McFly, if you want to get the EPA range, then you need to drive the EPA range test cycle, which is NOT 70 mph continuous. Read this article and get some learn'n:
That was probably supposed to be an insult but I like that... McFly! ? The70 mph range test I did was just one day. I've had the car for three other weeks. Usually just City driving 6 days a week and highway one day a week but I'm still not able to obtain that 3.3
Yes. But understand the real values are not always what you see displayed. The scanner converts the values. For example, the TPS value might be 2.5v but the scanner will convert that to 55%. The conversion table may not be correct. That scan tool isn't known for accuracy. On my truck, it will show a coolant temp value even though there is no actual sensor. If I unplug the ICP sensor then it will substitute a lookup value provided by the PCM even though that sensor is offline.
Okay that's something to think about, I didn't know the OBD scanner was making up its own values. I thought it was getting numbers straight from the car.
2.7 mi/kWh seems very low at 70mph IMO.
The 247 miles of range is not a guarantee that you will get that range. It is merely the range that resulted from the EPA mandated test(s). The same exact test(s) that every car sold in the US must do, regardless of powertrain (diesel, gasoline, hydrogen fuel cell, natural gas, electric). On the window sticker it explicitly states:
Yeah 3.3 would be The Sweet spot to get that 247 I wished I could get that but my efficiency just is low for some reason. Tires are at 40 I haven't checked to see if that's right or not but that's how they came. Their stock. It's flat out here not a lot of hills plus I did that test on a loop so the elevation wouldn't matter anyway. I didn't use any HVAC until probably the last 15 mi of the test I got hot. 2.7 was all she would do.
Glad the light hearted insult was well received. Anyway, I have frequently exceeded 3.3 driving around town in my GT so I don't know what you are doing that could keep you from that number. Are you using 1PD? As Nelson asked, are your tires at 40 psi? I doubt you will maintain 3.3 at 70 mph but around town it should be easy peasy, lemon squeezy.
The scan tool probably can't give you the level of accuracy you want. 69.5 kWh is pretty close to 70 kWh. A less than 1% variance which can be explained by the lack of granularity we get. And that 70 kWh number? It's based on a certain voltage at a certain temperature at a certain amount of load. Like all batteries are. Getting it down to the one-thousand decimal place ain't gonna happen.
I understand that and most of my complaints have been figured out in this post. Those 3.3 kilowatt hours that I thought I was missing are not missing they are just below zero percent. In my opinion that's not usable range but whatever. Here's a screenshot from my range test where I went 100% to 0% and got 188 MI it was 69° and it shows that none of my power went to AC I'm just not getting very good efficiency out of the car.
It is, but it has to convert the values correctly. That formula for energy might not account for the change in usable energy of your model.
I guess the main argument I had isn't really valid because it does look like 70 is available but 3.3 of that is below 0% and that threw me off because I didn't think to drive the car past 0%
Why is your speed rating 40%? That is a big clue to your problem. My speed ratings have been much, much higher than that and I speed. So you are doing something unusual to get 40%.I understand that and most of my complaints have been figured out in this post. Those 3.3 kilowatt hours that I thought I was missing are not missing they are just below zero percent. In my opinion that's not usable range but whatever. Here's a screenshot from my range test where I went 100% to 0% and got 188 MI it was 69° and it shows that none of my power went to AC I'm just not getting very good efficiency out of the car.
