Porsche Taycan EPA range

[Just a Reader]

Just putting this out there... Official Big Game Commercial 2020 - Extended Cut

Can you find the Hybrid 918 is this video?

The commercial clearly shows where energy-efficiency is ranking on Porsche's list of priorities. The same is true for "autopilot"-functionalities.
BTW, nice tourism video for the State of Baden-Württemberg as well.

 

[gowthamn]

Just putting this out there... Official Big Game Commercial 2020 - Extended Cut

Can you find the Hybrid 918 is this video?

Porsche teased the 992 992 GR3 in that video !

 

[Eno Deb]

Tom Moloughney had the opportunity to do some range testing with a Taycan Turbo:

Porsche Taycan Turbo Crushes EPA Range Rating On Our 436-Mile Drive

Like others, he got significantly better range than the EPA number would suggest. This is an interesting remark:

"Also notable is the fact that the EPA provided the range figures themselves, and that's not how it usually happens. Many people don't realize that the manufacturer does the range testing and provides the EPA with the range rating and the data to back it up. The EPA has the choice to accept that data and publish it, or to then do their own internal testing. In the case of the Taycan, the EPA decided to do their own range certification, and those numbers came out much lower than what Porsche expected."

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Tom Moloughney had the opportunity to do some range testing with a Taycan Turbo:

Porsche Taycan Turbo Crushes EPA Range Rating On Our 436-Mile Drive

Like others, he got significantly better range than the EPA number would suggest. This is an interesting remark:

"Also notable is the fact that the EPA provided the range figures themselves, and that's not how it usually happens. Many people don't realize that the manufacturer does the range testing and provides the EPA with the range rating and the data to back it up. The EPA has the choice to accept that data and publish it, or to then do their own internal testing. In the case of the Taycan, the EPA decided to do their own range certification, and those numbers came out much lower than what Porsche expected."

Yes, that is interesting. Wonder what his source is for this claim? Makes you wonder what the EPA screwed up... And why would the EPA have tested both the Taycan Turbo and the Taycan Turbo S? (Not sure this is normal in the event of random auditing.)

It's also a completely inconsistent claim relative to the information in this (Porsche-generated) document:

https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=48943&flag=1

"Verify Test Lab ID MZU Weissach"

MZU Weissach doesn't sound like a good old EPA test lab to me.
Porsche MZU Box 606 - Weissach - Local Business | Facebook

So, sounds like Tom might have been fed a line by the Porsche guys. Trust but verify...

In any case, it all does start to make some sense, and I'm not surprised at all - it's consistent with a bunch of other reports that ~250 miles is possible - though I am sticking with my theory that somehow the EPA-compliant test (whether it was done by the EPA or not - and I am fairly sure it was done by Porsche!) did not use the same software as is running on the vehicle today.

The only other methodology issue here is that it assumes linearity of the guess-o-meter. We don't actually know that is how it would behave (though normally you'd expect it to be non-linear in a conservative direction...). I doubt this introduces significant error though - I'm sure 240-250 miles is just about right.

I also wish he had reported the kWh/100mi reported by the car dashboard, rather than only hand calculating the Wh/mi based on an assumed battery capacity...

 

[Eno Deb]

Yes, that is interesting. Wonder what his source is for this claim? Makes you wonder what the EPA screwed up... And why would the EPA have tested both the Taycan Turbo and the Taycan Turbo S? (Not sure this is normal in the event of random auditing.)

It's also a completely inconsistent claim relative to the information in this (Porsche-generated) document:

https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=48943&flag=1

"Verify Test Lab ID MZU Weissach"

MZU Weissach doesn't sound like a good old EPA test lab to me.

This looks like an "application for certification" that Porsche sent to the EPA, i.e. the self-certification that the EPA apparently chose to ignore in favor of their own testing according to Moloughney. But what do I know.

In any case, it all does start to make some sense, and I'm not surprised at all - it's consistent with a bunch of other reports that ~250 miles is possible - though I am sticking with my theory that somehow the EPA-compliant test (whether it was done by the EPA or not - and I am fairly sure it was done by Porsche!) did not use the same software as is running on the vehicle today.

It's a mystery. In any case, we now have multiple real-world reports and the WLTP number mostly agreeing, with the EPA being the outlier.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

This looks like an "application for certification" that Porsche sent to the EPA, i.e. the self-certification that the EPA apparently chose to ignore in favor of their own testing according to Moloughney. But what do I know.

Yes. But the mileage numbers in this document (when multiplied by 0.7 and weighted appropriately) exactly match the EPA datafile results. So that's the data that was used for the EPA rating. It's entirely possible that the EPA did test the vehicle and got exactly the same result as Porsche, of course - would not be surprising at all that the results would be the same.

and the WLTP number mostly agreeing

The WLTP number is 388-412 for the Turbo S. (240mi to 256mi.) The Turbo S gets 199.7 miles EPA (it's voluntarily derated to 192 miles).

That's pretty much inline with the typical ratio of 1.2 for these results (WLTP/EPA) that people have correlated before. So the WLTP and EPA results are very much in line with one another. I would expect a much high WLTP number now if the EPA result would now yield a value more like 230-250 miles (which seems likely).

We sort of resolved this discrepancy earlier - when the ratio went as high as an unreasonable 1.4, it was likely just because we were not comparing identical vehicle configurations.

I don't know whether the WLTP test application data can be pulled from somewhere, but it probably provides details on where the 388km and 412km numbers come from (which vehicle configuration). And then you can compare to the vehicle configuration outlined in the EPA application (to make sure you are comparing against the exact same tire size). I used the Turbo S for this comparison because it has the smallest spread in the results - even using 256 miles it's only a ratio of 1.28, and most likely that result is with more efficient, lower performance tires.

 

[Eno Deb]

The WLTP number is 388-412 for the Turbo S. (240mi to 256mi.) The Turbo S gets 199.7 miles EPA (it's voluntarily derated to 192 miles).

That's pretty much inline with the typical ratio of 1.2 for these results (WLTP/EPA) that people have correlated before. So the WLTP and EPA results are very much in line with one another. I would expect a much high WLTP number now if the EPA result would now yield a value more like 230-250 miles (which seems likely).

What I was trying to say is that the WLTP number seems much closer to the real world numbers than the EPA value. Normally the expectation would have been that the EPA number was closer and the WLTP number overly optimistic.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

What I was trying to say is that the WLTP number seems much closer to the real world numbers than the EPA value. Normally the expectation would have been that the EPA number was closer and the WLTP number overly optimistic.

Agreed. I would say the EPA number and the WLTP numbers both seem far too low, given the real-world results.

 

[Spidy]

Taycan Turbo vs. Model 3 LR RWD

 

[mswlogo]

Taycan Turbo vs. Model 3 LR RWD

View attachment 507137

Seems like a fair test if you drive the Autobahn on a regular basis. 81mph (average) is pretty damn fast. EPA is only one test that may favor Model 3. But a Raven Performance S is probably much more equal test. EPA doesn’t run HVAC and for $200k the Porsche might have a more efficient heater. And a real comparison will be the the Roadster 2.

Probably the most notable comment on the Video is how quiet he felt the cabin is on the Porsche. Tesla needs to fix that, big time. To many folks are willing to put up with it. Turn up the radio is not a solution. I don’t even want to think about how loud a Model 3 is at 93 mph.

 

[Daniel in SD]

Seems like a fair test if you drive the Autobahn on a regular basis. 81mph (average) is pretty damn fast. EPA is only one test that may favor Model 3. But a Raven Performance S is probably much more equal test. EPA doesn’t run HVAC and for $200k the Porsche might have a more efficient heater. And a real comparison will be the the Roadster 2.

Probably the most notable comment on the Video is how quiet he felt the cabin is on the Porsche. Tesla needs to fix that, big time. To many folks are willing to put up with it. Turn up the radio is not a solution. I don’t even want to think about how loud a Model 3 is at 93 mph.

One of the EPA five cycle tests includes speeds up to 80mph, they also include cold weather and A/C use. Inexplicably EVs only have to do the two cycle test and then scale it to make it somewhat realistic.
I can confirm that the Model 3 is very loud at 93mph but it also costs 1/3rd as much as a Taycan

 

[diamond.g]

Interesting video

 

[Eno Deb]

Taycan Turbo vs. Model 3 LR RWD

View attachment 507137

I think this figure from the video tells the story. Looks like Tesla is much better in "optimizing" for the EPA test:

 

[arghx7]

I think this figure from the video tells the story. Looks like Tesla is much better in "optimizing" for the EPA test:


View attachment 507383

All I'm seeing is a brand new car that costs 3 times as much getting worse range than a used car with battery degradation that is out of production.

There isn't much gap at that vehicle speed, but again these cars cost 3 times as much.

 

[Eno Deb]

All I'm seeing is a brand new car that costs 3 times as much getting worse range than a used car with battery degradation that is out of production.

Of course that's all you see. And it's completely besides the point. You can't compare the range of the vehicles directly since they differ in battery size, weight, wheel size, horse power, acceleration and other characteristics. But you can see that, in this particular scenario, one is much closer to the claimed EPA range than the other.

 

[FreqFlyer]

Everybody is making the EPA look like fools.

2020 Porsche Taycan Turbo S Real-World Range Test | Electric range, charging, how far does it go?

Bottom line: Stop worrying about the Taycan’s range

I’ve taken numerous trips in many different electric cars, so I was never concerned about the Taycan even if its range did prove to be “just” 201 miles. But it’s now abundantly clear to me that the Taycan Turbo’s real world range is easily better that the number the EPA gave it.

My result of 287 miles of projected range in around-town driving shows that there’s ample cushion if you drive normally. It took 72.9 kWh to replenish the battery afterwards, and the math works out to a consumption rate of 34.8 kWh/100. That’s fully 29% better than the EPA rating of 49 kWh/100.

It's true that most EVs can exceed their rated range when driven prudently, but I've never seen this much margin on this course. Still, an EV's published range is conservative by design, the result of lopping 30 percent off the number generated by the EPA test protocol. As it happens, 201 miles is exactly what you get if you take 30 percent off my 287-mile result. I'm not saying that my course mimics the EPA EV test pattern exactly, but maybe this result says something about the by-the-book nature of Porsche's numbers in the context of the EPA procedure.

Better still, the numbers didn’t plummet on a more spirited road trip. Higher speeds and a bit of light hooning up a mountain had an effect, but it was nothing like I expected. My projected range was still more than 50 miles better than its official rating after all that. So let’s agree to stop wringing our collective hands about the 2020 Porsche Taycan Turbo’s range. It’s more than fine.

Contributing writer Dan Edmunds is a veteran automotive engineer and journalist. He worked as a vehicle development engineer for Toyota and Hyundai with an emphasis on chassis tuning, and was the director of vehicle testing at Edmunds.com (no relation) for 14 years.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Taycan Turbo’s real world range is easily better that the number the EPA gave it.

The EPA did not give the car the rating. Porsche did, based on available forms clearly generated by Porsche showing testing from a facility in Germany with numbers exactly matching the EPA datasheet.

I’m guessing we will see a better result as early as this year, with much fanfare about how Porsche dramatically improved the EPA range. (Even though there will be no change from software which is rolled out today.)

 

[willow_hiller]

If you're from California, I could understand how the EPA tests feel like they're not representative of average driving speeds. But I will say, as someone from the East coast where most highways are 55 MPH, the EPA rating is actually very accurate.

Just passed 10,000 miles, and my lifetime wh/mi on my 2019 SR+ is 226, where the EPA rated range is achieved at 225.

Maybe the EPA needs to be more detailed in their ratings (e.g. "200 miles at an average of 70 MPH, 210 at 65, etc."). The old standard of city vs. highway doesn't seem to be cutting it in the world of EVs.

 

[arghx7]

The EPA rating is based on driving in California way back in the day. That's why it's called the LA4 cycle.

Of course that's all you see. And it's completely besides the point. You can't compare the range of the vehicles directly since they differ in battery size, weight, wheel size, horse power, acceleration and other characteristics. But you can see that, in this particular scenario, one is much closer to the claimed EPA range than the other.

The entire point of regulated test cycles is to compare vehicles directly to each other and to a regulatory standard, so manufacturers can't make up BS numbers or cherry pick test cycles.

The Taycan gets worse range on the EPA cycle and it gets worse range in the real world, but since the EPA results were so bad, the expectations for the real world were really bad too, so now people are trying to give them a pass .

 

[Eno Deb]

The Taycan gets worse range on the EPA cycle and it gets worse range in the real world, but since the EPA results were so bad, the expectations for the real world were really bad too, so now people are trying to give them a pass .

It gets almost the same range as the most efficient Model 3 in this test, even though it has more than twice the horse power, goes 0-60 in roughly half the time, and has much wider wheels. If you think that's an apples to apples comparison, I can't help you.