No change to the RAV, no new model in 2025

[Nick72]

Looks like Toyota are maintaining the winning formula.

The longer they leave it the more likely there's a step change in difference. 

Hopefully a new model won't come out until 2026 and there's a year of bug fixes I don't have to go through when the GRS gets swapped (or I buy it). 😂🤞

Aussie news here but similar articles about the RAV trim ranges in the USA appearing. They seem to get more choice than us.

https://www.carexpert.com.au/car-news/2025-toyota-rav4-price-and-specs

[J2024IE]

I  would have liked a Hilux or Landcruiser but none were available as the new models are coming soon, but no prices available yet.

the Hilux GR sport 2 looks nice.

a Rav4 full electric with 800km range with solid state Battery would be nice.

[Flatcoat]

9 minutes ago, J2024IE said:

I  would have liked a Hilux or Landcruiser but none were available as the new models are coming soon, but no prices available yet.

the Hilux GR sport 2 looks nice.

a Rav4 full electric with 800km range with solid state battery would be nice.

A RAV4 full electric already exists, it is called a BZ4X……

[Nick72]

9 hours ago, Flatcoat said:

A RAV4 full electric already exists, it is called a BZ4X……

I did look at this but real range was about half of what id need. AWD version. And it looked like poor ground clearance as most EVs are in order to maximise range. And it needed to be bigger or have a frunk. In which case not like a RAV4 at all. 😂

 

I can't see Toyota doing a RAV4 electric only for the next 5 or 6 years. Could see a new hybrid and PHEV RAV in late 2026 or early 2027, just hearing the mood music. They'll want to keep selling until the sales trends turn as a result of competition. This gives it a chance of getting a solid state Battery, more efficient motors, and probably an 80 to 100 mile range for no difference in weight. Plus of course one of Toyota's new engines. However, being the conservative bunch they are they'll want to be sure they've tried out the Battery and engine somewhere else in the product range for a year or two before risking tarnishing the big money spinner in the RAV. 

[philip42h]

10 hours ago, Flatcoat said:

A RAV4 full electric already exists, it is called a BZ4X……

Quite so, and that's why mine is at the dealer's awaiting PDI ... 😉

I can't see Toyota producing an EV variant of the RAV 4.5 - it's not designed as an EV and the range would probably be 'hopeless'.

The bZ4X certainly won't be for everyone - the RAV 4.5 easily beats it for range and 'practically' ... 😉 

[Flatcoat]

We have to remember that Toyota sell around the world and not every country is blinded by EV mania. As much as I like my PHEV and would happy have another, pure EV’s will be the Betamax of cars in 10 years. As many manufacturers are now finding, you simply cannot force buyers into EV’s. We used to laugh at communist countries forcing Trabants and Lara’s onto their public. We are doing the same with EV’s. However, on topic I also suspect we are 2 years away from the RAV4.6. That would align with the normal model life cycle and benefit from better tech for the PHEV versions. 

[NASY]

Okay so it sounds like I need to wait 2 years for my next RAV, meaning some real improvements could be possible. So it should be around the time I get my new HiFi amplifier which I ordered last month, which has no technology updates coming at all.

[Nick72]

10 hours ago, Flatcoat said:

We have to remember that Toyota sell around the world and not every country is blinded by EV mania. As much as I like my PHEV and would happy have another, pure EV’s will be the Betamax of cars in 10 years. As many manufacturers are now finding, you simply cannot force buyers into EV’s. We used to laugh at communist countries forcing Trabants and Lara’s onto their public. We are doing the same with EV’s. However, on topic I also suspect we are 2 years away from the RAV4.6. That would align with the normal model life cycle and benefit from better tech for the PHEV versions. 

According to ChatGPT so probably nonsense as I've been too lazy to check.

All countries shown here are seeing a rise in EV sales as a percentage of total car sales. And is significant in 2022 for many not all of the top 10 GDP countries. Would like to see the 2023 and 2024 data to see if it is heading for a plateau or going exponential and in which countries.

[Flatcoat]

EV Sales this year have plataued at best. Just look at all the manufacturers rowing back on production (Fiat stopping production for over a month, VW ditto) and problems with Giga factories. 

[Nick72]

2 hours ago, Flatcoat said:

EV Sales this year have plataued at best. Just look at all the manufacturers rowing back on production (Fiat stopping production for over a month, VW ditto) and problems with Giga factories. 

I think they've overestimated demand in the short to medium term. Too eager. Long term however they'll be cheaper than ICE cars and go further than a full tank of petrol. But we are still some years away.

[philip42h]

20 hours ago, Nick72 said:

Would like to see the 2023 and 2024 data ...

You know what they say - lies, damned lies and statistics ... 😉

The SMMT collects stats on vehicle sales in the UK: Electric Vehicle and Alternatively Fuelled Vehicle Registrations

These suggest that the BEV market share has risen from 16.4% in 2023 to 17.2% in 2024 (YTD). While ICE sales have fallen from 64.5% in 2023 to 61.0% in 2024 (YTD). [P]HEV sales make up the difference.

Zapmap is another source of the stats: EV market stats 2024 but as one might expect they tend to have an EV 'spin'. Either way they suggest that BEVs had around a 16% market share of sales in September '23 and around 20% of sales in September '24.

All in all it suggests a continuing trend rather than a plateau and certainly not exponential growth.

[Nick72]

52 minutes ago, philip42h said:

You know what they say - lies, damned lies and statistics ... 😉

The SMMT collects stats on vehicle sales in the UK: Electric Vehicle and Alternatively Fuelled Vehicle Registrations

These suggest that the BEV market share has risen from 16.4% in 2023 to 17.2% in 2024 (YTD). While ICE sales have fallen from 64.5% in 2023 to 61.0% in 2024 (YTD). [P]HEV sales make up the difference.

Zapmap is another source of the stats: EV market stats 2024 but as one might expect they tend to have an EV 'spin'. Either way they suggest that BEVs had around a 16% market share of sales in September '23 and around 20% of sales in September '24.

All in all it suggests a continuing trend rather than a plateau and certainly not exponential growth.

Good spot Philip thank you. 

[GBgraham]

16 hours ago, Nick72 said:

Good spot Philip thank you. 

 

17 hours ago, philip42h said:

You know what they say - lies, damned lies and statistics ... 😉

The SMMT collects stats on vehicle sales in the UK: Electric Vehicle and Alternatively Fuelled Vehicle Registrations

These suggest that the BEV market share has risen from 16.4% in 2023 to 17.2% in 2024 (YTD). While ICE sales have fallen from 64.5% in 2023 to 61.0% in 2024 (YTD). [P]HEV sales make up the difference.

Zapmap is another source of the stats: EV market stats 2024 but as one might expect they tend to have an EV 'spin'. Either way they suggest that BEVs had around a 16% market share of sales in September '23 and around 20% of sales in September '24.

All in all it suggests a continuing trend rather than a plateau and certainly not exponential growth.

Or maybe the Joe public has stopped soaking in the bs from the politicians, media and the climate activists. The goals and the bars are set far to high for the infrastructure necessary within the dates allotted. 

I personally don't think EV's will end up to be the solution but rather a gap filler for the reason that most manufacturers are now steering away from EV production to some form of hydrogen ICE. 

 

[Nick72]

8 hours ago, GBgraham said:

 

Or maybe the Joe public has stopped soaking in the bs from the politicians, media and the climate activists. The goals and the bars are set far to high for the infrastructure necessary within the dates allotted. 

I personally don't think EV's will end up to be the solution but rather a gap filler for the reason that most manufacturers are now steering away from EV production to some form of hydrogen ICE. 

 

So I agree with the bar being set too high too soon. But I disagree on the other points. EVs will be the solution for all the reasons I've mentioned in other posts in other threads on this. Simpler, cheaper, greener, better solutions ...in the long run. But walk before you can run. 

[Flatcoat]

We will have to agree to disagree on the matter of EV’s. They will be the next dieselgate. If all the tax incentives were removed sales would be negligible and the virtue signallers buying them would start whistling a different tune. If EV’s were so marvellous they wouldn’t need tax break incentives to buy them. If all the cars currently on the roads were EV’s, where is all the electricity needed generated? How is it carried around the country? We already have close to the most expensive energy costs in the world, and far higher than USA or China. No one has been given a democratic choice in the adoption of nut zero legislation. 

[MC1216]

4 minutes ago, Flatcoat said:

We will have to agree to disagree on the matter of EV’s. They will be the next dieselgate. If all the tax incentives were removed sales would be negligible and the virtue signallers buying them would start whistling a different tune. If EV’s were so marvellous they wouldn’t need tax break incentives to buy them. If all the cars currently on the roads were EV’s, where is all the electricity needed generated? How is it carried around the country? 

Fully agree and what about the 45% who can't charge at home which makes petrol/diesel cars cheaper to run.

If it wasn't for BIK and other tax benefits they wouldn't be selling many.

They have a place BUT it should be along with petrol bio fuels hydrogen etc and not the only solution.

Google what is happening in Germany and due to all tax incentives being removed sales are falling off a cliff.

[Nick72]

7 minutes ago, MC1216 said:

Fully agree and what about the 45% who can't charge at home which makes petrol/diesel cars cheaper to run.

If it wasn't for BIK and other tax benefits they wouldn't be selling many.

They have a place BUT it should be along with petrol bio fuels hydrogen etc and not the only solution.

Google what is happening in Germany and due to all tax incentives being removed sales are falling off a cliff.

Hydrogen is an order of magnitude bigger infrastructure problem compared EV charging. That's absolutely a non starter for cars. 

[Nick72]

31 minutes ago, Flatcoat said:

We will have to agree to disagree on the matter of EV’s. They will be the next dieselgate. If all the tax incentives were removed sales would be negligible and the virtue signallers buying them would start whistling a different tune. If EV’s were so marvellous they wouldn’t need tax break incentives to buy them. If all the cars currently on the roads were EV’s, where is all the electricity needed generated? How is it carried around the country? We already have close to the most expensive energy costs in the world, and far higher than USA or China. No one has been given a democratic choice in the adoption of nut zero legislation. 

Tax breaks have been a factor no doubt. That's the government just trying to push an electric agenda. Tax breaks are very similar to the PHEVs and only slightly better (BiK and road tax) when I looked early this year.

Across the top 10 GDP countries you're looking at a few grand in incentives on average. This helps volume sales and volume production. Volume production reduces cost. We have already seen a significant fall in Battery costs (a major cost in an EV) which is a saving that is approaching equivalence to current subsidies. So I don't really buy the only reason folks are buying them are because of subsidies. It's a factor but definitely not the whole story, and a factor which will be unnecessary very soon. 

Electricity wise. That will be an issue if we got 50pc or more ownership as a percentage of vehicles. Capacitive loads and transformer upgrades mainly. Capacity can be managed.

[Cyker]

49 minutes ago, Nick72 said:

Hydrogen is an order of magnitude bigger infrastructure problem compared EV charging. That's absolutely a non starter for cars. 

TBH it wouldn't be that hard to retool existing fuel stations for hydrogen.

The real problem is the cost of hydrogen - It's *extremely* expensive; You think petrol and diesel are expensive? They're peanuts compared to hydrogen!

If we had a massive excess of power it would be pretty easy to extract it from water, but that is a VERY energy intensive process. I read somewhere that the electricity needed to extract enough hydrogen to move a FCV 100 miles would be something like 500-800 miles of EV range, so it really doesn't make sense from a financial or efficiency point of view.

The only advantage it has is energy density, but I'd argue you may as well use that electricity to make synthetic petrol/diesel instead...!

 

I find the EV stats a bit distasteful - Although it is technically going up, that is almost entirely driven by fleet sales; Private sales are much worse, at least last time I looked.

I really dislike how EVs are being pushed with half-truths - It just reduces confidence in them. Let them stand on their own merits like diesel did.

The thing I'm waiting for is a breakthrough in battery/electrical storage tech - That is literally the only thing holding them back, because batteries suck. Until then, EVs will be stuck being objectively worse than existing vehicles except for certain specific use cases.

[GBgraham]

1 hour ago, Nick72 said:

So I agree with the bar being set too high too soon. But I disagree on the other points. EVs will be the solution for all the reasons I've mentioned in other posts in other threads on this. Simpler, cheaper, greener, better solutions ...in the long run. But walk before you can run. 

So I agree with the bar being set too high too soon. But I disagree on the other points. EVs will be the solution for all the reasons I've mentioned in other posts in other threads on this. Simpler, Really cheaper, greener, better solutions ...in the long run. But walk before you can run. 

Simpler? Really and where does that come from, in actual moving parts I agree but  the necessary mass of electrical components and electronic control . . . never?

Cheaper? I'm not too sure where you have worked this out, The ultimate need of an unstable, life depleting and expensive power supplies to continue in the expected range within the cars very limited life span?

Greener? surely you don't honestly believe this, sorry but the subject is just far too complex to be short so I think there is a need to investigate the other side of the argument. 

Better solutions ...in the long run? And what are these please. Ask the guy that lives in a street fronted or terraced property or an apartment block what he thinks and what his solutions are. What are the solutions when the sun stops shinning and the wind stops blowing?

But walk before you can run? I can't think of a truer outcome of those two words as a result of the world of total EV's. The world is far from ready for a knee ***** solution of EV's that are being forced upon us . . . . 

Just some of my opinions folks, you can agree or disagree and I'm not having a go at any one person only the narratives of the storyline.

 

 

[Flatcoat]

^^^ absolutely!! 

[GBgraham]

12 hours ago, Cyker said:

TBH it wouldn't be that hard to retool existing fuel stations for hydrogen.

The real problem is the cost of hydrogen - It's *extremely* expensive; You think petrol and diesel are expensive? They're peanuts compared to hydrogen!

If we had a massive excess of power it would be pretty easy to extract it from water, but that is a VERY energy intensive process. I read somewhere that the electricity needed to extract enough hydrogen to move a FCV 100 miles would be something like 500-800 miles of EV range, so it really doesn't make sense from a financial or efficiency point of view.

The only advantage it has is energy density, but I'd argue you may as well use that electricity to make synthetic petrol/diesel instead...!

 

I find the EV stats a bit distasteful - Although it is technically going up, that is almost entirely driven by fleet sales; Private sales are much worse, at least last time I looked.

I really dislike how EVs are being pushed with half-truths - It just reduces confidence in them. Let them stand on their own merits like diesel did.

The thing I'm waiting for is a breakthrough in battery/electrical storage tech - That is literally the only thing holding them back, because batteries suck. Until then, EVs will be stuck being objectively worse than existing vehicles except for certain specific use cases.

Hydrogen fuels as you say maybe difficult to produce but I ask myself why are the major manufacturers pursuing the intense development of hydrogen engines. Commercials, haulage and plant machinery can not afford the extra weight to be removed from load capacity or working limits, nor can the UK roads.

 

The holy grail for an all new lightweight and high capacity batteries has been going on since the start of the car invention and will probably go on for even longer.

No easy answer imho at the moment except the push for EV's along with the crippling equity loss in any purchase with the very strong possibility of any resale value.

Some very interesting development times ahead.

[Cyker]

It's because there is no other viable alternative - It is physically impossible to build an EV artic that can tramp up and down the country fully freighted with current or even forseen Battery technology - The Battery would be bigger than the rest of the vehicle - or an EV plane that can perform any longhaul flight, even with only a single passenger - The Battery would just weigh too much for the plane to even get off the ground.

If they really don't see sense and actually ban diesel and jetfuel use, the only fuel that doesn't have carbon in it that isn't either extremely toxic or even more difficult to mass-manufacture is hydrogen.

And because you can burn hydrogen, it's possible to retool normal engines, piston or turbine, to run on it, although I dread to think what the engine materials fatigue would be like. More likely they'd be used with fuel cells and electric motors with extremely highly pressurized tanks - That could get the trucks the distance and load they need to go and maaaaybe planes, although the weight is still a big problem with planes.

 

But while it would work it would still be objectively worse - The price of anything that'd need to be transported would rise significantly as no sane haulier would absorb the fuel cost, but instead pass it on to the customer, and given how bad our roads are now, they will get 10 times worse with EV trucks being allowed higher tonnages by necessity, meaning they'll rip up the roads even worse...

 

Until someone invents 'liquid electricity' or a pocket-sized nuclear reactor, there will just be things that are impossible to EV-ify with only batteries...

 

[GBgraham]

53 minutes ago, Cyker said:

It's because there is no other viable alternative - It is physically impossible to build an EV artic that can !Removed! up and down the country fully freighted with current or even forseen battery technology - The battery would be bigger than the rest of the vehicle - or an EV plane that can perform any longhaul flight, even with only a single passenger - The battery would just weigh too much for the plane to even get off the ground.

If they really don't see sense and actually ban diesel and jetfuel use, the only fuel that doesn't have carbon in it that isn't either extremely toxic or even more difficult to mass-manufacture is hydrogen.

And because you can burn hydrogen, it's possible to retool normal engines, piston or turbine, to run on it, although I dread to think what the engine materials fatigue would be like. More likely they'd be used with fuel cells and electric motors with extremely highly pressurized tanks - That could get the trucks the distance and load they need to go and maaaaybe planes, although the weight is still a big problem with planes.

 

But while it would work it would still be objectively worse - The price of anything that'd need to be transported would rise significantly as no sane haulier would absorb the fuel cost, but instead pass it on to the customer, and given how bad our roads are now, they will get 10 times worse with EV trucks being allowed higher tonnages by necessity, meaning they'll rip up the roads even worse...

 

Until someone invents 'liquid electricity' or a pocket-sized nuclear reactor, there will just be things that are impossible to EV-ify with only batteries...

 

Until someone invents 'liquid electricity' or a pocket-sized nuclear reactor, there will just be things that are impossible to EV-ify with only batteries...

Exactly agree #Cyker. In my long held views the only route at the moment is liquid hydrogen (or alternative), nuclear driven power supplies and SNR's or otherwise.

Wind turbines do alter climates, micro or otherwise, apart from anything else of world asset stripping materials that they require there is well over 2500 litres of oil needed annually to operate each 5 megawatt unit.  Solar panels only absorb around 15/20% of the suns rays and the rest is reflected back into the atmosphere and thus giving higher localised temperatures, feeding global warming.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist but a pragmatist and with long held views, unfortunately unlike the politicians, mainstream media, greens and tree huggers that get paid for spewing out their rhetoric. My views are open and as the saying goes, go woke go broke! 

I'll keep to my PHEV, which probably will be my last vehicle on this planet but at the moment I still have the options on how to fuel my chariot😉

[Nick72]

23 hours ago, Cyker said:

TBH it wouldn't be that hard to retool existing fuel stations for hydrogen.

The real problem is the cost of hydrogen - It's *extremely* expensive; You think petrol and diesel are expensive? They're peanuts compared to hydrogen!

If we had a massive excess of power it would be pretty easy to extract it from water, but that is a VERY energy intensive process. I read somewhere that the electricity needed to extract enough hydrogen to move a FCV 100 miles would be something like 500-800 miles of EV range, so it really doesn't make sense from a financial or efficiency point of view.

The only advantage it has is energy density, but I'd argue you may as well use that electricity to make synthetic petrol/diesel instead...!

 

I find the EV stats a bit distasteful - Although it is technically going up, that is almost entirely driven by fleet sales; Private sales are much worse, at least last time I looked.

I really dislike how EVs are being pushed with half-truths - It just reduces confidence in them. Let them stand on their own merits like diesel did.

The thing I'm waiting for is a breakthrough in battery/electrical storage tech - That is literally the only thing holding them back, because batteries suck. Until then, EVs will be stuck being objectively worse than existing vehicles except for certain specific use cases.

Kind of agree but with some caveats.

 

Problem with hydrogen is...

 

Expensive as you say. See note below on electrolysis.

It's 4 times more volumous than petrol. So now you're underground storage needs to be bigger than what you have space for.

It causes hydrogen embrittlement. Over time it destroys most materials. So now your underground storage solution needs regular maintenance and frequent replacement. Not easy.

It's probably one of the leakiest gases known. You can't store it for long before it's gone no matter how hard you might try. This means you are frequently topping up the tanks just to stay still.

It is expensive to generate, which is ironic given it's the most abundantly available element in the universe. Normally via the Texaco process as it is called. This is a dirty carbon chain fracturing process. It's the main way by which volume production can be sustained and the cheapest but still expensive. No, electrolysis from renewables is not a real option for a list of reasons which will be true for at least another decade.  Expensive catalysts like platinum which end up consumed and you can't achieve the rate of production this way. This means it was to be transported long distances from brown process at best and you've lost a load of it because of it's leakiness during transport.

It's not really a sensible option. Sounds great on paper. Clean burning. Water is the only combustion product or byproduct in fuel cell implementations. But there's a bigger reality unfortunately.

Spent a lot of time on hydrogen 7 or 8 years back. Different application outside of automotive but issues still the same. 

So we are back to petrol, diesel, and EVs.