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: (Score:2)
Why do I get a feeling this submission only made it because it mentions Tesla?
Because you haven't considered the possibility that Toyota might invent a mascot know as 'thecarchick' (oooh! A GIRL who like cars!) and use that mascot to submit stories to news aggregation sites for free publicity? I mean, if you're going to go down the rabbit hole, go all the way down.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much. I'm assuming Tesla is the vague link used in order to promote this Slashvertisement.
Re: (Score:2)
She has been around here for a while.
http://slashdot.org/~thecarchik [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Now if you'll excuse me, there's someone on a lawn that needs yelling at!
HighGear Media (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
s/SCO/SEO
Re:HighGear Media (Score:4, Informative)
s/sights/sites
Re: (Score:2)
Damn it. My brain ain't working good today.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you captain obvious for explaining my attempt at self deprecating humor.
Re: (Score:2)
I have to wonder if "Edison" was used instead of "Tesla"... would these cars be fighting legal battles over the name?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No, because they would be uninteresting, inferior and built out of other peoples inventions.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? Edison was Chinese?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Like DC?
Like the lightbulb he did not invent?
Like all the other stuff he claimed credit for but was really the work of others?
Re: (Score:2)
Of course Cmdr. Taco is from Ann Arbor, maybe he's plugging his home town.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
This post may cause a recursion error.
They did this in the 90s. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
GM had the EV-1, not the RAV4. Toyota = RAV4.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
because they cost to build was excessive. All it would have done is create a strong used car market.
a decade latter, and manufacturing them is getting cheaper, and people are more aware of the volatility of the price of oil.
GM doesn't car which people want to buy, only that there is enough money to be made to make a profit.
Re: (Score:2)
Its like the adds running on TV right now for the GE Watt Station EV charging platforms. We had something very simular to those at major transit hubs to charge the last round of EVs. None of this stuff is new, but it is better and hopefully will "make it" this time.
Re: (Score:2)
It's still too damn expensive, though. Look at the Chevy volt. I love the concept, I think it's a neat-looking car, but there's no way I'm spending $40,000+ on a mediocre 4-seat compact. While current EV's are a hell of a lot better than the EV1, they're still not where they need to be for mass-adoption. Now, give it a decade or so, and the situation might be dramatically different. I'll let the early-adopters have a go at them, let my current vehicle drag me around until it falls apart, and hopefully
Re: (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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All the car companies pushed to have those laws overturned. They simply weren't ready to sell a non-trivial number of EVs and most customers weren't interested in buying them or even leasing them at a loss leader price.
And more than one RAV4 escaped, there is a guy here at work (South Bay) who owns one, I see it from time to time.
Re:They did this in the 90s. (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:They did this in the 90s. (Score:4, Informative)
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? [wikipedia.org] 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. (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Not new. (Score:3, Interesting)
Toyota had a Rav4 EV back in the 2002-2005 timeframe (approximately). So this is merely a reintroduction of a discontinued model.
Back then ACEEE.org ranked the Rav4 EV as equal to a Prius or Civic Hybrid in cleanliness, but 8% dirtier than the Insight hybrid and Civic CNG cars.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The old RAV 4EV was available from 1997 to 2003.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how a diesel would rate on the scale. Europe has a lot of hyper-efficient turbo diesels on the roads there with MPG equal or better than hybrids.
Re:Not new. (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
You aren't rambling; you have a bunch of good points. It would be nice to see diesel alternatives here in the US, other than on the super duty trucks.
Another advantage is that diesel engines have fewer parts. For example, no spark plugs. Yes, glow plugs need to be replaced, but nowhere near as often, and they are not as critical to basic function of the engine.
Yet another advantage is that diesel fuel is relatively stable. Gasoline absorbs water turning into a nasty acid, and otherwise decomposes after
Re: (Score:2)
I believe the only Diesel vehicles available in the US are heavy duty trucks, VWs, Audi (same thing) and Mercedes. There are small cars, but nothing of significance in the real "meat" of the car market here. (SUV, Light truck, Mid Size) Disclaimer: I have not looked recently... I was trying to find out if someone made a diesel vehicle I wanted to drive a few years back and was left wanting.
Re: (Score:2)
The reason for this is that during the 1980s, Mercedes inundated the US market with smelly, slow turbo diesel cars. Because of the pollution they produced, and the fact that people would drive on breakdown lanes to get around those stench-belchers, it got ingraned in the American mind that diesel == slow and stinky.
Which is ironic. The Ford F250s and other heavy duty vehicles use diesel and nobody ever complains these days about them.
Now, if we can get some twin turbo diesel engines for midsize/fullsize r
Re: (Score:2)
Gasoline absorbs water turning into a nasty acid, and otherwise decomposes after a period of time. Because diesel is an oil, water doesn't mix with it.
No, but there's a species of fungus that thrives in Diesel fuel tanks, and if you're unlucky enough to get some of that fuel, you're going to have to replace your engine, fuel tank, fuel lines, and fuel pump. Far worse than getting gasoline with water in it; burning old gasoline stinks, but it won't ruin your engine or fuel system.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah that's nice. Diesel MPG and gasoline MPG is not comparable. 100% agreed. Now to answer the grandparent's question:
- The Diesel Jetta and Gulf and A3 have a score of 43, which is 8% below the Prius and Civic hybrids, but equal to the cleanest gasoline cars (like the Yaris or Fit). So you can feel confident that your model year 2009 or 10 TDI is one of the cleanest cars on the road.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The urea treatment and diesel particulate filter is common in all Euro 4 diesels - all Euro diesels sold now do this AFAIK.
VW also has the "Bluemotion" line (slightly taller gearing, better aero, low
Re: (Score:2)
and let's not forget that Diesel is actually way more costly fuel than gasoline, if it would not be tax subsidized so often. Also diesel is A LOT dirtier, and part of the high premium comes from the things they do to get emissions down. Not only is diesel emissions by nature higher, but the emissions are also more dangerous, higher output of more dangerous particles.
Diesel is near regular car performance nowadays, but only because they are so highly tuned, basicly a diesel without a turbo is useless. Diesel
Re: (Score:2)
It is not much more expensive and is not that much dirtier when using newer diesel engine technology.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry you _are_ rambling... Diesel is cheaper than gasolin. It is only more expensive in the US, properbly because so little is sold of it screwing up the quantity part of import and sales. Also while it used to be more dirty (having more micro-particles), this is a problem that has been solved for more than 20 years, and are required in all European cars (ships though are still unfiltered and dirty!). So having higher MPG and producing less CO2 per mile, it is currently much cleaner than gasolin. The probl
Re: (Score:2)
The catch is that those efficient diesels also feature extremely small displacements, are low on power and are normally coupled to subcompact cars. By subcompact I mean the Honda Fit, Toyota Yaris, VW Polo and others. Size is one issue. A microcar is great if you're single, but even Europeans buy larger cars when they have families. But even those cars come with small engines, much smaller than what's available in the US in a comparable car.
And that gives rise to a second, and probably larger, problem. Amer
Re: (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 anathe
Re: (Score:2)
Diesel PZEV's died off in the U.S. due to regulations around emissions and diesel sulfur content at the pump. There was legislative churn/unpredicatbility and so the manufacturers were left not knowing whether they would need the expensive exhaust system needed to reach PZEV standards or not, depending on whether the U.S. did or did not require low-sulfur diesel.
In the U.S., without a PZEV label, an eco-car likely won't sell. Also the tax structure for diesel in Europe is more favorable, and the American
Re: (Score:2)
Possibly it's less efficient. A railway locomotive needs very high torque to start a multi-thousand tonne train -- hence the need for electric motors. A car doesn't need this, so there's no point making an extra energy conversion.
Re: (Score:2)
You could ditch the whole transmission and all the losses that go with it. Also it seems like you could get quite good towing capacity in a pickup.
Re: (Score:2)
yeah with probably new drivetrain as it's tesla drivetrain...
Can't wait! (Score:2)
I was very excited about the Chevy Volt, but at $40K that's too expensive for me.
The Nisan Leaf sounds nice, too, but I'm scared to buy a car that can only go 100 miles on a charge.
Re: (Score:2)
The Nisan Leaf sounds nice, too, but I'm scared to buy a car that can only go 100 miles on a charge.
It can go farther . . . you have to push it, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hybrid is the way to go. The ones with 40mpg or better mileage (i.e. Prius, Civic, Insight) are ranked by greenercars.org to be just as clean (or cleaner) as the EVs. All of them qualify as both SULEV and PZEV.
Another option is the new "clean diesel" cars from Volkswagen and Ford - model years 2008 and later - which run on sulfur-free fuel and near-zero NOx emissions. Some models (not all) also have particulate traps to eliminate soot and typically get > 50mpg.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Hybrid is the way to go. The ones with 40mpg or better mileage (i.e. Prius, Civic, Insight) are ranked by greenercars.org to be just as clean (or cleaner) as the EVs
Hmm... but what if I like the idea of the Volt because I hate buying gas (and have a short enough commute) and not because I love the environment?
Re: (Score:2)
or maybe we should just build sane cars. A early 80's model Nissan Cherry does ~5.5L/100Km (~47mpg), and it's a carburated engine.
A early 80's 1.3 carburated corolla does ~5l/100km. (RWD so less efficient to start with) (50mpg). With good condition engine, and precisely tuned it can go as low as 4L/100km, or 62mpg.
A modified early 80's corolla with a high tuned 1.6 twincam engine does 6-6.5l/100km. (40+mpg, RWD)
A 80s Nissan Bluebird 2.0 does about 7-8L/100km with a carburated engine in weakish condition.
A e
Re: (Score:2)
The Volt really irks me. The prototype was beautiful in a Art Deco sci-fi kind of way. Then, the accountants got a hold of the design and turned it into a classic "sporty" chick sedan. I was most definitely looking to get it, but after I saw they turned it into a Honda Civic I got turned off.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that had more to do with reality and aerodynamics. No point in going for a hybrid with the aerodynamics of a brick wall.
Re: (Score:2)
It was changed not because of "accountants", but because the drag coefficient was a disaster. Giant stub-nose, wasted hood space that could be used for a slope, sharp corners at the windshield and A-pillars, a wasted opportunity for a Kammback, and huge absurd wheel wells.
Keeping the drag down is extremely important in early EVs. They never should have given it over to "designers" first. Engineers should go first, designers go *second*. That is, you have the engineers tell you what shape the car needs t
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you bother to do your own research and find out that I'm right. In /. where opinions are mostly set in stone, even with a well supported argument.
Re:Can't wait! (Score:4, Interesting)
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).
Re: (Score:2)
Remind me again when I can buy a diesel Golf or A3. Have never seen on in the states.
Is the A3 aluminum like the A2 was? That would be great around here, no more salt eating the car each winter.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Remind me again when I can buy a diesel Golf
Seriously? Just walk into just about any VW dealership, and say "I would like to buy a diesel Golf".
Or buy a used one like I did. The early 2000s models still get the best fuel economy, with many people seeing over 50 MPG combined highway/city.
We even have our own online clubs, where we share helpful tips on maintenance, repair, and improving your fuel economy and power: http://forums.tdiclub.com/
I know VW doesn't put a lot of marketing effort into the TDI line in the US, but damn... I'm amazed that someon
Re: (Score:2)
I should have said, in NY state.
We and CA missed out on a lot of diesel cars in the early 2000s.
I will be checking out a golf tdi as soon as I get a chance. A jetta is too big for what I want.
Re: (Score:2)
Say what? How is the EV/gasoline Volt worse for the environment? If you're talking about the batteries, I think they are NiMH which is environmentally-neutral and can even be tossed in a landfill (no hazardous chemicals).
Re: (Score:2)
Most batteries are pre-manufactured china, made with nickle from Canada, transported to japan for post-manufacturing, then transported back to North America or Europe for final installation.
Re: (Score:2)
Transporting a 5lb bag of potatoes by ship from China to the USA uses less energy than cooking them. Ship transport is very efficient.
Re: (Score:3)
Let's deconstruct.
1) The batteries used are non-cobalt li-ion. *These* are the type that you can just throw in a landfill (you can't with NiMH).
2) The "Nickel from Canada" line is part of an old myth. Most of the nickel used in NiMH batteries doesn't come from the Sudsbury mines any more.
3) Pretty much *every* part of *every* car nowadays gets shipped all over the world at least once. Why should we weigh the environmental consequences for shipping batteries or battery parts more than for, say, a transmis
Re: (Score:2)
lol NiMH, yeaaaaah right.
The battery you usually have in a car is a NiMH, when is the last time you tried to lift it?
They usually weight 12 to 18kg for a 12V 60Ah battery, which probably cannot give out more than 30A without significant drop in voltage. Even the best ones (those which costs close to 10x of cheapo) can only give out around 65A sustained. There might exist NiMH car batteries which use other than 10S1P (10 serial, 1 parallel) cells, which can give out higher amperage sustained.
At 65A sustained
Holy Editing Batman. (Score:2)
Announced earlier this year as part of an ongoing partnership between Tesla Motors and Toyota the RAV4 EV promises to offer a modern take on the classic RAV4 EV which was built between 1007 and 2003 and for many years became a yard-stick by which all other EVs were measured.
Wow, the RAV4 EV was available before the Norman Conquest of England!
Re: (Score:2)
From 1007 to the 1600s the RAV4 EV was a Palanquin carried by 4 Eta (unclean worker caste).
Eta Vehicle
Equine Vehicle 1600s
(Luminiferous) Ether Vehicle 1800s
Electric Vehicle 1900s
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, the RAV4 EV was available before the Norman Conquest of England!
Do you see that? Next to the knight on that tapestry? It looks like a smudge. Zoom in. Enhance. A bit to the left, see that? Zoom in. Enhance. Enhance. Zoom in. There it is!
I like this approach (Score:3, Interesting)
I think hybrid and electric vehicles should be all based on modifications to existing designs. Yes, you're hammering a square peg into a round hole, but I'd rather EV or hybrid technology be an option, not a car.
Re: (Score:2)
I would rather they sold cars with low Cd, rather than trying to always put form over function.
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: (Score:2)
Electric ford ranger conversions are done, and honestly ford should be selling them. Rangers are practical vehicles for what you are talking about, F150s and F250s are just status symbols.
Reasonable enough (Score:2)
Tesla is doing the battery pack (Li metal-oxide, 30KWh or so), power electronics, and motor. Range will be about 100 "real world" miles, maybe more if they can squeeze in more batteries.
The RAV4 is much bigger than it used to be. Compare the original RAV4 [rav4world.com] and today's oversized version. [blogspot.com]
Fifteen years of battery progress later, electrics are almost good enough.
Specs? (Score:3, Informative)
Sure would be nice to see some specs on this new electric critter. I've said for a while that the Tesla Roadster power train could be great on SUV platforms that are designed for extra weight, and the Roadster's output is higher than most SUVs anyway, including my 2008 Wrangler.
So moving forward with assumptions ...
2010 RAV4 is 3360 pounds with the V6 producing 269HP for a power to weight ratio of 12.49 (smaller is better, Viper is 6.7, Mini Cooper S is 14.5).
CEO Lentz estimated the EV would be 220 pounds heavier putting it at 3580 pounds, and assuming it's using the same motor from the Roadster that's 288 HP for a power to weight ratio of 12.43 (the Roadster's PWR is 9.45). So essentially the same as the V6, with more initial power, better power control, and no guilt for driving it.
Hey, sounds like dynamite to me. Plug it in at night, buy tires and brake pads every two years, wash it on the weekends. It should have a range of about 180 to 200 miles. Plenty for anyone's day with the family. For a lot of people it would even get them to grandma's house where it could charge overnight. If they can get it on the road for under $40K I think they might have a winner.
Energy cost of the rare earths & batteries? (Score:2)
And the environmental costs?
Are the rare earths needed for the motors, electronics and the batteries, along with the lithium or other metals used in the batteries a net energy cost to mine, refine and manufacture versus the savings from the reduced gasoline consumption?
Re: (Score:2)
1. Most cars are status symbols, look at SUVs for example.
2. Even the worst US coal plant is a lot cleaner than the ICE found in a car.
Re: (Score:2)
Even the worst US coal plant is a lot cleaner than the ICE found in a car.
lolwut? Do you know what fly ash [wikimedia.org] is?
Emissions controls on modern vehicles have gotten to the point where the air coming out the tailpipe can be cleaner than the air that went in the intake.
Re: (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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So lets see you breathe the exhaust for half and hour or so, just get the garden hose and try it out.
Reality is a car engine has terrible efficiency and none meet ULEV or any other standard while they are starting up. Since most trips are short lots of those are while the car engine and cat are not yet up to temp.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you know what peer-reviewed studies are [pnl.gov]? I've got a dozen more where that came from. Basically, on our current grid, certain pollutants (such as PM) increase by using EVs, while others are nearly eliminated (such as CO and VOCs); however, all pollutants are shifted to higher altitude and to less populated areas (instead of being emitted at street level in populated areas), leading to huge health benefits. CO2 is reduced by a quarter.
That's on our *current grid*. Our grid gets cleaner every year; most
Re: (Score:2)
The fly ash is collected and used.
In the UK (according to this site, anyway [ukqaa.org.uk]) it's stockpiled for future use, with the existing stockpile expected to last 30 years. Most houses have the internal side of the walls built from fly ash blocks (the external wall is brick, as it looks nicer).
The "cleaning the air" car claim is bending-the-truth bollocks, but I don't care to find a citation for that.
Re: (Score:2)
It decouples the fuel source. So while they may be mostly fossil fuel powered now, if and when renewable resources are available, they can use them without having to buy a new car.
To me the biggest obvious perk is not having to stand out in the freezing cold gassing up the car twice a week. But on a more sensible level, electric motors pretty much last forever, compared to an ICE + transmission. Other than the battery system, there's not much that wears on them, and they do not require much maintenance a
Re: (Score:2)
I can't figure out whether it's just Tesla's electronics powering a toyota PM motor, or whether they are using the Tesla copper-squirrel-cage motor as well. Anyone know?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Where do you get copper squirrels?
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla's drive motor is a copper squirrel [teslamotors.com].
On further reading it looks like the whole train including motor will be Tesla's design.
Re: (Score:2)
Ugh. I'm humor impaired today.
Re: (Score:2)
By sounds of it the Tesla motor is quite normal type brushless motor, nothing special. The efficiency % could even be increased from what it is. By the looks on it at the surface, there's something they could work on to gain higher efficiency.
Re: (Score:2)
"Powered by Tesla" is a standard marketing gimmick. Company A is a well-established player. Company B is a new player. A and B want to work together. Because A has the bigger name, the product is clearly going to be branded as "A". But B wants their brand name out there as well.
The solution? "Powered by B".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"They have all of the advantages of cars (easy to drive, easy to park, affordable) combined with all of the advantages of SUVs (lots of cargo capacity, good visibility)."
You are joking? Right? I mean seriously?
Crossovers are glorified hatchbacks and station wagons that might have an inch or two of extra clearance and a high center of gravity. They certainly don't have much cargo capacity (check out their actual load capacity in addition to the space). They certainly aren't cheap (they cost more to mainta
Re: (Score:2)
35mpg? That is pathetic, my old corolla beats that. It has 155k on the clock and it still does 35mpg.
Re: (Score:2)
"Up to" 35mpg? I know it's a tired argument, but I was getting 35mpg in a Chevy Citation (which was a complete POS) thirty years ago. And, yes, I know why cars don't do any better than they do these days. That still doesn't mean I must be impressed by something getting 35mpg, unless it's an Escalade. (Feel free to insert standard "European diesels get 100mpg" comment here.)
Re: (Score:2)
Where does the power for normal ICE cars come from? A million individual power plants for which it is hard and expensive to control the pollutants. Contrast to a single electric plant, whatever the fuel source, that is easier to scrub, maintain, and regulate than a million cars (or however many EVs a plant could supply).
Here in the Pacific Northwest, most of the power comes from hydro making it nearly a non-issue.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I really do not get the point of this vehicle. Using electricity as a fuel instead of gasoline and sacrificing on some power to save the environment does sound like an interesting idea. But we need to consider where the electricity comes from
The point of electric vehicles is to divorce cars from a single power source and make it possible to transition to more sustainable energy. It's one part of a strategy to free us from dependence on oil. Once the majority of the fleet is electric, the electricity can come from nuclear, wind, hydro, tidal, geothermal, natural gas, coal, or anything else we come up with. Moreover, it allows for the option of distributed power generation from flexible sources. Put solar panels or windmills on your house and pow
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A) Power plants are much more efficient than ICE engines in automobiles. Even with losses due to transmission, charging, discharging, and inefficiencies in the motor, an electric vehicle still requires less energy to run.
B) As fuel prices change and legislation changes, it will be much easier to upgrade the electrical grid to 'green', renewable sources than it would be to upgrade the millions of cars on American streets.
C) Energy is largely fungible. It doesn't matter where the specific electricity you
Re: (Score:2)
They sold over 300 of them last time and many are still on the road. You are confusing the EV1 with the RAV4 EV.