edmunds range ratings
- Thread starter mk677
- Start date
Needsdecaf
Member
Why does Tesla do worse than most other cars, relative to rated range? Other data sources tend to support this.
Needsdecaf
Member
jelloslug
Active Member
Edmunds is not an unbiased source. They receive ad revenue from auto manufactures and Tesla does not do that.
Needsdecaf
Member
My personal theory is that Tesla has a VERY efficient drivetrain. Therefore at lower speeds, where aero drag isn't as large of a proportion of losses as at higher speeds (remember, aero drag increases at the SQUARE of speed), Teslas do well. And on the dyno, where there is no wind resistance and instead wind resistance loss is calculated, they do even better given their hyper efficient drivetrains.
In the real world, where there actually is aero, Tesla starts to lose out quickly at higher speeds.
In the real world, where there actually is aero, Tesla starts to lose out quickly at higher speeds.
Needsdecaf
Member
jelloslug
Active Member
Needsdecaf
Member
No. But ridiculous statements make me laugh. So, they take advertising. Big deal. It's easy to smell bias in a review. In a test like this, across multiple manufacturers, you think they are intentionally coming up with a test to show Tesla in a bad light?
How about taking the larger picture and looking at what they've actually done and said in the past. They've owned, what, like 4 long term Tesla cars now? That they have purchased, not been loaned. In general, they have been largely enthusiastic about them. Here's an excerpt from their long term 2017 Model 3 Test:
You expect a few glitches when you buy a car in its first generation. But when it's an entirely new car from an entirely new car company that has entirely different ideas on how cars should work, those glitches get magnified.
Indeed, our 2017 Tesla Model 3 had a very rocky start to ownership, with frequent visits to repair centers for a variety of issues. But once those issues were addressed, our Model 3 quickly became one of our favorite sedans. We even named the current model a winner of Edmunds Top Rated 2020.
The Model 3 is a collection of radical new ideas, not just for electric vehicles but also for the automotive industry. When executed well, these ideas don't make the Model 3 feel futuristic. Instead, they make similar vehicles seem old.
Summing Up
Pros: Addicting passing power and delightful steering and handling. An ownership experience that makes similarly priced vehicles seem antiquated. No maintenance costs.
Cons: Poor initial quality meant plenty of trips to the service center. Rough ride quality. Rampant popularity can expose the limitations of the charging network during the holidays.
Bottom Line: The Model 3 pairs brilliant real-world driving dynamics with gee-whiz interior features, making it an excellent sedan for city commuting.
2017 Tesla Model 3 Long-Term Road Test - Wrap-Up
But yeah, feel free to think that them taking advertising money means that their comments are all biased if it makes you feel better.
I'll add one last point. If this was only one test, by one magazine, you could view it as somewhat iffy. But when this same result about Teslas failing to consistently hit their EPA range, for years, across multiple models, by journalists and owners in multiple countries, somehow I come to the shocking conclusion that the Edmunds results are pretty realistic.
Start at 13:37 and someone please explain on what exactly Edmund's did to skew it that way. 16:15 are where the numbers tell the true story.
I think an easy way to make EPA numbers more accurate (and more helpful) is to have a highway rating and a city rating, just like they do with MPG figures (it stumps me that they don't already do this). 340 miles on a Model X is GREAT! But no one is driving 340 miles around town in a day, and 340 miles is NOT what you'll get on a highway drive, so that figure isn't informative to buyers. If you broke it down, I think we'd get less articles like this about how Tesla's range doesn't meet the EPA figures (cause it likely would surpass city figures while meeting the lower highway figure).
For what it's worth. I have had 2 BMW i3 before my Model 3 MR. I have used them for same work commute which consists of 80% freeway and 20% street. Both i3's had no issues getting its EPA range, but Model 3 doesn't come close. I have done enough long distance drive to know that the Model 3 EPA range is very optimistic, especially running at So. Cal. freeway speed.
Same. My TM3 LR AWD is rated at 310 (or something like that) but I know I'm never getting that driving most of my trip at 75 mpg on the highway. I planned for a 25% de-rating when I bought the car and still have a 2x - 3x margin for my normal driving. So no issue for me. I fully agree that the rating are silly though. How about run the car at 70 mph until it's dead, and that is the rating. The if you do better because you drive mostly in the city, people will be ecstatic instead of being disappointed.
I did something similar. On paper, the SR+ had enough range for the longest commute I may do (180 miles round trip), but I wanted to be safe so I went with MR. What I didn't factor in properly was the battery degradation and the effect of phantom drain. In 23 months and 24k miles, I have lost 14% of range (full charge around 227 miles instead of 264), and combined with phantom drain, I could not comfortably make the 180 miles without a short supercharging session. It is what it is, but in hindsight, I should have gone with the LR...
1) I wouldn't be surprised of certain sums of money exchanged to do a hit job on Tesla. Remember all those Tesla killers? Where is Polestar 2, the best car ever? Mach-E is the next - just read what "happy" new owners write (range problems, motor system failures, recalls, software and connectivity glitches, panels misalignment!!)
2) I am able to get EPA range on my Model 3 in winter. Have to be careful very gentle on acceleration and heating, but it is possible.
one commenter on another site summed up the range commentary well, he said that tesla (elon) overpromises and doesn't always deliver while porsche always under promises and strives to beat their promises in the real world.
Absolutely. I'd rather have a rating of 200 and be surprised to get 240 than a rating of 300 and be disappointed to get 240. Oh well.
El joe
Member
Sort of makes the Taycan more appealing, no? Not sure if I’m up for paying $120k+ for an EV that’s rated that low so I’ll stick with my $40k Model 3 that gets 300-ish miles for now.
I have NEVER gotten anywhere near the 310 EPA rating on my LR_DM.
if all the parties involved ever tell us how they do their testing.
Then we can replicate & decide for ourselves.
Fact of the matter is Edmunds didn't get anywhere close to EPA & neither do I.
Similar threads
