Inside EV's real world range test. Winner: No. Surprise.

[snikt]

What is WLTP and how do they get 379? that seems a tad high...

WLTP is the EU system of rating consumption, it's even more generous than the EPA.

The EPA on the M3 LR for example is 353 miles, WLTP is 389 miles

Sponsored

 

[Carsinmyblood]

They're using WLTP figures. You're referring to EPA numbers?

Which means that they should include all estimates in their graphics, not market-specfic ones, or, they should label the origin of the estimate to avoid confusion.

The WLTP range estimate of the Model 3 is 382. They posted 360, so they didn't use the WLTP range estimate for the Model 3. They didn't use the EPA range of 353 either.

Whatever the reason, it's sloppy.

 

[Mach-E VLOG]

I tweeted the results and the responses are predictable. ? ? ?

For some, apparently range doesn't matter now. You all should be looking only at efficiency. Hahaha

 

[theo1000]

For some, apparently range doesn't matter now. You all should be looking only at efficiency. Hahaha

Yah the spin continues. For the life of me I cant understand how badly TSLA consistently misses on these test and the fanboi spin doctors go crazy. The competition has barely begun and they having a melt down. What happens when the Japanese folks start showing up in numbers?

 

[timbop]

Which means that they should include all estimates in their graphics, not market-specfic ones, or, they should label the origin of the estimate to avoid confusion.

The WLTP range estimate of the Model 3 is 382. They posted 360, so they didn't use the WLTP range estimate for the Model 3. They didn't use the EPA range of 353 either.

Whatever the reason, it's sloppy.

Generally when american publications/bloggers/vloggers do a story like this they only publish/mention EPA ratings. Whatcar is in Europe (I believe the UK), so I would expect them to quote only WLTP figures.

The USA is actually not the center of the universe.

 

[timbop]

I tweeted the results and the responses are predictable. ? ? ?

For some, apparently range doesn't matter now. You all should be looking only at efficiency. Hahaha

Yah the spin continues. For the life of me I cant understand how badly TSLA consistently misses on these test and the fanboi spin doctors go crazy. The competition has barely begun and they having a melt down. What happens when the Japanese folks start showing up in numbers?

Slowly the myths about Tesla are crumbling, and the inevitable result is not far away. Even if the stans switch to touting efficiency as the golden rule, there are 2 other manufacturers with virtually identical efficiencies.

There is no "secret sauce" in Tesla's batteries, motors, inverters, or anything else. They focus purely on aerodynamics to cut down air resistance as much as possible. I'll gladly give up 10% or 15% in efficiency to have a car whose front doesn't look like a model Y.

 

[Mach-E VLOG]

Yah the spin continues. For the life of me I cant understand how badly TSLA consistently misses on these test and the fanboi spin doctors go crazy. The competition has barely begun and they having a melt down. What happens when the Japanese folks start showing up in numbers?

So far the excuses include:

• Efficiency matters more than range
• They used the wrong wheels on the Tesla
• They only traveled 14 miles and extrapolated the data (they didn't, they drove them until they died)
• They "cherry-picked" track to benefit the Mach-E
• The battery size on the Model 3 is listed wrong
• Ford paid for the test
• It was only the RWD Mach-E

 

[snikt]

So far the excuses include:

• Efficiency matters more than range
• They used the wrong wheels on the Tesla
• They only traveled 14 miles and extrapolated the data (they didn't, they drove them until they died)
• They "cherry-picked" track to benefit the Mach-E
• The battery size on the Model 3 is listed wrong
• Ford paid for the test
• It was only the RWD Mach-E

I don't know if some are excuses or just notes and comments about the test?

Some of those are silly yes but some are actual valid notes.

 

[Mach Daddy]

So far the excuses include:

• Efficiency matters more than range
• They used the wrong wheels on the Tesla
• They only traveled 14 miles and extrapolated the data (they didn't, they drove them until they died)
• They "cherry-picked" track to benefit the Mach-E
• The battery size on the Model 3 is listed wrong
• Ford paid for the test
• It was only the RWD Mach-E

The Rock has something to say about these excuses...

 

[pt19713]

Which means that they should include all estimates in their graphics, not market-specfic ones, or, they should label the origin of the estimate to avoid confusion.

The WLTP range estimate of the Model 3 is 382. They posted 360, so they didn't use the WLTP range estimate for the Model 3. They didn't use the EPA range of 353 either.

Whatever the reason, it's sloppy.

Americans don't care about WLTP, why should Europeans care about EPA. Many of the cars tested are Europe only. Why report EPA when it's not applicable to those vehicles.

You're also posting 2021 numbers. A 2020 Model 3 was used. That accounts for the difference.

 

[Mach-E VLOG]

I don't know if some are excuses or just notes and comments about the test?

Some of those are silly yes but some are actual valid notes.

Nah, I read the responses. They are all excuses.

The battery size was an interesting one and I hope it gets cleared up by What Car. But it is not like they swapped out the battery just for the test. They said it was a LR Model 3, but if they made a mistake and it was SR, that would be a huge issue. But if it is a LR and they calculated efficiency with the wrong number that would have been an actual advantage for the Tesla.

 

[tomterky]

I've been very happy with my range on my standard range AWD premium MME. This morning I got up to 240!! What I get compared to how some other drivers drive, I'm very happy with it. Electric vehicle range, just like an ICE vehicle comes down to too many determining factors. I'll use their guesstimated numbers as just that, a guess.

 

[Pushrods&Capacitors]

So far the excuses include:

• Efficiency matters more than range
• They used the wrong wheels on the Tesla
• They only traveled 14 miles and extrapolated the data (they didn't, they drove them until they died)
• They "cherry-picked" track to benefit the Mach-E
• The battery size on the Model 3 is listed wrong
• Ford paid for the test
• It was only the RWD Mach-E

So, how long before the Tesla engineers chime in talking about some mythical “fixed buffer” like they did when Edmunds called them out on missing EPA estimates on EVERY model they sell. ?

 

[Carsinmyblood]

Slowly the myths about Tesla are crumbling, and the inevitable result is not far away. Even if the stans switch to touting efficiency as the golden rule, there are 2 other manufacturers with virtually identical efficiencies.

There is no "secret sauce" in Tesla's batteries, motors, inverters, or anything else. They focus purely on aerodynamics to cut down air resistance as much as possible. I'll gladly give up 10% or 15% in efficiency to have a car whose front doesn't look like a model Y.

Yes, I'll give some up to drive a car that doesn't get second looks because it looks like an EV....'cept the lack of a grill, of course.

Interestingly, my Mazda CX-5 has the exact carrying capacity of the MME (save the frunk), and comparable coefficient of drag. Cx-5, .33. MME, .30

Looks about the same too.

 

[trutolife27]

I don't know if some are excuses or just notes and comments about the test?

Some of those are silly yes but some are actual valid notes.

Sponsored