No change to the RAV, no new model in 2025

[SimB]

2 hours ago, ernieb said:

The range would have to be a ‘real’ 50% more than current for me to change to a full EV. I also have a limited power supply so charging might still be an issue. I can see myself seeing out my motoring days with a PHEV. I’d really ideally want a smaller car than the RAV.

Audi appear to be there or thereabouts with the new A3 PHEV quoting 88 miles potential range from a 25.7kWh Battery, so others are bound to follow soon I’d expect.   

[Cyker]

Toyota have had some lofty claims of range from their future solid-state batteries, 600-700 miles IIRC, although these are EV miles so probably more like 400-500 real miles.

I suspect this would be on vehicles considerably bigger than my Yaris though...

[Nick72]

1 hour ago, GBgraham said:

Are we sure Nick that you're not getting mixed up with kilometres and miles because I don't know of any BYD's that are claiming 550 miles🤔

FYI Toyota are pinning their hopes soon on a 1000km range 

Possibly. It was a recent news article with reference to their new solid state Battery they are putting on a forthcoming model. They already have models available in long range options of 620 or so km. So I think they are aiming higher.  But I need to check to see if I can find the article.

[Nick72]

52 minutes ago, SimB said:

Audi appear to be there or thereabouts with the new A3 PHEV quoting 88 miles potential range from a 25.7kWh battery, so others are bound to follow soon I’d expect.   

That could definitely work for me on the RAV

[NASY]

Adding more weight to increase EV range is not what I would like in the next RAV PHEV, I think it is mighty heavy already.

[GBgraham]

1 minute ago, NASY said:

Adding more weight to increase EV range is not what I would like in the next RAV PHEV, I think it is mighty heavy already.

Agree, at a sniff under 2t at the moment the RAV4 PHEV with any extra range making extra weight would go well into the excess of 2t. I often wonder if the donkey could be less cubic capacity and in doing so be lighter overall. It's power to weight ratio must be at top of the charts compared with other vehicles.

[Nick72]

2 hours ago, NASY said:

Adding more weight to increase EV range is not what I would like in the next RAV PHEV, I think it is mighty heavy already.

Specific energy is how much energy per unit mass. This is tripling over the decade. So it would be similar mass but with more energy. So in a year or so when the new model comes out I suspect the Battery is a similar form factor and mass but with competitive increase in energy hence range. If it's 47 miles now I suspect Toyota may push it up to over 60 or 70. 

[Nick72]

2 hours ago, GBgraham said:

Agree, at a sniff under 2t at the moment the RAV4 PHEV with any extra range making extra weight would go well into the excess of 2t. I often wonder if the donkey could be less cubic capacity and in doing so be lighter overall. It's power to weight ratio must be at top of the charts compared with other vehicles.

Increasing range doesn't mean increasing Battery mass and volume. There's a general trend for specific energy and energy density to increase via the Battery tech developments. kWhr per kg and kWhr per M3 or litre.

[NASY]

Understood Nick but the Audi A3 example probably led me to believe that was 25.7Kwh at current specific energy ie increased mass over the RAVs 18 or so Kwh. 

[ernieb]

I thought that the ‘new’ solid state batteries Toyota are developing had a much greater energy density than the current batteries.

[GBgraham]

5 minutes ago, ernieb said:

I thought that the ‘new’ solid state batteries Toyota are developing had a much greater energy density than the current batteries.

Yes but the narrative is "developing" so at the moment we are getting the present technology so the power/mass to weight remains. Toyota are betting their future across the spectrum with PHEV/EV/H2 which ultimately will be a hybrid mix hopefully. The present power infrastructure at the moment favours EV but for me is open to so many negatives. The H2 engine is nearly a done deal and if it's possible to can get the H2 gas production and the fuel station network up and running we will all at least have a choice which for me will remove quite a large negative.

It's worth remembering that when the ICE was first invented the fuel was only available from their general stores and pharmacies in cans and look what developed through the years😉

[philip42h]

On 10/14/2024 at 8:17 AM, Nick72 said:

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. 

Back on topic ... nothing new for 2025 - we'd know by now if there were - but we are due a new model 'soon'. The 4.1 came out in 1994, the 4.2 in 2000, the 4.3 in 2005, the 4.4 in 2012 and the 4.5 hybrid only in 2019. The time between new models is extending slightly but we might expect a 4.6 in 2026 or 2027.

As you say, the mood music is for lighter more efficient and more environmentally acceptable. So, in the absence of any radical external influence I'd expect to see the 2.5L engine replaced by the new 1.5L, the next generation of smaller lighter motors and a small lighter Battery with broadly the same capacity - i.e. a little more range through efficiency rather than capacity.

Which is more or less what you are saying but I am expecting "the same from less" rather than "more from the same". 😉

[Cyker]

2 hours ago, ernieb said:

I thought that the ‘new’ solid state batteries Toyota are developing had a much greater energy density than the current batteries.

That's the funny thing about solid state lithium cells - They're actually worse than liquid electrolyte lithium cells in terms of energy density, all things being equal.

However, they can be abused much more (i.e. run at much higher temps and so less cooling required) and can be packaged much more tightly, which overcomes its lower energy density, so as long as they can overcome its other issues it should do well. There are many good reasons why nobody bothered putting more research into solid cells until now though.

 

My current guess is that PHEVs, not EVs, will become the dominant form of transport, but using hydrogen instead of petrol, esp. if those replaceable hydrogen cells someone posted on the weekend become a thing as that would solve the fir-err-sec-err-third? biggest problem with hydrogen - infrastructure. (The first 2 problems being cost and production)

Yeah that would work much better, I'd be happy with a Yaris with 150-200 miles range if I could charge it at home, and when I visit relatives I just need to pop to the cornershop on the way and buy a 150-300 mile hydrogen cell to plug into it  

 

[Nick72]

5 hours ago, NASY said:

Understood Nick but the Audi A3 example probably led me to believe that was 25.7Kwh at current specific energy ie increased mass over the RAVs 18 or so Kwh. 

All depends on whose batteries they're using and whether they think they can get away with heavy cells.

[Nick72]

3 hours ago, ernieb said:

I thought that the ‘new’ solid state batteries Toyota are developing had a much greater energy density than the current batteries.

They do.

[Nick72]

15 minutes ago, Cyker said:

That's the funny thing about solid state lithium cells - They're actually worse than liquid electrolyte lithium cells in terms of energy density, all things being equal.

However, they can be abused much more (i.e. run at much higher temps and so less cooling required) and can be packaged much more tightly, which overcomes its lower energy density, so as long as they can overcome its other issues it should do well. There are many good reasons why nobody bothered putting more research into solid cells until now though.

 

My current guess is that PHEVs, not EVs, will become the dominant form of transport, but using hydrogen instead of petrol, esp. if those replaceable hydrogen cells someone posted on the weekend become a thing as that would solve the fir-err-sec-err-third? biggest problem with hydrogen - infrastructure. (The first 2 problems being cost and production)

Yeah that would work much better, I'd be happy with a Yaris with 150-200 miles range if I could charge it at home, and when I visit relatives I just need to pop to the cornershop on the way and buy a 150-300 mile hydrogen cell to plug into it  

 

I think there's potential for greater specific energy and energy density versus liquid electrolyte cells. New packaging opportunities and configurations with solid state. 

[Nick72]

At serious risk of contracting myself, wife is getting a new car. There's an all electric version and an all ICE version, but both largely identical in features. Both similar acceleration around 7.5 sec 0 to 62mph. ICE runs at 48mpg combined. 

Electric version is 7.5k more expensive. This cost delta will never pay for itself over even the next ten years, factoring her very low mileage, tax differences, insurance, servicing, and energy costs. So she is getting the petrol version. 😂🤷🤦

[ernieb]

2 hours ago, Nick72 said:

At serious risk of contracting myself, wife is getting a new car. There's an all electric version and an all ICE version, but both largely identical in features. Both similar acceleration around 7.5 sec 0 to 62mph. ICE runs at 48mpg combined. 

Electric version is 7.5k more expensive. This cost delta will never pay for itself over even the next ten years, factoring her very low mileage, tax differences, insurance, servicing, and energy costs. So she is getting the petrol version. 😂🤷🤦

…and so would I go for the ICE the money saving is significant coupled with the ease of operation.

[GBgraham]

2 hours ago, Nick72 said:

At serious risk of contracting myself, wife is getting a new car. There's an all electric version and an all ICE version, but both largely identical in features. Both similar acceleration around 7.5 sec 0 to 62mph. ICE runs at 48mpg combined. 

Electric version is 7.5k more expensive. This cost delta will never pay for itself over even the next ten years, factoring her very low mileage, tax differences, insurance, servicing, and energy costs. So she is getting the petrol version. 😂🤷🤦

Do you really need to ask me Nick😂😂

[Nick72]

And it keeps the charging port on the wall free for me. 😂

[NASY]

Sounds sensible and beneficial - surprised EV is not a lot quicker, otherwise don't see it selling at all.

[Nick72]

6 minutes ago, NASY said:

Sounds sensible and beneficial - surprised EV is not a lot quicker, otherwise don't see it selling at all.

The EV version is I think about 0.2s quicker. But it carries a lot of weight by comparison. Think the ice car is under 1.3 tonnes when the EV version is about 1.8 tonnes.

[Nick72]

On 10/22/2024 at 4:31 PM, GBgraham said:

Do you really need to ask me Nick😂😂

So, wifey changed her mind on the day she went for an electric Mini Cooper. 🤷 185 mile range so just a charge a week will cut it for her short daily trips. She does about 110 to 130 miles total a week. We did the calcs the other day. 

She went for a PCP deal with a big deposit. She managed to knock the APR down 4.4%, got 2.5k off the book price, free servicing for 3 years, free 1st year insurance (I think that was a general offer). She was in there for 3.5 hours so I think she ground them down. Just 10 minutes with her when she wants something is enough to break anyone. Trust me, I have Stockholm Syndrome.

All things considered she got it for only slightly more than the petrol only version.

I'm sending her in to wherever the next time I want something.

She has gone for the reverse colour of my RAV. Black, white roof, white wing mirror caps. 

 

[NASY]

Sounds like the deal was not so bad after all - just a shame the likely depreciation is so high.

[Nick72]

Just now, NASY said:

Sounds like the deal was not so bad after all - just a shame the likely depreciation is so high.

PCP deal she got gives her some options here in terms of the car's value which works in her favour. Likelihood is though she'll keep it for 7 to 10 years so the depreciation doesn't really factor. Car will be worth as little as the petrol version.