2007 Hybrid Comparison

[RJB]

How do you think they ranked? Courtesy of Inside Line.

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drive...photopanel..2.*

[Z-06]

Lemme guess.

1. CRAPRY

2. $h!IMA

3. AURA

How much did I win?

[RJB]

The one major gripe about this test is their problem with the Aura's 0-60 and 1/4 mile times. I thought these were Hybrids not drag cars. There are some good points to the Aura, but in the end you know who takes down the General once again.

[Z-06]

The one major gripe about this test is their problem with the Aura's 0-60 and 1/4 mile times. I thought these were Hybrids not drag cars. There are some good points to the Aura, but in the end you know who takes down the General once again.

Hypocritic Bitches!

I prefer not to read crapmunds. None of their editors have any sort of driving or racing experience. They are just graduates from fine arts who would have been unemployed for their lack of knowledge.

[Oracle of Delphi]

Just give me a diesel!

[CARBIZ]

Well, I give them credit for at least acknowedging it will take most consumers FOREVER to recoup the $7,000 price difference. Still, I would hope Toyota was way ahead of the pack, being as they've had a few year jump on the rest.

But, yikes: $30k for an American Camry. Sounds like they'll be paying $40k up here!

[RJB]

Can this topic be moved to the Saturn section? Apparently I'm an idiot today, Monday is not going too hot for me I guess.

Edited July 23, 2007 by RJB

[pow]

Embarassing. And the real price gap is $3750 with the Camry and $2920 with the Altima if you equip them similarly.

I'd rather have a $20K AURA 4-cylinder non-hybrid and save the dough. Or an $18K Fusion. Both probably get better performance and simliar economy.

[Flybrian]

1) Altima Hybrid doesn't count because its sold in a handful of states, not nationwide.

2) Talk about embarrassing - trunkspace of 10.6 cuft for the Camry, 9.1 cuft(?!) for the Altima? Jesus. The Aura not only loses the least cargo room (12.6 vs. 16.0 for the regular Aura) but it also has a non-awkward, flat load floor.

[pow]

1) Altima Hybrid doesn't count because its sold in a handful of states, not nationwide.

2) Talk about embarrassing - trunkspace of 10.6 cuft for the Camry, 9.1 cuft(?!) for the Altima? Jesus. The Aura not only loses the least cargo room (12.6 vs. 16.0 for the regular Aura) but it also has a non-awkward, flat load floor.

Yeah, but for the loss in trunk space in full-hybrids, you gain significant fuel economy increases. The AURA loses 3.4 cu ft, takes 2-3 more seconds to reach 60, and costs $3000 more than a non-hybrid 4-cylinder equivalent all for, what, 2 more MPG in the '08 EPA city and highway cycle?

[Flybrian]

Yeah, but for the loss in trunk space in full-hybrids, you gain significant fuel economy increases. The AURA loses 3.4 cu ft, takes 2-3 more seconds to reach 60, and costs $3000 more than a non-hybrid 4-cylinder equivalent all for, what, 2 more MPG in the '08 EPA city and highway cycle?

I think its a matter of packaging intelligence, not an evenly-proportional measure. Use a car the has more trunk space to begin with (imagine a full hybrid LaCrosse - probably would have 15 cuft at least), purpose-build a hybrid from the ground up, or package the system more intelligently.

I know someone here may irrationally argue that less trunk space may be better in some Rod Serling dimension (), but there is an ideal solution that no one seems to care about yet, though I will say Japanese large midsizers are poorly-packaged for cargo capacity anyway.

[Z-06]

Yeah, but for the loss in trunk space in full-hybrids, you gain significant fuel economy increases. The AURA loses 3.4 cu ft, takes 2-3 more seconds to reach 60, and costs $3000 more than a non-hybrid 4-cylinder equivalent all for, what, 2 more MPG in the '08 EPA city and highway cycle?

Which means that if regularly I load 10 grocery bags in my trunk, with hybrids I will load 7.5. Which means I have to make four trips for every three trips I made in for the similar N/A car. Do the fuel economy numbers offset that?? I mean do these cars give 150% more fuel efficiency than the N/A? Probably not to at least match my value for the trip to the grocery stores and I am not even talking about the offset in price I have to pay to get these so called gas-sippers.

[siegen]

The one major gripe about this test is their problem with the Aura's 0-60 and 1/4 mile times. I thought these were Hybrids not drag cars. There are some good points to the Aura, but in the end you know who takes down the General once again.

Performance is still important, even in a hybrid, and the Aura is just downright slow.

Altima- 47mpg city, 7.6s 0-60, 15.6s 1/4

Aura- 19mpg city, 11s 0-60, 17.9s 1/4

That paints a pretty bad picture.

Why is the Altima not available in all states while the Camry is? They use the same hybrid drivetrain...

[pow]

I think its a matter of packaging intelligence, not an evenly-proportional measure. Use a car the has more trunk space to begin with (imagine a full hybrid LaCrosse - probably would have 15 cuft at least), purpose-build a hybrid from the ground up, or package the system more intelligently.

I know someone here may irrationally argue that less trunk space may be better in some Rod Serling dimension (), but there is an ideal solution that no one seems to care about yet, though I will say Japanese large midsizers are poorly-packaged for cargo capacity anyway.

I guess it's a matter of priorities. The general trend in packaging seems to be a preference for passenger room over trunk space. Cars like the Impala and LaCrosse, which have huge trunks and tiny back seats, are a rare and dying breed. Crossovers, minivans, and SUVs are now the vehicles of choice for cargo hauling.

But anyway, the point I was trying to make is that the AURA GL represents a weak engineering effort compared to its rivals, even if it does have a large-for-a-hybrid trunk. Its fuel economy improvement is minimal, it's slower than any midsizer, it has a significant price premium, and it's difficult to see it doing very well. Chevy's approach with the '08 Malibu, offering BAS as an LS powertrain option, makes more sense.

[sciguy_0504]

I think for capacity reasons. However, my local Nissan dealer in PA purchased a bunch of Altima hybrids from a dealer in NY in order to sell them here. So it's not like you can only get them in 8 states.

This is pretty embarassing for the Aura, though.

[ZL-1]

Toyota proved it's got the fuel economy game wrapped up, as the Camry produced the best combined mileage of our test group with 43.2 mpg over both loops — 44.5 mpg in the city and 42.6 mpg on the highway. The Altima's fuel economy in the city actually proved marginally better than the Camry's at 47.3 mpg, but its 38.1 mpg on the highway dropped its combined rating to 40.1 mpg.

The Aura wasn't even close. Its combined fuel economy was just 26 mpg, largely as a result of its 18.9 mpg in city driving — where it doesn't benefit from true electric-only propulsion like the Camry and Altima. On the highway loop, the Aura produced 31.5 mpg.

That's kind of a sucky result for the Aura... even being 'only' a mild Hybrid, and even being significantly cheaper, it will be crossed shopped against cars like the Altima and the Camry based in fuel economy... I don't see many people doing their math to know how many miles they have to drive per year for the mileage advantage of the Camry/Altima to compensate for their higher MSRP.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

What's sad is that the Aura is even in the comparison...

Apparently the f*cking idiots in the media can't get it through their heads that GM's less sophisticated hybrid system is NOT supposed to compete with the Camry and Altima hybrids. It's supposed to appeal to people with less $$$ that want a few more miles.

This was just another opportunity to make GM look bad and as usual, edmunds seized the day.

[gm4life]

Aura is last I am sure. Haven't even read the thing nor do I need too. I can pretty much guessed what they bitched about. The thing is the Greenline adds lots of nice features that the base cars don't come with standard and for not alot of extra dough. Plus great fuel economy! From a price point 7K buys alot of gas... I would go with the Saturn. And uhh do hybrids ever get the fuel economy the sticker says? Suckers go ahead by the Camry.

Edited July 24, 2007 by gm4life

[gm4life]

I guess it's a matter of priorities. The general trend in packaging seems to be a preference for passenger room over trunk space. Cars like the Impala and LaCrosse, which have huge trunks and tiny back seats, are a rare and dying breed. Crossovers, minivans, and SUVs are now the vehicles of choice for cargo hauling.

But anyway, the point I was trying to make is that the AURA GL represents a weak engineering effort compared to its rivals, even if it does have a large-for-a-hybrid trunk. Its fuel economy improvement is minimal, it's slower than any midsizer, it has a significant price premium, and it's difficult to see it doing very well. Chevy's approach with the '08 Malibu, offering BAS as an LS powertrain option, makes more sense.

The LaX has a small back seat no lie. But my Impala and even the current generation one have a rather roomy back-seat. Far roomy than my large EPA rated Bonneville SLE. (Still love the sporty side of the car and the motor!)

[Drew Dowdell]

The compared the vehicles all at the same price point right?

I mean, you wouldn't want the comparison to be unfair by one of the vehicles being 7k cheaper than the others.

[siegen]

The compared the vehicles all at the same price point right?

I mean, you wouldn't want the comparison to be unfair by one of the vehicles being 7k cheaper than the others.

It's a hybrid. And even though it's cheaper it's going to get compared to other hybrids and look bad. What's the point of the Aura hybrid if 4cyl non-hybrid competition get the same real-world mileage and are faster to boot? I'm surprised no mags have done a comparison of the Aura greenline and the Accord/Camry 4cyl models.

[RBB]

This is a marketing problem.

Soon, GM will have three different types of hybrid vehicles in their product portfolio:

Mild Hybrids

Two-Mode Hybrids

Plug-In Hybrids

Of those, the Two-Mode hybrid is the only one that's comparable with the hybrids offered by Toyota, Honda, and Nissan. That's great, actually - more choice is a good thing.

However, the Mild Hybrid is all that's available right now, and it's not called a mild hybrid - it's called 'hybrid'. Since the Camry, Altima, and Accord Two-Mode hybrids are also just called 'hybrid' these non-analogous comparisons arise. And of course the cheaper mild hybrid will look bad when compared to a full hybrid.

That's GM's fault. As far as I'm aware, even when the two-mode hybrids become available, there won't be any visual differentiation at all between the mild and two-mode versions. That's a recipe for confusion and more faulty comparisons. Were it me, I'd break them in into separate mini-brands:

Mild-Hybrid: Don't call it a hybrid at all - name it something like "Power Assist", and say that it uses hybrid technology to inexpensively give a mild boost to both MPG and power when accelerating. Market this as the economical choice.

Two-Mode Hybrid: Call this one simply "Hybrid", just like other manufacturers to. Market *these* against the competition's comparable models - Aura/Malibu against Camry/Altima, Vue against Escape, etc.

Plug-In Hybrids: Were it me, I'd market these as electric vehicles that have a combustion-engine backup, since for most shorter commutes, you may not need a gas engine at all. Call them "EV Hybrids".

Give each hybrid "brand" its own unique logo and slap them on the respective vehicles. Then, market the hell out of the fact that, with the FlexFuel engines, GM gives you more options than anyone to decrease our depenency on foreign oil and save the environment.

Just MHO,

-RBB

[siegen]

However, the Mild Hybrid is all that's available right now, and it's not called a mild hybrid - it's called 'hybrid'. Since the Camry, Altima, and Accord Two-Mode hybrids are also just called 'hybrid' these non-analogous comparisons arise. And of course the cheaper mild hybrid will look bad when compared to a full hybrid.

The Accord is not a two-mode hybrid, but a mild hybrid as well. All Honda hybrids, including the 60mpg+ Insight, are mild hybrids.

The performance-oriented Accord V6 hybrid gets the same mileage as the Aura hybrid, yet is much faster and heavier. Of course it's a whole lot more expensive..... If Honda made a 2.4L hybrid IMA Accord, it would probably be priced under the Camry/Altima by a hair, and get the same or better highway mileage with less city mileage. But then Honda will be giving us a 2.2L or 2.4L 50mpg+ diesel Accord, which will just make hybrids look dumb.

[RBB]

Thanks Siegen - I'd forgotten the IMA isn't a two-mode system. It's certainly a lot less "mild" than the GM system, though. And agreed re: the Accord diesel.

-RBB

[big blue]

I knew the results before I clicked on it before hand. Not because of it being on Edmunds, which I visit every day for industry news, but because when you put HYBRID on a car it better damn well get good gas mileage. GM can't just say theirs is merely a mild hybrid and shrug their shoulders when someone puts the Aura's numbers up next to the Camry's. Customers won't care if it's a mild hybrid, they just know that the Toyota hybrid gets better MPG than the Saturn hybrid. Most people who want a hybrid are already shopping Toyota as their first stop anyways and if Saturn can't impress customers right off the bat, then the customers won't bat an eyelash towards their dealership. I hope the next gen Aura is up to par with the next gen offerings of competitors, including their hybrids/diesels or whatever comes along.

[Intrepidation]

Aura is last I am sure. Haven't even read the thing nor do I need too. I can pretty much guessed what they bitched about. The thing is the Greenline adds lots of nice features that the base cars don't come with standard and for not alot of extra dough. Plus great fuel economy! From a price point 7K buys alot of gas... I would go with the Saturn. And uhh do hybrids ever get the fuel economy the sticker says? Suckers go ahead by the Camry.

Or, if they were smart, they;d offer a 4 cylinder with a 6-speed automatic...(which the Malibu will have) cheaper, faster, less weight, more trunk space, and better gas mileage. The Mild Hybrid is not a good marketing tool, which is all these hybrids really are anyway. The other 2 impress with good mpg and good acceleration...the Aura does neither. Its cheaper, but you're always reminded of why it's cheaper...this has been a philosophy of the domestics for many years and look where that's got them.

[turbo200]

This is a marketing problem.

Soon, GM will have three different types of hybrid vehicles in their product portfolio:

Mild Hybrids

Two-Mode Hybrids

Plug-In Hybrids

Of those, the Two-Mode hybrid is the only one that's comparable with the hybrids offered by Toyota, Honda, and Nissan. That's great, actually - more choice is a good thing.

However, the Mild Hybrid is all that's available right now, and it's not called a mild hybrid - it's called 'hybrid'. Since the Camry, Altima, and Accord Two-Mode hybrids are also just called 'hybrid' these non-analogous comparisons arise. And of course the cheaper mild hybrid will look bad when compared to a full hybrid.

That's GM's fault. As far as I'm aware, even when the two-mode hybrids become available, there won't be any visual differentiation at all between the mild and two-mode versions. That's a recipe for confusion and more faulty comparisons. Were it me, I'd break them in into separate mini-brands:

Mild-Hybrid: Don't call it a hybrid at all - name it something like "Power Assist", and say that it uses hybrid technology to inexpensively give a mild boost to both MPG and power when accelerating. Market this as the economical choice.

Two-Mode Hybrid: Call this one simply "Hybrid", just like other manufacturers to. Market *these* against the competition's comparable models - Aura/Malibu against Camry/Altima, Vue against Escape, etc.

Plug-In Hybrids: Were it me, I'd market these as electric vehicles that have a combustion-engine backup, since for most shorter commutes, you may not need a gas engine at all. Call them "EV Hybrids".

Give each hybrid "brand" its own unique logo and slap them on the respective vehicles. Then, market the hell out of the fact that, with the FlexFuel engines, GM gives you more options than anyone to decrease our depenency on foreign oil and save the environment.

Just MHO,

-RBB

this sounds like a great plan that avoids unnecessary confusion that is bound to happen.

[pow]

Or, if they were smart, they;d offer a 4 cylinder with a 6-speed automatic...(which the Malibu will have) cheaper, faster, less weight, more trunk space, and better gas mileage. The Mild Hybrid is not a good marketing tool, which is all these hybrids really are anyway. The other 2 impress with good mpg and good acceleration...the Aura does neither. Its cheaper, but you're always reminded of why it's cheaper...this has been a philosophy of the domestics for many years and look where that's got them.

I wonder how the four-speed Malibu LS Hybrid fuel economy will compare to the six-speed Malibu (I4) LTZ's, which hasn't been released yet.

'08 2.4L, 4-speed: 22/30

'08 2.4L w/ BAS, 4-speed: 24/32

'08 2.4L, 6-speed: ???

They'll probably be pretty close. The difference will probably be price (LS hybrid will likely be cheaper) and performance (LTZ I-4 will be a lot quicker -- regular final-drive ratio, lighter, two more gears).

[Intrepidation]

I wonder how the four-speed Malibu LS Hybrid fuel economy will compare to the six-speed Malibu (I4) LTZ's, which hasn't been released yet.

'08 2.4L, 4-speed: 22/30

'08 2.4L w/ BAS, 4-speed: 24/32

'08 2.4L, 6-speed: ???

They'll probably be pretty close. The difference will probably be price (LS hybrid will likely be cheaper) and performance (LTZ I-4 will be a lot quicker -- regular final-drive ratio, lighter, two more gears).

I'd much rather have the I4 and 6-speed combo...it's a brillant move on GM's part to offer a 4 cylinder car with 6-speed...they actually beat Toyota to this in the segment. Not only do you get better fuel economy but you get the most out of teh engine....making the car faster. I wish they would apply this to the Cobalt...although it's 4-speed is quite good, I have found it asleep at the wheel a couple times.

[toyoguy]

But then Honda will be giving us a 2.2L or 2.4L 50mpg+ diesel Accord, which will just make hybrids look dumb.

if Honda had a 50mpg diesel don you think they would bother w/a gasoline engine? Getting desperate to see Honda do something interesting?

lol @ ricer logic.

I'm sure Honda's diesel will be a hit like the RL, Ridgeline, Accord hybrid and that new (delayed again) NSX.

and I'm sure Honda is building another Civic hybrid to embarass themselves w/their own Accord diesel.

Edited July 26, 2007 by toyoguy

[CARBIZ]

I'd much rather have the I4 and 6-speed combo...it's a brillant move on GM's part to offer a 4 cylinder car with 6-speed...they actually beat Toyota to this in the segment. Not only do you get better fuel economy but you get the most out of teh engine....making the car faster. I wish they would apply this to the Cobalt...although it's 4-speed is quite good, I have found it asleep at the wheel a couple times.

The thing you have to realize about trannies, in particular GM ones, is that there is a 'break-in' period. I have been driving a 2006 Pursuit for the past couple months (it has the kick-ass Pioneer subwoofer and speakers) with about 24k km on it and the tranny is very responsive to me when I floor it - which is a lot. Yesterday, on a lark, I took a brand new (4 km!) 2007 Cobalt out on the highway and nearly got run over because when I floored it, there was nothing there. It was scary. The tranny did not drop down a gear or two fast enough.

If you rent a Cobalt that has been abused (which I am sure is a lot of them), who knows how 'loose' the tranny will feel.

[businesswsu1985]

I just bought a 2007 Aura XE, love it!

[siegen]

if Honda had a 50mpg diesel don you think they would bother w/a gasoline engine? Getting desperate to see Honda do something interesting?

lol @ ricer logic.

I'm sure Honda's diesel will be a hit like the RL, Ridgeline, Accord hybrid and that new (delayed again) NSX.

and I'm sure Honda is building another Civic hybrid to embarass themselves w/their own Accord diesel.

Diesels carry a price premium just like hybrids; they don't make good high performance engines either. By that logic, why does Toyota offer anything but hybrids?

Honda is an engineering company, and has made mistakes with vehicles like the RL and Accord Hybrid. They obviously aren't afraid to try something a little different, and sometimes it backfires. Think of it like this; at most manufacturers, the bean-counters control the engineers and give them guidelines for what the market needs/wants. At Honda, the engineers are given less guidelines, and allowed to pursue projects that are more risky from a sales standpoint. I guess that's what you get when the company is run by an engineer and not a business major.

If the Accord diesel was in-fact rated to 50mpg it would certainly be bad for the Civic. But then again, the regular Civic has a higher hwy rating than the Fit, and it doesn't seem to adversely affect the Fit's sales.

I was looking over at fueleconomy.gov, and for the last 2 model years, I was surprised to find that the Civic Hybrid achieved real-world numbers very close to the Prius, despite being rated considerably less.

Civic Hybrid

EPA combined: 42, real-world: 45.3 (112 users)

Prius

EPA combined: 46, real-world: 46.9 (158 users)

('08 EPA numbers)

[Drew Dowdell]

Diesels carry a price premium just like hybrids; they don't make good high performance engines either.

Say what?

It's not that diesels don't make good high performance engines, it's that manufacturers don't make good high performance diesels.

No, they won't turn 10,000 rpm in your Honda S-2000, but who cares when you have 250 ft/lb of torque at 1,000 rpm?

I'd like to add that with all the hoopla going on about Honda's 50mpg diesel Accord, Autoblog is already getting 55mpg out of their diesel Cadillac BLS.

[siegen]

I'd like to add that with all the hoopla going on about Honda's 50mpg diesel Accord, Autoblog is already getting 55mpg out of their diesel Cadillac BLS.

And Honda is already getting 92mpg from the diesel accord. The big deal is that the new diesel will be clean and quiet and achieve good fuel economy by normal people and not professional drivers on closed courses.

Is that a smoke screen?

[Drew Dowdell]

Is that a smoke screen?

Whatever works!

[toyoguy]

Diesels carry a price premium just like hybrids; they don't make good high performance engines either. By that logic, why does Toyota offer anything but hybrids?

Toyota does offer diesels overseas, and it will be years before Honda offers a diesel here. And if you didn't already hear, Toyota now has a hybrid that can drive 8miles w/o using oil. Edited July 27, 2007 by toyoguy

[siegen]

Toyota does offer diesels overseas, and it will be years before Honda offers a diesel here. And if you didn't already hear, Toyota now has a hybrid that can drive 8miles w/o using oil.

As do many other makes, including Honda. You might want to check some of the other threads on this site, Honda will offer a clean-running (Tier 2 Bin 5 compliant) diesel here in the US for the 2009 MY (which means 2008, most likely available on the next gen Accord, or so the speculation goes). Toyota just started testing a plug-in hybrid, they don't have one available to sell to the public.

[regfootball]

so funny to see toyo folks pissing like calvin on the honda folks. we're not far from someone putting a sticker in the back window of their ridgeline (just in front of their gun rack) of calvin peeing on the honda 'H'.

enjoy the slugfest because hyundai will pass you both when you are not looking. hyundai i prbably stealing more toyo and honda buyers than anything.

Edited July 30, 2007 by regfootball

[pow]

so funny to see toyo folks pissing like calvin on the honda folks. we're not far from someone putting a sticker in the back window of their ridgeline (just in front of their gun rack) of calvin peeing on the honda 'H'.

enjoy the slugfest because hyundai will pass you both when you are not looking. hyundai i prbably stealing more toyo and honda buyers than anything.

Yeah, everyone's grandparent's cousin's farmer's wife's hunter's daughter is driving a Japanese car or truck that pretty soon something "locally made" will be rare, exotic, cool, and desired.

[The O.C.]

The one major gripe about this test is their problem with the Aura's 0-60 and 1/4 mile times. I thought these were Hybrids not drag cars. There are some good points to the Aura, but in the end you know who takes down the General once again.

Of course they are hybrids....and no one expects to drag race them. However, if your competitor gives you better real-world mileage numbers....AND is more responsive....then that's the car I'd rather have.....

[The O.C.]

I think its a matter of packaging intelligence, not an evenly-proportional measure. Use a car the has more trunk space to begin with (imagine a full hybrid LaCrosse - probably would have 15 cuft at least), purpose-build a hybrid from the ground up, or package the system more intelligently.

I know someone here may irrationally argue that less trunk space may be better in some Rod Serling dimension (), but there is an ideal solution that no one seems to care about yet, though I will say Japanese large midsizers are poorly-packaged for cargo capacity anyway.

Don't forget those import hybrids have alot more hardware underneath their bodies (taking up additional trunk space) than the "mild" hybrid Aura.

[The O.C.]

Apparently the f*cking idiots in the media can't get it through their heads that GM's less sophisticated hybrid system is NOT supposed to compete with the Camry and Altima hybrids.

.....then DAMMIT.....don't call the car a f*cking "Hybrid."

[GXT]

.....then DAMMIT.....don't call the car a f*cking "Hybrid."

Heh. I hear you.

But it is actually quite brilliant. GM can sell a car that offers a smaller trunk, less performance, is more complicated, and costs more compared to a 4cyl Accord. And even though the fuel economy is only comparable, GM can pretend that they are in the "eco game". (Did someone mention the Volt?) Plus is helps bolster the GM argument that hybrid cars don't make sense.

And all they have to rely on is that their consumers aren't doing their research (which is a pretty safe bet).

[Intrepidation]

Heh. I hear you.

But it is actually quite brilliant. GM can sell a car that offers a smaller trunk, less performance, is more complicated, and costs more compared to a 4cyl Accord. And even though the fuel economy is only comparable, GM can pretend that they are in the "eco game". (Did someone mention the Volt?) Plus is helps bolster the GM argument that hybrid cars don't make sense.

And all they have to rely on is that their consumers aren't doing their research (which is a pretty safe bet).

Sounds a lot like teh strategy Toyota uses for many of its hybrids.

[2QuickZ's]

Am i missing something? There seems to be a lot of references to the Camry being a "two mode" hybrid. I thought the Camry and Prius were just "hybrids" and the difference was the two mode hybrid had two electric motors and a regular hybrid only had one. Perhaps I am confused.

Well, I was kind of right. One mode = one planetary gear set, two mode = two planetary gear sets. At least so says the always reliable New York Times : Hybrid Article

Edited August 7, 2007 by 2QuickZ's