Did anyone else see a t.v. ad for a new Toyota car called Niyar?

[Dover]

I just saw the ad for a few seconds and may have the name wrong. But it said it got like 35 or 40 miles to the gallon or something unheard of like that. If anyone knows what I'm talking about, could they fill in the gaps?

Oddly, I couldn't find it with a google.

[azurnoir]

1. Yaris?

saw the commercial cute car.

[Dover]

2. YES!!!! That's it! Boy was I off on the name! Here's a link:

Thanks.

I like the liftback.

The Yaris was designed to achieve a new standard for vehicles in its segment. Its energetic design, based on the principles of Vibrant Clarity, maintains the compact body size but inside is a passenger compartment that offers exceptional roominess in a space designed to feel airy and open. Driving the Yaris reveals a new level of nimble handling and superior driving stability, and safety performance is outstanding.

..snip..

The next-generation Yaris rides on an all-new platform that is longer and wider than its predecessor. Air conditioning, tilt-steering wheel, and color-keyed mirrors and door handles are among the many standard features.

The Yaris interior provides unexpected roominess and a comfortable cabin. The upscale interior provides remarkable design and a rear seat featuring a center headrest. Driver and front passenger advanced airbags, and ample storage space are among the array of standard interior features.

Powering the Yaris liftback will be a 1.5-liter four-cylinder engine with variable valve timing with intelligence (VVT-i) that will have impressive fuel economy. Mated to either a five-speed manual or four-speed automatic transmission, the engine will produce 106 horsepower and 103 ft.-lb. of torque. Combined with the MacPherson strut front and rear torsion beam suspension, the Yaris will offer fun-to-drive handling and excellent maneuverability.

In addition to good overall handling, the Yaris also will offer seat-mounted side and front and rear side curtain airbags, anti-lock brakes, an audio system with MP3 capability and mini-jack port, power windows, mirrors and door locks, and a 60/40 split rear seat with reclining, sliding and fold flat features among its optional equipment.

A four-door sedan configuration of the Yaris will be unveiled at a press conference at the 2006 Los Angeles Auto Show.



http://www.toyotanation.com/yaris/

http://www.automotive.com/2007/09/toyota/yaris/index.html

[Javaman]

5. I've been waiting for it for the past year...

I have been following the updates on the Yaris, the honda Fit and another coming out from Nissan. They all get in the 40MPG range. Since Toyota recently stated that all of their cars are going to be Hybrids by 2012, it's easy to imagine that this car as a hybrid, 40 now and with the Prius projected to have a 100mpg at the end of next year, I'm thinking at about 150mpg! Damn, won't that be something!

Things are changing. I'm thinking that by the end of 2008, we all will have a host of hybrids and high mileage cars to choose from. :)

[happyslug]

9. On the EPA Test? I doubt it get over 50 mpg

If you check on the net you will find out that the EPA does NOT do direct measurement of Mileage (i.e. how far will a gallon of gasoline take a person) but instead uses a test based on EXHAUST GASES. The EPA claims the test they use is more accurate but other while acknowledging the accuracy, questions with the better emissions of newer cars,t eh test may NOT be giving accurate mileage, and in fact give to high mileage for bigger cars and to low mileage for cars with engines smaller than 2.0 liters.

I have to agree, when I purchased my Jeep in 1996 it was listed at 20mpg with the 2.5 Liter Four OR the 4.0 Liter Six. That is just NOT possible for the Six weighs a good bit more than the four AND uses more cylinders (and thus more gasoline). Now my Jeep does get close to 50 mpg, but than I rarely go over 50 AND I only take it on long trips (Taking my bicycle for shorter trips). Thus my driving almost match the EPA testing system. I should not that I am the EXCEPTION today, most people drive they cars and quite driving them BEFORE the car is fully warmed up AND go over 60 mph on a regular basis of they can.

Basically the EPA test discriminates against smaller engines. When the EPA test was devised in the the early 1970s it was added to the EPA jobs of testing pollution equipment under the Clean Air Act. In the mid 1970s most large US cars still had big V-8s (Only dropping the V-8s in the 1980s, through some cars still have V-8s in them as do most large US made pickups and SUVs). What is the result of this? Large Engines get better EPA test results than they will get in actual driving, while smaller engine cars get mileage closer to what they get in the real world. Back to my Jeep, the 2.5 liter engine gets the same EPA mileage as the 4.0, even while it is much lighter and thus less to carry and thus should get better mileage (Given that in Jeeps all other things are the same in the EPA tests). Why? The test results of the 4.0 reflects max fuel efficiency for the 4.0, while the 2.5 is going to be a litter over revved to get it up to the 50 mph standard of the EPA test. Over-revving the engine hurts fuel economy.

The SMART car suffered from the same problem, it is design to go mostly about 25-35 mph, but can speed up to 50 if you over-rev the engine (Which kills the fuel economy of the engine). Larger US Cars do NOT have to over-rev as much to get to 50 mph (American cars are design to over rev only if they go over 80 mph, 120 if you have one of those old land yachts of the late 1960s). Because of this over-revving situation the SMART car only received a EPA test result of 47 mpg, way to little for so small a car with so small an engine. The only explanation is the Testers all over-revved the car to get it up to 50 mph. Now if I was the owner of the SMART car, I would have it re-tested but with a 35 mph governor so that the testers can NOT drive it over 35 mph, thus keeping the mileage up. The problem is if the Car is tested with a Governor it must be sold with a Governor. Furthermore if the EPA says it can NOT test the car, the Maker can not make any fuel economy claim on the car. The makers of the SMART car should take this route, I believe the car will sell by word of month as a high mileage car but can the maker take that risk?

As to the Prius, unlike the small cars with small engines philosophy of the European car makers (and other Japanese Car makers), the Hybrids actually do BETTER on the EPA test than they do in real life. Again this is the result of two things, first most people who drive a Prius make an effort to maximize they fuel economy as shown by the digital readout on the dash AND Second, its engines excess power is used to charge its battery which are used when more power is needed than can be provided by the engine. This helps both Fuel Efficiency and the Air Pollution Controls of the Prius (and unlike the SMART car the Prius is designed for 50-60 miles per hour traffic).

Remember the best way to improve a car's fuel economy is for it to lose weight. The engine and Transmission combination is what weighs the most in conventional cars (In hybrid it is the engine and Batteries with the Electric Motors that actually propel the car a distant third). Aluminum engine blocks are now the norm in Cars (To reduce weight) but you can do an even better job of reducing weight by going to a smaller car with less performance. Do you really "Need" to be able to go from 0-60 in 12 seconds? Do you will need to go over 35 mph? If you decide that 35 mph is "fast enough" the engine you need can be 1/2 to 1/3 of the weight of a car that does 0-60 in 12 seconds. When it comes to 100 mph cars it is NOT the hybrids that is looked to be able to 100 mpg but such low performance cars.

Remember the Hybrid works off the principal that cars engines are made for worse case situation, i.e. 0-60 in 12 seconds. If people want that performance than the only way to keep that performance in a smaller engine is to make sure that smaller engine is working at its peak efficiency at all times. Thus in a hybrid when the engine is NOT being used to propel the car it is being used to charge the batteries. When more power is needed than can be provided by the Engine, the Batteries provide the extra power. When the Batteries are fully charged the engine cuts off till the Batteries need charge or additional power is needed.

Note in a hybrid performance is maintained but at the cost of the extra weight of the batteries. In Smaller cars with less performance, you have very little if any excess power capacity. You just can NOT get to 0-60 in under a minute. You give that up for the hugely better fuel efficiency a lesser performance car can provide. This is the SMART car, Volkswagen has a similar version (not imported into the US). Less performance at much better fuel economy. Yes, your commute will be longer do to the smaller max speed of your car but most highways today are designed for traffic going at least 35 mph and thus the small engine in the small car will meet these minimum performance levels (These will be a little slow for the Interstates but if Fuel gets above $5 a gallon you will be surprised how fast minimal speeds on the interstates will drop if the only cars that are willing to travel on the Interstates max speed is 35 mph).

Just a little rant about Hybrids, for I See Hybrids as a transitional car only, not as a long term solution to the problem of high oil prices. The long term solution (and by Long Term I mean 5-10 years only) will be smaller cars with less performance. After 5-10 years I foresee even these cars to be made more and more marginal as people switch to non-oil based transportation systems (Bicycles, mass transit and even walking to work AND a movement of people who live close to their work). Cars will be used even after we have pumped the last drop of oil out of the ground, but only in high priority situations (like Ambulances) not as a regular means of transportation.

[Kolesar]

6. 9.32 (cu. ft.) Luggage capacity in the lift-back

Sounds tiny, even for a 2200 pound car.

[jpak]

7. I thought it was 12.8 cu. ft. for the "lift back"...

Seriously considering this for my next vehicle...

[Kolesar]

8. crudely copied from Toyota, and some notes of mine

Liftback Sedan S Sedan

Curb weight (lb.) manual/automatic 2290/2335 2288/2321 2288/2321
EPA passenger volume (cu. ft.) 84.6 87.1 87.1
Luggage capacity (cu. ft.) 9.32 <2> 12.9 <3> 13.7

http://www.toyota.com/yaris/specs.html

From some notes I never threw away, volume, cubic feet, of tailgate area:

My Celebrity wagon: 42
Ford Focus: 36
Scion XB: 21
Behind the third seat of a Windstar: 26

you can buy a Yakima roof carrier with another 80 or 90 cubic feet, too.

[shraby]

3. In the late 1960s we had a Renault

that got 40 miles to the gallon. We bought gas so frequently that one time I ran out on my way to my mother's house. That was when gas was .29 cents a gallon, too.

[tridim]

4. I checked the site right after I saw the ad

It's only about $11,000! 5 more mpg's would have been nice.