Ioniq 5 vs Model Y

[804son]

Ouch, and to think Tesla owners freak out over 10%

 

[smilepak]

I guess my biggest concerns are lack of Google maps, live traffic, Spotify music, Netflix, you tube, games (my kids enjoy all of this), supercharger network...does Ioniq have any of these features? Back to regular legacy auto maps? Does it have apple car play?

I’m seeing tremendous value here at a price for the top line that is better then MY’s cheapest config.

0-60 in 4.9 even. Respectable indeed. Hmmm

All of those are available via Apple or Android CarPlay. It’s the lack of EV routing navigation and charging network that Tesla has the most upper hand.

 

[Jersey_guy_202]

Which Volvo are you referring to? We got a 2022 C40 for my wife last month and I'm a bit disappointed with its Pilot Assist. Using Pilot Assist, the car feels a bit floaty within the lanes on a highway, and it cannot take anything more than a slight bend on its own, whereas AP can take fairly big curves on the highway at 65 MPH. I've tried both systems on the same stretch of highway and have found AP to be vastly superior to the Pilot Assist in the C40.

I'm sure other systems are superior to AP since AP is just lane keeping assist, but at least from what I've seen, it's definitely better than Volvo's system, at least the one in the C40.

Floaty is a good description. I tried Subaru Outback for a week and used its EyeSight Driver Assist extensively on highway. It works fine and has lane keeping as well, but does drift back and forth in between lanes. The steeling wheel is very loose. It's very unnerving at times when I got cars or trucks next to me. Tesla's implementation of AP just feels way more solid. Subaru also has issues with some big turns and I had to manually intervene. Overall is ok but I like Tesla's AP better.

 

[M109Rider]

WOW! 35% after 60k miles vs. Tesla's Model S 85's 11% after 155k miles. Losin' a little bit of Soul there.

I would hope that’s an anomaly with that car. Yikes.
I have 107,000 miles on my 2018 model 3, with 9.5% - 10.5% degradation.
It actually varies depending on how the car feels when I check.
In any case, I’m happy with that.
Car is 3.5 years old.

 

[cusetownusa]

Floaty is a good description. I tried Subaru Outback for a week and used its EyeSight Driver Assist extensively on highway. It works fine and has lane keeping as well, but does drift back and forth in between lanes. The steeling wheel is very loose. It's very unnerving at times when I got cars or trucks next to me. Tesla's implementation of AP just feels way more solid. Subaru also has issues with some big turns and I had to manually intervene. Overall is ok but I like Tesla's AP better.

Same with the Kia Telluride. Any bend in the road and you have to be ready to take over. Doesn't take much of a bend either. I would assume the Hyundai/Kia cars have the same auto pilot system but not sure.

 

[Tha_Ape]

I mean I'm down 5% after a year (~9000mi) in my MY. I'm getting this purely from the app. I generallly charge to 80% and that would give me 260mi (indicated), today its saying 248mi (indicated). Now who knows how accurate this is,

I've not done that battery balance thing (or whatever its called) when you charge to 100% and let it calculate stuff to rebalance its calculation. So it could be that since I only operate in the 50-80% range (unless on a trip), that it just doesnt have enough data points to make a good guestimate

 

[avs007]

I would hope that’s an anomaly with that car. Yikes.
I have 107,000 miles on my 2018 model 3, with 9.5% - 10.5% degradation.
It actually varies depending on how the car feels when I check.
In any case, I’m happy with that.
Car is 3.5 years old.

I vaguely remember Bjorn commenting how the Kia was charging pretty fast when the battery was ice cold. That could explain why the battery is so fscked now...

 

[Fairchild]

I mean I'm down 5% after a year (~9000mi) in my MY. I'm getting this purely from the app. I generallly charge to 80% and that would give me 260mi (indicated), today its saying 248mi (indicated). Now who knows how accurate this is,

I've not done that battery balance thing (or whatever its called) when you charge to 100% and let it calculate stuff to rebalance its calculation. So it could be that since I only operate in the 50-80% range (unless on a trip), that it just doesnt have enough data points to make a good guestimate

As I recall the curve is steep at first and then levels off.

 

[Suns_PSD]

yeah.. exactly.. doesnt the EPA test them all the same? so if you drive at 55 you'll get the EPA range, right? and the tesla still does better in real world range too

Incorrect, the Tesla did WORSE on the real world tests.

Vehicles can be speced/ designed/ built to do better on the EPA test for the better number on the spec sheet. Other manufacturers can spec for the best real world economy or range, GM, MB & Porsche are 3 known examples of cars that commonly beat the EPA estimates. Toyota is a brand that is known to do better on EPA tests, than in the real world. Years ago I was shopping a Taco vs. a Canyon and they had nearly identical EPA mileage ratings, but once I hopped on a mpg tracking website the Canyon averaged every bit of 25% better real world economy. I purchased the Canyon (2 of them now) and personally realized the higher mileage real world mileage on the GM product.

This is easy to do on an ICE with gearing, cam phasing, etc and some other tricks, but I'll admit to not knowing enough about EVs to understand how a manufacturer would skew these calculations. I assume the EV motors work more efficiently at certain RPMs, temps, etc.

The Ioniq dual motor LR did 270 actual miles (EPA rating 256) on a charge in the Edmunds test. The single motor is rated for another 50 miles btw.
The Model 3 Performance did 263 (EPA rating 303) miles on a single charge.

The fact that Tesla 'exaggerates' this spec (along with many other things) is a pretty big downside to me. There is something to be said for a manufacturer (like Hyundai in this example) under-promising yet over-delivering on the range, instead of the opposite like Tesla has done.

Regarding efficiency (miles/ kWh) I personally don't care much as EV 'fueling' costs are so low. However the Ioniq dual motor long range did an actual 3.53 miles/ kWh where-as the Model 3 (admittedly not the new 4680s) got 3.21 miles/ kWh, meaning the Hyundai is in fact more efficient.

I don't care about the Tesla charging infrastructure. The lines are quickly becoming long anyways. If you can't charge your EV 98% at home, you probably need an ICE.

The lack of content on a $70K Model 3 is, disappointing. Very disappointing. I also think their interiors look cheap, but that's clearly personal.

There are only 2 places where the M3 is superior to a first year release from Hyundai: 1) the Frunk. It's a BIG deal! 2) the image. Teslas have an image of success and exclusiveness, where I don't get that from Hyundai's (which I've purchased 1 new so I do like them).

I like forward to the impending downvotes from the 'Musk fan site' here.

 

[avs007]

Regarding efficiency (miles/ kWh) I personally don't care much as EV 'fueling' costs are so low. However the Ioniq dual motor long range did an actual 3.53 miles/ kWh where-as the Model 3 (admittedly not the new 4680s) got 3.21 miles/ kWh, meaning the Hyundai is in fact more efficient.

Actually, no it isn't...
In this video bjorn did a range test on the Ioniq 5 AWD, in the summer on dry pavement, and got 153 wh/km in the 90km/h test and 244 wh/km in the 120km/h test.

In this video bjorn did the same range test in the Model 3 Performance, except in the winter, wearing winter tires on wet pavement, and got 174 wh/km in the 90km/h test and 219 wh/km in the 120km/h test... So in actuality, the Ioniq 5 is NOT more efficient.

 

[Suns_PSD]

Actually, no it isn't...
In this video bjorn did a range test on the Ioniq 5 AWD, in the summer on dry pavement, and got 153 wh/km in the 90km/h test and 244 wh/km in the 120km/h test.

In this video bjorn did the same range test in the Model 3 Performance, except in the winter, wearing winter tires on wet pavement, and got 174 wh/km in the 90km/h test and 219 wh/km in the 120km/h test... So in actuality, the Ioniq 5 is NOT more efficient.

I was quoting the article linked in this thread to get my numbers.

I took their actual miles and divided it by the manufacturers stated kWh for those models.

Obviously different tests are going to get different results for all kinds of reasons.

PS. I see now that the standard for EVs is to calculate the kw's used per mile. Which is fine, same thing stated a different way.

 

[Destiny1701]

Which Volvo are you referring to? We got a 2022 C40 for my wife last month and I'm a bit disappointed with its Pilot Assist. Using Pilot Assist, the car feels a bit floaty within the lanes on a highway, and it cannot take anything more than a slight bend on its own, whereas AP can take fairly big curves on the highway at 65 MPH. I've tried both systems on the same stretch of highway and have found AP to be vastly superior to the Pilot Assist in the C40.

I'm sure other systems are superior to AP since AP is just lane keeping assist, but at least from what I've seen, it's definitely better than Volvo's system, at least the one in the C40.

My buddy’s 2022 XC90 recharge. I’ve driven it and it’s quite good.

 

[Jersey_guy_202]

Incorrect, the Tesla did WORSE on the real world tests.

Vehicles can be speced/ designed/ built to do better on the EPA test for the better number on the spec sheet. Other manufacturers can spec for the best real world economy or range, GM, MB & Porsche are 3 known examples of cars that commonly beat the EPA estimates. Toyota is a brand that is known to do better on EPA tests, than in the real world. Years ago I was shopping a Taco vs. a Canyon and they had nearly identical EPA mileage ratings, but once I hopped on a mpg tracking website the Canyon averaged every bit of 25% better real world economy. I purchased the Canyon (2 of them now) and personally realized the higher mileage real world mileage on the GM product.

This is easy to do on an ICE with gearing, cam phasing, etc and some other tricks, but I'll admit to not knowing enough about EVs to understand how a manufacturer would skew these calculations. I assume the EV motors work more efficiently at certain RPMs, temps, etc.

The Ioniq dual motor LR did 270 actual miles (EPA rating 256) on a charge in the Edmunds test. The single motor is rated for another 50 miles btw.
The Model 3 Performance did 263 (EPA rating 303) miles on a single charge.

The fact that Tesla 'exaggerates' this spec (along with many other things) is a pretty big downside to me. There is something to be said for a manufacturer (like Hyundai in this example) under-promising yet over-delivering on the range, instead of the opposite like Tesla has done.

Regarding efficiency (miles/ kWh) I personally don't care much as EV 'fueling' costs are so low. However the Ioniq dual motor long range did an actual 3.53 miles/ kWh where-as the Model 3 (admittedly not the new 4680s) got 3.21 miles/ kWh, meaning the Hyundai is in fact more efficient.

I don't care about the Tesla charging infrastructure. The lines are quickly becoming long anyways. If you can't charge your EV 98% at home, you probably need an ICE.

The lack of content on a $70K Model 3 is, disappointing. Very disappointing. I also think their interiors look cheap, but that's clearly personal.

There are only 2 places where the M3 is superior to a first year release from Hyundai: 1) the Frunk. It's a BIG deal! 2) the image. Teslas have an image of success and exclusiveness, where I don't get that from Hyundai's (which I've purchased 1 new so I do like them).

I like forward to the impending downvotes from the 'Musk fan site' here.

Watch and weep, sorry to pop your little Hyundai / Kia bubble. Guess which one comes out on top? And it wasn’t even that close.

 

[smilepak]

Bjorn did a 1000 km test on the Ioniq5 and other cars. Tesla is among the most efficient vehicles out there. Bare in mind the model Y is AWD with better efficiency and less battery than Ioniq5 AWD with more battery.

 

[Ritzcarlton123]

Was helping a friend find an Ioniq5 in SoCal and it has become an absolute nightmare. No dealers within a 500mi radius is willing to sell at MSRP. The lowest price was $3000 market adjustment (markup). The whole dealership model is just so outdated and slow. It is really too bad legacy brands can't just let you order online and be done with it in 5 minutes like Tesla.

 

[Destiny1701]

Was helping a friend find an Ioniq5 in SoCal and it has become an absolute nightmare. No dealers within a 500mi radius is willing to sell at MSRP. The lowest price was $3000 market adjustment (markup). The whole dealership model is just so outdated and slow. It is really too bad legacy brands can't just let you order online and be done with it in 5 minutes like Tesla.

But it’s ok for tesla to just keep increasing their prices by 6-8k or more over 6 months? I’d think a 3k markup is more then acceptable given how high Tesla has marked up now.

 

[patmurphey]

Tesla's price increases are for future deliveries, not today's. They factor in 2 elements, anticipated supply cost increases and slowing orders a bit to match production rates more reasonably. Tesla has large margins on their cars but note that profits are not distributed, but go to R&D and manufacturing expansion in keeping with Tesla's goal to change to sustainable energy. Excess dealer markups/profits do nothing to satisfy that goal and represent funds that the OEMs do not receive for their electrification conversion. The cars also cost a bit more because Tesla invests in the Supercharger network and includes the self driving computer in all of the cars.

 

[Destiny1701]

Tesla's price increases are for future deliveries, not today's. They factor in 2 elements, anticipated supply cost increases and slowing orders a bit to match production rates more reasonably. Tesla has large margins on their cars but note that profits are not distributed, but go to R&D and manufacturing expansion in keeping with Tesla's goal to change to sustainable energy. Excess dealer markups/profits do nothing to satisfy that goal and represent funds that the OEMs do not receive for their electrification conversion. The cars also cost a bit more because Tesla invests in the Supercharger network and includes the self driving computer in all of the cars.

Oh i agree. But dealer profits also go towards customer service and proper staffing, training and support. Not to mention an actual phone line that works and a person to speak to. Something Tesla needs to learn badly.

Not knocking Teslas processes but there are merits to both systems.

 

[Corndart]

Oh i agree. But dealer profits also go towards customer service and proper staffing, training and support. Not to mention an actual phone line that works and a person to speak to. Something Tesla needs to learn badly.

Not knocking Teslas processes but there are merits to both systems.

This is getting off the rails in terms of comparing the cars on technical merits. But the traditional dealer experience, as a customer, at all levels and departments can wildly vary. Put another way, these dollars that flow into "customer service and proper staffing, training and support", often time don't result in a great customer experience. The point I'll give you 100% support behind is that someone nearly always picks up the phone. Everything after that ...yeah.

 

[Nyc_rock]

Was helping a friend find an Ioniq5 in SoCal and it has become an absolute nightmare. No dealers within a 500mi radius is willing to sell at MSRP. The lowest price was $3000 market adjustment (markup). The whole dealership model is just so outdated and slow. It is really too bad legacy brands can't just let you order online and be done with it in 5 minutes like Tesla.

On one hand you’re right, on the other hand you can buy one today if you want. You can’t buy a new Tesla.