新西兰二代Prius这车怎么样？值不值得入？内附分析,一

在新西兰

我个人觉得，貌似值得入。

最近Turners卖出一辆08年的NZ本地版一车主的Prius, 貌似60K公里，14500元左右。杂七杂八加上去，算它15000元吧。


1，PRIUS算什么档次呢？不算高科技部分的话，就车体尺寸和j驾驶性能来说，应该是和1.8L左右的COROLLA差不多。当然，毕竟新车要贵很多，PRIUS一般内饰和配置要比COROLLA高一个档次，基本打到佳美的规格，当然和AURION还是有差距的。

2，PRIUS的质量如何？如果不算高科技部分的话，PRIUS的质量应该和COROLLA一致，典型的丰田质量，应该不用担心。大家比较关注的是高科技电动部分。个人感觉，2个三相交流电动机不是什么天顶星技术，应该很容易做到长寿命。ECU部分也不是什么大不了的，无非就是编程。IGBT逆变部分比较复杂，而且发热量大，用到了液冷，这方面值得关注，但是丰田毕竟已经有了前一代97款的经验，相信不会太差。电池寿命是大家最关心的，丰田对此貌似信心很足，NZ原厂给7年保修，GOOGLE上搜索到美国很多开到200K都感觉不到电池下降。如果这是真的话，那么我看也不必太担心。真的很多年以后电池坏了，那个时候新电池应该也便宜了。

3，PRIUS的价格到底值不值得？我发现可能现在NZ市面上的二代PRIUS比同档次同年代的丰田车要贵上4，5000左右吧。那么可以算上一笔账，PRIUS凭着超低的油耗，正常开上一年，基本上能够省下800-1000元的油费，那么4，5年的功夫，应该能够把这个差价挣回来。4，5年后再次出手，毕竟当年价格贵不少，那么就算贬值比普通小汽车快一些，也不至于贬值到和COROLLA一样的地步。所以，我认为，从经济角度来说，PRIUS是可行的。

总结：以上是我个人的意见。前提是二代PRIUS的质量和稳定新真的有丰田号称的和GOOGLE上搜索到的那么好，如果是这样的话，花比同档次COROLLA贵5000元的价格购入PRIUS，是完全值得的。毕竟是高科技的小车，代表了未来的一个潮流。我有点心动了。呵呵。

大家讨论讨论吧.

评论
混动要买新车，ct200 4年10万公里免费保养~！

评论

CT200能买几辆二代PRIUS呢？

评论
对混动的兴趣都不大？还是说电池老化成本太吓人？

评论

電池沒那麼不堪用, 但東西都有壽命.....

話說... 那車應該不在了吧?!
都6個月過去了.

Prius 不是有2種排量, 你要那種?

评论
city确实省，因为塞车走走停停，靠刹车回收电力。跑长途据说反而油耗上升，和普通1.6差不多。

评论
目前没看出优势。

评论
我的疑问是... 如果 你没 每天 跑很多公里数.... 买这车 值得吗? 保养 也不便宜啊... 现在都有啥 hybrid use oil etc etc... 长期下来 真的有比较省吗?  不要只有在乎有钱 所有 cost 都得加进去啊...

评论

我也不喜欢旧的混能车

我宁愿买手排的新corolla

评论
混动换下来的旧电池污染也不小吧？求科普。

评论

Hybrids – nice theory, shame about the reality

There was a friend of the Dog & Lemon Guide editor who was visiting a family in Las Vegas. While our friend talked with the wife, she was taking the family washing out of the machine and putting it in the clothes drier.

For those who don’t know it, Las Vegas is in the middle of the desert and it was 35° Celsius outside. The wife could have thrown the whole load of washing out onto a deckchair and it would have been dry in ten minutes. But that’s not the American way. There is a deeply ingrained American attitude that says that the reward for all your hard work is the right to squander precious energy.

Despite the ‘green’ image that hybrid (petrol and electric) cars have, the claims about them tend to be exaggerated. Further, they generally have little support from the environmental movement – they’re like hybrid clothes driers for Las Vegas – they rather miss the point because they are failing to deal with the real problem.  

That’s not just our opinion, either. General Motors vice president of global product development, Bob Lutz had the following to say:

“Hybrids are technologically of doubtful benefit, and expensive, but necessary from a political and public relations point of view.”

Lutz went further: “Toyota has said, economically, hybrids make no sense. The reduction in fuel [consumption] does not pay for the technological content and cost of the vehicle so therefore economically it remains fairly nonsensical.”

Toyota never denied Lutz’s statement.

Essentially a hybrid is a petrol car with an electric motor that cuts in at low speed. The electric motor is powered by generators that also help brake the vehicle. At the traffic lights the petrol engine simply cuts out. If you start slowly the electric motor does all the work. If you boot it the petrol and electric engines kick in together. The electric motor is largely irrelevant once you reach 30kp/h, so any thought that a hybrid is going to help your highway cruising economy is misplaced.

According to Toyota’s press kit for the previous model: “The Prius... has the performance of a 2.4-litre conventionally-powered car, and can carry five people and their luggage. Exhaust emissions are nearly 90 per cent less than those from a car of similar size powered by a conventional petrol engine, and fuel consumption is minimal – about five litres per 100 kilometres (56 miles per gallon). Performance has not been compromised...Prius has been recognised as a car of the future.”

A complaint to the New Zealand Advertising Standards Authority had the following to say about an ad for the Prius:

“Toyota is still making the claim [that the Prius produces]‘Up to 89% fewer smog-forming emissions than the average new car’, yet provides no data to support the claim, even though the Corolla, a fairly average car, of similar size, has lower nitrous oxide emissions than the Prius. As do practically all cars by their competitor Honda.”

The Advertising Standards Authority upheld the complaint after Toyota repeatedly failed to come up with credible data to back its claims.

On June 6, 2007, Britain’s Auto Express magazine reported that the Toyota Prius – the world’s biggest-selling hybrid – gives 37% worse fuel economy than official figures suggest. Actual road tests showed that the Prius used an average of 6.8 litres per 100 kilometres (41.5mpg) This is 37% less than the official EU figure for this car, which is 4.3 litres per 100 kilometres, or 65.7mpg.

This meant that the Prius, far from being the most economical car to drive, barely made it onto the top ten list of economical vehicles. By comparison, the Citroën C4 Coupé 1.6 HDi, used 5.6 litres per 100 kilometres (49.6mpg).

Another Toyota hybrid, the Lexus GS450h, achieved fuel consumption of 10.5 litres per 100 kilometres (26.7 miles per gallon). Toyota claims a fuel consumption of 10.5 litres per 100 kilometres (35.8 mpg) for this vehicle.  Because the Lexus uses far more fuel than claimed, it produces far more emissions as well.

It’s not just Toyota that’s lying, either. The Honda Civic hybrid, claimed to be one of the ‘greenest’ cars, actually emits 56% more carbon dioxide than the manufacturers claim.

Honda claimed that the Civic Hybrid put out 109 grammes of CO2 per kilometre. In fact, the Honda put out 171 in actual road tests. It also used far more fuel than Honda claimed.

Hybrid cars came about as the result of legislation in California that states that a certain number of vehicles have to be run by electricity by a certain date. This is because California is dying from car pollution, and rather than take the simple step of leaving their cars at home, Californians want to keep their cars but ditch the fumes.

If you fill the streets of Los Angeles with hybrid cars you still have gridlock.

Basically, hybrid cars are a distraction from the real issue of dealing with millions of cars being driven to and from work when there’s no real need to do so. It’s not even true to say that hybrid cars pollute less – even assuming they pollute less than the average car, you mustn’t forget that much of the energy that a car uses is consumed in the manufacturing process, and that the majority of this energy is produced using either coal, oil or nuclear reactors.  

Many of the sales of hybrids in America are to people who simply want to be able to use car pool lanes on the motorway, and/or because the hybrid’s heavy extra cost was subsidised by the US government. We’d love to say that hybrids offer a significant improvement over the conventional car, but we can’t because it’s simply not true.

Hybrids are part of a dream world of urban sprawl where people drive along endless motorways to and from endless suburbs. It’s an unsustainable way of running cities, and hybrid cars just put off the day when we have to deal with it.

(转载此文志在抛砖引玉，请理性讨论！任何人身攻击一律向版主举报！)

评论
你说的是 3 代的吧， 就是nhw20系的  ,    IGBT 一般不会出问题，。 电脑对inverter 的保护是很好的， 电池的确是比较贵， 但出问题的毕竟使少数， 油电混合的目的是最终达到全电动，如果和共轨柴油比较前景更广阔些，谈到制造中的污染，如果能把所有污染控制在一个地方处理的话 不是更好更方便。  如果将来 核聚变 （不是核裂变）电厂能够实现 那污染就会大大减低了