geoffmanley
Member
Is the "+" version really that much less efficient? I usually average around 460 Wh or so.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
2020 Porsche Taycan Turbo Gets EPA Range Rating Of Just 201 Miles
- Thread starter odguy
- Start date
So here's a conspiracy theory for y'all. Trump has stated he doesn't like German car companies, and hates seeing so many German luxury cars in NYC. Could it be he's instructed the EPA to make German cars look bad? eTron has similar lousy range. Most other new EV's are coming in around 250.
What a disaster, Porsche. Crazy that all these companies with essentially unlimited resources can’t even come close to matching Tesla range and efficiency, let alone surpass it. This pretty much means e-tron GT will be an equal disappointment next year. I really wanted the Taycan, but this is just terrible. We should not give Porsche our money for such terrible execution. Maybe gen 2 will be better. It has to be.
Hats off to Tesla battery and motor engineering teams - it’s becoming more apparent every day what a heck of an achievement they did.
I wish Tesla CEO wasn’t a nutjob and the rest of the company did their job as well as the battery guys. Maybe then it would be worth owning one. ICE it is for the foreseeable future for me. And maybe a small EV like ID3 for daily stuff. Considering it isn't coming to the US, one can only hope for alternatives. Or buy a Bolt.
Hats off to Tesla battery and motor engineering teams - it’s becoming more apparent every day what a heck of an achievement they did.
I wish Tesla CEO wasn’t a nutjob and the rest of the company did their job as well as the battery guys. Maybe then it would be worth owning one. ICE it is for the foreseeable future for me. And maybe a small EV like ID3 for daily stuff. Considering it isn't coming to the US, one can only hope for alternatives. Or buy a Bolt.
Last edited:
Doesn't look like it. If you look at the kWh/100miles(weird units, but ok), it seems to basically have 0 buffer. It’s just really that inefficient.
The manufacturer does the testing themselves. EPA just reports it and sometimes audits it to make sure they didn’t cheat. Porsche is making it sound like they’re surprised, but they’re the ones who ran this test.
Just read a MT article about the Taycan. Apparently Porsche is claiming they didn't focus on range, just performance. My guess is they realize most of their customers have other vehicles for long distance and just use their sports cars for local driving / track use.
Though I laugh every time I see a quote from one of these ICE companies claiming that coasting when taking your foot off the accelerator, rather than regen, is more efficient. No thanks, I'll trust the expertise of engineers that can make an EV that can go 50% further than yours on a charge!
Though I laugh every time I see a quote from one of these ICE companies claiming that coasting when taking your foot off the accelerator, rather than regen, is more efficient. No thanks, I'll trust the expertise of engineers that can make an EV that can go 50% further than yours on a charge!
You guys are all missing the point. This wasn’t a surprise to Porsche nor a failed experiment. Porsche made the investment to create a car the community would respect. But pretended that the range was a surprise - it’s just an investment to prolong ICE. What’s a couple billion invested on an EV if it proves that only ICE make sense.
I’m not saying I agree but think about all the petrolheads that can use this as “proof” that if Porsche can’t do it, no one can. Hence guaranteeing sales for ICE for decades to come
I’m not saying I agree but think about all the petrolheads that can use this as “proof” that if Porsche can’t do it, no one can. Hence guaranteeing sales for ICE for decades to come
whitex
Well-Known Member
Not likely, their mothership (VW) is going all-in on the electric, they have even announced they are stopping advanced/performance/racing ICE R&D investments completely and shifting the funding to EV R&D. Diesel-gate really did a number on their image and bottom line, becoming the EV leader is their way out of this. Not to mention that performace junkies are not going back to ICE Porsche once they try out an EV Porsche.
Well I know you have a few tracks in the U.S. with Superchargers nearby and maybe Porsche will install a few strategic ones over there to compete, but with no fast chargers anywhere in the UK as of now, if you are expecting to take your lovely new Taycan to the track in the UK and get more than a few laps out of it before driving home, you better live next to the circuit.
gavine
Petrol Head turned EV Enthusiast
Can you tell me why this is an advantage? If their 90% reports as 100%, then why not just charge to 90% and pretend you're at 100%. Not to mention, with Tesla, you can get that extra 10% of battery if/when you need it. I like Tesla's approach better.
rpo
Member
460 wH seems crazy high. My new P100D is a hair under 300 wH with 2k miles...and that's mostly in sub 50 degree weather so far.
M3BlueGeorgia
Active Member
And I'm sure many others will do the same. I did see that Porsche is questioning the numbers by the EPA and are doing there own tests. Wanna bet they come back with better numbers based on their own testing.
That's just marketing smokescreen.
Porsche would have been doing simulations and testing all the way through the development process, so this EPA result came as no surprise to them.
In fact the 201 number suggests that Porsche have been moving heaven and earth to squeak over 200.
AMPd
Well-Known Member
It’s an advantage to Porsche, this way they’re less likely to deal with battery warranty claims.
Tesla recently did the same thing to older vehicles via a software update. Some might say that’s a worse approach, selling a vehicle with one advertised battery capacity only to reduce it a few years after the sale.
1. I still see no evidence Porsche is actually doing this(and do see evidence that they are not), beyond wishful thinking
2. Tesla does have a buffer on their batteries. There was some hubbub about this a few years back since the Model S 75 actually had something like 70kWh available.
Gt1948
2017 S FSD AP 3.0 MCU 1
PWlakewood
Active Member
These numbers will matter especially when comparing other high end ev's that will eventually come out. Its pretty embarrassing as I'm sure Porsche is aware.
whitex
Well-Known Member
I think the point is Tesla lets you hurt your battery longevity (you can charge to 100% every time), while other manufactures choose not to. Yes, it gives the customer more "power", but at the same time it's the proverbial "shotgun you can shoot yourself in a foot with". For Tesla, that potentially means having to replace more batteries under warranty. It can also hurt used car value, especially once the batteries are out of warranty. If you are buying a used car with a an expensive battery, knowing that the previous owners were fully allowed to abuse and you not be able to check is likely to reduce the value of vehicles out of warranty or ones which will go out of warranty during your planned ownership period. If even a small percentage of owners kill their batteries, but there is no way to tell, and those batteries start failing out of warranty, this will create an impression of Tesla batteries not being reliable after warranty. Even people who understand the issue will know they are gambling when buying a used Tesla, vs. other manufacturer car which the regular user is locked out of abusing in the battery in this way.
Similar threads
