It is true I have got upto 50MPG on flat running with and extra large dia tyre and with air slightly higher, Still compfortable to run.

Ben

100 lbs?! Whoa... Thanks for coorecting me, I didn't know that.. That is a lot less than I thought!

But I won't take back that i simpler car is better for the enviroment than i Prius. Sure it uses lees fuel, but is more complicated to produce, so from birth to grave it's more polluting. I't just a matter of moving the pollution from the road to the industrialized areas. Besides: how long will the batteries last? They are Li-ion like cell phone batteries and they don't last forever. Certainly not if you always charge them frewuently before they're used up!

@K!P

I assumed the same thing, but when I serched for information I found out they actually weighed less than 100 lb! (http://www.toyotapriusbattery.com/)

true about more energy in diesel. However, in a lot of places diesel is cheaper than premium gasoline. (Think Europe.)

For me the prius is more hype than annything else. The bateries weigh 100 lbs? seems a bit on the light side if you ask me. A normal car battery already does 30 lbs or so. But than again i dont have anny numbers. (and ofcourse the electro drive also uses weight. Talking about batteries: what is the enveroimental impact of those things? they do not grow on trees, also recycling is an isue. How long does a battery pack last? i would not be suprised if the batteries cost more energy to make than they save on the road. just picture a 15 year old prius, i do not see that happen often. I all for greener transportation, but imho the prius is not the way to go. think smaller, maybe afordable dealer renting of bigger cars if you need to move more.

Tons of misconceptions in your comment. It actually is better for the environment than other cars. If you really want, I can dig up a whole bunch of articles for you.

The batteries are only about 100 lbs, and the car as a whole is only 2900 lbs so it really doesn't make a difference. The car is very slow? Compared to what.. a Nissan GTR?

People don't need to race on 40 mph roads. The Prius 0-60 is comparable to a Camry 4 cylinder but I bet you didn't know that nor would you have second guessed the Camry's acceleration. Seeing as how so many people buy the Camry, I don't think the Prius acceleration is an issue.

Or do you mean the Prius' top speed is slow? because I know individuals who have topped out at 108 MPH. Do you go over 108MPH on the highway? Maybe then the Prius is "too slow" for you.

Diesel inherently has more energy inside the fuel. It's no wonder they get high mpg. Does it mean its more efficient? Not necessarily, when you consider how much energy is inside diesel fuel. Plus, diesel is expensive nowadays.. more expensive than premium gasoline.

@Polx: There is no shame. You don't see how new technology, safety measures, etc require a car to use more gasoline than before? Bigger cars, airbags, impact bars, air conditioning, radio, etc etc etc just add more weight than old cars without that tech. Plus, I wonder how fast that millecento is going to go.

If lenos 50 year old Italian car gets 40mpg, it should still be a matter of some sahme and incredulity that the various listed modern cars get about the same, give or taek.

They should be gettig 3 figures per gallon surel?

And again with the Prius!

I don't like the Prius. Perhaps it doesn't use a lot of fuel, but it isn't better for the enviroment than other cars. The batteries just add up weight and require more power. The car is very slow and very complicated to repair and if they had just put an underpowered engine to a ligther car the result would have been pretty much the same. Except it would have been a lot cheaper!

A car i think would be good for the enviroment is the Loremo, when it gets availible. But that is also a tiny car!

And Diesel gets better mpg! A Skoda Octavia 2.0 Diesel has 140 hp and still gets 50+ mpg in daily commute.

But you know what the difference is between a car then and now is? Back then you basically had a body, motor, and seat belts. None of this front/rear/side airbags, ABS, Traction Control, independent suspension, crumple zones, plush interiors, etc...
All those things add up to lots of weight, and with more weight you need an larger engine, and with a larger engine, you need more gas.

One of the heads at Honda said basically the same thing when asked why they can't build cars with the kinds of MPG they had back in the days.

I think it gets the 40 mpg by being a fraction of the weight of modern cars, US or European.

Anyway, hots off to Leno for the pieece.

Am now off to see what else he's got.

(I can get 40 in my Civic if I drive right, and I know that the Honda CRX and Geo Metro and other tiny lightweights could get in the 50s...)