Official Toyota RAV4 EV thread

[RegGuheert]

As an Engineer working on implementing circuit protection, one must ensure that the fuse being added doesn't have adverse effects on the circuit. Semiconductor fuses are used because they add relatively little resistance to things like IGBT/MOSFET switching circuits which demand low impedance current paths in order to remain operating within the design parameters.

Sure, but as an engineer designing high-volume products it is critical to reduce costs wherever possible. Writing the resistance on every fuse if not needed by the car is an area where costs can (and will) be removed. The LEAF is certainly at volumes where all suppliers are looking to remove any unnecessary costs, but I guess as a compliance car the RAV EV is not at that point, yet.

There's nothing preventing you from using any fixed resistance as a current shunt, but without kelvin-type connections, (which this pictured setup lacks) it's not going to be reliable enough to get a good reading.

Yeah, I originally thought the two-terminal connector shown was for the Kelvin leads. Does anyone know what they connect to? Perhaps that is just an interlock mechanism to ensure the cover is installed?

 

[TonyWilliams]

After the normal charged is completed, we often see GOM/DTE around 145 miles. Therefore, my 100% use of the new RAV4-EV is over 180 miles. I still think Toyota should show me 80% SOC after normal charge is completed. My neighbor is Senior Advisor in Toyota Technology in the R&D Division in Mountain View. I have to complaint to him next time when I jog into him on the trail.

I suspect that Toyota really doesn't want to spend any money improving this car. They lose $10,000 per car. What's in it for them? Professional pride is all.

Even if they leave the "gas gauge" at "F" with 16 bar segments for a normal charge, I would hope they might add 4 additional bar segments SOMEWHERE to indicate the 80% "normal" to 100% "extended range" energy.

Actually, that would be perfect. Color them yellow or orange, with the last one red, to indicate it's "overfull" and that it's "bad" to leave it this way.

Correct. Plus, it will end it's charge about three hours early.

Sorry, this is not clear to me. Let say the Rav tells me I need 4 hours charging to 80%. At 9pm, if I program the "departure" time to be 6am the next day, do you mean it sill stop charging at 3am?

Yes, that's what it's been doing for me. For a 7am departure, I put in 11am.

 

[TonyWilliams]

I installed a trailer hitch yesterday, and installed the trailer lighting wiring.


http://www.myrav4ev.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=88#p88" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[mwalsh]

I installed a trailer hitch yesterday, and installed the trailer lighting wiring.

The one thing I will always give you credit for Tony...you're certainly not afraid to tear your new cars apart!

 

[TonyWilliams]

I installed a trailer hitch yesterday, and installed the trailer lighting wiring.

The one thing I will always give you credit for Tony...you're certainly not afraid to tear your new cars apart!

Way better to tear apart when new. No rusty bolts, your hands don't get dirty, etc.

Putting in the new horns today.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

I installed a trailer hitch yesterday, and installed the trailer lighting wiring.

The one thing I will always give you credit for Tony...you're certainly not afraid to tear your new cars apart!

Way better to tear apart when new. No rusty bolts, your hands don't get dirty, etc.

:lol: spoken like a true pioneer!!

 

[Ingineer]

Yeah, I originally thought the two-terminal connector shown was for the Kelvin leads. Does anyone know what they connect to? Perhaps that is just an interlock mechanism to ensure the cover is installed?

I would guess that connector is indeed for the interlock as Tony suggested. It's definitely not a Kelvin connection.

-Phil

 

[Ingineer]

Writing the resistance on every fuse if not needed by the car is an area where costs can (and will) be removed. The LEAF is certainly at volumes where all suppliers are looking to remove any unnecessary costs, but I guess as a compliance car the RAV EV is not at that point, yet.

Yes, this is a simple way to justify making their fuses expensive! :lol:

-Phil

 

[surfingslovak]

[Yes, this is a simple way to justify making their fuses expensive! :lol:

At least they are not gold-plated, and personally signed by the engineer that designed them ;-)

 

[hd172]

Since the Rav4 is a detuned Model S motor does anyone think we can retune it?

 

[TonyWilliams]

Since the Rav4 is a detuned Model S motor does anyone think we can retune it?

I'm confident Phil can, but the bigger issue is chassis. The current power level is at the limit for the current suspension / front drive system.

If you put the motor in the rear, and a small motor for all wheel drive, and then upped the power, sure, sounds awesome.

By the way, TONS of room aft of the rear wheels for a motor (just remove trunk well).

 

[hd172]

Since the Rav4 is a detuned Model S motor does anyone think we can retune it?

I'm confident Phil can, but the bigger issue is chassis. The current power level is at the limit for the current suspension / front drive system.

If you put the motor in the rear, and a small motor for all wheel drive, and then upped the power, sure, sounds awesome.

By the way, TONS of room aft of the rear wheels for a motor (just remove trunk well).

So you're saying I can't get my Rav4 to go 0-60 in less than 5 seconds?

 

[TonyWilliams]

So you're saying I can't get my Rav4 to go 0-60 in less than 5 seconds?

Not as a front drive!! But, sure, this is the same Tesla hardware, and about 600 pounds lighter than Model S85P.

 

[palmermd]

There is a reason that they de-tune it, and it is because of the batteries. All the systems run at the same voltage, so same number of cells in series, but as the pack capacity size grows, so does the number of parallel cells. Additional parallel cells allows for more discharge current without overloading any of the cells. If you have the same power output on a 40kWh pack as you do on the 85kWh pack then each cell will be working a bit more than twice as hard on the 40kWh pack. This is also why they don't Supercharge the smaller pack. 1c charge rate is the maximum and that is how they sized the supercharger. 3c is the maximum discharge rate, hence the 120kW output rating on the Rav4, and probably for the Model S-40 whose power rating has not been announced. Note the Model S-85 has a 270kW rating...just over 3c.

The batteries Tesla uses are more energy dense than the ones we have on the Leaf, but they are not as power dense, hence the limitations. It is also why they have a 40kWh pack as the small one, but that they prefer you to have the 60 or 85kWh pack since normal use will be gentler on the pack.

 

[surfingslovak]

There is a reason that they de-tune it, and it is because of the batteries. All the systems run at the same voltage, so same number of cells in series, but as the pack capacity size grows, so does the number of parallel cells. Additional parallel cells allows for more discharge current without overloading any of the cells. If you have the same power output on a 40kWh pack as you do on the 85kWh pack then each cell will be working a bit more than twice as hard on the 40kWh pack. This is also why they don't Supercharge the smaller pack. 1c charge rate is the maximum and that is how they sized the supercharger. 3c is the maximum discharge rate, hence the 120kW output rating on the Rav4, and probably for the Model S-40 whose power rating has not been announced. Note the Model S-85 has a 270kW rating...just over 3c.

The batteries Tesla uses are more energy dense than the ones we have on the Leaf, but they are not as power dense, hence the limitations. It is also why they have a 40kWh pack as the small one, but that they prefer you to have the 60 or 85kWh pack since normal use will be gentler on the pack.

Yes, I was going to mention that the output current limit is likely the gating factor for the 40 kWh pack. Thank you for that. I'm not so sure about the super charger rationale. Several people on the Tesla forum were saying that this pack is to small to be quick charged. But then there is the i-MiEV with its 16 kWh pack, and a CHAdeMO port.

Another rationale was the battery chemistry, but that's an even weaker argument. While it could be a design limitation of the supercharger, and we know a bit more about its design then we did a few months ago, I find it hard to believe that it would not be able to throttle the charge current.

I always thought that this move was driven by a business reason, not a technical one. Given that they are rolling out free QC stations nation wide, it would not be surprising if they only wanted to service longer-range cars, allowing for a less dense network.

 

[palmermd]

Yes, they could supercharge at 40kW, just like they will supercharge the 60kWh cars at 60kW. It seems to be a business decision not to supercharge the smaller cars as well as the Rav4ev. But also, with the limited range of the 40, and then only charging at 40kW, it really does not make sense as a long range car. Instead of driving 3 hours and getting 150 miles in 30 minutes, it would be drive 2 hours and then get 80 miles in 30 minutes. I'm sure lots of folks would still want to supercharge at 40kW, but this seems to be their reason for not doing it.

 

[LEAFer]

But even if you have only the smaller pack, supercharging ONCE to (almost) double your range sure is a great feature. Even if you have to do it at a slower pace than the larger pack equipped Teslas. This is the reason why we decided on adding the QC port to the LEAF. Vacaville is the perfect spot to reach the coast (and again on the return). So ... for the Rav4 (and Tesla S40) those 200 mile destinations suddenly become very viable, even if the longer ones don't, and even if it's only for a couple or three times per year. For the LEAF it's more like 130-140 miles (more if you're willing to drive slower).

 

[TonyWilliams]

There is a reason that they de-tune it, and it is because of the batteries. All the systems run at the same voltage, so same number of cells in series, but as the pack capacity size grows, so does the number of parallel cells. Additional parallel cells allows for more discharge current without overloading any of the cells. If you have the same power output on a 40kWh pack as you do on the 85kWh pack then each cell will be working a bit more than twice as hard on the 40kWh pack. This is also why they don't Supercharge the smaller pack. 1c charge rate is the maximum and that is how they sized the supercharger. 3c is the maximum discharge rate, hence the 120kW output rating on the Rav4, and probably for the Model S-40 whose power rating has not been announced. Note the Model S-85 has a 270kW rating...just over 3c.

The batteries Tesla uses are more energy dense than the ones we have on the Leaf, but they are not as power dense, hence the limitations. It is also why they have a 40kWh pack as the small one, but that they prefer you to have the 60 or 85kWh pack since normal use will be gentler on the pack.

I suspect the 40kWh Model S will have more power (or defaults to the Rav4 sport mode) with the same battery pack.

 

[scottf200]

Perhaps I'm confused but is the RAV4 EV just as much as a compliance car as the Spark EV?

https://www.google.com/search?q=compliance+%22rav4+ev%22" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[TonyWilliams]

Perhaps I'm confused but is the RAV4 EV just as much as a compliance car as the Spark EV?

https://www.google.com/search?q=compliance+%22rav4+ev%22" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes, it is strictly compliance, however without fast charging (they will have to make 2600). GM gets more credits per unit.