I agree with you on the HP claims, and the GT 5 sec limit. I will ding Ford on that the way I ding Tesla on the range. So both companies choose to be deceptive in certain areas, and we would be best to have full transparency on all topics.
Agreed. But Tesla chose their cycle test before everyone else was even pushing prototype cars out. The EPA should have established one cycle, not the choice of two, to avoid this kind of gameplay.
Agreed. Would be curious what happens in the ICE world, if all manufactures use the 2 cycle then I still blame tesla for bucking industry standard. I also feel like this would be more common knowledge on the multiple tests, if say a camry was getting 60mpg, and a similar accord 40mpg yet in real life they get the same....
The 5 cycle test is the ICE test. The EPA came put with the other methods because of how poorly the 5 cycle test predicted range. Tesla stuck with it because....reasons.
Right, the 5-cycle test wasn't designed for EVs . . . the EPA disagrees with you.
The problem is CR extrapolated miles based on efficiency and imaginary (idealized) battery capacity at warm temps and did not actually drive that distance unlike Bjorn, Tom, Kyle, etc.
Right, the 5-cycle test wasn't designed for EVs . . . the EPA disagrees with you.
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/pdfs/EPA test procedure for EVs-PHEVs-11-14-2017.pdf
From your own links:
At under 50 I suspect I can get 4.5+ mi/kWh on the Ioniq 5. It’s one of the most efficient EVs at slow speeds. A Kona or Bolt under 50mph probably gets 5.0+ mi/kWh.
The 5-cycle test was made for HEVs, not ICE, and then adopted by the EPA for BEVs.
For 2007 and earlier model year vehicles, only the city and highway schedules were used. Beginning with 2008 models, three additional tests are used to adjust the city and highway estimates to account for higher speeds, air conditioning use, and colder temperatures. "
....
EPA updated its methodology in 2008 to account for (1) faster speeds and acceleration, (2) air conditioner use, and (3) colder outside temperatures. Since all of these factors lower fuel economy, the 2008 changes lowered fuel economy estimates for all vehicles.
The 5-cycle test wasn't designed for BEVs. What you posted was just the implementation of the 5-cycle test for BEVs.
EPA updated its methodology in 2008 to account for (1) faster speeds and acceleration, (2) air conditioner use, (3) colder outside temperatures, and (4) thedooky's obstinance. Since all of these factors lower fuel economy, the 2008 changes lowered fuel economy estimates for all vehicles.
Doesn’t matter.
Dishonest? I don't agree. They were given a choice, they made it. YOU may not like it, but it wasn't illegal and I don't think it's dishonest. If it was flat out fraudulent, we should have seen some kind of lawsuit/settlement by now, like this one:
Buying a high performance car that advertises a certain amount of power available, and not divulging a catastrophic design flaw that cuts power to that of a Ford Escort after five seconds is nothing short of fraudulent. The 1/4 mile time and trap speed is a clear indication of the horrible engineering flaw. 101 mph trap speed in the quarter mile? Don't minivans do that? LOL. Claiming this isn't a huge issue speaks of blind brand loyalty IMO. Pretty sure there are threads on these forums discussing the absolutely legitimate issue.
