Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

edmunds range ratings

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
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. :)

The Taycan is VERY appealing. I'm also very happy with my Model 3 for 1/3 the price, so sticking with that. It will be interesting in 5 years when the Taycan is ~$40K if people will pick snatch them up. It will depend largely on battery degradation I suppose.
 
  • Like
Reactions: El joe
The Taycan is VERY appealing. I'm also very happy with my Model 3 for 1/3 the price, so sticking with that. It will be interesting in 5 years when the Taycan is ~$40K if people will pick snatch them up. It will depend largely on battery degradation I suppose.
Agreed. That’s been pretty much my stance — I can’t wait to get these at CarMax for $40k in five years. Hoping the estimated range and huge influx of other EVs will bring the Taycan’s prices down quite a bit in five to seven years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tres_Azul
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.

Edmunds has purchased at least three Tesla vehicles with their own money to test.

Also, their results line up with hundreds if not thousands of actual users.

If their results were completely out of left field, your theory might have more merit.
 
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).

You nailed it. They have to come up with HWY specific ratings as the EPA ratings for ev’s are more than useless at this point.
 
The EPA does break down range in to city and highway categories; it's just that the combined number is the one that gets broadcast the most. You can see all three ratings for all BEVs in THIS list.

However, as noted earlier the speeds on the highway test are too low. I definitely agree it would help to have them be at more realistic speeds. Even there, "realistic" can vary widely around the country, and large speed changes have huge effects on EV efficiency. The more aero designs do better - obvious not absolutely, but relatively - at higher speeds. I would find a table of ranges at various speeds to be helpful, although I know a lot of consumers don't like to see more than a single number.

I'd also like to see the test standardized. They say the EPA test is standardized and so a good comparison tool even while YMMV, but given that automakers can pick and choose tests and de-rating factors, the numbers we see are NOT comparable. The same could be true in gas cars, but most automakers choose the tests that give the best numbers and things end up fairly comparable (there have been some exceptions). But in the EV world, some like Tesla go for marketing-wow while others like Porsche go for underpromise-overdeliver. Both are allowed, but it makes it hard for a buyer to figure out what suits our needs best.
 
Last edited:
Fact of the matter is Edmunds didn't get anywhere close to EPA & neither do I.

We exceeded it once, while visiting Yellowstone, where you drive long distances at 40mph. EVs are ideal for not spooking the wildlife.

saw this in another thread and thought it interesting and relevant:

This is a good site (if you haven't seen it before):
Teslike.com

It seems a car company is allowed to stick to the EPA rating for the most efficient wheel and tire combination, so those with fanciest wheels underperform the worst. So did Edmunds cherry pick the variants that would yield the worst results, as some would accuse, or those that are the most fun to drive?
 
Edmunds has purchased at least three Tesla vehicles with their own money to test.

Also, their results line up with hundreds if not thousands of actual users.

If their results were completely out of left field, your theory might have more merit.

Consumer Reports has tested 2018 Model 3 at 65 mph and it drove 350 miles (310 miles EPA)
2018 Tesla Model 3 Review

Also:
Teslike.com

So, it looks like Edmunds result is indeed an outlier.
 
The EPA does break down range in to city and highway categories; it's just that the combined number is the one that gets broadcast the most. You can see all three ratings for all BEVs in THIS list.

Weird someone else tried to make this point in another thread, to repeat myself though MPGe figures are NOT range figures, you can’t really even use them to extrapolate range. The EPA only posts one number for range, which is what most reporting relies on, no one talks about MPGe #s, combined or otherwise, cause its kind of a goofy concept to try and create a comparison point if EVs and ICE vehicles, but it’s not super informative otherwise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jaqueh
No, mpge is not range, but if you multiply it by a constant (fuel capacity) you get range. Why do you say you can't extrapolate range from mpge?
As far as I know. Mpge is standardized across all manufacturers, no derating or adjustment factors can be taken on it. So that figure doesn’t align with range at all. You also don’t know fuel capacity of the model 3 as that’s not a required figure, so you can’t calculate it that way either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: redalf
Consumer Reports has tested 2018 Model 3 at 65 mph and it drove 350 miles (310 miles EPA)
2018 Tesla Model 3 Review
my 2018 LR performance model 3 would never even charge to 310, it might charge to 290 miles and I have never exceeded the indicated range. the tell tale is that they achieved the higher range from regen, if you are on a highway driving 65 mph, you are not braking. sorry but this is fake news
 
No, mpge is not range, but if you multiply it by a constant (fuel capacity) you get range. Why do you say you can't extrapolate range from mpge?

MPGe and Consumption (kWh/100 mi) even though MPGe is simply the Consumption multiplied by 33.7, will not give you the range when multiplied by the battery capacity. The consumption numbers are determined by measuring the amount of electricity needed to fully charge the vehicle after driving X number or miles according to an EPA test procedure for electric vehicles. This consumption number includes the charging loss, which can be not that small and varies between different cars. If you know the battery size (in kWh) and divide it by the consumption number (kWh/100 miles) you should get the number smaller than the rated range because the consumption includes extra energy lost in charging.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: redalf
my 2018 LR performance model 3 would never even charge to 310, it might charge to 290 miles and I have never exceeded the indicated range. the tell tale is that they achieved the higher range from regen, if you are on a highway driving 65 mph, you are not braking. sorry but this is fake news

Then you probably should read Edmunds that consistently obtains a MUCH lower range for Tesla vehicles than the EPA. The choice of fake news is your choice! ;)

My position is that we should consider the EPA range as the only consistent test, no matter how off it is compared to person X or Y driving experience. Everything else including Edmunds and CR is "Facebook".
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: VQTRVA and mk677