Used Toyota RAV4-EV Sells for $67,300 on eBay
01 May 2006
 |
| The RAV4-EV |
A 2003 Toyota RAV4-EV auctioned on eBay went to the winning bidder for a price of $67,300.
Toyota began sales of the RAV4 Electric Vehicle (EV) to California retail customers in March 2002 after five years of leasing to utilities and other corporations that operate vehicle fleets. Toyota then ceased production of EV in 2003.
When the RAV4-EVs went on sale to the public in 2002, they carried a manufacturers suggested retail price (MSRP) of $42,000. However, a $9,000 incentive from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and a $4,000 IRS credit could bring the price below $30,000.
Based on the first-generation RAV4 platform, the RAV4-EV combines a 50kW (67hp) electric motor that develops 190 Nm of torque with a 288V NiMH battery to yield a projected driving range of 85-100 miles per charge and an electronically controlled top speed of 78 mph.
(The sellers said that they pulled in 100 miles—90% on the freeway—per charge.)
The car on auction had 59,000 miles on it just had its battery pack replaced under warranty.
In its official statement on the cessation of production of the RAV4-EV, Toyota said:
Toyota believes that in order to have a positive environmental impact, a large number of consumers must embrace the technology. In order for this to happen, the vehicle must meet the lifestyle needs of, and be affordable to, the mass market. Although a significant marketing effort was undertaken for the RAV4-EV, we only sold about 300 vehicles a year.
Toyota was preparing in 2005 to crush the remaining RAV4-EVs coming off of lease, but yielded to a campaign launched by DontCrush.Com to keep the EVs on the road.
A real classic car. O'well, At least the seller can buy 2 new hybrids!
Interesting that the battery did not last at leat 100k miles. Failed after 3 years.
Posted by: tonychilling | 01 May 2006 at 12:25 AM
"There is no market for electric veichles"
Bah humbug!
Posted by: Starvid | 01 May 2006 at 04:58 AM
Just saw one in Chicagoland. What a nice car. "There is no market for electric veichles" is not true because just as for Prius there were dealer waiting lists of people that put money down on vehicles that they never drove before.
"A significant marketing effort was undertaken for the RAV4-EV" I never saw this marketing effort. I only heard about marketing effort to discurage people from buying electric cars(after they found about this car through other people).
Go to www.evworld.com to see people that actually drove that car or were waiting for it on dealers list.
I personally think that auto companies though that gas would be $1 per gallon for next 20 years and that's why they kill ev cars(among other reasons)
Posted by: W2 | 01 May 2006 at 05:43 AM
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/04/increasing_numb.html#comments
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=4633576306
The market for electric vehicles must be a small one as I'd be reluctant to spend $67,300 for a vehicle that uses a $26,000 battery, that didn't last very long, and only has a 100 mi range.
from the ebay site
"Replaced under warranty – a $26,000 value not including the labor!"
miles on vehicle 59000
$67k will buy you a good portion of a house in some places.
"I personally think that auto companies though that gas would be $1 per gallon for next 20 years and that's why they kill ev cars(among other reasons)"
Also I bet auto companies do not expect battery technology to "be where it needs to be" to compete with gasoline vehicles in terms of range, capacity and ease of use for the next 20 yrs.
Considering we had electric vehicles over 170 yrs ago and todays electric vehicles still have many of the same problems...
http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aacarselectrica.htm
For an electric vehilce to make it one or more things have to change.
Gas vehilces must get more expensive to operate, electrics must get cheaper to purchase and operate.
Electric vehilces have alot of improving to do if they are to become viable.
longer range
longer battery life
longer vehicle life
cheaper purchase price
cheaper batterys
faster charging time.
all this while electricity prices are going up as well
http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/md-electricity-price-to-increases-72-on-july-1st.html
Posted by: rj | 01 May 2006 at 06:23 AM
You want longer range, how about 245+ miles
You want longer battery life, how about 150,000 miles
You want faster chargin time, how about 80% re-charge in one minute
Battery prices will come down with the increase in production.
Posted by: Curtis | 01 May 2006 at 08:01 AM
rj is right
near-term highway-capable BEVs are not practical
even the courts in Ca have admitted this, making the CARB modify their ZEV mandate several times.
fuel cell vehicles are the same. even if you ignored the massive problems related to hydrogen and only worried about the fuel cell itself, fuel cell vehicles would still be a dream.
there are real things we can do for low or negative incremental cost, though and they are discussed here often (biodiesel, ethanol, ride a bike, wind farms, wave farms, intelligent city planning, efficient architecture, etc) and these are all excellent things to support.
perhaps another step would to stop being so competitive, to encourage others, to be nice to each other. this would lead to more people using mass transit, less wars (and the massive energy they consume), less desire for 300+ hp road bricks the reek of violence and domination.
there are some countries where the violence and competitiveness aren't as strong as they are in the US (all of the western world except Portugal, Israel, and Greece come to mind). Just look at Canada. Go there sometime. Everyone is nice (except in Quebec, to my experience. of course, try speaking french to me in Seattle and see how I respond).
so, what happened here? why the competitiveness?
there is simply no need for it, and it is this competitiveness that is preventing us from more thoroughly embracing changes that will be better for us in the long run.
Posted by: shaun | 01 May 2006 at 08:17 AM
This just goes to prove that the market for electric-only concepts is much smaller than the average poster to this forum appears to believe. Batteries simply do not have the energy density required to compete against chemical fuels, especially when you also demand long life (= shallow discharge).
Regular hybrids make sense for stop-and-go traffic. PHEVs are niche concepts for vehicles used almost exclusively for very short trips at low speeds. EVs are dead - and should stay that way.
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | 01 May 2006 at 08:23 AM
http://www.acpropulsion.com/tzero_pages/tzero_html_home.htm
They do not list a price for the car but they do require $20k in deposit + the balance upon delivery.
The model in your link was running off Li-ion cells.
The one on their site runs on lead acid optima batterys.
They are nice batterys my school looked at using them to power the solar car but the cost was too high for us.
They use 28 yellow top 12V batterys and expect the pack to last 15-20k mi / 2-3 yr
I think the $3000 replacement cost is a bit low.
While the red top batterys can be had for the $100 range the yellow tops go for more ~ $150 - 160 each.
Posted by: rj | 01 May 2006 at 08:33 AM
Curtis,
did you notice that the RAV4 EV battery pack cost $26,000?
I understand that the cost of batteries will decrease as volume increases, but the types of batteries that could be used today are already produced on a massive scale to serve other mature markets. the decrease in cost simply from increasing the volume of production would be on the order of 5-10%.
the batteries need a thorough redesign using processes and chemicals that can be made more cheaply. a small evolutionary change will not suffice to reduce the cost by the 90% or so that is necessary.
the AC propulsion range quote is very impressive, but their vehicle has no safety equipment, carries 2 passengers, has no crash structure. in their own words, their entire vehicle has an energy density higher than the energy density of a RAV4 EV battery pack. i think it is a beautiful car and i'm glad it exists and their drivetrain sounds awesome, but quoting their range numbers is impractical because it isn't a real car
Posted by: shaun | 01 May 2006 at 08:33 AM
The RAV4EV isn't perfect but it would be good enough for 90% of daily uses. This sale shows there is a market for electric retrofits of used SUVs.
The battery range problem could be handled by quick swap batteries. Quick swapping also gets around the battery life problem for the consumers. Drivers would pay for kwhs plus amortized capital costs per swap. Once the public becomes aware of the absudity of a hydrogen economy a high ranking politician, perhaps a future president, will call for a lithium highway project.
Posted by: tom deplume | 01 May 2006 at 10:36 AM
If there is no market for EVs, then why has Mitsubishi announced 4 new models in the past 6 months that are ALL ELECTRIC?
They are:
Colt
Concept-EZ MIEV
Lancer Evolution EV
I couldn't find the 4th one.
Posted by: Curtis | 01 May 2006 at 11:18 AM
speaking of electric retrofits of used cars, there are some people out there with the right sort of idea
http://www.electrictransport.net/shop/item.asp?itemid=42
you can even upgrade to lithium batteries for just another $35k
http://www.electrictransport.net/shop/item.asp?itemid=41
even with the lithium batteries, you'd still be pretty close to the used RAV4 EV sale price
Posted by: shaun | 01 May 2006 at 11:51 AM
One of my friends is fierce proponent of EV cars. He is in tow truck business.
Posted by: Andrey | 01 May 2006 at 12:21 PM
"One of my friends is fierce proponent of EV cars. He is in tow truck business."
Does he support EV tow trucks too???
Posted by: W2 | 01 May 2006 at 01:02 PM
If there is no market for EVs, then why has Mitsubishi announced 4 new models in the past 6 months that are ALL ELECTRIC?
I don't believe any of them are actually being sold right now, and if they do sell them, it will be in Japan.
Posted by: Joseph Willemssen | 01 May 2006 at 02:22 PM
We designed and produced an automotive emissions control system back in 1970 at Rockwell that burned wood alcohol only. It exceeded EPA requirements then and those projected for the next thirty years. It was bought by GM and shelved in some storage facility back east. The old almight buck spoke again. My blood still boils when I think about it. Anyway, we did it back then so we can certainly do it now. All the delivery infrastructure is already in place. Ohhhhhhh, but noooooooo, that would somehow make too many people in high places unhappy.
Posted by: Bob Seeley | 01 May 2006 at 05:18 PM
Sorry to make all EV skeptics a bit lost... but as I wrote on another GCC post, I personally worked, and still am, with an MIT team and a new EV-start-up based in California which will introduce their beautiful EVs [freeway enabled] sometime within the next two years.
These are ultra efficient, beautifully styled, packed with all current and future safety measures, long range and superfast re-charging EVs, and best of all, at a reasonable price.
The main problem in this country is that people are addicted to oil and many, [too many], do not want to embrace new technology because it scares them.
Eventually, gas prices will go to $5/6.00 a gallon [like in Europe], and then you will see the chaos and the "void stare" in those people eyes.
EVs are going to be the supreme vehicle of the future!
No corn-ethanol, bio-diesel, hydrogen and other alt-fuel will be able to compete with pure EVs...the technology exist, the infrastructure is everywhere, the alt-charging power is solar/wind and the prices will come down dramatically.
Remembere: Build them...and they will buy them!
Fred Sands, PhD
Posted by: Fred | 01 May 2006 at 07:43 PM
Oh yeah...and to all delivery oriented biz people take a look at this!
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/04/modec_introduce.html
Forget diesel, forget gasoline!
A friend of mine who's in the coffee biz, told me that if he can put his hands on these EV-Vans he would lease at least 5 right away. He said: "When my drivers deliver a few pounds of coffee to local restaurants and coffee shops, I make absolutely no profit...it all goes in gas!"
And how about this reason: http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/05/noaa_reports_st.html#more
Do I need to say more?
Fred Sands, PhD.
EV Fanatic.
Posted by: Fred | 01 May 2006 at 07:51 PM
EVs are going to be the supreme vehicle of the future!
There's going to have to be major efficiency changes, because that will require 50% of the total electricity consumption of the US at today's number of vehicle miles and relative average efficiencies. Vehicles will have to be a lot lighter, more aerodynamic, or something to pare down that amount of demand, which will only increase, barring any other changes. This will be tough to pull of, since the energy cost per mile of electrics would reduce fuel costs almost 60%, which would keep the vehicle-miles high.
Posted by: Joseph Willemssen | 01 May 2006 at 09:13 PM
The typical response to grid capacity worries is to note that in most cases, EVs are expected to charge mainly at night, when there is lots of spare generation and distribution capcity to go around. Differential peak/off-peak electricity pricing is one way to induce motorists to charge only during times when they would not be overburdening the grid.
Posted by: NBK-Boston | 01 May 2006 at 11:33 PM
Speaking of safety in electric cars...remember this?
http://www.conceptcar.co.uk/news/design/cardesignnews28.php
180 mile range and 2+1 seating arrangement.Its enough for most people
Posted by: Sunny Tai | 02 May 2006 at 02:15 AM
Fred: I have a question about quick charging.
If the assumption is 240miles/charge and 4miles/KWh, then the battery must hold 60kwh. If the re-charge time is 6 minutes, then source must provide 600Kw for 6 minutes.
How is the NEC(national electrical code) ever going to approve a customer handled electrical connector that can handle 600v@100 amps? In the rain?
I think EV charging will be mainly done at home.
I think the hybrid will be the bridge to the EV car over 20 years.
1) Customers will not by enmass a car without "emergency travel range" as proivide by IC engine.
2) allows battery range to expand as technology gets better
3) allows energy companies the continued revenue stream
4) Allows dealerships time to adjust to loss of service revenue due to more and more use of EV mode of hybrid.
I think Toyota already figured out this consumer/political maze and is executing
the IC->hybrid->Pluggable Hybrid->EV car path.
Posted by: tonychilling | 02 May 2006 at 02:32 AM
"Batteries simply do not have the energy density required to compete against chemical fuels, especially when you also demand long life (= shallow discharge)."
Last I heard chemical fuels were consumables (not hard to compete with a lifecycle of one!) What's wrong with batteries being recyclable consumables? Especially once the price is driven down by demand which will also drive improvements in the technology.
"PHEVs are niche concepts for vehicles used almost exclusively for very short trips at low speeds."
Rubbish. PHEVs are not designed to use their electric components exclusively it's all about supplementing with an alternative energy source. Make sure you even begin to understand the "concept" before you dismiss it.
-----------------------------------------------------
"One of my friends is fierce proponent of EV cars. He is in tow truck business."
Would that be one of those "dirty diesel" trucks that cause "250 000 per year premature death of Europeans".
...nothing if not entertaining.
Posted by: Shaun Williams | 02 May 2006 at 03:07 AM
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 02 May 2006 at 04:52 AM
The typical response to grid capacity worries is to note that in most cases, EVs are expected to charge mainly at night, when there is lots of spare generation and distribution capcity to go around.
But for wide adoption, as Dr. Fred noted, people will need to be able to fill up as they need it with quick recharge batteries. So we don't know how behvior will be once quick recharge options are available.
It still doesn't get around the fact of how much extra power output would be required, and the economic incentives against efficiency (since electricity is a cheaper "fuel", mile for mile).
Posted by: Joseph Willemssen | 02 May 2006 at 08:03 AM