Porsche Mission E

[rreedd]

So how was it? Not enough range, no AP/EAP/FSD, no access to Supercharger network... and?

Test drove the car as the wife loved it.
Range in the car was showing 246miles. I asked about this, and 'product specialist' could not tell me why the car was showing that number compared to the advertised range. And we did drive it hard for the test drive.
Only driver assist on the one we test drove was TACC. o superchargers, But there is paid option that will map to all electrify america chargers, the same way tesla currently uses superchargers to plan trips.
Overall, it was really fun to drive, and really well put together interior (even if one or 2 screens felt redundant).

 

[FreqFlyer]

View attachment 501712

View attachment 501715

Looks beautiful, thanks for posting.

 

[seattlite2004]

 

[seattlite2004]

 

[FlatSix911]

Audi e-tron electric SUVs tell owners they need an oil change - Electrek

I wonder if the Taycan uses the same maintenance software as the e-Tron?

Beyond the humor of the stupidity of this mistake, it does highlight how the traditional car companies still don’t really get BEVs. Why does it need a 10k maintenance check-up at all? That’s an old requirement from gas cars that they carried over to the EV by default so their dealers can keep making money on service, even if no service is needed. I pulled out the owner’s manual and read what Audi says is required for a 10k service, and it amounts to a whole lot of absolutely nothing (and BTW the manual doesn’t mention anything about changing oil…). But I’m sure they’ll charge me at least $500 just to get the stupid message to stop popping up every time I get in the car…



​

 

[Daniel in SD]

Why does it need a 10k maintenance check-up at all?

Tesla used to recommend yearly/12.5k service for $600 on the Model S.
I'm sure you can find 1000s of posts on this forum arguing that it's not ridiculous (it is!).

 

[FreqFlyer]

In Our Testing, Porsche Taycan Range Nearly Equaled Tesla Model S

C&D range test is legit and they show how they did it.

 

[ICUDoc]

legit

Nope. It wasn't necessarily a lie (so I guess truthful is "legit"), but they used estimated range remaining. Why do any test at all, then, if you believe what the fuel tank says? Just write down what it says when you get in the car if you believe the estimate.
No.
Do the test again, drain them to (near-) zero. THAT would be legit.

 

[VT_EE]

This test was purely highway, 75mph driving, with no stop and go. The Taycan appears to do well on the highway, which means it must do poorly in mixed/city driving to score the sad EPA ratings. I'm really curious to see tests on the city circuit.

 

[jgs]

The Taycan appears to do well on the highway, which means it must do poorly in mixed/city driving to score the sad EPA ratings.

That sounds right. That said, for my purposes (and, I would guess, those of most drivers) range is most important for highway driving. I for one have never come close to burning through a full charge in around-town stop-and-go driving.

I do also agree with @ICUDoc that the failure to drive the cars til empty renders the results of the test questionable at best. It’s more of a stunt than a legit test, as described.

 

[VT_EE]

That sounds right. That said, for my purposes (and, I would guess, those of most drivers) range is most important for highway driving. I for one have never come close to burning through a full charge in around-town stop-and-go driving.

I do also agree with @ICUDoc that the failure to drive the cars til empty renders the results of the test questionable at best. It’s more of a stunt than a legit test, as described.

That is true. Max range is most beneficial on road trips so highway efficiency is certainly more important than city in that respect. If the Taycan can do 250 miles at 75mph, then it is definitely better than advertised. It sounds like they traded urban efficiency for highway efficiency during the design process. This makes perfect sense in a country with very high speed highway driving. Of course we are comparing an optimistic Taycan 250mile range with the new Model S Performance range of 348 miles. Even 250miles seems pretty paltry.

 

[tga]

Of course we are comparing an optimistic Taycan 250mile range with the new Model S Performance range of 348 miles. Even 250miles seems pretty paltry.

But re-read the C&D article - not only did the Taycan do better than expected (C&D predicted 209 miles vs EPA 192 miles), the S did far worse in the same test (C&D predicted 222 miles vs EPA 348 miles). It seems the Taycan EPA rating is much moe conservative than Tesla's.

 

[transpondster]

While obviously Taycan is more efficient in 75mph run than EPA rating, my guess cars were not preheated and suppose Taycan have heat pump so driving 50% of charge slightly helps to narrow the difference while also highlights that Tesla needs heat pump even as an option for colder climates

 

[wws]

While obviously Taycan is more efficient in 75mph run than EPA rating, my guess cars were not preheated and suppose Taycan have heat pump so driving 50% of charge slightly helps to narrow the difference while also highlights that Tesla needs heat pump even as an option for colder climates

Taycan does have a heat pump.

 

[jgs]

While obviously Taycan is more efficient in 75mph run than EPA rating, my guess cars were not preheated and suppose Taycan have heat pump so driving 50% of charge slightly helps to narrow the difference while also highlights that Tesla needs heat pump even as an option for colder climates

The article said it was 55F, hardly a big power-suck, although indeed in the sweet spot for heat pumps. For that matter as a cold-weather driver I’m not particularly convinced a heat pump would be a huge win, unless automotive heat pumps have gotten a whole lot better since last time I looked they’re not all that useful in sub-freezing temps.

 

[svp6]

Nope. It wasn't necessarily a lie (so I guess truthful is "legit"), but they used estimated range remaining. Why do any test at all, then, if you believe what the fuel tank says? Just write down what it says when you get in the car if you believe the estimate.
No.
Do the test again, drain them to (near-) zero. THAT would be legit.

Agree that they could have done better. That being said, there was the UK test of electric cars ran to depletion (CarWow). The test was done with a starting outside temp of 7C (45F) dropping to 5C (41F) at the end of the trip, mostly on highways at a cruise control speed set at 70 mph. The Tesla model 3 came on top, but with only 84% of EPA range. The closest EV to Taycan, the Audi eTron had 101% of EPA range. It appears that the relationship between EPA range and ability to drive on highway varies quite a bit between various models.

Mercedes-Benz EQC - EPA expected range 210-220 miles, done 194 miles: 88-92% of expected EPA range
Audi eTron - EPA 204 miles, done 206 miles: 101% of claimed range
Nissan Leaf Plus - EPA 226 miles, done 208 miles: 92% of claimed range
Jaguar iPace - EPA 234 miles, done 223 miles: 95% of claimed range
Kia E Niro - EPA 239 miles, done 255 miles: 107% of claimed range
Tesla Model 3 - EPA 322 miles, done 270 miles: 84% of claimed range

I drove the Taycan twice. It is a great car, and hopefully will be successful. The more EVs the better.

 

[wdolson]

But re-read the C&D article - not only did the Taycan do better than expected (C&D predicted 209 miles vs EPA 192 miles), the S did far worse in the same test (C&D predicted 222 miles vs EPA 348 miles). It seems the Taycan EPA rating is much moe conservative than Tesla's.

Car and Driver did a very flawed test. The Model S was running with 21 inch tires, which are less efficient on the highway than 19 inch, but there is something seriously wrong with that test. I have 19 inch tires, but I've driven over 200 miles in the San Joaquin Valley (fairly flat) at 75 mph or more and was within 10-15% of rated range when I stopped to charge.

One thought that occurred to me is if they changed to 21 inch tires on the Model S and didn't tell the car it had 21" tires, that would throw off all the calculations the car makes. There are too many of us who have driven Model Ss in very similar real world situations, often worse (because you can't drive a constant speed on the highway all the time and few roads are perfectly flat) for this to be believable. Their results indicate a bad test setup, doing something to the car to ruin the results, or just being incompetent.

 

[tga]

Car and Driver did a very flawed test. The Model S was running with 21 inch tires, which are less efficient on the highway than 19 inch, but there is something seriously wrong with that test. I have 19 inch tires, but I've driven over 200 miles in the San Joaquin Valley (fairly flat) at 75 mph or more and was within 10-15% of rated range when I stopped to charge.

One thought that occurred to me is if they changed to 21 inch tires on the Model S and didn't tell the car it had 21" tires, that would throw off all the calculations the car makes. There are too many of us who have driven Model Ss in very similar real world situations, often worse (because you can't drive a constant speed on the highway all the time and few roads are perfectly flat) for this to be believable. Their results indicate a bad test setup, doing something to the car to ruin the results, or just being incompetent.

Swapping one car over to a more efficient wheel/tire combo would be rigging the test. They ran the stock tires installed from the factory on both cars - "It's worth noting that our two test cars are the least efficient variants of each model line: the Taycan in top, Turbo S trim and wearing 21-inch Pirelli P Zero PZ4 tires, and the Model S Performance on 21-inch Michelin Pilot Sport 4Ss with the latest "Raven" upgrades to the suspension and new front electric motor."

They estimated range by saying "we went X miles using Y% of the battery, so range on a full charge is X/Y%." I don't see anything wrong with that (assuming the cars accurately report SoC, which, I admit, is a big assumption).

I don't think the car does any range calculations based on wheel size. I swap seasonally between 21" summer tires (Michelin PS2's) and 19" winter tires (Hakka R3's), and I see no impacts to rated range, regardless of what size wheel I tell the car I'm running. Yes, actual consumption changes, but not rated range on the IC guess-o-meter.

Honestly, I think the only thing the car does with the wheel size setting is change the low pressure setpoints for the TPMS. Oh, and show the correct wheel type and color on the IC.

 

[tga]

@WarpedOne, care to explain what you disagree with?

 

[CSFTN]

While obviously Taycan is more efficient in 75mph run than EPA rating, my guess cars were not preheated and suppose Taycan have heat pump so driving 50% of charge slightly helps to narrow the difference while also highlights that Tesla needs heat pump even as an option for colder climates

I read somewhere that the EPA test includes a prolonged drive at a fixed and defined speed (I think it is 60 mph) and the the Taycan is programmed to switch to the higher gear at that kph + 1, so the Taycan is actually more efficient at 70 mph than at 60 mph.

If that is the case, one should ask why Porsche doesn't simply change the programming by -2 kph?