Toyota reveals RAV4-EV with 100 mile "real world" range, performance of V6

Do you know how this compares to Li-polymer?

And, I know this is a packed, technical question, but .. What is the resource availability and environmental impact of LiNiO2 versus Li-polymer? Is the "polymer" part literally an organic, petroleum-derived molecule?

Thanks!

 

Why only 100 mile range? The '97 EV could get up to 110 using NIMH. I wouldn't call this a step in the right direction. This doesn't say too much for Tesla either, I would expect more from them. Don't get me wrong, I am thrilled to see new EV's on the road, but why can't/won't any car company break this glass ceiling of 100 mile range. Have we really made negative progress in the past 15 years. In the late 90's the EV1 had a 100-140 mile range, also running NiMH and in 2011 The Nissan Leaf comes out with only a 100 mile range and now the same thing is happening with the Rav4, which both run on lithium Ion batteries. Is it all due to cost or is technology being withheld/held back?

 

it is all evil conspiracy against EV users.

 

According to the crop circle crowd, or Ken Noory listeners, EV technology has been bought and shelved by big oil.
Personally? I think it's a money thing. We're just now reaching a point where EV development is financially possible for car companies.
As far as a 100-mile RAV-4?
Show me the sticker...and the real world range, and then I'll opine.

 

The
Leaf is rated at 132 miles in suburban driving.

I have personally gone 107 miles on a charge and had some left over.but the main reason is cost and sustainability.
Toyota was forced to build them and did so at very low volumes sand I don't think that would have been sustained at a marketable price.
Besides is twenty more miles needed most of the time put just one in a while?

 

Wasn't the original RAV4 EV selling at $40k back in the late '90s?

 

Darrell's site has the window sticker for his 2002:

http://www.evnut.com/images/rav4/rav_misc/rav_window_sticker.jpg

MSRP was $42,000.

 

You're comparing user data with Toyota official data. I thought the top speed of the NiMH RAV4 EV was less than 80 mph and took way more than 15 seconds to get to 60 mph. And wasn't the NiMH RAV4 EV a smaller vehicle? Strike that, a much smaller vehicle? The Lion RAV4 EV has the same performance as a 6 cyl which would make it one of the faster small SUVs in the industry, gas or electric. I wouldn't call that going backwards.

 

You might call it the wrong direction though.
The V6 Rav4 can tow and haul more than the 4cyl. It also can get from 0 to 60 in under 7 seconds. Faster than the majority of the classic muscle cars.

Towing results in fuel economy dropping. I doubt EVs will be immune, and will suffer range reduction with a trailer. If it does have a tow rating, it is mostly for bragging rights.

How many here thinks their Prius feels slow? With the instant torque of an electric motor, does the Rav4 EV have to actually be faster be faster than the Prius to keep people happy in the driving experience? The decades power wars has really skewed what people actually need in a vehicle.

Toyota seems to be going the route of Highlander hybrid with the Rav4 EV. Show that a hybrid/EV isn't about sacrifice, and an SUV one can still do it all. It worked out fine with the Highlander, and they'll show it with Rav4. It's just that the EV market is different than the gasser SUV one. If the goal is the same as the HiHy, they had to sacrifice range for the power. Even if it beats everybody else on the market in range, most potential EV buyers will be more impressed with even further range than if it could tow something.

 

I personally feel having all that possible torque and power will translate easier into range when taking it easy with the accelerator. Like the Prius, where many users get 39 to 42 mpgs while as many more are getting in the high 50s, the Rav4 EV will have its share of users getting in the 80s while the resident hypermilers are getting 120 to 140 miles. Still I'd love to see what Toyota's definition of "real world" is but based on their normally conservative approach I'm guessing a lot of people will be pleasantly surprised with the range. I'd really like to see Toyota use Consumer's Reports drivers for their "real world" because they seem to be able to shred every EPA estimate for any car.

 

I admit to being mostly ignorant on the specifics of electric motor technology, but isn't that like saying a high output V6 will get better fuel economy than a 4 cylinder, as long as you stay easy on the gas? Or are you saying it will be easier to drive for efficiency with a more powerful engine?

I'm sure Toyota is low balling their announced range estimates. The range of the original with increased performance can be a success full package. It's just, unlike most EVs on and coming to market, the Rav4 EV has a predecessor that it will be compared too. Performance increase will impress the general market. The EV crowd is going to ask couldn't they have scaled performance back to say a Prius, which is still a big improvement, and increased range?

 

It should be worth remembering that the RAV4 can tow a trailer!
Rav Long Ranger

 

The Tzero could also tow a trailer.

If this is all the trailering you need, I don't think these gensets are beyond any EVs capabilities currently available. Except for the CYA on the manufacturers part.If any one systems came out, they might even fit a hitch cargo platform.

edit: Would the Long Ranger have the output for the more powerful, new Rav4 EV?

 

Electrics don't really lose much efficiency as you get higher power, they just get more expensive. The tesla roadster's motor only weighs about 70lbs so there is not much of a weight gain penalty either. Nor does babying acceleration matter nearly as much as with a gasoline engine. Higher speeds do have the same penalties. The amount of usable power is probably most restricted by the battery pack.

 

Better not tell Toyota that. They seem fond of their engine downsizing and Atkinson cycle scheme. They might cry.

Not every car is tested. They're likely the same because the 525i was tested and its results were used for the 530i because the EPA ok'd their drive trains as close enough.
On the other side, I've heard that fleet customers insisted on getting a 4 cylinder in a GM car designed for just a V6. With the 4 cyl. they took off the shelf and put under the hood, the car got worse economy.

Ok. I see that motor efficiency is just a ratio of electricity going in to work coming out. So, you could get the same range with the more powerful engine if driven the same as the less powerful one. It will just have a shorter minimum range with aggressive driving. Faster acceleration requires more power, which takes more electricity.
Which raises two questions. Is the EPA test aggressive enough for the more powerful engine to shorten range over the less powerful? How much more expensive?