If I recall my reading correctly the Prius2 completed much of the EPA City tests while on batts alone. If the pack was less charged at the end of the test than at the beginning it would make the mileage off by more than a normal car. The HCH is getting very close to the EPA rating, so much so that no major adjustment would be required. The Prius on the other hand misses by quite a bit. The EPA asked Honda and Toyota to change their published mileage and both refused. I think it is ok for Honda as they are not so far off but Toyota is causing themselves a PR problem with the inflated numbers.

Note: I'm not saying anything is wrong with the Prius, only with the accounting of the mileage. The Prius is a brilliant design and I'd love to have one. Been readin up on the geared CVT, amazing!

Did the P1 have the geared CVT?

I'm not sure what "geared CVT" is, but I'm quite sure that the principle is the same in the 2001-2003 Prius as in the 2004. A planetary gear with lots of control systems takes care of both motor and engine output to produce a smooth ride.

I agree with the rest of your post. I wonder if they checked the SoC of the battery before and after the test run?

Johan Erlandsson

See mileage data for my 00 Prius.
See my environmental performance (still in swedish only, feel free to ask).

Geared CVT = Planetary Gear with lots of control systems.

Geared CVT, 9 letters.
Your way, 37 letters.

Geared as opposed to using a metal belt like the Honda's. Give me a TLA and I'll use it every time. TLA = Three Letter Acronym, not to be confused with the ETLA or Extended TLA.

lakedude,
HSD, hybrid synergy drive. Technically not a CVT, it performs the same function as a CVT.
Cheers,
Steven

Hidden Views Photography

Is that true? I don't think it is, but maybe someone else knows. From what I've learned, EPA does it's own testing and requires the manufacturers to publish the numbers from those tests. I heard from an auto broker that Toyota wanted the EPA to lower the numbers but the EPA was the one to refuse.

Is that true? I don't think it is, but maybe someone else knows. From what I've learned, EPA does it's own testing and requires the manufacturers to publish the numbers from those tests. I heard from an auto broker that Toyota wanted the EPA to lower the numbers but the EPA was the one to refuse. [/b][/quote]
My guess is that the EPA would want the manufacturer to adjust the rating and not vice versa......

But that doesn't make sense given that it is the EPA's rating based on the tests performed by the EPA at it's own labs under non-real world conditions. Toyota has no control over the EPA numbers.

Read this article, which is the best I have seen for helping to explain the whole controversy:

http://www.investors.com/breakingnews.asp?...=21225877&brk=1

Read the whole thing (it's long) and you will understand this issue much better....

This one is pretty good too:

http://www.autosafety.org/article.php?scid=77&did=854

From another website:

"In a paper received by Toyota Motor Corporation it reads, "Manufacturers are required by law to use the EPA-estimated fuel economy ratings on every Monroney label (window sticker), and must state those ratings in advertising that quotes fuel economy figures. According to Chris Rundler, Director of EPA and Dan Harrison, Manager of EPA cars, this is not the case. "A Manufacturer can voluntarily use MPG labels of their own if the figures they have are lower." The operative words in this case are "if the figures are lower." "

Read this article, which is the best I have seen for helping to explain the whole controversy:

http://www.investors.com/breakingnews.asp?...=21225877&brk=1

Read the whole thing (it's long) and you will understand this issue much better....

This one is pretty good too:

http://www.autosafety.org/article.php?scid=77&did=854 [/b][/quote]
Respectfully, I don't think those articles prove your point. Those articles point out how unrealistic the EPA testing is, and suggest that the manufacturers are required to post the EPA ratings. I'v never heard of a manufacturer not posting the EPA ratings. If the EPA wants the manufacturers to post more realistic ratings, it can regulate by promulgating rules requiring manufacturers to post ratings other than the EPA ratings if those are lower, not by just allowing them to do so. Or it can change its testing methods. Neither of which the EPA has done. Not that the manufacturers are complaining, but still, I don't think the blame rests squarely on the manufacturers' shoulders.