Anyone Considering RAV4 EV Instead of PIP?

If Toyota offered the RAV4 as a hybrid, I would buy it in a heart beat. However, I would never consider any electric SUV.

 

Back before the Tesla Roadster came out, when EV choices consisted of a slow-speed car like the Xebra I ended up getting or a ten-year-old Rav4EV (which were going for $60,000) I considered the Rav. I decided against it for two reasons: I hate the SUV body style, even though the Rav is a small one, and $60K for a ten-year-old car with uncertain battery life remaining seemed like too much. Oh, around that time another choice was to buy a $15,000 Scion x-B and have AC Propulsion electrify it for (IIRC) $55,000. That thing is, in my opinion, the ugliest thing on the road.

So, yes, I considered, and rejected, the Rav4EV, but that was the first gen and a decade old. (I never had the opportunity to get into an EV in the 90's, when they were only available in CA.)

 

I've put 162K miles on my gas RAV4, and I say without question it has been more fun to drive than the Prius, apart from lower MPG at 27 vs. 50. A hybrid version would be very nice. The design and price of the Highlander Hybrid suggests, however, that it has been too expensive to do such in the RAV, to have the independently driven front and rear drive axles and larger hybrid battery. A new RAV4 EV falls short of a Tesla in most categories, but would be way better than a Leaf or i-Miev. It would be the EV that I would buy, all things considered.

 

i have a hard time considering 'future' vehicles. when i'm ready, i'll choose something in or close to production.

 

Have they changed their tune and decided to sell them outside CA?


http://green.autoblog.com/2011/08/10/initial-sales-of-toyota-rav4-ev-limited-to-california/

So I stopped looking at all. But specs are still too small -- we need at least 150m range to get to our ski condo. So the current specs still don't cut it. At 80-100m range and just front-wheel drive, its an SUV for people that mostly needed a wagon.

 

FWD only??? Doesn't that defeat the whole idea of an SUV??? Why don't they offer the same "electronic on-demand 4WD" that the regular RAV4 has???

The Tesla Model X is certainly a better choice, with independent motors front and back for real two-axle drive. The old CJ-5 Jeep had 4WD, but with a differential between the axles, and another on each axle, any one wheel slipping could rob power from all the other three wheels.

Of course the X will cost more than the RAV4EV.

 

lol. Its electric, if we look at the buyers of the OG BEV RAV4, they are the never nevers- never tow, never go off road. This is a low volume conversion, its likely toyota didn't want to pay for the NRE and added cost for 4wd when its mainly sold to drive on the snowless streets of california

We don't really know what the rav 4bev will cost, but its likely to be less expensive and shipped a long time before the model X. That said, I've got a friend that plunked a deposit down for a model X, perfect for his business mini-van that should draw attention and help promote. I would not buy a rav 4EV in texas since its unlikely the dealers will be able to service the beast. Tesla as thin as they are should be able to fix any problems, but toyota doesn't want to sell in my state.

 

Driving through flood water is always risky, since you never know how deep it's going to be. Maybe a higher car will get through where a lower car wouldn't, but the corollary is that you get cocky and go into water you shouldn't.

In North Dakota I was always getting stuck in the Jeep. Once I got the Civic I never once got stuck. That's because the Jeep could handle some pretty deep snow, so I drove it into snow that turned out to be too deep. With the Civic I knew I could not go through snow, so I didn't try.

 

Unless they are connecting the motor up to a regular Rav4 transmission, they can't just use its off the shelf AWD system. A new one will take more R&D cash. Also, with the likely battery size, an AWD system might end up with a noticable effect on range.

A part time 4WD system should not be working that way. The transfer case isn't a differential. Once the 4WD is engaged, it splits engine power 50/50 between front and back axles, and doesn't allow that balance to shift. If a wheel starts spinning and loses traction on one end, the other end will still receive power to its wheels. That's why it is generally preferred for actual off-roading over full time 4WD or AWD.

It's also why you can't use such a system on dry pavement. Since power output doesn't shift between front and back, you can get too much power going to the wrong spot while going through a turn. A wheel won't slip and the power gets applied to components that aren't meant to get it. This isn't good for the transfer case's service life.

It's still possible to get wheel slip at both ends at the same time, but, as you stated, overconfidence leads to trouble. There is plenty of evidence for that on the side of road after the first snow storm.

 

I think you might be right about the transfer case on the Jeep. It was a long time ago! Thanks for the correction.

I recall the time my mother and sister were visiting me. There were a couple of inches of snow on the road, but it was not clear that it got deeper in a dip in the road. The car can slide a goodly distance on its belly due to momentum once the wheels are off the ground, and it took my sister and me an hour of shoveling to get back to where the car had traction again.

When I got the Civic I just never took that road in winter, though it was a very convenient shortcut.