Of course, the synergy battery is much different, and much smaller than the RAV4-EV battery. The Synergy is typically 1.3 kWh, while the RAV4-EV contains up to 30 kWh.
And we see some other ignorant comments on that site about how that gives the batteries a "1000 mile life" because, they feel, NiMH only has "500 to 1000 cycle life".
Whereas, we know, the Synergy battery never deep-cycles, so it can last perhaps a million miles. Toyota claims never to have had to replace a Synergy battery under warranty. The important thing for an EV is to be able to deep-cycle as well has have long cycle-life, and have adequate power. ONLY NiMH has been proven to work for over 120 mile range and last longer than the life of the car, even a Toyota car.
But Autobloggreen seems to know nothing of all this, yet writes as if they do.
Paid GM liars and flacks seem to abound, spreading lies and disinformation, claiming that GM is "waiting for Lithium", and "does not have the batteries".
It's almost as if the Toyota RAV4-EV, Ford Ranger-EV, and Honda EV-plus, all of which used EV-95 NiMH, or the 1999 GM EV1, which used less powerful Ovonics NiMH, JUST DID NOT EVEN EXIST.
It's as if GM is promoting an hysterical blindness, so that the reporters don't ask about why not use NiMH, and the public thinks that the RAV4-EV just is not even on this planet.
autobloggreen misinformation about NiMH
| "...GM certainly isn't going to fund production of a vehicle that will draw more criticism for being behind the times. Nickel metal hydride batteries are fine for improving next year's NEVs but we're talking about mass-production fullsize vehicles that need to be safe for freeways and last 100,000 miles..." But GM DID destroy its own EV1. Think about why they might be lying about this need for "Lithium research" when NiMH is superior, tested and here, now. |