Porsche Taycan EPA range

[TMThree]

It is definitely going to be worse than with a Tesla - for both the density of superchargers and the lower range. But I would say perhaps not as drastic as you are mentioning. Daily driving assuming you don't have a huge commute should be OK. For the day trips I currently charge our model 3 to 100% - and I am planning to do the same with the Taycan. That will give you ~200 highway miles in summer, and I assume around 150-160 in winter. Recent e-tron testing in mild winter in Germany (5-10C) showed a highway range of 170 miles; I suspect Taycan should do a little better, so even accounting for the much colder Minnesota I still think over 150 miles.

yeah, if you were using it for commuting. But when I owned two 993's, I used to use them for fun weekend trips, and if I'm limited to under 200 mile range, that's really limiting what you can do with it.

My motorcycle range is going to be similar, and I feel like I'm refueling them all the time.

 

[Curious George]

Has anyone seen this? There is a rumor posted on reddit that Porsche says, real range is 290 miles. The car is optimized for German roads/higher speeds. No solid proof of this yet, so be careful believing this.
Porsche Taycan Turbo S: Real world range 290 miles according to AMCI : RealTesla

According to the poster:

In an interview Porsche gave 4 reasons for the disappointing EPA results:

1. WLTP tests are done with air conditioning turned off, EPA tests are done with air condition turned on. To account for this difference in consumption the EPA tests use an adjustment factor of 0.7 without actually testing the car with these features turned on - according to Porsche this is too much and doesn't represent real world energy consumtion of the Taycans air conditioning system.
2. Porsche optimized the car for european highway driving, which has average speeds of 130 km/h. The WLTP tests are done at up to 131 km/h while EPA tests only go up to 96 km/h. Porsche says 96 km/h highway speed doesn't represent real world driving patterns of Porsche cars.
3. EPA uses all available drive modes while WLTP only uses normal mode. Porsche says the available sport, sport+ and race mode in the Taycan Turbo S lead to an unfair test result.
4. WLTP uses base cars while EPA includes extras. Porsche offers much more extras then most other cars which again leads to a disadvantage in tests.

 

[TMThree]

Has anyone seen this? There is a rumor posted on reddit that Porsche says, real range is 290 miles. The car is optimized for German roads/higher speeds.

EPA doesn't test the cars at autobahn speeds. And EPA is a US test, so using german roadways doesn't make any sense.

Also wind resistance always makes the vehicle use more power as it drives faster. There isn't a way for it to get terrible efficiency numbers at low speeds and better at higher speeds. EV motors are something like 92-95% efficient, so anything you add on, such as wind resistance just makes it use more power.

 

[mongo]

So I trust his understanding of EV's. He indicated that even hammer down, 200 miles of range was easily exceeded by many.

Also wind resistance always makes the vehicle use more power as it drives faster. There isn't a way for it to get terrible efficiency numbers at low speeds and better at higher speeds. EV motors are something like 92-95% efficient, so anything you add on, such as wind resistance just makes it use more power.

If the overall vehicle systems are inefficient, then going faster could get you better range than slower. Depends on aero and rolling losses vs fixed loads.

As an example: if a cabin heater pulls 3600 watts, then at 60MPH, it adds 60 Wh/mile. At 30 MPH, it adds 120 Wh/ mile. Aero resistance goes up by 4x, but if it is not the dominant factor at those speeds, the overall efficiency is better at the higher speed. Factor that across all vehicle systems.

Then the there is question of the motor efficiency at 130 kph vs lower speed. Higher speed is usually more efficient since you need less current to produce the same power due to higher back EMF.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

For the day trips I currently charge our model 3 to 100% - and I am planning to do the same with the Taycan. That will give you ~200 highway miles in summer, and I assume around 150-160 in winter

Keep in mind with such awful efficiency, winter heat use and other factors will have a much smaller % impact on range than we are used to with Teslas. The SR+ range is catastrophically impacted by cold and snow. The Taycan will do much better on a % basis than Model 3 due to the very high Wh/mi starting point (though obviously, actual additional energy used per mile will be similar, in similar conditions).

 

[Curious George]

EPA doesn't test the cars at autobahn speeds. And EPA is a US test, so using german roadways doesn't make any sense.

Also wind resistance always makes the vehicle use more power as it drives faster. There isn't a way for it to get terrible efficiency numbers at low speeds and better at higher speeds. EV motors are something like 92-95% efficient, so anything you add on, such as wind resistance just makes it use more power.

I meant, the German autobahn speeds. EPA is testing at 60 mph. In the US also, most freeways are 65 mph and many (I-40, I-5 etc.) are 70 mph. Typical speeds of cars are 75-80 mph. On I-5, 85-90 mph is not uncommon. If Taycan drivers will be driving at 60 mph while Civic and Corolla guys whiz past at 75-80 mph, it will look a little odd. The range test needs to be done by someone driving at near constant speed of 75 mph.

There is also the theory that Taycan goes into second gear over 60 mph. So the EPA test around 60 mph could be using the least efficient part of the first gear.

Taycan probably has a heat pump. Heat pumps are 5x as efficient as conventional resistance heating. So winter range won't be impacted too much.

Here is little more on 2-spd transmission.
Why the Porsche Taycan EV's Two-Speed Transmission Is a Big Deal

• The 2020 Porsche Taycan features a two-speed automatic transmission at the rear axle, a first for an EV.
• This multispeed gearbox aims to improve both acceleration and efficiency at higher speeds.
• The Taycan can also disconnect its rear axle and run entirely on front-axle power.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

This multispeed gearbox aims to improve both acceleration and efficiency at higher speeds.

Note that this is efficiency improvement relative to not changing gears, all else being equal (including the losses due to the gearbox). It’s likely much less efficient to have a gearbox and change gears relative to not having any gearbox. The efficient choice is to eliminate it if you can (or better yet use a gearbox with zero weight, and zero loss).

The gearbox was not added for efficiency! Have to be careful not to read the above and think that the gearbox is for efficiency - it’s not, and that’s not what Porsche is claiming at all. If you were to design the most efficient vehicle that needed to operate exclusively at very high speeds, you would definitely remove the gearbox! The problem, of course, is that in reality people want good acceleration and plenty of power at low speeds as well! Can’t have both without a gearbox.

 

[mongo]

Note that this is efficiency improvement relative to not changing gears, all else being equal (including the losses due to the gearbox). It’s likely much less efficient to have a gearbox and change gears relative to not having any gearbox. The efficient choice is to eliminate it if you can (or better yet use a gearbox with zero weight, and zero loss).

The gearbox was not added for efficiency! Have to be careful not to read the above and think that the gearbox is for efficiency - it’s not, and that’s not what Porsche is claiming at all. If you were to design the most efficient vehicle that needed to operate exclusively at very high speeds, you would definitely remove the gearbox! The problem, of course, is that in reality people want good acceleration and plenty of power at low speeds as well! Can’t have both without a gearbox.

Yes, a gearbox itself may reduce efficiency when view on its own, but overall it may increase efficiency depending on the rest if the system.

Electric motors have an efficiency map, high current is inefficient due to I^R looses as well as magnetic hysteresis. So, for the same power output, a higher speed lower torque motor operating point is more efficient.

You can have your acceleration and plenty of power at low speeds without a gearbox, look at the 100DPLs or Roadster 2020. In the case of current vehicles, higher speed power is limited by pack voltage.

One option beyond their efficiency argument is that Porsche could not run their motors at the the high speeds Tesla does, so had to have a gear box to extend the vehicle speed. Or their motors have less current handling ability, so they needed a low gear for acceleration.

 

[uujjj]

In an interview Porsche gave 4 reasons for the disappointing EPA results:

1. WLTP tests are done with air conditioning turned off, EPA tests are done with air condition turned on. To account for this difference in consumption the EPA tests use an adjustment factor of 0.7 without actually testing the car with these features turned on - according to Porsche this is too much and doesn't represent real world energy consumtion of the Taycans air conditioning system.
2. Porsche optimized the car for european highway driving, which has average speeds of 130 km/h. The WLTP tests are done at up to 131 km/h while EPA tests only go up to 96 km/h. Porsche says 96 km/h highway speed doesn't represent real world driving patterns of Porsche cars.
3. EPA uses all available drive modes while WLTP only uses normal mode. Porsche says the available sport, sport+ and race mode in the Taycan Turbo S lead to an unfair test result.
4. WLTP uses base cars while EPA includes extras. Porsche offers much more extras then most other cars which again leads to a disadvantage in tests.

The old 2-cycle EPA test only goes to 97kph, but the newer 5-cycle test goes to 131kph. It sounds like Porsche used the basic 2-cycle test and applied the correction factor, even though running a full 5-cycle test would give a better result.

This document (https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/pdfs/EPA test procedure for EVs-PHEVs-11-14-2017.pdf) at the top of page 2 describes 4 ways to get the range figures. Method 1 is the 2-cycle test with the adjustment, which is what it sounds like Porsche used, while methods 2 and 3 use a 5-cycle test. The 2-cycle method is clearly a lot simpler, so Porsche used it to save cost even though it is disadvantageous.

 

[tonybelding]

If you were to design the most efficient vehicle that needed to operate exclusively at very high speeds, you would definitely remove the gearbox! The problem, of course, is that in reality people want good acceleration and plenty of power at low speeds as well! Can’t have both without a gearbox.

Yes you can. The gearbox accomplishes nothing that couldn't be done better by putting in a larger motor. Choosing the two-speed transmission was a rookie mistake by Porsche.

 

[ralph142]

So which other cars use less energy at speeds above 75 mph sustained that at 58 mph ? Porsche is somehow magical ? Smells like bs.

 

[jelloslug]

Has anyone seen this? There is a rumor posted on reddit that Porsche says, real range is 290 miles. The car is optimized for German roads/higher speeds. No solid proof of this yet, so be careful believing this.
Porsche Taycan Turbo S: Real world range 290 miles according to AMCI : RealTesla

According to the poster:

In an interview Porsche gave 4 reasons for the disappointing EPA results:

1. WLTP tests are done with air conditioning turned off, EPA tests are done with air condition turned on. To account for this difference in consumption the EPA tests use an adjustment factor of 0.7 without actually testing the car with these features turned on - according to Porsche this is too much and doesn't represent real world energy consumtion of the Taycans air conditioning system.
2. Porsche optimized the car for european highway driving, which has average speeds of 130 km/h. The WLTP tests are done at up to 131 km/h while EPA tests only go up to 96 km/h. Porsche says 96 km/h highway speed doesn't represent real world driving patterns of Porsche cars.
3. EPA uses all available drive modes while WLTP only uses normal mode. Porsche says the available sport, sport+ and race mode in the Taycan Turbo S lead to an unfair test result.
4. WLTP uses base cars while EPA includes extras. Porsche offers much more extras then most other cars which again leads to a disadvantage in tests.

Sounds like it was optimized to ignore physics.

 

[CSFTN]

Apologies if already posted. Interesting video .... Not mine

 

[Needsdecaf]

Yes you can. The gearbox accomplishes nothing that couldn't be done better by putting in a larger motor. Choosing the two-speed transmission was a rookie mistake by Porsche.

No, it was deliberate.

The Taycan isn’t that much faster, if not the same speed, as a Model S. But it achieves it without any battery preheating , and is far more repeatable at a wider range of SOC. It’s achieved because of that gearbox. Porsche made that sacrifice on purpose.

 

[Needsdecaf]

No, it was deliberate.

The Taycan isn’t that much faster, if not the same speed, as a Model S. But it achieves it without any battery preheating , and is far more repeatable at a wider range of SOC. It’s achieved because of that gearbox. Porsche made that sacrifice on purpose.

LOL, Jason just made a video illustrating my point. Notice how the rear gearbox increases the wheel torque through gearing.

 

[tonybelding]

LOL, Jason just made a video illustrating my point. Notice how the rear gearbox increases the wheel torque through gearing.

I saw that video, but it didn't contradict anything I wrote before. Yes, the two-speed transmission increases the wheel torque through gearing. A single speed gearbox with a bigger motor would have done that more effectively without the efficiency losses.

He actually touched on this question in another video, but unfortunately didn't go into detail about the effects of motor size, though he does mention it near the end →

 

[FlatSix911]

Has anyone seen this? There is a rumor posted on reddit that Porsche says, real range is 290 miles. The car is optimized for German roads/higher speeds. No solid proof of this yet, so be careful believing this.
Porsche Taycan Turbo S: Real world range 290 miles according to AMCI : RealTesla

According to the poster:

In an interview Porsche gave 4 reasons for the disappointing EPA results:

1. WLTP tests are done with air conditioning turned off, EPA tests are done with air condition turned on. To account for this difference in consumption the EPA tests use an adjustment factor of 0.7 without actually testing the car with these features turned on - according to Porsche this is too much and doesn't represent real world energy consumtion of the Taycans air conditioning system.
2. Porsche optimized the car for european highway driving, which has average speeds of 130 km/h. The WLTP tests are done at up to 131 km/h while EPA tests only go up to 96 km/h. Porsche says 96 km/h highway speed doesn't represent real world driving patterns of Porsche cars.
3. EPA uses all available drive modes while WLTP only uses normal mode. Porsche says the available sport, sport+ and race mode in the Taycan Turbo S lead to an unfair test result.
4. WLTP uses base cars while EPA includes extras. Porsche offers much more extras then most other cars which again leads to a disadvantage in tests.

Way too many stories here to try to explain the poor range... the truth will set you free.

 

[Needsdecaf]

Yes you can. The gearbox accomplishes nothing that couldn't be done better by putting in a larger motor. Choosing the two-speed transmission was a rookie mistake by Porsche.

No, it was deliberate.

The Taycan isn’t that much faster, if not the same speed, as a Model S. But it achieves it without any battery preheating , and is far more repeatable at a wider range of SOC. It’s achieved because of that gearbox. Porsche made that sacrifice on purpose.

I saw that video, but it didn't contradict anything I wrote before. Yes, the two-speed transmission increases the wheel torque through gearing. A single speed gearbox with a bigger motor would have done that more effectively without the efficiency losses.

He actually touched on this question in another video, but unfortunately didn't go into detail about the effects of motor size, though he does mention it near the end

It would have done it without the efficiency losses, but it would have drained more electricity, and that also would have caused the batteries to heat up more, which is a limiting factor. Yes, they could have done what Tesla has done with the Model S and put a bigger motor in, but would they then have had issues with having performance be the same at all SOC, pack temp, inverter temp, motor temp? Maybe. I'm guessing likely. Porsche has said that they wanted the Taycan to drive as close to an ICE car as possible, to keep their customers happy. That included no one--pedal regen braking. And that also includes meeting performance expectations without having to press buttons and get a warning about reduced battery life, or to have to wait to pre-heat the battery. Or, worse, to have the performance quickly taper off as everything heats up and SOC decreases.

Even a Model 3 Performance will start to pull performance after 3 laps on track (Laguna Seca). The gearbox allows them to normalize performance without as big of a motor or draining the pack as much.

 

[Daniel in SD]

It would have done it without the efficiency losses, but it would have drained more electricity,

If you're drawing more power from the battery to produce the same amount of power at the wheels then you're less efficient. That's the definition of efficiency.
Repeatable performance is all about the ability to dissipate waste heat and the battery chemistry used.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

It is unfortunate that the Monroney sticker above doesn't show the option packages clearly. It's all very confusing to me that there is a window sticker but no way to see what it contains on fueleconomy.gov. But in any case, we need to be aware that the exact option packages included on a vehicle have a huge impact on their range (as much as 10%). We have no idea what option packages we're comparing here. No matter what, the vehicle is fantastically inefficient - just something to keep in mind when you hear reports from Taycan owners about how far they have been able to drive relative to the EPA - you may not know what their projected range actually was for their specific configuration. It's a variable that has to be known to draw conclusions.

Since I discovered this yesterday for the 3P efficiency numbers, I went ahead and looked up Porsche. Looks like they only have provisional permission to sell the Turbo S in California. They need to redo the software and try again (presumably to actually get the promised number???). See the last paragraph of the Executive Order linked below.

certified conditionally on the manufacturer providing all-electric range data for the Taycan Turbo S with the revised control software

Keep in mind: These are UDDS (Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule) numbers. So this is the city part of the driving cycle only. Multiply by 0.7032 to understand how it will reflect to EPA City Efficiency (this is the 2-cycle to 5-cycle ratio), and as far as overall efficiency, EPA is a 43/57 weight of city/highway results.

So, the Porsche Taycan is right around 282 miles (both models about the same). For reference, the 2020 Model 3 Performance Stealth (not a comparable vehicle...) achieved 487 miles on this same test cycle. Model S Performance on 21" gets 437 miles. Lol.

So 282 * 0.7032 = 198 miles city cycle scaled. It's not clear whether this result will align with the window sticker above. If it does, it means that highway must be considerably lower efficiency (to get to 192 weighted). But that doesn't really follow from that window sticker (highway is better). So it makes me think that window sticker may be impacted by option selection and represents a possible "worst case" - it is a quite expensive configuration so who knows on the wheels and tires (the most significant factor for efficiency).

Current Porsche Taycan Turbo/Turbo S, revision 1 (last paragraph):

https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onroad/cert/pcldtmdv/2020/porsche_pc_a0190275r1_0_z_e.pdf

Original version (cancelled, missing the last paragraph):

https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onroad/cert/pcldtmdv/2020/porsche_pc_a0190275_0_z_e.pdf

2020 Model 3 AWD:

https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onroad/cert/pcldtmdv/2020/tesla_pc_a3740031r1_0_z_e.pdf

Model S:

https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onroad/cert/pcldtmdv/2020/tesla_pc_a3740028_0_z_e.pdf