Edmonds tests 9 ev's

[palmer_md]

Rav4 killed em all except the s. Including performance on skidpad and slalom.

http://www.edmunds.com/fuel-economy/electric-car-comparison-test.html

http://www.edmunds.com/fuel-economy/testing-electric-vehicles-in-the-real-world.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diJj-zQ09yc

edit: fixed the links above

 

[palmer_md]

edit: sorry about the bad links in the original post. I've since updated them to point to the correct article. Good reading.

 

[Dsinned]

The 3 links given all point to the same video??? The one about the test loop of 105.5 miles, and the RAV4 EV result aren't even mentioned.

 

[palmer_md]

The 3 links given all point to the same video??? The one about the test loop of 105.5 miles, and the RAV4 EV result aren't even mentioned.

the first two links go to articles and the third goes to a related video. Not sure what you are "seeing"?

 

[TeCKis300]

Hrmm...The links all work for me and send me to distinct content. Try refreshing your page.

The second link has the results of the driving loop. The RAV4 did the full loop of 105.5 + 39 miles left on the GoM.

To the OP, thanks for posting this link! Very eye opening test relative to the other BEV's out there. Most importantly, it reaffirms what I already know in that that the RAV4 is a solid car first and foremost, but also an incredible technological achievement that is at the top of its class by most any measure.

 

[Dsinned]

Okay, got it. My mistake.

The RAV4 EV held up very well indeed. In the video it was stated that the EPA range seems fairly conservative; and the EVs in the test were getting 20 to 25% more range. They neglected to mention, however, the RAV4 EV got over 40% more range, way more than its EPA rating compared to the rest!

Also, the zero to 60 reported seems rather low at 7.7 seconds. That almost sounds like they did that test in "normal" driving mode. In sport mode, however, I think under 7 seconds should be more "the norm" (pun intended).

I think for the "Consumption" test, the figure 31.2kWh/100miles must be a mistake. I think what they are saying is for the 105.5 mile range test, they immediately recharged the battery and it took 31.2kWh of charging station power to fully replenish the battery back to 100%. But, due to charging losses, perhaps as much as 20%, the battery would "consume" less than that to fully recharge (25kWh perhaps?). If so, then that would mean they got close to 4mi/kWh while doing the 105.5 mile range test.

Sounds like some serious hypermiling to me was employed by the Edmunds test driver, not generally indicative of "real world" driving or how these type of tests would normally be driven by the EPA.

 

[palmer_md]

well, I don't think that they did any unusual driving (ie hypermiling), but the route that they chose is all surface streets and zero (0) miles of highway.

 

[TonyWilliams]

... It is still the best value in EV's available right now. I'm quite surprised the car buying public has not taken notice yet. This report may help shed some light on the Rav4ev.

Well, it's only the best value if you need a real 100 miles of range and the physically larger size car.

With 18,000 Model S and a bunch more Model X reservations, there are folks who like this drivetrain at least!!!

But, only 200 Rav4 EV's sold? It's unbelievably pathetic.

 

[TeCKis300]

But, only 200 Rav4 EV's sold? It's unbelievably pathetic.

It truly is. Sure seems that Toyota missed an opportunity here. Toyota should have played up the Tesla connection and perhaps kept the Tesla badging underneath the hood as in the original prototypes. You'd think with the legions of Prius owners, there would be a natural customer base to convert into BEV owners. I

Perhaps they should have developed the BEV on the Prius V model? Though I for one know I would not have bought a conversion in that chassis as the RAV is a much more substantial and solid car in the traditional qualities of what I consider a 'good' car.

 

[Dsinned]

Sorry Micheal (aka "palmer_md"), I accidentally deleted the last part of your most recent post. My apology. I guess I have that ability as a "Moderator", which I did not realize, or do intentionally. Sorry!

What I was going to say in response to your previous post, was:

I am not as familiar with Southern CA as some of you guys here, but as I study the route taken by Edmunds, there is a fairly long section right along the CA Coastline. Wouldn't that be more like "highway" driving?

Imho, to get anywhere near 4mi/kWH in a current model RAV4 EV, especially as a first time driver, driving over a continuous distance of 100 miles, even mostly on city streets, is extremely challenging, requiring intensive hypermiling techniques. My personal best, so far, under similar driving conditions, is only around 3.5mi/kWh, not counting one way trips essentially going downhill most of the way. :mrgreen:

 

[Dsinned]

I agree, this car is getting VERY little attention for as good of an EV as it truly is. I also agree, that Toyota blew it BIG TIME by not making a much stronger connection to Tesla in its public promotions of this vehicle. The "Powered by Tesla" cover under the hood on prototypes was worth its weight in GOLD and should of been retained for the production car.

Also, let me just add that only 200 cars sold in the last 4 months, considering the price incentives that exist since early December, is unbelievably bad and Toyota and all "authorized" CA dealers must shoulder the blame.

 

[palmer_md]

Sorry Micheal (aka "palmer_md"), I accidentally deleted the last part of your most recent post. My apology. I guess I have that ability as a "Moderator", which I did not realize, or do intentionally. Sorry!

no problem. Thanks for alerting me. I can't remember exactly what I said either, so I guess it was not that important. We got part of it in Tony's quote from my post. Essentially I was noting that the test was all surface streets and zero highway miles. It would have been nice to have a more balanced test that has both surface street and highway so that the ranges would more closely match the EPA rating. The way the test was organized it is easy to beat the EPA rating. But all cars did do the same test, so comparison between cars is still valid.