If I recall my reading correctly the Prius2 completed much of the EPA City tests while on batts alone. If the pack was less charged at the end of the test than at the beginning it would make the mileage off by more than a normal car. The HCH is getting very close to the EPA rating, so much so that no major adjustment would be required. The Prius on the other hand misses by quite a bit. The EPA asked Honda and Toyota to change their published mileage and both refused. I think it is ok for Honda as they are not so far off but Toyota is causing themselves a PR problem with the inflated numbers.

Note: I'm not saying anything is wrong with the Prius, only with the accounting of the mileage. The Prius is a brilliant design and I'd love to have one. Been readin up on the geared CVT, amazing!

Did the P1 have the geared CVT?

I'm not sure what "geared CVT" is, but I'm quite sure that the principle is the same in the 2001-2003 Prius as in the 2004. A planetary gear with lots of control systems takes care of both motor and engine output to produce a smooth ride.

I agree with the rest of your post. I wonder if they checked the SoC of the battery before and after the test run?

Geared CVT = Planetary Gear with lots of control systems.

Geared CVT, 9 letters.
Your way, 37 letters.

Geared as opposed to using a metal belt like the Honda's. Give me a TLA and I'll use it every time. TLA = Three Letter Acronym, not to be confused with the ETLA or Extended TLA.

lakedude,
HSD, hybrid synergy drive. Technically not a CVT, it performs the same function as a CVT.
Cheers,
Steven

Is that true? I don't think it is, but maybe someone else knows. From what I've learned, EPA does it's own testing and requires the manufacturers to publish the numbers from those tests. I heard from an auto broker that Toyota wanted the EPA to lower the numbers but the EPA was the one to refuse.

Is that true? I don't think it is, but maybe someone else knows. From what I've learned, EPA does it's own testing and requires the manufacturers to publish the numbers from those tests. I heard from an auto broker that Toyota wanted the EPA to lower the numbers but the EPA was the one to refuse. [/b][/quote]
My guess is that the EPA would want the manufacturer to adjust the rating and not vice versa......

But that doesn't make sense given that it is the EPA's rating based on the tests performed by the EPA at it's own labs under non-real world conditions. Toyota has no control over the EPA numbers.

Read this article, which is the best I have seen for helping to explain the whole controversy:

http://www.investors.com/breakingnews.asp?...=21225877&brk=1

Read the whole thing (it's long) and you will understand this issue much better.... :D

This one is pretty good too:

http://www.autosafety.org/article.php?scid=77&did=854

From another website:

"In a paper received by Toyota Motor Corporation it reads, "Manufacturers are required by law to use the EPA-estimated fuel economy ratings on every Monroney label (window sticker), and must state those ratings in advertising that quotes fuel economy figures. According to Chris Rundler, Director of EPA and Dan Harrison, Manager of EPA cars, this is not the case. "A Manufacturer can voluntarily use MPG labels of their own if the figures they have are lower." The operative words in this case are "if the figures are lower." "

Read this article, which is the best I have seen for helping to explain the whole controversy:

http://www.investors.com/breakingnews.asp?...=21225877&brk=1

Read the whole thing (it's long) and you will understand this issue much better.... :D

This one is pretty good too:

http://www.autosafety.org/article.php?scid=77&did=854 [/b][/quote]
Respectfully, I don't think those articles prove your point. Those articles point out how unrealistic the EPA testing is, and suggest that the manufacturers are required to post the EPA ratings. I'v never heard of a manufacturer not posting the EPA ratings. If the EPA wants the manufacturers to post more realistic ratings, it can regulate by promulgating rules requiring manufacturers to post ratings other than the EPA ratings if those are lower, not by just allowing them to do so. Or it can change its testing methods. Neither of which the EPA has done. Not that the manufacturers are complaining, but still, I don't think the blame rests squarely on the manufacturers' shoulders.

I wasn't really making a point or trying to prove anything, was I? I think I was just providing information to someone who asked a question..... :rolleyes:

The only thing I read that I did not already know is that the EPA "allows" manufacturers to post lower numbers if they want to.

I'm not standing on either side of the road on this issue.....They can either post their version of real numbers or the outdated EPA version of real numbers, I couldn't care less...... :D

Sorry, I thought this was the point you were trying to make...

Sorry, I thought this was the point you were trying to make...[/b][/quote]
Well, the manufacturer KNOWS that the EPA cannot, will not, lower it's EPA numbers without modifying the EPA test and re-running it - so the manufacturer would never even ATTEMPT to get the EPA to lower the numbers.....The manufacturers might want ( and probably have asked for ) a newly designed EPA test, but they know full well as do we all that the EPA will not lower any numbers which are not based on the EPA's own testing.

Thus my "guess" that the EPA might want the manufacturer to lower it is the ONLY way it could happen, because the EPA cannot lower theirs without re-running a redesigned test. That the EPA "allows" manufacturers to lower it "if they want" (which would not likely EVER happen) assures that the lowering of numbers will not happen until/unless there is a newly updated EPA test methodology, because all the car makers hang their hats on those high MPG numbers.

So it's a quandry, the result of which I do not really care, because I know I'm going to get what I can get from my car regardless of the EPA number, as are all of you.

Having EPA numbers to compare is a good basic guideline for comparing cars before purchase, but the numbers don't matter much after the purchase is made, really, do they? Except for freaks like us who hang on every extra MPG like groupies? :D

Hi Lars-ss:

___Good overall assessment on the Prius II’s EPA rated fuel economy vs. real world but calling those trying to save their children’s ability to drive an automobile with the freedoms that we do today, change in a small manner our countries balance of payments, lower our dependency on foreign oil, lessen our dependency on regimes with terrorist citizenry killing American’s by the building full, “Freaks” is an extreme disservice to us all. The $ savings that comes with the above is a tremendous boon if you didn’t pay too much for the automobile in the first place.

___As for me, every time I start an automobile whether it’s the MDX, Ranger, Corolla, or Insight, they all receive the gentlest treatment to maximize their respective fuel economy. The EPA estimates are only numbers to be destroyed at each and every turn of the key imho and I hope it stays that way.

___Good Luck

___Wayne R. Gerdes
___Hunt Club Farms Landscaping Ltd.
___Waynegerdes@earthlink.net

Notice I put the :D at the end of the "freaks" comment - that was tongue in cheek and meant to point out how ONLY we certain types of people care enough to want a Hybrid and are willing to change our driving habits to take advantage of the capability of the technology while most "mainstreamers" do not. ( I can laugh at my own obssessions, hopefully we all can, it's healthy to do so. )

I have many, many friends who "care" about the environment and wish we would put an end to fossil fuel dependence but would never do what I do to economize - thus we are "different" in that way - maybe not Freaky in a negative way, thus the tongue in cheek value, but "Freaky" can be positive too - Randy Moss is called a Freak and Michael Jordan was called a Freak, as was Wayne Gretzky, Barry Bonds, etc. - Freaky can be a positive assessment, but if you choose to see the negative side of the comment, then don't be insulted, as none was meant.

Absolutely no insult was intended...... :rolleyes:

Hi Lars-ss:

___No harm, no foul …

___Good Luck

___Wayne R. Gerdes
___Hunt Club Farms Landscaping Ltd.
___Waynegerdes@earthlink.net