2021 Toyota RAV4 Prime Plug-in Hybrid
 

Most people know that the Tesla Model 3 is the top selling plug-in vehicle in the US, but many probably don't know that the Prius Prime is #2. Will the upcoming 2021 RAV4 Prime take that spot when it goes on sale this summer?

Specs:

• 40 miles EV range
• 40 MPG
• 300 horsepower
• AWD
• 0-60 in 5.8 seconds (2nd fastest Toyota)
• Qualifies for full $7,500 federal tax credit due to the 16 kWh battery
• 90 MPGe efficiency rating

As a side topic, Alex argues that since battery supply is constrained worldwide, the most effective way to reduce fuel consumption isn't to build a few all electric vehicles with long range, but instead to spread that same battery capacity among many plug-in vehicles. A 250 mile range BEV is mostly wasting that battery capacity for most trips. If instead that same battery were installed in 5 plug-in vehicles with a 50 mile range, the overall number of EV miles driven would be increased, which would offset a lot more fuel consumption than the single BEV.

Plug-in hybrids seems the most logical transition technology. It isn't the best at any 1 thing, but is very good at everything. It's relatively cheap compared to a BEV, it's fuel efficient compared to an ICE, it's more powerful, eliminates range anxiety, and can qualify for the full federal tax credit which may offset the initial higher cost entirely.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJI3DBanu1g

Without question. Heck, I'm even tempted to buy one when it goes on sale, and I don't have a convenient place to plug in.

PHEVs don't really require a Level 2 charger at home. Because the battery capacity is smaller you can get a full charge overnight with just the regular 120VAC charger plug they give you when you buy the car.

Very true, and another strong selling point for PHEVs to be more popular with the broader consumer base.

L2 tends to be more efficient though, because it cuts the amount of time the circuits and fans and pumps that run while charging are on. In the Prius, charge efficiency was something like 75% on L1, and something like 89% on L2.

Given my personal level of (dis)organization, a nearly 9 hour daily charge time on L1 would be a burden.

They're not for everyone. But, people can still get to work (or wherever) if they forget to charge.

I'm a proponent of PHEVs. 20 miles gets me to work, where I might be able to charge for free. 40 miles round trip covers 99% of my driving.

I wonder if it will really be low $30k? Isn't the normal Rav4 hybrid $30k? If it was say $32 before any credits then that would be a good deal. Sadly I bet it's $40k base.

I'm showing $28k-$37k for the hybrid RAV4. My guess is a base price around $36k, but not sure how many options will be available. Usually plug-ins start at a higher trim level than the non-plugin. Maybe the top end will be $42k?

A base of $36k puts the cost after federal tax credit at around $29k. Some markets like OR and CA have another $2,500 incentive, so that can put it down to $26k, or lower cost than the base hybrid.

I'm telling you, these will sell like hotcakes. People that can't even plug in will buy one if they have the tax liability to take advantage of it.

As an aside, my rough estimation is the additional battery capacity will cost Toyota $2,300 more than the hybrid battery.

.

Toyota's European plants to remain closed until April 20

https://europe.autonews.com/automake...until-april-20

>

Alex
 

I wonder if Alex considers four and five-passenger cars a waste of resources,and the materials used to make them,better spread across the fabrication of one-passenger vehicles,which appear to represent the default capacity of the extant vehicle population.That would really allow for significant battery penetration.

I don't think Alex thinks of such things much, just like most people.

The average occupancy is closer to 2 persons than to 1 (1.7 occupants is the US average).

Is it more efficient to purchase both a 1-person vehicle and a 5 passenger vehicle for those times when multiple occupants are present, or simply purchase the 5 passenger? Which strategy would be cheaper considering registration, taxes, insurance...

Most people don't dream of owning things that have less utility.

1-person/5-person
 

I already know in advance the discomfort you'd likely experience for my honest response to your thoughtful question,so I'll spare you the anguish.

I can probably count on 1 hand the number of times I've read a comment on this forum that caused me discomfort. I might disagree, but that doesn't cause me discomfort.

Is it more efficient
 

The question is so conditional,contextual,a proper answer would have to address all possible conditions.
*If the average occupancy is 1.7-persons,then the average automobile would offer seating for two.
*If on occasion,seating for five was a requirement,then five seats is the solution.
*If discretionary income is not an issue,then the motorist would own both,achieving 100% utility each time the specific vehicle were operated.At zero economic discomfort.
*If an individual is existing hand to mouth,then there is a far different calculus involved.
*Any society which allows suburban development,without providing for mass transit,forcing residents into personal transportation units,would,on the surface,have failed the very society they're entrusted to serve,tax,fee,lien,seize, or expulse.
*Any government who's pension fund profits from the suffering of its most vulnerable citizens would by any metric be recognized as a pariah.
*If we the people have a say in what taxes, registration,and insurance cost,then whether owning more than one vehicle becomes a liability or not is a reflection upon us and our priorities.
*I don't dream about vehicles.Madison Avenue might be disappointed,I've no control over that.
*I have pondered personal transportation since 1973.The Volkswagen XL1 is the closest I've seen to a 'rational' vehicle,however,somewhere along the way,Volkswagen lost their moral/ethical compass,never having seriously considered producing an 'attainable' vehicle which might cover the needs of most drivers on most days,at a reasonable net profit.
*We might want to resolve the issue of whether driving is an entitlement or a privilege.
*If it's an entitlement,then a national car company,spitting out safe,affordable transportation units,which don't change over time,can be serviced anywhere,with universal parts availability,in all fifty states,within the means of anyone living on minimum wage would be a good move.No dealership.Buy them at the grocery store.
*This topic could easily become a book.

That depends on the standard deviation.

Every expenditure has infinite opportunity cost, regardless of ability to "afford". Utilization of each vehicle goes down when the same number of miles driven are spread across more vehicles, which represents an inefficiency.

Public transit takes people from where they don't live, to not quite where they want to go. Most public transit consumes more fuel per passenger mile than personal transportation (most busses and light rail anyhow). People don't have the right to live in a particular place; they have the right to pay to live in a particular place, and that includes figuring out their transportation.

I'm not following this one. I wouldn't even know how to go about profiting from the suffering of someone else unless the job was specifically torture.

Of course, we all make that calculus. Some people choose to have a commuter vehicle because it's cheaper than driving their truck to commute in.

Your definition of rational simply doesn't fit with most others. People that want a 2-seater want a sports car, not an economy car.

VW never had a moral/ethical compass because that isn't what drives business. Producing products that provide a return on investment is what drives business. It's up to individuals to exercise morals/ethics, and governments to set parameters that everyone is playing by.

It's already resolved. People aren't going to vote for restrictions on driving if that means they are subject to them. Just because there's 5 people in the nation that object doesn't mean we haven't resolved the issue.

You've created a false dichotomy (entitlement/privilege). Entitlement means someone is owed something, and nobody is owed a car. A privilege is something only a selected few are allowed, which the DMV suggests is the case since only those who pass tests and pay a fee are granted the privilege of driving.

I'd like to see dealerships go away too, and I don't see how that model is even legal (requiring a manufacturer of a good to use a dealership model).

Economists agree, minimum wage should be eliminated. The government has no business saying what the least amount I can agree to work for should be. It's corruption of the highest order and very harmful to all.

If the government made one car equal for all it wouldn't be anything as good as a Rav4 prime. It would be a Yugo. It may be a 2020 Yugo but basically it would be the worst possible car you could pick on sale today in 2020. Then it would probably cost twice the cheapest new car you could buy. The overall fleet average economy would be lower. Why do people never seem to remember these ideas have all been tried before somewhere in the world?

As an update to this thread, the base MSRP is $38,000 with the higher trim starting at $41,000. Toyota will only make 5,000 units available this year, so we already know how many will be sold. This constraint will prop up the prices since supply is limited. Who knows how many will be made next year. Hopefully enough to push the price down a bit.