The Most Depressing Automotive Conversation Ever

[Ferrer]

I can't honestly find something innerly wrong with the Prius. It may not be dead cheap, but even its competition isn't as cheap as we'd like.
Also, the simpler and less expensive Insight, which relatively to its technology and to the Prius is also more frugal, isn't exactly a success, especially with buyers also considering more expensive versions of it. So price is definitely not the point there.

If we have to consider its buyers, well, many brands out there are in a similar situation, so if I have to try to appreciate a BMW or Mini for what it really is, so it should be with the Prius.

It may not be what an enthusiast dreams of, but that's the case also with a lot of its competitors, and considering who it is amied at, it may also be a better product than say a Fiat Bravo or a Citroen C4.

But the main point is, what is its comeptition? What is actually the Prius? As a world-saving device I'd say it's pretty much useless, because I'm sure that real life fuel consumption is higher than a good modern diesel, especially outside the city and there's the problem of wasted batteries and whatnot.

So let's consider it as a practial family hatchback. Where you find that it is fine at that. And then, you learn that it costs 23 thousand Euros. That's right 23 grand. You could have a Bravo 1.6 JTD for 16 thousand. Which 7 grand less.

The idea isn't inherently bad, but it still ahs a long way to go to be refined. Maybe, when PSA introduces the diesel-hybrid it will start making sense.

Personally as a citizen of the United Kingdom, I think that the E.U. has done us no favours (I would happily see the UK leave the United States of Europe ) with it's punitive and poorly though-out laws relating to driving. In the UK, we don't need things such as daytime running lights (they are simply ridiculous on a bright summer day): If a driver cannot be trusted to determine when lights are needed, they shouldn't be driving at all.

I think we have more bright sunny days than you do...

I think DRLs are practical and a welcome addition. In fact on the motorway or even while driving outside urban areas I tend to drive with the lights on during the day if the car doesn't have DRLs. It's all about seeing and, also rather importantly, being seen. If it improves safety, then it is a welcome adition, in my opinion.

This is exactly what I meant when I mentioned cars becoming appliances. It's a travesty that the cheapest "enthusiast's" car (that's NOT a supermini), at least in the UK, is the Mazda MX-5 1.8 at over seventeen grand!

And what's wrong with superminis? I'm sure that on the right roads cars like the 11 grand Panda 100HP are a riot too. Just because they are in essence a front wheel drive hotted up econobox doesn't mean we should dismiss them.

[Clivey]

But the main point is, what is its comeptition? What is actually the Prius? As a world-saving device I'd say it's pretty much useless, because I'm sure that real life fuel consumption is higher than a good modern diesel, especially outside the city and there's the problem of wasted batteries and whatnot.

So let's consider it as a practial family hatchback. Where you find that it is fine at that. And then, you learn that it costs 23 thousand Euros. That's right 23 grand. You could have a Bravo 1.6 JTD for 16 thousand. Which 7 grand less.

The idea isn't inherently bad, but it still ahs a long way to go to be refined. Maybe, when PSA introduces the diesel-hybrid it will start making sense.

I definitely agree, however with the continual advances in battery technology, these types of hybrids will hopefully be obsolete in the coming years - which will probably happen when the range of a relatively affordable battery-powered car reaches a genuine 200 miles.

For the time being, I do like the idea behind the GM Volt and the hybrid Lotus Evora though - having a small IC engine as a generator for when the batteries run low is definitely a good thing.

I think DRLs are practical and a welcome addition. In fact on the motorway or even while driving outside urban areas I tend to drive with the lights on during the day if the car doesn't have DRLs. It's all about seeing and, also rather importantly, being seen. If it improves safety, then it is a welcome adition, in my opinion.

In the UK, many motorcyclists use their headlights during the day for this reason (as they are the most vulnerable type of motor vehicle), but the problem starts when the drivers of other vehicles do the same: The bikes no longer stand-out and accidents involving other drivers failing to see motorcycles increase. In many situations, it is a lot harder for road users to see / predict where bikes are than cars.

However if in normal daylight, someone's paying so little attention to the road that they fail to see you in your 1.5 ton lump of very substantial metal, I don't think lights are going to help them!

In addition, using "normal" (non LED) lights can increase fuel consumption by up to 10% depending on the car in question.

And what's wrong with superminis? I'm sure that on the right roads cars like the 11 grand Panda 100HP are a riot too. Just because they are in essence a front wheel drive hotted up econobox doesn't mean we should dismiss them.

IMO they can be fun, but much like with a gimmicky toy I find myself losing interest quickly. A RWD car, or even a good AWD car IMHO can offer another layer of interaction and adjustability. - For me, driving a FWD car doesn't feel as natural as a RWD. Actually, when you're driving enthusiastically it just feels awkward most of the time.

[Revo]

However if in normal daylight, someone's paying so little attention to the road that they fail to see you in your 1.5 ton lump of very substantial metal, I don't think lights are going to help them!

From a distance say, 100 meters and more, there is a massive difference of noticing vehicles with DRL vs. those without DRL. Especially in a bright summer day.

You stupid islanders also need a metric system, mandatory winter tyres and it is about time to start driving on the RIGHT side of the road!

[Ferrer]

I definitely agree, however with the continual advances in battery technology, these types of hybrids will hopefully be obsolete in the coming years - which will probably happen when the range of a relatively affordable battery-powered car reaches a genuine 200 miles.

For the time being, I do like the idea behind the GM Volt and the hybrid Lotus Evora though - having a small IC engine as a generator for when the batteries run low is definitely a good thing.

Again yes, great idea, but if the emphasis is in depending as little as possible from fossil fuels why not use a diesel generator? They are the type of engines that use the least fuel currently and would surely help in being more green, at least more than a petrol engine.

IMO they can be fun, but much like with a gimmicky toy I find myself losing interest quickly. A RWD car, or even a good AWD car IMHO can offer another layer of interaction and adjustability. - For me, driving a FWD car doesn't feel as natural as a RWD. Actually, when you're driving enthusiastically it just feels awkward most of the time.

In my own personal experience, if your only interest is driving, multi-tasking is indeed better. As we've discussed before I personally think that four wheel drive brings an unnecessary degree of complexity with no tangible benefits but each to his own.

But even so, rear wheel drive isn't the be all end all of driving. For instance, the 1-Series is technically brilliant but in truth the car that puts the smile on my face everytime I drive it is the Mini, despite being front wheel drive. There's the engine, the suspension, gearbox and brakes and the ultimate feel of the thing itself. Rear wheel drive plays a part but not regardless of everything else.

And then there's the matter of practicality, budget or other personal constraints. If you need to carry four people around the MX-5 while great to drive is pretty much useless, unless you want to drive everywhere twice to gett everyone wherever you are going. This is one of the things that make hot hatches great. They deliver on the enthusiast side but on the other hand they are normal cars.

And to bring this post finally in topic, I can relate to the whole I prefer my David vs my Goliath malarkey. And I'll put the example with cars we have. Sometimes I just prefer to drive the Mini instead of the Jag. And the Jag's got the rear wheel drive, the sound track, the power, the handling and the lot. And of course it's a Jaaaag which means that even if you look like an utter geek all the girls still want to sleep with you. And yet, the rawness of the Mini just wins my heart.

Maybe it's not a question on which do you prefer, but on which occasion are you driving them.

[LeonOfTheDead]

But the main point is, what is its comeptition? What is actually the Prius? As a world-saving device I'd say it's pretty much useless, because I'm sure that real life fuel consumption is higher than a good modern diesel, especially outside the city and there's the problem of wasted batteries and whatnot.

So let's consider it as a practial family hatchback. Where you find that it is fine at that. And then, you learn that it costs 23 thousand Euros. That's right 23 grand. You could have a Bravo 1.6 JTD for 16 thousand. Which 7 grand less.

The idea isn't inherently bad, but it still ahs a long way to go to be refined. Maybe, when PSA introduces the diesel-hybrid it will start making sense.

A few things.
The Prius generates 100 kW, as opposed to the Bravo's 66 kW. Fiat's doesn't have something with 100 kW as a diesel car, but the second step of the 1.6 diesel engine offers 88 kW, and the 2.0 liter engine has about 121 kW.
Trying to "create" another version in the middle, it would start at 23.000 € (Italian price), while the entry level Prius costs 26.000 €
That's indeed more, but not so much as what you mentioned. Equipments are somewhat comparable.
On the other hand you're paying for some advantages, and for a new technology as well. Even diesel engined cars may be overpriced for some users, depending on what they are looking for.

Talking about consumptions, I'm not so sure a similarly powered diesel engine would have a great advantage. Of course it all depends on the road you're driving on, but considering the previous generation Prius was marginally outpaced by a BMW 520d (not my test...) over a 900 km route, 800 km of which on the motorway, I believe it would be a tight comparison.

Anyway, the point isn't mileage but CO2 emissions, which are quite low for this level of power. Not only that, but it is because of this type of cars that other "smaller" solutions have been adopted by other automakers with good results. Like BMW's EfficientDynamics.

To be honest, it is my personal opinion, mainly justified by what I found during my thesis, that full hybrid cars are too expensive compared to what they give, if compared with mild hybrid models.
The Honda Insight is a much simpler car, requires less purpose built components, its architecture isn't necessarily bespoke to this only model and easily installable on a different car. Technologically, I also think it's a smarter system, with the electric motor packed between the ICE and the gearbox substituting the flywheel. BMW's is supposedly going to fully take advantage of this architecture positioning an additional clutch between the ICE and the electric motor, so that the car could run as a full hybrid as well (that's to say, in electric mode too).
On the other hand performance, consumption and emissions are relatively close to the Prius', despite a simpler and less expensive car.

What people really don't understand is that it is simpler to gain a lot of mileage with other solutions than trough new or different drivetrains.
Consider tires. On the Prius, buying the optional 17" wheels with slightly larger tires instead of the standard 15", will drop mileage by 5% and increase emissions by about 3%. A small difference, but try to get them out of the engine alone.

So it is relatively easy to compare cars which are not entirely comparable in first place, with tires, for instance, being just another factor never taken into count. Then don't wonder why people keep on buying 17" wheels equipped Prius'.

Talking about batteries, there are a bit too many urban legends around them. First of all, they can be reclined. Don't ask how and for how much, but it is done since a few years. High output batteries are often re-used in less powerful applications, so Prius' batteries (as with other hybrid/electric cars) can be re-used on notebooks and other sort of "appliances". This solution is even more concrete with the upcoming Volt thanks to the partnership with LG.
Secondly, despite being only an internal study and therefore not validated by any other company, Honda did a research finding that building, using and disposing a Civic IMA as opposed to a standard Civic sedan allowed to reduce to the 66% the CO2 emissions.
The CO2 increase due to batteries and disposal of the Hybrid was really marginal compared to what it could be saved during a 100.000 miles time span. If driven for more time, the situation would be even better, and that's also possible with first gen Prius' still using their original batteries, 12 years later or so.

Surely CO2 isn't the only polluting thing out there, but that's the data I got and what is considered nowadays.

When it comes to diesel-hybrids, there will be a few disadvantages as well. Even if the diesel engine will offer an improved mileage on highways and other higher speeds routes, its additional weight could diminish the mileage during urban and city driving, which is the key point for a hybrid.

Another problem is the lower efficiency of small diesel engines, which is presumingly what would be used on hybrids because some of the overall power would be provided by the electric motors. This lower efficiency would give back a smaller difference between petrol and diesel hybrids.

Packing a diesel engine in a hybrid is also a bit more difficult, for improved dimensions and more parts (turbocharging, cooling), even if the already more powerful electronics of diesel cars would be a nice fit with hybrids'.

I'm really curious to see them, but I'm not shaking.
I personally believe that for everyday commuting mild hybrids make sense, more than full hybrids and of many other standard cars. Considering future implications, EREVs are probably the way to go until electric cars can provides higher ranges, or be accepted by much more users.

That's what makes sense.
As an enthusiast who don't want to see supercars and sportscars dying, I'm looking forward to some mild hybrid model. Consider the CR-Z as the first step in the right direction. Not saying it is perfect, but neither it is rubbish.

[Clivey]

From a distance say, 100 meters and more, there is a massive difference of noticing vehicles with DRL vs. those without DRL. Especially in a bright summer day.

Cars are easy to see in normal daylight - if someone needs them to have lights on, they either need to check their eyesight or do something about the lack of concentration / observation they're exhibiting. The UK has one of the lowest casualty rates in the World - we don't need DRLs to achieve that.

You stupid islanders also need a metric system, mandatory winter tyres and it is about time to start driving on the RIGHT side of the road!

I wouldn't have a problem with the metric system, except that our country is in the middle of a recession and they've calculated that just changing all the road signs around would cost an unbelievable amount of money.

With regards to which side of the car we sit on: Most people are right handed, and I'd rather have my strongest hand on the steering wheel whilst changing gear, especially seeing as the number of potholes etc. on UK roads is increasing.

I'd fully approve of mandatory winter tyres...although judging by some British driver's reactions to snow & ice, I still think they'd end-up upside down in a ditch (some are scared of the snow and ice because no formal tuition is given and they're not used to it) - I relish the challenge and managed to get about just fine last winter despite my tyres being Michelin Pilot Exaltos.

[Kitdy]

With regards to which side of the car we sit on: Most people are right handed, and I'd rather have my strongest hand on the steering wheel whilst changing gear, especially seeing as the number of potholes etc. on UK roads is increasing.

This is interesting. I first drove stick - very briefly - in Scotland. The left hand on the stick was fine as I recall - but surely there are advantages to both layouts. Having your right on the stick will allow for better shifting, and right on the wheel, better steering. Steering does seem more critical though.

[Clivey]

This is interesting. I first drove stick - very briefly - in Scotland. The left hand on the stick was fine as I recall - but surely there are advantages to both layouts. Having your right on the stick will allow for better shifting, and right on the wheel, better steering. Steering does seem more critical though.

I suppose with some crappy modern EPAS systems, an arthritic mouse could steer with it's little finger, so on that basis, and judging by some of the awful shift quality on some cars, you might want your strongest hand on the gearstick!

Seriously though, it's just personal preference.

[henk4]

Cars are easy to see in normal daylight - if someone needs them to have lights on, they either need to check their eyesight or do something about the lack of concentration / observation they're exhibiting. The UK has one of the lowest casualty rates in the World - we don't need DRLs to achieve that.

I always put my daylights on, no need to have rules for that, I just don't want to take a risk with other people's eyesight. But I all in favour of making it mandatory, and then ban these circus lights that some German cars (and the new DS) are now equipped with.

[Kitdy]

I always put my daylights on, no need to have rules for that, I just don't want to take a risk with other people's eyesight. But I all in favour of making it mandatory, and then ban these circus lights that some German cars (and the new DS) are now equipped with.

I think badda said something to the effect of LEDs being like bling in the car world. I curse Audi for introducing them and all the other companies that are taking it up.

[LeonOfTheDead]

The new DS3 by Citroen has probably the worst LEDs on the market, unfortunately.
Also, those on the restyled 911 aren't that good looking either.
Let's not even talk about aftermarket ones...

[Kitdy]

I saw an Accord with LEDs the other day.

Very poor.

[f6fhellcat13]

This is probably less of a problem in Yurp, but here the most noticeable users of DRLs are assholes in lifted pickups with over-boosted perpetual high beams.
Because of this, I do not like when the normal headlight assembly is used during the day, however if the fog or other minor lights are always on, I don't really mind.

[LeonOfTheDead]

Over here it is actually forbidden t have fog lights on if there isn't, you know, fog.
Or at least it was so when I got my license, don't know about know.
Time is running.

[henk4]

Over here it is actually forbidden t have fog lights on if there isn't, you know, fog.
Or at least it was so when I got my license, don't know about know.
Time is running.

exactly, over here the same, and when it IS foggy, you can also use fog lights and NOT in combination with high beam. The same goes for the fog rear light, but f.i. the French and the Belgians put them on when there is some rain. Very disturbing,