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

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 And as soon as GM got the law repealed they where yanked back and destroyed.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.

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And as soon as GM got the law repealed...

GM didn't get the law repealed.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 GM caught a lot of flak for how it behaved after the law was repealed (destroying all EV1s), but they weren't the root cause despite what popular documentaries say.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

[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.

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

[MyLongNickName]

s/sights/sites

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: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).

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:It has to be Tesla

[noidentity]

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