Review of Hybrid Lexus RX400H

[mubs]

Dan Neil, L.A. Times.

Registration required, but you can get ID/PW from http://bugmenot.com/

Lexus' math triumph

A solid V6 + 3 electric motors + 28 mpg + luxury pack = just $50,000? It doesn't add up.

...doesn't even cover the cost of the hybrid's 288-volt nickel-metal hydride battery packs, never mind the vehicle's — count 'em — three high-efficiency motor/generators, inverters, converters, controllers and assorted gear sets worthy of the innards of a Patek Philippe.

...the RX 400h works beautifully, just like the regular RX 330, only quicker (a half-second sooner to 60 mph than the RX 330) and with 33% better overall fuel economy (28 miles per gallon) and a whopping 67% better mileage in the city (30 mpg, according to the EPA).

...double gear set acts as a continuously variable transmission and it is purely some of the coolest machinery porn I've ever seen.

 

[ddrueding]

A very positive review.

 

[e_dawg]

Well you know it's about time that they started making green cars appealing to car enthusiasts. First the Honda Civic hybrid looks and feels like a gas Civic and the Escape hybrid looks and feels like a gas Escape. Then Lexus comes out with the RX400h that performs better than its gas cousin, and Honda comes out with the Accord hybrid that performs better than the gas model too. What a great time for environmentally conscious car enthusiasts!

 

[e_dawg]

Now that Lexus and Ford have demonstrated that it is more than feasible to use hybrid technology effectively and without detriment to performance, hybrid technology should be mandated in those shameless gas guzzling SUV's by 2010. There is simply no excuse to build a 15-20 mpg monstrosity when you can do better without any drawbacks.

 

[jtr1962]

A state of the art BEV (battery electric vehicle) can get a 300 mile range, recharge to 80% capacity in 15 minutes, doesn't pollute at all, can out-accelerate any gas car, will be much cheaper to refuel, and won't have the maintainance issues anything with an engine will have. A hybrid may be a more efficient gas car, yet it's still a gas car with all the inherent drawbacks. There's still those 650,000 cancer deaths annually from fossil fuel use.

Anyone here know the real reason the auto industry won't produce BEVs which make more sense than hybrids or fuel cells? The reason is that the only thing they usually need is tires. They just don't break. Over the life of a car the automakers make several times the initial purchase price of the car in parts. USPS used to have a fleet of electric mail delivery vehicles. The drivers loved them. They were ideally suited to the task for which they were designed. Know why they don't have them any more? The mechanics union complained because they seldom needed maintainance and they were afraid of eventual layoffs.

And before anyone starts with the usual "drawbacks" of BEVs, here's a short list:

Myth #1: BEVs are slow
Reality: They can use energy storage just like hybrids and accelerate to 60 mph in as fast as three seconds. The older ones which were slow lacked energy storage and used heavy lead acid batteries not up to the task of feeding the motors the needed current. The new ones can outaccelerate any gas car. The T-zero BEV beat a Doge Viper in the quarter mile.

Myth #2: BEVs don't have the range needed for most drivers
Reality: A state of the art BEV has a range of 250 to 300 miles. Battery technology is advancing at a rapid pace. 250 miles is adequate for 99% of the drivers 99% of the time. Even when it isn't, the range is not a serious drawback any more as you'll see next.

Myth #3: BEVs take a long time to recharge
Reality: Current battery designs can reach 80% SOC (state-of-charge) in 15 minutes. Newer designs may do it in eight. The older lead-acid batteries took overnight to recharge. This makes the range issue moot. A 15 minute stop every 200 miles or so is not a serious problem on a long trip. After all, you need bathroom and food breaks.

Myth #4: BEVs are lousy in cold weather
Reality: Current lithium ion and lithium polymer batteries work well in temperatures of -40°C. Again, the older battery technology caused the cold weather problem.

Myth #5: BEVs are much more expensive than gas cars or hybrids
Reality: Only because they're not mass produced. One of the biggest problems is that nobody makes a large battery expressly designed for BEV use. Want to know why? Because the battery manufacturers spent R&D time working on one and then the automakers decided to pull out of the BEV market, in effect making all that R&D money wasted. If/when the automakers really want to mass produce a BEV, it will acutally cost less than a comparable gas car.

Myth #6: The battery packs on BEVs will eventually need to be replaced at great expense.
Reality: True and false. Yes, they will eventually wear out but with modern charging algorithms which preserve battery life this will be long after the rest of the car wears out. Some BEVs have well over 150,000 miles in service and the batteries are still as good as new.

Myth #7: Even if everything else is true, won't lack of charging stations prevent widespread BEV use?
Reality: Gas cars were adopted before there were gas stations everwhere. Somehow we managed. Setting up a charging station is trivial compared to setting up a gas station. If the public wants BEVs, the charging stations for them will exist.

Myth #8: Aren't fuel cells a better alternative?
Reality: Not a chance. It takes energy to make hydrogen for a fuel cell and energy to transport it. This is energy from the grid. A fuel cell is less efficient than a battery. Hydrogen is highly explosive and not something which should be in a moving vehicle. A fuel cell is really a less efficient battery, that's all.

If I think of any more I'll add to my list. It's amazing how the automakers have brainwashed the general public, including the otherwise intelligent people on this site, with regard to BEVs. The fact is that all of the alleged drawbacks of BEVs are for BEVs based on old technology, in some cases century old technology. Hybrids are merely a way of appearing green while satisfying the oil industry by still consuming fossil fuels. Fact is that the oil industry is deathly afraid of the public adopting BEVs en masse.

 

[jtr1962]

And I also need to add that no R&D is needed to make a good BEV today other than gearing up for mass production same as with any other car. Compare that to the fuel cells which have been researched since the 1960's and which will eventually be dismissed as unfeasible because of cost issues by the auto industry, leaving us with the same old intrenal combustion engines we have now. Promises of fuel cells were, are, and always have been a delay tactic. You want green vehicles now, push the automakers to make BEVs using state of the art technology, not 100 year old lead acid batteries.

 

[Tannin]

Myth #2: BEVs don't have the range needed for most drivers
Reality: A state of the art BEV has a range of 250 to 300 miles. Battery technology is advancing at a rapid pace. 250 miles is adequate for 99% of the drivers 99% of the time.

Not even close to enough. My current car can go 600 on a tankful, half as far again with a jerry can in the back. On the roads I travel, that is essential.

But wait - you are talking miles. I didn't think of that. 300 miles isn't enough, but it's not all that far off. Hmmmm .....

Mind you, the real point is that BEVs or any other sort of electric car are only painting the problem a different colour: they are still burning fossil fuels one way or another - it doesn't matter if you spew out the carbon from the power plant or from the exhaust pipe, you are still spewing out the carbon.

 

[Pradeep]

Nuclear electric powa for the recharging, and then we ship all the waste to Maralinga for burial

 

[jtr1962]

Myth #2: BEVs don't have the range needed for most drivers
Reality: A state of the art BEV has a range of 250 to 300 miles. Battery technology is advancing at a rapid pace. 250 miles is adequate for 99% of the drivers 99% of the time.

Not even close to enough. My current car can go 600 on a tankful, half as far again with a jerry can in the back. On the roads I travel, that is essential.

But wait - you are talking miles. I didn't think of that. 300 miles isn't enough, but it's not all that far off. Hmmmm .....

Tony, you and your friend Tea are, um, special cases. :wink: Of course there are not going to be any recharging stations when you take your long trips across the outback. Then again there won't be any gas stations, either. Don't forget that battery technology is advancing at a rapid pace. Don't think that you won't be able to make a BEV which can go 500 miles or more between charges in a few years. Actually, we can make one which can go 1500 miles right now, but it would resemble those human powered vehicles more than a car.

One big advantage BEVs have for those who like to travel far away from civilization is that you can make your own recharging station. In fact, you can carry it with you in the form of a solar panel. Park, set it up, enjoy the flora and fauna, and get a free recharge while you do. You can't do that with a gas car, can you? Unless of course you tote along a drilling platform, a refining station, and happen to park above a crude oil deposit.

Mind you, the real point is that BEVs or any other sort of electric car are only painting the problem a different colour: they are still burning fossil fuels one way or another - it doesn't matter if you spew out the carbon from the power plant or from the exhaust pipe, you are still spewing out the carbon.

Somewhat true except not 100% of electric is made with fossil fuels. In the US I think we use 20% nuclear, 10% hydroelectric, 2% other (solar, wind), 55% coal, 10% gas, 3% petroleum. That's 68% fossil fuel but a modern plant converts about 60% of the energy in the fuel into electricity as opposed to the engine in an auto which is lucky to turn 20% into useful power. That means then we have roughly 25% of the emissions for a given amount of energy using BEVs as opposed to burning the fuel in the auto's engine. Also, since the emissions are in one place they can and are much more tightly controlled. So yes, you're moving the problem but also reducing it and containing it. And why not build a bunch of nuclear plants and ship the waste to Maralinga while we're at it? :mrgrn:

Seriously, BEVs lend themselves to home solar recharging. The same people who might have never considered putting solar panels on their roof for their other electrical needs will do so to charge their BEV due to simple economics. One charge might equal 30 kW-hr, which costs about $5.50 at current NYC rates. You do 100 charges a year, that's $550. Why not install a few solar panels (maybe 2 kW worth) for maybe $1000? In two years you're ahead of the game. In an average week in New York panels generating 2 kW peak might produce 60 kW-hr, exactly enough for your two weekly charges. If enough people do this, you're not moving the problem, you're well on your way towards helping solve it. Solar powered recharging stations in parking lots are another natural. They may not produce enough power to rapid charge the battery, but maybe you'll add another 5% or 10% to the battery's state of charge while you're shopping.

 

[i]

jtr, if you'd like to start a business building alternative fuel vehicles, count me in.

P.S. I have no money.

 

[mubs]

i[/i]]jtr, if you'd like to start a business building alternative fuel vehicles, count me in.

P.S. I have no money.

Ditto. Thanks for an absolutely fantastic post, jtr. Very lucid, hits home really hard.

Many of the posts I make are with the intention to produce a healthy debate, and I really, really love it when that happens!

More than anything else, what gets my juices flowing are alternative energies and their applications. (Water is another). World population is exploding, energy sources are dwindling, there's global warming - how much riper can conditions be for plunging headlong into a sensible, sustainable energy policy??

I agree with jtr 100%, the automakers need to be looking long term, but they won't till they're dragged kicking and screaming because reality forces them to, for the reasons jtr has already outlined. I have heard from people in the business, both here and abroad, that there is no money for a dealership in new vehicle sales. 99% of their profit comes after. Which is why low-maintenance vehicles won't happen unless they become inevitable for a host of reasons.

Toyota is a large company with most of their stake in automobiles. As is shown by their leadership with hybrids, I'm sure they're thinking about the future. Like the Titanic, though, they can't make a sharp turn in their business. A true BEV produced now will have to come from a newcomer, not an established manufacturer.

I have a link to the website of a guy that bought a Toyota RAV4 BEV (one of the few that Toyota made years ago), and he seems to be very happy with it. He even built his own charger for it, that runs off 220 V (washer/dryer outlet in most American homes). I think jtr might have posted the original link.

Using solar panels is not the only way to harness solar energy. I have links to innovative companies that are doing fascinating things. Problem is that the "consumer" isn't ready yet.

 

[ddrueding]

I have a slightly more cynical view of the world tham most, and am under the impression that the world won't turn away from oil until it's completely gone. There won't be a nifty transition, it'll be a brick wall. When this happens, the various industries have to be ready.

Cars: check
Trains: check
Houses/heating: check
Aircraft: ???
Cargo Ships: ???

jtr, care to enlighten me on the feasibility of an electric passenger plane? I'd assume that miniature nuclear reactors make the ships possible (the navy does this already)

 

[jtr1962]

Ditto. Thanks for an absolutely fantastic post, jtr. Very lucid, hits home really hard.

Many of the posts I make are with the intention to produce a healthy debate, and I really, really love it when that happens!

Thanks mubs for the compliments. I was afraid I was in danger of hijacking your thread but I'm glad you saw my post for what it was-an attempt to start a debate of hybrids versus other technologies. I fully agree with everything else you wrote. Until the automakers change their business model to make initial vehicle sales more profitable there will be no incentive to produce BEVs. Incidentally, the guy who runs that site you linked to posts frequently on Candlepower Forums about BEVs. Here are two threads he started on the subject. He is very knowledgable about BEVs and also very good at disproving the misinformation about them spread by the mass media.

To address what i wrote, I'd love to start a business building BEVs and other alternative energy vehicles. If I ever become a multibillionaire I can guarantee you that's the very first thing I'll do with my money. I won't even care initially about getting back my investment or turning a profit. So long as I cover my costs for the first five or ten years and get the BEVs out there I'll be happy. My satisfaction will come from helping solve one of our biggest problems and also keeping a bunch of people employed building my BEVs.

 

[mubs]

David,

I don't think you're being cynical, I think you're being realistic. I think that's what will happen too, that's why I'm so into alternative enrgies. In a year or two, I'll be spending a lot of my time and efforts into becoming more sef-reliant in every way possible.

All the "leaders" - whether of government or business, are asleep at the wheel.

Despite the fact that oil producti0on has peaked and we're going to run out of it in 15 years (with cost going steadily one way only - up), it is amazing that developing countries like China and India are investing heavily in oil burning transportation - factories to build, infrastructure, etc.

In the short term, I see no alternative to nuclear energy, dirty as it is. AFAIK, it takes at least 6 years (shortest time frame) to build a nuclear power plant. We'd better get started now.

 

[jtr1962]

I have a slightly more cynical view of the world tham most, and am under the impression that the world won't turn away from oil until it's completely gone. There won't be a nifty transition, it'll be a brick wall. When this happens, the various industries have to be ready.

What bothers me is that we're really not getting ready. The oil is going to start getting scarce within the next decade. They'll be huge price swings which cause global financial problems long before it runs out. We should have already converted a good part of the economy to non-fossil fuel by now. Coal may last somewhat longer, but sooner or later that'll be gone too. The oil people can talk all they want about reserves, the dirty little secret is that a lot of those "proven" reserves will require more energy to dig them out than they'll provide as fuel. That's a less than zero sum game we can't win. Here's an interesting article describing this scenario.

Cars: check
Trains: check
Houses/heating: check
Aircraft: ???
Cargo Ships: ???

jtr, care to enlighten me on the feasibility of an electric passenger plane? I'd assume that miniature nuclear reactors make the ships possible (the navy does this already)

Large cargo ships and the like are perfectly feasible to make nuclear powered. Smaller, shorter range ships can be powered by batteries. I think small ships are a bigger problem to convert to batteries than cars would be because of the range issue. Lots of ships really need to have ranges measured in the thousands of miles between recharges. On the plus side here is that ships have lots more room for batteries than cars do.

Planes are much more problematic and will likely be the last thing using fossil fuels. The weight and range requirements of an airplane basically mean that unless we develop a battery with the energy density of jet fuel electric planes will be a non-starter. However, let me play devil's advocate here. A plane isn't sacrosanct, meaning that if you can find something else to do the same job without using fossil fuels then the problem is solved. Guess what? We already have that something in the form of high-speed conventional rail for distances of 500 miles or less. For longer distances, the maglev running in a vacuum tube idea promises faster speeds with less energy. So my answer is replace the planes for the most part. Military planes have to stay, and until we develop small fusion reactors I don't see anything replacing fossil fuel in that application. Point of fact, though, if there is a way to use some sort of atomic power source in an airplane the military would be the first to jump all over it. For one thing if power is virtually limitless the range issue is moot and your speed is limited solely by your body design. There actually was an aborted attempt called Project Pluto to develop fission powered engines for the SR-71. It was killed not because it didn't work, but on account of the usual nuclear power NIMBYs.

 

[Fushigi]

As I did before in another thread, I still maintain that Hybrids are a necessary evolutionary step before we get to BEVs. Hybrids as they are now, and likely will be over the next couple of auto generations (4-6 years per automotive gen), are doing the following:

- Getting consumers to trust that battery-motivated vehicles can work.

- Providing funding for battery development. Also building the groundswell of support for mass production of hybrid/BEV batteries, which will drive down the cost to implement.
- Raising dealer profit margins. Hybrids rarely sell below sticker; most sell at or above.
- Raising awareness about depleting resources. Sure, awareness is there for those who go looking, but seeing my hybrids on the road is like seeing commercials. It'll get people thinking that they should consider a more fuel efficient vehicle the next time around.
- Provides the reliability factor that people want from a car. The existence of hybrids now will, assuming they prove reliable, reduce the skepticism that consumers have about hybrid & electric technology.
- It also shows that electric vehicles don't have to look goofy or stand out too much like early EVs did. Style is a major reason we buy the cars we buy and the fact that the hybrid Accord looks identical to the gas version is a bonus and lets people know they can be eco-friendly but still be another sheep in the herd.

Society is conditioned to respond & react by our history and our environment. Hybrids let people accept EV technology into their lives in a non-disruptive way. With how entrenched automobiles are in our culture, I think this is pretty much mandatory. I just hope more car companies jump on the bandwagon, even if they go the Ford/Nissan route & license vs. develop.

 

[ddrueding]

From what I've read here, BEVs cost less to maintain and are therefore more cost effective to own than people realize. Why then don't auto sellers instead keep the margin and offer a 10y/100k everything warranty including service? Doing so would allow them to charge the additional $20-$25k that would make it financially beneficial? And having such a warranty would help the buyer justify the longer (5yr instead of 3yr) financing agreements that would allow them to afford the more expensive vehicle.

Just some thoughts on the matter.

 

[sechs]

Mind you, the real point is that BEVs or any other sort of electric car are only painting the problem a different colour: they are still burning fossil fuels one way or another - it doesn't matter if you spew out the carbon from the power plant or from the exhaust pipe, you are still spewing out the carbon.

Actually, it makes a very big difference.

1. Power plants are point-sources that can be controlled far more easily than a thousand cars.
2. Power plants are far more efficient than the internal combustion engine.
3. Power plants have more than one fuel; they don't even have to use fossil fuels.

If cars with combustion engines were no better than cars that ran on batteries, then one should wonder why each house doesn't have its own generator....

 

[jtr1962]

As I did before in another thread, I still maintain that Hybrids are a necessary evolutionary step before we get to BEVs.

I agree that hybrids have a place, and anything that fosters mass production of better batteries is a good thing. I just don't see why hydrids and BEVs can't coexist for a while before we go entirely to BEVs. BEVs are a natural in large cities where trips are short and large concentrations of autos cause pollution problems. I'd love to see zero emission vehicles mandated for NYC limits by, say, 2010. IMO a large entity such as NYC or a populous state must take the step of doing such a thing so as to create a ready market for BEVs. Once they do, the automakers will invest in making them because they know they'll have at least one huge market. It's a shame California wimped out of the 10% ZEV by 1998 requirement or we might have had a third or fourth generation BEV by now.

If hybrids force people to think about efficiency that's also a good thing. I also think better education will help, especially educating people that boxy vehicles require more energy to move whether they are hybrids or not. We really need to start moving people away from SUVs and back into cars. We need to make cars as aerodynamic as they can be. 0.15 or better drag coefficients should be the norm. If increased awareness of efficiency through hybrids does this, then so much the better.

Regarding appearance, yes, in some ways early BEV makers shot themselves in the foot by making cars which resembled golf carts. However, that time is long gone. The RAV4 looks exactly like its gas-powered counterpart. I personally like the EV1 much better though. Something about form following function. It's a shame most are already crushed. Here's the EV1:

 

[Buck]

It would be nice if car manufacturers would build more decent small cars with reasonable fuel economy, such as mixed driving resulting in the low 40 miles per gallon. Other countries have these types of cars and they're not diesel.

 

[jtr1962]

Exactly Buck. Some people don't need or want a huge car. For example, living in a city with no real need for any car, the only kind of car that I might consider buying would be one passenger with some space for groceries, weighing well under 1000 pounds, under 10 feet long, and of course electric. I mainly want something ultra cheap to buy (<$2500) with very low operating expenses, and I couldn't car less about amenities such as heat, air conditioning, stereo, etc. since I likely wouldn't be in the vehicle more than ten or twenty minutes at a time. Range? I'd consider 50 miles more than enough, 100 would be icing on the cake. Sadly, such a vehicle isn't made yet I'm sure there's a market for one. It's something that would fill the niche between a bicycle and a conventional small car.

 

[Buck]

That sort of car would be ideal for you jtr. Here in suburbia, we of course need something with more range. Personally, I need something that could seat four and hopefully come with a little bit of volume space, I'm over 6 feet tall. But for most of my journeys I'd be happy with something like a VW Lupo or Polo, or even an Opel Corsa. Drop in their 1 liter engine option and my mizer side would be happy. Then I could store another car in the garage with more capacity (probably worse fuel economy) and use it sparingly.

As you mentioned, I think price is important too. Something that could seat 2 comfortably or squeeze in 4 if necessary (like the Lupo) should be in the sub-$10,000 range. The problem is, these small cars are currently in the $13,000+ range.

 

[sechs]

I have one word for you: hydrogen.

http://www.pbs.org/saf/1506/

 

[ddrueding]

Sadly, such a vehicle isn't made yet I'm sure there's a market for one. It's something that would fill the niche between a bicycle and a conventional small car.

http://www.myersmotors.com/

I Drove one of these things years ago...why don't you own one yet?

 

[sechs]

Maybe because they're ugly?

Daimler is set to introduce its SMART electric car soon...

 

[jtr1962]

I'd like to see a similar small vehicle using modern technology. That Myers Motors thing doesn't have regenerative braking, doesn't use an AC motor, and worst of all uses lead acid batteries. There's no reason in this day and age to use lead-acid batteries. The aerodynamics could be better as well. I'd bet a similar vehicle of modern design would easily have 100 mile range. On the plus side, it seems like it would be classed as a motorcycle so that means no mandatory insurance. The size means easy parking, and the unexciting 70 mph top speed is still enough for city use. Well, at least it's good to see that somebody makes something like this.