Jaguar I-Pace

[WannabeOwner]

spend extra for the Chademo-adaptor is not the correct answer

If I want to be travelling to locations that are not supported by Supercharger, but have plenty of CHAdeMO, why wouldn't I buy the adaptor?

The way i see it I have the best of both worlds - current widespread supercharger availability, and fall-back of CHAdeMO at 50% charging speed where that is available.

 

[daktari]

If I want to be travelling to locations that are not supported by Supercharger, but have plenty of CHAdeMO, why wouldn't I buy the adaptor?

The way i see it I have the best of both worlds - current widespread supercharger availability, and fall-back of CHAdeMO at 50% charging speed where that is available.

Because you do it only once a year.
It is like CCS would be a paid option for all other cars, but you have the hassle with the extra adapter.
In Europe, all new cars including Asian brands, will have CCS. Chademo is now "dead" in EU, and we can't rely on any more development in that charging network.

 

[McRat]

Yep and that is exactly the issue with the number of 4200 there. UK for example has ZERO CCS over 50kw, With batteries the size we are talking about here you can't call that "fast" by any standard. In fact I would call it useless. Who wants to spend several hours to recharge his battery on a long range trip?

50 kW assuming 3 miles per kWh, is 150 miles in an hour. It won't hold 2 hours worth.

 

[voyager]

OK, so this is weird. I'm ordering an i-Pace for the wife.

The only thing what's confusing is Jaguar's nomenclature: i-Pace, E-Pace, F-Pace.
You'd expect the battery-powered i-Pace to be called E-Pace.
Instead the E-Pace is the conventional gasoline-propelled SUV.
Btw, I heard that Jaguar will present a special F-Pace version to Trump on his birthday, called P-Face

 

[WannabeOwner]

Because you do it only once a year.

Fair point.

But if I was frequently travelling to non-Supercharger areas (as per your Scandinavian site-seeing tours ) I would consider it "affordable". (In my case it was affordable, for "insurance", 2 years ago when far fewer Supercharger than now. I actually expected to use it far more than I have done; nowadays if I can get to a Supercharger with, say, a 20 mile detour I would choose to do that because overall its likely to be faster, and takes away the chance of finding the CHAdeMO busy / broken).

My viewpoint is still a "now" one though; road-trip charging for cars with fast-CCS capability will be hit & miss for some time yet, and when CCS becomes widespread then its very likely that my Shiny New Tesla will have both CCS and Tesla charger options, so still a plus-point for Tesla, until CCS is "on every street corner", like ICE fuel-stations.

 

[McRat]

Fair point.

But if I was frequently travelling to non-Supercharger areas (as per your Scandinavian site-seeing tours ) I would consider it "affordable". (In my case it was affordable, for "insurance", 2 years ago when far fewer Supercharger than now. I actually expected to use it far more than I have done; nowadays if I can get to a Supercharger with, say, a 20 mile detour I would choose to do that because overall its likely to be faster, and takes away the chance of finding the CHAdeMO busy / broken).

My viewpoint is still a "now" one though; road-trip charging for cars with fast-CCS capability will be hit & miss for some time yet, and when CCS becomes widespread then its very likely that my Shiny New Tesla will have both CCS and Tesla charger options, so still a plus-point for Tesla, until CCS is "on every street corner", like ICE fuel-stations.

Remember that Supercharging was an option at one time, and not all people bought. If it's mission critical, why didn't 100% buy it? They made it mandatory since the hardware was there so not charging for it is financially irresponsible.

 

[techmaven]

It looks like there is no consistent correction factor - the Chevy Bolt has less than 1% difference between WLTP and EPA, for instance.

...


Model X 75D, NEDC 259, EPA 237, NEDC:EPA 1.09
Model X 100D, NEDC 351, EPA 295, NEDC:EPA 1.19
Bolt WLTP 240, EPA 238, EPA estimate 200, Car & Driver realistic 190
i-Pace NEDC 337, WLTP 298, EPA estimates 220 / 240

The 2018 Nissan Leaf has been officially rated now on both EPA and WLTP, with 151 miles of range EPA and 177 miles of range on WLTP (16 in wheels).

The Hyundai Kona EV has been WLTP rated at 292 miles of EPA range and Hyundai estimates 250 miles of EPA range.

15% off WLTP seems about right for the rough conversion from WLTP to EPA combined range. The Bolt/Ampera-E has not been officially WLTP rated and the one figure we have comes from an unofficial estimate from an engineer that seems quite off with each new vehicle's ratings.

 

[McRat]

The 2018 Nissan Leaf has been officially rated now on both EPA and WLTP, with 151 miles of range EPA and 177 miles of range on WLTP (16 in wheels).

The Hyundai Kona EV has been WLTP rated at 292 miles of EPA range and Hyundai estimates 250 miles of EPA range.

15% off WLTP seems about right for the rough conversion from WLTP to EPA combined range. The Bolt/Ampera-E has not been officially WLTP rated and the one figure we have comes from an unofficial estimate from an engineer that seems quite off with each new vehicle's ratings.

Going by that, the i-Pace should be 256 EPA combined.

But I'll still stick with my estimate of 270mi EPA assuming the 18" standard wheels.

Be careful with Hyundai. They have been fined before or required to correct test numbers a few times. They tend to keep a thumb on the scale when selling bananas.

JLR will have a wider choice in motor/inverter mapping since it has 2 'small' EV PM motors instead of a single big one. The Eco Mode switch is not yet completely defined as to what it does and does not do. Then there's the 0.4g max regen. That's a lot, but might not be necessary for EPA cycles. The lower your regen, the better your range. But it does allow you to recover some energy that would normally be heating up friction brakes on other cars.

If they had the programming for it finished for the US market, I'd think they would have filed already. No reason not to if they are saying 240 miles already.

 

[Riggald]

Yep and that is exactly the issue with the number of 4200 there. UK for example has ZERO CCS over 50kw, With batteries the size we are talking about here you can't call that "fast" by any standard. In fact I would call it useless. Who wants to spend several hours to recharge his battery on a long range trip?

Yes, the UK roll-out seems to start in Q4 of this year (FastNed in Sunderland and Newcastle. Even more disappointingly, Ecotricity don't start til next Spring.)

The Continental Europe roll-out started last November.

US roll-out started last month.
There are literally infinitely more 350kW chargers in the USA now than there were 2 months ago.
350kW chargers have quadrupled in the USA in the past month, as have 150kW.
The roll-out has begun, and seems to be happening at the published rate.

i-Pace customer deliveries don't start mid Q3 of this year, when it looks like there will be over 500 of the 350kW and 150kW chargers deployed in the USA.

In my old hot hatch, with kids, I'd be about the same stops as with an i-Pace on half 50kW and half 100kW.

 

[techmaven]

The roll-out has begun, and seems to be happening at the published rate.

i-Pace customer deliveries don't start mid Q3 of this year, when it looks like there will be over 500 of the 350kW and 150kW chargers deployed in the USA.

The "published rate" can be interpreted as the National ZEV Investment Plan put out by Electrify America (VW). That plan had 50-100 sites operational in Q4, 2017, and 150-200 sites operational today. That clearly didn't happen.

 

[McRat]

Some pics I found on the web:

Not hardcore, but interesting.

 

[Jigglypuff]

Not hardcore, but interesting.

Looks like my son's friend's driveway.

 

[Nuclear Fusion]

 

[Nuclear Fusion]

Don’t like the fake sound

 

[Nuclear Fusion]

Only 220 mile range EPA. Pretty poor

 

[bambam4171]

50 kW assuming 3 miles per kWh, is 150 miles in an hour. It won't hold 2 hours worth.

You won't be able to charge full speed up to 100%. That is just normal with Lithium batteries, the last 20% go very slow indeed.

 

[Jigglypuff]

220 miles is disappointing, but it's still far more than we'll use in a day that doesn't involve a plane.

 

[WannabeOwner]

220 miles is ... still far more than we'll use in a day that doesn't involve a plane.

Hmmm ... I allow 20 miles "comfort", so that's 200 miles range, if charged to 100%, and on an out-and-back that's a location only 100 miles away; 90 miles if charged to 90%

Being a pig-ignorant Brit I flew from New Newark to Philly (the first time I had to do that journey) because the flight was an hour (and I didn't look at a map). The flight was indeed an hour, 30 minutes taxing at Newark, 10 minutes flight, and 20 minutes taxing at Philly!!

 

[Jigglypuff]

Hmmm ... I allow 20 miles "comfort", so that's 200 miles range, if charged to 100%, and on an out-and-back that's a location only 100 miles away; 90 miles if charged to 90%

Being a pig-ignorant Brit I flew from New Newark to Philly (the first time I had to do that journey) because the flight was an hour (and I didn't look at a map). The flight was indeed an hour, 30 minutes taxing at Newark, 10 minutes flight, and 20 minutes taxing at Philly!!

I theoretically could think of places to drive in a day that are 110+ miles away. However, I'm not even slightly interested in doing so. I've driven enough 400+ mile trips in one day to realize that I never, NEVER, want to do that again. No. I'll stay local, thank you very much. I think it's been 3+ years since I did over 150 miles driving in a day. I've been to Tahoe enough to realize I don't like the place.

 

[daktari]

Fully Charged estimates probably 300 miles range in real life driving. Nice review from an experienced Tesla owner.