The New RAV4 EV

[vfx]

Strawberry lemon and blue slushie.

 

[GSP]

Yes, Max speed for the Rav 4 is 85 mph!

Maybe for the original, but the new RAV4-EV will do the ton (100 mph) in sport mode.

GSP

 

[TEG]

Strawberry lemon and blue slushie.

 

[Lloyd]

Maybe for the original, but the new RAV4-EV will do the ton (100 mph) in sport mode.

GSP

You're right, I read the old numbers!

 

[TEG]

100MPH is still a bunch less than the typical Tesla style ~130MPH.
Lower redline? Different gearing?
Lower gearing with lower top speed should produce better low speed acceleration, but 0-60 isn't exactly Tesla quick.

 

[vfx]

Ha!

Yeah, Greg's flavor-filled YCM!

 

[vfx]

GSP

Yes, but quicker, newer, with features like Stability Control, TPMS, advanced airbags and more of them, HD Radio, Bluetooth, backup camera, LED headlights, LED daytime running lights, LED taillighrs, and more I am sure. Did the original RAV4-EV have heated seats?

Of course people will compare it to the base model pricing, but I'd bet for similar features and performance you'd need the V6 version with some options, might push the comparable ICE price closer to $30K.

Just think of it as the Ultimate Tech Package.

 

[doug]

I kinda see this as the 40kWh Model X that Tesla isn't offering. By limiting the RAV4's capabilities, Tesla manages to keep the Model X differentiated in the market place.

I wonder if Tesla will have access to RAV4 log data.

 

[Lloyd]

I kinda see this as the 40kWh Model X that Tesla isn't offering. By limiting the RAV4's capabilities, Tesla manages to keep the Model X differentiated in the market place.

.

That is a great call Doug. Spot on!

 

[strider]

It looks like brake fluid, coolant and power steering fluid on the drivers side and windshield washer fluid on the passenger side.

Brake fluid, of course, duh. But power steering fluid makes no sense. Why install a hydraulic pump that has to be driven via electricity when you could just use electric power steering, eliminating the efficiency loss and weight? Is this how the do it in the Prius (electrically driven hydraulic pump)?

 

[strider]

Toyota RAV4 EV is California-Only, Costs $50,610


The limited-production electric RAV4 returns almost exactly as it had left nine years before.





Larry

That's what truth in advertising will get you. the RAV4EV should get 100 mile REAL WORLD range which neither the Leaf nor Focus can achieve. The "sales number" should be 130 mile range to differentiate it from the others. When do these new EPA numbers kick in? Will be good to have one set of numbers to work from.

 

[Norbert]

I think they are generally trying to keep a rather low profile. Which goes with declaring it a test project at this point.

 

[MarkR]

Interesting photo in terms of marketing.

View attachment 5893

Larry

The RAV4EV is kind of a 'Back to the Future" with all of the (somewhat limited) future provided by Tesla.

 

[Norbert]

Of course people will compare it to the base model pricing, but I'd bet for similar features and performance you'd need the V6 version with some options, might push the comparable ICE price closer to $30K.

A quick check suggests the V6 FWD plus Nav/tech package is about $30K. From $50k, subtract $10k tax credit (CA), and you have a difference left of about $10k to weigh against electric benefits including gasoline savings, HOV lane access, etc.

 

[JRP3]

I kinda see this as the 40kWh Model X that Tesla isn't offering. By limiting the RAV4's capabilities, Tesla manages to keep the Model X differentiated in the market place.

Also by limiting power the pack has an easier life, as does the entire drivetrain. Toyota may have wanted to be more conservative since they will be on the hook for warranty issues. Plus the RAV4 is not really seen as a performance vehicle. My guess is that Toyota picked the performance parameters and Tesla built to those specs.

 

[dsm363]

I think the 85 mph was top speed in standard mode and 100 mph in sport mode.

 

[Larry Chanin]

That's what truth in advertising will get you. the RAV4EV should get 100 mile REAL WORLD range which neither the Leaf nor Focus can achieve. The "sales number" should be 130 mile range to differentiate it from the others. When do these new EPA numbers kick in? Will be good to have one set of numbers to work from.

Here's an instructive posting by forum member stopcrazypp:

I'll try my best to explain EPA testing. First thing you should understand is that the EPA doesn't actually do the testing. Rather, the manufacturer does the testing using established EPA procedures and reports the numbers to the EPA. The EPA only does a limited amount random testing to ensure manufacturers don't cheat.

The basic procedure is to strap a car to a dynamometer (aka dyno) and run the car through a couple of standard cycles to get the efficiency numbers. Here's a video of a Roadster doing the testing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6uiAI8k5yk

You can see all the EPA drive cycles here:
http://www.epa.gov/nvfel/testing/dynamometer.htm

Before 2008, EPA 2-cycle test was used. There were only two cycles used to test the car (at 75F / 75 degrees Fahrenheit):
1) The Federal Test Procedure(FTP) or EPA-75 is used for the "city" mpg number. The FTP uses the Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule (UDDS) or LA4 or "the city test". The FTP is basically UDDS followed by the first 505 seconds of the UDDS.
2) The Highway Fuel Economy Driving Schedule (HWFET) is used for the "highway" mpg number.

After 2008, EPA 5-cycle test was used. 3 new cycles were introduced in addition to the previous 2-cycles:
1) US06 (part of the "Supplemental FTP") which is basically an aggressive mixed driving cycle (more acceleration than the normal city cycle and higher top speed than the highway cycle).
2) SC03 (also part of the "Supplemental FTP") which is basically the air conditioner/hot weather version of the first 596 seconds of the UDDS done at 95F.
3) Cold FTP is the basically the heater/cold weather version of the FTP done at 20F.
The 5-cycle test is supposed to be pretty close to real world mpg numbers (and in general it is really close).
http://www.greenercars.org/guide_epameas.htm

70% or 0.7 Multiplier
All new cars after 2008 have MPG sticker numbers that reflect the 5-cycle test.
However, not every car manufacturer could do the 5-cycle test in time (nor did it make much sense to retest all the older unchanged models). This is where the 70% or 0.7 multiplier comes in. The EPA allowed automakers to use the previous results from the 2-cycle test if they multiplied the results by a minimum of 0.7 (some cars used higher multipliers, like 0.76; I'll show an example later). Where the 70% came from is that in general, the 5-cycle mpg numbers turned out to be on average about 70% of the previous 2-cycle numbers.

The 2-cycle numbers without the multiplier were called unadjusted fuel economy numbers. These are the same numbers used in the CAFE efficiency regulations.

The 5-cycle numbers (either calculated using the multiplier or from actual testing) were called adjusted fuel economy numbers. The 5-cycle numbers using the multiplier were called derived five cycle, and the ones from actual testing were called vehicle-specific five-cycle. These are used for the mpg numbers on car stickers when you buy a new car.

In the case of the Roadster it turned out that Tesla's calculation of range at a constant 55 mph was very close to the EPA 2-cycle test. Apparently the Roadster's numbers on the EPA sticker were grandfathered since they weren't adjusted and don't reflect the new 5-cycle test. If issued today the Roadster's EPA range of 245 miles would be multiplied by .7 to approximate the new 5-cycle test.

Likewise, Tesla advertises its range for the Model S based on driving at a constant speed of 55 mph. If we assume this value would also be close to the EPA 2-cycle test, then the anticipated 5-cycle range would be 70% of the advertised values, or 112 miles for the 160 mile battery pack.

Larry

 

[Norbert]

In the case of the Roadster it turned out that Tesla's calculation of range at a constant 55 mph was very close to the EPA 2-cycle test. Apparently the Roadster's numbers on the EPA sticker were grandfathered since they weren't adjusted and don't reflect the new 5-cycle test. If issued today the Roadster's EPA range of 245 miles would be multiplied by .7 to approximate the new 5-cycle test.

Likewise, Tesla advertises its range for the Model S based on driving at a constant speed of 55 mph. If we assume this value would also be close to the EPA 2-cycle test, then the anticipated 5-cycle range would be 70% of the advertised values, or 112 miles for the 160 mile battery pack.

However real-world experience from those who own both Roadster and Leaf (for example Tome Saxton) indicated that the 245 range of the Roadster corresponds to something like 85 miles-per-charge on the Leaf, so not as far from the EPA range as for example 100, suggesting that for the Roadster, the actual conversion factor might be larger than 0.7.

And if, for the sake of argument, just to see whet the number would be, you were to assume that Model S and Rav4 have the same Wh/mile as the Leaf, you'd get 73 mpc EPA/ 24 kWh * 40 kWh = 122 mpc for the Model S, and 73/24 * 41.8 = 127 mpc for the Rav4.

In other words, the EPA numbers might be better than a blind 0.7 multiplication, and we'll have to wait for the actual numbers before making any decisions that would depend on them.

 

[qwk]

Brake fluid, of course, duh. But power steering fluid makes no sense. Why install a hydraulic pump that has to be driven via electricity when you could just use electric power steering, eliminating the efficiency loss and weight? Is this how the do it in the Prius (electrically driven hydraulic pump)?

Probably has to do with using existing parts in the Toyota parts bin.

 

[Larry Chanin]

However real-world experience from those who own both Roadster and Leaf (for example Tome Saxton) indicated that the 245 range of the Roadster corresponds to something like 85 miles-per-charge on the Leaf, so not as far from the EPA range as for example 100, suggesting that for the Roadster, the actual conversion factor might be larger than 0.7.

And if, for the sake of argument, just to see whet the number would be, you were to assume that Model S and Rav4 have the same Wh/mile as the Leaf, you'd get 73 mpc EPA/ 24 kWh * 40 kWh = 122 mpc for the Model S, and 73/24 * 41.8 = 127 mpc for the Rav4.

In other words, the EPA numbers might be better than a blind 0.7 multiplication, and we'll have to wait for the actual numbers before making any decisions that would depend on them.

Hi Norbert,

Sure, especially if you drive at 55 mph or less. :wink:

What I am saying is that we should expect the EPA sticker to come in around 112 miles for the Model S 40 kWh battery, and this number is going to be close to what the EPA gives the RAV4 EV.

Of course both cars can do better than the EPA range if they drive slower, or less aggressively.

Larry