Real World range testing reveals differences between stated/print "EPA ranges" for most vehicles.

[Billyk24]

Here is a link about the test methods: https://thedriven.io/2019/08/07/why-are-new-electric-vehicle-range-estimates-often-so-different/

Sponsored

 

[Nak]

The problem with all that is most people don't care how they do in the lab, they care about how they do out on the road in the real world.

I get that tests need to be done consistently from one vehicle to the next in order to be fair. But I almost got the impression their point was less about that than wanting favorable conditions for Tesla. That's probably not the case but it kinda read that way.

And I still come back to my usual "where range usually matters is long road trips" point. Which makes their regen point kinda moot. No one is doing any regen driving 250 straight miles on an interstate. Regen matters for stop/go city driving, of course, but for most people range around home doesn't matter much if you're plugging in at home every night anyway.

Inside EVs has never been one to pull punches with Tesla. Yes, they are pro EV. But they are also fighting pretty hard to make sure EVs fulfill their promises. If they don't, EV's will face a tougher time getting accepted. Inside EVs has been first to report a number of quality issues with the 3.

Anyways, I think you're right that this article sounds biased towards Tesla. Not because Inside EVs is biased, but because the original article is pretty obviously biased. They've set their test conditions to minimize the usefulness of aerodynamic efficiency and regenerative braking. Their readers want to hear how much better other EVs are doing, so they deliver test results that gets them more clicks and therefore more money. By explaining what WhatCar did wrong, they sound biased towards Tesla, because WhatCar planned the test conditions to make Tesla look worse.

I think in certain limited circumstances, you can show where the EPA test is not a good comparison tool. The Taycan is a case in point. The two speed gearbox in the Taycan is going to give it an advantage in 70mph+ freeway driving that the EPA tests don't clearly show. Not that they're biased, it's just that the range test isn't about just freeway driving. But if you look at overall driving, yes the EPA tests are pretty good. Just know that you can probably do better with the Taycan at high freeway speeds than the tests show. The EPA should probably have a second range test dedicated to steady 70mph driving, since that's what a lot of people think of when they think "range".

Take away that two speed gear box though, and the EPA tests are a fair tool for comparing different EVs. You might be able to find a limited condition where one car may do better or worse, like the Taycan. Most people drive their cars in more than just one condition. The EPA test may not reflect real world perfectly, but it compares cars well.

As far as how the EPA test compares to real world, My 3 and My Y are coming in pretty damn close to EPA estimates when I drive conservatively. Not hypermiling, just not nailing it. I drove 80 miles yesterday. Mostly freeway at 65 mph, but about 20 miles of stop and go in town and country roads. Dry roads, about 55F. Autopilot on on the freeway, which uses about 20 wh/m. I averaged 270 wh/m, which translates to a range of right about 280 miles. Amazingly, the listed range for a Model Y Performance Upgrade is 280 miles. My 3 likewise comes pretty darn close to EPA estimates. These aren't instrumented tests designed to compare one EV to another, but they do give me a lot of faith in the EPA tests.

BTW, even though that Taycan gearbox helps freeway range and performance, I have no desire to have an EV with one. To me, it's going backwards to put a multi-speed gearbox in an EV. One more thing to break, and it hurts overall efficiency due to increased drive train friction. No thanks. Thank you Ford for doing things right.

 

[dbsb3233]

That's all fair. And I get that they were trying to counter what they felt was wrong in the article they were critiquing, so that naturally makes it sound like they were favoring Tesla. I'm fine with that part.
My problems with their response were things like saying it should only be guaged in the lab, not the track. And that they shouldn't be tested like ICE cars are. No, I think they should be tested very much to the ICE conditions that most people are used to. That's kinda the point.

And again, the focus on "combined" range rather than looking at city and highways separately. I know EPA does that with MPGe but that's a lousy measure. It means nothing to people. I'd prefer Miles/kWh (MPK, if you will) as the logical counterpart to MPG, but it seems the measure that's become the standard people really care about is converting it to range. What we need is a City Range number and a Highway Range number for BEVs. (Except a true highway number at 70 or 75 MPH non-stop, not EPAs watered-down number averaging 55 MPH.) Something like 340/220 (City/Highway) for the Mach-e (RWD ER) would be much more helpful than just a flat "300 miles combined".

I know some say "but we don't use range as a major statistic for ICE vehicles". That's true, but people don't care much about that because you can completely refuel an ICE vehicle nearly anywhere in less that 3 minutes. So range isn't an issue for ICE. But in a BEV is very much is. Even if there's good charging station coverage (which is an issue in itself), the charging time is a major issue.

 

[Nak]

dbsb3233, I agree with you completely. I think real world numbers are important. The problem lies in getting them. The only perfect way to compare the freeway range of multiple EVs would be to put them all on the same route at the same time with decent drivers motivated to get the best out of their car and run them till zero. I actually saw a test video like that. It was done in the UK and I've lost the link. Anyways, that's hard to do every time you want to test a new car... In the absence of a test like that, I agree with InsideEVs assertion that only an instrumented test is truly useful. That's the only repeatable way to test cars against the same standard. It isn't perfect, but barring an outlier like an EV with a two speed gearbox it's going to give you a good comparison between cars.

Let's face it though, the comparisons don't mean as much as you'd think. Even if the Taycan got a 350 mile range, someone shopping for a 3, or an E, or a Y isn't really going to care. I'm not buying a Taycan whether it gets 200 miles or 400 miles. My choices are a Y or a Mach-e. I have a Y, and I'll be comparing it against the Mach-e. if the E is superior for my needs, I'll trade the Y in. if it isn't, I won't.

I'm pretty sure we are going to get lots of real world tests comparing the two. I really hope someone on this forum in the Portland area gets a GT so we can meet up at the track to wring the two of them out. Followed at some point by a Hood to Coast run checking the real world range difference--if any. Because let's face it: talk is cheap. (As are magazine articles.) Where the rubber meets the road is where all will be answered. Until the next model year!

 

[agoldman]

This tells me that most people drive with a heavy right foot. well duh...

by the way, during the virus, gas mileage must have dropped like a lead balloon. Average highway speed seems to be up at least +25mph.

 

[dbsb3233]

This tells me that most people drive with a heavy right foot. well duh...

by the way, during the virus, gas mileage must have dropped like a lead balloon. Average highway speed seems to be up at least +25mph.

Amazing how much better traffic moves with half as many people on the road.

 

[eastern refugee]

I agree with those that stated the obvious. Give me real hey numbers at a constant 75 mph. Around town is totally irrelevant. You charge at home so who cares. If all you are doing is buying a BEV to drive around town then why buy it? Most BEV are more expensive then an ICE equivalent. As such the savings on gas will not make up for the cost unless you keep the BEV 10 plus years.

for me I am buying the MME so that I can drive 200 miles on the freeway and save on gas. My gas bill for my twoICE cars is$900 and my wife and I each drive about25,000 miles a year. In short gas is a VERY big deal. This is the why I care about real world figures which no one will have until the MME is bought.

 

[dbsb3233]

I agree with those that stated the obvious. Give me real hey numbers at a constant 75 mph. Around town is totally irrelevant. You charge at home so who cares. If all you are doing is buying a BEV to drive around town then why buy it? Most BEV are more expensive then an ICE equivalent. As such the savings on gas will not make up for the cost unless you keep the BEV 10 plus years.

for me I am buying the MME so that I can drive 200 miles on the freeway and save on gas. My gas bill for my twoICE cars is$900 and my wife and I each drive about25,000 miles a year. In short gas is a VERY big deal. This is the why I care about real world figures which no one will have until the MME is bought.

200 daily miles might be pushing a single charge on a mostly 75 MPH freeway commute. (And probably requires charging to 100% every night.) You could be right on the edge of whether the Mach-e can handle that much without a recharge stop. Hopefully the real-world number comes in above 240 at 75 MPH (RWD ER), but I'm half-expecting it to be more like 220 at that speed (less in cold weather).

Hope we're pleasantly surprised though. ?

Although if you did have to make a charging stop, at least you'd only need a 5-10 minute stop to add a few dozen miles.

 

[RyZt]

I agree with those that stated the obvious. Give me real hey numbers at a constant 75 mph. Around town is totally irrelevant. You charge at home so who cares. If all you are doing is buying a BEV to drive around town then why buy it? Most BEV are more expensive then an ICE equivalent. As such the savings on gas will not make up for the cost unless you keep the BEV 10 plus years.

for me I am buying the MME so that I can drive 200 miles on the freeway and save on gas. My gas bill for my twoICE cars is$900 and my wife and I each drive about25,000 miles a year. In short gas is a VERY big deal. This is the why I care about real world figures which no one will have until the MME is bought.

Many people here aren't buying an EV to save money. For one thing, many people prefer the driving experience of an EV (coming from Hybrid, Plug in, a shorter range EV, or just another EV). If EV turns out to be cheaper long term, it's a nice extra.

 

[symos]

So apparently no one is buying an EV because it's good for the environment and for public health?
Which is, like, the main reason why they exist?

 

[Billyk24]

You start to wonder about your pocketbook when one learns more about how the "range" drops steeply during interstate driving. More and longer stops are becoming a red flag for some. More localized driving should be cheaper with at home level 2 charging sources. But this also raises a question, local driving is often more slower, with more stop and go segments and who needs a 0-60mph 3 sec vehicle (and one that cost over $50,000) for these conditions? Won't a cheaper EV or plug-in hybrid better fit the need for this? With the plug-in hybrid, long distance interstate travel has got to be easier and faster.

 

[timbop]

So apparently no one is buying an EV because it's good for the environment and for public health?
Which is, like, the main reason why they exist?

The operative point is that saving money isn't the top reason many are planning to buy a $50k car. I'm sure he meant to include environmental concerns as well, although I know some here explicitly are not concerned about that

 

[JamieGeek]

So apparently no one is buying an EV because it's good for the environment and for public health?
Which is, like, the main reason why they exist?

Well when I first leased the Focus Electric (FFE) I was paying over $350/month in gas driving an F-350 around. That dropped to less than $50/month driving the FFE. (Of course I didn't get rid of the F-350, I just drove it less--of course that means I didn't save any money as I now had 2 vehicles instead of one LOL.)

As a bonus the FFE is/was much better for the environment than the F-350 LOL

Initial research on who was purchasing EVs revealed that the majority of people purchasing them was "early adopter" people interested in the next big thing/new hi tech stuff...not the environmentalists.

 

[Nak]

Initial research on who was purchasing EVs revealed that the majority of people purchasing them was "early adopter" people interested in the next big thing/new hi tech stuff...not the environmentalists.

This is purely anecdotal, but my experience jibes with this. Very, very few of the folks concerned with climate change that I'm familiar with have switched to EVs. This is embarrassing to me as I consider myself an environmentalist. Very few seem to walk the walk. On the other hand, most of the EV owners I know are happy they are making a difference, even if that wasn't the primary reason they got the car. In my experience, EV adopters tend to be more conservative politically than not... Again, this observation is purely anecdotal.

 

[dbsb3233]

So apparently no one is buying an EV because it's good for the environment and for public health?
Which is, like, the main reason why they exist?

I wouldn't say that's the main reason they exist. But it is perhaps the main reasons many governments push them and taxpayer-subsidize them.

For some consumers, environmentalism is a motivating factor. For others it's the much cheaper fuel (if they charge at home). And for others it's the tax credits, or the styling, or the high tech, or the acceleration, or the ease of home recharging, or a host of other features. Or most likely, a combination of many of those reasons.

Sponsored