Talk:Toyota Prius Plug-in Hybrid

Concept car vs pre-production car

Is the concept car the same as the pre-production car? The press releases don't seem to tell them apart.  Stepho  (talk) 02:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

They are not. I attended the 2010 Washington Auto Show, and the tablet board accompanying the exhibited Prius plug-in called it (I am transcribing from a pic I took of this plaque): "Prius Plug-In Hybrid Demonstration Program Vehicle" This is the name I have been using in the article when referring to the demonstration units to avoid WP:OR, considering, as you correctly pointed out, that Toyota has not been clear about the naming. I think we could call it also pre-production without being guilty of OR, usually a concept car implies that only a few units were built, that 600 like in this case. Furthermore, as you can check here (pics and video), the first Prius PHEVs being delivered in the U.S. have the same exact painting and decals as the one exhibited in DC. For the only one picture in the article with the caption that says it is the concept car (2009 Frankfurt) you can notice that in the floor to the right you can read "concept", as well as in the Prius front plate. Also you can see more pics of several concepts exhibited by Toyota since 2008 here. Since I uploaded several of the test or demo PHVS in the Commons, I am sorting them to the right category (plus I have to rename it because the guy who created forgot the word "Prius" and named it incorrectly "Toyota Plug-in Hybrid". Any other suggestion or idea is welcome.-Mariordo (talk) 02:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. So now we have the "Prius Plug-In Hybrid Concept", the "Prius Plug-In Hybrid Demonstration Program Vehicle", possibly a pre-production vehicle (same as demo?) and (hopefully, in the near future) the production "Prius Plug-In Hybrid" (or maybe just plain "Prius" if it becomes standardised on the main model). Not sure if "Vehicle" is part of the proper name or not - Toyota doesn't seem to care about consistency (even on the same vehicle). We can just ignore the as-yet unnamed future versions and only document them when they are actually released. Can you point us to your picture of the plaque? And yes, I fully agree that the Prius pictures should all have Prius in the category name to avoid confusion with the other Toyota Hybrids.  Stepho  (talk) 09:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I did not upload that pic to the Commons (I did not think it will be useful for any article, I just took several like this to remember later the exact name of the models in the Auto Show), but if you think it is worthy to have there, I will, just let me know.-Mariordo (talk)

On a second thought, and considering Toyota's lack of transparency about this issue, I decided to upload it so at least it will serve as a reference. You can find it in the Commons here. I did some sharpening to increase readability of the small letters, but I have to sacrifice the quality of the image (any way the lighting was not so good).--Mariordo (talk) 17:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

As for this http://green.autoblog.com/2010/04/13/toyota-announces-first-details-of-u-s-plug-in-prius-test-progra/, I have concerns about it's validity for the production model. I do own a Prius hybrid plug in 2013. I ran a few repeatable tests to see if EV batteries do regenerate as to let the driver drive back in EV mode after those batteries are depleted, and it actually works. I went downhill for a 3-4 minute ride after running in hybrid mode for 15-20 minutes (EV batteries completely depleted), and used the regenerative brakes during that 3-4 minute downhill pass. Well at the end of it, I had a 1.9 KM of EV mode available, and actually could revert back to EV mode. I know this is in the "Demonstration vehicle" section, but I wonder if that isn't bringning confusion about if that still applies to the production model. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggogeta (talk • contribs) 20:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually a lot of details are missing in the production vehicle, particularly the technical specs. Please feel free to expand the section regarding the production version supported by reliable sources (see WP:RS).--Mariordo (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Cost

Am I missing something? I have yet to read anything explaining why the PHEV is priced about twenty-grand higher than the standard hybrid. From what I can tell, there's not really a tremendous amount of additional technology necessary for the PHEV, and I understood that aftermarket kits were available to convert the current Prius for around $2-3K. $20,000 seems more than a little excessive, and, IMHO, worthy of an explanation. -Grammaticus Repairo (talk) 04:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong, it costs much more than 2-3K, the lithium-ion batteries costs 10 to 15K depending on the all-electric range. Check the Chevy Volt article, the plug-in hybrid or plug-in electric vehicle for a detailed explanation.-Mariordo (talk) 04:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Government incentives

The text says

The selected battery capacity is the minimum required for the Prius Plug-in to be eligible for the U.S. federal tax credit of US$2,500, which is applicable to the first 200,000 plug-ins sold by Toyota

While the IRS web page listing qualified models implies, as of this writing, that the 2013 Prius Plug-in Hybrid has not qualified for a Federal tax credit, private communications from John Voelcker, editor GreenCarReports.com, relying on information from Toyota, say that this is just a delay in updating the site. Alanterra (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The article links to Government incentives for plug-in electric vehicles, under the Section United States you can read all the details. But in a nutshell, the tax credit for new plug-in electric vehicles is worth $2,500 for a PEV with a traction battery with at least 4 kwh plus $417 for each kilowatt-hour of battery capacity over 4 kwh. The additional California rebate is explained there too, but check by yourself here. Note that both the Prius PHV and the RAV4 EV are listed.--Mariordo (talk) 01:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Mariordo, but the link Wikipedia article talks about what the credit should be (and the article appears to have been written in 2011), not what the US Government is actually giving as of today, which is the link I supplied. I am worried that while the Prius (and RAV4 EV) should qualify for Federal tax rebates, as you say, there is no evidence that they actually do so. The IRS page that I list above mentions other 2013 models, but specifically says only that the 2012 Toyota models qualify for tax credits. Also, I see that Toyota's press kit for the 2013 Prius Plug-in does not address Federal rebates, only California rebates, while the press release for the 2012 plug-in does talk about Federal rebates. I wonder if this article should point out the uncertainty--it might be helpful to the reader. I have asked a Toyota salesman to help explain this (which was part of his sales pitch), but he has not returned my calls. Not really understanding the issue, I suspect that there is either a delay in review, or a technical point that is under dispute between Toyota and the IRS. But in any event, I believe that as of now one cannot apply for the $2,500 Federal tax rebate for either of these 2013 models. I can find no other discussion of this point elsewhere on the web, so perhaps I am unduly cautious. Alanterra (talk) 05:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Fuel economy

Need clarification

EPA label 95MPGe in electric-Gas

In the article text (see bold text)

"......According to Toyota the Prius plug-in is expected to be rated at 112 mpg-US (2.10 L/100 km; 135 mpg-imp) and CO2 emissions of 49 g/km under the New European Driving Cycle (NEDC).[4][8] EPA's official fuel economy rating is 95 miles per gallon gasoline equivalent (MPG-e) (2.5 L/100 km; 114 mpg-imp) in all-electric mode and a combined city/highway rating of 50 mpg-US (4.7 L/100 km; 60 mpg-imp) in hybrid mode, the same as the third generation Prius liftback.[3]...."" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.67.8.227 (talk) 20:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The energy has to come from somewhere. In this case it is an electric power station. The EPA averaged all the power stations across the USA (including coal burning, oil burning, gas burning, hydro-electric, etc and came up with an figure that estimates how much oil (representing gasoline) was burnt to produce that amount of energy - on average.  Stepho  talk  23:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

From article

I find the numbers worrisome regarding alleged range. If the vehicle holds 12 gallons of fuel and travels 50 miles per gallon Shouldn't the range be 600 miles? This would not even factor in the added 11 miles pure electric the car is capable of travelling.. just curious... ~ i've removed this from the page, where it was added by an IP. No opinion on it, just thought it belongs here. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 15:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Article restructure

Because the article clearly dates from before the PiP went into production, it is excessively weighted to the development process, with the production car info other than the lede starting halfway down the page. It's also a mishmash of tenses.

While I'd prefer someone with more auto knowledge than me to take on the editing job, I will try to if no-one else does (I'm interested because I drive one). I'd propose to significantly cut back the info on pre-production models except where important to cross refer to changes in the production model, because many people still get confused by press articles based on the demo models. Also, since people are likely to want info about the production model I'd propose moving the demo and pre-prod info later in the article. Finally, there needs to be a section explaining the differences between the US and European models (and others, though I'm not competent to add those).

Comments, counters? Matruman (talk) 13:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

You made a very good point. However, I think it is important to preserve the history/evolution of the car development (see for example the Chevrolet Volt history section). Usually, history goes first, but a trim will be helpful. Since I did most of the early edits, I rather have someone else do the reorganizing and trimming, just as it is being done in the Tesla Model S article right now. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 14:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, will try and find time to have a go on that basis. Matruman (talk) 20:02, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism

I removed vandalism on the picture caption. Keep an eye out for recurrence. 173.166.110.9 (talk) 19:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Charging connector

This article is a POS. You will not even learn what type of charging connector they use... 69.159.206.242 (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

POS? I disagree. It has a huge amount of information. And all contributed by volunteers who work for free. Just because it doesn't have the one piece of information that you wanted, doesn't mean it is a POS. You can make suggestions for improvement (or even better, add to it yourself) but at least be grateful that people are doing this at no charge to you.  Stepho  talk  22:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

So much focus on the 1st Generation?

The 1st Generation is history. So why is the article so heavily focused on it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.95.24.246 (talk) 16:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Maybe because the first gen car was a milestone, and the followups aren't much of a step forward? Greglocock (talk) 05:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

And for those who want to focus only on the latest model: "Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. - George Santayana"  Stepho  talk  13:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Prius Prime deserves its own article

At this point, the Prime is being recognized as one of the most greenhouse-gas efficient mass market vehicles available (http://climatefriendlycars.climatecentral.org/). It is clearly different from the Prius Plug-in, in all-electric range, in amenities, and even in looks. It should have its own article containing only minimal reference to the previous generation Plug-in, and this article should be severely edited down to remove detail that is no longer of general interest, e.g. how many test vehicles were delivered where.

I edit wikipedia articles only very occasionally, not enough to remember the formatting rules. I am probably not the right person to do this.

Mark E Miller (talk) 05:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

How is it different? Externally it looks about the same as the normal XV50 Prius 4th gen. To the best of my knowledge, it differs mainly in having a charging port and a bigger battery.  Stepho  talk  22:21, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

"Looks about the same"? Really? http://www.betweentheaxles.net/2017-toyota-prius-prime-vs-prius-phev-and-hybrid-differences-15257 "Toyota has gone to great lengths to differentiate the XW55 Prius Prime PHEV from the regular XW50 Prius. See the differences in this side by side comparison." "The Prius Prime (Prius PHV in Japan) has a completely different front-end design with more a traditional horizontal headlight treatment" " Mark E Miller (talk) 05:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The regular XW50 Prius does not appear to be a plug-in. The present article seems fine with having the previous and current generation plug-ins together. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

It's not about looks. The generational designation refers to the technology of the hybrid system. It becomes very confusing when the second generation of Plug-in Hybrid was introduced in 2016 as the Prius Prime, and the second generation of Prius hybrid vehicle was introduced in 2003. I think a simple chart showing generational change is needed.Landroo (talk) 00:04, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

EPA says 2017 Prius is midsize

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=38061

Deal with it morons. The Volt is a compact according to the epa. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=37309

Greglocock (talk) 01:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Greglocock. I don't think this platoon of anonymous editors will pay any mind though. I've been noticing these types of edits since June and I've yet to see a reference put forward, or any participation in discussion, aside from telling everyone they're wrong in the occasional edit summary. - GS ⋙ ☎ 06:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

"Deal with it morons." Conducive to discussion?

As you pointed out, the XV30 Prius and derivatives are mid-size in the US. In Japan mid-size allows up to 1700mm in width but the XV30 is 1745mm, forcing it to be bigger than mid-size in Japan. The XV50 range doesn't have its width listed (we should find that out) but doesn't look any smaller than the XV30. So, as usual, we find that different parts of the world have different ideas and holding steadfast to a single country's classification clashes with other countries.  Stepho  talk  22:19, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

re edit summary, "Would you say 'the Mustang vehicle' ?"

Stepho-wrs, re your edit summary question, "Would you say 'the Mustang vehicle' ?" — I agree that the word vehicle shouldn't be used in that case. But if that article had, "The Ford Mustang Plug-in Hybrid, also known as Mustang PHV...", I would add "vehicle" there too, to go along with PHV and to clarify what the acronym PHV stood for. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I took care of clarifying the acronym with a note. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a discussion

This is to invite regular editors of this page to participate in the ongoing discussion at the talk page of the electric car article regarding Wikipedia policy about pricing info included in several articles dealing with plug-in electric cars. You are welcome to express your view. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 13:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Someone Please Check Prius Generations

I thought Prius Generation were somethink like this:

1997 - 2005 ZVW10 1st Generation (including ZVW11 Cars) 2003 - 2009 ZVW20 2nd Generation.(note: cars built in early months of 2009 are ZVW20 still, later months they are ZVW30 models) 2009 - 2015 ZVW30 3rd Generation. (not: cars built in early months of 2015 are ZVW30 still, later months they are ZVW50 models) 2015 + ZVW50 4th Generation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.150.6.91 (talk) 16:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

The first generation Prius Plug-in is based on the third generation Prius. Confusing but that's what Toyota chose. It's also why I use model codes (eg XW30) instead of generation numbers.  Stepho  talk  22:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

XW is standard Prius Hybrid

ZVW is Plug-in Prius Hybrid

only reason I even know this is due to an incorrectly registered Prius that I bought. 83.71.132.187 (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

XW is the standard Toyota code for all Prius's, all models, all generations, all options. To specify a particular model you need to add an engine code to the front (which modifies the X) and a generation code at the end (eg 20/30/60/etc).

So, a 2nd gen Prius Plugin Hybrid with a ZR engine is ZR+XW+50 → ZVW50 . See List of Toyota model codes for Toyota's weird way of combining ZR+XW to get ZVW. Being a plugin is an option in the fine details.

For completeness, the same year standard Prius is also ZR+XW+50 → ZVW50 .

Which means the article is correct (but Toyota model code system is far more convoluted then it needs to be).  Stepho  talk  23:33, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Added Prius PHV GR Sport section

Added "Prius PHV GR Sport" section to go along with the picture in the "Japan" section. Sagquattro2009 (talk) 15:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your addition. You're new, so there were a number of things that need to be tweaked - please take this as constructive criticism rather than a put down.

1. Things like dates should conform to the format used in other parts of the same article - in this case DMY.
2. I've never heard of anybody having the first names of "TOYOTA MOTOR" (especially in all-caps).
3. We have the currency templates {{USD}}, {{JPY}} and {{currency}}. Exchange rates vary wildly over time, so the year must be given.
4. We normally avoid present tense because the article will be read for years to come when all this is well and truly in the past.
5. Multiple use of the same reference can be merged together by naming the reference.

But generally it was a good addition and we welcome you to the team.  Stepho  talk  23:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Units

@RickyCourtney:, According to WP:UNITS and WP:CARUNITS, articles should consistently use metric followed by other units in brackets. If the vehicle is made in America for exclusive use by the American market then US customary units would be first but that doesn't apply in this case. So even though the EPA source specifies the figures in US customary units, the article should display metric first and then the other units in brackets. This is how we consistently list figures when different sources used in the article use different units. We still use the reference source figures and units as the input to the {{convert}} or {{cvt}} templates but we tell the template to change the order to be consistent with the rest of the article.  Stepho  talk  12:40, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I had a different reading of WP:CARUNITS than you. The guidance is that "We use the local standard first when making judgments on localized units and terms." The way I read that was that the "local standard" used by the EPA was miles, mpg and mpg-e, therefore we should use those terms. --RickyCourtney (talk) 15:16, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Units used must be consistent throughout the article. Therefore we can't use a "local standard" in one place in the article and a different "local standard" in another place. Where WP:CARUNITS says "local standard" it is trying to paraphrase WP:UNITS which is trying to tell us that predominantly American articles can use American units throughout but the rest of us use metric. This article is an international article, not an American article, therefore we should consistently use metric first, followed by other units in brackets. And if the project guideline conflicts with the MOS guideline then MOS (ie, WP:UNITS) gets priority. Project specific guidelines can spell out fine detail and refine the guidelines but should never contradict the MOS guidelines.  Stepho  talk  00:02, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@RickyCourtney:, I see that you have not replied but are continuing to edit the article. Does this mean that you have no reply and that you agree with my rationale? In which case, the natural action on my part would be to restore my version of the article - wiping out your recent changes. This is probably not what you want, so it is best to hold off on edits until we sort this matter out. Thanks.  Stepho  talk 

How would you propose we handle a sentence like this: "Its EPA rating is 133 mpg‑e (25.9 kW⋅h/100 mi; 16.1 kW⋅h/100 km), the highest mpg-e rating in all-electric mode of any vehicle with an internal combustion engine. The final mpg-e is a 40% improvement over the first generation model, and higher than the 120 mpg-e that Toyota was targeting."

In this case, mpg-e is the subject of the sentence so displaying it as 16.1 kW⋅h/100 km (133 mpg‑e; 25.9 kW⋅h/100 mi) seems... strange.

So if we use mpg-e there, how would you propose we handle this sentence: "The EPA's official fuel economy rating is 95 mpg‑e (36 kW⋅h/100 mi; 22 kW⋅h/100 km) in blended mode and a combined city/highway rating of 50 mpg‑US (4.7 L/100 km; 60 mpg‑imp) in hybrid mode, the same as the third generation Prius liftback."

Would we use the "local standard" of mpg‑e (which is the standard the EPA uses), but not use mpg just a few words later? --RickyCourtney (talk) 00:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree that mpg-e complicates it. But your method still leaves some places as metric first and other places as US customary first. It is only a halfway solution unless we go the whole way and make it all US first - which violates WP:UNITS rule of metric first unless the article is explicitly American.

Since you raised the issue of mpg-e first and metric first being in the same paragraph together, then we should go the whole way as metric first - even for mpg-e. "The EPA's official fuel economy rating is 22 kW⋅h/100 km (36 kW⋅h/100 mi) equivalent to 2.5 L/100 km (114 mpg-imp; 95 mpg-US) in blended mode and a combined city/highway rating of 4.7 L/100 km (60 mpg‑imp; 50 mpg‑US) in hybrid mode, the same as the third generation Prius liftback."

It doesn't matter what units the references use because we can insert those units into {{convert}} and display them in any order that we choose.

I've noticed that you are still editing the article. Please beware that, depending on the result of this discussion, we may have to revert to my previous version because I'm not overly keen on tediously applying all my changes by hand again - which may have the unintended effect of wiping out your recent changes. Better to solve this issue first, then continue editing.  Stepho  talk  22:35, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

But the EPA's *official* fuel economy rating isn’t 22 kW⋅h/100 km… it’s 95 mpg‑e. We could say something like: “The EPA's official fuel economy rating is 95 mpg‑e which is equivalent to 22 kW⋅h/100 km (36 kW⋅h/100 mi)” RickyCourtney (talk) 15:02, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

km vs miles abbreviation

RickyCourtney and myself are have a disagreement about how to which is better:

• 40 km (25 miles)
• 40 kilometer (25 miles)

I think the shorter form is better but Ricky thinks the longer form is better. A log time ago it was "40 km (25 mi)", which I think is an abomination. So I left km abbreviated but changed it to "miles", which is still pretty short. The fully unabbreviated form is unnecessarily long. There was a similar discussion for whether to abbreviate miles or not at template talk:convert#A third output option for spelling out thousands, etc.?. As per WP:BRD, I have restored that part of the article to the version before our disagreement. Later, we can make the article agree with whatever we decide here.  Stepho  talk  22:04, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I don’t necessarily think longer is better, but the default style on Wikipedia is to either:

• Not abbreviate the input and abbreviate the conversion output with the Convert template. In this case, “40 kilometers (25 mi)”
• Abbreviate both the input and output using the cvt template. In this case, “40 km (25 mi)”

Describing the “mi” abbreviation as an “abomination” seems rather hyperbolic, and seems to come down to your personal preference. I switched to no abbreviations as a compromise, but I see no compelling reason to use anything other than that default “out” or “all” abbreviation settings. I will also point out that we find ourselves in this discussion because we are “flipping” the data published by the EPA. I suggested that we list the data in format it was published in, but I dropped that argument when it was pointed out that it wasn’t the normal Wikipedia style and my personal preferences weren’t a compelling reason to do something. RickyCourtney (talk) 14:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I think "mi" is an abomination because it is a non-standard abbreviation that most readers will not be familiar with. Obviously we cannot use the standard miles abbreviation of "m" when mixing with metric units. Most readers are familiar with "km". "kilometers" is just too long. "miles" is short enough that it can happily share space with other abbreviations.

Can you point out the WP policy that says we can abbreviate the input but not the output of convert - I am not aware of such a policy. From my link above, you can see that the maintainer of convert (Johnuniq) also prefers km (miles). Both Johnuniq and myself spend considerable time at MOS discussions about such matters.  Stepho  talk  21:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say that there was a policy, there is however the default style of these templates. I believe that we need a compelling reason to override those default settings. I also don't believe that personal distaste for the abbreviation of miles counts as a compelling reason. I also disagree that "mi" is a non-standard abbreviation, it is in very common use in the United States. --RickyCourtney (talk) 18:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not following where you get this default from. You agree that it's not part of MOS. And it's not part of WP:CARUNITS. And the guy that maintains {{convert}} prefers my method of using convert (note: he spends a lot of time at MOS). And defaults in templates are just conveniences to keep them short - there is no policy/guide that cautions us to not override them. And the rest of WP is like herding cats in the way that it sticks to official standards, let alone unofficial standards.  Stepho  talk  22:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Third generation (XW60)

The Toyota Prius (XW60) will be launched on 2023. Bachelor 200 (talk) 19:28, 20 November 2022 (UTC)