I am curious, of those considering a Pip which would you perceive as a more desirbale Gen II advancement: 1. Increasing EV range significantly with mild increase in HV mode efficiency. 2. Increasing the rate of blending grid power and gas power without increasing EV range but with significant HV mileage improvement.
That's it for choices? Forgotten what just happened with Prius c ? Cost reduction is a big deal. Also, what about a modest increase in capacity without a price increase? .
I'm sure there are lots of great advancements that can be made and hopefully there will be some in several areas. However the point here is to address the question you raised in another thread, are consumers more interested in EV driving or efficiency. Everyone I see that is excited about getting their Pips soon is talking about how they can't wait to be driving electrically. I don't see anyone anxiously posting about not being able to wait until their overall fuel economy increases another 12% (or whatever the average annual increase will be over Genn III liftback).
Why didn't you just ask that question then? That would be interesting prior to seeing real-world data. Later, what "EV ratio" percentage verses what "MPG average" value would be thought-provoking if a variety of choices were available... since we know it's a balance, not an either/or situation. .
...I voted on the assumption Plug-in is standard option at some point. If that happens I would like max space in the car, lowest cost, max gaso MPG, only when I feel like it to plug in to get the current PiP EV range. I have no inherent desire to plug-in, but if EV is much cheaper (car+fuel) then I suddenly have inherent desire. If I am out of gas, like to plug in. If gas cost is out of sight, like to plug in.
To me, this poll appears to be geared towards getting the predetermined answer (of wanting more EV range). Who wouldn't want that?! (But at what cost?)
I don't want a Gen II Plug-in Prius because it likely won't have the carpool lane advantage. I already own a Gen III Prius (so I am, ipso facto, a tree-hugger), but I have a very long commute and the commuter lane sticker is a valuable upgrade for me.
I acknowledge and apologize for any bias. I do suspect the answer to be EV range, but I did try to ask the question to get the true answer from Pip enthusiasts. I meant for the question to assume a technological advancement that would permit additional EV range at no cost [or benefit] to present HV mileage, compared to an advancement that would permit additional efficiency improvements at no cost [or benefit] to present EV range. I suppose I also meant to assume the financial cost of either advancement to be approximately equivalent. In truth I hope the next Gen gets more EV range and more HV mpg, and reduced cost, etc... Your response sort of makes my point though, of course everyone wants as much EV range as they can get within the context of the compromises they are comfortable with.
Toyota will definitely make the pack smaller/lighter and the electronics more efficient (everybody always forgets about the electronics). Range increase? Maybe because of the above but not directly. Personally I'd rather have more efficient charging, read shorter charge time, than more capacity. I'd also go for more cooling to increase battery life.
Why not give the driver the choice? Give the car more battery capacity, and allow the driver to select EV (for shorter drives) blended (for longer drives) or HV (to maintain the charge for freeway driving and save the EV for a segment that will be driven on surface roads)? Why must it be a choice between EV and efficiency? EV is inherently more efficient, if you have the range (which is why I prefer my car: pure EV and plenty of range).
Well by making the battery pack smaller/lighter and the electronics more efficient, when the redesign comes out, they can offer multiples of range.
Even if you offer a choice of battery sizes, the same driver will have different needs on different days. A choice of modes would still be nice. That's assuming you're okay with the whole idea of having an ICE in the car in the first place.
My personal preference would be driver selected modes as well. I want to stay in EV as much as possible, but if I know I am going to exceed range I'd like more control on when I use it. I think part of the problem are some of the design compromises. The Pip is a really efficient model because it uses only as much motor or engine as is necessary, neither one does great by itself, but in tandem they are awesome (synergy). In the Volt for comparison, the motors and engine have to be bigger so either can be sufficient but efficiency suffers from the extra weight, etc... What I think would be really cool is a leaf with a little trailer you can tow when you want to with a gas generator on it charging as you go (when necessary). That way you wouldn't need to tote around the extra weight when you know the normal EV range is sufficient.
Toyota already hinted with NS4 concept. They said it won't be Prius so perhaps a more expensive line.
This idea has been around for a long time. THIS is what you're talking about. There are cost issues. But a Leaf + Long Ranger would probably be a better solution than the Volt.
Agree.. but I think the problem is the EPA/CARB that expect people will misuse the ability. They will test/score on "worst case", but I want choices for the best case.. It not the size, its what you do with it. The volt has a smaller engine (1.4L), the Prius PHV (and Prius) a larger engine (1.8L). The prius engine is large enough to do it all on its own, larger than my last 2 pure ICE cars. The synergy is really about capturing energy that would otherwise be wasted. The larger engine allows the Prius to use a lower-power but more efficient engine cycle. Weight is much less important than areo and other aspects of the design. Doubt you'll see a gen-set trailer any time soon allowing 40 MPG highway. Once moving weight does not really impact energy needs, its just during acceleration. This is especially true with good regen where you can recapture energy from the momentum. (But it does require more anticipatory slowing to get back most of that energy).
I figure I'll be paying about 2+ cents a mile for energy on EV and 7+ cents a mile (and going up!) on HV. Even if it got 100 HMPG, which isn't likely any time soon, EV operation would still be half the cost. Not to mention probably cleaner power. So more EV range is a no-brainer choice. The tradeoff would be clearer if we used gallons/100 miles (or metric equivalent) like most other countries.
