I haven't driven it long enough to know for sure, but I'm starting to think the car will get lower gas mileage with my short-haul type of driving, in the winter. (I'll reserve final judgement until my next tank of gas though.) The car seems to do as well or better with gas mileage in normal city driving after it warms up when compared to my 2001, despite the 2004 having much more power. However, it seems to take longer to warm up, which means more gas used for the warm up portion, and I do a lot of very short trips (under 15 minutes). Also, another negative is that rear windshield visibility is reduced somewhat because of the design of the hatchback. Weirdness - I'm still getting used to the shifter, and park button. It doesn't make a huge amount of sense to me to have a shifter and not put the park button on the shifter. Also, the cold temp light stays on all the time (it's always under -3 lately), but seems to serve no other useful purpose. It's doing what it's supposed to, but it's just annoying. You can't set the heat output options in automatic A/C mode - it always wants to heat my feet. There is a lag time before heat goes to the appropriate level too. ie. It's -10 out, but the car wants to wait a minute before allowing me some real force to the air coming out (maybe because the car needs to warm up?). And I preferred having some manual controls for the climate control on the 2001 Prius. Audio buttons are a mix of the dash and screen -- somebody should have been paid to design Toyota's dash ergonomics. It looks like it was designed only by engineers. On the plus side, the wind noise is reduced (0.26 drag coefficient), the sound system is much better (I got the JBL upgrade) even if it's a bit low on bass, the Smart Entry system is VERY cool, the tire noise is lower (more standard tires), and the ergonomics are better. The VSC seems to help too in wet snow (although part of that would be the tires). Also, one thing I definitely prefer is the continous power available in the 2004, even from a full stop. On the 2001, there was a split second lag in power when accelerating from a full stop. Also, the fit and finish of the 2004 is much better, with more details like a hidden rear compartment, in-armrest charger outlet, nicer cup holders, and rings for a cargo net. The built-in garage door opener is much more convenient that I had imagined it would be, too. It's nice having it "hidden" in the rear view mirror. Mind you it's a bit weaker than my usual remote it seems. I think the 2004 has matured a lot, probably to the point where it really can be used throughout their line, but the potentially reduced gas mileage (we'll see) is disconcerting, and they need to work more on the dash's ergonomics. But overall, even with some of the very high-tech feature upgrades in the 2004, it overall feels like more of a "real" car when compared to the 2001. The 2001 was mainstream enough for many, but in some ways still had more of an experimental feel to it. (eg. Split second lag in power, funny braking response over bumps, no fold-downable seats, and a great big hump in the back for the batteries, etc.) I also think that for the price of the 2004 and the upgrades, it's a steal. It's unusual for cars to have all these high-end options in this price range. And that's not even counting the fact that it's an uber-cool hybrid, and probably the coolest hybrid in production in North America.
> It doesn't make a huge amount of sense to me to have a shifter and not put the park button on the shifter You'll find yourself saying just the opposite a few months from now. Toyota made things easier for you by having PARK and POWER both be buttons to push. Just ask a teenager that hasn't ever driven a traditional vehicle which set of shutdown motions make more sense, shift & push or just push & push. They'll chose two of the same type of movement everytime, stating having to remember to do two different things is harder. In short, Toyota started over by not conforming to mechanical constraints that traditional designs require.
Actually, what I was getting at was similar to what you said. If you're gonna have buttons, make them all buttons (or something similar). If you're gonna have a shift lever, save space and put everything on the shift lever. And put he power button near the other controls. Right now we have a power button, a shift lever, and a park button, with the power button in a completely separate area. It works, but it ain't very ergonomic.
Re: Pull into parking spot, Cool. I didn't know that. I obviously don't have mine yet (recently ordered). Does anyone know if the owners manual is available online? I did not see it on the Toyota site.
Re: Pull into parking spot, Yeah, that works, but it's all the more reason not to need a separate park button.
Not really, say if you wanted to stop the car and not shut down the ICE, say charging the battery, or letting the A/C cool the car, you still want the ability to put it into park, but if your stopping and leaving the car, hit power and walk.
or better yet a two part power button whereby the outer poriton for Power and the inner portion for Park. Or a single push for Park and a double push for power. Why isn't Toyota asking us to be on the design team?? Oh ya, :wink: we'd cost them too much money to have all these ideas incorporated.
Couldn't this be a CYA by Toyota so that no one slips and hits the Park/Power button while moving? I could envision that happening if it were on the shifter itself.
Good thought. I wonder if that might be the reason (or at least one reason) why the Highlander and RX400H hybrids appear to have somewhat conventional shifters. ???
Hitting park/power momentarily only drops the car to neutral while moving at speeds greater than 8mph or so. Pressing and holding power for a bit may drop the car into ACC mode while in motion, however. It is explained in the owners manual, none the less. -Rick
