Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Toyota Introduces Electric RAV4, Powered By Tesla Motor

Posted by timothy on from the nikola-himself dept.

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."

32 of 243 comments (clear)

  1. It has to be Tesla by Talderas · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    --
    "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    1. Re:It has to be Tesla by h4rr4r · · Score: 2, Funny

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

    2. Re:It has to be Tesla by noidentity · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    3. Re:It has to be Tesla by h4rr4r · · Score: 2, Informative

      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?

    4. Re:It has to be Tesla by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 2, Funny

      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!

      --
      If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
    5. Re:It has to be Tesla by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 2, Funny

      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.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  2. They did this in the 90s. by Kenja · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    1. Re:They did this in the 90s. by Kenja · · Score: 2, Informative

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

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    2. Re:They did this in the 90s. by Solandri · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    3. Re:They did this in the 90s. by MobyDisk · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    4. Re:They did this in the 90s. by timeOday · · Score: 3, Interesting
      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.

    5. Re:They did this in the 90s. by c6gunner · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  3. Not new. by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    1. Re:Not new. by h4rr4r · · Score: 2, Informative

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

    2. Re:Not new. by MightyYar · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    3. Re:Not new. by rolfwind · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Not new. by RMH101 · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

  4. HighGear Media by spun · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    1. Re:HighGear Media by MyLongNickName · · Score: 3, Informative

      s/sights/sites

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
  5. Re:Can't wait! by oldspewey · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    --
    If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
  6. Re:Can't wait! by commodore64_love · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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).

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  7. I like this approach by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  8. Why not the Corolla? by sjonke · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    --- What?
  9. Re:Can't wait! by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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?

  10. Re:Can't wait! by Rei · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    He's really very... gentle... and fuzzy. We're becoming fast friends.
  11. Re:Just Tesla by h4rr4r · · Score: 2, Funny

    Where do you get copper squirrels?

  12. Re:What's the big deal? by h4rr4r · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  13. Re:Can't wait! by daemonc · · Score: 2, Informative

    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...

    --
    All that we see or seem is but a dream within a dream.
  14. Specs? by LoudMusic · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

    --
    No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
  15. Re:How will an Electric Powered Car solve anything by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 2, Informative

    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

  16. Re:How will an Electric Powered Car solve anything by MozeeToby · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  17. Re:crossover SUVs by winwar · · Score: 2, Informative

    "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.