot heavier than ever before. Fuel economy went down the drain, along with range. And visibility through the gunslit windows and around the thicker roof pillars became near zero. That is why there are now cars covered with sensors and cameras. You can't actually look out the window and see opposing traffic anymore.

 

[22522]

Here the thing is... There were at least three crash tests that were introduced specifically to KILL HONDAS. That was because the 1990 Honda Accord hit the Trifecta by: 1) Meeting CAFE regulations as a Midsize car; 2) Meeting CARB requirements for classification as a Zero Harmful Emissions vehicle; and 3) Meeting all requirements for NTSB/NHTSA crash tests by passing with flying colors. Because of those points, it went on to become the best selling passenger car in the US.

Best car ever made, so far.

 

[McRat]

IMO, the Attack of the Safety Nazis was created from large campaign donations by the Insurance Companies and their Association.
1990 did not even require airbags. The laws to mandate airbags were passed in 1991, but lots of other crap was going to be thrust upon us.

Driving badly is profitable for insurance companies, but dead customers is not profitable. They didn't want us to drive better, they wanted us to get hurt less and crash more.

 

[Red Sage]

IMO, the Attack of the Safety Nazis was created from large campaign donations by the Insurance Companies and their Association.
1990 did not even require airbags. The laws to mandate airbags were passed in 1991, but lots of other crap was going to be thrust upon us.

Driving badly is profitable for insurance companies, but dead customers is not profitable. They didn't want us to drive better, they wanted us to get hurt less and crash more.

It is specifically because of insurance companies that systems such as Autopilot will become standard issue on vehicles. And insurance companies will be very happy to lobby for a greenlight on Autonomous cars once they are proven to reach the threshold that Elon Musk aims for: ten times safer than manual driving. Because when you can reduce the likelihood of all accidents by 90%, it makes the insurance business a whole lot more profitable.

When it comes to 'driving badly', you are indeed correct. The entire 'speed kills' movement is a complete fallacy. Ask any first responder and they will confirm what the medical examiner says -- it is 'rapid deceleration trauma' that kills. Most fatal automotive accidents take place at less than 45 miles per hour. There is no such thing as a 'high speed crash test', officially. In the US, all the NHTSA crash tests are performed at 40 MPH. Because honestly? If you don't survive at 40 MPH, you are absolute dead meat when crashing from higher speeds anyway.

Accidents are most often to take place during periods of emotional distress, when there is inclement weather, or under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Those are all situations where the human element is the biggest problem. An autonomous car would not get angry, sad, or frightened... It won't get sleepy, drunk, or high... And it won't take anyone anywhere during unsafe road conditions. In the interest of making sure it is far less likely that payments be made to policy holders, insurance companies will happily greenlight such systems. Then, they'll put their own lobbying power to make sure it becomes the law of the land. Just as they did with supplemental restraint airbags and anti-lock braking systems.