Talk:Toyota Prius

Bad conversion

"December 2005: Edmunds.com test of the Prius and Civic Hybrid resulted in the Prius outperforming its competitor by an additional 4.5 mpg-US (52 L/100 km; 5.4 mpg-imp) at 48.3 mpg-US (4.87 L/100 km; 58.0 mpg-imp)."

This line is utter nonsense. 4.5 mpg does correspond to 52 L/100km, but an extra 4.5 mpg isn't a saving of 52 L/100km. I ran the numbers and the difference is 0.63 L/100km, but it's automatically converted in the article, how can this be fixed? Middlerun (talk) 12:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Cutting down sections.

As noted, the Prius article is too long, so I have created a beta version of a stripped down article, along with a beta version of a new article that splits and details the history of the Prius. Please review the articles, give feedback, and help improve the articles. I have cut some things out, from both articles completely. If you want an explanation please ask me. If all is good, then I will make changes to the Prius article, and start the new page. History of Toyota Prius, Toyota Prius.

L Kensington (talk • contribs) 09:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the article is too long and needs dividing up, and even that History could be a separate article. However, I don't think that much of what you've put in the new article is history, and there is plenty of history left in your new main article.

I think a better split would be by Generation.

-- de Facto (talk). 10:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree with de Facto, the proposed History split is not such. See an example of a split history section here.-- Mariordo (talk) 17:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is another submission, this time, the Prius article has been split by generation, and I have further cut down on sections. Toyota Prius (ZVW30), Toyota Prius (NHW20), Toyota Prius (NHW10), Toyota Prius. If it is still too long, (the main article would be 51kb) then would it be appropriate to separate the article further into "Claims of the Toyota Prius" which would include Fuel Consumption, CO2, Criticisms, and everything else that can be put there? L Kensington (talk • contribs) 22:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes I think it is more useful that way. There is still stuff in the new main article though which should be put in the generation article that it relates to, the fuel consumption data and specific criticisms for instance. -- de Facto (talk). 22:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I have moved the Fuel consumption to their respective articles, but for the NHW10 article, I only added what the US government put, because I cannot find other sources for the 1st generation prius from the UK. I removed air pollution, and sent it off to the individual articles. I also wasn't sure on this, but I re-added the independent fuel tests to the individual articles. As for criticisms, the only one I could find that could be moved was the electric vehicle warning sound, which I moved partially to the ZVW30 article. I find that most of the other criticisms relate to the Prius in general. L Kensington (talk • contribs) 23:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the independent fuel economy comparisons were not moved but deleted.Snakeyedcharmer (talk) 17:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I support the split into generations. The Toyota Corolla and Toyota Camry articles will be helpful as an example of how to split into generations. The new generation article names should be 'Toyota Prius XW10' (includes NHW10 and NHW11), 'Toyota Prius XW20' and 'Toyota Prius XW30'. Note that the engine code is not part of the platform code - see List of Toyota platforms to see how Toyota's platform naming convention works.

The 'Name' section can have all the Latin stuff deleted and then remaining one or two sentences shifted to somewhere in the intro.

A lot of the drive train info in the 'Design and technology' section duplicates Hybrid Synergy Drive. Cut it down to what is specific to the Prius and put in a link to Hybrid Synergy Drive.  Stepho  (talk) 04:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you review the following beta articles and give me feedback? Toyota Prius (XW30), Toyota Prius (XW20), Toyota Prius (XW10), Toyota Prius. I already did most of what you said. Except the naming conventions. It can be changed if you want. Also, how should it go for the XW10, since the NHW10 and 11 have some differences between them. L Kensington (talk • contribs) 04:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I will review the new articles for you (along with other editors, of course). The XW10 designates the series, while NHW10 and NHW11 are specific instances in that series. For the Corolla example, the E30 series covered many specific models like the KE30, KE31, KE35, TE30, TE35 - covering many engine and body combinations.  Stepho  (talk) 05:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I mentioned that the XW10 is divided into the NHW10 and its NHW11 counterpart in the article. L Kensington (talk • contribs) 05:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The new generation-specific articles are great. Here are some suggestions:

• Toyota Prius: summarise "planning and concept" into one sentence and combine this into the XW10 section. Then move this "planning and concept" content to the main XW10 article.
• XW10, XW20: remove the sales data from the individual generation articles. The sales data relates to the entire calendar year, yet the individual models were introduced mid-year (i.e. late 2003 for the XW20). Instead, have a single sales data table at the main "Toyota Prius" article.
• Toyota Prius: delete the awards section and move the awards won by each generation to their respective articles.
• There is a convention that states government fuel consumption figures (i.e. EPA, et cetera) can be included, but "there should be no mention of independent tests". The reason for this convention is because fuel economy is subjective, and the EPA rating is ascertained via a methodical process, unlike independent test results. The current list of independent results is quite unsightly and never seems to stop growing. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay done. L Kensington (talk • contribs) 11:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It would probably be safe to move the articles over to the main space now. I don't think anyone objects to the article being split up. Cheers OSX (talk • contributions) 12:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everybody for your help. The changes are now live. Thanks again. L Kensington (talk • contribs) 16:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Independent fuel economy tests

where exactly did the independent fuel economy testing data go? Snakeyedcharmer (talk) 16:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

This information is un-encyclopaedic: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and this information is subjective in style and does not meet Wikipedia's policy of having a neutral point of view.

There is a convention that states government fuel consumption figures (i.e. EPA, et cetera) can be included, but "there should be no mention of independent tests". The reason for this convention is because fuel economy is subjective, and the EPA rating is ascertained via a methodical process, unlike independent test results. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly how was this fuel economy rule come into existance? I ask because it appears this rule was recently established by you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Automobiles/Conventions&diff=372585064&oldid=372583199

Snakeyedcharmer (talk) 17:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore other articles such as the Chevrolet Volt include a test drive section ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Volt#Test_drives ) which includes independently tested fuel economy data.Snakeyedcharmer (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

What the Chevrolet Volt article includes is irrelevant; the information is un-encyclopaedic. However, you are more than welcome to create your own website with this content if you like.

While it is true that the convention was formalised by me, it had been unwritten for a few years now. There was a discussion to formalise the convention.

I'll explain once more why the convention exists. If you and I both took an identical car for a test drive, it is highly unlikely that the same fuel consumption figure will be attained due to differences in traffic, gradients, terrain, driving style, et cetera. So you cannot compare the Car and Driver figure for the Prius to the Edmunds figure for the Honda Insight. At least with the EPA, all vehicles are tested using exactly the same protocols (making comparisons more reasonable).

Likewise, we only list the official top speed and 0–100 km/h (or 0–60 mph) times, and not those attained by Car and Driver, et al. It is all about reducing clutter, keeping it simple, and not ruining articles by flooding them with indiscriminate particulars. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

You can in actuality compare the C&D Prius and Insight fuel economy as they were both tested under identical conditions.Snakeyedcharmer (talk) 23:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

No you can't. Identical conditions means: same driver, same traffic, same route, same amount of time waiting at traffic lights, same number of people cutting in front of you forcing you to brake hard, et cetera. When people drive their car to work each day at the same times, to the same place, they don't get the same figure each day. Why? Because there are subtle differences each time that vary the result. The only tests that can be considered "identical" car those done by the EPA (and other government departments) as these tests are done under a computer-controlled environment with no variables (car manufacturers can predict with almost 100 percent accuracy what MPG rating their car will receive because of this). OSX (talk • contributions) 23:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

If you feel this needs further discussion, this will need to be discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles where the policy decisions are made. Regards OSX (talk • contributions) 23:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but this type of recommendations made by the group of users who belong to any WikiProject are just guidelines, not Wiki policy as you claim.-Mariordo (talk) 01:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Well a consensus exists not to include them, maybe a new discussion should be initiated at WP:CARS?

Originally, we said no fuel economy information should be included at all. However, I managed to get a consensus for a compromise allowing EPA figures. I think this is a good compromise, and am more than happy for EPA figures to be included. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

EMP

When this section was first entered, I was very tempted to just delete it. But I followed the references, cleaned up the sensationalist bits and decided to let it stay. I don't necessarily agree with what it says (especially since I'm a Toyota fanboy) and my gut feeling is that it will fizzle out as nothing to worry about but the section follows all the wikipedia rules and should be allowed to stay.  Stepho  (talk) 02:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources are of poor quality, information is not notable.Snakeyedcharmer (talk) 20:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

A simple search in google for "Prius electromagnetic radiation" turns up little on the topic other than some chatter on forums. Hardly wikipedia material.Snakeyedcharmer (talk) 20:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I fully agree with Stepho-wrs, it fullfills Wiki policies, the NYT article is quite comprehensive and this is well accepted reliable source in the Wiki community, and even if it reflects a minority concern, this POV is also allowed by Wiki rules, so in fairness and for the sake of NPOV, I agree we must keep this section.-Mariordo (talk) 00:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure whether to believe it or not, but it is cited and does seem notable in the sense that there may be a risk associated with this vehicle. The same goes for the recalls; no one really knows if some Toyota models have a tendency to accelerate unintentionally or whether this is just driver error and the media doing its job of cutting down the tall poppies. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The section in question:

The Prius has been known to emit excessively high electromagnetic fields. ICNIRP guidelines stipulate that the maximum long term exposure should not exceed 1mG but the Prius measures higher than 24mG in some locations, such as the rear right seat. ICNIRP guidelines are not law in many (if any) countries. The World Health Organization in conjunction with the ICNIRP conducted a study and found levels above 3mG contribute to a child's risk of developing leukemia. At 12mG, the electromagnetic radiation is so strong it's able to block the body's ability to inhibit cancers (in this case breast cancer) using melatonin. The Toyota Prius exceeds 12mG (up to 24mG) in some areas of the cabin. However Toyota claims that the Prius emits similar fields to conventional gasoline vehicles. The high voltage power cable from the traction battery and the forward electric drive motor/generator passes directly under the drivers seat.

Only the NYT source is legitimate and barely mentions the Prius; it doesn't give any specific measured radiation figures either. One article from a reputable publication does not constitute this topic as notable. "At 12mG, the electromagnetic radiation is so strong it's able to block the body's ability to inhibit cancers (in this case breast cancer) using melatonin." "ICNIRP guidelines are not law in many (if any) countries. The World Health Organization in conjunction with the ICNIRP conducted a study and found levels above 3mG contribute to a child's risk of developing leukemia." Statements like these are pure original research as the sources make no mention of any hybrid vehicles. "The Toyota Prius exceeds 12mG (up to 24mG) in some areas of the cabin." This isn't published by NYT.Snakeyedcharmer (talk) 02:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Snakeyedcharmer, then please propose a wording based on the reliable sources only. I agree that bringing facts from sources not directly related to the Prius will be considered OR, however the NYT has enough material and it mentions the Prius, so there is enough material for a non OR content to be kept (including the rebuttal from Toyota).-Mariordo (talk)

To quote WHO on the matter "[O]n balance, the evidence [about magnetic fields being] related to childhood leukaemia is not strong enough to be considered causal...." Thus, WHO found no evidence that EMF's in any band injure human health. 66.195.102.82 (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The "next-up" source is pretty shoddy: no mention of what frequency those measurements were made at, poor methodology, lots of advocacy messaging, etc. Even then, it still finds that the Prius is below the ICNIRP guidelines. Many of the other pages/forum posts on the issue that I've seen suggest mis-use of meters by laypeople rather than actual data. http://rpd.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2010/06/15/rpd.ncq168.abstract A paper in Radiation Protection Dosimetry suggests that aside from a brief spike when accelerating, the Prius is no different than a conventional car, and does not exceed the ICNIRP limits. I might suggest a wording that acknowledges the issue, common fear, etc., but tones it down in light of the evidence to date.

Also, ICNIRP limits are frequency-dependent, and I don't see any in the table that are 1 mG as currently in the article. http://www.icnirp.de/documents/LFgdl.pdf See page 827 for general public reference levels (or pg 828 for the graph) -- in the power-line-frequency range (I'm assuming what they're shooting for here), the limit is 2000 mG, not 1 mG. Potatophysics (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed reword:

The Prius uses electric motors in the hybrid propulsion systems, powered by a high voltage battery in the rear of the car. There has been some public concern over the levels of electromagnetic field exposure within the cabin, and what health effects those may present, popularized by a 2008 New York Times article. However, Toyota and several independent studies have indicated that aside from a brief spike when accelerating, the electromagnetic fields within the Prius are no different than that of a conventional car, and do not exceed the ICNIRP exposure guidelines.

Need to figure out how to properly add the existing refs, and the new one I put above... Potatophysics (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. 66.195.102.82 (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I just put undid another anon user's revert of this version, so I guess I have to say that I agree with it more than what was there before. 142.89.190.110 (talk) 07:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

A reminder to both sides that while the EMP section is under discussion we should avoid major changes. Only minor corrections should be done. Major changes to the article at this time will only stir up trouble and cause a revert war. Instead, make proposals here on the talk page. Once we have reached agreement on the way forward, then that agreed direction will be applied.  Stepho  (talk) 16:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

An anonymous user has been adding the same information to the Honda Insight page, but with even more ridiculous claims and less referencing. After spending a bit of time researching, I can find almost no information that hasn't been published with the intent of drawing suspicion to hybrid cars. If the article is retained, it should be written about what is both newsworthy and reasonable (NYT & TTAC articles) and not about what some guy measured in his driveway with the AC EMF meter he doesn't know how to use. I removed the Insight section but if the consensus is to keep the Prius radiation section, we should make a new page for it and link it to both vehicle pages. Bdc101 (talk) 20:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think either EMP sections have any merit. This one has problems citing sources which directly contradict the assertion. 66.195.102.82 (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I notice a good number of people do not even know the subject at hand. Its EMF (Elecromagnetic Field) not Pulse. These edits by OSX are complete crap. They take out all relevant information toward the actual levels of EMF radiation exposure and what would be a serious risk. The change submitted by OSX should NOT be allowed. It does not even mention the amount of radiation exposure which is pegged as high as 24mG and by the article linked to in his revision an even higher 35mG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.232.119 (talk) 01:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and do not make personal attacks directed at other editors. Bidgee (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC){{

But the previous version had incorrect ICNIRP levels, and mis-stated the conclusions of the WHO and ICNIRP about the evidence of magnetic fields and childhood leukemia (which, BTW, is for 50/60 Hz chronic exposures, not a direct comparison to the fields found in the car, to which one would only be exposed briefly while driving). The Radiation Protection Dosimetry paper references background work that the movement of the steel in tires can on its own produce up to 33 mG in cars with no hybrid systems travelling at 80 km/h (page 5 of the PDF, first paragraph under "hybrid cars" heading). I understand the need for this section: it is an area of controversy, and there is some measure of public concern. But there isn't really any good evidence that the fields in hybrid cars are meaningfully higher than conventional cars. Even if they are, it's then another leap to what the health effects of those fields might be. If the 173.x.x.x user feels more information on the field levels is needed, I think it would be more appropriate to include a sentence along the lines of: "During acceleration, the magnetic fields in the Prius were found to go as high as 35 mG, which compares to 33 mG found in conventional cars at highway speeds, and the ICNIRP limit (at the 12 Hz peak) of 4166 mG." Potatophysics (talk) 14:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The ICNIRP levels are correct and they state long term exposure should not exceed 2mG. Exposure is not "brief" it is for long periods of time as your car accelerates and decelerates. I was not able to find ANY ICNIRP guidelines stating a peak of 4166mG. You must provide an actual reference for that.

The reference is above: http://www.icnirp.de/documents/LFgdl.pdf see page 827, table 4 for general public reference levels. For the 12 Hz peak, the limit for general population is 5 x 10^-3/f Tesla, plug in 12 Hz for f, and you get 4.166 x 10^-4 T, or 4166 mG. That's the current ICNIRP guideline. a) Where are you getting the notion that the limit is that low? Please provide a citation. b) Please remember that ICNIRP (and other regulatory agency) limits are frequency-dependent. What frequency are you talking about? c) ICNIRP does not, as far as I can see, separate "long term" exposure from acute exposure in their guidelines. d) Even if they did, what makes you think that a long-term chronic guideline would be the appropriate measure for automotive exposure? The average time spent in a car is at most what, 2 hours/day in the US, and lower in other countries? But those hours would be broken up into several discrete chunks per day, and only a fraction of that is spent under hard acceleration or braking. Potatophysics (talk) 01:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I just gave 173.206.232.119 a 24-hour block for the edit warring he's been doing on this page, as he's clearly not been willing to work out the issues here before reverting. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 02:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

173.206.232.119, could you please propose an alternative wording that is reliably sourced? The revision that you keep reverting to is not sourced reliably, and the sources given do not back up what is being claimed—many are simply included to give the allusion of citing reliable works. OSX (talk • contributions) 02:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Due to edit waring, any further editing of the EMP section by ANY editor will be reported to administrators and may result in blocking of that editor. And yes, this includes reversions and reversions of reversions (ie just because one side breaks the ban, it doesn't give you the right to also break the ban by reverting it back to its pre-ban state - I will report ANY edit. Form a consensus on this talk page and only AFTER a consensus has been formed will any edit be allowed. Even if you feel the current version is wrong, we will put up with it until consensus is reached.  Stepho  (talk) 16:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone except for 173.206.232.119 have any objection to deleting the section entirely? I haven't really seen one. Perhaps we could take Potatophysics's position on the matter, although that would require him re-writing the section himself. 66.195.102.82 (talk) 20:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

New section to replace "Criticisms"

I have reworked the criticisms section a bit, but I think a more should be done. I think ideally we should have a "receptio"n section that details both the praise and criticism section. As it stands I don't think this article meets WP:NPOV the Prius has received a great deal of praise from a broad spectrum of sources that isn't particularly well reflected, as a good portion of the article focus on criticism and responses to it. It certainly has been criticized and I don't support any kind of white washing, but I think it would be good to gather other sources and determine what kind of weight we should give to various praise and criticism. --Daniel 22:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

This type of laundry list criticism section often develop on articles about current events as new items become available, but I think at this point we would be ready to write a prose section on the vehicle's reception rather than a list gripes. --Daniel 22:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)