It's 12.5 more miles than you can go in a conventional car without burning any fuel. It's not greenwashing; every technology is going to have limitations.

↓↑report

Lets see, I assume you drive to work perhaps 220 times a year? That's ~2,600 miles a year you don't need any gas for. If you get a charging station at work you can drive back without using any gas either saving another ~2,600 gallons.

Assuming you do 20,000 miles a year @ 20mpg = 1,000 gallons of fuel required

The same 20,000 miles with the PHEV prius would mean roughly.
5,000 commuting miles covered by electricity, (assuming you can charge at work)
5,000 additional miles covered by electricity (the first 12 miles of each longer journey + charging at friends or public places)
10,000 miles @ 50mpg = 200 gallons of fuel required.

That cuts your oil consumption by 80% for 'only' a 12 mile range (you can play around with the assumptions to cover more or less miles on electric but I think these are resonable)

↓↑report

It is green washing. 12.5 miles doesn't cover anybody's commute. If you travel less than 12.5 miles then there really is no problem with gasoline consumption either as you footprint is negligible. If the Volt can have 40 miles, the Tesla 100+, the Rav4ev 120+, what is the problem? Even the Fisker karma can do 60 miles before the engine kicks in. I really don't understand this exercise in marketing.
Look, it's been researched that most people travel less than 40 miles in their daily commute. That's the reason why GM is using that number. What exactly is Toyota thinking? Do you think most people in the market for a Prius are going to buy a 12.5 mile EV? NO WAY.

↓↑report

Using the same data that GM used, a 12.5 mile range would cover 29% of American's commutes in both directions. If they can charge at work, it would cover about 51% of commutes.

http://www.bts.gov/publications/omnistats/volume_03_issue_04/html/figure_02.html

How big a market share do you think this car will get?

↓↑report

The end of the first paragraph " saving another ~2,600 gallons." should read replacing another 2,600 miles"

↓↑report

I do agree it cuts down on fuel usage for all customers if used correctly. The problem is I think it's difficult to sell to people the idea of plugging in only to still use primarily gas as propulsion.

Look at it this way. Volt buyer (hopefully) buys a Volt, plugs in every night, goes 8 weeks without refueling, even though he has a 20+ mile commute! Now, 230mpg crap or no, this guy is going to tell his friends. The water cooler talk will be huge. And it better be, since 98% of the people who hear and like this guy's water cooler story will still be turned off by the price of the vehicle.

But now do this with this vehicle, the guy will go 50% further before buying gas. Now he's going 3 weeks instead of 2. It's not going to generate as much water cooler buzz.

At least that's my opinion.

And the car salesman sales pitch is even less compelling, unless you have a 12 mile or less commute, in which case it'll be great and since the vehicle should be cheaper than a Volt, it could be the car for you.

↓↑report

3PeaceSweet, I like your figures, but I must point out that if someone were driving a "non-plug" Prius getting 50 mpg, that 20,000 miles per year would require about 400 gallons. If the Plug-in Prius uses just 200 gallons for the same amount of driving, that's still cutting gasoline consumption in half!

While the "EV" range is much less than the Volt, I suspect the price of the Plug-in Prius will also be less than the Volt. Customers will have a choice, and will choose depending on their needs and budgets. It will be interesting to see which one sells better, once they are both on the market.

Another possible benefit that hasn't yet been mentioned is that with the extra power available from both battery and motor, acceleration should also be much better.

↓↑report

"12.5 miles doesn't cover anybody's commute"
There should be an automatic FAIL badge for all such absolute generalizations.
Hint: the moment one writes "everyone", "no one", "never', etc. one is exaggerating or, less politely, lying.

A practical car you can cheaply "refuel" at home for some/most of your trips is obviously appealing to some people. The choice of more money for more range is good too.

↓↑report

@ Ciaoricardo "12.5 miles doesn't cover anybody's commute. If you travel less than 12.5 miles then there really is no problem with gasoline consumption either as you footprint is negligible. If the Volt can have 40 miles, the Tesla 100+, the Rav4ev 120+, what is the problem?"Even the Fisker karma can do 60 miles before the engine kicks in."

Just to reinforce skierpage's response (above), my round trip commute is about 10 miles, so... It covers mine. 8*P

Anyhoo, the point is twofold.
#1 Use less gas... the current Prius gets ~50mpg average. This one will do better than that. How much better depends on how far you drive. In your case, where you drive 12.5 miles to work each day, this Prius would be getting the equivlent of 100mpg for you, assuming you were NOT able to plug it in at work, but did plug it in each night . I'd say that was a pretty significant improvement, wouldn't you?
#2 Sure, they could make it go further on electricity, but then the battery would have to be bigger and it would have to cost more. Toyota (brilliantly I might add), keeps making incrimental improvements to the Prius, each one is a bit better than the last in terms of fuel economy, but not so much that they break the bank. If you hadn't noticed, all of the vehicles you mentioned cost a lot. (MSRP on the Rav4 was $42,000 in 2002 before incentive, according to wikipedia, and not factoring in inflation since then).

The "point" then, is to make a better Prius that doesn't cost significantly more than the current one, and I'd have to say this smells like a success to me. I'll take a improved Prius and keep $15,000 in my pocket over the Volt, as both would meet my needs just fine.

↓↑report

After re-reading your posts, I think you misunderstood the vehicle, which is why your posts were rated down to their current 1/2 star... What I think you are missing is that this car can go 12.5 miles in EV mode, and then it becomes like a regular gas car. You are NOT limited to 12.5 miles of total range, you get 12.5 miles of EV range, AND THEN your 50mpg gas engine kicks in. (IE, you wouldn't get stranded at work)

If I read your posts with the perspective of an EV with a 12.5 mile range only, and no gas engine back up, then I suddenly agree with you, the range would be inadequate for most people, which is why ZAP! Xebras aren't exactly selling like hotcakes (other than to some dufus ordering for the military, apparently)

↓↑report

3PeaceSweet,

10000 miles/year @ 12.5 miles/charge is 800 charges per year. If you get two charges per weekday (one at home, one at work), you'd need to charge 9 times during the weekend.

Assuming 200whr/mile, that also works out to 2Mwhr, or $200/year for electricity at 10c/kwhr ($1 per displaced gallon).

On a more depressing note, you save more gas by switching from a 15mpg vehicle to a 18 mpg vehicle, and you don't have to plug it in at all.

↓↑report

I like to think it's not greenwashing, or at least it's still useful in some way.

No, it's not a perfect solution but it's a step that will probably be much more affordable in the short term. More importantly it gains them them experience with the whole technology and gets volumes up so that we will hopefully have other vehicles produced where it makes a bigger difference. And as battery prices come down I suspect this will grow to 25 then 50 miles.

I have seen lots and lots of posts the last few years with everyone demanding just this type of incremental steps. How many posts have we seen with everyone screaming about the price of the Volt and "why not do a 20 mile version that regular people could afford!"

Now, someone is trying to do that and we start screaming that it's "not enough".

I'm not saying that this is the end game, I'm just hoping that we can all be supportive and take the progress we can get because so far we're making it a "damned if they do and damned if they don't" situation.

↓↑report

This exercise is marketing is rubbish. They made the Rav4EV that went 120 miles. If you travel 10 miles, great for you, MOST people travel 40 miles per day. That includes me, and more importantly I sometimes travel as much as 60 miles in a day.
This car may very well suit a small percentage of the population, however, MOST people travel 40 miles in a day. I did not misinterpret this car nor it's intended use. Toyota is offering incremental steps with it's development because it doesn't want to devalue the cars it already has sold. However, it should offer a product that a lot of people could use. This is not it.
As nice as this would seem that it saves gas, not everybody can steal electricity from their employer. More important, people will forget to plug in. I personally don't think 40 miles is enough range even though the Volt carries a very heavy engine to help on longer trips. I would like to see 100 miles, then I wouldn't even have to carry that engine. Some solar panels on the roof would ensure that during the day some mileage could be added to the batteries, but I guess car companies have to take their time to offer that.
I don't see this version of the Prius as being a huge success, but then I hope I'm wrong.

↓↑report

protomech: you left out a bit - "we save more gas by switching from a 15 mpg vehicle to a 18 mpg vehicle COMPARED TO switching from a 40 mpg vehicle to a 50 mpg vehicle" Technically true but misleading, as neither choice compares to the huge fuel savings achieved by switching from a 15 mpg vehicle to a 50 mpg vehicle - that does some of its driving on electricity only. Now if we could only persuade those SUV drivers that don't need an SUV to switch to hybrids...

Richard: This car is a plug-in hybrid that replaces some of the gasoline with electricity from an outlet, total range with one tank of gasoline and one electrical charge is over 500 miles, certainly adequate for most drivers. The idea is to reduce gasoline consumption by using electricity, and doing it in an affordable manner. The RAV4-EV may have a 120 mile range, but it also came with a $40,000 price tag, almost twice as much as a Prius, and almost $10,000 more than this Plug-In Prius will be. That price differential is why the Prius sold in far larger numbers than the RAV4-EV could.

↓↑report

"As a significant development in environmentally responsible mobility, the Prius Plug-in Hybrid Concept offers commuters and people who live in urban areas all the benefits of an electric vehicle, with none of the drawbacks."

The market for commuters and people living in urban areas is huge. It looks like Toyota is targeting primarily the domestic and perhaps the European markets. I'm not too familiar with either, but regular 3rd Gen Prius is a huge hit at home, while many European cities are using a "carrot and stick" approach to achieve zero-emissions in urban areas. This is the market that Prius will be targeting.

As to the question of American market, well, we are no longer #1 and that role will probably diminish further if consumers do not evolve their thinking and have "perception problems." I hope for the best.

↓↑report

Urban commuters don't always find cars to be the best way to get around. This is the case especially in Europe and Japan. I mean, if you're driving your car within the London congestion zone daily, you're really making life hard for yourself unnecessarily, take a bus, rail or cab. If you are talking about urban drivers, a lot of them are driving in from outside the urban area, and to them 12.5 miles isn't much range.

This is why I said it makes sense for delivery type vehicles. These are a type of use that makes a lot of urban trips, none of them too long.

↓↑report

Good question, maybe it captures the CO2 when the engine is running, and emits it later when you're in EV mode!

↓↑report