Edward W. Thompson wrote:

Think they calim 122bhp now... but its only 78 of your real bhp though -
since the engine is the only source of power ultimately. The claimed
output can only be sustained until the batteries are low on juice. An
enthusiastic drive round some B roads ought to see to that ;-)


Not sure I understand your point/obsession with horsepower. The
horsepower required to maintain the vehicle at a constant 60 mph in
still conditions will be about, say 15 hp (maybe less but not more) so
78 hp available seems adequate.

There are two answers to that question: there is the semi serious, it
winds up Drivel so what the hell - it is fun to watch him clap his
little cymbals together.

However there is a real answer as well:

In short, It depends on the type of driving conditions and what is
around you.

For a nice constant speed on a flat motorway with no wind, yup 78bhp is
fine. But there are other situations you need to consider:

For short overtaking bursts, is is verging on the ponderous (the
official figures for the 0-60 is just under 12 secs for the new model -
not the 10 that Drivel mentions). Real life is probably worse than the
figures suggest, since the electric motor can generate massive torque -
but only at low speed (under 25 mph). That will tend to have the effect
of skewing the 0-60 time such that the latter half is less impressive
than the first half. 0-60 times are not a good benchmarks for useful
power in real driving (unless getting away first from the lights is your
"thing"), where the 30 to 50 time is far more important. So for the
purposes of getting safely past slower vehicles it does not look
promising. Many reviews have also made this observation and do not rate
it favourably against even a turbo diesel in this respect.

I would also observe that driving at a constant 60 is also not something
commonly done by most people. Motorways will typically be flowing at 80
- 90 if relatively clear. Dropping to 60 when traffic is heavy and more
"stop start" in nature.

That is before you look at driving is situations where you have head
winds, gradients, or want to tow (although I don't know if the latter is
an option with the prius). The former are obviously things to consider
in the UK!.

If you want decent aircon in the car, then that can (worst case) swallow
another 10 - 15hp. For those of us that would not entertain the idea of
buying a car without aircon, that is a big lump out of your available
power.

With respect to acceleration, sure that's important if you are going
to race the vehicle but what other true relevance does it have when

It is also important from the point of view if being able to have a
relaxing an un-stressfull drive. To know that you can safely overtake,
and safely match speeds on slip roads aids that. Having a more powerful
engine usually also means less intrusive engine noise and vibration as a
result of it having to work "hard" when it hits a gradient or headwind.

Cars that tend toward better performance will also need to be equally
well equipped in terms of handling and braking. So driven like for like
the better performing car will stop quicker, and be able to steer
evasively better if required in an emergency.

As someone else pointed out elsewhere the prius is also one of (if not
"the") the slowest £20K cars you can buy. Personally I would expect more
for the money.

considering the car is for transportation? If you regard it as some
sort of macho toy then that is another matter. I suggest vehicles such
as the Prius are not intended for the 'boy racer' market.

I personally don't view driving as "just transportation". Then again I
don't think of it as "macho" either. Personally I like my cars discrete
and unassuming. That does not mean that I want a dull car to drive. I
want one that rewards good driving and is enjoyable to drive, and that I
can enjoy the dynamic performance and handling when there is a suitable
road and opportunity.

Finally you need to look at the other vehicles around you. Twenty years
ago you could say that 78bhp was probably pretty good for most 18 - 2L
family cars. Fuel injected ones would top 100bhp, and special editions
and "tuned" cars would give you the 120 to 130s. There has been constant
demand for better performance since then. Fuel injection is mandatory
for other reasons, and drag factors have got lower. So a normal family
car with 100bhp+ is not uncommon.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In article ws.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
"CVTs have been around for a while and at first it doesn't seem that
Toyota has broken new ground here. This, however, is entirely false,
because the ECVT in the Prius works in a completely different manner
from any other CVT put into a production car. It is so different, that
calling it a CVT is misleading. However, using this semi-familiar term
at least explains why the pitch of the engine sound doesn't rise as you
accelerate."

Note: "calling it a CVT is misleading"

Only to the likes of you who think it must mean a belts and pulleys design.
Everyone else understands the concept.

Of course regular CVTs have a poor reputation for reliability, so it's not
surprising the ad bods at Toyota want to distance themselves from them.
However, nothing changes facts. Despite what *you* would like to think.

"The Prius transmission produces one of the effects of a CVT but not the
other. The spin rate of the engine can be selected to produce the
required power but otherwise to spin no faster than is necessary to
maintain fuel efficiency. The Prius engine tone therefore sounds as if
the car has a CVT because it does not rise as the car picks up speed.
Instead, it rises and falls with power demand, in other words, how hard
you press on the accelerator pedal."

And I ask again, how does it achieve this if not by altering gear ratios?

Note: "it rises and falls with power demand", not raises and lowers
ratios.

You're a fool.

" The Prius transmission does not, however, multiply up engine torque at
low vehicle speed."

No, because it's using an electric motor at low speeds. Sheesh. Didn't you
know that?

Note: No raising or lowering of ratios, as rasing and lowering torque is
what gearboxes/CVTS do.

You're making things up again.

"This is because it has only one gear ratio".

And again.

Note: so no gearbox/CVT to lower and raise ratios as there is only one.

That's precisely what the epicyclic gearing does by the way the various
parts of the gear train are connected. Inside the gearbox.

" Effectively, the engine is coupled to the wheels as if the car is
always in top gear. This would be a crippling limitation, if not for
the presence of a powerful electric motor in addition to the gasoline
engine. With this motor adding its considerable torque, people have
said that the car feels as if it's always in bottom gear!"

No it's not. If it were permanently coupled to the wheels it would stall
when you stopped.

You really haven't thought this through, have you?

Have you booked those night school classes yet? I'm sure they take senior
citizens with learning difficulties? Should give the youngsters there who
failed everything at school a good laugh when you argue with teacher...

--
*'Progress' and 'Change' are not synonyms.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
PC Paul wrote:

Hmm. Is it altering ratios? Not sure now I've looked at it more. It is
altering the split but all of the gears are fixed and constantly meshed.
What is controlled appears to be the petrol engine speed, chosen to suit
the
amount of charge needed for battery and direct electric motor use, and
to
keep the generator revs within limits. Also controlled is the electric
motor
speed, directly affecting the road speed.

It is the difference between the two motor speeds that gives you the
variable ratio (from the petrol engine's POV). In spite of the
constantly meshed cogs etc, you can get a variation in ratio between
petrol engine and wheels because the gear system requires the output
rotational speed of the engine to be supplied to the wheels *and* the
generator at all times, and one is traded off against the other.

It is much the same was as the way rear axle differential on a
conventional car transmission works. It allows the apparent drive ratio
between engine and one wheel vary continuously - it can only do that by
virtue the rotational speed of the other driven wheel compensating.

The prius gearbox does the same trick except the output from the "diff"
is not a wheel on one side and a wheel on the other, but the drive to
the wheels on one side, and the drive to the generator on the other.

So the Power Split Device (PSD) is not really altering anything, the
control
changes take place external to it.

Whether that makes it a CVT depends where you consider the
'transmission'
boundaries to be. Is it the entire system, or the system from the motor
output shafts to the driveshafts, or what?

This is one of the mechanisms
that Drivel uses to continue this
pointless discussion. No matter
how many analyses are presented to him
that consider the "transmission"
being the entire system that connects
motive power from the engine to the wheels,
he ignores that and then
immediately imposes his own
interpretation of what a "CVT" is, and
argues that the prius does not match this.

It is clear initially you didn't have clue how this worked, now you have
looked and are getting there slowly. I know what a conventional CVT is and
what it does. It raises and lowers torque. I have continually told you
that. The Prius Continually Varies the power match between two parallel
power sources to present the correct total power at the wheels - this power
combining is further up the drivetrain line than any conventional CVT. You
kept on saying the ratios (torque) was being raised and lowered. That is
NOT the case for 50th time to you.

Well fair enough, it may not match his minds view of a CVT, but looking
at the big picture it is undeniably a "T"

All cars a have a "T" (transmission).

and it can "CV".

Only in varying power to produce a total power output, not varying torque up
and down as you appear to think.

It is like a conversation that goes: "That is a tree", and some fool
repeats endlessly "I keep telling you it is not a pine tree, because the
leaves fall off each winter".

You are fool who keeps saying it varies torque. IT DOESN'T. You got it
wrong and will not admit it.

Certainly the PSD does not do the
same job as a gearbox or a 'normal' CVT as
attached to a single petrol engine.

By slightly devious means it does for
the petrol engine, but not the
motor (as described above).

The electric motor is running at "all" times, somthing you don't seem to
grasp. The petrol motor assists to produce a total power output.

This is also further complicated by
the fact there is more than one type
of prius by the sounds of it. The first
one had just the PSD, the latest
models sound like they have had a
conventional CVT bolted onto the PSD's
output (presumably to deal with the crude
and lumpy acceleration the
early reviewers noted on the first models).

Oh my God!!!! No Prius, Mk1 or 2 has a conventional CVT. NONE!!!!!! You
are confused!!!!! Just read what I write instead of thinking you know all
the answers.

Also, and this may be the most important point of all, does it matter?
It

No not at all. Like most discussions
of this type the technical factors
are to all intents irrelevant to everyone
but the anoraks, and we/they
don't usually have final say in real life!

The average person is concerned with reliability and omits a potential
problem, a gearbox/CVT, he is far better off.

What it comes down to in my mind is a combination of:

1) and what image and desirability does the car have

Hollwood stars drive them to Oscars.

2) what is it like to drive and live with

Brilliant

3) is the financial argument going to stack up in its favour

Totally. Very cheap to run, and when you take into account free parking
etc, brilliant.

works, it's a step forward, it's interesting.

Works, yes. Step forward in terms
of ongoing development certainly,

It has made all other cars obsolete.

but debatable in terms of the current end result.

End result is brilliant. Cheap to run and super low emissions with normal
performance, super quiet, super smooth. Sorry they don't supply a
prostitute for you as well.

On a practical level it
seems as if does not currently
drive as well as a Turbo Diesel,

Seems? It outclasses any turbo diesel around. You must stop making things
up.

and does not do noticably better in economy.

Far better in economy. 50-65 mpg in a Camry sized car, and will get better
as time moves on. Less complexity that a turbo diesel. You must stop
making things up.

They performance is down on a TD,

Performance is better. You must stop making things up.

and the handling uninspiring.

Handling is superb. You must stop making things up.

I don't see waiting lists for crap turbo diesels. Turbo diesel engines with
common rail injectors are more complex than petrol engines. They are a
waste of smelly, noisy time.

In article ws.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Toyota have put an "E" in front of CVT, to differentiate it from
conventional CVTs. It is nothing like a conventional CV, is
construction, as there is none, or in function. Putting a "P", for
power, in front would have been more apt and meaningful... PCVT.

So a power constantly variable transmission? Are you coming round to the
truth at last?

You've realised that a box with gears in it is a gearbox, and that a
transmission which varies the ratio is a CVT? Despite what your narrow
little mind thought before? At last.

The term "power splitter" is semi-apt as that is what it does, but its
prime function is to "combine" power from two differnt souces, rather
than split it.

And the generator fits in just where, since it's not a source of power?
But driven from the CVT?

See my other post on this.

You mean your other quotes from a website which you clearly didn't
understand?

--
*Never slap a man who's chewing tobacco *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Edward W. Thompson wrote:

Think they calim 122bhp now... but its only 78 of your real bhp though -
since the engine is the only source of power ultimately. The claimed
output can only be sustained until the batteries are low on juice. An
enthusiastic drive round some B roads ought to see to that ;-)


Not sure I understand your point/obsession with horsepower. The
horsepower required to maintain the vehicle at a constant 60 mph in
still conditions will be about, say 15 hp (maybe less but not more) so
78 hp available seems adequate.

There are two answers to that question: there is the semi serious, it
winds up Drivel so what the hell - it is fun to watch

It is fun to watch you make a total fool of your know-it-all self. The
Prius now has a conventional CVT. You really are not that bright and are
ranking in the same category as the two lunatics on this thread.

snip babble

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
PC Paul wrote:
Whether that makes it a CVT depends where you consider the
'transmission' boundaries to be. Is it the entire system, or the system
from the motor output shafts to the driveshafts, or what?

A CVT is a constantly variable transmission. Ie, no actual fixed gear
ratios within its upper and lower limits.

You missed out that it has one input and one output raises or lower torque.
from input to output.

It conventionally means pulleys and belts, but that's only because that's
the common way. Other principles exist.

Gasp, you don't say.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ws.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Explain how it varies the relative powers of engine and motor to the
wheels while maintaining a constant ratio between each and all of
them.

By a management system, anything further It is a waste of time
explaining it to you as you are not very bright at all. You have been
told to look at the graphic.

Oh, I understood how it works from day one.

Don't tell pokies!!!!!! You don't and still haven't a clue.

"Dave Plowman (News)" foamed at the mouth and wrote
in message ...
In article ws.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
They're clever things. But Toyota didn't invent them or
this application.

Toyota did invent it for this application.

They invented, in your words, a *fixed* ratio epicyclic drive?

I said "Toyota did invent it for this application". Wipe the foam from your
shirt.

"Dave Plowman (News)" had a big thought and wrote in
message ...
In article ws.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Put a Stirling engine in place of the internal combustion engine and
this
thing will be super quiet and give amazing mpg.

Which will be why

more illogical babble

snip crap

In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
It is much the same was as the way rear axle differential on a
conventional car transmission works. It allows the apparent drive ratio
between engine and one wheel vary continuously - it can only do that by
virtue the rotational speed of the other driven wheel compensating.

Good analogy. If you jack up the entire driven end of a car and run the
engine in any gear at a constant speed, initially both wheels will run at
the same speed (assuming no friction etc.) Brake one wheel, and the other
goes faster in direct proportion. So there we have fixed gearing giving a
variable ratio. The epicyclic box on the Prius does exactly the same, but
with the added facility to take an extra drive off the planet gear
carrier, which of course has no other function in a differential.

--
*You! Off my planet!

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" had a brainwave and wrote in
message ...
In article ,
Edward W. Thompson wrote:
Think they calim 122bhp now... but its only 78 of your real bhp
though -
since the engine is the only source of power ultimately. The claimed
output can only be sustained until the batteries are low on juice. An
enthusiastic drive round some B roads ought to see to that ;-)

Not sure I understand your point/obsession with horsepower. The
horsepower required to maintain the vehicle at a constant 60 mph in
still conditions will be about, say 15 hp (maybe less but not more) so
78 hp available seems adequate.

Then why do low powered cars not sell well in the UK?

They do. The small supermarket runabouts sell well.

snip illogical babble

In article ws.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Not even an enthusiastic drive round B roads, but just ordinary
suburban use, as Autocar found out,

this half-wit still believes lies from an third rate mag. Sad but true.

Probably the most respected mag in the world for road tests. But you're
too mean to read it, preferring half baked advertising websites. And
believing every inaccurate word.

--
*A snooze button is a poor substitute for no alarm clock at all *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

John Rumm wrote:
Edward W. Thompson wrote:

Think they calim 122bhp now... but its only 78 of your real bhp
though - since the engine is the only source of power ultimately.
The claimed output can only be sustained until the batteries are
low on juice. An enthusiastic drive round some B roads ought to see
to that ;-)


Not sure I understand your point/obsession with horsepower. The
horsepower required to maintain the vehicle at a constant 60 mph in
still conditions will be about, say 15 hp (maybe less but not more)
so 78 hp available seems adequate.

There are two answers to that question: there is the semi serious, it
winds up Drivel so what the hell - it is fun to watch him clap his
little cymbals together.

However there is a real answer as well:

In short, It depends on the type of driving conditions and what is
around you.

For a nice constant speed on a flat motorway with no wind, yup 78bhp
is fine. But there are other situations you need to consider:

For short overtaking bursts, is is verging on the ponderous (the
official figures for the 0-60 is just under 12 secs for the new model
- not the 10 that Drivel mentions). Real life is probably worse than
the figures suggest, since the electric motor can generate massive
torque - but only at low speed (under 25 mph). That will tend to have
the effect of skewing the 0-60 time such that the latter half is less
impressive than the first half. 0-60 times are not a good benchmarks
for useful power in real driving (unless getting away first from the
lights is your "thing"), where the 30 to 50 time is far more
important. So for the purposes of getting safely past slower vehicles
it does not look promising. Many reviews have also made this
observation and do not rate it favourably against even a turbo diesel
in this respect.

Hmm. Found on the web:

=========================
C&D Test Results:

Prius Top-gear acceleration
30-50 mph 5.5
50-70 mph 7.9

BMW 530I Top-gear acceleration
30-50 mph: 13.3
50-70 mph: 12.3
=========================

Not sure if it's right, haven't got time to go find the original. But it
adds interest to the debate.

And what the hell 'Top Gear' is on a Prius....

"PC Paul" wrote in message
...

Hmm. Found on the web:

=========================
C&D Test Results:

Prius Top-gear acceleration
30-50 mph 5.5
50-70 mph 7.9

BMW 530I Top-gear acceleration
30-50 mph: 13.3
50-70 mph: 12.3
=========================

Not sure if it's right, haven't got time to go find the original. But it
adds interest to the debate.

That is about right. The Prius can move when you floor it. The instant
response of the electric motor makes all the difference. The acceleration
is there is the sped ranges you need in normal driving.

So much for the crap the loonies have been spouting - and it does 23mpg as
well, one says - laughable. What amazes me is, that all they have to do is
ask. But no, they know all the made up answers.

"Dave Plowman (News)" foamed at the mouth and wrote
in message ...
In article ws.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
"CVTs have been around for a while and at first it doesn't seem that
Toyota has broken new ground here. This, however, is entirely false,
because the ECVT in the Prius works in a completely different manner
from any other CVT put into a production car. It is so different, that
calling it a CVT is misleading. However, using this semi-familiar term
at least explains why the pitch of the engine sound doesn't rise as you
accelerate."

Note: "calling it a CVT is misleading"

Only to the likes of you who

I didn't write it. Now wipe the foam off your shift and pay attention.

Of course regular CVTs have a
poor reputation for reliability, so it's not
surprising the ad bods at Toyota want
to distance themselves from them.

Yes, by totally eliminating it.

"The Prius transmission produces one of the effects of a CVT but not the
other. The spin rate of the engine can be selected to produce the
required power but otherwise to spin no faster than is necessary to
maintain fuel efficiency. The Prius engine tone therefore sounds as if
the car has a CVT because it does not rise as the car picks up speed.
Instead, it rises and falls with power demand, in other words, how hard
you press on the accelerator pedal."

And I ask again, how does it
achieve this if not by altering gear ratios?

See 50 other posts. Nah, don't bother you are too thick to understand.

Note: "it rises and falls with power demand", not raises and lowers
ratios.

You're a fool.

You are funny. we continue...........

" The Prius transmission does not, however, multiply up engine torque at
low vehicle speed."

No, because it's using an electric
motor at low speeds. Sheesh. Didn't you
know that?

I didn't write it, but it is correct. In fact it uses the electric motor
all the time at all speeds.

snip foaming drivel

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ws.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Toyota have put an "E" in front of CVT, to differentiate it from
conventional CVTs. It is nothing like a conventional CV, is
construction, as there is none, or in function. Putting a "P", for
power, in front would have been more apt and meaningful... PCVT.

So a power constantly variable transmission?

Yep.

Are you coming round to the
truth at last?

The truth was always there.

You've realised that a box with
gears in it is a gearbox,

and you don't

and that a transmission which
varies the ratio is a CVT?

and you don't.

The term "power splitter" is semi-apt as that is what it does, but its
prime function is to "combine" power from two differnt souces, rather
than split it.

And the generator fits in just where, since it's not a source of power?
But driven from the CVT?

There is no CVT

snip drivel

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
It is much the same was as the way rear axle differential on a
conventional car transmission works. It allows the apparent drive ratio
between engine and one wheel vary continuously - it can only do that by
virtue the rotational speed of the other driven wheel compensating.

Good analogy.

You don't know, so how could you comment like so.

snip babble

In article s.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
It is clear initially you didn't have clue how this worked, now you have
looked and are getting there slowly. I know what a conventional CVT is
and what it does. It raises and lowers torque.

By varying the gearing.

I have continually told
you that. The Prius Continually Varies the power match between two
parallel power sources to present the correct total power at the wheels
- this power combining is further up the drivetrain line than any
conventional CVT. You kept on saying the ratios (torque) was being
raised and lowered. That is NOT the case for 50th time to you.

Do you know what power is?

Hint. It's torque x revs.

--
*Who are these kids and why are they calling me Mom?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ws.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Not even an enthusiastic drive round B roads, but just ordinary
suburban use, as Autocar found out,

this half-wit still believes lies from an third rate mag. Sad but true.

Probably the most respected mag

Saying the Prius averages 23mpg And you respect that? You are fun.

snip babble

In article s.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
A CVT is a constantly variable transmission. Ie, no actual fixed gear
ratios within its upper and lower limits.

You missed out that it has one input and one output raises or lower
torque. from input to output.

I thought it too obvious to need mentioning. Forgot you'd be reading this.

It conventionally means pulleys and belts, but that's only because
that's the common way. Other principles exist.

Gasp, you don't say.

You don't seem to have appreciated this before. Glad I'm getting through
to you.

--
*Why is it that rain drops but snow falls?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article s.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
I said "Toyota did invent it for this application".

So when you pick up a pen to write, you've invented it for this
application?

Knowing you, probably.

--
*I'd kill for a Nobel Peace Prize *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article s.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Then why do low powered cars not sell well in the UK?

They do. The small supermarket runabouts sell well.

At small runabout prices, say 6 -7k. Not 20k. Everyone expects a decent
performing vehicle for that price, and one which looks good too.

Which is why the Prius simply doesn't sell in the UK - despite being sold
at a subsidised price. At full price it would be a bigger joke.

--
*If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving definitely isn't for you *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 12:10:35 +0100, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

The ratio is continously variable


.....oh no! failure. The planetary cluster is referred to as a
power-splitter. A normal gearbox/CVT lowers and raises ratios. No
ratios
are raised and lowered.

Nonsense.

"CVTs have been around for a while and at first it doesn't seem that Toyota
has broken new ground here. This, however, is entirely false, because the
ECVT in the Prius works in a completely different manner from any other CVT
put into a production car. It is so different, that calling it a CVT is
misleading. However, using this semi-familiar term at least explains why
the pitch of the engine sound doesn't rise as you accelerate."

Note: "calling it a CVT is misleading"

"The Prius transmission produces one of the effects of a CVT but not the
other. The spin rate of the engine can be selected to produce the required
power but otherwise to spin no faster than is necessary to maintain fuel
efficiency. The Prius engine tone therefore sounds as if the car has a CVT
because it does not rise as the car picks up speed. Instead, it rises and
falls with power demand, in other words, how hard you press on the
accelerator pedal."

Note: "it rises and falls with power demand", not raises and lowers ratios.

" The Prius transmission does not, however, multiply up engine torque at low
vehicle speed."

Note: No raising or lowering of ratios, as rasing and lowering torque is
what gearboxes/CVTS do.

"This is because it has only one gear ratio".

Note: so no gearbox/CVT to lower and raise ratios as there is only one.

" Effectively, the engine is coupled to the wheels as if the car is always
in top gear. This would be a crippling limitation, if not for the presence
of a powerful electric motor in addition to the gasoline engine. With this
motor adding its considerable torque, people have said that the car feels as
if it's always in bottom gear!"

http://home.earthlink.net/~graham1/M.../ContinuouslyV
ariableTransmission.htm



There is no attribution of source apart from some guy called Graham
Davies. This is so over the top that it might have been lifted from
Toyota marketing material. If his resume wasn't on line (he
apparently hasn't worked for three years) I might have thought that he
was a junior marketing manager for Toyota or perhaps a Toyota dealer.

This is hardly independently researched material, is it?

Talk about gullible.

Do you buy Lottery tickets as well?



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 12:24:10 +0100, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:



Toyota have put an "E" in front of CVT, to differentiate it from
conventional CVTs. It is nothing like a conventional CV, is construction,
as there is none, or in function. Putting a "P", for power, in front would
have been more apt and meaningful... PCVT. The term "power splitter" is
semi-apt as that is what it does, but its prime function is to "combine"
power from two differnt souces, rather than split it. See my other post on
this.


This is marketing hype of the highest order. It seems to me that the
reality of the situation is that they don't want to use the term CVT
because it conjures up images of the kind of rubber band image of the
old DAF cars.

They would have been better off not having used the term in the first
place because they probably do have something that is different in
terms of the details of how it operates. However, they have stuffed
themselves because they have used the term CVT in their marketing
information, and having screwed up now need to distance themselves
from it.

Really the marketing manager should be fired for not having done his
homework in the first place.

The fact that they have done this positioning, to me calls into
question their credibility on all of the aspects of the car and its
specification.

This is not to say that I don't think that Toyota isn't a good company
or that they don't make excellent products. My wife had a Corolla
that we bought new in 1985 for just over £5000. We sold it for a few
hundred quid two years ago and had spent about £1000 on it over its
lifetime, not including tyres and consumables. It was always
reliable.

However, it appears in this case that they are over-marketing to the
gullible eco-nazis and using the standard test methods of fuel
consumption to their advantage.

If you are going to buy a car for eco-reasons then it should be on the
basis of looking at the total eco-impact, not on how it behaves in the
context of test methods built around conventional cars. I have the
distinct feeling that this is what is being done here, and I don't buy
it.






--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 12:30:38 +0100, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
So with 140 hp, despite being light and with a good CD, it can only
manage
0-60 in 12 seconds and 100 mph?

Think they calim 122bhp now... but its only 78 of your real bhp though -
since the engine is the only source of power ultimately. The claimed
output can only be sustained until the batteries are low on juice. An
enthusiastic drive round some B roads ought to see to that ;-)

Not even an enthusiastic drive round B roads, but just ordinary suburban
use, as Autocar found out,

this half-wit still believes lies from an third rate mag. Sad but true.

Would you believe anything from any mag that had any disparaging
comments about it or didn't toe the party line?







--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 12:24:10 +0100, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:



Toyota have put an "E" in front of CVT, to differentiate it from
conventional CVTs. It is nothing like a conventional CV, is
construction,
as there is none, or in function. Putting a "P", for power, in front
would
have been more apt and meaningful... PCVT. The term "power splitter" is
semi-apt as that is what it does, but its prime function is to "combine"
power from two differnt souces, rather than split it. See my other post
on
this.

This is marketing hype of the highest order. It seems to me that the
reality of the situation is that they don't want to use the term CVT
because it conjures up images of the kind of rubber band image of the
old DAF cars.

They would have been better off not having used the term in the first
place because they probably do have something that is different in
terms of the details of how it operates. However, they have stuffed
themselves because they have used the term CVT in their marketing
information, and having screwed up now need to distance themselves
from it.

Exactly. I would have ran away from the term.

Really the marketing manager should
be fired for not having done his
homework in the first place.

I agree.

The fact that they have done this positioning, to me calls into
question their credibility on all of the aspects of the car and its
specification.

It is brilliant and the first of a line that most others will follow, until
fuel cells, full EV, etc, come in.

This is not to say that I don't think that Toyota isn't a good company
or that they don't make excellent products. My wife had a Corolla
that we bought new in 1985 for just over £5000. We sold it for a few
hundred quid two years ago and had spent about £1000 on it over its
lifetime, not including tyres and consumables. It was always
reliable.

However, it appears in this case that they are over-marketing to the
gullible eco-nazis and using the standard test methods of fuel
consumption to their advantage.

The problem is they not at al. The cars sells itself, with virtually no
advertising. There is a waiting list in every country it is sold, inc UK

If you are going to buy a car for eco-reasons then it should be on the
basis of looking at the total eco-impact,

The aim is to reduce pollution in built up areas, as they are the big
current problem. It does that wonderfully, and also reduces pollution
overall too.

not on how it behaves in the
context of test methods built around conventional cars.

There are 100,000s, maybe millions by now, of Mk2s around and it does
exactly what it says on the box, and even more. The user groups give a
teste of what it does.

I have the distinct feeling that this is
what is being done here, and I don't buy
it.

Quite the opposite in fact.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 12:10:35 +0100, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

The ratio is continously variable


.....oh no! failure. The planetary cluster is referred to as a
power-splitter. A normal gearbox/CVT lowers and raises ratios. No
ratios
are raised and lowered.

Nonsense.

"CVTs have been around for a while and at first it doesn't seem that
Toyota
has broken new ground here. This, however, is entirely false, because
the
ECVT in the Prius works in a completely different manner from any other
CVT
put into a production car. It is so different, that calling it a CVT is
misleading. However, using this semi-familiar term at least explains why
the pitch of the engine sound doesn't rise as you accelerate."

Note: "calling it a CVT is misleading"

"The Prius transmission produces one of the effects of a CVT but not the
other. The spin rate of the engine can be selected to produce the
required
power but otherwise to spin no faster than is necessary to maintain fuel
efficiency. The Prius engine tone therefore sounds as if the car has a
CVT
because it does not rise as the car picks up speed. Instead, it rises
and
falls with power demand, in other words, how hard you press on the
accelerator pedal."

Note: "it rises and falls with power demand", not raises and lowers
ratios.

" The Prius transmission does not, however, multiply up engine torque at
low
vehicle speed."

Note: No raising or lowering of ratios, as rasing and lowering torque is
what gearboxes/CVTS do.

"This is because it has only one gear ratio".

Note: so no gearbox/CVT to lower and raise ratios as there is only one.

" Effectively, the engine is coupled to the wheels as if the car is
always
in top gear. This would be a crippling limitation, if not for the
presence
of a powerful electric motor in addition to the gasoline engine. With
this
motor adding its considerable torque, people have said that the car feels
as
if it's always in bottom gear!"


http://home.earthlink.net/~graham1/M...g/Continuously
V
ariableTransmission.htm

There is no attribution of source apart from some guy called Graham
Davies. This is so over the top that it might have been lifted from
Toyota marketing material. If his resume wasn't on line (he
apparently hasn't worked for three years) I might have thought that he
was a junior marketing manager for Toyota or perhaps a Toyota dealer.

This is hardly independently researched material, is it?

Yep it is. He is independent. He also got it pretty well right.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article s.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:

I said "Toyota did invent it for this application".

So when

I said "Toyota did invent it for this application".

snip drivel

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article s.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:

A CVT is a constantly variable transmission. Ie, no actual fixed gear
ratios within its upper and lower limits.

You missed out that it has one input and one output raises or lower
torque. from input to output.

I thought it too obvious to need mentioning.

You never. You didn't know.

snip babble

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article s.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
It is clear initially you didn't have clue how this worked, now you have
looked and are getting there slowly. I know what a conventional CVT is
and what it does. It raises and lowers torque.

By varying the gearing.

No, wrong again. By raising and lowering the torque

I have continually told
you that. The Prius Continually Varies the power match between two
parallel power sources to present the correct total power at the wheels
- this power combining is further up the drivetrain line than any
conventional CVT. You kept on saying the ratios (torque) was being
raised and lowered. That is NOT the case for 50th time to you.

Do you know what power is?

Hint. It's torque x revs.

You don't say........... What web site did you just get that off?

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 12:30:38 +0100, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
So with 140 hp, despite being light and with a good CD, it can only
manage
0-60 in 12 seconds and 100 mph?

Think they calim 122bhp now... but its only 78 of your real bhp
though -
since the engine is the only source of power ultimately. The claimed
output can only be sustained until the batteries are low on juice. An
enthusiastic drive round some B roads ought to see to that ;-)

Not even an enthusiastic drive round B roads, but just ordinary
suburban
use, as Autocar found out,

this half-wit still believes lies from an third rate mag. Sad but true.

Would you believe anything from any mag that had any disparaging
comments about it

Objective comments I would. But!!! Any test that say the Prius does 23mpg,
and not worth read and the mag gets thrown in the bin . never to be bought
again.

or didn't toe the party line?

Come again? You have Maggie on the brain.

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 16:08:27 +0100, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:




http://home.earthlink.net/~graham1/M...g/Continuously
V
ariableTransmission.htm

There is no attribution of source apart from some guy called Graham
Davies. This is so over the top that it might have been lifted from
Toyota marketing material. If his resume wasn't on line (he
apparently hasn't worked for three years) I might have thought that he
was a junior marketing manager for Toyota or perhaps a Toyota dealer.

This is hardly independently researched material, is it?

Yep it is. He is independent. He also got it pretty well right.


Uh huh.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 16:14:31 +0100, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:



Objective comments I would.

How do you know that it isn't objective?

But!!! Any test that say the Prius does 23mpg,
and not worth read and the mag gets thrown in the bin . never to be bought
again.

It isn't reasonable to assess this on the number of publications that
say one thing vs. the other. The writers of articles for all of
them are open to question and in most spheres rely on information that
the manufacturer feeds them. This is certainly true in the IT world
and must be in the motor world as well because most writers for IT
magazines write for bike and car magazines the rest of their time.

I would want to see validated numbers from an independent and credible
lab.



or didn't toe the party line?

Come again? You have Maggie on the brain.


Well..... I am not a fan of Maggie any more than any other politician.
However, whether you agreed with her or not, there was never any doubt
about wher eshe stood on most issues. This is no longer true for any
politician that I can see of any party, and Herr Blurr is worse than
most in terms of telling you what you want to hear.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 16:14:31 +0100, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

Objective comments I would.

How do you know that it isn't objective?

read on...

But!!! Any test that say the Prius does 23mpg,
and not worth reading and the mag gets thrown
in the bin . never to be bought again.

It isn't reasonable to assess this
on the number of publications that
say one thing vs. the other.

Just do a Google never mid the numerous Prius user groups and forums, and
you will no one gets anywhere remotely near 23mpg. All are around 50-65mpg.
The mag is clearly wrong and misleading. The mag is also full of
advertorials and patronise their advertisers.

or didn't toe the party line?

Come again? You have Maggie on the brain.


Well..... I am not a fan of Maggie
any more than any other politician.

Don't porkie tell.

However, whether you agreed with
her or not, there was never any doubt
about wher eshe stood on most issues.

Yep. The wrong stance.

This is no longer true for any
politician that I can see of any party,

Thank God.

and Herr Blurr is worse than
most in terms of telling you what you want to hear.

Best MP we have had in living memory. Best government we have had in living
memory. That is obvious.

In article ,
PC Paul wrote:
Hmm. Found on the web:

=========================
C&D Test Results:

Prius Top-gear acceleration
30-50 mph 5.5
50-70 mph 7.9

BMW 530I Top-gear acceleration
30-50 mph: 13.3
50-70 mph: 12.3
=========================

Not sure if it's right, haven't got time to go find the original. But it
adds interest to the debate.

But why would you stay in top gear in the BMW when accelerating from
30-50? FWIW, the auto version won't even select 6th gear below 70 or so.

And what the hell 'Top Gear' is on a Prius....

Quite. Having a car with a manual gearbox but not knowing how to use it
sounds like something Evil does for the basis of his arguments.

Through the gears, the figures for a BMW 530d manual from 50-70 in top
gear is 4.2 seconds.

And I don't know where your figures come from. The smaller 525 petrol is
listed as 5.0 seconds from 50-70 in top. Possibly it's a new 6 speed 530
with an extremely high top gear.

The Prius, from the same source, 7.5 seconds 50-70.

--
*Being healthy is merely the slowest possible rate at which one can die.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 17:01:55 +0100, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 16:14:31 +0100, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

Objective comments I would.

How do you know that it isn't objective?

read on...

But!!! Any test that say the Prius does 23mpg,
and not worth reading and the mag gets thrown
in the bin . never to be bought again.

It isn't reasonable to assess this
on the number of publications that
say one thing vs. the other.

Just do a Google never mid the numerous Prius user groups and forums, and
you will no one gets anywhere remotely near 23mpg. All are around 50-65mpg.
The mag is clearly wrong and misleading. The mag is also full of
advertorials and patronise their advertisers.

That's bogus. As soon as I see a big discrepancy like that (2:1)
then clearly something is wrong.

On the one side you have the manufacturer and the sheep that espouse
the product because they bough the hype. On the other, you have the
nay-sayers who didn't but possibly have another axe to grind or
screwed up with their analysis or whatever.

I wouldn't make a decision on who I believed based on shear weight of
numbers either way, but would weigh up the information and look for
disinterested sources.

In that sense, Graham can be discounted because he is a purchaser of
the product but without any independent measurement resources.

Once one throws away the noise of interested parties and the
incompetent and looks for the competent and disinterested, it becomse
very easy to find the truth.



or didn't toe the party line?

Come again? You have Maggie on the brain.


Well..... I am not a fan of Maggie
any more than any other politician.

Don't porkie tell.

I would be a fan to the extent that one could be clear on where she
stood on everything and in agreement with more things than not, but I
don't follow slavishly.



However, whether you agreed with
her or not, there was never any doubt
about wher eshe stood on most issues.

Yep. The wrong stance.

From your perspective, not from mine.



This is no longer true for any
politician that I can see of any party,

Thank God.

That is actually a shame. There are none now who have a clear stance.



and Herr Blurr is worse than
most in terms of telling you what you want to hear.

Best MP we have had in living memory. Best government we have had in living
memory. That is obvious.


Not according to my definition. He will spin reality according to
what people want to hear. It then becomes difficult to know where he
does stand on anything.




--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

In article s.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
That is about right. The Prius can move when you floor it.

You consider 8 seconds at best to get from 50-70 'moving'? Good grief.

The instant response of the electric motor makes all the difference.
The acceleration is there is the sped ranges you need in normal driving.

No it doesn't at those speeds. It's relying on the CVT to help out the
underpowered petrol engine.

So much for the crap the loonies have been spouting - and it does 23mpg
as well, one says - laughable. What amazes me is, that all they have to
do is ask. But no, they know all the made up answers.

All easily checked from reliable sources. Not your pluck out of the air
and context ones.

--
*I see you've set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in public

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ws.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
And I ask again, how does it achieve this if not by altering gear
ratios?

See 50 other posts. Nah, don't bother you are too thick to understand.

But those posts are all from you and you're wrong. Not one single person
has agreed with you that it doesn't have a CVT transmission. Not even the
makers of the damn thing...

Note: "it rises and falls with power demand", not raises and lowers
ratios.

You're a fool.

You are funny. we continue...........

" The Prius transmission does not, however, multiply up engine
torque at low vehicle speed."

No, because it's using an electric motor at low speeds. Sheesh. Didn't
you know that?

I didn't write it, but it is correct. In fact it uses the electric
motor all the time at all speeds.

So at all times at speed the engine drives a generator which drives the
electric motor?

Don't think you've quite grasped the principle...

--
*I went to school to become a wit, only got halfway through.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ws.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
this half-wit still believes lies from an third rate mag. Sad but true.

Probably the most respected mag

Saying the Prius averages 23mpg And you respect that? You are fun.

That's what they got and they don't lie. Unlike you and your 55 mpg or
whatever, since you don't own one.

--
*Always remember you're unique, just like everyone else.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ws.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
The problem is they not at al. The cars sells itself, with virtually no
advertising. There is a waiting list in every country it is sold, inc UK

100,000 sales world wide. Hardly earth shattering, given the time it has
been on sale.

The waiting list is because they lose a lot of money on each car sold.

--
*The most common name in the world is Mohammed *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.