Toyota RAV4 Forums banner

Toyota Wraps Up Production of RAV4 EV

9K views 26 replies 7 participants last post by  RAV4ORRAV3 
#1 ·
Toyota Wraps Up Production of RAV4 EV | PluginCars.com

The Toyota RAV4 EV, the only all-electric SUV available anywhere in the United States, this month reached the conclusion of its limited production run. According to InsideEVs.com, all 2,600 planned models of the vehicle have been produced and shipped, with only approximately 300 units remaining to be sold or leased. The story of the 2012 RAV4 EV represented the melding of two disparate corporate cultures—Toyota, as the conservative Japanese automotive giant, and Tesla, the disruptive California start-up. It commenced in May 2010, when Elon Musk, Tesla’s chief executive, and Akio Toyoda, CEO of Toyota, announced the project in California, with then-governor Arnold Schwarzenegger presiding.
Toyota said it was seeking to gain inspiration from Tesla’s entrepreneurial spirit. The RAV4 EV was only sold in select markets in California.
The heart and soul of the RAV4 EV is an electric drivetrain from Tesla Motors. By virtue of its collaboration with Tesla, Toyota transformed its sedate Toyota utility wagon into a high-riding two-ton beast. Moreover, its 41.8-kWh battery pack—providing about 120 miles of real-world range—leads all other EVs, except for the significantly pricier Tesla Model S.
In Sport Mode, the electric RAV goes from 0-60 in about seven seconds, and zooms to a maximum speed of 100 mph. The Sport mode provides 154 horsepower. Its 273 pound-feet of torque, which often produces tire chirp at launch, is cut to a calmer 218 pound-feet when operating in Normal mode. While the Sport Mode is great for a burst of highway passing power, when launching from stop and stomping your foot on the accelerator, the vehicle's body rises and dips and the steering wiggles left and right. When pushed to its limits, the Tesla system overpowers the capabilities of the Toyota vehicle platform.
 
See less See more
#2 ·
Given our driving situation its limited range would have reduced it to in-home area and travel to nearby town use, while a lot of our driving is in the neighborhood of 100 miles in each direction of going and returning, and not generally being able to sit and wait for the EV to recharge.
 
#6 ·
Carnivore---------

You are correct! Try to drive an electric car down here on a trip and see how far you get. It's 8+ hours from where I live just to get to Dallas much less reach another state. PFFFTTT. Go combustion engine or go on the side of the road in Texas.
 
#10 ·
It is a joke where I live, no two ways about it. In all honesty I admire the advances that have shown up in all electric cars, Tesla especially. They have a long way to go but the trend has been established and will continue to mature.

Considering the distances between major cities in Texas, and other states, the Toyota all electric version of the RAV was an experiment (at best) meant to satisfy California politics. That experiment has now ended as has the production of that model. Can you imagine trying to resell one now that it is an extinct specialty model?

There are indeed folks that can (and do) live with an E-Car and are thrilled with it, and good for them. I do not fall into that minuscule fold.
 
#11 ·
There are indeed folks that can (and do) live with an E-Car and are thrilled with it, and good for them. I do not fall into that minuscule fold.
There are indeed folks that can (and do) live with Hummers and are thrilled with them. I don't fall into that minuscule fold either. Especially now that THAT 'joke' of a car has be discontinued.


But to each his own. We've come a long ways since the days where everyone drove a Model T that came in any color you liked, as long as it was black.


Like you, I live in an area where E-cars are impractical, but if I lived in a big city and needed a small commuter car, I'd certainly consider one. They are, to this point anyway, designed to be used WITHIN big cities, not BETWEEN them. Whether those cities be in Texas or California or anywhere else. Hate to break it to you, but these things work just as well in Dallas as they do in San Francisco.


You're right that the technology has come a long ways and will continue to progress and we won't get to where we need to go without cars like the Electric RAV4 along the way.


My guess is someday everyone will be driving electric cars recharged by solar panels on the roofs. Or all powered via some sort of WiFi technology. Of course, we won't be driving. The cars will do that themselves. And everyone will laugh and shake their heads that there was ever a time when cars needed things like dirty gas and oil to operate and that they made tons of noise and expelled dirty smoke. How primitive is all of that, really?
 
#13 ·
My guess is someday everyone will be driving electric cars recharged by solar panels on the roofs. Or all powered via some sort of WiFi technology. Of course, we won't be driving. The cars will do that themselves. And everyone will laugh and shake their heads that there was ever a time when cars needed things like dirty gas and oil to operate and that they made tons of noise and expelled dirty smoke. How primitive is all of that, really?
I admire your George Jetson mentality but it is at best, a guess. IF it occurs that will be long after we are both pushing up daisies.

Like you, I live in an area where E-cars are impractical, but if I lived in a big city and needed a small commuter car, I'd certainly consider one. They are, to this point anyway, designed to be used WITHIN big cities, not BETWEEN them. Whether those cities be in Texas or California or anywhere else. Hate to break it to you, but these things work just as well in Dallas as they do in San Francisco.
No wise words from you here.....I never even hinted they weren't practical in the city regardless of the absurd initial expense. The reality of it is that we don't all drive just in the city. From where I live to San Antonio is about 300 miles and no electric car can even make it that far. My point is that folks here, and elsewhere, DO travel distances that exceed the capabilities of even the best E-Car on a regular basis. For what it is designed for I suppose it is a somewhat reasonable alternative. To me the E-Cars are in their infancy and yes, a joke. The now defunct E-RAV resides at the top of the list.
 
#14 ·
I admire your George Jetson mentality but it is at best, a guess. IF it occurs that will be long after we are both pushing up daisies.

Probably, but it's still where we're headed. The combustion engine is 100 year old technology and has only been improved upon around the margins, but the basic technology is still the same.


No wise words from you here.....I never even hinted they weren't practical in the city regardless of the absurd initial expense. The reality of it is that we don't all drive just in the city. From where I live to San Antonio is about 300 miles and no electric car can even make it that far. My point is that folks here, and elsewhere, DO travel distances that exceed the capabilities of even the best E-Car on a regular basis.
Well, yeah you DID hint at that, actually, but calling them a 'joke' in the broadest of terms. Only when challenged on it did you try to backtrack and qualify that with your "well, they are where I live...." line, which only makes it all sound even sillier. There's a much bigger world than just those who live 300 miles from the nearest city.


For what it is designed for I suppose it is a somewhat reasonable alternative. To me the E-Cars are in their infancy and yes, a joke.
I imagine that's what the horse-and-buggy guys said about gasoline powered cars 100 years ago too.


The now defunct E-RAV resides at the top of the list.
Except you just finished praising Tesla who put their engine and battery into the RAV. So your list doesn't really make a lot of sense, now does it?


But hey....when has "sense" and "political statement" ever gone together?
 
#15 ·
Since only 2600 were planned to be built over three years of course they got in bed with Tesla. Toyota didn't have the battery technology so they had no choice.

Either way we will agree to disagree. I will die thinking the RAV EV was a joke and a political statement. You may continue to twist my words and believe whatever you desire. It's as simple as that. My opinion counts for no one but myself as does yours.
 
#17 ·
Well, I wouldn't call the RAV4 EV or other EVs a joke, not when Car & Driver (March 2014) tested six of them (from Chevy, Ford, Fiat, Honda, Nissan, and Smart) and got 90-100 MPGe. But they certainly do become political when they are only being produced at a loss ($10K for the RAV4) to meet State mandated ZEV 1% of car sales percentages. The manufacturers either have to build them or buy carbon credits from Tesla. Credits which BTW account for virtually all of Tesla's profit.
And as soon as carbon credits come into play it becomes 100% political, if not 1000%. It's "scientists" paid by politicians who claim that rising CO2 levels correlate with global warming and it's dire consequences if we don't stop burning fossil fuels. But with a little study I can see what's generating the mania.
They've come up with dozens of "computer" models (actually man-made guesses) which very accurately match earth's temperature variations, both up and down for 20 years from 1977 to 1997 so they take them as an accurate forecast for the next 20 thru 2017 and beyond for which they predict continuous extreme increases. Problem is that's not what's actually happening. From 1997 to 2004 its only risen about 1/4 of the models' predictions and from 2004 to 2014 hasn't risen at all. The political money grab just isn't supported by the data but that's never stopped it before has it?
 
#18 ·
Must feel great to devote your entire education and career to a profession only to have someone with zero education in the field dismiss your career by putting it in quotes.


I wonder if "doctors" and "lawyers" and "teachers" and even "auto mechanics" have to suffer the same indignity simply because someone's personal political beliefs are at odds with the results of their work or if that only reserved for "scientists".
Actually what doesn't hold up is the claim that "that's not what's actually happening". The claim that there hasn't been warming for the last 10 years comes from a cherrypicking of data by non-scientists trying to fulfill THEIR political agenda.


YMMV, of course, but I'll side with the scientists over the politicians on matters of science.
 
#20 ·
Actually what doesn't hold up is the claim that "that's not what's actually happening". The claim that there hasn't been warming for the last 10 years comes from a cherrypicking of data by non-scientists trying to fulfill THEIR political agenda.
Guess you missed the flat earth charge against those who disagree. But then I didn't read your whole rant.
My data comes from the chief meteorologist of the US Army. What it shows is the history of temperature changes correlates extremely closely with sunspot activity. For many years it had also followed CO2 levels and while CO2 levels have continued to rise fairly dramatically over the last 10 years the temperature hasn't. Had it actually happened as the CO2-tied models predicted we would already be in trouble with way more to come. It does continue to track sunspot activity but there's no money to made in studying that, no way to blame it on humans, and therefore no possibility of getting rich on sunspot credits.
 
#19 ·
If you really want to follow the money or talk about things that haven't stopped us before, then you need look no further than those who are so vehemently opposed to any sort of climate-related regulations because it will effect their short term bottom line. Denying science -- even if it is actually in their own long-term best interest to support it -- because it's more money in their pocket TODAY to do so is as old as science and politics itself I would imagine.


The same clowns laughing at the "scientists" who talk about climate change are the same ones who laughed off the "science" that said lead in gasoline was bad for people. Or who fought against every increase in emission standards. They said the science was faulty. That the cost to the economy in terms of higher prices and fewer jobs didn't make the regulations worth it. They were wrong EVERY TIME.


But being wrong time and again has never stopped these people before, has it? So why would this time be any different?
 
#21 ·
Yeah I wasn't around for the whole flat earth thing, but my understanding of history is that was the view held by the religious fundamentalists of the day and it all predates anything that had much to do with modern science anyway.

As far as your lone holdout "scientist" goes, you might want to look a bit more open mindedly at the broad consensus. Rule of thumb: let the science guide your political views, not the other way around. And maybe actually read what others who might disagree with you have to say instead of broadly dismissing it out of hand as "rants". Being proud of willful ignorance isn't really a good position to take if you want to change anyone's mind. Just sayin'.
 
#22 ·
Being proud of willful ignorance isn't really a good position to take if you want to change anyone's mind. Just sayin'.
Not trying to change any minds. The sunspot, CO2 and temperature data speaks for itself. Interpret as you desire for your own reasons.
 
#23 ·
Cherry picking the data for your own political agenda is silly. Promoting that as the truth while ignoring the 97% of the science that points in another direction is far beyond silly.

Funny you brought up the flat earthers because that's exactly what you're doing here: desperately clinging to the status quo because you fear what changes a new reality might bring.
 
#24 ·
I could produce the data but I guess that would instantly be rejected as from the 3-percenters. But if CO2 levels and temperatures continue to deviate from each other as they have for the last 10 years you'll see the 3% going up pretty dramatically over the next 10. Then the global warming politicians and "scientists" will be labelled flat-earthers.

Actually they've already backed off from global warming to the nebulous "climate change" which has a distinct political flavor to it. In fact climate change is such a fantastic phrase I'm surprised it took this long for them to come up with it. It gives them blanket coverage for ANYTHING that changes and the authority to make everyone else (except the Chinese :wink) pay for it.
 
#25 ·
You seem really concerned with money being the motivating factor being the science. And you're right, but you're missing the obvious. It those who OPPOSE the science who have the most at stake and who have the 3%ers on their payrolls. THEY are the ones hoping to (continue) to get rich by maintaining the status quo.

It's like the doctors who worked for Phillip Morris claiming cigarette smoking doesn't cause cancer. Lots of smokers believed THEIR data as well.
 
#26 ·
Sorry I missed your last post.
In the end none of our opinions matter. Now that it's Climate Change we've gone beyond the tipping point. Whatever happens from now on even if it's nothing is somehow going to be blamed on us and charged to our pocketbooks. The die is cast. We've been had. Science no longer matters.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top