Prius C / Yaris Hybrid

[RedDevil]

They sure are. They also claim 36 km/l - you can do the math.

The difference really is in the gearbox.
Toyota's 'infinite gear' planetary HSD system can only cover 3 ratios without a loss; the other ratios involve using a pair of electric motors as a generator and motor to simulate a gear in between. It can use the electric motors alone (without the ICE) in EV mode; but it is a bit of a compromise in terms of gearing for RPM.
Likewise, Honda's current CVT gearbox and IMA system have their problems and inefficiencies - the ICE always runs in EV mode, albeit in DFCO with open valves; the CVT has relatively high friction, and the electric motor has to operate at the same RPM as the engine - it replaces the flywheel...
None of these problems exist with the new system.

The Fit now uses lithium-ion batteries to boot, that will enhance the EV efficiency compared to the old NiMH batteries.
That all should explain why the Fit does better at the JDM/Euro cycle tests, despite being bigger.

Progress...

[RedDevil]

If you google '86 mpg' you get lots of references to the Fit - and this:
http://www.examiner.com/article/ford...tic-technology

(from this angle it looks surprisingly similar to my wife's Hyundai I10, which gets 26 mpg btw, but that is another story)

Yes, A Fiesta, built in Cologne, Germany.
Not a hybrid. And it does not run on gas, nor on eau-de-Cologne but on Diesel. Econetic engine again of course.
But it is red, a big plus.

I did look at the Fiesta when I was looking to replace my Nissan btw, but at the time they had no winner like that and the consumer reports were a bit unnerving. Test drove a couple of noisy sapless ecodiesels of other brands (like the Seat Ibiza ST) and then a Fit and an Insight, those won me over. The CVT may have its faults, in my hometown (speedbump city) and on hairpin riddled mountain roads, as I discovered to my surprise, it is king. I may even not like the double clutch gearbox... damn, do I need to check it out!

[sendler]

80 mpg has to be Imperial gallons for either car. Fuelly shows a median average of 51 mpgUS with a very respectable sample size of 640 cars for the PriusC.
.
Toyota Prius C MPG Reports | Fuelly
.

[RedDevil]

According to EM's own conversion tables, 85.6 USmpg (as claimed) = 36(+) km/l (as claimed ) = 102.8 Imp mpg.

Honda claims it does that.
When Hyundai made unreasonable claims about their cars economy they got sued and now have to pay customers to compensate for their cars low FE.
I bet Honda knows what they are doing here... they will pay if it does not deliver!

But I bet it does. The gearbox, engine, batteries, aero tweeks, whole concept - there are no flaws.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

They sure are. They also claim 36 km/l - you can do the math[/URL].

Japan must have a weird test cycle. They tested the PriusC at 82 mpg while the USA EPA window sticker states 53 mpgUS city, 46 highway for a combined 50 mpgUS. 640 real world user's on Fuelly are averaging 51.
.
Compare Side-by-Side
.
.

.
.
.
.
It's time now to place my final bid, and without going over, I predict the new Honda Fit hybrid will beat the Prius C and will show a 53 mpgUS average when a sizable sample shows up on Fuelly.

[user removed]

I think you will find the two to be close in mileage, a lot closer than many might believe.
With the lithium battery and better regenerative capability as the major factors. The Japanese mileage figures are close for both vehicles, compared in the same test cycle.

regards
Mech

[Daox]

Yeah, the Japanese test cycle is extremely optimistic.

[RedDevil]

My hunch is that small cars do relatively bad on fuel;ly because for what they are used.

That will often be short city trips, like our I10 that my wife uses for the school run and the groceries and about nothing else.
Our Insight is the better drive on the highway, so we always take that for longer trips.

The Prius C gets better mileage in the city than on the highway - when its warm.
I bet it often doesn't get the chance to warm up just like our Hyundai.
You buy the car(s) that fit your needs, and choose (if possible) between them.
Even the EPA numbers cannot be compared to everyday use because of this effect.

[jamesqf]

[QUOTE=RedDevil;397457]My hunch is that small cars do relatively bad on fuel;ly because for what they are used.[quote]

I would bet that a lot of the low mpg numbers could be substantially improved by adjusting the nut that holds the steering wheel. Just for instance, I have several acquantances who always let their cars idle 5-10 minutes before driving. If I pass the local elementary school at about 3 PM, I'll see a line of cars maybe 1/4 mile long, most idling while waiting to pick up the little darlings.

Now when people like this don't get anywhere near the EPA rating for their car, do you really think the test is the problem?

Even the EPA numbers cannot be compared to everyday use because of this effect.

Well, as above, it depends on what your "everyday use" actually is. If you're going to make wasteful short trips, of course you will get lousy mpg. But that's your fault, not the car's fault.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

bad on fuelly

Fuelly IS probably slightly skewed from what the total population of any car really gets. I get that complaint all the time when I quote Fuelly on motorcycle forums.
They always say things like: "Anyone that takes the time to log fuel economy cares more and is trying to get a better number." and " If they get a bad fill up they will just throw that one out." So yeah, Fuelly data may be slightly high. Oh, Wait! A percent too high.