Jaguar I-Pace

[Riggald]

View attachment 315675

Some interesting thoughts.

He also posted an average consumption pic (which I can't find now) showing 456kWh/100 miles. This is what the 154 mile range is based on.

Wow - he got 456kWh/mile on a warm day at 60-65?
MotorTrend got 419kWh/mile on a cold day at 70-75 into strong headwinds .

The more real world journeys we get the figures for, the better. Atm, it's hard to tell which are the outliers and which are representative.

And if he did 120-ish motorway miles, he passed by three or four fast-charge locations. Pretty much every UK motorway services has a 50kW CCS. (For comparison, 20-25% of them have Superchargers)

 

[WannabeOwner]

Just reposting his Twitter thread.

Blast. I assumed I was talking to the horse's mouth ... and thus that the data would be golden

 

[cizUK]

Blast. I assumed I was talking to the horse's mouth ... and thus that the data would be golden

Just fyi read his comment after the images...

View attachment 315675

Some interesting thoughts.

He also posted an average consumption pic (which I can't find now) showing 456kWh/100 miles. This is what the 154 mile range is based on.

Small word, big meaning

 

[Jigglypuff]

No, not me. Just reposting his Twitter thread.

Are you saying there's more than one Brit named Jim?

 

[Dan84]

I really want to understand all the praise this car is getting. Why is it considered a game changer? Yes its great there is another player in the market. However, it doesn’t do much, if anything, better then the competition (Tesla, Audi etc). Range is on par at best, charging is slow(er), interior is dated (current at best), technology is dated (current at best), styling is bulky (and subjectively) non-desirable, interior dimensions are ok.

Mind, I ordered the I-Pace based on (mostly) all glowing (p)reviews. Having myself now really seen and experienced it, I seriously consider canceling my order. I really want to like it but I’m just completely amazed at the praise this car gets.

 

[Lokolo]

Dan I am a little confused - why does it have to be better than the competition to get raving reviews? It could be as good as, or as near as, the competition. More than one car can get raving reviews.

To me, a car doesn't have to beat the competition to necessarily get a good review. You are just comparing it to Tesla. Why? You don't compare every car to one model do you?

The range - beats majority of those on the market currently. So not par, better than.
Interior dated? How do you determine this? I loved the interior.
Technology is dated? You can link the car to your phone. What part of the technology is dated?

Styling is bulky, this is a design opinion. I like it. I prefer the Model 3 and S. I hate the Model X styling. Styling isn't something I would ever read a review for. We all have different tastes.

 

[Jigglypuff]

The interior is dated? I don't think so, unless you think that all cars should have a center screen and no other interface, which is just bad, bad design.

Styling is subjective, but it's a striking car to most people. MX is great with the wings open but a bean with them closed. The grill-less Tesla front end looks hideous to me.

Mainly there's the certain nothings that make a good car. Steering and brake feel. Handling. Ride. Material quality. Seat comfort. Feng shui. Ergonomics. The jag does a great job on these, it sounds. The Teslas do a great job in all these areas too, except ergonomics and material quality.

Range? 150 is enough. 200 is plenty. 120 is probably enough, actually.

I personally find that I know how a car will be from how it's reviewed. That doesn't mean I agree with the reviewers' final judgments. It's just that I get great info from them. When they call a car fun, that's when I know I'll like it. The FR-S. The Fiat 500e and Abarth.

 

[wooter]

The interior is dated? I don't think so, unless you think that all cars should have a center screen and no other interface, which is just bad, bad design.

You might be right, up to the point a reviewer shows the 360 view and you realise it's made for ants.

 

[MP3Mike]

You might be right, up to the point a reviewer shows the 360 view and you realise it's made for ants.

But you can zoom in.

 

[wooter]

But you can zoom in.

That's what the reviewer is doing, right?

Oh, you mean double tap to zoom in so you lose 360 view because you are zooming in on a segment

 

[wooter]

Joking aside... I can understand the classic car makers to design something like that and forego a bigger screen. But it's like how everyone with an iPhone 4S said it was big enough (and I was one of them) while you couldn't convince the Samsung crowd with their phablets they were wrong.

Because they were right.

 

[wooter]

I really want to understand all the praise this car is getting. Why is it considered a game changer? Yes its great there is another player in the market. However, it doesn’t do much, if anything, better then the competition (Tesla, Audi etc). Range is on par at best, charging is slow(er), interior is dated (current at best), technology is dated (current at best), styling is bulky (and subjectively) non-desirable, interior dimensions are ok.

Mind, I ordered the I-Pace based on (mostly) all glowing (p)reviews. Having myself now really seen and experienced it, I seriously consider canceling my order. I really want to like it but I’m just completely amazed at the praise this car gets.

It's considered a game changer because it's the first proper EV from a real car maker. 7 years in and still nobody from the general motoring press or general motoring enthousiasts considers Tesla to be a proper car maker, and there are things (a tent, really?) that might you believe this.

If you have seen the I-Pace, you know what you are getting. You are getting the 3rd best EV on the market in Europe, after the Model S and Model X. For charging speed, supercharging network, range, ease of charging and onboard technology I'd choose a Tesla any time over an I-Pace, but that's just my money.

 

[Jigglypuff]

Bigger just isn't always better. Tesla doesn't even have 360. Anyway, here's more info:

 

[ZsoZso]

Yeah, this is a specific drive that works with the Tesla network. I'm sure there are specific drives that will work with the other EVs. However, try to drive to the Grand Canyon and see how it goes. Not fun. In 3+ years of EV ownership, we've fast-charged never. Not even once.

Been there, done that 3 years ago with my Model S from Toronto:
Road Trip from Toronto to Grand Canyon

The number of superchargers have grown very significantly in the past 3 years, so doing that now would be a walk in the park with no planning required what so ever. Back in 2015, I did have to plan the trip carefully to make it happen.

 

[WannabeOwner]

why does it have to be better than the competition to get raving reviews?

Rave reviews is not the same thing as saying "Game changer". Typical journalist hyperbole

The range - beats majority of those on the market currently. So not par, better than.

Only if you compare it to something with a much smaller battery ... which are proportionately cheaper of course.

Range? 150 is enough. 200 is plenty. 120 is probably enough, actually.

For a 90kWh battery? i-Pace has more advanced features than the, now ageing, Model-S, e.g. motor magnets and stronger regen, so it ought to go further. The MS 90 series battery is a bit smaller than 90kWh but mine does 220 real world miles, and that's at 75 MPH not 60-65 MPH - and mine is the performance model, the regular MS goes further.

He also posted an average consumption pic (which I can't find now) showing 456kWh/100 miles

 

[X Fan]

The interior is dated? I don't think so, unless you think that all cars should have a center screen and no other interface, which is just bad, bad design.

Styling is subjective, but it's a striking car to most people. MX is great with the wings open but a bean with them closed. The grill-less Tesla front end looks hideous to me.

Mainly there's the certain nothings that make a good car. Steering and brake feel. Handling. Ride. Material quality. Seat comfort. Feng shui. Ergonomics. The jag does a great job on these, it sounds. The Teslas do a great job in all these areas too, except ergonomics and material quality.

Range? 150 is enough. 200 is plenty. 120 is probably enough, actually.

I personally find that I know how a car will be from how it's reviewed. That doesn't mean I agree with the reviewers' final judgments. It's just that I get great info from them. When they call a car fun, that's when I know I'll like it. The FR-S. The Fiat 500e and Abarth.

Wait, are you saying 120 mile range is enough? Really?

Lol: My neighbor had a BMW i3 and every time he wanted to go from Naples to Ft Lauderdale across Alligator Allley he needed to rent a car.

 

[scaesare]

Range? 150 is enough. 200 is plenty. 120 is probably enough, actually.

Almost universally the discussion of mid-range affordable EV's make the distinction the existing EV's that hover around (or below) the 100 mile range that have been around for some time and the affordable ones capable of 200+ miles... which is thought to be the tipping point for more widespread general adoption.

Hence the excitement over the Model 3 and (to a lesser extent) the Bolt.

For many folks a 120-150 mile EV is not enough of a jump over the Leaf to make it to that next level...

 

[30seconds]

I really want to understand all the praise this car is getting. Why is it considered a game changer? Yes its great there is another player in the market. However, it doesn’t do much, if anything, better then the competition (Tesla, Audi etc). Range is on par at best, charging is slow(er), interior is dated (current at best), technology is dated (current at best), styling is bulky (and subjectively) non-desirable, interior dimensions are ok.

Mind, I ordered the I-Pace based on (mostly) all glowing (p)reviews. Having myself now really seen and experienced it, I seriously consider canceling my order. I really want to like it but I’m just completely amazed at the praise this car gets.

Its guaranteeing the automotive journalist community a revenue stream from advertisements. A clear game changer compared to Tesla

 

[Jigglypuff]

Almost universally the discussion of mid-range affordable EV's make the distinction the existing EV's that hover around (or below) the 100 mile range that have been around for some time and the affordable ones capable of 200+ miles... which is thought to be the tipping point for more widespread general adoption.

Hence the excitement over the Model 3 and (to a lesser extent) the Bolt.

For many folks a 120-150 mile EV is not enough of a jump over the Leaf to make it to that next level...

Yeah, people talk about 200 like it's magic. They also talk about how numbers in the Bible and stars in the sky affect our lives. It's all just weird babble. For the majority of people, the compliance cars take care of 90% plus of their driving. Probably 95% plus. 150 miles does 99%+ for 99%+ of people I'd estimate. 200 miles is just overkill, but it takes care of round number syndrome for people. Whatever. I'm thinking egolf or soul ev for myself, possibly.

 

[scaesare]

Yeah, people talk about 200 like it's magic. They also talk about how numbers in the Bible and stars in the sky affect our lives. It's all just weird babble.

Uhhh… ok. If your dismissal of what has been very real discussion on this forum for years now about the utility of a 200+ mile EV vs. one that hovers just above 100 is analogous to horoscope watching, then okey dokey.

For the majority of people, the compliance cars take care of 90% plus of their driving. Probably 95% plus. 150 miles does 99%+ for 99%+ of people I'd estimate. 200 miles is just overkill, but it takes care of round number syndrome for people. Whatever. I'm thinking egolf or soul ev for myself, possibly.

And has been pointed out 46,327 times, people buy cars to cover more than 90% of their driving needs... or even 99%. If you think people are going to rent a car once every 10 days to 3 months just to go to grandma's house, you are underestimating the mindset of many folks.

Is 200 "magic"? Nope. Is under that number the range in which the utility of the vehicle for not-uncommon use cases for many people becomes problematic? It seems so.