EPA Range for Porsche Taycan is 201 Miles

[J Duce]

I would not be surprised if the EPA has drastically changed their evaluation for EVs in the last two years, given that the Trump administration is so anti-EV. The White House and Republicans are avidly promoting fossil-fuel energy much more than the previous administration, and they just refused to extend the $7500 tax credit for another 200k-400k miles to help Tesla and GM (and other automakers like Ford and Toyota that will soon reach the current 200k-mile limit for tax credits). Would you put it past the EPA to have downgraded all EV ranges "somehow", to try hurting the EV revolution? I'm very skeptical of the EPA figure for the Taycan, given what other sources are finding.

This makes sense given the current administration and Republican parties current and unfounded policy position. No product will be perfect, and I will give Ford the benefit of the doubt.

Thanks for the observation.

Sponsored

 

[cometguy]

Several long-distance road trips have been posted recently at the Taycan Forum that are indicating much longer range than EPA figures. One was a spirited drive from Atlanta to Daytona Beach on interstate highways where the car was sometimes driven over 100 mph, and they reported 240-260 miles of range on a full charge in 40- to 50-degree (F) weather. Another on-going thread is a daily blog by a Maine resident who just bought a Taycan and promptly took it out on a 10k-mile, 6-week trip, driving first west through Canada to Vancouver, then later south to L.A. and then east to Florida through the southern US; he is reporting 220 miles of range routinely in 20-degree (F) temps in eastern and central Canada now (in the first week of his trip), which is consistent with other reports.

Regarding Tesla having so much better range than a Taycan, here's a post from a Model S owner on the Taycan section at Rennlist today: "Wow beautiful car far nicer than my Panamera and light years beyond my Tesla s 90d. A note about range. The estimated range on my 90d was 280. Never got close. A good range day for me was 230 or so. Usually 200. So just because Tesla advertises now 370 on the 100d (currently long range) take it with a grain of salt. Back to the turbo S. The ride was amazingly smooth over bad roads. Seats were very comfortable and the car handled better than my 911. (To be fair it was an 07 911 s). Love the car ordered a 4S"

 

[silverelan]

Tesla fanboys won't shut up about the Taycans range until Bjorn Nyland does a range test. Even then, there's no guarantee.

 

[zhackwyatt]

Several long-distance road trips have been posted recently at the Taycan Forum that are indicating much longer range than EPA figures. One was a spirited drive from Atlanta to Daytona Beach on interstate highways where the car was sometimes driven over 100 mph, and they reported 240-260 miles of range on a full charge in 40- to 50-degree (F) weather. Another on-going thread is a daily blog by a Maine resident who just bought a Taycan and promptly took it out on a 10k-mile, 6-week trip, driving first west through Canada to Vancouver, then later south to L.A. and then east to Florida through the southern US; he is reporting 220 miles of range routinely in 20-degree (F) temps in eastern and central Canada now (in the first week of his trip), which is consistent with other reports.

Regarding Tesla having so much better range than a Taycan, here's a post from a Model S owner on the Taycan section at Rennlist today: "Wow beautiful car far nicer than my Panamera and light years beyond my Tesla s 90d. A note about range. The estimated range on my 90d was 280. Never got close. A good range day for me was 230 or so. Usually 200. So just because Tesla advertises now 370 on the 100d (currently long range) take it with a grain of salt. Back to the turbo S. The ride was amazingly smooth over bad roads. Seats were very comfortable and the car handled better than my 911. (To be fair it was an 07 911 s). Love the car ordered a 4S"

The thing is car manufacturers by law have to advertise EPA numbers. So I would think both cars would be somewhat comparable in how far off the EPA numbers they are.

 

[slawwach]

One thing I cannot understand is the EPA tests are not new to auto companies. So when they are publishing their expected range, why do they not put their cars through the same battery of tests they know that EPA will run them through? I am not a company executive and I am not in the engineering or marketing folks shoes, but if I were, I would require this test (as well as a real world use test) to make sure that it is as close as possible to the EPA -- especially since majority of people use this as their guide when factoring whether to purchase. That said, as long as the First Edition stays about 230 range, I am good since I commute drive about 28 miles per day and do slightly more some weekends.

What are some thoughts on whether there is a deal breaker for you? I am still very hopeful for the Mach-E success and I cannot wait to see it personally and drive off with one.

EPA does only a small portion of the certification testing. Manufacturers do the majority of the testing, with the EPA reviewing results submitted by manufacturers. Since manufacturers do the testing there is some wiggle room and gaming the results, so generally I would take it with a grain of salt.

As a side note. Did you notice that Tesla advertises Performance model Y having same range as LR?
They do it by leaving same tires, breaks and so on as on LR. Then they give you a free Performance Upgrade option that will lower the range to 280. I find this misleading, same as showing the price with potential savings.

 

[eager2own]

As a side note. Did you notice that Tesla advertises Performance model Y having same range as LR?
They do it by leaving same tires, breaks and so on as on LR. Then they give you a free Performance Upgrade option that will lower the range to 280. I find this misleading, same as showing the price with potential savings.

I have no issue with it and actually think it’s great for Tesla buyers.
If you want the Performance at 0-60 in 3.5 secs. with the same 310 range, you can do that by buying the Performance model. However, if you want to increase the top speed further from 145 to 155 and have 21” wheels, you can opt to do that at no extra cost IF you’re willing to forfeit 30 miles of range.
I think it‘s awesome that the buyer has that option.

 

[timbop]

I have no issue with it and actually think it’s great for Tesla buyers.
If you want the Performance at 0-60 in 3.5 secs. with the same 310 range, you can do that by buying the Performance model. However, if you want to increase the top speed further from 145 to 155 and have 21” wheels, you can opt to do that at no extra cost IF you’re willing to forfeit 30 miles of range.
I think it‘s awesome that the buyer has that option.

Provided Tesla is up front with the trade-offs. If they let you change the wheels in the configurator and you are clearly informed of the range change, then fine.

 

[Billyk24]

This makes sense given the current administration and Republican parties current and unfounded policy position. No product will be perfect, and I will give Ford the benefit of the doubt.

Thanks for the observation.

Not totally accurate at all. Republican officials created bill to allow Tesla sales in Wisconsin. Wisconsin auto dealers have democratic governor 14000 in campaign donation so Gov veto bill
Bolt and Jag ev sales are slow and deals exist because the consumers not buying.

 

[dbsb3233]

It seems like the EPA is going to have to change the criteria it uses for range and efficiency for EVs, because the current method isn't very helpful, or accurate.

Part of the problem is that different driving conditions produce MUCH bigger swings in EV efficiency than it does in gasoline efficiency. An ICE car might see a variance of 10-20%, while an EV can see a variance of 30-40%. Reporting a combined city/highway number for ICE was usually good enough be in the ballpark. But it's not for EVs. 270 mile advertised range can easily drop to 190 when you do a 75 MPH highway run. Or jump to 330 around the city. Which is a very normal thing for most drivers to do. They really need to report a separate 75 MPH (with heat/AC on) number. As well as a stop-go 45 MPH city number.

This "combined" number just doesn't cut it when there's such dramatic variance.

 

[macchiaz-o]

This "combined" number just doesn't cut it when there's such dramatic variance.

I realize they're not perfect, but if you're interested in highway efficiency losses, why not use the EPA's separate city and highway ratings instead of the combined figure?

2019 Kona EV is 132 MPGe city and 108 MPGe highway. About an 18% drop from city to highway -- using EPA's definition of highway. I think that includes some amount of higher speed driving (up to 75+ mph) for short periods of time, not the entire drive time. It should also include some amount of colder or hotter weather conditions.

 

[timbop]

I realize they're not perfect, but if you're interested in highway efficiency losses, why not use the EPA's separate city and highway ratings instead of the combined figure?

2019 Kona EV is 132 MPGe city and 108 MPGe highway. About an 18% drop from city to highway -- using EPA's definition of highway. I think that includes some amount of higher speed driving (up to 75+ mph) for short periods of time, not the entire drive time. It should also include some amount of colder or hotter weather conditions.

Sure, but since high speed, winter, and summer affect BEVs much more than ICE's those would be more valuable than a flat city/hwy rating. It would take longer (they'd have to test at 25F, 75F, and 95F), but it would be more helpful than guessing based on anecdotal evidence.

 

[dbsb3233]

I realize they're not perfect, but if you're interested in highway efficiency losses, why not use the EPA's separate city and highway ratings instead of the combined figure?

2019 Kona EV is 132 MPGe city and 108 MPGe highway. About an 18% drop from city to highway -- using EPA's definition of highway. I think that includes some amount of higher speed driving (up to 75+ mph) for short periods of time, not the entire drive time. It should also include some amount of colder or hotter weather conditions.

I tried to look up the criteria for the EPA ratings. It was hard to nail down, but from what I could gleam the highway number is measured at an average of 55 MPH. Huge difference in EV efficiency loss between 55 and 75.

I'd be fine if they broke it down into 3 or 4 levels. A 55 number is useful too, but as I've said before, where range really matters the most is on road trips, not city driving. And most people's road trips are on interstates. Those usually top out at 70 or 75 (depending on your state). And it's not uncommon for people to go over that by a little bit too.

 

[cometguy]

It seems like the EPA is going to have to change the criteria it uses for range and efficiency for EVs, because the current method isn't very helpful, or accurate.

I think that it's also difficult to assign ranges for EVs because the range seems much more variable than in ICEVs, all things considered. The whole MPGe metric is absurd, in my view.

And given that the EPA is being dismantled by the Trump administration (and will be largely dead if Trump gets re-elected), we are only going to get useful numbers from other agencies -- whether government agencies like CARB or private entities like the online car magazines/journals (or Consumer Reports)...

 

[dbsb3233]

I think that it's also difficult to assign ranges for EVs because the range seems much more variable than in ICEVs, all things considered. The whole MPGe metric is absurd, in my view.

Totally agree about MPGe being absurd. It's completely useless to the typical person. I'd like to see MPK (miles/kWh) become the standard, or at least the common term used if not officially. It's the logical extension of MPG (how many miles one can go on the common purchase-unit of fuel). And since we purchase electricity in units of kWh, it's the perfect counterpart.

The other reason that knowing MPK (and thus range) for various driving conditions takes on a higher degree of importance for BEVs (compared to ICE) is that the refuels take so much longer. MPG matters to the typical drivers mostly from a fuel cost standpoint. Because refuels only take 2-3 minutes, the "time lost" factor is minuscule. Actual "range" is mostly irrelevant for ICE vehicles, because stopping to refuel is so quick and easy. But it's just the opposite on BEV. "Time lost" can be a big issue.

Sponsored