Toyota Introduces Electric RAV4, Powered By Tesla Motor

thecarchik writes "As they say, everything old is new again. Fourteen years after it launched its very first RAV4 crossover at the Los Angeles Auto Show, Toyota returned to LA to launch an all-electric version of its latest RAV4. And this one is, as the logos in a teaser photo released earlier said, 'powered by Tesla.' The launch of the second version of the RAV4 EV is on a fast timeline, led by a working group made up of Toyota's Technical Center in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and a team from Tesla Motors. The partnership will build 35 'Phase Zero' test versions of the latest RAV4 EV next year, with production launch expected in 2012."

Comments

It has to be Tesla

[Talderas]

Why do I get a feeling this submission only made it because it mentions Tesla?

Re:It has to be Tesla

[spun]

Why do I get a feeling this submission only made it because it mentions Tesla?

Because you haven't considered the possibility that Toyota might invent a mascot know as 'thecarchick' (oooh! A GIRL who like cars!) and use that mascot to submit stories to news aggregation sites for free publicity? I mean, if you're going to go down the rabbit hole, go all the way down.

Re:It has to be Tesla

[maxume]

Given that the slugs from both links share a format, I suspect it is rather more self promotional.

Or maybe you should be saying that Toyota is setting up astroturf green car blogs, rather than talking about the methods they use to do so.

Re:It has to be Tesla

[nschubach]

I have to wonder if "Edison" was used instead of "Tesla"... would these cars be fighting legal battles over the name?

Re:It has to be Tesla

[Talderas]

Pretty much. I'm assuming Tesla is the vague link used in order to promote this Slashvertisement.

Re:It has to be Tesla

[h4rr4r]

No, because they would be uninteresting, inferior and built out of other peoples inventions.

Re:It has to be Tesla

[Ogive17]

You would be correct. Honda announced a new plug-in hybrid fit (can go 70 miles on one charge or run off a hybrid system, just like the volt) but I haven't seen it here.

Of course Cmdr. Taco is from Ann Arbor, maybe he's plugging his home town.

Re:It has to be Tesla

[c6gunner]

Huh? Edison was Chinese?

Re:It has to be Tesla

[noidentity]

So you're saying that this reply of mine will get modded up merely because it mentions Tesla?

Re:It has to be Tesla

[hey]

She has been around here for a while.
http://slashdot.org/~thecarchik

Re:It has to be Tesla

[operagost]

I was thinking more along the lines of, "practical and successful."

Re:It has to be Tesla

[h4rr4r]

Like DC?
Like the lightbulb he did not invent?
Like all the other stuff he claimed credit for but was really the work of others?

Re:It has to be Tesla

[Shadow Wrought]

When I think, been around here for a while, I don't think of 1520545. I'd say you've been around for awhile, since over half a million separate us, but I don't know about those in the million, million and a half range.

Now if you'll excuse me, there's someone on a lawn that needs yelling at!

Re:It has to be Tesla

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yeah? Try going to China and tweeting that.

Re:It has to be Tesla

[spun]

Like AC current? Oh wait, That wasn't Edison, Edison electrocuted a freaking elephant using AC as a publicity stunt to try to make it seem dangerous. Edison was a con man, huckster and a thief who stole his best ideas from Nikola Tesla.

Re:It has to be Tesla

[David Greene]

Now if you'll excuse me, there's someone on a lawn that needs yelling at!

And it's you!

Re:It has to be Tesla

[L4t3r4lu5]

Remember that correlation does not equal causation. Mentioning Tesla in your post may or may not be the reason you were modded up.

This post may cause a recursion error.

Re:It has to be Tesla

[Coren22]

Hey, no need to be mean, not all of us started accounts when Slashdot came out, though I was sure reading back then and posting AC.

Re:It has to be Tesla

[Shadow Wrought]

Well played sir, well played!

Re:It has to be Tesla

[BranMan]

I know what you mean - I was lurking around Slashdot for about 2 years before getting an account.

They did this in the 90s.

[Kenja]

During the zero emission days in California there where some electric RAV4 vehicles around. But of course, you couldn't buy them, only lease. And as soon as GM got the law repealed they where yanked back and destroyed. One person here in Marin refused to return his however. Still see it around from time to time.

Re:They did this in the 90s.

[karnal]

GM had the EV-1, not the RAV4. Toyota = RAV4.

Re:They did this in the 90s.

[Kenja]

But it was GM that pushed to have the zero emission laws over turned, not Toyota.

Re:They did this in the 90s.

[Radtastic]

I met him during an event several years ago. If I recall correctly, he was able to purchase the vehicle during the early-release confusion (Before the dealers fully understood that the vehicles were only to be leased.)

Re:They did this in the 90s.

[jaygatsby27]

I'd like to buy that person a Pliny the Elder.

Re:They did this in the 90s.

[geekoid]

because they cost to build was excessive. All it would have done is create a strong used car market.

a decade latter, and manufacturing them is getting cheaper, and people are more aware of the volatility of the price of oil.

GM doesn't car which people want to buy, only that there is enough money to be made to make a profit.

Re:They did this in the 90s.

[Solandri]

And as soon as GM got the law repealed...

GM didn't get the law repealed. They were the ones in the best position to benefit from the law. GM caught a lot of flak for how it behaved after the law was repealed (destroying all EV1s), but they weren't the root cause despite what popular documentaries say.

In 1990, California passed a law mandating that by a certain year (2000 I think), all manufacturers who wished to sell gasoline-powered cars in California also had to offer at least one ZEV (zero emissions vehicle). The only technology which fit the bill was electric. Most automakers complained, but GM went out and actually built the thing.

As the deadline approached, the other auto manufacturers started to panic. They lobbied California asking for the deadline to be delayed. It was for a few years. Then they successfully lobbied California to drop the ZEV requirement, arguing that hybrid vehicles (powered by gas but with batteries to sustain them at idle and to enable regenerative braking) would provide sufficiently improved fuel efficiency at a low enough price point to be widely adopted. (Contrary to today, environmentalists originally hated hybrids - they derived all their energy from gasoline, none from the wall socket. So they weren't seen as really addressing the oil consumption problem.)

GM, which stood to make $billions licensing their technology from the EV1 to other auto manufacturers so they could comply with California law, basically had the rug pulled out from under them. They'd sunk $billions in R&D into the EV1 to comply with California's law, then they got screwed over when California basically said "never mind", and dropped the law without giving GM a chance to recoup their sunk costs. GM then essentially went on a temper tantrum, recalling and destroying all EV1s. Not altogether unjustified either - if California wants to encourage new technologies by drafting legal requirements, then pulls a double-cross by dropping the requirements before companies can recoup the money spent creating those new technologies, why should the companies be obligated to let California benefit from said technologies?

All the conspiracy theories about GM blocking the electric vehicle hinge on one assumption - that an electric vehicle is cost-competitive with gasoline vehicles right now. As Tesla Motors is finding out, they are not. They need the government incentives (or $5+ gas prices) to be cost-competitive. If the government requires the vehicles and promises those incentives, then changes its mind, lots of business decisions based on those requirements and promises get nullified and a whole bunch of people trying to do exactly what the government told them to do lose a whole lot of money. That is not the way to spur free-market innovation, and trying to blame it on the companies afterwards is a great way you seed mistrust of the government.

Re:They did this in the 90s.

[Kenja]

Sorry, I remember distinctly all the full page ads and campaigning GM did to get the law removed. They hated the EV cars with a passion. The reasons why are unknown, but there are a lot of valid theories. However no one who lived through it can come to any conclusion other then GM did everything they could to get the zero emission laws removed. And as soon as they no longer had to have EV cars, they pulled them, despite people screaming for the chance to buy them.

Re:They did this in the 90s.

[Kenja]

Right. Which is why they did everything they could to kill off the EVs and started building the H2. Doesn't mean it was a good thing, and frankly they could have charged an arm and a leg for the EV and people would have bought them.

Its like the adds running on TV right now for the GE Watt Station EV charging platforms. We had something very simular to those at major transit hubs to charge the last round of EVs. None of this stuff is new, but it is better and hopefully will "make it" this time.

Re:They did this in the 90s.

[c6gunner]

It's still too damn expensive, though. Look at the Chevy volt. I love the concept, I think it's a neat-looking car, but there's no way I'm spending $40,000+ on a mediocre 4-seat compact. While current EV's are a hell of a lot better than the EV1, they're still not where they need to be for mass-adoption. Now, give it a decade or so, and the situation might be dramatically different. I'll let the early-adopters have a go at them, let my current vehicle drag me around until it falls apart, and hopefully be able to pick up a decent EV for a much lower price tag.

Re:They did this in the 90s.

[YesIAmAScript]

All the car companies pushed to have those laws overturned. They simply weren't ready to sell a non-trivial number of EVs and most customers weren't interested in buying them or even leasing them at a loss leader price.

And more than one RAV4 escaped, there is a guy here at work (South Bay) who owns one, I see it from time to time.

Re:They did this in the 90s.

[Nethemas the Great]

That's not really true. GM does care. They care because electric vehicles have fewer moving parts that wear out and require replacing. GM has been accused of sabotaging the EV1 for that very reason. US auto manufacturers didn't get a reputation for building pieces of crap for no reason. The dealer service as well as the parts industry were where the US car companies made their money. It hasn't been until more recent times--after Japan started becoming a very serious threat to the US market in spite significant import tariffs due to their well recognized reliability compared to American brands--that quality and reliability were made a priority. Despite this new priority however, much of the legacy business remained (what do you think much of the bankruptcy B.S. was about).

Re:They did this in the 90s.

[operagost]

Just buy a Government Motors Volt and leave us alone, OK? It's funded by money stolen from the American taxpayers and their retirement accounts. Should be great!

Re:They did this in the 90s.

[MobyDisk]

A lot of this is perspective...

GM caught a lot of flak for how it behaved after the law was repealed (destroying all EV1s), but they weren't the root cause despite what popular documentaries say.

GM did a lot of other things to make the EV1 look bad. They probably had some valid reasons - the car was expensive to build, and battery technology was not where it is today, although it isn't that far different.

In the documentary Who Killed the Electric Car? they interview a man who was a higher-up assigned to the EV1 project. Throughout the documentary, he points out ways that GM intentionally thwarted the project while assigning him to make it look like they were trying to promote the car but failing. I can't remember his name though.

...arguing that hybrid vehicles (powered by gas but with batteries to sustain them at idle and to enable regenerative braking)

They really argued for hydrogen-powered cars, which they knew then, and know now, are not going to happen any time soon. IMHO, their main goal was not to get time to innovate.

All the conspiracy theories about GM blocking the electric vehicle hinge on one assumption - that an electric vehicle is cost-competitive with gasoline vehicles right now.

True, but I think the comparison would be a lot more fair if you stop assuming that people need to transport 5 people and 200lbs of luggage 250 miles per trip. Gasoline cars can do that, and electric cars cannot. So you are right that they aren't apples-for-apples competitive.

if California wants to encourage new technologies by drafting legal requirements, then pulls a double-cross by dropping the requirements before companies can recoup the money spent creating those new technologies, why should the companies be obligated to let California benefit from said technologies?

I have to grant you this is a hell of a point - I never thought of it that way.

Re:They did this in the 90s.

[timeOday]

Have you ever watched Who Killed the Electric Car? They interviewed people from the GM team itself, who were pariahs within the larger company because GM did not want to go in that direction - they just wanted the whole thing to die. After helping kill the policies that would have created a market for the EV1, GM refused generous offers for the ones they had already built, repossessed them, and then smashed them into cubes.

Then Toyota came in with the Prius - also viewed by Detroit as an impractical science experiment sure to be rejected by the American Consumer - and Toyota proceeded to make tons of money on it.

Re:They did this in the 90s.

[afidel]

Dear god, the treasury loss on GM is estimated to be ~$8B or about $26 per person, stop the whining already. The defense department is planning to spend that much just to upgrade the software on the F22 and you don't see people droning on about that endlessly.

Re:They did this in the 90s.

[kurtras]

Actually, you're conflating the history of the GM EV1 and the Toyota RAV4 EV. The GM EV1s were indeed rounded up after their leases ended, and most went to the crusher (although a few ended up being sent to university research labs, and one went to the Smithsonian (where it is no longer on display, for reasons unknown)). The Toyota RAV4 EV, on the other hand, was initially only available as a leased vehicle, but in 2002 Toyota sold around 300 RAV4 EVs to purchasers in California, and those vehicles were sold with no strings attached. Many of the leased RAV4 EVs also ended up in private hands after their leases ended.

Re:They did this in the 90s.

[DragonWriter]

In 1990, California passed a law mandating that by a certain year (2000 I think), all manufacturers who wished to sell gasoline-powered cars in California also had to offer at least one ZEV (zero emissions vehicle). The only technology which fit the bill was electric. Most automakers complained, but GM went out and actually built the thing.

GM EV-1
Toyota RAV4 EV
Honda EVplus

GM wasn't the only one that actually built one.

As the deadline approached, the other auto manufacturers started to panic. They lobbied California asking for the deadline to be delayed.

In the real world, it wasn't just "other auto manufacturers", and it wasn't just lobbying. Automakers -- including GM -- sued California to invalidate the ZEV mandate. In fact, GM was the first automaker to file suit against the mandate.

The industry lawsuits -- and the support they received from the Bush Administration -- were what eventually led to the mandate being scrapped.

GM, which stood to make $billions licensing their technology from the EV1 to other auto manufacturers so they could comply with California law, basically had the rug pulled out from under them. They'd sunk $billions in R&D into the EV1 to comply with California's law, then they got screwed over when California basically said "never mind", and dropped the law without giving GM a chance to recoup their sunk costs. GM then essentially went on a temper tantrum, recalling and destroying all EV1s. Not altogether unjustified either - if California wants to encourage new technologies by drafting legal requirements, then pulls a double-cross by dropping the requirements before companies can recoup the money spent creating those new technologies, why should the companies be obligated to let California benefit from said technologies?

Yeah, GM was double-crossed when California did exactly what GM was trying to force California to due through legal action.

How's that again?

Re:They did this in the 90s.

[mattack2]

Why isn't the Nissan Leaf "where [it] need[s] to be for mass-adoption"?

Re:They did this in the 90s.

[c6gunner]

Because it costs $32,000, and you can get a comparable vehicle from Kia for $13,000? Even if we include the tax-breaks, which bring it down to $25,000, and if we assume that it runs on free magic pixie dust, that's still $12,000 you could spend on fuel, or roughly 12,000 liters at current prices in North America. That means you'd have to drive 180,000 kilometers just to break even.

Of course, if we scrap the government subsidy and include the price of electricity, the figures look far, FAR worse. And that's without even bothering to discuss the technical limitations, such as it's limited range, or the battery-drainage issues during our winters here in Canada.

Now, for European markets it starts to look a bit more attractive due to their high fuel prices, but even there it's a hefty investment. Likewise, if the fuel prices here double overnight and then continue to climb, I might think about getting an EV a bit earlier than planned. But for the moment, they don't come close to competing with non-electrics.

I guess both of these vehicles technically are ready for mass adoption, for some definitions of "mass". There are plenty of people with money to spend who care enough about looking green to be willing to pay the difference. But they're a limited market, and I'm certainly not one of them. Once the leaf reaches a sub-20k price tag, and the volt gets down to under $25,000, then they'll be ready for the average consumer. And I'll gladly get one myself (the volt, that is - I need the range). Until then ... no thanks.

Re:They did this in the 90s.

[Coren22]

Don't forget to include the near zero maintenance expense, they said it only needs occasional brake work due to regenerative braking.

Re:They did this in the 90s.

[c6gunner]

Meh. The battery pack will need replacing or reconditioning, which alone sucks up enough money to make up for the reduction in other maintenance costs. And there WILL be a lot of costs that are similar to normal vehicles, like, for instance, tire changes, balancing, alignment, suspension, control-arms, wipers, lights, glass, etc. At best you can hope to save maybe $1,800 over the life of the vehicle by eliminating oil changes and air-filter changes. Assuming you reduce brake and rotor changes by 75%, you could save another $1200 - $2400, but somehow I can’t see one set of pads and rotors lasting for 200,000 km’s, regardless of how much the regenerative breaking might help.

I accept your point as valid for the moment, but it's worth noting that the costs associated with EV ownership are just a guess at this point. Some of the most expensive repairs I've seen have been "electrical issues", because they're a pain to diagnose and can involve replacing large runs of wiring. I think that the overall difference in maintenance / repair costs will turn out to be minimal, but it would be nice to be proven wrong.

Re:They did this in the 90s.

[Coren22]

The real maintenance costs that pretty much don't happen anymore are engine and transmission. Even manual transmissions with thier much lower maintenance costs still cost a pretty good chunk to keep running, clutch costs around $2000 to replace and can last anywhere from 20k to 100k miles. Engines are very expensive to replace as well at around $7000 if it needs to be replaced, or minor costs of oil, belts, hoses and starter. But I do agree with battery replacement being expensive, though even that can be benificial, battery technology has changed much even with the supression of the electric cars, we now get 100-300 miles out of a battery which weighs less then the EV1 originally had (50-100 miles)

I look forward to the day that a batter pack replacement will put a battery in your car to get you 500 miles on a charge, and it will cost $2k. I can see this happening within 10 years with the way the tech is moving forward.

Not new.

[commodore64_love]

Toyota had a Rav4 EV back in the 2002-2005 timeframe (approximately). So this is merely a reintroduction of a discontinued model.

Back then ACEEE.org ranked the Rav4 EV as equal to a Prius or Civic Hybrid in cleanliness, but 8% dirtier than the Insight hybrid and Civic CNG cars.

Re:Not new.

[h4rr4r]

The old RAV 4EV was available from 1997 to 2003.

Re:Not new.

[mlts]

I wonder how a diesel would rate on the scale. Europe has a lot of hyper-efficient turbo diesels on the roads there with MPG equal or better than hybrids.

Re:Not new.

[MightyYar]

MPG

This is a useless measure for diesels when comparing to gasoline.

Diesel is more energy dense, so even a diesel with exactly the same efficiency as a gasoline engine will get a better MPG figure.

Diesels are more efficient than gasoline engines in general, and they tend to be more durable. The durable is because they are built heavier to withstand the higher pressures, so they tend to be much heavier. Thus you need a bigger engine to attain the same performance.

Now I'm rambling - my point is that it is very hard to compare diesels with gasoline engines on a 1:1 basis. Very few (any?) car companies offer a diesel that compares in performance and handling to their gasoline variant. And the ones that come very close (BMW) charge a huge premium for the diesel version.

Re:Not new.

[rolfwind]

I seriously don't know why the car companies go after the diesel electric model trains use (not to be confused with hybrid, as the engine isn't solely there to make electricity but has the added complexity of being coupled to the driveshaft along with the electrical motor).

It would fix the range issues and be more efficient (they wouldn't even need to use a diesel motor...) overall.

I know most green nuts who spring for something like this demand purity in their smug so even a tiny combustion motor is anathema to them, but imo, it's a lot better than lugging tons of batteries around plus the strip mining it would require.

Re:Not new.

[mlts]

You aren't rambling; you have a bunch of good points. It would be nice to see diesel alternatives here in the US, other than on the super duty trucks.

Another advantage is that diesel engines have fewer parts. For example, no spark plugs. Yes, glow plugs need to be replaced, but nowhere near as often, and they are not as critical to basic function of the engine.

Yet another advantage is that diesel fuel is relatively stable. Gasoline absorbs water turning into a nasty acid, and otherwise decomposes after a period of time. Because diesel is an oil, water doesn't mix with it.

The ideal would be a diesel hybrid. This way, at idle (stoplight), fuel isn't being consumed.

Re:Not new.

[Skal Tura]

yeah with probably new drivetrain as it's tesla drivetrain...

Re:Not new.

[commodore64_love]

Yeah that's nice. Diesel MPG and gasoline MPG is not comparable. 100% agreed. Now to answer the grandparent's question:

- The Diesel Jetta and Gulf and A3 have a score of 43, which is 8% below the Prius and Civic hybrids, but equal to the cleanest gasoline cars (like the Yaris or Fit). So you can feel confident that your model year 2009 or 10 TDI is one of the cleanest cars on the road.

Re:Not new.

[Skal Tura]

and let's not forget that Diesel is actually way more costly fuel than gasoline, if it would not be tax subsidized so often. Also diesel is A LOT dirtier, and part of the high premium comes from the things they do to get emissions down. Not only is diesel emissions by nature higher, but the emissions are also more dangerous, higher output of more dangerous particles.

Diesel is near regular car performance nowadays, but only because they are so highly tuned, basicly a diesel without a turbo is useless. Diesel requires turbo just to reach the gasoline naturally aspirated engine performance characteristics. That's also why you usually see bigger diesel engines for a model than gasoline.

Only thing where diesel is good for is torque. Sometimes this benefit is utilized and you get cars with consumption of 4L/100km of diesel or even less, translating to some epicly cheaper driving.

Re:Not new.

[h4rr4r]

It is not much more expensive and is not that much dirtier when using newer diesel engine technology.

Re:Not new.

[skids]

Diesel PZEV's died off in the U.S. due to regulations around emissions and diesel sulfur content at the pump. There was legislative churn/unpredicatbility and so the manufacturers were left not knowing whether they would need the expensive exhaust system needed to reach PZEV standards or not, depending on whether the U.S. did or did not require low-sulfur diesel.

In the U.S., without a PZEV label, an eco-car likely won't sell. Also the tax structure for diesel in Europe is more favorable, and the American consumer much more likely to balk at the price-tag difference without bothering to do the math on the gas and decreased maintanence costs (brakes last longer, simpler transmission, no starter motor, etc.) because gas is relatively cheaper here.

For many of the same reasons hybrids aren't very popular in Europe -- most there would prefer they use diesel.

Ergo, there are hybrid diesels, including the Prius, headed to market in Europe but not in the U.S. (and a smattering of pre-production models already tooling around in leased fleets.)

Re:Not new.

[xaxa]

Possibly it's less efficient. A railway locomotive needs very high torque to start a multi-thousand tonne train -- hence the need for electric motors. A car doesn't need this, so there's no point making an extra energy conversion.

Re:Not new.

[MaWeiTao]

The catch is that those efficient diesels also feature extremely small displacements, are low on power and are normally coupled to subcompact cars. By subcompact I mean the Honda Fit, Toyota Yaris, VW Polo and others. Size is one issue. A microcar is great if you're single, but even Europeans buy larger cars when they have families. But even those cars come with small engines, much smaller than what's available in the US in a comparable car.

And that gives rise to a second, and probably larger, problem. Americans are spoiled by horsepower. From the perspective of the average person in Europe a sport car is one that will hit 100km/h in 8 - 9 seconds. In the US it's 6 - 7 seconds and there are some who already consider that to be on the lower side. Your average fuel efficient vehicle in the states hits 100km/h in 8 or 9 seconds, in Europe the average is closer to 12 seconds, and a lot of cars are slower.

For your average American driver, regardless of their driving ability or how often they mash the throttle, that's slow. It's a sluggishness you definitely feel when you've been spoiled by the performance of the average car available in America. It's the sort of thing that's apparently when you're doing 70mph - 80mph on the highway and the engine is screaming at 4000rpms.

Some of these issues aren't as pronounced with diesel engines, but you're still looking at slow cars. The whole appeal of hybrids is that you get a bit of a compromise. Drivers can have a more practical car, slightly better performance but still enjoy improved fuel economy, even if it's a marginal improvement in a lot of cases.

Re:Not new.

[nschubach]

I believe the only Diesel vehicles available in the US are heavy duty trucks, VWs, Audi (same thing) and Mercedes. There are small cars, but nothing of significance in the real "meat" of the car market here. (SUV, Light truck, Mid Size) Disclaimer: I have not looked recently... I was trying to find out if someone made a diesel vehicle I wanted to drive a few years back and was left wanting.

Re:Not new.

[h4rr4r]

You could ditch the whole transmission and all the losses that go with it. Also it seems like you could get quite good towing capacity in a pickup.

Re:Not new.

[mcgrew]

Gasoline absorbs water turning into a nasty acid, and otherwise decomposes after a period of time. Because diesel is an oil, water doesn't mix with it.

No, but there's a species of fungus that thrives in Diesel fuel tanks, and if you're unlucky enough to get some of that fuel, you're going to have to replace your engine, fuel tank, fuel lines, and fuel pump. Far worse than getting gasoline with water in it; burning old gasoline stinks, but it won't ruin your engine or fuel system.

Re:Not new.

[mlts]

The reason for this is that during the 1980s, Mercedes inundated the US market with smelly, slow turbo diesel cars. Because of the pollution they produced, and the fact that people would drive on breakdown lanes to get around those stench-belchers, it got ingraned in the American mind that diesel == slow and stinky.

Which is ironic. The Ford F250s and other heavy duty vehicles use diesel and nobody ever complains these days about them.

Now, if we can get some twin turbo diesel engines for midsize/fullsize rides (Camries, Accords, Tauruses), I'm sure this will go a way towards better MPG, even with the added weight of the diesel engine.

More diesels is better than the other thing I'm seeing here in the US, and that is a quiet push for more ethanol consumption. Especially proposals to change the amount of ethanol in gasoline from 10% to 15%. Larger vehicles don't mind E85, but woe to the person who fills up their Honda with the stuff.

Re:Not new.

[Carewolf]

Sorry you _are_ rambling... Diesel is cheaper than gasolin. It is only more expensive in the US, properbly because so little is sold of it screwing up the quantity part of import and sales. Also while it used to be more dirty (having more micro-particles), this is a problem that has been solved for more than 20 years, and are required in all European cars (ships though are still unfiltered and dirty!). So having higher MPG and producing less CO2 per mile, it is currently much cleaner than gasolin. The problem is expensive engines, that perform better than gasolin below 100km/h, but worse at speeds higher than 100km/h unless you have a turbo on it.

Re:Not new.

[FrameRotBlues]

It wasn't only Mercedes. In the mid to late 70s just after the oil crisis, GM tried converting their 5.7L gas engine into a diesel and selling them in the 1/2 ton pickups and even Cadillacs, IIRC. They were difficult to start, especially for the "get in and turn the key" crowd, and prone to reliability issues as well. This diesel learning curve that car manufacturers went through put a sour taste in American mouths, one that still lingers and that American car manufacturers are not likely to forget any time soon.

Re:Not new.

[ArsonSmith]

everybody complains about the ford F-250 6.0 and 6.4L as they are mechanically unsound.

Re:Not new.

[FrameRotBlues]

As the guy below me mentions, you can remove all the parasitic friction associated with transmissions and bearings and universal joints and constant velocity joints. Also, automobiles are a fairly direct (even if not truly parallel) representation of the issues faced: a large mass that needs lots of energy to be accelerated, and once moving at speed, requires much less energy to remain moving.

Many car manufacturers brag about how much horsepower an engine has, but really, the only time you use anything close to that amount of energy is on acceleration. With speed limits, that amounts to about 10 seconds of 90% power usage, and the rest of the time cruising uses 25% of the total power capacity. Guess what? Batteries and a small 30 horsepower generator fit that bill really, really well. It takes much less fuel to run a 30 HP diesel continuously than it does to accelerate a 100 HP diesel. Even with multiple stops and starts, over the average drive cycle the engine will have no problem replenishing the batteries.

IMHO, this is truly the way to go when it comes to serial hybrids.

Re:Not new.

[afidel]

BMW doesn't charge a huge premium for their diesels and if you look at something like the X1 and compare the available engine's there is a LOT more than a ~11% difference in MPG (gas is 34.8MJ/L, diesel 38.6). The X1 25i is actually more expensive than the 23D but the 23D has WAY more torque and almost the same HP (40% more and 5% less) yet the diesel has 40% better fuel economy (5.2L/100km vs 7.2)

Re:Not new.

[TooMuchToDo]

Diesel is more expensive in the US because we have a low-sulfur requirement now, which is more expensive for refineries to produce.

Re:Not new.

[afidel]

BMW x1 20D, 41MPG(US), 0-61 8.4 seconds. 260lb/ft of torque on a 3,500lb car so plenty peppy when pressing the gas down. I can't wait till they go one sale in ~14 months here in the US.

Re:Not new.

[AshtangiMan]

There's an Indian auto company that is supposedly going to sell a small diesel pickup in the US (already sells it in India of course). Can't remember the company name, but the truck is the "Taj Mahauler" which made me snort. I'd really like a small (think old Datsun) diesel pickup that was cheap.

Re:Not new.

[j_sp_r]

I just spent some months in the south and people drive slow here. I don't mean top speed, but they accelerate like grandma's from the traffic light and take ages to hit normal speeds. When I'm in front and accelerate in a normal way, I'm 400m in front of everyone. Yet everyone drives 6.0L trucks and 3L sedans (also, automatics suck because they shift down and use loads of petrol when you accelerate normal instead of grandma mode)

Re:Not new.

[jo_ham]

VW's TDIs are pretty damn close, performance wise, to equivalent petrol engines of the same displacement, and they are more than a match for the lazy, inefficient petrol engines in most US cars that are 30% to 50% bigger, especially when they're mated to a horrible, horrible slushmatic.

The TDI in the car my father drives (a minivan) is 50mpg, 150bhp, 2.0 litre displacement, accelerates with a decent punch (0-60 in 8.9s, remember it is a minivan, not a sports car) and is as refined as the petrol model. It doesn't "scream at 4000rpm" at 70mph on the highway - it cruises quite nicely at 85 mph at about 2500-3000. The beauty of gear ratios, and a decent box (it has a 6 speed manual - we live in a society where we have the freedom to choose what gear we're in. Just kidding, but seriously, auto boxes are annoying.

So, to me, an "average person in Europe" a car that will do 0-60 in 8 to 9 seconds is not a sports car, it's a family diesel minivan. I know, because my father owns one. So do I, although it is not a 150hp version.

My own minivan, a Xsara Picasso, has the same displacement (2.0 litres) but the HDi it has is tuned a little differently - it has a mere 90 bhp, but it cruises like a liner. I didn't get it for performance. It does, however, accelerate nicely when I need it, since it has tons and tons of torque. The engine in my father's VW minivan has almost twice the power (for the same displacement) and barely suffers in the fuel economy compared to mine (I get 54 mpg with my normal driving style). Their engine is small and light too - a benefit of advanced materials tech these days. No longer do you have to build a massive lump to contain the high pressures. No longer do you have to choose a high boosting, but laggy turbo or a more responsive but lower power one. We have high pressure common rail injection now, lighter materials, better engine management, starting even in the very cold (the achilles heel of old diesels).

It's come a long way over here, in the part of the world where the government doesn't subsidise the gasoline prices. In the same time frame, US petrol engines have barely changed - hopeless lumps, masking their awfulness by throwing extra, unnecessary displacement as a cure for poor overall performance, and hopeless automatic boxes.

Build an engine well, and design it properly and you don;t need to make a 3.0 litre unit for a 4 door family sedan. Mitsubishi got 400 bhp from a 2 litre petrol engine (WRX World Rally Cars are limited to 2 litre displacement) which is clearly extreme and has compromises [the turbo lag really is ridiculous and the clutch is a nightmare], but you can get perfectly decent performance in the middle with a little... evolution.

Re:Not new.

[afidel]

Strictly due to tax policy, and thanks to a lack of world refining capacity it will probably go up significantly in the next few years.

Re:Not new.

[MightyYar]

You aren't rambling; you have a bunch of good points.

Hey, thanks! :)

Yet another advantage is that diesel fuel is relatively stable.

It's also easier to make from biological sources. On the negative side, it gels up in the cold.

The ideal would be a diesel hybrid.

Hybrids already shut off the gasoline engine at idle. Hybrids also already have this immensely heavy and expensive battery pack... adding a diesel engine on top of that would really present a challenge to the engineers who are responsible for the cost and handling of the car! Then again, no one is buying a hybrid for the economics of it.

Re:Not new.

[MightyYar]

So you can feel confident that your model year 2009 or 10 TDI is one of the cleanest cars on the road.

I thought they had issues with NOx emissions?

In fact, when I look on the ACEEE web site, it says:

Diesel-powered vehicles are highly efficient. Why don't I see them in your "Greenest Vehicles" list?

It is still an open question whether diesel engines can be made clean enough at a competitive price to extensively exploit their efficiency advantage in the U.S. market. Most of the diesels on the market, such as Volkswagen's Jetta TDI (turbocharged direct-injection), score "Inferior" in Green Book ratings even though they are more fuel-efficient than their gasoline counterparts. The Jetta 1.9-liter TDI diesel automatic rates 35 MPG in the city and 42 MPG on the highway, for an overall average of 38 MPG. That's about 35 percent better than the 28 MPG average for the Jetta with a 2.0-liter gasoline engine. But the diesel version is certified to a standard that allows it to emit, for every mile driven, more than eight times the amount of nitrogen oxide (NOx) emitted by the gasoline-powered Jetta, which now qualifies as a Tier 2 bin 5 vehicle in the majority of the country.

Automakers are working to clean up the diesel vehicle. For example, Ford is developing a version of the Focus sedan that uses advanced control technologies targeted to meet California's ULEV II standards. It has equipped its laboratory test car with a special NOx clean-up device in which a solution of urea in water is sprayed on the catalyst to selectively reduce NOx from the exhaust stream. The vehicle also has a catalytic, soot-trapping filter to remove fine particles. Widespread use of such systems is still some years away, particularly if a new chemical such as urea needs to be widely distributed along with ultra-clean diesel fuel. Engineers at Ford and other companies trying to slash diesel emissions are making up for lost time, since today's gasoline engines benefit from over three decades of experience with ever-tighter pollution standards.

Re:Not new.

[MightyYar]

if you look at something like the X1

Well, I wasn't able to do that, since there is no X1 in the US and the UK website has it available only in diesel. But a person worried about handling wouldn't really be looking at a truck, right? So I pulled up the 3-series on the British website. They offer only one "petrol" engine: the 318i, which gives (a quite horrendous) 9.1 seconds for 0-62MPH. My minivan beats that by a second! But I digress...

Anyway, the diesel that matches just the 0-60 time is the 318d. The cost difference is 2570 pounds, or about US $4100. At $3/gallon, that's a lot of gas! At the stated 37.3 MPG, I could go almost 51k miles on that gas.

But assuming that you are doing it for the environmental benefits, the gasoline engine outputs 146g/km of CO2 vs the diesel's 119g/km - so that's pretty significant. Presuming you keep the car for 200,000 km you'll save 5400kg of carbon from entering the atmosphere. Of course, 3 tonnes of carbon credits can be purchased for about $50, so perhaps buying a diesel won't get you your money's worth there :)

Even so, if I were forced to buy such a slow car, I'd get the diesel. Tiny, rev-happy gasoline engines are not charming.

Re:Not new.

[afidel]

None of the best selling cars in the US (except the Accord coupe) can do 0-60 in under 8.4 seconds so I think most people will be quite happy with the performance. The X1 also has the best handling in an SUV (it's basically a 3 series wagon with higher ride height). Oh and I plan to keep mine for at least 200k miles so the gas savings should be significant =)

I have to drive and I'd like 4WD due to the winters around here so I might as well get the vehicle that best accomplishes those two goals while having the least impact on the environment.

Re:Not new.

[maeka]

Wrong.
The current EU standard is 50ppm, with the 10ppm standard on the horizon.
The US standard is 15ppm since 2007, was an ungodly 500ppm prior to that.

Re:Not new.

[isopropanol]

Look at the pictures. This version is NOTHING like the old version. The old version was a small jeep; this is a small station wagon.

Re:Not new.

[RMH101]

I don't know how they tested a Jetta 1.9TDI and got mileage that poor out of it. I've a VAG 1.9TDI PD130 engine in my Skoda Superb (basically a stretched VW Passat - 5m long and 2 tonnes) and it gets over 50mpg with no problem whatsoever. I've seen 55 on long runs, and regularly get 43 commuting in gridlock.
The urea treatment and diesel particulate filter is common in all Euro 4 diesels - all Euro diesels sold now do this AFAIK.
VW also has the "Bluemotion" line (slightly taller gearing, better aero, lower rolling resistance tyres) variants of most of their diesels that'll do even better MPG - the Polo will do 70mpg on conventional diesel.

As an aside, anyone who thinks diesels are dirty, slow or smelly should sit in an Audi A4 3.0TDI or a BMW 330d.

Re:Not new.

[MightyYar]

None of the best selling cars in the US (except the Accord coupe) can do 0-60 in under 8.4 seconds

I don't know where you live, but BMW is a premium brand in the US. People wouldn't bother with BMW if it pushed 10 seconds just to get up to highway speed. As I said, even my lowly Toyota minivan can best the English 3-series. They must be doing this for fuel economy? Also, when you said "top 10", I think you only counted base engines and included the trucks.

I might as well get the vehicle that best accomplishes those two goals while having the least impact on the environment.

I certainly can't fault you for that :)

Re:Not new.

[MightyYar]

t gets over 50mpg with no problem whatsoever

I'm presuming you are British? In that case, your gallons are bigger than ours! So 55 MPG in the UK is a hair under 46 in the US. Still very good, just by different standards :)

As an aside, anyone who thinks diesels are dirty, slow or smelly

I never said that :) Well, they are slow compared to an equal-cost gas engine. Spend a couple of grand to fancy it up, and the performance is good. Of course, that same money could be spent on the gas engine...

Re:Not new.

[GooberToo]

The primary reason they went down that path is that they could no longer create a reliable transmission which could handle the torque of the ever more powerful engines. Once they realized they could achieve greater torque on low RPMs without the cost and weight of a transmission, the industry found a new direction.

Re:Not new.

[commodore64_love]

>>>I thought they had issues with NOx emissions?

You're correct. They HAD issues with NOx emissions but not anymore. The US EPA mandated sulfur-free diesel which allows VW, Ford, Audi to use the same catalytic converters gasoline cars use. They neutralize the NOx to ULEV levels.
.

>>>"Diesel-powered vehicles are highly efficient. Why don't I see them in your "Greenest Vehicles" list?"

They are. Several times.
This is an outdated FAQ.
.

Re:Not new.

[commodore64_love]

>>>Also diesel is A LOT dirtier

Then how come VW and Audi have diesel cars in the top 20 at www.greenercars.org? You would be correct in your statement if this was year 2000, but diesels have made progress since then and now have emissions equal to ULEV. Some manufacturers like Ford claim their diesels could even meet SULEV levels, if the CA air resource board demanded it.

Re:Not new.

[drinkypoo]

Your minivan needs more power than a commuter car. There hasn't been a non-M 3-series worth buying in a long while, they're made like dookie. M, 5, or bust. Lately I've been seeing even 5 series real cheap... actually, used car prices are in the toilet right now in general, makes me wish I didn't have two cars already.

Tiny, rev-happy gasoline engines are a peach! Though I choose diesel anyway. Ideally either one has a turbo; indeed, I won't drive a diesel without one. I drove a Nissan Almera (some kind of Sentra) in Panama with a 1.6 liter engine, ran on basic unleaded, came buckled to a slush box, and it had power to burn. I'm of the opinion that no one makes a finer four banger than Nissan, although Subaru is a strong contender and I might change my mind tomorrow. All you need is lots of gears and a nice low rear. My 240SX had a 4.08:1 diff and a gear-limited top speed of 124, which let me beat most anything not highly modified off the line given the 5-link (and Koni Yellows...) :) And I had nothing in the engine. I like to push a slow car to moderate speeds, not go super fast. Speed kills. Maybe I'll get enough budget to spend time on a track someday though :)

Re:Not new.

[drinkypoo]

Let's hope their implementation turns out to be better than the six liter powerstroke, which tow guys tell me is the truck they pick up the most. Maybe that's just because this is Ford country though.

Re:Not new.

[mlts]

IIRC, the diesel fuel particulate laws are stricter here in the US than abroad, a blowback from the Mercedes turbo diesels which could evacuate a city block with their sulphur belching.

Re:Not new.

[mlts]

I keep wondering about just having a beefed up starter that can propel the vehicle for a small distance. This would take some engineering because of the cooling and added stresses, but this would be a lot easier to do than completely re-engineer a vehicle like the Prius or Insight.

This way, when idle, the ICE engine is off, but the car can be moved forward on the starter motor (similar to how you get a manual Jeep that is stalled off of train tracks).

Re:Not new.

[MightyYar]

I keep wondering about just having a beefed up starter that can propel the vehicle for a small distance

That's sort of how the Ford/Toyota hybrid systems work, IIRC. The "starter"/motor/generator is put in-line with the regular engine and serves all three functions.

Re:Not new.

[MightyYar]

I never said that diesels weren't more efficient, and you are right on your reasons. Add to your list a lack of intake restriction (throttle plate). This doesn't make them light or cheap or easy to control their emissions, though.

Here in the US diesel is more expensive than gas, why?

Lots of reasons.
- It competes with heating oil.
- There is high demand from trucks and trains.
- We get lots of crappy Venezuelan oil and the like that needs to be "cracked" whether you make it into gas or diesel, so the refining isn't really any cheaper in many cases.
- It is more energy-dense than gasoline, and thus uses up more crude per gallon.
- Refineries balance their product mix to maximize profit, not to equalize the price of gas and diesel.

Re:Not new.

[MightyYar]

This is an outdated FAQ.

I just googled their site and you are right, the information is obsolete. It looks like they control NOx emissions with a urea solution.

Sounds expensive (the equipment, not the liquid) :)

Re:Not new.

[MightyYar]

Tiny, rev-happy gasoline engines are a peach!

I actually managed just fine with my old '99 Saturn SC1 with a manual "gearbox" and a smoking 99 HP. It got nearly 40MPG, too!

Re:Not new.

[drinkypoo]

My 1993 Subaru Impreza LS weighed 2750 and had ~101bhp. I put WRX wheels and nice rubber on it and nothing else and it was an absolute rocket in the canyons.

Re:Not new.

[RMH101]

Good point, yep, I'm in the UK and we have bigger gallons (that's a first, I thought everything was bigger in America!). I called it an aside as you didn't say that, but a lot of US opinion on diesels seems to think this.
In terms of cost, a UK spec diesel might cost a bit more than a petrol engined version. However, the economy is way greater, and despite the fact that diesel is slightly more expensive here than petrol (I paid 1.23 UKP a litre last night vs 1.17 UKP for 99 RON petrol) I'm getting 50mph compared to 30mph in a 1.8T petrol version. Do a few hundred miles a month and it makes a noticeable difference, plus my 50-70 times are *way* quicker than the petrol and I get max torque at 2.5k revs...

Re:Not new.

[badkarmadayaccount]

Ever heard of fungicide?

Re:Not new.

[mcgrew]

Fungicide stops it from growing, but it won't clean up the goop it leaves behind.

Re:Not new.

[badkarmadayaccount]

Dismount everything and steam pressure blast?

Can't wait!

[maillemaker]

I was very excited about the Chevy Volt, but at $40K that's too expensive for me.

The Nisan Leaf sounds nice, too, but I'm scared to buy a car that can only go 100 miles on a charge.

Re:Can't wait!

[PolygamousRanchKid]

The Nisan Leaf sounds nice, too, but I'm scared to buy a car that can only go 100 miles on a charge.

It can go farther . . . you have to push it, though.

Re:Can't wait!

[commodore64_love]

Hybrid is the way to go. The ones with 40mpg or better mileage (i.e. Prius, Civic, Insight) are ranked by greenercars.org to be just as clean (or cleaner) as the EVs. All of them qualify as both SULEV and PZEV.

Another option is the new "clean diesel" cars from Volkswagen and Ford - model years 2008 and later - which run on sulfur-free fuel and near-zero NOx emissions. Some models (not all) also have particulate traps to eliminate soot and typically get > 50mpg.

Re:Can't wait!

[oldspewey]

Why would you want to post something that's less convincing to slashdot than a well supported argument?

Re:Can't wait!

[atrain728]

TFA indicates that this'll be going about 100 miles on a charge.

Seems that 100 miles on a charge is something of a sweet spot between cost of battery and common user acceptability. Or at least thats what I assume their marketing data indicated.

Re:Can't wait!

[GodfatherofSoul]

The Volt really irks me. The prototype was beautiful in a Art Deco sci-fi kind of way. Then, the accountants got a hold of the design and turned it into a classic "sporty" chick sedan. I was most definitely looking to get it, but after I saw they turned it into a Honda Civic I got turned off.

Re:Can't wait!

[commodore64_love]

The Diesel Jetta and Gulf and A3 have a score of 43, which is 8% below the Prius and Civic hybrids, and equal to the cleanest gasoline cars (like the Yaris or Fit).

Re:Can't wait!

[commodore64_love]

Say what? How is the EV/gasoline Volt worse for the environment? If you're talking about the batteries, I think they are NiMH which is environmentally-neutral and can even be tossed in a landfill (no hazardous chemicals).

Re:Can't wait!

[Mongoose Disciple]

Hybrid is the way to go. The ones with 40mpg or better mileage (i.e. Prius, Civic, Insight) are ranked by greenercars.org to be just as clean (or cleaner) as the EVs

Hmm... but what if I like the idea of the Volt because I hate buying gas (and have a short enough commute) and not because I love the environment?

Re:Can't wait!

[Mashiki]

Most batteries are pre-manufactured china, made with nickle from Canada, transported to japan for post-manufacturing, then transported back to North America or Europe for final installation.

Re:Can't wait!

[h4rr4r]

Remind me again when I can buy a diesel Golf or A3. Have never seen on in the states.

Is the A3 aluminum like the A2 was? That would be great around here, no more salt eating the car each winter.

Re:Can't wait!

[Mashiki]

Why would you bother to do your own research and find out that I'm right. In /. where opinions are mostly set in stone, even with a well supported argument.

Re:Can't wait!

[h4rr4r]

Transporting a 5lb bag of potatoes by ship from China to the USA uses less energy than cooking them. Ship transport is very efficient.

Re:Can't wait!

[h4rr4r]

I think that had more to do with reality and aerodynamics. No point in going for a hybrid with the aerodynamics of a brick wall.

Re:Can't wait!

[Rei]

Let's deconstruct.

1) The batteries used are non-cobalt li-ion. *These* are the type that you can just throw in a landfill (you can't with NiMH).

2) The "Nickel from Canada" line is part of an old myth. Most of the nickel used in NiMH batteries doesn't come from the Sudsbury mines any more.

3) Pretty much *every* part of *every* car nowadays gets shipped all over the world at least once. Why should we weigh the environmental consequences for shipping batteries or battery parts more than for, say, a transmission or steel for the chassis?

4) Shipping is a small fraction of the energy consumption of auto manufacture, which in turn is a small fraction of the lifetime energy usage of a vehicle.

Re:Can't wait!

[Rei]

It was changed not because of "accountants", but because the drag coefficient was a disaster. Giant stub-nose, wasted hood space that could be used for a slope, sharp corners at the windshield and A-pillars, a wasted opportunity for a Kammback, and huge absurd wheel wells.

Keeping the drag down is extremely important in early EVs. They never should have given it over to "designers" first. Engineers should go first, designers go *second*. That is, you have the engineers tell you what shape the car needs to be in order to meet your operating requirements, and then designers make that shape pretty without ruining its aerodynamics. But that's backwards from how it's usually done.

Re:Can't wait!

[Skal Tura]

lol NiMH, yeaaaaah right.

The battery you usually have in a car is a NiMH, when is the last time you tried to lift it?
They usually weight 12 to 18kg for a 12V 60Ah battery, which probably cannot give out more than 30A without significant drop in voltage. Even the best ones (those which costs close to 10x of cheapo) can only give out around 65A sustained. There might exist NiMH car batteries which use other than 10S1P (10 serial, 1 parallel) cells, which can give out higher amperage sustained.

At 65A sustained without significant drop you get only 780W, so to get the required 78kW roughly for a regular modern sedan you need 100 of those, weighting 1200 to 1800kg. These being high quality probably costing 200e a piece would mean the batteries would cost 20 000euros, and because of their weight you need to make way larger car and probably triple up the output to come even close to same performance as gasoline car. You end up with a truck with a affordably priced sedan performance. They also need to be cooled, NiMh is very low efficiency battery and heats excruciatingly when high output is drawn (i've burn my fingers a few times when they got too hot)

Of course, more advanced NiMH and NiCD batteries DO exist, but they are prohibitively expensive, easily costing 20euros per a cell of 2-6Ah.

LiPo would be optimal for cars if it would not be for the volatility of them and they cannot function properly at cold temperatures (under 10C you loose output dramatically).
LiFe4 is rather new battery technology which looks promising for some applications.

LiIon is most likely candidate and this is what Tesla uses, and they use 11S 9S 69P setup for a total of 6831 cells to get the performance, and even with that setup the draw is so big that the batteries need to be cooled! And you know what heat is? It's loss in efficiency. NiMh would be just about 50x worse in this.

Even the tesla only stored 53kWh, and the batteries weigh in 450kg. Now imagine NiMH! LiIon has 100-250Wh/kg and NiMh has 30-80Wh/kg.

LiIon has also better cycle durability and lower self discharge rate. Downside in LiIon is that it's peak power output is quite low compared to other technologies (NiMh has higher). which is easy to counteract with smaller cells but more of them.

Li-Ion is not even particularly that good, if they can solve the LiPo problems things get interesting with 130-200Wh/kg but maximum power output (amperage) upto 7.1 times the next best.

Neither Li-Ion and LiPo seems to suffer from drastical voltage drop-off due to high draw.

Also afaik there is LiPo packs already in market which can do higher than 200Wh/kg.

LiIon is so widely used, thus cheapest to manufacture that using Li-Ion is a no brainer.

Re:Can't wait!

[daemonc]

Remind me again when I can buy a diesel Golf

Seriously? Just walk into just about any VW dealership, and say "I would like to buy a diesel Golf".
Or buy a used one like I did. The early 2000s models still get the best fuel economy, with many people seeing over 50 MPG combined highway/city.

We even have our own online clubs, where we share helpful tips on maintenance, repair, and improving your fuel economy and power: http://forums.tdiclub.com/

I know VW doesn't put a lot of marketing effort into the TDI line in the US, but damn... I'm amazed that someone who sounds genuinely interested in a fuel efficient vehicle doesn't even know they are available...

Re:Can't wait!

[Skal Tura]

or maybe we should just build sane cars. A early 80's model Nissan Cherry does ~5.5L/100Km (~47mpg), and it's a carburated engine.
A early 80's 1.3 carburated corolla does ~5l/100km. (RWD so less efficient to start with) (50mpg). With good condition engine, and precisely tuned it can go as low as 4L/100km, or 62mpg.
A modified early 80's corolla with a high tuned 1.6 twincam engine does 6-6.5l/100km. (40+mpg, RWD)
A 80s Nissan Bluebird 2.0 does about 7-8L/100km with a carburated engine in weakish condition.
A early 80's 1.6 corolla with twincarbs gets 8-9l/100km, and that kind of engine is known to have high consumption (bad tuning often, sometimes due how it's being used)

late 80s, early 90s BWM 316i can get also under 7l/100km.
Skoda Felicia late 80s (i think) can get 60mpg (diesel tho)
Renault Clio mid 80s can do ~4l/100km (60mpg) as well.
Peugeot 205 mid 80s can do about 45mpg or better.

First BMW M3 if i recall right does also about 7-9L/100km depending is it city or highway.

These are all based on personal experiences, not some marketing material or other bullshit. Some with multiple same type cars.

New hybrid is dirtier than driving your 50s buick until it breaks down too bad, even with the 10mpg, due to the costs related in building that car in the first place.

Re:Can't wait!

[h4rr4r]

I should have said, in NY state.
We and CA missed out on a lot of diesel cars in the early 2000s.

I will be checking out a golf tdi as soon as I get a chance. A jetta is too big for what I want.

Re:Can't wait!

[confused one]

Just carry a generator with you. Saw an example of an early DIY electric civic years ago... For extended range driving the guy would tow a small trailer containing a generator big enough to power the car running at highway speeds. A 2cyl engine doesn't use much fuel.

Re:Can't wait!

[oldspewey]

Dude, you're the one making assertions. It is therefore your responsibility to provide supporting evidence. I'm perfectly willing to have my opinion changed, but lazy drive-by sniping isn't going to cut it. Go do your homework.

Re:Can't wait!

[CAIMLAS]

That would be great around here, no more salt eating the car each winter.

No, that would still happen. You know how after the winter, you have to wash the white salt brine deposits off your vehicle body and there's rust around it? It'd be like that, except one of things would happen:

1) There'd still be 'white crap' - corroded Al.
2) It'd corrode silently, and you'd never notice the lack of metal until the vehicle collapses.

Observe: http://www.citizenarcane.com/files/2005/April/05/corroding_aluminum_i_beam.jpg

The nice thing about aluminum (as opposed to steels) is that it stress fractures more easily and doesn't bend all that well. Sure, that can happen with steel, but that tends to require a pre-existing crack. Aluminum is more than happy to fracture violently (especially when cold) in situations where steel would simply bend or buckle.

Re:Can't wait!

[timeOday]

First nitpick, the Volt is not a pure EV and can go 300 miles between refueling, so it works for long commutes too. Maybe you meant the Nissan Leaf.

Anyways, whether you save money depends on what happens to gas and electricity prices in the future, over the life of the car.

It costs $24,000 to fuel a 25 mpg car for 150K miles. That happens to be almost identical to the purchase price of a Nissan Leaf, after tax credits. So paying extra upfront for a more efficient car is not crazy. Whether and how much it will actually pay off, nobody knows for sure.

Re:Can't wait!

[TooMuchToDo]

I'm sorry that aerodynamic requirements don't fit your aesthetic views. File a bug report. =)

Re:Can't wait!

[vadim_t]

No, the normal car battery is lead-acid. NiMH has more than 3 times the energy density.

The reason they use lead acid in car batteries is that they're cheap and can provide a lot of power instantly.

Re:Can't wait!

[afidel]

BMW x1 20D does 5.1L/100km highway (5.8 combined) and is neither a death trap nor a clown car so we are making reasonable vehicles, they just aren't for sale in the US yet =)

Re:Can't wait!

[tftp]

Better yet, tell the designers to Fuck Off. Just once build a car to be a car, not a moving work of art, not some sort of juvenile expression of the driver, not some douche-bag status symbol, just put functional over all else.

Why a car should be any different from everything else that people produce and consume? Even such basics as water and food are status symbols, not even mentioning clothes, books, gadgets, music... You can go back to Neanderthals if you wish, it was true even then. Even some animals exhibit this trait.

Re:Can't wait!

[TheSync]

The early 2000s models still get the best fuel economy, with many people seeing over 50 MPG combined highway/city.

Diesel can't be compared with gasoline MPG. One barrel of crude oil, when refined, produces about 19 gallons of finished motor gasoline, but only 10 gallons of diesel.

Re:Can't wait!

[afidel]

Your cost estimate includes $4/gallon gas which is my own estimate for gas over the next 10 years but which certainly hasn't been the average for the last 10 so it's just now starting to work that way economically which when combined with technological progress is why we are just now seeing mass produced EV's.

Re:Can't wait!

[afidel]

The Emma Mærsk can carry ~154k metric tons while using only 66 gallons per mile meaning 406,000 gallons for Shanghai to San Francisco or ~2.7 gallons per ton which is ~.0012 gallons per lb, so yeah it probably takes more BTU's to boil the water to cook the potatoes.

Re:Can't wait!

[timeOday]

Agreed, except it's not just increasing gas prices making EVs viable, but also better EV technology. Look what's happened to battery density over the last 20 years. Sheesh, the EV1 was based on lead-acid batteries, which only have about 1/6 the specific energy (Wh/kg) of lithium-ion.

Re:Can't wait!

[afidel]

Definitely, along with much better intelligent chargers that allow for rapid charging without risking damage to the cells or electrodes.

Re:Can't wait!

[sempir]

Nope......you lost me there son! Care to have another try?

Re:Can't wait!

[commodore64_love]

>>>Remind me again when I can buy a diesel Golf or A3. Have never seen on in the states.

You have but you didn't realize it. If you don't notice the "TDI" symbol, you have no idea that a Diesel Passat, Jetta, Gold, A3, or Beetle just drove past you.

Re:Can't wait!

[commodore64_love]

>>>(you can't with NiMH).

Nickle
Metal
Hydride

So yes you can toss it into a landfill, because there is nothing in a NiMH battery that harms a landfill. (Unlike the cadmium in NiCads which poisons water.)

.

>>>They usually weight 12 to 18kg for a 12V 60Ah battery

I was talking about the 1*00 to 400 volt* battery in the trunk of the *hybrid* you dumbass, not the 12volt starter battery. God. Any idiot would realize this was what I was discussing. And yes it is a NiMH that is used by Honda, Toyota, and Ford in their hybrids.

Re:Can't wait!

[Rei]

1. Apparently you're not aware that nickel is toxic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel#Toxicity

And that it is *illegal* to throw NiMH batteries in with municipal waste (at least in the US).

2. I don't know where that quote on the second part of your post came from, but this is a discussion of *EVs*, not *Hybrids*. In particular, the article is about the new RAV4 EV (li-ion), and the GP mentioned the Volt (li-ion). EVs use li-ion; old-school hybrids use NiMH (next-gen hybrids are going to be on li-ion as well).

Re:Can't wait!

[KillboyPHD]

Diesel can't be compared with gasoline MPG. One barrel of crude oil, when refined, produces about 19 gallons of finished motor gasoline, but only 10 gallons of diesel.

One barrel of crude oil can be refined into 19 gallons of gasoline and 10 gallons of diesel. In addition to a bunch of other useful petroleum products. Its not like those 19 gallons of gasoline are somehow equivalent to 10 gallons of diesel.

Re:Can't wait!

[badkarmadayaccount]

Ever heard of capacitor packs? BTW, NiLi FTW!

Re:Can't wait!

[badkarmadayaccount]

I didn't know slashdot had designers, let alone ones with mod points.

Just Tesla

[mfear]

The only thing new and exciting here is the use of Tesla instead of other methods, if you find that new and exciting.

Re:Just Tesla

[skids]

I can't figure out whether it's just Tesla's electronics powering a toyota PM motor, or whether they are using the Tesla copper-squirrel-cage motor as well. Anyone know?

Re:Just Tesla

[NEDHead]

They are using A/C batteries

Re:Just Tesla

[h4rr4r]

Where do you get copper squirrels?

Re:Just Tesla

[Rei]

"Powered by Tesla" is a standard marketing gimmick. Company A is a well-established player. Company B is a new player. A and B want to work together. Because A has the bigger name, the product is clearly going to be branded as "A". But B wants their brand name out there as well.

The solution? "Powered by B".

Re:Just Tesla

[skids]

Tesla's drive motor is a copper squirrel.

On further reading it looks like the whole train including motor will be Tesla's design.

Re:Just Tesla

[skids]

Ugh. I'm humor impaired today.

Re:Just Tesla

[Skal Tura]

By sounds of it the Tesla motor is quite normal type brushless motor, nothing special. The efficiency % could even be increased from what it is. By the looks on it at the surface, there's something they could work on to gain higher efficiency.

Re:Just Tesla

[TooMuchToDo]

Tesla is supplying the entire drivetrain.

Re:Just Tesla

[afidel]

The Tesla motor is light, small, and fairly powerful, there aren't a lot of COTS motors with all three attributes (if there were Tesla wouldn't have sunk so much of their early R&D dollars into developing it).

Holy Editing Batman.

[h4rr4r]

Announced earlier this year as part of an ongoing partnership between Tesla Motors and Toyota the RAV4 EV promises to offer a modern take on the classic RAV4 EV which was built between 1007 and 2003 and for many years became a yard-stick by which all other EVs were measured.

Wow, the RAV4 EV was available before the Norman Conquest of England!

Re:Holy Editing Batman.

[Tekfactory]

From 1007 to the 1600s the RAV4 EV was a Palanquin carried by 4 Eta (unclean worker caste).

Eta Vehicle
Equine Vehicle 1600s
(Luminiferous) Ether Vehicle 1800s
Electric Vehicle 1900s

Re:Holy Editing Batman.

[istartedi]

Wow, the RAV4 EV was available before the Norman Conquest of England!

Do you see that? Next to the knight on that tapestry? It looks like a smudge. Zoom in. Enhance. A bit to the left, see that? Zoom in. Enhance. Enhance. Zoom in. There it is!

HighGear Media

[spun]

Good eye, those sights are both "Part of HighGear Media" according to the banner. HighGear appears to be "a vertical publishing company publishing more premium automotive content than anyone in the world through websites targeting key buyer and vehicle segments." according to their website. They have a "network of 100 plus owned and operated automotive websites, anchored by the TheCarConnection.com, currently reaches nearly 3 million in-market car shoppers a month. High Gear Media is building some of the fatest growing automotive destinations on the Web."

Fatest growing destinations on the web?

The amount of market blather on that site made my brain hurt. This whole thing smacks of SCO linkery-dickery. I guess I went down the wrong damn rabbit hole suggesting Toyota might be behind this.

Re:HighGear Media

[spun]

s/SCO/SEO

Re:HighGear Media

[MyLongNickName]

s/sights/sites

Re:HighGear Media

[spun]

Damn it. My brain ain't working good today.

Re:HighGear Media

[spun]

Thank you captain obvious for explaining my attempt at self deprecating humor.

Re:What's the big deal?

[h4rr4r]

1. Most cars are status symbols, look at SUVs for example.
2. Even the worst US coal plant is a lot cleaner than the ICE found in a car.

urcrazy

[urcrazy]

Can't wait to buy one !!! But i guess i need a huge garage to charge it first ~~

I like this approach

[GodfatherofSoul]

I think hybrid and electric vehicles should be all based on modifications to existing designs. Yes, you're hammering a square peg into a round hole, but I'd rather EV or hybrid technology be an option, not a car.

Re:I like this approach

[h4rr4r]

I would rather they sold cars with low Cd, rather than trying to always put form over function.

Re:I like this approach

[afidel]

Really low Cd cars are very expensive to produce because steel and aluminum are extremely hard to bend into smooth complex curves and of course you can't have much under the hood to get to the level of concept cars (boxer engines can help).

Re:I like this approach

[sincewhen]

But I am sure that by designing a vehicle from scratch as electric-only, you could make it a much better car.

For example, no need for a fuel tank or exhaust system means the floor pan at the rear can be much lower and flatter - giving more luggage space.

Electric offers the opportunity to rethink car design and make something different, and hopefully better (for some definitions of better).

Re:I like this approach

[robot256]

There's no point, man. It's cheaper to put in the extra development to improve efficiency than it is to make a suboptimal drop-in design with overcapacity to make up for it. I can't possibly see what the point of insisting on a drop-in design is from a consumer's standpoint.

Re:I like this approach

[badkarmadayaccount]

Steel tube frame whole body chassis - polymer natural fiber composite panels - cheap, strong, durable. Next question?

Re:What's the big deal?

[skids]

It decouples the fuel source. So while they may be mostly fossil fuel powered now, if and when renewable resources are available, they can use them without having to buy a new car.

To me the biggest obvious perk is not having to stand out in the freezing cold gassing up the car twice a week. But on a more sensible level, electric motors pretty much last forever, compared to an ICE + transmission. Other than the battery system, there's not much that wears on them, and they do not require much maintenance at all. Since battery tech keeps evolving, you'll be able to upgrade your per-charge mileage by the time the battery pack needs to be replaced (10-15 years.)

Now, if you are the type that considers cars a disposable possession, then they may not seem to make sense. Many people, however, like to stick with the same wheels for a very long time -- some just out of a sense of economy, others because they consider the impact of the manufacture of the vehicle, not just the maintenance.

Why not the Corolla?

[sjonke]

I can see value in an EV mini-SUV-ish thing, but I'd rather have an EV Corolla. Basic, light, low wind-resistance transportation. I just need something to get me to and from the train station and occasionally all the way to work and back. Anyway, I don't really envision being able to buy one until the prices come down. I presume this is going to be another $40k+ monstrosity. I hope it succeeds wildly, though, and helps drive prices way down.

Re:Why not the Corolla?

[lakeland]

Toyota Auris / Corolla Hybrid due 2011 at £18,950 (about $30k).

Re:What's the big deal?

[mister_playboy]

Even the worst US coal plant is a lot cleaner than the ICE found in a car.

lolwut? Do you know what fly ash is?

Emissions controls on modern vehicles have gotten to the point where the air coming out the tailpipe can be cleaner than the air that went in the intake.

How will an Electric Powered Car solve anything?

[Laxus]

I really do not get the point of this vehicle. Using electricity as a fuel instead of gasoline and sacrificing on some power to save the environment does sound like an interesting idea. But we need to consider where the electricity comes from in the U.S and that is again from the burning of fossil fuels, nuclear power and natural gas. So these electric powered cars are just giving us a false sense of reality that we are doing something to save the environment. Now if they generate electricity from renewable sources like sunlight, it's a different story altogether. More importantly, a crossover that has little to offer in terms of pure power just does not sound all appealing. Now if I wanted a Prius, then maybe..

Re:What's the big deal?

[h4rr4r]

Test that, go into your garage and run a hose from the tail pipe into the car. Then sit in the car with the engine running. Tell me how it works out for you.

Re:What's the big deal?

[DigiShaman]

The Honda's ULEV is one such example. But now that CO2 is classified as a pollutant, politically the engine is very dirty. Which is sad really. The H2O and CO2 emessions are practically the only thing released. You could drink the condensed water vapor it's that safe.

Re:actually, this is good

[h4rr4r]

Electric ford ranger conversions are done, and honestly ford should be selling them. Rangers are practical vehicles for what you are talking about, F150s and F250s are just status symbols.

Re:crossover SUVs

[h4rr4r]

35mpg? That is pathetic, my old corolla beats that. It has 155k on the clock and it still does 35mpg.

Re:What's the big deal?

[Rei]

Do you know what peer-reviewed studies are? I've got a dozen more where that came from. Basically, on our current grid, certain pollutants (such as PM) increase by using EVs, while others are nearly eliminated (such as CO and VOCs); however, all pollutants are shifted to higher altitude and to less populated areas (instead of being emitted at street level in populated areas), leading to huge health benefits. CO2 is reduced by a quarter.

That's on our *current grid*. Our grid gets cleaner every year; most new capacity being added to it is wind and natural gas. Oil production, however, gets dirtier every year, as we keep having to shift more and more to deepwater, bitumen, ultra-heavy, sour, arctic, coal liquefaction, and so forth.

Lastly, your emissions control line is an urban legend, albeit one greatly encouraged by automakers.

Re:What's the big deal?

[h4rr4r]

So lets see you breathe the exhaust for half and hour or so, just get the garden hose and try it out.

Reality is a car engine has terrible efficiency and none meet ULEV or any other standard while they are starting up. Since most trips are short lots of those are while the car engine and cat are not yet up to temp.

Re:How will an Electric Powered Car solve anything

[mikestew]

Where does the power for normal ICE cars come from? A million individual power plants for which it is hard and expensive to control the pollutants. Contrast to a single electric plant, whatever the fuel source, that is easier to scrub, maintain, and regulate than a million cars (or however many EVs a plant could supply).

Here in the Pacific Northwest, most of the power comes from hydro making it nearly a non-issue.

Re:crossover SUVs

[mikestew]

"Up to" 35mpg? I know it's a tired argument, but I was getting 35mpg in a Chevy Citation (which was a complete POS) thirty years ago. And, yes, I know why cars don't do any better than they do these days. That still doesn't mean I must be impressed by something getting 35mpg, unless it's an Escalade. (Feel free to insert standard "European diesels get 100mpg" comment here.)

Re:Production? What production?

[h4rr4r]

They sold over 300 of them last time and many are still on the road. You are confusing the EV1 with the RAV4 EV.

Reasonable enough

[Animats]

Tesla is doing the battery pack (Li metal-oxide, 30KWh or so), power electronics, and motor. Range will be about 100 "real world" miles, maybe more if they can squeeze in more batteries.

The RAV4 is much bigger than it used to be. Compare the original RAV4 and today's oversized version.

Fifteen years of battery progress later, electrics are almost good enough.

Re:What's the big deal?

[xaxa]

The fly ash is collected and used.

In the UK (according to this site, anyway) it's stockpiled for future use, with the existing stockpile expected to last 30 years. Most houses have the internal side of the walls built from fly ash blocks (the external wall is brick, as it looks nicer).

The "cleaning the air" car claim is bending-the-truth bollocks, but I don't care to find a citation for that.

Specs?

[LoudMusic]

Sure would be nice to see some specs on this new electric critter. I've said for a while that the Tesla Roadster power train could be great on SUV platforms that are designed for extra weight, and the Roadster's output is higher than most SUVs anyway, including my 2008 Wrangler.

So moving forward with assumptions ...

2010 RAV4 is 3360 pounds with the V6 producing 269HP for a power to weight ratio of 12.49 (smaller is better, Viper is 6.7, Mini Cooper S is 14.5).

CEO Lentz estimated the EV would be 220 pounds heavier putting it at 3580 pounds, and assuming it's using the same motor from the Roadster that's 288 HP for a power to weight ratio of 12.43 (the Roadster's PWR is 9.45). So essentially the same as the V6, with more initial power, better power control, and no guilt for driving it.

Hey, sounds like dynamite to me. Plug it in at night, buy tires and brake pads every two years, wash it on the weekends. It should have a range of about 180 to 200 miles. Plenty for anyone's day with the family. For a lot of people it would even get them to grandma's house where it could charge overnight. If they can get it on the road for under $40K I think they might have a winner.

Energy cost of the rare earths & batteries?

[swb]

And the environmental costs?

Are the rare earths needed for the motors, electronics and the batteries, along with the lithium or other metals used in the batteries a net energy cost to mine, refine and manufacture versus the savings from the reduced gasoline consumption?

Re:Energy cost of the rare earths & batteries?

[robot256]

Yes, they are actually better than any gasoline car out there, and on par with modern hybrids, even assuming you don't use much renewable energy to charge it.

Taking into account the standard electricity generation mix in Europe the researchers concluded that to be more environmentally friendly than an EV a gasoline car would need to have a fuel efficiency of more than 59 miles per U.S. gallon.

Hook it up to solar panels exclusively, and you've got yourself a lean, green, driving machine.

Re:Energy cost of the rare earths & batteries?

[swb]

I don't doubt that _running_ them is more eco-conscious; I'm concerned about _making_ them.

If an electric car needs, say, 10 pounds of rare earths for high-performance motors, batteries, and extra electronics above and beyond what goes into cars these days, there's an environmental impact just *making* a car like that as you need extensive mining and processing facilities to mine the rare earths and refine them, along with the lithium for batteries, and so on.

Re:Energy cost of the rare earths & batteries?

[robot256]

That's exactly what the paper researched, if I read it correctly. They compared the total lifecycle impact of gas and electric cars, and concluded that the lifetime impact of an electric car using conventional electricity would be similar to the lifetime impact of a gasoline car getting 60 mpg.

Or did I miss something, and they only look at the batteries (as consumables) and not account for the drive train (in either gas or electric)? It's still a worthwhile comparison, because excepting the batteries, an electric drive train should last as long and with far less maintenance than a gasoline drive train.

My gut reaction, of course, is that you can say what you like about manufacturing, but don't underestimate the carbon produced by a car over its 10-20 years burning thousands of gallons of gasoline in a less-than-perfect engine.

Re:How will an Electric Powered Car solve anything

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I really do not get the point of this vehicle. Using electricity as a fuel instead of gasoline and sacrificing on some power to save the environment does sound like an interesting idea. But we need to consider where the electricity comes from

The point of electric vehicles is to divorce cars from a single power source and make it possible to transition to more sustainable energy. It's one part of a strategy to free us from dependence on oil. Once the majority of the fleet is electric, the electricity can come from nuclear, wind, hydro, tidal, geothermal, natural gas, coal, or anything else we come up with. Moreover, it allows for the option of distributed power generation from flexible sources. Put solar panels or windmills on your house and power your car, or use centralized power generation for greater efficiency, but more transmission cost.

Electric cars == flexibility

Re:How will an Electric Powered Car solve anything

[MozeeToby]

A) Power plants are much more efficient than ICE engines in automobiles. Even with losses due to transmission, charging, discharging, and inefficiencies in the motor, an electric vehicle still requires less energy to run.

B) As fuel prices change and legislation changes, it will be much easier to upgrade the electrical grid to 'green', renewable sources than it would be to upgrade the millions of cars on American streets.

C) Energy is largely fungible. It doesn't matter where the specific electricity you use comes from, because you using energy or not indirectly affects the price of energy all over the country (and to a lesser extent, the world). This would be even more true if our electrical grid were smarter, but even as it is today if you're pulling dozens of kilowatts of power from your local wind farm, you're hurting the environment at least as much as someone pulling a fewer kilowatts from a coal power plant. If the total demand were less, the renewables would be used in favor of the consumables, since the operating costs are proportionally smaller.

Re:What's the big deal?

[TooMuchToDo]

Wheel to well efficiency my friend. You know how much energy it takes to a) get oil out of the ground b) move that oil to refineries c) refine it b) move the finished product to a distribution point? Electricity wins hands down. Also, with a coal plant, you have a centralized, maintainable emissions control system. 100K catalytic converters between 1-20 years old? Not so much.

Re:Target Range = 100 miles = failure

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

The lowest you can go for range and still sell a (non-specialty) gasoline car is 200 miles, and they can refuel anywhere... Why the 100 mile toys?

While short range vehicles may not be viable as most primary vehicles, a lot of families have multiple autos and a short range one for about town makes sense to a significant market.

I test-drove one of the 90s Electric RAV4s

[billstewart]

The Electric Automobile Association of Silicon Valley has electric car rallies every year, usually on a Saturday in September, with various hobbyist and commercial electric cars, bikes, motorcycles, scooters, Burning Man vehicles, and parts.

The electric RAV4 was ok to drive - I don't find regular RAV4 seating very comfortable, and since it was 90s battery technology the range was only something like 50-100 miles, but it handled well driving around the block in the suburbs. (They didn't let us take it out to the freeway :-) There was a Norwegian car I liked better, one of the Think! line before they sold out to some big American car maker who wasted them, and there have been a number of really cool concept cars. The Teslas have been there since they were first out in prototype, but there's usually too much of a crowd around them to get a test-drive.

My wife's comment about most of the cars was "I'm a consumer, not a hobbyist, and they're not ready yet." (The Tesla was an exception, but we're not in the $100000 sportscar market.) Some of the electric bikes really are ready, if that matches the kind of driving you need to do, but in my part of Silicon Valley there are only a couple of towns I can get to without needing to get on a 45mph road or a freeway, and I don't feel safe riding a bicycle that's got that much power strapped onto its frame.

Re:I test-drove one of the 90s Electric RAV4s

[drinkypoo]

Nissan Leaf is looking great in the automotive press. Their one complaint is rear visibility. I expect this to be solved in Leaf 2.0 (it usually takes a chassis version bump to move a pillar, especially in Nissan-land.) The high end trim has a camera system to mediate the problem.

Mitsubishi has also just announced their "i MiEV" coming to the USA in Fall of 2011 as the "i". I don't know how serious a contender it is, but at least everyone is trying.

Thank Nissan (optionally, thank Ghosn) for backing the EV project that was already in progress during the acquisition. They were the first major automaker with the courage to follow Tesla (not that they were first either, but they do deserve significant credit) and now we're seeing the mad rush to put something on the market.

I personally hope that rush will include Subaru soon; with both Nissan and Mitsubishi in the market they've got to be thinking hard. The big defect of Subarus has long been their weight distribution and moving to an EV design could trim it right up. (Yes, I know it's also a benefit in some ways... like reducing the chance of swapping ends. And I adored my '93 Impreza.)

Re:Target Range = 100 miles = failure

[jo_ham]

A vast, vast, vast (repeat lots) number of people commute less than 100 miles per day, and from what I remember the last time I was in the states, most places have electricity. This thing requires electricity to recharge.

Drive it to work, plug it in there (assume a nice boss, or a metered hookup that you can pay for, perhaps you don;t even need to charge at work). Drive home, plug it in at home.

Repeat on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday.

Weekend, maybe take the gasoline car if you are going more than 100 miles. Otherwise, take the electric one.

Oh sorry, I was under the impression that people who aren't you might actually fit the target demographic. If it doesn't personally make sense to you, slashdot user netsavior, then it should be immediately cancelled.

I guess we now know why Firefly got canned. You mustn't have liked it.

Why isn't a solar panel installed on top?

[amanicdroid]

I see a lot of wasted surface area.

Re:Target Range = 100 miles = failure

[netsavior]

I guess we now know why Firefly got canned. You mustn't have liked it.

Correct, me and the other 26million households that chose to watch something else thought firefly sucked.

Just like me and the other 150million car owners in the US have cars with a range > 200 per tank.
The vast majority of car drivers may have a 20 mile each way commute, but that is a thinner margin than it looks. Most commutes don't happen in terms of miles, but they do happen in terms of minutes, and electric cars have something that gas ones don't "zero energy idle" which is awesome for range, but not realistic in most climates (except southern california). See in my 26 mile commute (from before I started telecommuting), I would often spend half of the drive of the time going 65mph, covering 80% of the distance, that last 20% was just me sitting in the air conditioner or heater, with my headlights and radio on, just creeping to my destination. While a gasoline engine would be idling anyway, using up a small amount of my 350 mile range, the electric will be keeping me at a safe temp and dwindling down some of that 100 mile range... My 52 mile round trip, assuming no detours could very quickly become 2+ hours of driving in the hot sun... So when that costs me say 20 miles of range in my conventional car, ok fine I am working from a pool of 350 and I have an opportunity to refuel every 5 miles anyway, but if it happens in my EV, I could end up on the side of the road, because there is no infrastructure.

When it comes down to it we need infrastructure or we need range, the EVs currently do not plan to offer either.

Pandering only to people with impossibly short commutes in cityville will do nothing to save them money, will do nothing to cut down overall emissions, and will do nothing to move the country off of petrol. The problem is in suburbia, where most people live.

speaking of Edison

[sponga]

Ironically the local Edison here in Southern California, Long Beach still use the electric RAV4 for their employees. I see them all around driving everywhere with the meter checker guys.

Re:What's the big deal?

[12WTF$]

The only environment you really need to worry about is the microclimate in your wallet.
"Coal" powered cars will seem damn cheap transport when oil goes into $hundreds per barrel,
either as China outbids for dwindling oil stocks or the USD buying power deflates again (QE3?).
We are now in post-peak oil since 2005. Cue the denialists ...3...2...1...

Re:Target Range = 100 miles = failure

[Sprouticus]

about 50% of the Us population lives in the burbs (per census). Only 19% of Americans live in in rural areas. That means the 'cityville people equate to ~ 1/3 of the country. 100 million people. That is a huge market. That market alone could sustain electric vehicle production and R&D until you get more infrastructure and longer range.

Believe it or not suburbanites are NOT the center of the universe.

Re:actually, this is good

[toddestan]

In case you didn't know, Ford actually made an electric version of the Ranger:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Ranger_EV

Sadly long out of production, but supposedly there are some still out there.

Re:crossover SUVs

[toddestan]

All they really are is a way for the auto manufacturers to get around cafe regulations by building vehicles that classify as a "light truck" instead of a car, even though they are basically just a car. They are roomier than a sedan, but really don't offer any advantages over a wagon, just disadvantages like a higher center of gravity and more unsprung weight (due to larger tires and beefier suspensions) that lower the fuel economy. As far as I'm concerned it's a class of vehicle that really just needs to die.

I also don't get your comment about good visibility. It seems that for some reason, having small rear windows is a design requirement for this class of vehicles.

Re:crossover SUVs

[winwar]

"They have all of the advantages of cars (easy to drive, easy to park, affordable) combined with all of the advantages of SUVs (lots of cargo capacity, good visibility)."

You are joking? Right? I mean seriously?

Crossovers are glorified hatchbacks and station wagons that might have an inch or two of extra clearance and a high center of gravity. They certainly don't have much cargo capacity (check out their actual load capacity in addition to the space). They certainly aren't cheap (they cost more to maintain and run). And if you are concerned about visibility, might I suggest not tailgating the vehicle in front of you.

Re:Target Range = 100 miles = failure

[winwar]

"Believe it or not suburbanites are NOT the center of the universe."

The problem is that even the city dwellers have bought into the concept of having an SUV that is off road capable and doubles as a house. The effective market is far smaller. Or you have to convince your actual market to behave rationally after spending decades convincing them not to....

Oops.

Re:Target Range = 100 miles = failure

[robot256]

Haha, yeah. If you convince them to behave rationally, they might not buy a car at all. But the SUV as a house thing comes in real handy when they get evicted for not paying the mortgage in favor of the three car payments.

Re:Target Range = 100 miles = failure

[nmos]

Because in the real world that's how revolutions work. At first jet engines were for military aircraft only. At first guns were only better than the bow and arrow if you had a bunch of other folks watching your back while you reloaded. The first computers were monstrosities that only made sense for large organisations. You don't sit on technology until it's the perfect solution for everyone, you make it good enough for some, sell it, and keep on with the improvements.

Corola is NOT a small car anymore.

[isopropanol]

You seem to be confusing corola with a small car. Perhaps you are used to the behemoths the american car market has. The Toyota that's for the use you describe is the Yaris. Other manufacturers (including Ford europe) also have basic, light, low wind resistance transportation, but I don't remember them all off the top of my head.

Looks != Aerodynamics

[bill_mcgonigle]

I'm sorry that aerodynamic requirements don't fit your aesthetic views. File a bug report. =)

The correlation isn't that tight. Last time I looked, a Lexus LS4xx had a slightly (0.01 or so) lower coefficient of drag than a Prius.

The Prius *is* aerodynamic, but its looks are also meant to give that impression.

It comes down to fashion, not just engineering. If the Prius wasn't distinctive-looking its ascendancy to 'fashion accessory' status probably would not have happened. So, that's good for Toyota and perhaps good for the environment.

Re:crossover SUVs

[Lord Ender]

They have more cargo capacity, higher clearance, and higher seating, and better off-road capability than wagons/hatchbacks, but they have better handling, better fuel economy, and lower cost than SUVs. That is a pretty substantial list of advantages, and explains why they are selling at such a dramatic rate.

One more thing: you don't understand why higher seating is beneficial, you must live in the middle of nowhere. In the city, being able to see past the truck on your left or the bushes on the corner translates into much better visibility (and hence, safety).

It's called "a conversation".

[maillemaker]

Do you only engage in communications that are "well supported arguments"?

You must be a blast at parties.

Re:What's the big deal?

[badkarmadayaccount]

Cleaner != High oxygen content

Re:What's the big deal?

[badkarmadayaccount]

Or maybe we have some respect for technology in itself. Who the hell thinks that you can fawn over some non-descript paint stains (abstract art), and you can't acknowledge the beauti of good engineering?

Re:crossover SUVs

[badkarmadayaccount]

You are supposed to be looking at the car in front of you. Not the poster chick in a bikini two stoplights ahead.