Auto Express Preview Of 2016 Prius

[FROSTYBALLS]

See - http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/toyota/prius/93468/new-toyota-prius-2015-review

[Heidfirst]

& to go along with that http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/toyota/first-drives/2016-toyota-prius-review

[PeteB]

Interesting...

It's the first update of the Prius that isn't quicker to 62mph and higher top speed than the outgoing version - and that's no bad thing in my book.

The 12½ sec acceleration of the original Mk 1 (European) version and 99 mph top speed (106 on the clock [not that I ever saw that]) was more than enough for me - I hardly ever floored it in that one, and certainly don't on my Mk3 Prius.

Personally, I'd have been happier with less performance and even better mpg and emissions.

Also, their comment this Prius is ok for towing (first I'd heard of that) will be good news for some - I suspect the old one could have done, but Toyota engineers were being overly cautious with anything that might overheat the HV Battery or inverters.

Why do journalist persist in saying it's only good for urban driving?? I love mine as much on a long fast(ish) run as I do around town - and being a bit careful I generally get 70-80 mpg (computed - so knock about 4 off for true figure) on a 250 mile round trip and the same on longer local village/town driving. It's only a number of short journey/cold starts that keeps my overall figure where it is, but it's been climbing steadily since my number of very short journeys diminished.

[johalareewi]

Rated for towing :)

I love those throw away lines journos use...

A diesel car may work out more efficient on longer motorway journeys

A manual one perhaps but not an automatic.

But as is the way with hybrids, acceleration fades off after 50mph

Not in my hybrid it doesn't.

a traditional hatch like a Ford Focus is still more enjoyable to drive

For some strange reason, i find toyota hybrids very enjoyable to drive.And there is a distinct lack of stress when stuck in traffic.

[MEP's Yaris GS]

Rated for towing :)

I love those throw away lines journos use...

A diesel car may work out more efficient on longer motorway journeys

A manual one perhaps but not an automatic.

But as is the way with hybrids, acceleration fades off after 50mph

Not in my hybrid it doesn't.

a traditional hatch like a Ford Focus is still more enjoyable to drive

For some strange reason, i find toyota hybrids very enjoyable to drive.And there is a distinct lack of stress when stuck in traffic.

Couldn't agree with you more.

Seems like half of the usual cobblers jernos come up with.

[PeteB]

Rated for towing :)

I love those throw away lines journos use...

A diesel car may work out more efficient on longer motorway journeys

A manual one perhaps but not an automatic.

But as is the way with hybrids, acceleration fades off after 50mph

Not in my hybrid it doesn't.

a traditional hatch like a Ford Focus is still more enjoyable to drive

For some strange reason, i find toyota hybrids very enjoyable to drive.And there is a distinct lack of stress when stuck in traffic.

Couldn't agree with you more.

Seems like half of the usual cobblers jernos come up with.

Oh, more than half, surely!

I was amused in the early days to read reports that Toyota engineers were bemused by feedback from owners using words like "enjoyable", "exciting", "involving" "fascinating" etc.

They retorted with comments like "why??? It's not a sports car!".

Personally, I'm certainly not at all unhappy with the performance - early adopters 12-15 years ago were saying it felt like it was in first gear whatever the speed, while at the same time always feeling like it's in top gear when driving at a steady speed.

My first Mk 1 Prius was written off in a crash after just 6 months. Sitting in the wreckage, waiting for a crane to lift the car off the island it landed upon, I recall two main themes going through my mind:

1. if I'd had a 40 mph crash like this in any of the first five cars I owned in the 1970s, I'd have died for sure - the Mk 1 Prius didn't even think it was bad enough to fire the airbags, despite hitting a car in the middle of a set of traffic lights (he went through red!) then going airborne and crash landing on a traffic island, flattening a traffic light pole, ripping out three sections of metal railing (complete with big lumps of concrete still attached to their legs), and severely bending a couple more! In fact, when I got out and started taking pictures (having made sure the couple in the other car were ok) I wasn't even shaking.

2. Then I thought about the prospect of going back to an 'ordinary' car. Even if it hadn't been so good on petrol and relatively low emissions, I'd fallen for the magic carpet low speed effect and seamless, gearless acceleration up to any speed. I then got back in the wreckage and rang my dealer to order another Prius!

[TomdeGuerre]

Rated for towing :)

I love those throw away lines journos use...

A diesel car may work out more efficient on longer motorway journeys

A manual one perhaps but not an automatic.

But as is the way with hybrids, acceleration fades off after 50mph

Not in my hybrid it doesn't.

a traditional hatch like a Ford Focus is still more enjoyable to drive

For some strange reason, i find toyota hybrids very enjoyable to drive.And there is a distinct lack of stress when stuck in traffic.

Couldn't agree with you more.

Seems like half of the usual cobblers jernos come up with.

Oh, more than half, surely!

I was amused in the early days to read reports that Toyota engineers were bemused by feedback from owners using words like "enjoyable", "exciting", "involving" "fascinating" etc.

They retorted with comments like "why??? It's not a sports car!".

Personally, I'm certainly not at all unhappy with the performance - early adopters 12-15 years ago were saying it felt like it was in first gear whatever the speed, while at the same time always feeling like it's in top gear when driving at a steady speed.

My first Mk 1 Prius was written off in a crash after just 6 months. Sitting in the wreckage, waiting for a crane to lift the car off the island it landed upon, I recall two main themes going through my mind:

1. if I'd had a 40 mph crash like this in any of the first five cars I owned in the 1970s, I have died for sure - the Mk 1 Prius didn't even think it was bad enough to fire the airbags, despite hitting a car in the middle of a set of traffic lights (he went through red!) then going airborne and crash landing on a traffic island, flattening a traffic light pole, ripping out three sections of metal railing (complete with big lumps of concrete still attached to their legs), and severely bending a couple more! In fact, when I got out and started taking pictures (having made sure the couple in the other car were ok) I wasn't even shaking

If the airbags on my car didn't deploy after a crash like that i think i'd be asking the insurance engineer to investigate the reason(s) why.

I've witnessed airbag deployment testing at 30mph which is forty four feet per second.

[MEP's Yaris GS]

Rated for towing :)

I love those throw away lines journos use...

A diesel car may work out more efficient on longer motorway journeys

A manual one perhaps but not an automatic.

But as is the way with hybrids, acceleration fades off after 50mph

Not in my hybrid it doesn't.

a traditional hatch like a Ford Focus is still more enjoyable to drive

For some strange reason, i find toyota hybrids very enjoyable to drive.And there is a distinct lack of stress when stuck in traffic.

Couldn't agree with you more.

Seems like half of the usual cobblers jernos come up with.

Oh, more than half, surely!

I was amused in the early days to read reports that Toyota engineers were bemused by feedback from owners using words like "enjoyable", "exciting", "involving" "fascinating" etc.

They retorted with comments like "why??? It's not a sports car!".

Personally, I'm certainly not at all unhappy with the performance - early adopters 12-15 years ago were saying it felt like it was in first gear whatever the speed, while at the same time always feeling like it's in top gear when driving at a steady speed.

My first Mk 1 Prius was written off in a crash after just 6 months. Sitting in the wreckage, waiting for a crane to lift the car off the island it landed upon, I recall two main themes going through my mind:

• if I'd had a 40 mph crash like this in any of the first five cars I owned in the 1970s, I have died for sure - the Mk 1 Prius didn't even think it was bad enough to fire the airbags, despite hitting a car in the middle of a set of traffic lights (he went through red!) then going airborne and crash landing on a traffic island, flattening a traffic light pole, ripping out three sections of metal railing (complete with big lumps of concrete still attached to their legs), and severely bending a couple more! In fact, when I got out and started taking pictures (having made sure the couple in the other car were ok) I wasn't even shaking

If the airbags on my car didn't deploy after a crash like that i think i'd be asking the insurance engineer to investigate the reason(s) why.

I've witnessed airbag deployment testing at 30mph which is forty four feet per second.

Insurance engineer won't be giving a flying monkeys to be honest.

Speed at Impact plays very little relavance on airbag deployment, what matters in an impact, and determines deployment, is rate of deceleration.

From PeteB's description his accident was far from a sudden stop, and typically I'm not surprised that the SRS system didn't kick in.

[PeteB]

Insurance engineer won't be giving a flying monkeys to be honest.

Speed at Impact plays very little relavance on airbag deployment, what matters in an impact, and determines deployment, is rate of deceleration.

From PeteB's description his accident was far from a sudden stop, and typically I'm not surprised that the SRS system didn't kick in.

Spot on - you absolutely don't want your airbags going off unless they really need to, for at least these two reasons:

1. airbags themselves can cause injuries when they go off, from friction burns to the arms [1], to cracked ribs and if you're crossing an arm or two over the wheel at the time multiple arm fractures and serious face damage (one good reason for using pull-push technique) - however when really needed they are usually major life savers

2. the car doesn't know if it's about to have an even more serious impact, possibly from a vehicle hitting cars that have already collided, or maybe going down an embankment - if it's already gone off, it can't help you.

The fact I was uninjured (by the crash, at least [2]) shows the car made the right decision.

There were three, maybe four quite severe impacts (it was all a bit of a blur - would have been interesting to have had a Dashcam, but they weren't around in 2002). I dare say if I'd run into a big block of concrete full square at that speed they'd have gone off alright!

The first impact was where my front nearside corner met the front offside corner of a Saxo, crushed it's bonnet and, according the the ambulance crew that witnessed it, used it as a launching ramp to fly some 15 feet into the air and nosedive onto the island - the sump hit the kerb as it came down rotating the engine and front suspension mounts, and a piece of railing went through the sump.

Amazingly, when the car was unloaded at a recovery site, it could still be driven under electric power, albeit under protest and with some loud groaning (from the car!).

If anyone's interested, here's a picture:

(Jon may recognise where this happened!)

The impact made the Saxo spin alongside me and it hit the Prius with both rear corners as it did so, popping it's rear window into the road in the process. From the driver's seat, my car looked perfectly normal.

[1] That's how accident investigators can sometimes tell the driver lied about who was behind the wheel - the driver is the one who'd have the friction burns on the forearms

[2] the bent over traffic light pole by the front wheel lifted that side of the car further off the ground - I must have lost my presence of mind at this point as I didn't spot this until I fell out and twisted my back slightly!

[MEP's Yaris GS]

Ah yes, I know where that is.

One hell of a bill for the Saxo's insurance co!

[Duffryn]

Good (and lucky!) that you weren't badly hurt Pete - I'd rather be in a Toyota than a Citroen any day of the week!

[TomdeGuerre]

Insurance engineer won't be giving a flying monkeys to be honest.

Speed at Impact plays very little relavance on airbag deployment, what matters in an impact, and determines deployment, is rate of deceleration.

From PeteB's description his accident was far from a sudden stop, and typically I'm not surprised that the SRS system didn't kick in.

How do you know what deceleration forces were involved? You weren’t there and you have no data to qualify making such a statement.

According to the OP he was doing 40 mph (58 feet per second) when the impact occurred and his vehicle still came to rest within the confines of the junction – supposedly after demolishing another car, crash landing on a traffic island, flattening a traffic light pole, ripping out three sections of metal railing (complete with big lumps of concrete still attached to their legs), and severely bending a couple more. If that’s not sufficient deceleration force then I don’t know what is.

[PeteB]

I think Jon's right - I was there and I can tell you I'm sure the car did the right thing and it was unlikely to be a fault.

The insurance guys would only care if I'd been injured and there was evidence to suggest the airbags would have helped (and Jon's in the insurance business so probably has a better idea on this than me).

I'm sure (as much as I can be) if I'd hit a bigger car full square head on or something else that stopped me dead in one go they'd have fired.

[PeteB]

Anyway, the main thing is nobody was injured.

I'm very grateful no pedestrians were standing on the island when I arrived there - during the Saturday morning while we gridlocked a large part of Norwich, lots of people crossed the road there - it doesn't bear thinking about.

(at one point there were 3 police vehicles, a fire appliance and control unit, an ambulance service control vehicle, a couple of council lorries to tidy the wrecked ironmongery, a crane and two recovery vehicles!)

You've only got to go back to my early days in the 1950s & 60s and people sometimes died in collisions of just 10 mph!

[TomdeGuerre]

Anyway, the main thing is nobody was injured.

I'm very grateful no pedestrians were standing on the island when I arrived there - during the Saturday morning while we gridlocked a large part of Norwich, lots of people crossed the road there - it doesn't bear thinking about.

(at one point there were 3 police vehicles, a fire appliance and control unit, an ambulance service control vehicle, a couple of council lorries to tidy the wrecked ironmongery, a crane and two recovery vehicles!)

You've only got to go back to my early days in the 1950s & 60s and people sometimes died in collisions of just 10 mph!

If it's such a busy junction and lots of people cross there then why were you driving through it at 40mph?

[PeteB]

lights had been green in my direction for some time, cars to the left, in front and behind all doing 40, no pedestrians around at the time.

To have reduced speed at the time would have been inappropriate, and the traffic Police attending seemed to agree,

The Saxo driver went though red because he heard the ambulance behind him on lights & sirens, and presumably panicked. He just missed a BMW in lane 1 (also doing 40) and got me!

[PeteB]

oh yes, and the limit there is 40

[MEP's Yaris GS]

If it's such a busy junction and lots of people cross there then why were you driving through it at 40mph?

Why not, it was the speed limit and is a fast flowing junction designed to be driven at that speed (although I did crawl through it at only 15MPH in traffic last night).

How do you know what deceleration forces were involved? You weren’t there and you have no data to qualify making such a statement.

And you were there?

I have plenty of data based upon what Pete has said above. The fact that there were multiple impacts rather than the car stopping dead after one single impact demonstrates that each impact were not enough to activate the SRS system. Each impact would have in turn removed a % of the kinetic energy within the vehicle. As such, each were not enough to activate the SRS system. If any single impact was a sever enough deceleration then the SRS would have activated at the required point, but then possibly (as mentioned above by Pete) resulted in no SRS system being available to trigger should there have been a subsequent impact that was greater than SRS activation threshold. SRS systems do not (and should not) go off randomly for any odd bump.

[Cyker]

Blimey, it's always impressive how people can walk away from such horrific-looking accidents in modern cars. Clearly they're on to something with these crumple zones

My Yaris is also very squishy; I'm always worried about getting into a collision with an old Volvo or Land Rover (Crumple zones you say?) as I'm sure they'd plough right through my poor car!

(Or worse, a Tesla S! The Battery pack is low and so armoured up it wouldn't be amiss on a tank! )

[TomdeGuerre]

oh yes, and the limit there is 40

40mph is the maximum, not the minimum. You always have to bear in mind the possibility of oh, someone running a red light coming from the other direction.

Tell you what, I’ll forget my question about the speed limit if you take 20 mph off your speed at the point of impact. Otherwise carry on, plenty more rakes to !Removed! on.

[TomdeGuerre]

If it's such a busy junction and lots of people cross there then why were you driving through it at 40mph?

Why not, it was the speed limit and is a fast flowing junction designed to be driven at that speed (although I did crawl through it at only 15MPH in traffic last night).

How do you know what deceleration forces were involved? You weren’t there and you have no data to qualify making such a statement.

And you were there?

I have plenty of data based upon what Pete has said above. The fact that there were multiple impacts rather than the car stopping dead after one single impact demonstrates that each impact were not enough to activate the SRS system. Each impact would have in turn removed a % of the kinetic energy within the vehicle. As such, each were not enough to activate the SRS system. If any single impact was a sever enough deceleration then the SRS would have activated at the required point, but then possibly (as mentioned above by Pete) resulted in no SRS system being available to trigger should there have been a subsequent impact that was greater than SRS activation threshold. SRS systems do not (and should not) go off randomly for any odd bump.

“Any odd bump” – what, like flattening a traffic light pole, ripping out three sections of metal railing embedded on concrete and severely bending a couple more?

Data is only data if it is actual and recorded and any conclusion(s) can only be based on such evidence, not anecdotal and presumptive statements. Your opinion of the results are just that, an opinion – the same as mine. Any assertions otherwise prove nothing.

Your trouble is that you believe the account of the accident as if it were gospel whereas I don’t in fact I think parts of it are risible.

[MEP's Yaris GS]

Blimey, it's always impressive how people can walk away from such horrific-looking accidents in modern cars. Clearly they're on to something with these crumple zones

My Yaris is also very squishy; I'm always worried about getting into a collision with an old Volvo or Land Rover (Crumple zones you say?) as I'm sure they'd plough right through my poor car!

(Or worse, a Tesla S! The battery pack is low and so armoured up it wouldn't be amiss on a tank! )

You'll be pleased to know you're better off not being in the tank of a Volvo :)

If it's such a busy junction and lots of people cross there then why were you driving through it at 40mph?

Why not, it was the speed limit and is a fast flowing junction designed to be driven at that speed (although I did crawl through it at only 15MPH in traffic last night).

How do you know what deceleration forces were involved? You werent there and you have no data to qualify making such a statement.

And you were there?

I have plenty of data based upon what Pete has said above. The fact that there were multiple impacts rather than the car stopping dead after one single impact demonstrates that each impact were not enough to activate the SRS system. Each impact would have in turn removed a % of the kinetic energy within the vehicle. As such, each were not enough to activate the SRS system. If any single impact was a sever enough deceleration then the SRS would have activated at the required point, but then possibly (as mentioned above by Pete) resulted in no SRS system being available to trigger should there have been a subsequent impact that was greater than SRS activation threshold. SRS systems do not (and should not) go off randomly for any odd bump.

Any odd bump what, like flattening a traffic light pole, ripping out three sections of metal railing embedded on concrete and severely bending a couple more?

Data is only data if it is actual and recorded and any conclusion(s) can only be based on such evidence, not anecdotal and presumptive statements. Your opinion of the results are just that, an opinion the same as mine. Any assertions otherwise prove nothing.

Your trouble is that you believe the account of the accident as if it were gospel whereas I dont in fact I think parts of it are risible.

Flattening a pole, and ripping out railings are exactly the reason the SRS didn't deploy, they gave and removed kinetic energy rather than the cars body and the SRS system having to. Everything Pete hit was deformable and removed substantial kinetic energy from the car, preventing Pete's body from being subject to forces which could cause injury or death. If he'd hit a tree at the same speed however the story would be different as a tree generally doesn't deform.

Your trouble is you seem to think that some obviously don't know what they're talking about when in fact they do. I deal with this sort of thing day in day out, with vehicle crash signatures etc, using it to successfully apportion liability and injury levels etc. You on the other hand seem to be quite happy sitting behind a keyboard telling people that they're either wrong and / or lying while at the same time demonstrating you have a very limited knowledge in the subject.

I'm going to leave this here now, and at the least we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[PeteB]

I remenber seeing that Modus Vs Volvo crash on 5th gear when it was first aired. It's amazing how much safety has been built into cars in recent years.

[PeteB]

...My Yaris is also very squishy; I'm always worried about getting into a collision with an old Volvo or Land Rover (Crumple zones you say?) as I'm sure they'd plough right through my poor car! ...

A Yaris (even an Aygo) is much tougher than you might think. My other significant crash, this time in a Yaris, demonstrated that nicely too.

[puts flack jacket back on!]

I bought my first Yaris in 2000 - just two front airbags, no side impact or curtain bags, nor knee bags. It did still have side impact beams in the doors though.

At 11 months old I got T-Boned on a dual carriageway by someone emerging from a cut through intending to cross my side of the road. He had been slowing as if to stop and I'd considered he was no threat, but at the last moment his 2.6 litre automatic Ventra accelerated rapidly into the driver's door, pushing me sideways across two lanes before I started spinning.

He readily admitted he hadn't seen me and had his foot flat to the floor until shortly after he hit me (it was a clear bright morning, I had a bright red car with dipped headlights on - which I always do if I don't have daytime running lights).

He did see the cars behind me and thought if he gunned it he could cross ahead of them - and would have done if I hadn't been in his way.

Although the poor Yaris looked sorry for itself, I again emerged unscathed (albeit from the passenger side!).

The driver's door was heavily caved in with a big gap between the top of the frame and the roof, the B post moved into the car about 4-5 inches and the sill and roof creased where the B post joined them. The door wouldn't open, and the central locking and electric windows on the offside had stopped working. However, from the inside, you could barely see the car was a bit narrower!

To my disbelief (not to mention dismay), the insurer decided to repair it.

When I got it back a month later, it was horrible to drive, didn't run true, but I never persuade the insurer to make any further amends. Fortunately the dealer repaired some wheel bearings under warranty despite being told about the accident (on an 11 month 11,000 mile car), along with an LCD screen that was streaked after the accident. Both the repairer and dealer said all the key measurements of the chassis were within tolerance, but on a zero camber road, the rear wheels were about 4 inches to the left of the front ones.

No doubt the fact that my 2000 model cost £14,000 after £2¼k discount (yes, really *) and if they'd written it off under the terms of the policy they would have been obliged to replace it with an identical model.

* It was a top of the range 1.3 auto 5 door, with extras like fog lights, SatNav, parking sensors, anti shatter windows, alarm, rear Speakers and boot light

[Cyker]

Yikes!

From the way the Modus was flung round I thought that would have been worse off, not the Volvo!

@PeteB: I'm shocked your insurer would have tried to repair the car after an accident like that. Are you allowed to reject such things if they are not satisfactory? I mean, seriously, how could it be acceptable for the wheels to be 4 inches off each other?!

But it is reassuring to know my ickl Mk1 has a 4 star safety rating :) (Well, not for pedestrians... deffo better to be in the Yaris than outside it in an accident! )