Toyota Unveils New Prius Boasting 50 MPG

Automaker Hopes To Keep Prius The Top-Selling Hybrid On Market

(AP)  Toyota Motor Corp. is looking to keep the Prius in its spot as the top-selling hybrid in the U.S. with the next generation of the iconic fuel-sipper.

The highly anticipated 2010 Prius unveiled Monday at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit gets an average of 50 miles to the gallon. That's a 4 mpg improvement over the current model, which already is the most fuel-efficient vehicle ranked by the Environmental Protection Agency.

"It's a core model for us," Jim Lentz, president of Toyota Motor Sales USA, said in an interview before the Prius' unveiling. "It's a very, very important piece for us."

The third generation gas-electric Prius has a more aerodynamic design, but its exterior is easily recognizable as a Prius. Toyota says pricing will be released before the midsize sedan goes on sale in late spring.

Toyota Motor Corp. also will offer options such as a moonroof with solar panels to power the ventilation system.

"Since Prius was first introduced, the consumer demographic has shifted from an early adopter to a mainstream shopper," Bob Carter, Toyota Division group vice president and general manager, told reporters at a news conference.

"The Prius has evolved to meet the changing needs of this growing and diverse customer base."

Carter said the 2010 Prius will go on sale in the U.S. and Japan in late spring, followed shortly by Canada and other countries. The automaker hopes to sell 180,000 new Prius vehicles in the U.S. this year and its global sales goal is 400,000 units by 2010.

Automakers are using the Detroit auto show to spotlight more fuel efficient vehicles. The new Prius debuted a day after Honda unveiled its next-generation hybrid, the 2010 Insight, which will arrive in U.S. showrooms this April and is expected to compete head-on with the Prius.

Honda Motor Co. said the Insight will have a lower price than the Civic Hybrid, which has a base price of $23,650. The 2009 version of the Prius starts at $22,000.

Lentz said he expects the Insight will appeal to buyers focused on its low price, but Prius will draw drivers looking for a slightly larger vehicle and Toyota's technology.

Also Sunday, Toyota's Lexus luxury arm unveiled a new hybrid sedan called the HS250h, and Ford Motor Co. showed off the 2010 Fusion Hybrid that will get 41 city mpg and 36 mpg on highways. The Fusion was unveiled in November and goes on sale this spring.

The debuts come as hybrid sales have tumbled. Gas-electric cars sold briskly as gas prices peaked last summer but have since come down sharply as fuel prices collapsed to their lowest levels in six years. But Toyota says it expects gas prices to stabilize at a higher level, boosting long-term demand for hybrids.

Prius sales fell 45 percent in December, but Toyota says the new Prius will help increase demand for the car - including by current owners who want to upgrade.

Last month, Toyota said it was shelving its plans to build the Prius in Mississippi amid the industrywide downturn. Toyota's plant under construction in Blue Springs, Miss., was scheduled to begin production in 2010, marking the first time the Prius would be built outside of Japan and China.

Toyota had invested $300 million in the plant before saying it was delaying production there indefinitely.

The new Prius is getting larger and more powerful 1.8-liter four-cylinder engine. Toyota says the bigger engine helps improve fuel economy on the highway.

The optional solar-powered ventilation system uses an electrically powered air circulation fan that doesn't need the engine to work. It prevents the interior air temperature from rising while the vehicle is parked.

The ventilation system can be remotely operated, so drivers can adjust the interior temperature before getting inside. Toyota says this remote air conditioning system is an industry first.

[ibzjem]

I''m not sure I understand the "natural gas is clean burning" idea. From Wikipedia: "Natural gas is often described as the cleanest fossil fuel, producing less carbon dioxide per joule delivered than either coal or oil.[15] However, in absolute terms it does contribute substantially to global emissions, and this contribution is projected to grow." They say the emissions is only 30% less than that of petroleum. It may be a partial solution, but can''t be the main targeted technology.

[thejackpine]

The first year for the Toyata Starlet in the United States was 1981, when Road & Track called it the %u201Ccommuter car for the 1980s.%u201D During its brief stay in the United States, the rear-wheel-drive, 1.3-liter-engine Starlet liftback was billed as %u201Ccheap to keep%u201D with stunning gas mileage (38/52) and strong reliability, especially for its price class; it included electronic ignition, a five-speed stick-shift, rack and pinion steering, comfortable seats, and good cargo capacity (23 cubic feet with rear seats folded) aided by a temporary spare; steel belted radials were standard along with power disc brakes. Its 1.3 liter engine helped it to get high mileage, while low weight kept it from being a %u201Cdog.%u201D

lifted from toyoland.com

[incog-nito]

Correction: ... but UNTIL they save people money...

[incog-nito]

It''s not at all difficult to produce a hybrid car that''s actually affordable. You don''t need to shoot for the moon. Shoot for a decent 35 mpg, instead of 50+ then charging a $10-15K premium for it. I mean, the GM all-electric EV1 can go 90 miles using LEAD-ACID batteries, and this is over a decade ago. Most hybrids are still too expensive and make no economic sense when you take the initial cost into account. It would take years to recoup the cost, sometimes long after people want to keep the car. As it is, most people who can afford hybrids probably don''t need the gas savings. It''s fine to be "green", but they actually save people money, hybrids will continue to be no more than "niche" vehicles .

[us_1776]

Forget natural gas, gasoline, diesel or any other type of combustion of fossil fuels. The whole idea is to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions completely while achieving energy independence. That means total electric vehicles powered by alternative energy sources such as wind and solar transmitted over an upgraded and modernized electric energy grid. And this is achievable in ten years if we put our mind to it.

Mercuty69, I agree with you about converting commercial vehicles and the like. It''s not practical to convert every car to natural gas, But I think it would be nice if the Big 3 started to offer them becuase it is so clean burning and where I live there are allot of filling station in Southern Cal. They dont have to re tool their factories because all conventional engines on the market can run on the stuff. It just requires a differenct fuel injection system. Electric cars are very simple to maintain, light weight, effecient and quiet and I think they are great. When all else fails. They will be the best thing. It''s just not reasonable to expect that electric cars will be readily available at costs that this country can afford any time in the near future. Thats why I like CNG. But I like electric too.

Americans have not been big purchasers of Diesel cars and American manufactures know that. Volkswagen has had their 1.8l tdi engine on the market for years as an option in several of its models including the Pissat, it get 45 miles per gallon average and its not a big seller because diesel engines are quite noisey and have a reputation of being durty. The new ones are clean enough to sell in California. We will probably see more diesels comming out soon to satisfy the Federal mandate to make cars get like 30+ miles per gallon by 2017. Get out your ear plugs. Diesel trucks have to turn off their engines to order at the drive through.

ibzjem, I think I can help with your theory. The reason the Big 3 set up shop in Europe is so they would not have pay the shipping costs to sell europeans the cars that they want. They acutally purchase smaller more effecient cars in vastly greater number than we do. We produce cars there for the same reason the japanese produce cars here. Its more affordable.

Mercury69, Please don''t make assumptions when trying to make your points. Here is a link about available resources of Natural Gas from the US Geoligic Survey. Geologists have known about for quite some time. There is tons of data published by public agencies. Here is one link.
http://www.usgs.gov/science/science.php?term=427


http://www.usgs.gov/science/science.php?term=427

[cbscrash072]

Ford sells the Fiesta in Europe with a diesel engine it does get up to 65 mpg on diesel. However most diesels are very easy to convert to veggie oil. Which apparently now we can make from algae. It probably won''t be available here because Diesel has a stigma to it. The gas version is due in a couple years. These things are flying of the shelfs in Europe. Most car models are off 30% from a year ago this things actually up. I can''t wait to see one. Unfortunately China will get them first.

[mecury69]

"I read an article Ford produces a car in Europe that gets 65 mpg. And I would be willing to bet that there is some kind of government regulation to keep them from selling it in the U.S."

You are right. It runs on diesel and that is considered a ''dirty'' fuel by some. I have no idea if it is or not, but that''s just another oil fuel and not the long term solution. Reducing consumption via alternative transportation and technologies are.

BTW, I agree with the ''idea'' of transferring our mass modes of delivery (trucks, trains, etc.) to natural gas. But that is no solution for personal vehicles.

Estimates of 1,000 years worth of gas are by those with vested interest. Just like the oil companies that want to drill baby, drill saying that all we need it right here in our backyard.

We can do better.

[ibzjem]

I read an article Ford produces a car in Europe that gets 65 mpg. And I would be willing to bet that there is some kind of government regulation to keep them from selling it in the U.S. Also in the article it stated that Ford could build that car cheaper in the U.S. then in Europe due to labor costs. Thats why BMW and Mercedes Benz built plants in the U.S.

Posted by jsd330 at 04:49 PM : Jan 13, 2009

There is a theory that Ford, GM and Chrysler want to fail, so they can shut down their plants here and disband the unions in order to import those higher efficiency cars into the US. I''ll bet the Unions have a ban against the Big 3 importing their own cars made in Europe. Makes sense right?

Whether this is true or not doesn''t matter to me. Fact is, the Big 3 CAN make affordable, highly efficient cars (they are doing it in Europe and elsewhere), so why do they STILL say they can''t do it here?

I know, I know... because we want giant SUVs and won''t buy them. Same ol story, except it''s now starting to change....

[ibzjem]

you are totally wrong on two things. (1) there is no toyota plant in ohio. The only Japenese carmaker with a plant in ohio is honda. (2) the ranger is not a mazda, The ranger was built befor mazda entered the small truck market. Ford owns about 25% of mazda, they have a plant in Michigan called allied motors which is a joint partnership between ford and mazda.

Posted by jsd330 at 03:58 PM : Jan 13, 2009

Ok fine.
1) There however 13 plants in North America, 11 Toyota and Lexus models are built in North America with parts purchased from hundreds of North American supplier locations. Regardless of whether they are in Ohio or not.
2) Whether the Ranger is a Mazda or not, they are the same truck. Looks the same, same Mazda engine (I used to own one). Point is, what is considered to be an all American car may really not be.

By the way, there are Trillions of cubic feet of natural gas on this continent. Some estimates are that there is over 1000 years worth. 400 years under and off the coast of the US alone. And that%u2019s what%u2019s known. We will surely find more. It%u2019s also cheaper to convert to than any other energy source for the foreseeable future and we cannot afford the more expensive options. Write you Congressman. This country needs this kind of change to get off foreign oil and we need to do it yesterday.

Just a thought.

More specifically, a Natural Gas plug in at home Lithium Ion Hybrid.

I''m dreaming of a Natural Gas Lithium Ion Hybrid that gets the extended range of a conventional car. Can you imagine the price tag. These cars will be expensive at first and can be full size, and the price will get cheaper down the road. Do you think any one will buy them!

[mecury69]

Natural gas is a fossil fuel, no different than oil. Converting our personal vehicles to this technology is futile and short sighted. It''s going to run out and then we would have wasted all this money.

Electric is the future. It''s clean and quiet.

Invest in the electrical grid and use natural gas, hydrogen, nuclear etc. to power the grid. As new energy technologies develop all you have to do is upgrade the hundreds of power stations with the new technologies versus the current mode of upgrading millions of personal vehicles. After convincing consumers they need to switch again.

As far as GMC...they are using our billions of dollars of bailout money to run attack ads against the competition. Howie Long making fun of Toytota, Ford and their owners? They will never ''get it''.

[jsd330]

I read an article Ford produces a car in Europe that gets 65 mpg. And I would be willing to bet that there is some kind of government regulation to keep them from selling it in the U.S. Also in the article it stated that Ford could build that car cheaper in the U.S. then in Europe due to labor costs. Thats why BMW and Mercedes Benz built plants in the U.S.

Honda makes a Natural Gas Civic and it won green car of the year. If I had the money I could convert my Camry to CNG and tell the Arabs, Chaves, and the Russians to sell their oil to someone else.

It seems that many people think that GM and Chrysler are lagging behind Toyota because of hybrid cars. In reality, the prius is a small part of Toyota''s over all sales, less than 10%. I saw an interview with an auto expert on CNN recently and he said Toyota%u2019s sold as many Tundra%u2019s and SUV''s as GM in 2004-7. The reason that Toyota''s is kicking everyone%u2019s but is their reputation for quality.

The fact is, if GM sold more Hybrid cars than SUVs%u2019 they would make less per car than they make now. When gas prices are low, they can get more money for the bigger, safer, faster cars. The margins are very low on Hybrids and Toyota lost money for years on them because they could not charge as much as it cost to produce a car with two engines or no one would buy them. Each Hybrid cost them over $35,000 to build for years. They lost money on them for years.

If GM started producing more Hybrids like we may soon be forced to do. They will for sure make less money per car. That%u2019s why there unions are totally against them. More efficient cars mean Lower wages. A lower profit means lower wages. The greens forcing these cars on us means lower wages whether some of the CEO make too much or not.

Personally I think we need to get off foreign oil yesterday and the only thing that will power our nicer, safer, faster cars and still keep automakers profitable and wages were we want them is Natural Gas.

Just a thought.