The story of the Toyota RAV4 EV (wikipedia article)
09-14-09, 08:33 AM
#1
Lexus Test Driver
Thread Starter
The story of the Toyota RAV4 EV (wikipedia article)
I was looking at the regular RAV4 page on Wikipedia on my iPhone and I discovered that there was an electric RAV4 produced some time ago. And I started reading it because of this thread. I got teary-eyed, almost started crying. It's such a sad story 
And the background music was Reba Mcentire - Consider Me Gone, which probably went really well with the article and made me even sadder
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_RAV4_EV
And the background music was Reba Mcentire - Consider Me Gone, which probably went really well with the article and made me even sadder
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_RAV4_EV
(Edison)
09-14-09, 04:49 PM
#4
I've only seen one when I was in Cali.
wolverine, it has been leased to the public and now I believe some are owned (After that whole fiasco with the EV1 and Toyota deciding to not crush the RAV4 EVs).
wolverine, it has been leased to the public and now I believe some are owned (After that whole fiasco with the EV1 and Toyota deciding to not crush the RAV4 EVs).
09-15-09, 11:59 PM
#7
Rookie
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: AZ
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whether or not Toyota wanted to continue production, it was unlikely to be able to do so because the EV-95 battery was no longer available. Chevron had inherited control of the worldwide patent rights for the NiMH EV-95 battery when it merged with Texaco, which had purchased them from General Motors. Chevron's unit won a USD 30,000,000 settlement from Toyota and Panasonic, and the production line for the large NiMH batteries was closed down and dismantled. This case was settled in the ICC International Court of Arbitration, and not publicised due to a gag order placed on all parties involved.[2][3] Only smaller NiMH batteries, incapable of powering an electric vehicle or plugging in, are currently allowed by Chevron-Texaco.[4]
cool, so mega wealthy oil companies were purchasing the patent rights to these awesome batteries so they could stop production of them and prevent them from competing with good ol' gasoline. i'm glad we're all ok with them stifling innovation and technology and the possibility of a cleaner environment just so they can keep gasoline prices up and maintain their bottom line.
Trending Topics
09-16-09, 01:18 AM
#8
am i the only one that read this article all the way through???
cool, so mega wealthy oil companies were purchasing the patent rights to these awesome batteries so they could stop production of them and prevent them from competing with good ol' gasoline. i'm glad we're all ok with them stifling innovation and technology and the possibility of a cleaner environment just so they can keep gasoline prices up and maintain their bottom line.
cool, so mega wealthy oil companies were purchasing the patent rights to these awesome batteries so they could stop production of them and prevent them from competing with good ol' gasoline. i'm glad we're all ok with them stifling innovation and technology and the possibility of a cleaner environment just so they can keep gasoline prices up and maintain their bottom line.
09-16-09, 01:31 AM
#9
You can bash chevron for making huge profit. same with exxon for their $40 billion. But it's not like they have zero overhead. Revenue for chevron was about $230 billion. Their profit margin isn't as high as it seems. 10% isn't that impressive. Microsoft has a profit margin of 30% and they screw us by making us buy overpriced software that's flawed.
Not that I'm against bashing those fat cat oil tycoons. They can go screw themselves along with their oil cartels.
Not that I'm against bashing those fat cat oil tycoons. They can go screw themselves along with their oil cartels.
09-16-09, 05:53 AM
#12
Lexus Test Driver
Thread Starter
And Toyota, after all the EV's including the RAV4 being so successful, still continues the BS:
http://jalopnik.com/5359997/toyota-e...ream-consumers
I think people would buy EV's almost no matter how high the price would be.
http://jalopnik.com/5359997/toyota-e...ream-consumers
I think people would buy EV's almost no matter how high the price would be.
09-16-09, 02:39 PM
#13
And Toyota, after all the EV's including the RAV4 being so successful, still continues the BS:
http://jalopnik.com/5359997/toyota-e...ream-consumers
I think people would buy EV's almost no matter how high the price would be.
http://jalopnik.com/5359997/toyota-e...ream-consumers
I think people would buy EV's almost no matter how high the price would be.
In today's market, a 120 mile range RAV4 EV may not fly as well as before esp. now with the competition from hybrids that offer the best of both worlds (for now). That being said, Nissan's Leaf will prove to be an interesting product largely because it's smaller and will be cheaper than the RAV4. Li-Ion batteries will also allow more better acceleration and longer range. (not much but better than before).
09-16-09, 03:32 PM
#14
Lexus Test Driver
Thread Starter
Remember that the EVs were made to meet CARB's requirement of ZEV vehicles by 2003 (i think it was something like 10% of the cars sold in CA must be ZEV).
In today's market, a 120 mile range RAV4 EV may not fly as well as before esp. now with the competition from hybrids that offer the best of both worlds (for now). That being said, Nissan's Leaf will prove to be an interesting product largely because it's smaller and will be cheaper than the RAV4. Li-Ion batteries will also allow more better acceleration and longer range. (not much but better than before).
In today's market, a 120 mile range RAV4 EV may not fly as well as before esp. now with the competition from hybrids that offer the best of both worlds (for now). That being said, Nissan's Leaf will prove to be an interesting product largely because it's smaller and will be cheaper than the RAV4. Li-Ion batteries will also allow more better acceleration and longer range. (not much but better than before).
*most people (like 90%) don't need a bigger range, because they don't travel more in a day than that.
*The owners of the Saturn(?) EV1s LOVED their cars, EV1s were very sporty, accelerated fast and they were comfortable, and looked nice.
CARB made that requirement after automakers had started producing EVs. They just made it a rule.
And electric cars died out because of lobbyists from oil companies. And even president Bush threatened the EV people not to go out of CA with their project. And nowadays they are trying to make us believe that EVs are "the future" even though they could be made right now and were produced even more than 100 years ago. It's not new technology!
Sorry if I come across as too forceful. I'm just a little upset.
09-16-09, 04:15 PM
#15
I watched the movie "Who killed the electric car" and what I remember from that is:
*most people (like 90%) don't need a bigger range, because they don't travel more in a day than that.
*The owners of the Saturn(?) EV1s LOVED their cars, EV1s were very sporty, accelerated fast and they were comfortable, and looked nice.
CARB made that requirement after automakers had started producing EVs. They just made it a rule.
And electric cars died out because of lobbyists from oil companies. And even president Bush threatened the EV people not to go out of CA with their project. And nowadays they are trying to make us believe that EVs are "the future" even though they could be made right now and were produced even more than 100 years ago. It's not new technology!
Sorry if I come across as too forceful. I'm just a little upset.
*most people (like 90%) don't need a bigger range, because they don't travel more in a day than that.
*The owners of the Saturn(?) EV1s LOVED their cars, EV1s were very sporty, accelerated fast and they were comfortable, and looked nice.
CARB made that requirement after automakers had started producing EVs. They just made it a rule.
And electric cars died out because of lobbyists from oil companies. And even president Bush threatened the EV people not to go out of CA with their project. And nowadays they are trying to make us believe that EVs are "the future" even though they could be made right now and were produced even more than 100 years ago. It's not new technology!
Sorry if I come across as too forceful. I'm just a little upset.
.