Toyota needs to stand behind their Rav4 EV

[dmw183]

I am a Pennsylvania resident who recently leased a Nissan Leaf for my fiance. We love the car so much that we started looking for another EV with more cargo room and longer range. So, I decided to look into the Rav4 EV. To my dismay, the Rav4 EV is only available in Cali. And local dealerships near me couldn't even so much as order one for me. Then I hear about some horror stories about dealers refusing to pay out-of-state dealerships for warranty service or even provide parts. I explored the possibility of purchasing a used one thinking there is no way Toyota could prevent me from bringing the vehicle home with me but even then I only found one dealer (in San Francisco) willing to sell me one and ship it to me but they couldn't guarantee I could get it serviced where I lived. I know that Toyota only produced a small number of these vehicles because they are costly to manufacture. But why restrict those few vehicles to one region? And what happens to a Cali resident who purchases the Rav4 EV and moves out of state? Are they equally as screwed? My point is this, I can understand why these cars built in small numbers, however, if you are going to sell the car you should stand behind your product. You should be able to purchase the vehicle regardless of where you live and have equal access to parts and service. If Toyota does not want to stand behind their vehicle then they should not have built it. I welcome any thoughts on this subject.

 

[amped up]

You have no idea how much Toyota is pissing me off with all these shenanigans, to the point I will probably never buy a Toyota again. I really wanted one, but gave up after finding out how they are working so hard on not supporting out-of-state buyers.

It's a compliance car, so we'll just have to accept/deal with it, and show our frustration by not buying a Toyota.

 

[springs]

http://www.myrav4ev.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=835&p=10080#p10080

 

[ground_gainer]

How did they treat Rav4 EV generation 1s? What kind of warranty/service could people expect on that over the life of the car?

At some point, it becomes less about getting the "free" warranty service as about getting ANY service at all... I sure hope someone will be able to fix my car for a reasonable amount of $$$ when it needs some work.

 

[4EVEREV]

We don't sell anything to people that call California "Cali". Frowned upon in this establishment!

 

[EVlearner]

Very true.

Couple of thoughts... someone posted that the $7500 Federal credit comes from taxes from people in all 50 states but only a few states population benefit (doesn't seem equitable)... also, Honda (compliance king) currently leases in 8 or 9 states... certainly Toyota, Fiat, GM (Spark) could do the same the least... not even asking them to go nationwide like Ford (I think), Nissan, Tesla, or SMART (with its limitations and all). Those same CARB 8 or 9 states came out a few weeks ago saying they plan to meet EV sales by 20xx.. well how are these politicians/regulators going to do that if the car companies won't even sell/lease the EV there right now? and they want to use your taxpayer money to invest more charging stations and infrastructure? maybe you guys back East should write those politicians/regulators and ask why they are throwing good money after bad! I mean, I know politicians/regulators are great at spending other people's money but... (you are in PA but that's close enough to NJ where you could theoretically lease/buy car in NJ and have it serviced there if needed)

Wonder how much of this limited availability is due to dealership pressure... an EV sold is one less ICE or PHEV or Hybrid being sold. $$$ talks.

And with BMW i3 coming out and going nationwide, if it does take off in sales, would the compliance car manufacturers feel embarrassed or pressured enough to try to do the same? Or are they still hanging their hats on the mythical hydrogen fuel cell car (which sounds pretty awesome but will it be available in my life time -- infrastructure and all.. not like I have hydrogen pump sitting in my house and so it means filling up at hydrogen stations and how easy is it to install these pumps all over to make the hydrogen car feasible for the average driver?).

 

[dmw183]

EVlearner -

You do make a valid point! Collectively all of our tax dollars go into the $7500 rebate why shouldn't we be allowed to purchase the vehicle without any restrictions? And you are absolutely right, these dealerships are under some kind of pressure from Toyota. Every local dealership I have spoken to all get a deflated sound in their voice when they tell me that they are not "allowed" to sell the car outside of California. I even called Toyota and the person on the phone told me some cock and bull story about the lack of charging stations outside of California as if to say that there isn't just a small possibility of charging the vehicle at home (which is what I do with my Nissan Leaf). The stories I've heard has been just awful, they won't pay the dealers for any warranty service nor supply parts. If Toyota is not careful they will damage their reputation similar to what GM did with the EV1.

If there is a small glimmer of hope to take comfort in, it is that I did find a dealer who is willing to sell and ship the Rav4 EV for me but they were clear about the risks involved with such a venture. Stating in so many words that I would basically be on my own with the vehicle.

 

[4EVEREV]

You can buy a LEAF and get the $7500 rebate. The BMW is really going to be an overpriced green badge IMO. The RAV is very limited production so it is not as though 50K are available only in CA leaving everyone else cut out. Since Toyota looses tens of thousands per car should they really sell it everywhere? I think it's nonsense to expect that they should sell more of these Tesla co-marketing liability, green washing EVs then they desire. It is a free market and if they were making money selling them you can bet they would be available to buy in every state. I would not be shocked if each car cost more than $100K to produce. They should sell then everywhere and every dealer should pony up to service them just because we have a funded tax credit, not a rebate. Remember you must owe taxes to get the rebate and this does not entitle anyone to force a company to sell a product in their state, particularly one they bleed on. Toyota does not sell the RAV to make money, that is not what this car is about it is all about PR and crafty back scratching deals.

_________________

 

[Tadol]

I really think this has been gone over - but since the horse is dead, it won't mind.

Toyota is NOT being a bad guy, they are just being a business, responding to the legally mandated requirements to continue to do business in the state of California. This is the result of decades of legislative effort to reduce emissions and improve efficiency. And even to improve safety. Yes, we pay alot extra for gas, and have had to deal with a variety of engine problems from that. We've required higher fuel efficiency in this state, which has led to immense spending by car manufacturers on improvements in efficiency while still meeting air quality standards. This has been a long, expensive, and hard fought effort on the part of many citizens of this state, which has indirectly led to much safer and more efficient cars throughout the US. I haven't heard it, but I'll say it to all of you in the other 49 states - YOU'RE WELCOME.

Now, as a result of all that effort, auto makers have been forced to produce and then sell IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA - emphasis required - a certain percentage of vehicles, a certain physical number, in order to continue selling any their other cars here. They can probably buy their way out, but Toyota saw the opportunity to do a little business with and maybe learn a bit from another company, Tesla, and see what kind of engineering and business opportunities might arise. This is a very, very, very expensive test for them - its what they must do to comply with the law, and since it is costing them so much, they really want to do absolutely no more than what they have to. Can anyone blame them? It would be great if they had the social conscience to do alot more, but go ahead and rate all automotive manufacturers on a social conscience scale and we can talk about where they might land.

Tesla does not want to support or promote the Rav4 - they just got paid for a basic battery pack and motor, and thats about it. Toyota has a big investment in those parts - probably more than they are selling them for - and they aren't going to make that up in volume. They know there is the very real possibility ( as clearly documented on this site ) of unusual problems, with unique knowledge and expertise to troubleshoot, diagnose, and repair. They made the VERY intelligent decision to restrict the number of dealers who sell the vehicle, and therefore reduce the number of specially trained technicians ( or at least minimize the distance those technicians would need to travel ) in order to provide a reasonable ( I did not say outstanding ) level of service for those vehicles. They are selling most of them on a lease basis, so that if problems mount or technology improves, the purchasers of these vehicles can walk away from them and purchase something new.

I completely agree that the Rav4 EV is an outstanding vehicle, and am really happy to have one. But I disagree with the assertions that Toyota is actually evil, or has some legal or moral responsibility to everyone in the US with each car they build. My local Toyota dealer, who has been servicing our other 3 Toyotas for the last 20 year won't even touch the EV! Toyota apparently feels that fuel cells are gonna be a better solution. I just don't know if thats a good bet. But Toyota is just a huge corporation, responding to the balance between customer desires, mandated requirements, and stockholder profits. What if they made a deal with Tesla to continue producing the Rav4 indefinitely, but priced it at a level that covered all their costs and gave a decent return to their stockholders - say 69K - and then made them available all over the US, maybe the world. Would you still be as hot about running out and buying one? That would be much closer to the real number from what I read - still alot cheaper than the X, or even the S, but still alot more than an ICE Rav -

Keep putting pressure on Toyota to make more EVs available - but do the same to Ford, Chevrolet, Volkswagen, BMW, Honda, Mitsubishi, etc, etc, etc. If an EV Passport were available, I'd very seriously consider that. And i still want an EV pick-up! 60 miles range carrying ¾ ton would be IDEAL!!! Oh - and have it recharge at 50a from a Tempower box on a jobsite -

So bottom line - they are providing the minimum required vehicles to meet requirements as set by law - no more. They are trying to lose as little money on them as possible. They are collecting some data on usage, getting some marketing data, testing some technology agreements out, and not much more than that. There are maybe a couple million of us who have the opportunity to take advantage of this, but only 2600 who can.

Sorry it doesn't work for some of you - but you really shouldn't take it quite so personally. Exercise your options as American consumers, and shop around and buy something else - or, buy the Rav4, and figure you're still coming out a good 20+ grand less than it costs to build, and be happy with that. But if you really need to blame someone, blame your state governments for not mandating better safety, better economy, and much lower emissions for the last 40 years. You can start now -

 

[mark_rivers19]

Very well said Tadol.
I'm with you in every point.

And what makes California special, is the number of car buyers.
So toyota is willing to LOSE some, for the privilege of selling to 1/3 of the US population.

If it was Rhode Island ( where i used to live) that passed this laws, i doubt that we'll ever see a RAV4 EV.

Toyota is selling hybrids and plug in hybrids primarily. And soon, FCEVs
So i don't expect them to STAND BEHIND their EVs.

 

[dmw183]

For the record, my issue is not so much that Toyota only sells the rav4 ev in California or that they make a limited number of them. I'm more concerned with the lack of support outside of California. California is only state that has authorized dealers to service the rav4 ev (although those dealers maybe few) but if you are out of state you have zero support. Look, I understand there is a business side to this and Toyota must do what's best for their company, however, it would be nice if they had better support for out of staters even if it's at the owners expense.

 

[AvLegends]

I think part of the issue here is the cost for a dealership to be part of the EV program. I know here in my local Ventura area one dealership service manager told me that they (Ventura Toyota) didn't want to be part of the EV program... that it was going to cost the dealership around $100K to be EV certified. Part of this cost was the flooring of a Rav4 EV ($50K) and the rest of the cost was the training of EV technicians as well as purchasing EV specific diagnostic and service equipment.

When I purchased my Rav4 EV at a neighboring dealership... DCH Toyota of Oxnard, the salesman told me that the cost of being a certified EV dealership was more easily absorbed by being a DCH corporate dealership and not a smaller privately owned retailer.

These dealerships are not factory owned and are in the business to make a profit. It does not surprise me to see some dealerships in California not participating in the program. Given the small sales outside of a few volume dealerships I think the profits are very low on this car. Out of state dealerships not willing to invest in the service training and equipment to service one or two vehicles doesn't surprise me.

 

[4EVEREV]

For the record, my issue is not so much that Toyota only sells the rav4 ev in California or that they make a limited number of them. I'm more concerned with the lack of support outside of California. California is only state that has authorized dealers to service the rav4 ev (although those dealers maybe few) but if you are out of state you have zero support. Look, I understand there is a business side to this and Toyota must do what's best for their company, however, it would be nice if they had better support for out of staters even if it's at the owners expense.

This makes absolutely no sense, the car is only sold in CA, why would Toyota or a dealer outside CA set up support in the hopes of perhaps supporting one or no cars. Even if it cost them only $100 there is no incentive. I'm sure if you paid for all the dealer tools, lift, setup, training, etc then you would get service but it would cost less to ship your car to CA and back many times over.

 

[miimura]

My understanding is that some out of state technicians have paid to be EV certified out of their own pockets. If they buy the EV specific tools too, why should Toyota refuse to pay a willing out of state dealer to do Warranty work?

There are several overlapping issues here.
1. Toyota getting credit for selling the required quantity of vehicles that they produced.
2. Toyota limiting their costs to service a small number of customers.
3. The effectiveness of Toyota's policies to achieve #1, #2 above.

Personally, I have no problem with Toyota doing what they have to in order to get full CARB credit for the cars that they produce. If they have to get the car registered in CA to get full credit, then they should just make that a requirement. Obviously there are legal limitations as to what they can require, but if they have to crank up the invoice and MSRP prices and give rebates to cars registered in CA, then so be it. If someone moves the car after the initial sale and registration, so be it - Toyota still got full credit for the sale.

So, now, what about after the sale? Since they set up the EV Certified program, it seems that any dealership that is not certified has every right to refuse to service EVs. Fine. I don't think anyone is complaining about dealers that don't want to do the service. However, if a dealer is willing to get people trained and accept the standard reimbursement rate for warranty work, there should be no difference to Toyota where the dealership is located. Also, there is no reason to limit parts distribution if somebody is willing to pay the listed price. I also think it would be reasonable for Toyota to request reimbursement for additional actual shipping cost for parts sent out of state. By the same logic, charging travel expense for a Tesla technician to travel out of state would also be a reasonable request. The owner could then decide if it is cheaper to ship the car to a EV Certified dealer in CA, or if they want to pay the travel expense - IF that is actually required after diagnosis by a local technician.

My main problem with Toyota regarding the RAV4 EV is the fact that they are making shady-feeling indirect policies to try to achieve their goals. I think it would be much better if they made transparent and direct policies that are compliant with existing consumer protection law.

 

[TonyWilliams]

My main problem with Toyota regarding the RAV4 EV is the fact that they are making shady-feeling indirect policies to try to achieve their goals. I think it would be much better if they made transparent and direct policies that are compliant with existing consumer protection law.

There's nothing shady about selling the car in California only. What if they sold it in the whole USA, but not Canada? Would that also be shady?

Toyota is neither quiet, nor shady, about their lack of fondness for EV's. The very highest levels of the company have made their position very clear.

They announced the production would be 2600 from almost day one. They announced California only, and are now enforcing California only through the tools they have.

To my knowledge, they comply with all the laws, and exercise their rights to sell cars where needed to comply. I might argue that out-of-state warranty should apply under the Magnuson–Moss Warranty, but I'm sure their lawyers think this is not required.

 

[springs]

I think there was some fine print that stated... "Can not be available only in CA." Wouldn't that be a bitch. No CARB credits at all???

 

[4EVEREV]

My understanding is that some out of state technicians have paid to be EV certified out of their own pockets. If they buy the EV specific tools too, why should Toyota refuse to pay a willing out of state dealer to do Warranty work?

There are several overlapping issues here.
1. Toyota getting credit for selling the required quantity of vehicles that they produced.
2. Toyota limiting their costs to service a small number of customers.
3. The effectiveness of Toyota's policies to achieve #1, #2 above.

Personally, I have no problem with Toyota doing what they have to in order to get full CARB credit for the cars that they produce. If they have to get the car registered in CA to get full credit, then they should just make that a requirement. Obviously there are legal limitations as to what they can require, but if they have to crank up the invoice and MSRP prices and give rebates to cars registered in CA, then so be it. If someone moves the car after the initial sale and registration, so be it - Toyota still got full credit for the sale.

So, now, what about after the sale? Since they set up the EV Certified program, it seems that any dealership that is not certified has every right to refuse to service EVs. Fine. I don't think anyone is complaining about dealers that don't want to do the service. However, if a dealer is willing to get people trained and accept the standard reimbursement rate for warranty work, there should be no difference to Toyota where the dealership is located. Also, there is no reason to limit parts distribution if somebody is willing to pay the listed price. I also think it would be reasonable for Toyota to request reimbursement for additional actual shipping cost for parts sent out of state. By the same logic, charging travel expense for a Tesla technician to travel out of state would also be a reasonable request. The owner could then decide if it is cheaper to ship the car to a EV Certified dealer in CA, or if they want to pay the travel expense - IF that is actually required after diagnosis by a local technician.

My main problem with Toyota regarding the RAV4 EV is the fact that they are making shady-feeling indirect policies to try to achieve their goals. I think it would be much better if they made transparent and direct policies that are compliant with existing consumer protection law.

Perhaps they should pay your lease payment as well? May as well put that on the list.

 

[quartzav]

@Tadol
I agree with some of your points but same argument can be made with GM's reaction to EV1 as well. There are some minor points differentiate between what they do but you can say corporations are inherently evil.

 

[miimura]

My main problem with Toyota regarding the RAV4 EV is the fact that they are making shady-feeling indirect policies to try to achieve their goals. I think it would be much better if they made transparent and direct policies that are compliant with existing consumer protection law.

There's nothing shady about selling the car in California only. What if they sold it in the whole USA, but not Canada? Would that also be shady?

Toyota is neither quiet, nor shady, about their lack of fondness for EV's. The very highest levels of the company have made their position very clear.

They announced the production would be 2600 from almost day one. They announced California only, and are now enforcing California only through the tools they have.

To my knowledge, they comply with all the laws, and exercise their rights to sell cars where needed to comply. I might argue that out-of-state warranty should apply under the Magnuson–Moss Warranty, but I'm sure their lawyers think this is not required.

To me the shady part is the intentional uncertainty about the warranty. Like I said before, it looks like they're making good on the warranty but they seem to want that FUD to be out there to discourage out-of-state use.

The non-payment of Toyota Care out of state is petty also. That one is pretty iron-clad because it's stated up front as a condition of this freebie, but it has no incremental cost to Toyota to pay a dealer in another state.

 

[Tadol]

@Tadol
I agree with some of your points but same argument can be made with GM's reaction to EV1 as well. There are some minor points differentiate between what they do but you can say corporations are inherently evil.

Getting a bit off topic from the EV, but I disagree about using terms like good or evil when referring to a business structure. Corporations are, in many ways, the simplest form of business entity, because their motivations are quite pure and extremely easy to understand and control. They want to make as much money with as little effort as possible. We can directly affect them through legislation ( either taxation or regulation of business practices ) and by consumer awareness, by attacking them directly at that bottom line of profit and shareholder value. You can start to apply the good or evil labels only when they step outside this simple model, by declaring themselves "non-profit" or "tax exempt". At that point, you do have to be very, very cautious about them. Once they try to assume a moral stance, and remove themselves from the controls of taxation and legislation, then you have only consumer awareness to work with, and generally, that only pits the believers against the non-believers, and truth flees -

But back to EVs - thru legislation, mixed with a bit of consumer awareness, we managed to bring products to market thru the major players that they would not have developed if they had not been forced to. Its easy to find fault with them - they are (were) not perfect, but thats in keeping with every other model of this product. Our best option is to keep asking for them, buying whats available to us, supporting legislation and regulation that creates incentives for their manufacture and purchase, and the most important - change peoples attitudes towards them. Almost every person who looks at or gets a ride in my Rav has alot of the same concerns and fears about "something new" - technology, range, charging, service - the same concerns I had before i purchased mine. But they are easily addressed, and by my using it daily, it helps make it clear that it is workable, it is an acceptable alternative - heck, its a preferable alternative - and that helps raise awareness, which raises interest, which raises demand. As more get built, and the infrastructure develops for charging and service, all of the pieces start to fall into place and it all becomes a much, much easier decision -

But to think Toyota wants to kill the EV is incorrect - unless you can prove to me how killing the EV improves their bottom line. I think the questions that need to be asked are about why they all think it is going to be so much more profitable to develop the fuel cell. Maybe, thru our tax laws, or our regulatory expectations, or our lack of either, maybe we've created a business environment that is encouraging them to pursue this and not the EV. But it seems Mr. Musk sees potential with the EV, so maybe other corporate minds will start to rethink their positions?

I'm glad that I'm in a position to help just by spending my money on a product that i both enjoy and get great value from. So much easier than many environmental actions that don't have such immediate rewards and you have to scrub up afterwards - :roll: