Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Toyota Prius v. ??? (fill in the comparison)

1246713

Comments

  • tempusvntempusvn Posts: 119
    gagrice proclaims - "My vehicle wants could not possibly be fulfilled by you or Toyota. When are you going to wake up and realize....(rant deleted)"

    Ok, my bad. I actually replied in good faith to your other messages before reading this one, expecting to be talking the merits of individual cars based on facts.

    I understand now. You hate Toyota and are 'blind' (to use your words), to anything else.

    Got it. Please disregard any facts I or others may bave presented. I understand they are inconvenient. Carry on.
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,899
    I think the Prius is a technological marvel, no doubt. I don't think it is the wave of the future as some would have us believe.
    1. By your crash test article it expounds on the extra high strength metal that goes into the Prius.
    2. It also has 8 airbags on the European version which I thought I had read. (not standard on the US version)
    3. With all the expensive components High tensile strength steel, electric motors, batteries, lots of additional electronic controls it has to cost more to produce than a standard mid-size car.
    4. If the original Prius cost Toyota $35k to manufacture and they sold them here for $20k, that is a lot of PR money spent. The last article I read was that the Prius was at the break even point for Toyota.
    Right now if you can find one for MSRP it is $3k to $10k more than a car that will fulfill the same need for transportation for a family of 4-5 people. It can only be justified by those that would like people to think they are environmentally "with it" or they just love gadgets. It is NOT an economical option now or for the foreseeable future.

    Finally as for the Prius vs Landcruiser test it was very vague. Would the people get killed? It just says they would do as well as anyone in a car of that size against the Land Cruiser. Was the car destroyed? It does not say anything about it. That is one of my gripes about writers, they leave out things that don't exemplify their point of view.
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,899
    gagrice proclaims - "My vehicle wants could not possibly be fulfilled by you or Toyota. When are you going to wake up and realize....(rant deleted)"
    As you may have noticed I am debating two of you at the same time. The above remarks were directed at the other poster.

    My remarks to you dealt with the evidence you presented in a civil manner. On the other debate which you have injected yourself, I am dealing with some one that has little use for facts or evidence. His claims are all from his opinions with snippets of information he has gleaned from his own limited experience with the Prius.

    And you deduced correctly that I am not a big fan of Toyota. I bought a new Toyota Land Cruiser in 1964 that had the worst copy of a Chevy six that you could ever imagine. 3 valve jobs and 2 new timing gears & piston rings in 48k miles. I also bought a new Toyota PU in 1992 & 1994 both for family members. They were both less than reliable vehicles. If you have had great reliability from your Toyota vehicles that is great. My experience was not as pleasant.
  • john1701ajohn1701a Posts: 1,897
    Well then, I wish you luck with your conspiracy theories and your short-term only views. Clearly, your experiences do not match the general public's, nor are they recent. They are valid, but not really relevant toward future purchases.

    For those that are interested in the ultimate outcome and progress reports along the way, I'm here to provide that info & data.

    The auto industry is beginning a massive reconstruction. With oil prices at an all-time high, makers like KIA gaining suprising amounts of marketshare, new technology providing entirely new opportunities, and the ceiling having been reached for size & speed & power, and consumer wants different from before, this ain't your father's business anymore. Those traditional approaches are not working well now. Change is inevitable. Stop fighting it.

    JOHN
  • stevedebistevedebi LAPosts: 3,784
    If the people buy smaller cars (for whatever reason), then the manufacturors will build more smaller cars. These people are driven by profits. Until then there will be huge vehicles here in the US, which are difficult to maneuver in an accident avoidance situation, and may well plow into smaller cars; it happens all the time.

    I'm glad people have found so many details about the impressive safety features of the Prius, but in a high speed T-Bone, I still think the Excursion will come out ahead...
  • john1701ajohn1701a Posts: 1,897
    Who said anything about smaller cars?

    Kia is starting out like Saturn. Each iteration of vehicle gets bigger and bigger, while at the same time introducing new vehicles that are even bigger.

    Also, when it comes to safety, some people are concerned about who they squash too... which makes bigger a poor choice.

    JOHN
  • stevedebistevedebi LAPosts: 3,784
    "Who said anything about smaller cars?"

    I did, in the last message...

    "Also, when it comes to safety, some people are concerned about who they squash too... which makes bigger a poor choice."

    Yes, and others don't particularly care what happens to the other fellow, so long as their children survive...
  • dhanleydhanley Posts: 1,531
    "The Prius is safer in every test than the Mercedes E Class, which is generally considered a 'standard' for passenger car safety."

    That's not true. In fact, the e-class scored better except in the area of pedestrian protection, in your own link.
  • tempusvntempusvn Posts: 119
    "That's not true. In fact, the e-class scored better except in the area of pedestrian protection, in your own link."

    Maybe we're reading the numbers differently.

    http://www.euroncap.com/content/safety_ratings/introduction.php

    2003 Mercedes E Class

    Front 13 (81%)
    Side 18 (100%)
    Belt Reminder 2
    Overall 33
    Pedestrian 4 (11%)
    Child (N/R) (That was only started Dec 04)

    2004 Toyota Prius

    Front 14 (88%)
    Side 18 (100%)
    Belt Reminder 2
    Overall 34
    Pedestrian 13 (36%)
    Child Protection 43 (88%)

    Summary:

    Crash Rating
    Prius 34 - Mercedes 33

    Pedestrian Rating
    Prius 13 - Mercedes 4

    Child Safety
    Prius - 43 (The Highest ever recorded for any car)

    To me, the Prius has better scores. I don't know what your interpretation of those numbers is.
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,899
    In the NHTSA test the E320 has 5 stars in 3 of the test areas and the Prius only One 5 star rating. I don't think the Italian test is valid on autos we cannot buy in this country. That makes it misleading and the MB E320 is a quite a bit safer than the Prius you buy in the USA. Not only that if you get hit in a Prius by an E320 there may not be anything left as the Italian test did not state what happens to a car that is hit by a Land Cruiser only that you will do as well as can be expected in a car like the Prius. How is that a precise test?

    http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/NCAP/SList2.cfm?vehyear=2004&vehmake- - - =Mercedes-Benz&vehmodel=E-Class

    http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/NCAP/SList2.cfm?vehyear=2004&vehmake- =Toyota&vehmodel=Prius
  • stevedebistevedebi LAPosts: 3,784
    "Child Safety
    Prius - 43 (The Highest ever recorded for any car)"

    The highest since December 2003, that is...
  • stevedebistevedebi LAPosts: 3,784
    "You are half-correct. Frontal impact tests cannot be compared across vehicles of significantly different weights. But side impact tests can be compared across all vehicles because the same size/weight sled is used to ram every vehicle. "

    From the NHTSA site, talking about side impact testing (emphasis mine):

    "For side crash tests, crash-test dummies representing an average-sized adult are placed in the driver and rear passenger seats (driver’s side) and secured with the vehicle's seat belts. The side crash test represents an intersection-type collision with a 3,015 pound barrier moving at 38.5 mph into a standing vehicle."

    The Excursion weighs over 6000 lbs; the Toyota Land Cruiser has a gross vehicle weight of 6800 lbs, and the Toyota Sequoia has a 6600 lbs gross weight (subtract about 1200 lbs for curb weights).

    That is twice what the Prius (and all other cars) are tested against. Thus my argument that one would be safer in a "T-Bone" accident in a larger car.
  • tempusvntempusvn Posts: 119
    Remember, the NHSTA test was on a Prius without the Side Air Bags. Hopefully they'll have the airbag one up soon.

    There is no crash difference between the Euro and US Prii, so the Euro test is much more indicative.

    The 'feature' differences between the models would have no effect on the crash test, as I have explained before. You CAN buy the exact same car, as far as crash safety features, in the US.

    And it's not an Italian Test, It's the European New Car Assessment Programme, the EU equivalent of the NHTSA. It's also used by Australia and New Zealand for their ratings.

    The Italian Link was to an article, reporting on, among other things, Toyota's design and testing philosophy for the Prius. The Land Cruiser Test was a Toyota Design test. As I stated earlier, they designed, and tested, the Prius to be as safe as possible in collisions with larger vehicles. They PLANNED for it, which is something they do very well.

    Bottom line, if you want a Mid-Size car (or, in Europe a "Large" car), the Prius is one of the safest, if not the safest ever made.

    If you feel you need a Land Cruiser to be safe, then by all means get one, but I hear they fare very poorly in head on collisions with 18 Wheelers, unless they manage to roll over out of the way :)
  • john1701ajohn1701a Posts: 1,897
    The SUV argument is rather silly for those of us in the north.

    Stopping is far more important on snow & ice than the ability to get going, since most front-wheel drives are quite capable now... especially with the availability of traction-control becoming common.

    All that weight in a monster-size SUV is very difficult to handle when you discover you are going too fast on a slippery surface.

    JOHN
  • rfruthrfruth Posts: 630
    Heck there goes stevedebi's bigger is safer theory and I about had him sold on a F750

    image
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,899
    If the tests are effectively the same, does the US accept the EU tests for cars entering into the US market? Are the side airbags now standard on the Prius as they are in Europe?
  • john1701ajohn1701a Posts: 1,897
    > Are the side airbags now standard on the Prius as they are in Europe?

    Only the base model doesn't have side airbags. All the others have them.

    By the way, all unqualified questions from now on will be answered with 2005 references... since the 2004 is no longer being produced.

    JOHN
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,899
    All that weight in a monster-size SUV is very difficult to handle when you discover you are going too fast on a slippery surface.

    If you are on glare ice and it is 30 degrees you better drive accordingly. I have not driven a car with traction control on ice so I will not make any judgment. I see cars, pickups & SUV type vehicles all in the ditch when people drive on ice like it was dry pavement. It happens on a daily basis in Anchorage. I would say more SUVs end up in the ditch than anything else. People think they are a lot better on ice and they are not. It is slightly better after everyone has their studded snow tires mounted after the first couple snow falls. Then the roads take a beating.
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,899
    If you feel you need a Land Cruiser to be safe, then by all means get one

    You forgot I did my Land Cruiser in 1964. It was the one with the small side windows. I do wish I had it now. It is worth many times more than the $2400 it cost new. I don't like what they have done to them. Not a good off roader like the old style. Just that poor copy of a Chevy six. Many parts were interchangeable.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,689
    OK, you've convinced me. Anyone who is reckless enough to put their children in any vehicle less than 6000 pounds GVW is risking their health and safety. In fact, it should be a criminal offense. Anyone driving children in any vehicle less than 6000 pounds should be pulled over and charged with child endangerment. Twenty years in the state pen is not too severe a punishment for such a crime. This law would have the side benefit of helping the U.S. automakers, because of all the expensive large trucks and SUVs they would sell. Another side benefit is that with so many large vehicles on the road, traffic congestion would increase and average speeds would decrease, making fatal collisions almost impossible in urban areas.

    After we've corrected this problem here, we can go after the reckless drivers overseas. Think of the millions of drivers in Europe and Asia who regularly risk the lives of their children by transporting them in small, unsafe cars that cannot withstand a broadside collison by a large truck. And how about those despicable parents who let their older children ride bicycles to school and work every day? They need to buy a large truck or SUV and transport their families in safety.

    The fact we'd have to find some way of doubling oil production around the world in order to allow everyone to drive these large vehicles is a small price to pay for ensuring the safety of our children.
  • john1701ajohn1701a Posts: 1,897
    I have feared for the safety of children in SUVs quite a number of times. Watching their small body climb out from such a height is really scary.

    And naturally, they won't wait for the parent to help them. They push the door open, which is heavy and invites a fall, and then either jump or struggle to a tumble. It's not a pretty sight.

    JOHN
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,899
    Bravo, that was good. You are wasting your literary talents on this forum. You should be in the "why I hate SUV forum"

    harlequin1971 "I don't like SUVs, why do you?" Aug 6, 2004 5:44pm
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,689
    As I've stated, I don't hate SUVs. There are many good reasons to own one. There are also many lame reasons to own one.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,689
    Rather than comparing the Prius to big SUVs and trucks, how about comparing it to 5-door hatchbacks of the same general size, offered in the U.S.?

    I did that comparison earlier this year, including a financial comparison. Here are my findings, FWIW. These comments are all based on '04 models. Note that the intended use of the car is as the main vehicle for a family of 5, children aged 8 to 15, driving 10,000 miles a year mostly in a city/suburban environment. Main drivers would be my wife and (soon) oldest son, and therefore it would have an automatic tranny. After about 6 years I would turn the car over to my middle son for college.

    Prius: Undisputed champion in fuel economy. Mixed bag on features--has voice-activated nav system, VSC, Bluetooth, and Smart Entry & Start available, and ABS/traction standard, but doesn't offer features like height-adjustable driver's seat, MP3 stereo, moonroof, and leather. One of the most comfortable rides, but not sharp in handling. Excellent warranty on hybrid components, but short bumper-to-bumper warranty. One of the best for rear-seat leg room. One of the most expensive, especially when loaded. PZEV-AT emissions.

    Mazda6i: One of the best in handling and cargo capacity. IMO the best looking 5-door hatchback. Good driving position. Good room in back seat--not quite as much leg room as in the Prius. OK fuel economy--low for the class. Good bumper-to-bumper warranty. One of the most expensive models--a bit less than the Prius due to incentives, but will cost more to operate due to fuel costs.

    Mazda3s: Perhaps the best handling and best 0-60 in the group. Good driving position. Considerably less room in the back seat than the Prius. Good bumper-to-bumper warranty. Rather expensive relative to others because of a lack of incentives. SULEV emissions.

    Matrix/Vibe: Compares very well in interior room and cargo room with the Prius--a little tighter in the rear, but more cargo space. OK ride and handling. Not much performance except with the more expensive 170 hp engine, and then the power is usable only at higher revs. Driving position OK but not great. Short warranty. Costs a few thousand less than the Prius (XR model) but TCO would be only a little less over 6-7 years. Looks are an acquired taste; I like the Matrix better than the Vibe. ULEV emissions.

    Focus ZX5: Interior room compares well to the Prius except for length of cargo area and rear seat leg room. One of best blends of ride and handling. Need to go with Premium model to get rear seat where only part of it can be folded flat. Driving position and seat not comfortable. Short bumper-to-bumper warranty. Costs a little less than the Matrix. SULEV emissions available.

    Elantra GT: Very low price (about $13,000 fully loaded with automatic, moonroof, and ABS/traction at the time I was shopping). Good blend of ride and handling. About same cargo space as Prius, but less rear seat leg room. Great driving position. Great warranty. OK fuel economy. ULEV emissions (SULEV version not available in my state).

    Malibu Maxx: Great rear seat room--most in the group. One of the biggest cargo areas of the group. OK fuel economy and good power with the V6. Good ride, OK handling. Some unique otions like rear-seat DVD and remote start. Short warranty. Cost about as much (with V6) as the Prius, but would cost much more over time due to fuel costs.

    Aerio: Did not seriously consider it because I didn't like it when I drove it (rattles, interior seemed cheap, not much rear seat room, short cargo area) and I don't like the looks of the 5-door.

    PT Cruiser: Did not seriously consider it because of low fuel economy, and the uniqueness has worn off for me.

    I think I could have been satisfied with either the Prius, Mazda6i, Matrix, Elantra GT, or Malibu Maxx. Ultimately my decision came down to, what is the car that meets my needs with the lowest TCO? That car was the Elantra GT, by a large margin. Had cost not been a factor, it would have been a tough decision between the Prius and the Mazda6i. But if cost were not a factor, I probably would have been looking at BMW and Audi wagons...
  • tempusvntempusvn Posts: 119
    In Message 87 gagrice said (of Toyota)

    "When are you going to wake up and realize they are only building and pretending to build additional hybrids to cover up there overall horrible fuel economy and emissions record. GM still has a better mileage and emissions record than Toyota or Ford over the whole fleet."

    The EPA just released their Fleet Fuel Econonmy numbers for the year.

    http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fetrends.htm

    Summarized Here:

    http://www.lacar.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&s- id=302

    "2004 Fords earned the lowest average fleet fuel economy of any major car maker selling vehicles in the United States. In fact, the report reveals that Ford has earned the lowest average for every year since 1999. One might be able to overlook this figures, given the large number of trucks and SUVs that the company produces.

    The same report, however, reveals that another large producer of trucks and SUVs achieved the best average car fuel economy, the best average truck fuel economy, and the second best combined car and truck fuel economy average. That company is Toyota, and their combined car and truck figures are second only to Honda (27.6 versus 27.7 miles per gallon). Considering the vast number of trucks and SUVs that Toyota produces (versus Honda), this is quite an achievement."
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,899
    I have not read all the EPA report yet. LACAR failed to mention GM. The article is slanted toward the writer's opinion. He does not match vehicle to vehicle in the synopsis. The Toyota Tundra and Landcruiser are horrible cas hogs compared even to the Ford PU trucks of equal size. And Toyota is a blip on the sales charts for both PU trucks and SUV type vehicles.

    http://www.autosite.com/editoria/asmr/svsuv.asp
  • tempusvntempusvn Posts: 119
    Ok, Here's GM in the Corporate overall mix.

    Toyota - 23.0 MPG
    GM - 20.6 MPG
    Ford - 18.8 MPG

    But, now I'm confused again. First you said that Toyota was only producing hybrids because they had to raise their terrible Fuel Economy Averages. You particularly mentioned Trucks.

    Now, when it turns out that Toyota not only has the highest Corporate Automobile Fuel Economy Average, but the Highest Coporate Truck Fuel Economy Average (obviously with out any hybrid assist), you seem to be running off with the goalposts again saying that one or two vehicles Toyota makes have bad fuel economy compared to some other seletcted vehicle from another manufacturer.

    What exactly is your point?

    Toyota happens to be the most fuel efficient manufacturer of both Trucks and Cars, even with the examples you picked out in the mix.

    Does this mean it's all due to Hybrids? Are you still saying Toyota's motivation for hybrids is only to make up for an otherwise bad Fuel Economy record?

    It seems to me that hybrids can only widen an already substantial lead.
  • stevedebistevedebi LAPosts: 3,784
    Cute. But I'm holding out for a 747...

    Actually, I drive a CR-V, and subscribe to the "smaller, nimbler" theories. I was just agreeing with others as to safety in larger vehicles.

    For myself, I will take my chances and keep my eyes open, my foot ready to react, and my senses alert. It has served me thus far...
  • stevedebistevedebi LAPosts: 3,784
    "Think of the millions of drivers in Europe and Asia who regularly risk the lives of their children by transporting them in small, unsafe cars that cannot withstand a broadside collison by a large truck."

    I recognize the humor, but this brings up a valid point. As many enviros point out, if we didn't have all these larger vehicles, everyone would be safer. Of course there are still heavy cars in Europe, but not nearly as many, and most of those are delivery trucks & etc.

    Obviously, people don't need such large vehicles. But they want them. Until that changes, those of us with smaller cars will have to take our chances.

    "The fact we'd have to find some way of doubling oil production around the world in order to allow everyone to drive these large vehicles is a small price to pay for ensuring the safety of our children."

    I'd vote for recycling all that McDonalds fry grease in a good bio-diesel that gets excellent economy. Maybe it is coming...
  • john1701ajohn1701a Posts: 1,897
    > we'd have to find some way of doubling oil production around the world in order to allow everyone to drive these large vehicles

    That wouldn't do any good. All the oil you want is not going to change the fact that refineries are already at maximum capacity. They couldn't produce more diesel & gas even if they wanted too.

    And even if that problem was solved, someone would just build an even bigger vehicle and the cycle would start all over again.

    JOHN
This discussion has been closed.