-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Jaguar I-Pace
- Thread starter AnxietyRanger
- Start date
Start-stop traffic is often worse for power usage thank moderate cruising speed. That's different than many short duration trips.
As a function of power over time, the A/C usage doesn't represent much of a factor regardless of town/hwy, in my experience.
Now, short trips, where the car heats back up when parked, has an impact, as there's an initial spike in A/C power usage, which isn't amortized over a longer driving time... thus as a percentage of energy used for the trip the A/C is greater...
If you're somewhere for less than an hour you might be better off leaving the AC on than to have it heat up in the sun and have to cool it down when you leave. I use the "keep AC on" regulary, and use the remote AC start through the app also regulary in winter and summer.
And yet, I verified the narrower width - 1895mm or 74.6in - at multiple Jaguar and independent websites, both American and European, including the current UK edition of the Jaguar I-Pace Owner's Manual on jaguar.com: Jaguar Owner Information
So now I don't know what to believe. Certainly 74.6" is more than enough width for me. If it really is 79.2", that does get pretty close to the Model X behemoth range, which I think would be unfortunate. I note that pretty much all sources agree on the width including mirrors, so it seems highly likely that the conflicting mirrorless widths are the result of a simple publishing mistake by Jaguar, and not a change in the design of the I-Pace. That would seem strange to me, but then Tesla had a similar publishing error upon the release of its Model 3, causing lots of confusion for months about how wide that car is.
One other thing: the source Alfred quotes above does not show width without mirrors, but rather width with mirrors FOLDED. Perhaps this means that both numbers are correct, but that the I-Pace mirrors do not fold to within the width of the car's body - same thing happens with the Tesla Model 3. If so, then the width of the I-Pace body really is 1895mm or 74.6 in, which I guess is acceptable, though the mirrors add a few inches even when folded.
Yes - It does show what is meant: 2011mm width without mirrors. The accompanying picture I posted here.And yet, I verified the narrower width - 1895mm or 74.6in - at multiple Jaguar and independent websites, both American and European, including the current UK edition of the Jaguar I-Pace Owner's Manual on jaguar.com: Jaguar Owner Information
So now I don't know what to believe. Certainly 74.6" is more than enough width for me. If it really is 79.2", that does get pretty close to the Model X behemoth range, which I think would be unfortunate. I note that pretty much all sources agree on the width including mirrors, so it seems highly likely that the conflicting mirrorless widths are the result of a simple publishing mistake by Jaguar, and not a change in the design of the I-Pace. That would seem strange to me, but then Tesla had a similar publishing error upon the release of its Model 3, causing lots of confusion for months about how wide that car is.
One other thing: the source Alfred quotes above does not show width without mirrors, but rather width with mirrors FOLDED. Perhaps this means that both numbers are correct, but that the I-Pace mirrors do not fold to within the width of the car's body - same thing happens with the Tesla Model 3. If so, then the width of the I-Pace body really is 1895mm or 74.6 in, which I guess is acceptable, though the mirrors add a few inches even when folded.
The picture is just a photo of the car with crudely drawn lines and arrows. You can guess at the meaning, but I actually read the text on the specifications page you linked. It says "Overall width with mirrors folded (mm) 2,011". The Owner's Manual says "Width, without mirrors 1,895mm" - Different wording, different measurement - makes sense.
I now think it's very likely that the body width is only 1,895mm. Though you are of course free to believe what you wish, and certainly Jaguar could be more clear and consistent in their documentation and illustrations.
Jigglypuff
Member
I like 1900, especially with mirrors folded by button press. My truck is 2628.9 with mirrors and 2148.84 folded. Even folded, I still get issues with low branches hitting the antenna on the right.
My beliefs do not really matter in this. You may well be correct and the Jag-brochure I got is wrong, as it does not mention or show the folded mirrors - this in contrast to the text on the British site. In Switzerland, and as far as I remember in Germany, the number matters mostly because of width restrictions on certain roads and on autobahn-construction sites where you are treated as a truck above 1.9m. On the autobahn you are then no more allowed to use the often faster flowing overtaking left-hand lane. The relevant width is without mirrors and written into your cars papers.
It would be a shame if the Jaguar were not allowed in the passing lane (though I understand EVs generally don't last long on a 160kph+ autobahn in any event). Such rules are not an issue in the US, but entering and exiting my garage would be less comfortable if the car is over 2m wide. If the correct width is 1.895m, both problems would disappear.
Sorry for OT, so Model X is 199cm without mirrors thus classified as trucks, thus they can't use overtake lanes?
This is not a general rule. It applies mostly on stretches of the autobahn with construction going on. Those can be pretty long at times. A more general restriction can be encountered on mountain passes in the alps (Klausen e.g.) and other smaller countryside road. What I saw lately in Switzerland was mostly this 1.9m limit (without mirrors). The German Tesla site lists all three dimensions for the X: Mirrors out, mirrors folded and no mirrors.
The limits in Germany have been widened lately a bit, just as their cars got wider, but the applicable width is with mirrors. How often that is enforced, I do not know. More info (in German) here.
Last edited:
Adm
Active Member
If you have been considering buying an iPace you might want to consider watching the following video. It's in German, but there are a few graphs and other visual aids to help you understand.
Conclusion: The one charging test on a Porsche 350 kW charger resulted in a max 83 kW charge and tapering after about 55%. The tapering was not that bad, but the car never reached 100 kW. Based on their findings they figure the iPace would only get about 270 km at 130 km/h (~81 MPH).
There are things to be considered here. First, the charger they were at was maybe to blame. The charge maxed out at 200A, so maybe the charger was limited. I doubt that charger was ever tested by a car that can charge with that kind of power.
As to the range... you can see the remaining range and the SoC on the cluster... and that really says it all.
I'll reserve my final judgement until I see another report on this, but it isn't looking good.
Edit:
I just saw on Twitter (somebody who is brand agnostic) that supposedly the iPace is currently limited to 80 kW, but that client cars will be able to charge at 100 kW. We'll see...
Conclusion: The one charging test on a Porsche 350 kW charger resulted in a max 83 kW charge and tapering after about 55%. The tapering was not that bad, but the car never reached 100 kW. Based on their findings they figure the iPace would only get about 270 km at 130 km/h (~81 MPH).
There are things to be considered here. First, the charger they were at was maybe to blame. The charge maxed out at 200A, so maybe the charger was limited. I doubt that charger was ever tested by a car that can charge with that kind of power.
As to the range... you can see the remaining range and the SoC on the cluster... and that really says it all.
I'll reserve my final judgement until I see another report on this, but it isn't looking good.
Edit:
I just saw on Twitter (somebody who is brand agnostic) that supposedly the iPace is currently limited to 80 kW, but that client cars will be able to charge at 100 kW. We'll see...
Last edited:
The Jag Dealer in Chandler installed a CCS Quick/Fast charger. It charged at a whopping 17 kW but said it is capable of 25 kW. What a joke!!! Tesla has no real competition yet.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Educating the legacy auto dealerships about basic electricity knowledge will take time. I presume they were as surprised as you at the poor performance.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
I view charging during trips in terms of car efficiency, charge station availability, starting kWh, and average kW speed. Compared to my Model 3 the iPace is a bit of a slug.
I'm sorry, but as an American the only German language videos I watch are versions of Hitler in the Bunker explaining EV stuff.
Except it's a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison, as other than Tesla, there aren't many other cars with packs as large as the I-pace's 90KWh pack. While the raw power rate of 80KW is greater than say the Bolt's 55KW, the reality is that it's also a 50% larger battery, so the overall time to charge will still be as long.
The real figure of merit is the C-rate... or even more accurately the charge curve that includes the taper. Neither the Bolt nor the I-Pace manage to get to even 1C.... and both seem to taper pretty aggressively.
The Bolt is supposed to be able to do 80KW according to some claims, but so far even the cars plugged in to chargers capable of more than 50KW haven't seemed to hit that... I don't know if that's a future firmware upgrade thing or not...
The I-Pace is not practical for road trips, though maybe it will be someday when the CCS chargers are far more powerful and prevalent. I'm not holding my breath. The Teslas are the only EVs for long trips, and even Teslas are vastly inferior to ICEVs for range and refueling time/convenience.
But the I-Pace will charge fully in my garage overnight. That's all I need or want. Road trips are what gasoline is for!
But the I-Pace will charge fully in my garage overnight. That's all I need or want. Road trips are what gasoline is for!
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
I agree, if the battery is taken in isolation.
As a car though, miles gained per hour during a long trip is a lot more useful. Since I can Supercharger hop in the Model 3 at SoC between 15% and 65% and the average miles gained per hour in that interval is about 400, I find that to be the most telling number. Aside from the high consumption rate per mile of the i-Pace, if it requires charging above 65% SoC to road trip it is at a distinct disadvantage due to more aggressive tapering.
Last edited:
