Talk:Toyota Prius

/Archive 1 - Posts from Beginning to 2006

Fashion Statement

The Prius's shape gives it a low 0.26 coefficient of drag.[92]

In spite of the efficiency of the Prius's shape, in 2004, industry analyst Art Spinella of CNW Marketing Research (CNWMR), whose skepticism towards hybrids is well known (see Lifetime energy cost), said "the Prius was a fashion statement", attributing its success over the Honda Civic Hybrid, which has a nearly identical appearance to its non-hybrid versions, to its distinctive styling, which lets "other people know the driver is driving a hybrid vehicle". However, this does not explain the lack of success for the even more distinctive Honda Insight.[93]. (Excluding the fact that demand for two-seaters is far less than that for four-seaters.)

In July 2007 the The New York Times[94] published an article using data from CNW Marketing Research finding that 57% of Prius buyers said their main reason for buying was that "it makes a statement about me.", while just 36% cited fuel economy as a prime motivator. Shortly afterwards Washington Post columnist Robert Samuelson coined the term "Prius politics" to describe a situation where the driver's desire to "show off" is a stronger motivator than the desire to curb greenhouse gas emissions.[95]

I'd like to remove the whole section about the Prius being a fashion statement. The section is above. Most people buy a car for its looks. There's no surprise that people like appearances, and studied back this up for every car type. Yet are we going to put a section on fashion statements on every car model's Wikipedia page?

Plus even though Art Spinella says something, his reasoning is can be wrong. That the Prius sells more than the Civic Hybrid may be due to the Prius being more fuel efficient (the Prius consumes 4.4 L/100km while the Civic Hybrid consumes 5.6 L/100km). One way the Prius is more fuel efficient is its low coefficient of drag. Plus the Prius has four seats rather than two.

--Knowledge-is-power (talk) 13:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree. For future reference, please follow wikipedia convention of putting new talk sections at the bottom. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 15:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Protectionism/Nationalism

I have deleted the following:

... however, even though most of the vehicles are produced in plants in North America, the fact it is a Japanese company means driving a Prius would conflict with the beliefs of protectionist or nationalist Americans, especially since domestic manufacturers such as General Motors and Ford Motor Company now offer hybrid vehicles vehicles of their own

The reason is because even though Toyota is headquartered in Japan and it is listed on a Japanese stock exchange, foreigners can be shareholders, which means an American can partially own Toyota.

Also, there is no evidence that driving a Prius goes against protectionist American beliefs because we don't know where the components and even the components of the components come from and who they ultimately benefit. Remember that many Toyota shareholders may be non-Japanese people.

Furthermore, Ford and GM may be heavily foreign owned. It all depends on the nationality of shareholders. GM is I estimate 10 per cent owned by Arab investors.

--Knowledge-is-power (talk) 12:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

2001 / "Classic" available options

A few commonly-held but nonetheless incorrect thoughts about the 2001 model and the classic model in general keep appearing in the classic section. I'm putting this here so all of you know to kill these items should they show up again.

1) "The 2001 Prius had no options." Incorrect. Options included cruise control, single cd player, 5-disk cd changer, leather seats, alarm system, glass breakage sensor, VIN etching, and side air bags. It also has the controls for the nav system. I haven't found a 2001 model that has the nav system installed, but you can probably bet that it exists at least on some of the later models since the controls are there. Note that the nav system for this model IS available for purchase from Toyota as a separate part, so it's a safe bet that it was available at purchase time.
2) "The Classic Prius after 2001 had no options other than cruise control and a navigation system." Incorrect. See above.
3) "The Classic Prius air conditioning would only work if the engine was on." This is partially true, but not completely. The AC will run on these models with the engine off, such as when at a stoplight, but the engine will cycle on and off once per minute or so in order to keep the compressor working adequately. 72.177.40.111 (talk) 08:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

CNW

The CNW marketing study is subject to some fairly basic criticism, that it over-weights manufacturing costs (compared to running costs) by a factor of 50 or so.

[Google cnw+prius].

I've marked the reference to them as disputed, although my impression is that it should probably be removed entirely.

I put a discussion of this at the Petroleum-electric hybrid vehicle page. It pertains to all hybrids, so more properly belongs there anyway (altho the Prius is seen as the flagship hybrid vehicle, so it naturally attracts a lot of the discussion common to all hybrids). Nerfer 20:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The CNW marketing study was also referenced in this article [1] _└ ^VodkaJazz / _talk ^┐ 12:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, for reference, the way the CNW report works is this: most of it appears somewhat reasonable, until the last section - the "social expenditure" - there is no explanation of what this supposed (large) expenditure is [apart from a completely uninformative analogy with coffee]. As far as I can see, that section is simply a complete fiction to make the numbers come out the way the author wanted.

Deletion of CNW Research

I would like to the see the CNW research removed. It has been disproven by science. To insist it stays is like insisting that tarot reading be included in an article about astrophysics.

If no one objects when I come back, I will delete it.

Knowledge-is-power 03:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I object. If you're talking about CNW's "SUVs are greener than Priuses" research, it is a controversy, correctly listed under controversies, with opposing views presented. If it has been "disproven by science," then the science can and should be cited in the article. I know of no published scientific papers addressing CNW's study. It's been covered by major media (nbc/today us news chicago tribune/san fran union tribune), used in ad campaigns (greenest car on earth!), and commonly cited in Prius/hybrid criticisms. Tarot reading is controversial too, but there's a (neutrality-disputed) wikipedia article on it. :-) -Agyle 06:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Its junk, it doesn't list its sources. The major media covers a bunch of junk, but that doesn't get listed in Wikipedia either. Daniel.Cardenas 08:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The CNW study was a notable work, and it was covered by the press worldwide. Whether you, or anyone else agree with its findings is not the point, the point is whether what is written here about it can be verified from acceptable sources. As the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy puts it: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.". It should stay. -- de Facto (talk). 09:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability requires a 'reliable source'. CNW and its spokesman Art Spinella appear to not be reliable sources. The CNW material are falsified, not verified. It thus does not meet the standard for inclusion. The old 'criticism' section got deleted about 6 months ago because it had turned into a cess-pit of POV rants. Unfortunately, the 'controvesy' section appears to be going the same way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.189.191 (talk) 04:44, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

It has been months since my Google News search found a hit on the CNW study, which suggests it has outlived its usefulness. It would be a shame to give it any further recognition. My feeling is it and the retracted Canadian nickel mining article should be removed. Heck, the last major reference was by columnist, George Will, and he substituted zinc for nickel. Time to let them go. --Bwilson4web 23:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

CNW is not a household word, but the urban legends based on CNW and similar sources are still circulating. Readers coming to Wikipedia to check rumors should be able to find information on their history, (lack of) basis, and proponents. This is not to say that the section has to be titled after CNW, which is just one source, albeit apparently an early one, or that the main coverage has to be in this article instead of a separate one. --JWB 00:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Profitability

(Proposed section)

I've heard that Toyota loses money on each Prius. If true, this would be a significant fact. I will attempt to research this. If anyone has any input, let 'er rip. LorenzoB 06:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't buy that. It does not make business sense unless Toyota gets something out of it. For example, I heard that Microsoft sells the XBox 360 at a loss because they want to build up momentum and put a set-top presence in people's living room. Besides, computer hardware parts cost drops rapidly in volume production. So the XBox will cost less to build over time and the initial loss would be temporary. For the Prius, some argue that the battery cost may drop in mass production. But rechargable batteries have been in high volume use for so many years in laptop and cellphone industry, the cost history does not show such a trend. Taking a loss on every car will eventually show up on their balance sheets. Like Chevolet, they produce some fake hybrid vehicles just as checklist items so that they can claim they also have hybrid. They don't need to promote those vehicle. If Toyota were really taking a loss, they would not promote the Prius so much to reduce the loss. Kowloonese 23:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, good luck with that research. They may have lost money on the initial NHW10 version, but it wouldn't make business sense at this point, particularly since they're trying to ramp up production to 170K units this year. They also resisted raising prices during the years the Prius was continuously back-ordered. Altho to be honest, Toyota did not promote the Prius until this last month - at least no TV or radio ads that I saw/heard. Honda pulled the Insight, probably due to profitability. Nissan (using technology licensed from Toyota) claims it will lose money on the Altima Hybrid it is being "forced" to sell in California. Nerfer 05:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

According to CNW Marketing, about as anti-hybrid as a research place gets, hybrids produced a profit of $1375/vehicle in 2004 for the manufacturer, rising to almost $2000/vehicle in 2006. (p. 38 of the 2MB Dust Zip download, http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/) Nerfer 03:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The inital version for the US (NHW11) was at a loss (I'm told they cost ~ $50K each to produce and transport) but the NHW20 is profitable because it's per unit producation costs were greatly reduced. The next version is supposed to have an even lower per unit producation cost. Jon 16:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

There was a link in the history section to an article at Mercury News saying it was unprofitable. I left this sentence in, although I modified it since it implied the Prius is still unprofitable, and I took out the link since it is now broken (article probably archived). Nerfer (talk) 03:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Fictional Appearances

Are not most of the entries in this section paid product placements? Is television advertising notable enough to warrant such attention in a WP article? I think this section should be removed, or at least shortened to a few sentences, or at least the most notable examples (ie were the Prius was integral to the plot). Ashmoo 03:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Early on when Hybrids were hard to spot, this was worthwhile, but now that its matured, this best belongs on an enthusiast site somewhere.Nerfer 05:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

New York Times today has a good article entirely about the Prius's appearance or nonappearance in movies and how even this is also a political issue: A Casting Call for Sexy Cars (Hybrids Need Not Apply) --JWB (talk) 02:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

I deleted ambiguous statement involving "maybe" and "easily" in the sentence related to life cycle emission. Instead attached a link to a PDF file. Please read it before attempting to modify the sentence.

I deleted the part saying alternative fuel vehicles "are still in the experimental stages". E85 and bio-diesel are not in experimental stages, so this sentence is wrong.

Added referenced to plug-in electric hybrid vehicle, instead of ambiguous explanation. Lifetime 04:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, folks! I've removed the criticism section, as no references are made about the facts being contraversial. It seems to be POV, and also seems to have been writen by someone who hates the Prius.Hondasaregood 04:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you have overdone it. You have removed a lot more than what are contraversial. Besides, the original text has included many links of where the info come from. The article was only reporting the existence of these criticisms elsewhere. Honestly, can you really find any criticism that are NPOV? All criticism by definition is POV. Kowloonese 21:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I just stumbled across this page, and was about to put in a Criticisms or Controversies section. If one already existed, should we resurrect that? It's only fair to note that not everybody loves the Prius, and this gives us a chance to examine both sides of the issue, providing defenses of common criticisms that may not be valid, altho some are (and I'm a bona fide Prius owner - I love it, but admit it's not the perfect vehicle for everyone or every purpose). Nerfer 04:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I just looked at the original Criticism section. That was a bit weak in my mind. I can write up something better, but it would be longer. This is already a rather long page, I'm going to think this over. Nerfer 05:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I linked to 'Petroleum-hybrid electric vehicle' page (why isn't it called the more commonly used 'hybrid-electric vehicle' term?). I'll put the criticisms there, since that page is much shorter and more applicable to general hybrid discussion.

Also note that I combined the two Criticism sections on this talk page to one. Nerfer 05:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe the reasoning behind the name petroleum electric hybrid vehicle was that it was supposed to cover specifically vehicles that have both an electric motor and a gas/diesel engine. Technically an electric bicycle is a "hybrid-electric vehicle" since it uses a combination of electric power and human power. (I wasn't the one who made the decision, just trying to explain what I believe was the thought process behind it, which I happen to agree with). Plymouths 04:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the article might/should incorporate this information on the environmental damage of a Prius: http://clubs.ccsu.edu/recorder/editorial/print_item.asp?NewsID=188

69.2.251.189 17:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

69.2.251.189, your link is dead. In what way does the car create damage?Ken McE 21:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Notable facts

This is really a hodge-podge of things, I think this needs a complete rework. Anyone volunteer? Or complain if I did it next weekend or so? Nerfer 05:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Comparing price to "a decent home-theater system"?

The section "Better batteries/plug-ins" starts by comparing the price of battery pack options to the price of home-theater systems:

"These battery pack options are expensive at this time, comparable to a decent home-theater system."

I have no idea of the price of what the author considers to be a decent home-theater system, and it has nothing to do with cars.

I call for a better comparison, ideally a price range!

Erland Lewin 11:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Page layout is screwed up

Here's what it looks like on my computer: [2] Does anyone know why this is? No other wikipedia page looks like this. Esn 05:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

No clue, page looks normal in IE6&7, maybe you could ask at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical).--Van helsing 08:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Esn, that's how it looks for me too. I'm using Firefox 2.0.0.3. Mahanga^Talk 22:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, it looks fine now. Somebody must've changed something. Esn 08:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

L/100km?

Where are these values? They're commonly used in continental Europe instead of km/L which I've never even heard of used. - G3, 07:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Can we do math here? How about some new mileage math templates? --D0li0 10:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

use {{mpg|45}} to get Template:Mpg

use {{L100km|5.2}} to get Template:L100km

Suggestion for Criticism

It should be noted that the Prius has no Distance to Empty indicator, and a digital gas gauge instead of a normal needle-and-background gauge. This gauge is inaccurate, showing "blips" instead of a fabricated needle. The manual even mentions that it can be inaccurate by up to 1.2 gal, a huge amount. On a just-barely-related note, some theorists [no official word, sources are obviously not backed by research teams] suggest that Prius owners running out of gas is why Toyota removed their Roadside Assistance program. I'm not really good enough with WP to add this kind of thing, or know if it's worth adding. SkylineBNR34 10:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I hope I'm not making anyone angry by writing a short note into this discussion page. I was surprised to see that there is no Criticism section in the Toyota Prius article, as American society seems to be really critical of this vehicle. The major criticism, repeated everywhere, is that the production of the Prius battery supposedly causes more environmental damage than 3 Hummers throughout their lifetimes. The battery of the Prius supposedly needs nickel, which is extracted from the mine in a way that permanently kills off all surrounding plants. Example: type in "Prius" into the search engine of facebook. You will find that there are countless "Prius-hater groups" but only one or two owners clubs on facebook. BTW when editing Wikipedia, please do take into account that not only Americans use Wikipedia. (András from France)

No need to apologize. That's what we're here for.  :-) A few weeks back, there was a write-up on it which referenced this page as a source. This (along with some non-encyclopedic rebuttals placed in the article) was removed with this edit on April 17. I feel the referenced page is not a reliable source, being an editorial in a college newspaper. The study referenced in the editorial is available here, which is a tasty ~450-page PDF written by a marketing research firm, which might not be exactly the most reliable source either. However, have at it.  :-) RTucker 21:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I'm not entirely sure an article entitled "Prius Outdoes Hummer in Environmental Damage, Says Editorial" is going to cut the mustard as a reliable source, beings that it's just citing the college newspaper editorial above. I don't want to be a jerk about things, but that's getting a bit of a rewrite.  :-) RTucker 14:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

András, it's not so much that Americans don't like it as that there is an anti-hybrid publicity campaign going on. It's just business. The pollution problem at Sudbury is only very slightly related to hybrids, and besides the canadians have been fixing it back up. Vive la Hybrid, and Vive la France!

Plugin + diesel Prius?

Toyota has already hinted that they are willing to release diesel Prius hybrids. How hard is it to convert the existing ones to diesel? This would multiply the fuel efficiency increase of the plug-in modification. --76.217.90.99 07:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It's my understanding that the higher mileage of a diesel is due in part because of the higher energy density of that fuel compared to gasoline. The first priority would be to have Plug-in hybrid versions of the Prius from Toyota, next I would like to see E85 Flex Fuel capabilities, and then perhaps diesel versions. Once we have fuel options that don't require Internal combustion then we can discuss the best method of combustion to use when we need to resort to burning fuel... --D0li0 11:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

From a technological standpoint, to switch any existing car from gasoline to diesel, you need to rip out the engine entirely and replace it with one designed to use diesel. There may be other parts that need totally replaced as well, but the engine is the most expensive one. Also at least in the US there are also a couple of major drawback to diesel vechicles compared to normal gasoline, starting with fuel avaiablity. It's not nearly as bad as trying to find an E-85 station though. The other issue is while during most of the year it is cheaper to run diesel than gasoline, during the fall the realtive prices reverse as gasoline prices drop as the summer travel ends and diesel prices soar as lots of harvest related farm vechicles get used. Jon 19:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The Rumor Mill

Fyi: Article says Toyota is delaying Li-on version because of safety concerns. [3] Daniel.Cardenas 15:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Also I archived discussions prior to 2007, per wikipedia procedure wp:archive. There is a link at the top of the discussion page: /Archive 1 Daniel.Cardenas 15:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a tidbit of new information relating to Li-ion batteries for the Prius, might merit an update of the "Future of the Prius" section: [4]RoyalDoyle (talk) 01:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

"Small"?

"Copy phone numbers to the Prius' (small) internal phone book (some allow them to be sent all at once)."

I just bought a 2007 (option package #4 with JBL system if that makes any difference). I can copy up to 1000 entries from my phone (each entry containing up to 2 numbers). Did previous models have a much smaller capacity? Either way, I think we should replace "small" with "up to 1000 entries", or "up to 1000 entries on the 2007 model, XXX on 2004 - 2006" if it was indeed lower before. --Fo0bar 10:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Additional recall

I was at the dealer for my 30K milage maintenance yesterday and they said they had a 2004-2006 recall notice out for something involving steering. (I hadn't noticed any problems) Jon 17:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Already in the article (second paragraph of recall section). --KJBracey 10:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Intro Paragraph

I think the intro paragraph should give the most interesting information about the Prius and not mundane information such as: "The 2000 model Prius slotted between the Echo and Corolla in the company's North American lineup...". Most interested info is that it is greenest high production car available. Highest mileage and very low smog causing pollution. What do you think? Daniel.Cardenas 22:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd say you're right.Ken McE 21:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Further CNW study refutation

this article from the Better World Club further refutes the CNW study. I don't know if you want to work that into the article, or stay with the one cite for the refutation. Improbcat 18:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, looks like additional info, I'll add it. --JWB 20:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

"Stealth mode" and pedestrian safety?

Has there been any discussion of the possible dangers posed to pedestrians (and possibly bicyclists) by the "stealth mode"? I've had a Prius roll by me in a parking lot and it was very disconcerting. --69.255.17.40 04:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

There is the note on quietness under safty? Does anyone have a reference to a primary source (e.g., safty research or a blind peoples organisation)? I suspect that that would give better information on the seriousness of the issue, compared to a newspaper article that may or may not be neutral.

In the quietness subsection of the safety section, I think the newspaper cited, the Wall Street Journal, is a reliable secondary source. They did not say there are safety problems, they reported on peoples' and organizations' concerns about safety risks. I don't see how there's anything disputable in the article to raise a neutrality issue; the article careful relied on quotations and attributions. The wiki article's section under safety seemed worded to correctly reflect that. (I modified it just now, and aimed at retaining that). The WSJ article also mentioned the National Federation for the Blind's stance. In adding to the section, I included a primary source (2006 Resolutions, as reported by the NFB) on advocacy by the NFB (other material is at quietcars.nfb.org). I also added a StarTribune.com-referenced sentence that a toyota spokesperson said they were aware of the problem. Again, I think neutrality isn't an issue on this - they're a reputable organization reporting a sourced quotation. -Agyle 01:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Earlier in the article, there's also mention of the stealth/quietness issue. It does not seem so carefully worded, and does not provide a citation for those specific claims. I'm not sure how to link from there down to the quietness paragraph under safety issues, but it seems like that would be useful. I also think the strength of claims made in those earlier sentences should be tempered, unless actual safety research can be cited to support the claims. -Agyle 01:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The "controversy" - Prius vs. other transportation alternatives

What's the point of all the talk about the old model?

Revised Fuel Mileage Ratings Similar to Efficient Non-Hybrid and Clean Diesel Vehicles
For 2008 the US EPA has revised all fuel mileage estimates for all vehicles from 1986 to the present (including the Prius) to reflect more realistic MPG results for modern driving.[94] Under the revised ratings, the 2000-2003 NHW11 Prius is now rated for 42 City and 41 Highway. The 2000-2003 Prius has lower highway fuel mileage, but higher city mileage compared to equivalent model year non-hybrid or diesel engine powered cars. [95]. Equivalent year diesel Volkswagen Jetta Golf and New Beetles produced higher highway mileage (35 City and 44MPG highway) [96] [97] Earlier model year vehicles such as the Chevrolet Metro [98] or Honda Civic HX [99] provide comparable or better highway mileage than the NHW11 Prius.
The 2004-2008 NHW20 Prius is now rated for 48 City and 45 Highway[100], which is a reduction of 12 MPG and 6 MPG respectively. This is the highest city MPG of any vehicle sold in the United States. The 2008 Honda Civic Hybrid matches the highway MPG [101].

The Prius is in its fifth model year since the NHW11, and there were fewer than 50,000 of the earlier models sold in the U.S.; there have been over 500,000 U.S. sales of the NHW20. Maybe the information on the old model has historical interest, but I think the heading of this section is misleading. I'll take a shot at an edit in a week or two unless someone points out an error in my reasoning. TomSchaffter (talk) 18:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the following paragraph because I believe it is "original research" (OR), and as such contraves the "No original research" policy (WP:NOR). It also contains examples of "weasel words" (see WP:WEASEL).

It is sometimes claimed that diesel engine cars or minicars also get good mileage, or even consume less fuel than the Prius. Prius advocates reply that some of these claims are false or exaggerated, and that while some other cars may have a slight advantage in miles per gallon of fuel, this does not take into account other disadvantages of diesel such as pollution, fuel availability, and maintenance; that diesel fuel is more carbon-dense than gasoline so that comparison by volume (e.g. gallons or liters) favors diesel more than comparison by fuel weight or by carbon dioxide emissions; that the amount of currently wasted used vegetable oil available for conversion into biodiesel is limited; while minicars are far smaller and less suited to applications where more passenger or cargo space is needed or where a very small car may be less safe.[30]

The reference [30] is Prius vs. diesel, minicars on www.priuschat.com.

The WP:NOR policy is very clear. In its What is excluded? section it states that original reasearch includes: "any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position", and "any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article". The list "An edit counts as original research if it does any of the following:" includes "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source".

The paragraph in question introduces an "analysis" of opinions, and so is OR. The source does not say "It is sometimes claimed that diesel engine cars or minicars also get good mileage", or "Prius advocates reply that some of these claims are false or exaggerated". Those views may be made in the referenced source, but that analysis of them is not present. A reference for that analysis needs to be cited.

Another approach is to add the verifiable views of notable commentators or experts on the subject, and to attribute them as such, and not to draw your own concusions as to what they mean. That is where the "weasel words" need to be addressed. The Wikipedia manual of style condemns weasel words (WP:WEASEL), and gives examples such as "Most scientists believe that...", and "it could be argued". The paragraph in question uses "It is sometimes claimed...", and "Prius advocates reply...", which are weasel words. The solution is to correctly attribute the words to the particular person or people that have made those claims, or who have raised those arguments.

-- de Facto (talk). 10:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph does not offer an original analysis or synthesis of the arguments used by the participants in the cited debate; it simply reports them. Summarization and paraphrase are not original analysis/synthesis; if they were, Wikipedia would have to be made only of direct quotations from other sources.

The paragraph reports the arguments used by all sides in the debate, as mandated by WP:NPOV, rather than just one side's argument. In fact the length of the cited debate shows those arguments in more detail than would be possible in the limited length of a news story.

The paragraph is in the "Controversy" section, where the primary subject being reported on is the controversy itself. The debate on PriusChat is a primary source showing an instance of this controversy, and demonstrating that the said arguments are actually made by the participants. The article paragraph does not assert the truth or falsity of the particular arguments used. Each point alone represents a debate which is too large to be included in this section of this article; readers interested in evaluating an argument can follow the link to the Wikipedia article on the subject, or to the cited reference.

WP:WEASEL is not a mechanical prohibition of words like "some". Please read WP:WEASEL#Follow the spirit, not the letter. This is not a case where one faction's opinion is advanced in isolation and then implied to be a consensus. In any case, WP:WEASEL suggests editing to add specificity, or tagging to suggest other editors do so; it does not call for mass deletion of content. You may if you like replace "some Prius proponents" or "the Prius advocates in the cited debate" with the specific names of the posters, although common sense would suggest this does not improve the article, and that the former attribution is accurate and more meaningful.

--JWB 12:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, which Discussion forums fail. Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. The others include Wikipedia:No original research . Anyone can create a website, start a Discussion forum, pay to have a book published post on a chat forum, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, forums and blogs are not acceptable as sources.--Hu12 14:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

Upon its review on September 5, 2007, this good article candidate was quick-failed because it:

contains cleanup banners including, but not limited to, {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, {{NPOV}}, {{unreferenced}}, etc, or large numbers of {{fact}}, {{clarifyme}}, {{huh}}, or similar tags

thus making it ineligible for good article consideration.

This article did not receive a thorough review, and may not meet other parts of the good article criteria. {{{comments}}} I encourage you to remedy this problem (and any others) and resubmit it for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far.— Pursey 17:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

"Flagging sales," paywalled source

Bobo159 removed part of a sentence citing an April 2006 article that said "...amidst flagging U.S. Prius sales reported by CMWMR despite higher gas prices...," with the comment that it was contradicted by monthly sales figures, and that the article was paywalled. According to the Wikipedia article's (unreferenced) monthly sales figures, early 2006 sales were off from 2005, and April 2006 well off from April 2005. I replaced the "flagging sales" part with direct quotes to avoid characterizing the sales reduction. The link is paywalled, but it's not clear to me that's disallowed in WP references. I read it via highbeam.com, the source returned by philly.com, which is owned by the originating newspaper (the Philadelphia Inquirer). (I changed the reference from a link to saying it was retrieved via a paywalled archive search on philly.com). I accessed the article online, and according to WP:CS, said where I got the information. I think the intermediary source and the originating source are both considered reliable. Here is the Philly article's text in question:

"Still, Americans will sacrifice only so much, even during a gas crunch. For example, hybrid-vehicle sales actually have decreased since November, when fuel prices began to rise, Spinella said. Sales of Toyota's hybrid Prius have dropped 23 percent over the last year, he said. For most people, hybrids are a fashion statement, not indicative of any real concern, Spinella said."

-Agyle 07:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed a good portion of this. Flagging sales was really misleading, since the long-term trend is clearly up. There were some downturns, one in early 2006 due to the Prius line being used to ramp up early production of the new Camry Hybrid, and again in Oct 2006 when the tax incentive dropped by half. I think Spinella timed his news release to his advantage. Also end of 2007 might have been affected by earthquake damage at a key hybrid component factory in Japan. Still, the long-term averages have gone up (don't have the link real handy, unfortunately) year-over-year, and 2007 was the best year yet with an increase of 70% (Prius now outsells all Subarus in the U.S., for instance). Nerfer (talk) 07:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Other point of view in "Disappointing and overstated fuel consumption" section

Although I believe the facts presented in that section are accurate, I recall reading in some Consumer Reports special "auto" edition (which year(s) ???) that the Prius was the highest-ranked car in the "would buy again" category. If someone have these magazine handy, please update. Thanks, JMR 205.205.248.69 02:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Cnn covered that, among other sources. However, I think that's not a random survey, but magazine subscribers who wrote in. (I could be wrong). I would guess there are similar random surveys from more authoritative sources like JD Powers. However, the issue doesn't refute the overstatement of fuel consumption, or resulting disappointment of buyers. Both can be true; I'd buy one again, but agree that the US-mandated tests overstate typical mileage. (Or overstated; new standards next year?) It might be worked into that section, but they're not contradictory facts. -Agyle 02:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You are not correct regarding Consumer Reports. Consumer Reports surveys are the results of the annual survey of all subscribers of the magazine. Also at issue is the claim that JD Powers is more authoritative than Consumer Reports. The surveys of the non-profit Consumer Reports are paid for by the subscribers of the magazine, while JD Powers & Associates is an ~80-year old marketing firm often hired by auto companies to prepare marketing information that can be pro or anti regarding a particular product. (A point of disclosure, this writer subscribes to Consumer Reports. Of note, Consumer Reports is fully funded by the subscribers, and does not accept advertising or payments from industry sources.)

This may also be the place to point out that the mileage claims are mandated by US law, and, in order to "protect" the consumer, cannot be altered by the manufacturer. Your complaint regarding mileage should be lodged with the U.S. EPA, not Toyota. WVhybrid 03:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The NYT article referring to JD Powers says "If fuel consumption was the top complaint for the Prius, it still came in best among compact cars, with just 81 complaints over all per 100 vehicles." It is not at all clear that JD Powers or NYT are trying to make the Prius look bad. It just means that complaints from other sources are even lower. Whoever selectively added the partial quote out of context to Wikipedia may well have been trying to make the Prius look bad.

CR has had several reports and surveys since then that all give the Prius top ratings. Reports are by CR's testers, not readers. --JWB 07:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Dual-Drive Mode - What the crap is this??

Why is the section on "Dual-Drive Mode" [I thought it was called Synergy] a poorly written explanation of an electric motor? 136.176.8.22 16:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It cites no sources, poorly explains the workings of an electric motor, [Which is not the same as an electromagnet] and appears to explain what is already available under Toyota Hybrid Drive. I'm going to delete it. 136.176.8.22 16:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought the first part of text was good for the electric motor article. Daniel.Cardenas 17:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a big deal

My 1996 Nissan 1.6L 200SX with close to 400,000 miles gets 41MPG mixed city and highway. A car that is designed to be fuel efficient should have well over 70MPG and definitely do better than an 11 year old car. Comments within this page referencing the Prius as exceptionally high gas mileage should be removed as being opinion and/or advertisement.128.12.168.7 (talk) 17:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand your frustration. I had a 1987 Sentra (base model) that got 40 mpg on the highway, 36 mpg mixed driving. They could make a car even better today if they sacrificed a little performance from what we now expect. However, the Prius does get the best mileage of any car currently sold in the U.S. by EPA, and real-world averages reported by drivers show about 47-48 mpg in mixed driving. Careful drivers with a good commute can get over 60mpg average (I get 50 mpg overall). Only the Civic Hybrid comes close. Plus, I don't know about your 200SX, but my Sentra didn't have air bags, power steering, power brakes, power seats, power locks, power windows, passenger-side rear-view mirror, traction control, CVT, 3-point seatbelts all around, etc. Nerfer (talk) 07:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Average annual miles for UK cars

The article gives a figure of 13,000 to 14,000 kilometres as the UK average miles travelled by car; and it gives a reference to the ASA judgement which states that figure. But it's not clear to me that the ASA judgement is stating the figure as the UK annual mileage; I thought the ASA judgement was taking data from charts supplied to it by Toyota. Toyota may not have been supplying those charts to support its assumption about annual miles covered.

The UK motoring organisation has been reported as saying in 2002 that the UK annual average was 10,000 miles; http://www.autoindustry.co.uk/articles/31-01-02_1 says

"A cursory glance at the mileages of used cars on Britain's forecourts suggests that the annual average miles covered might be on the increase, but the RAC report sample says that 10,000 miles p.a. has remained a constant for the last 13 years. The official Transport Statistics Great Britain annual confirms this view."

Further, the average number of vehicles per household is said to be 1.5; it seems plausible that one vehicle covers more miles than the other. And so, when considering a vehicle from the standpoint of CO2 emissions, it may be that the would-be purchaser intends to use the lower-CO2 vehicle for the higher mileage.

And in http://www.toyota.co.uk/C1725/?CampaignID=C2494&BrochureRCode=RC25905&TestdriveRCode=RC25915&LandingPage=KW_Prius_WhatCar

Toyota still advertises that "The Prius emits 1 tonne less CO2 per year than a family saloon".

All in all, I don't believe that the ASA judgement casts any light on the Prius's environmental performance.

Tim Martin

Tim2718281 (talk) 02:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Article Cleanup

The NHW20 section is way longer than it needs to be, it's describing some common vehicle technologies in excruciating, unnecessary detail. I'm gonna be going through and removing information, as thus. Bluetooth and Smart Key blurbs will be greatly reduced, among things. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 08:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

There is an article clean up tag. I would like to help. Here's my ideas.

• Make sure the references are first rate and in the proper format.
• Make sure we use citations to back up our writing, not just write about our opinions.
• Make sure the sections are chosen correctly and similar to other car articles that are GA or FA.
• Let's work with each others to make it happen! I pledge to come to this article every time I visit Wikipedia, at least for the next month.

Congolese (talk) 03:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that some of the sections could be re-ordered, re-done, or in rare cases, eliminated. If ideas, mention them. I'll start work on the non-controversial sections first. I'll check the photos to make sure they're legal. Wish ourselves luck! Congolese (talk) 03:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

•  Done Images are all free use, no fair use images, no illegal images. Congolese (talk) 03:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't we move or at least critically re-evaluate how much of engine techology should be in the article. Other car articles don't have details about how a gasoline engine works. Congolese (talk) 02:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Hydrogen Prius moving

I am moving this section, which is near the end of the article to the section on models, as this is a variant of a model.Congolese (talk) 03:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

NHW vs. NWH

The article is inconsistent in its use of "NHW" vs. "NWH", with multiple instances of each. As far as I have been able to determine (see edmunds.com or priuschat.com) "NHW" is correct and I am editing the article to reflect that. Just in case "NHW" is not correct, someone else please edit them all the other way. --DavidConrad (talk) 01:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeff Dunham's Prius

In Jeff Dunham: Spark of Insanity Jeff Dunham mentions he has a powder blue Prius, and it becomes one of the subjects of his comedy in said movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.223.40.99 (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

Disappointing fuel consumption

Propose deletion of disappointing fuel consumption subsection (near the end of the article). This section is really about dissatifaction with US government testing conditions in that it overestimates the gas mileage that ordinary people get. It is not a fault related to the Prius. If you want to compromise, consider shrinking it to a sentence about surprise that some people have that they don't get the fuel consumption stated by the US government (and provide a citation). Congolese (talk) 22:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Then do ahead and shrink it down (the Prius is of significance to the matter as it's used as the posterchild for why the EPA's old system was flawed and why the new system is a lot more accurate. Just don't keep adding to the list of references; some of them are probably redundant, but I'm juggling this with school work, so I'll leave it in your capable hands. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 22:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Recalls

Many cars are subject to recalls. None of these seem particular notable. They are not life threatening or received prolonged coverage. Suggest deletion or summarized and integrated into article. Congolese (talk) 03:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with a factual list of recalls. An owner of a 2005 Prius might like to know there's a recall on the steering system, although you could argue the owner should already know about it (if not buying it second-hand). What do other popular cars have in their articles? I need to look around more. Nerfer (talk) 07:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I looked at some other car articles randomly. They don't have a recall section, to you were justified in removing this. Nerfer (talk) 04:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Sales

I agree that some sales figures are ok. But do we need monthly sales figures? I think not. Besides, there is no citation despite a citation needed tag for a while.(I didn't put the tag there, someone else did.) Shouldn't we remove the uncited monthly sales table? Congolese (talk) 23:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Photo

Propose deletion of the electric steering. It is just a part lying on the floor. It doesn't seem to add anything to the article. There is also no explanation. Congolese (talk) 04:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC) How about not so many police car photos? Just a representative one, maybe another one from another continent.Congolese fufu (talk) 00:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Name

Propose to integrate the name history into the article and delete it as a separate section. Propose to revamp the argument on what to call 2 or more Prius cars (Prii, Priora, Prius, etc.) The Ford Taurus article does not have a debate over whether it's Taurii or Tauruses. Suggest any argument be merged with the Latin article or simply delted or mentioned as a footnote. Congolese (talk) 04:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean "integrate it into the article"? It is in the article already. I have no idea about the Taurus and its name, but the Prius's name has been a notable topic and verifiable references are provided for it. --JWB (talk) 20:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

reserve for regenerative braking

Why would a battery need a reserve for regenerative braking? Even if it is somehow true, it doesn't make sense to the average reader, which I consider myself to be in this case. A reserve is meant for something that is intended for consumption, not something one may add to.

They are normally charged to 40-60% of maximum capacity to prolong battery life as well as provide a reserve for regenerative braking;

Rosenbluh (talk) 23:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

petrol and gasoline compromise

We need to reach an agreement on whether to use petrol, gasoline, or both in each instance in the article. This is not a big issue but I think it deserves some attention. Kushal^t 04:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

See below the section "Terminology for fuel." Edison (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

"Solar Prius" subsection

The link to the Detroit News article on the solar cells put on the roof of hybrid cars is no longer available online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LochNess (talk • contribs) 03:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

GM's electric car EV1

GM's electric car EV1

You can get more MPG on a Toyota Aygo.

Appeal to google

The citation for the Latin derivation of Prius currently tells people to search for it in google. Andjam (talk) 09:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Terminology for fuel

The initial version of this article [5] used "gasoline" rather than "petrol" so per WP:ENGVAR the North American term is the preferred on for the article. I added the term "petrol" after the initial mention of gasoline. Other than that, there seems no good reason to add "petrol" each time the gasoline fuels is mentioned in the rest of the article, since it clutters the text The reader who has never heard that in some countries what they call "petrol" is called "gasoline" can be expected to remember it during the course of reading the article after an initial explanation. If there were a direct quote in the article, such as "My Prius uses less petrol than my old car did" that would be fine, or if there were mention of "Petrol stations in London" or some such regionally justified mention I would have no objection. Per WP:ENGVAR the best solution is to use a neutral term such as "fuel" although that is less informative than a term which makes clear the thing does not run on diesel, hydrogen, ethanol or some other fuel. Edison (talk) 17:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

latest controversy addition

Does anybody buy this as valid research? Two newspaper reporters with pre-existing biases against the prius (as noted by the article) take a Prius and a BMW diesel out for a drive to see which one is more fuel efficient, and the Prius loses. I'm not buying the "science" used here. I propose rewording it somehow. Justinm1978 (talk) 20:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is controversial and not straight because:

1. Its not repeatable. Every prius driver I know would get better gas mileage.
2. Comparing apples or oranges. Diesel is higher octane Diesel has more energy per volume and more expensive.
3. It needs to have text around it saying why it plays the bimmers strengths and the hybrid weakness, ie 75 mph.
4. Also good to mention that even though the bimmer is getting better mpg it is still emitting 4x as much smog forming emissions. I've seen different specs that say the Prius emits 80-90% less smog forming emissions then the "average" car. Diesels are known to be dirty.

I caution Defacto to any more reverts since he maybe subject to the wp:3rr rule.

Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 21:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

To assert that the findings of the Sunday Times journalists are "controversial", you need to find a reliable reference which states that, otherwise that assertion will be nothing more that original research. Until that reference is found, the BMW comparison is a valid addition to the 'Fuel consumption' section, as the reference is a perfectly reliable source.

And to answer your other points in order:

1. Whether the people you know would get the same result, or not, is irrelevant, unless their findings are also reported in a reliable source.
2. Diesel has a significantly lower "octane rating" than gasoline, and its price varies by market and by the tax regime of the jusisdiction in which it is sold. Anyway, neither point has any bearing on fuel efficiency.
3. Any "text around it" needs to be from a reliable source.
4. As for "smog forming emissions" you will need a reliable reference to support any assertion that the Prius emits 80-90% less of them than the BMW diesel engine, which has a diesel particulate filter, and which more than meets the latest stringent European emission standards.

-- de Facto (talk). 22:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the "truth", there's a question of WP:UNDUE and also a question of WP:CRUFT. That any given car could beat the Prius in gas economy is not that relevant, since there is no "best MPG evar" claim to reject. It's not a question of: "is it true", it's mostly the question: "does anyone care"? The dust to dust study got a lot of media coverage because it directly challenged the "environmentally friendly" image of the car. This study is just sort of irrelevant. All it proves is that the Prius is not the only fuel efficient car on the market. There are a lot of "rabid supporters" and "rabid haters" of this particular vehicle, and this site isn't a place to debunk every possible study that might criticize the car.Somedumbyankee (talk) 00:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with you if this article wasn't about a car which is treated in a special way because of its fuel consumption. Alternative points-of-view are essential for a balanced and neutral article, and if a reliable source throws doubt on the assertion that the Prius is "the most efficient car available in the U.S. in 2008", then it must surely be included. -- de Facto (talk). 16:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It might be worth explaining in the article that the conditions of "best mileage" are under specific, controlled circumstances, and that your mileage may, literally, vary. Frankly, though, arbitrary bureaucracies that make it their business to evaluate things like fuel economy are probably more reliable sources than the media. News agencies are trying to sell Wonder bread or compete for ratings and "Prius wins fuel mileage test" would be like reporting "Generalissimo Franscisco Franco is still dead." If the favored horse loses, the people who bet on it want to know why and the people who bet against it want to gloat, so more papers get sold or more people watch. If the government tests could be shown as biased or the car could be shown as specifically designed for the test and ineffective under any other conditions (both reasonable questions to ask) then this would be reasonable "real world" evidence to include.Somedumbyankee (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The test was not even done with US models, and the portion where the Prius got lower mileage was at speeds that are illegal in the US. As for the Murdoch-owned Sunday Times's reputation, just read the article on it. The article is deceptively headlined "Gas Guzzler" then suppresses the actual mileage figure for the BMW to give the impression its advantage is much larger than 5% by volume, and doesn't mention it is -10% by energy. (as noted in Diesel fuel, please read relevant wikilinks before adding a fact tag) The Prius driver even admits gratuitously hitting the throttle and lowering mileage to 10mpg. In contrast, "most efficient" is a direct quote from the US government, and cited with qualification explaining exactly what it means.

The only conclusions you can draw from the Times article is that excessive speeds give lower mileage (agreeing with my own experience of 50mpg on road trips at 65mph and under, and lower mileage at higher speeds) and that diesel is different from gasoline (besides the density difference, the Technology section already mentions differences in pumping loss). --JWB (talk) 17:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably worth noting that the car wasn't designed for high-speed driving, it was designed to get stuck in traffic, and repeating the test between those two cars crossing LA at 7 AM will produce very different results.Somedumbyankee (talk) 01:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't go as far as "not designed for" which is vague and subject to misinterpretation, but the article can and should note lower mileage at high speeds, along with the perspective that this is normal behavior for most cars. In fact, the article could use a whole section on how driving technique affects mileage, as this has always been one of the major topics discussed by Prius enthusiasts... now that I'm looking for it, I'm surprised to not find it already. --JWB (talk) 01:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Fuel consumption

I have added the findings of the Sunday Times report to this section as a valid contribution to the 'fuel consumption' discussion. Real-world findings are always interesting to compare with the theoretical and laboratory-based estimates provided for government "official figures". -- de Facto (talk). 11:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Fact tag removal by User:JWB

I noticed that User:JWB removed two 'fact' tags that I had added to the article, with the edit summary: "Please read your own references before adding fact tag". The tags were applied to the assertions:

1. "Gasoline typically releases 15% less energy per volume than petroleum diesel"
2. "... regenerative braking, a major feature of hybrids"

I've read the reference, I cannot see either of those assertions supported there - can anyone help? -- de Facto (talk). 17:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

1. The text in this article links to the diesel fuel article which gives the 15% figure and a reference for it.
2. Regenerative braking for the BMW is listed in the Sunday Times article which you originally added.. (On reread, it also cites low air drag, low rolling resistance, and continuous fuel consumption display, all also features that follow the Prius's lead, though not hybrid per se.)

--JWB (talk) 17:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, so neither of the assertions that I flagged as needing references are in fact referenced, and certainly not in my "own references". The diesel fact is from another article, so needs a reliable reference in this article (which I flagged for), as the Wikipedia policies specifically state "Articles and posts on Wikipedia may not be used as sources" (see WP:SPS). Although "my" reference mentions regenerative braking (which is why I didn't flag that part of the sentence), it doesn't support the assertion that I questioned - that they are "a major feature of hybrids", so it too needs a reference (which I flagged for). Are you going to provide the references or revert your edit? -- de Facto (talk). 18:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no requirement that the same reference be repeated in every article that touches on the same fact. This is absurd and would make summary articles impossible. The requirement is that Wikipedia have a reference for the fact, which is done in the appropriate detail article. See WP:Citing sources, WP:Summary style#References, citations and external links and WP:Lead. This has nothing to do with citing Wikipedia as a source, which we are not doing.

Regenerative braking is mentioned immediately in all technical descriptions of hybrids including Hybrid electric vehicle. It is pretty much a defining feature: a motor/generator connected to the drivetrain enables both electric propulsion and regenerative braking, and conversely regenerative braking means having a generator connected to the drivetrain. I have no idea what you are questioning here. This is subject-specific common knowledge as in Wikipedia:When to cite#When a source may not be needed. Perhaps you can explain your objection more clearly. --JWB (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Your first point is mistaken. The guiding policy (Wikipedia:Verifiability) clearly states: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Your other points are red herrings. -- de Facto (talk). 21:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're too embarrassed to back down after being proved wrong on basics, but repeating a distortion of a policy (WP:Verifiability sets criteria for "inclusion in Wikipedia", and the 15% difference was already included in Wikipedia and referenced) and ignoring policies that actually are relevant gets you nowhere. If you do actually find some information that supports your position here, please let us know. --JWB (talk) 00:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You appear to be suggesting that my interpretation of what WP:Verifiability is telling us is incorrect. You don't think it applies per statement, but to Wikipedia as a whole. If you are correct, then any specific citation only needs to be placed once, somewhere, in some article. How would a reader know where to start looking? In our first example: "Gasoline typically releases 15% less energy per volume than petroleum diesel", I asked for a reference, you deleted that request saying it is covered. You expect the reader to start where? By going to the diesel article? OK, so let's try it. That article isn't linked from the instance I tagged, so does the reader search up and down the article for a link? Type it at the "search" box? Let's type it - we get to the diesel article, now what? Read it all? Scan for 15%? Ah, there it is under "Power and fuel economy", fine - now where's the reference? Umm, there isn't one. Now where do we go? There may well be a reference to that assertion in Wikipedia, somewhere. The corollary being that you are wrong, and that my understanding of the policy is more likely to be correct. You need to find and add an inline citation, or restore the tag. -- de Facto (talk). 11:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The passage is "burned 49 liters of diesel fuel, making 50.56 mpg, about 5% more. However, gasoline typically releases 15% less energy per volume than petroleum diesel." Diesel fuel is wikilinked for detail information on diesel fuel, which is exactly what wikilinks are for, and the 15% figure is referenced there. It strains credibility that you missed seeing the only wikilink in the passage. --JWB (talk) 19:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Diesel is the same article as Diesel fuel (so is Petroleum diesel), so your "That article isn't linked from the instance" is also incorrect for that article. After introductory material and disambigs, the 15% is in the second sentence! There is no "Power and fuel economy" section - that is in Diesel engine. --JWB (talk) 21:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, so you provided a wikilink to an article which has a reference in it (somewhere). That still doesn't satisfy the request inherent in a 'fact' tag. To clear a 'fact' tag you should provide an appropriate inline citation. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. Incidentally, I was going to do it myself, but the citation in the Diesel article, to which you referred us, is incomplete (it lacks author, publisher, date, isbn), so I didn't think it was of good enough quality. -- de Facto (talk). 08:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Gasoline cited the same Transportation Energy Data Book appendix in more detail, so I've added that to the citation in Diesel. Also, Petroleum diesel now links to the subsection in Diesel, so the cite is right under your nose. Again, WP:Verifiability says nothing about this issue, please read the other policies mentioned. --JWB (talk) 09:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

This is turning into a bit of a fiasco for you isn't it. I have changed the numbers in the Diesel article to reflect the higher Btu numbers in the cited reference, and I also changed the WP:OR percent difference number (which was 15% earlier) to 11%. So what happens here now? If anything, it certainly shows why the references need to be readily accessible, and supports my stance that they should be placed as inline cites, especially if requested with a 'fact' tag. -- de Facto (talk). 14:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Stick to the issues and stop trying to personalize them. You aren't talking to a single individual, but a team of people. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 14:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The 'issue' is whether we need an inline reference for the 15% claim. Do you have an opinion on whether a 'fact' tag should be removed without providing an inline reference, or whether the reader should be expected to trawl through wikilinks in the hope of finding the appropriate reference? -- de Facto (talk). 15:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

wikilink to diesel should be sufficient or Diesel#Petroleum_diesel if you want them to trawl less. The wikipedians monitoring diesel article can argue about reliable energy percentage. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 00:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks like there are a variety of energy content estimates for both gasoline and diesel in both Wikipedia articles and non-Wikipedia sources. On the contrary, this shows that references with varying estimates should be in a place (the detail article for the specific topic) where they can be readily compared, analyzed and summarized, and having many differing references in different unlinked articles is an invitation to POV forking. --JWB (talk) 20:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleted section as false info

Deleted by User:Buddha24. Not that I disagree with the deletion on the basis of wp:cruft, but what is the false info? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 20:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Daniel.Cardenas, can you please explain how you think that the deleted paragraph could be interpreted as wp:cruft. -- de Facto (talk). 21:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

False is, well, false, the comment is mostly WP:UNDUE. One specific test that favored a different car over the Prius does not change what the US or British governments say about the car. You could state that the Prius is very efficient but other reasonably comparable cars have been more efficient in certain tests, then cite the article, but giving any single test that much coverage is really kind of misleading. I had never heard of this comparison until I saw this article, and they're a common point of discussion in our office (Prius owner, Civic hybrid owner, Vespa owner). I've called it WP:CRUFT above because there are two sets of fans here: those who fawn over the Prius, and those who simply cannot stand it. Including every single data point for and against in the main article is probably inappropriate, but I don't see a problem with a well-cited subarticle or list (i.e. Comparison of high fuel efficiency cars) linked directly here. Also, the headline is "Toyota Prius proves a gas guzzler in a race with the BMW 520d" when it lost by 2 mpg (of 50) on a sample of... one test? Yeah, clearly a robust, statistically valid conclusion. I would call the test a tie without further data, but that doesn't make a headline that'll sell Froot Loops.Somedumbyankee (talk) 01:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The Sunday Times hit piece is not false; rather, it's a good example of how to mislead while avoiding specific false claims that would be refutable.

I'll say again what I said about CNW: this kind of stuff gets circulated as rumors, and the best way to fight it is to document how it's wrong. Deleting all mention of it just leaves the public with one less resource to turn to, allowing the haters to keep circulating the rumors unchallenged.

A Comparison of high fuel efficiency cars article is not a bad idea, but note the existing articles Fuel economy in automobiles, Fuel economy-maximizing behaviors, Low-energy vehicle, Green vehicle, etc. --JWB (talk) 01:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like it would be redundant with those articles, then. A caveat so the intro clearly shows that the Prius is not the undisputable champion of all things fuel mileage, just a really efficient car, might be appropriate for NPOV. Cite this test as a reference (there are some comparisons with the Civic hybrid out there as well, so this isn't a first or only). The information isn't "wrong" or "totally inappropriate" it's just WP:UNDUE to make such a limited test a third of the fuel economy section.Somedumbyankee (talk) 02:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the current level of coverage of the Sunday Times piece is undue importance for the Fuel consumption section, which should concentrate on the general picture, though probably appropriate for the list of controversies.

The article is already 70k long, longer than recommended, and we need to start thinking about moving some detailed content to subarticles and leaving only a summary in the main article. The Controversies section is about 15k and a good candidate for this. --JWB (talk) 07:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Splitting-off the 'Controversies' section would be to create a point of view fork, and would violate the Wikipedia WP:NPOV policy. -- de Facto (talk). 11:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It is WP:Summary style, which is mandated for summary-detail article hierarchies - please read that policy. It is not a POV fork unless someone gives either the summary or detail article a different slant. Because the two are closely linked, it is easily visible if someone does this. --JWB (talk) 20:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Note WP:POVFORK#Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles which specifically notes summary style is not POV forking. Evidently you didn't read this policy either. --JWB (talk) 20:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The distinction is that summary style takes, basically, all the data relating to a sub-topic, to a new article, controversies included. So, say, the 'Fuel efficiency' section could become a new article, 'Fuel efficiency of the Toyota Prius', or whatever, and take its controversies with it. But to take all the controversies to a new article would be pov-forking.

I think a better subject for a new article, and one which would relieve this article of much unnecessary detail, would be 'Technology incorporated in the Toyota Prius' -- de Facto (talk). 08:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Fuel consumption controversy

Given that, along with the credibility of its 'green' credentials, the question of what exactly the Prius's fuel consumption is, and whether it is better or worse than other hybrids, and even other non-hybrid vehicles, is continually being discussed in the motoring press, and to a lesser extent in the lay media, then it seemed appropriate to move the 'Fuel consumption' section to be under the 'Controversies' section. -- de Facto (talk). 12:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, but I have substantial doubts about using the Sunday Times article as a reliable source. The tests I'd use for a reliable source in this case:

Full disclosure: Will the source publish the data regardless of the result?

Science:Does the source have a history of performing and publishing fuel economy tests, clear approval of methodology from a recognized expert in fuel economy testing, or sufficient description of method for an effective peer review?

Bias: Does the source have a demonstrated conflict of interest or bias? (i.e. Toyota internal studies are not viable for arguments.)

As far as I can tell, the Sunday Times article appears to fail two of three criteria. It seems unlikely it would have been news if the Prius had won. and googling mileage test "Sunday Times" ford doesn't show any other discussion of similar testing for vehicles of another popular make. The article includes some discussion of method, but not enough to independently repeat the test.Somedumbyankee (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources#News organizations, you'll see the statement "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, such as the The Washington Post, The Times of London, and The Associated Press." -- de Facto (talk). 19:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

That may be, but a source that is reliable for one subject matter does not make it reliable for a different subject matter. Furthermore, this is not the Sunday Times reporting on the findings of an independent testing. In fact, they were not reporting on the findings of any scientists or recognized experts. Combine the content of the article with the headline, it is pretty clear that they set the terms of the experiment to reach their hypothesis. Essentially, they were doing original research, which is not allowed on wikipedia. Justinm1978 (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

From The Times: "Although The Times and The Sunday Times are both owned by News International, a subsidiary of Rupert Murdoch's Newscorp, they do not share editorial staff and were founded independently. The titles have only shared the same owner since 1967."

Nobody so far is asserting that the reference should be excluded simply because from it's the Sunday Times. But it is an opinion piece or a lifestyle article on a single personal experience rather than an exhaustive independent test. It is notable enough to be briefly listed as one of many favorable and unfavorable articles in media coverage of the Prius, but not to be portrayed on the same footing as the EPA or Consumer Reports tests, which are appropriate primary sources for an objective Fuel Consumption lead. It offers a little bit of data and a lot of misleading presentation and is appropriately covered in a Controversies or Attacks section. --JWB (talk) 20:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I was in the process of saying the same thing, just wanted to toss a bone to the Cargo cult science page here in the process. A critical variable, driver behavior, was not controlled in the test. Other than "throwing the Prius a bone" of some city driving it doesn't look like a whole lot of thought went into course selection (i.e. whether that course was representative of commuting, long distance driving in general, etc...). Considering how close the end results were (Marge Innovera would be impressed), one test produces a very limited amount of confidence in the data (datum, basically) and a "winner" cannot be easily determined. Portraying 48 mpg on a long distance trip as "bad" is ludicrous by modern standards. The only conclusion that I would draw from the test is that the beemer in question is very fuel efficient under those conditions.Somedumbyankee (talk) 20:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It's diesel, plus it's described as having at least four efficiency features originally pioneered or taken to new levels by the Prius! Regenerative braking (which qualifies it as a mild hybrid), fuel consumption display, very low body drag, and low rolling resistance tires. If it really loses less fuel efficiency at high speeds, it's probably designed that way, for European speed limits. The Prius's high-speed fuel performance is not just a result of being a hybrid (as the article seems to say now), but primarily because of the specifics of the Prius transmission, that is the choice of a single planetary gear (the PSD) and the gear ratios in it. At really high speeds, MG1 has to be powered up to spin at a high reverse speed. --JWB (talk) 22:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Comparison with BMW

This is a valid contribution to the discussion. The Wikipedia:Reliable sources#News organizations guidline states: "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, ...", and "great care must be taken to distinguish news reporting from opinion pieces". The WP:UNDUE policy talks about "viewpoints", not reports of factual findings. -- de Facto (talk). 17:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE was invoked since a badly constructed study is receiving more coverage than reliable and uncontroversial sources (gov't agencies, Cons. Reports). The data may be what they got in the test, but repacking that data into our own analysis is original synthesis. The analysis in the article fails WP:V and is not reportable. Reporting the data without the context is misleading and inappropriate.Somedumbyankee (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the "government agency" data is controversial, given the criticism it receives in the media. Tests, such as the one in the ST, are performed because of doubts about the reliability of "official" data. -- de Facto (talk). 18:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

That they have changed the methodology supports the claim that it is controversial, but it also shows that it is a method that is reviewed and improved. It isn't perfect, but it's based on a careful process and controlled conditions under intense scrutiny. The "study" done by the ST has the quality of two guys resolving a bet they made at the pub after a couple of pints.Somedumbyankee (talk) 19:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

There are lots of formal and informal mileage tests available; for example, Edmunds MotorWeek are well-known auto publishers with lots of testing experience. Informal tests by amateurs do not need to be excluded entirely, but heavy weight should not be placed on a single one. The actual data from the Sunday Times test drive is not that strange; it's the deceptive and sensationalistic presentation that is more of a problem.

What tests do show is that mileage varies according to driving conditions, and the article should highlight this more explicitly as it is actual, useful information about the car. City mileage is high, city mileage when the car is already warmed up is very high (the main reason for the initial EPA 60mpg city number), highway mileage at legal speeds, though the hybrid system is less of an advantage in this case, is very good and similar to some other high-efficiency or small cars, and highway mileage at illegal speeds is still good but drops noticeably, which Toyota apparently accepted as a design tradeoff. --JWB (talk) 21:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Presenting the Sunday Times data alone as an authoritative test is what I'm protesting as WP:UNDUE, aggregate data of unofficial tests is good to include so long as the synthesis is from a reliable source (i.e. not wikipedia editors, NHRA, or welovehybrids.org).Somedumbyankee (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I've proposed some language for how to include this. It identifies it as a self-produced article (not just reporting a study) and focuses on discussions of the Prius. The numbers are given, but no comparison is made since the comparison in the article is editorial (not verifiable) and adding a comparison here would be OR. Those numbers look very suspicious, by the way, since 48.1 for the Prius substantially exceeds the EPA revised numbers. Hypermiler driving for the Prius has a lot of known techniques, but I would have thought they'd have discussed that in the article if they were using them.Somedumbyankee (talk) 03:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I've replaced the POV subjective phrase: "a diesel BMW 520d SE with a modest engine" with the factual phrase: "a BMW 520d SE with a 177 bhp (132 kW) diesel engine". About the numbers; don't forget that the article is British, and that the British use the imperial gallon, which is 20% larger than the U.S. gallon. 48.1 miles per imperial gallon is about 40 miles per U.S. gallon. -- de Facto (talk). 14:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The source actually says something about a smaller-than-usual engine, which is relevant for trying to figure out why the beemer also does well on fuel efficiency. Just stating the number isn't very helpful to a reader that doesn't have a point of reference. Including the standard size engine for a "normal" car may be a more policy-friendly way to do it, but may not be as helpful to a reader. For consistency and readability, we should not cite the figure in m/g(i) when all of the other mpg figures are m/g. At least it's not in stones per furlong (have to look up the density of diesel for that conversion).Somedumbyankee (talk) 00:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

ConsumerAffairs.com: reliable source?

Look at the article on Wikipedia for this site and a couple of the "external reviews" on the talk page for that article. Is this a reasonable source to use for the article?

If we retain these links, I want to be very clear in this article with distinguishing this organization from Consumer Reports, a much more established organization with some very different views and methods.

Affairs looks like a website that trolls for liability lawsuits and may have a negative bias against everything they might sue. They may actually be surprisingly neutral overall, but their statements may have to be put in that context.Somedumbyankee (talk) 03:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Do we care about co2 emissions?

The intro talks about CO2 emissions? Is CO2 that note worthy? If we look at the global warming article it talks about a 2 degree rise over a 100 years. So what? It talks about the oceans rising. So what? Can't people create a berm to save themselves if the water rises 3 inches?   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Except that some countries have huge coastlines and the weather patterns will be different due to the increased amount of liquid water in the system. The fact is that climate change is a topic which many people are concerned about and CO2 is one of the factors which people believe to be relevant to the discussion, and one of the main points of interest for this particular vehicle. If you want to challenge the validity of CO2 greenhouse effect, this is not the place to do it. Anyway, it doesn't matter whether global warming is real. People believe in its validity and many of them choose Prius for its low emission. Therefore CO2 emission is relevant to this article even if CO2 itself may turn out to be insignificant with regards to climate change. DarkMirage (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Booming Sales section, Sequoia is an SUV, not a "Big Rig", POV problem

I saw that this extremely POV and inaccurate statement was copied verbatim from a Wall Street Journal article online. Big Rigs are 18-wheelers. To refer to an SUV as a "Big Rig" connotes, among other things, that it gets only 5-7 mpg, which is both inaccurate and very POV. Unless I am mistaken, copying obviously inaccurate and POV material from sources is against wikipedia policy. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronar (talk • contribs) 18:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Calling the Sequoia a ‘big rig’ wouldn’t belong in Wikipedia, but such hyperbole is fairly normal in journalism, and doesn’t inherently compromise the accuracy of the article. It’s the sales figures in the article that are cited, not the phrase ‘big rig’, and the word-choice isn’t bad enough to disqualify it as a source. David Arthur (talk) 23:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I found big rig to be entertaining and didn't know it meant 18 wheeler. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 04:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

As that paragraph, and the one after it, were copies of copyrighted material, I removed them as per wp:copyvio. -- de Facto (talk). 08:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Recouped

The article said: "By 2004, Toyota's development costs of the Prius had been recouped, and the Prius is now considered to be a successful car from both technical and marketing perspectives."

I am removing this until there is a source. It is an important statement that must be cited. A quick Google search shows that it's not so obvious. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Sales of Honda Insight

"However, this does not explain the lack of success for the even more distinctive Honda Insight.[60]. (Excluding the fact that demand for two-seaters is far less than that for four-seaters.)" - This seems to be completely redundant: you can't simply exlude the difference in demand for 2 and 4 seater cars when you're trying to explain why one car is more popular than another. Clearly if demand for four seaters is greater, the Insight's lack of success does not challenge the fashion argument. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.92.40.49 (talk) 11:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Unwarranted removal of sourced statement

I noticed a statement I added some weeks ago to the "Comparisons with other vehicles" has been removed. This statement was sourced with a reliable source (BBC). The removal of a relevant sourced statement from this article is unwarranted according to policy.

Now, before starting an edit war I think it makes sense to get a consensus on whether it should stay or not. This is the statement with source:

Consumer tests have shown petrol-electric hybrid cars in general are little more efficient than top of the range diesels.

Well, it's a bit of a sweeping statement, particularly the 'in general' part. I know Top Gear got better mileage from a BMW M3 (petrol) when raced against a Prius, but that was at race pace. If you're driving a short trip at relatively low speed, and opt to just use the electric motor of the Prius, you don't use any petrol at all, and therefore beat every other car hands down. Explain it a bit more and see what people think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.92.40.49 (talk) 13:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Fuel consumption - Comparisons with other vehicles: a L/100 km mess?

Should this section be re-written with lesser use of templates as extra-mpg conversion to L/100 km doesn't work well. Like:

Motor Trend magazine conducted a test comparing the Prius with a Honda Civic Hybrid. The Prius had the better fuel economy by Template:Mpg, achieving Template:Mpg compared to Template:Mpg for the Civic. In a similar comparison performed by Edmunds.com, the Prius managed an additional Template:Mpg at Template:Mpg.

Difference isn't 60 L/100 km, but 0.53 L/100 km less in fuel consumption. --82.203.181.186 (talk) 22:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)