Toyota Introduces Electric RAV4, Powered By Tesla Motor 243
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."
It has to be Tesla (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do I get a feeling this submission only made it because it mentions Tesla?
Re:Can't wait! (Score:2, Insightful)
Why not the Corolla? (Score:4, 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.
Re:Not new. (Score:3, 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.
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:3, 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.
Re:It has to be Tesla (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:They did this in the 90s. (Score:3, 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.