Range on road trip much lower than expected (<200 miles on full charge)

[TheLex]

Gas in the PacNW is almost the same price as Northern California... It's still $5/gallon up here, which is better than the $6 gallon it was a little while ago.. I was just in SJ a few weeks ago... Gas looked to be around the same price. And I was in BC a few months ago... When I was up there, a couple stations, gas was $2.93/litre, which works out to $8 USD/gallon.

Yes, gas in the PNW is unreasonably expensive. Not sure what your gas tax is. Ours in California is over $1/gal. That's why we try to buy our fuel from Costco or Fred Meyer when we take our trips up to Vancouver. We've got Gas Buddy loaded up on the phone.

BC gas is currently about $1.80 Cdn per litre. That works out to about $5.24 USD per gallon.

 

[boulder.dude]

We have a 3 throw Subaru Ascent and also the MY LR 7 seat with Geminis. With less than 600 mi on the odometer, we've averaged 316 Wh/mi, with most of the driving being rural roads. It's been extraordinarily hot with temps above 100° on most days, and as high as 113°. So we've had to run the air con constantly when driving the car. We've seen efficiency as bad as 390 Wh/mi.

We normally take multiple trips from our home in Norther California to Vancouver, B.C. It's a 1600 mi roundtrip. In our Subaru with a full load of people, all of our luggage and a rooftop box, we get about 23 mpg on average. That's also with 3PMSF tires on.

Being that we take this trip both in the summer and in the winter, we are going to need to decide which car to take - our Tesla or the Ascent.

Those who've driven this route on I-5 know that speeds are often 75-80 mph. Most people drive 5-10 mph over the limit. And the limit is as high as 70 mph in many areas.

With the cost of supercharging at about $0.46 kWh, so far I've calculated that the running costs to "refuel" the Tesla vs the Ascent comes out to about 9% less in the Tesla. If we charge at home it's about 22%. But of course we wouldn't have that option on the road.

Right now, I'm leaning on just taking the Ascent on these long trips. We get up to 350 mi on a tank of gas, and gas is over $1/gal cheaper once we get out of California. The Ascent isn't affected much by the air conditioning, and speed isn't much of an effect until I get over 75-80 mph. I suspect the Tesla with the whole family and all of our gear, and driving in very hot weather at 75-80 mph, will cost nearly the same to run as what it costs to fuel up the Ascent. Considering the Ascent is roomier, has Apple CarPlay and Waze, and the tires are all-terrain 3PMSF, it just seems like the logical choice. We make take one trip with the MY though, just as a comparison.

I expect the roof box would kill efficiency at 75-80mph. Throw in a headwind or crosswind and take he effect would be even worse.

The MY would be an exercise in frustration on that trip.

 

[sleepydoc]

I expect the roof box would kill efficiency at 75-80mph. Throw in a headwind or crosswind and take he effect would be even worse.

The MY would be an exercise in frustration on that trip.

Totally. A roof box kills efficiency for any car.

 

[TheLex]

I expect the roof box would kill efficiency at 75-80mph. Throw in a headwind or crosswind and take he effect would be even worse.

The MY would be an exercise in frustration on that trip.

The roof top box costs me about 2 mpg on then Subaru. That's about 10%. It sounds like the increase in Wh/mi would be more than 10% on the Tesla. The good news is though, the Tesla has the frunk and subtruck, which would probably negate the need for the roof box.

 

[Boza]

Speed and AC affect BEV and ICE cars the same (ignoring higher weight of BEV). The difference is lower efficiency of ICE, so AC/speed become lower percentage of the overall consumption.
At around $.55/kWh BEV $/mile is becoming equal to that of ICE (factoring energy only). Unfortunately, a lot of charging stations use the recent BEV popularity to increase their margin (thinking of L2 chargers, not SC/L3 where there is significant capital investment)

 

[Dave EV]

This whole recent discussion about whether or not you should drive the ICE vs the EV ignores the external costs of burning gasoline vs powering your car with in this case, mostly renewable electricity. If you ignore the cost of burning fossil fuels, then sure, go ahead and drive your gas burner.

The recent record-breaking heat wave in the west has everything to do with burning fossil fuels, and the heat wave has a large cost - not just in energy costs due to extra air conditioning, but also in lost productivity, damaged crops, and more.

That said, it highlights why we need a carbon tax that includes a real price on the cost of burning fossil fuels, because face it - people are in general, cheap and lazy. Give them a less expensive and/or slightly easier option, and they will take it.

It also highlights why we need to honestly work to drive down the cost of EV charging by figuring out how to reduce the cost to manufacture, install and maintain EV infrastructure. Even Tesla needs to continue to drive down the cost of Superchargers. Keeping Supercharger pricing on par or just slightly below with the cost of gas isn't good enough.

 

[avs007]

The roof top box costs me about 2 mpg on then Subaru. That's about 10%. It sounds like the increase in Wh/mi would be more than 10% on the Tesla. The good news is though, the Tesla has the frunk and subtruck, which would probably negate the need for the roof box.

I was actually quite surprised when I went to my cousin's house to pick up a bunch of crap, and found that I was able to fit more stuff in my Y than I could in my MDX, thanks to the sub trunk and frunk.

 

[ZenRockGarden]

The roof top box costs me about 2 mpg on then Subaru. That's about 10%. It sounds like the increase in Wh/mi would be more than 10% on the Tesla. The good news is though, the Tesla has the frunk and subtruck, which would probably negate the need for the roof box.

That's 2 MPG loss on a gas car which is very inefficient compared to electric. During 300 miles, that 2 MPG loss burns an extra 0.7 gallons of fuel, which the Subaru doesn't really mind since it has a 15 gallon tank.

Switch to electric and you've got a battery that has the energy content of about 2 gallons of gas, and a drivetrain that pulls 150 MPG out of it to get good range. Now burn 0.7 gallons worth of "energy" pushing a roof rack thru the air and suddenly the range on the electric goes down a LOT faster than the gas vehicle.

Basically the massive inefficiency of IC engines masks the impact of various factors like temperature, drag, speed, etc.

 

[DrGriz]

That's 2 MPG loss on a gas car which is very inefficient compared to electric. During 300 miles, that 2 MPG loss burns an extra 0.7 gallons of fuel, which the Subaru doesn't really mind since it has a 15 gallon tank.

Switch to electric and you've got a battery that has the energy content of about 2 gallons of gas, and a drivetrain that pulls 150 MPG out of it to get good range. Now burn 0.7 gallons worth of "energy" pushing a roof rack thru the air and suddenly the range on the electric goes down a LOT faster than the gas vehicle.

Basically the massive inefficiency of IC engines masks the impact of various factors like temperature, drag, speed, etc.

This is an excellent way of explaining this.

 

[TheLex]

That's 2 MPG loss on a gas car which is very inefficient compared to electric. During 300 miles, that 2 MPG loss burns an extra 0.7 gallons of fuel, which the Subaru doesn't really mind since it has a 15 gallon tank.

Switch to electric and you've got a battery that has the energy content of about 2 gallons of gas, and a drivetrain that pulls 150 MPG out of it to get good range. Now burn 0.7 gallons worth of "energy" pushing a roof rack thru the air and suddenly the range on the electric goes down a LOT faster than the gas vehicle.

Basically the massive inefficiency of IC engines masks the impact of various factors like temperature, drag, speed, etc.

That makes sense. But on a road trip it means that while my Tesla is far more efficient than my Subie, the economics of the situation make the costs fairly similar for both vehicles.

 

[ZenRockGarden]

That makes sense. But on a road trip it means that while my Tesla is far more efficient than my Subie, the economics of the situation make the costs fairly similar for both vehicles.

Yep. It's not judging one better than the other - just two totally different kinds of creatures with respect to energy use. The Tesla is like 4x more efficient, but the Subaru carries the equivalent of a 600 KWh "battery" tank so it much more easily ignores some extra wind resistance.

 

[boulder.dude]

Yep. It's not judging one better than the other - just two totally different kinds of creatures with respect to energy use. The Tesla is like 4x more efficient, but the Subaru carries the equivalent of a 600 KWh "battery" tank so it much more easily ignores some extra wind resistance.

The Tesla is maybe? only 1.2x more “cost efficient” on a road trip (assuming DC charging costs) so I could see how throwing in a roof box and adverse weather would make an ICE car cheaper than the Tesla, sadly.

(Makes me wonder about the ROI of EV big rigs, but that’s another topic…)

 

[Sixth]

This is from our old 2020 Model Y. Round trip from San Gabriel, CA to San Diego,CA and back

https://imgur.com/a/bGupQ8s

On a side note, wheels and tires make a substantial difference on range.

250 mi round trip with 11% left on the pack going at 65mph

I'm sure the newer Model Y's with the larger pack can go a bit further.

 

[avs007]

The Tesla is maybe? only 1.2x more “cost efficient” on a road trip (assuming DC charging costs) so I could see how throwing in a roof box and adverse weather would make an ICE car cheaper than the Tesla, sadly.

(Makes me wonder about the ROI of EV big rigs, but that’s another topic…)

I don't think it's that bad, actually... I looked at other threads where people tried to do comparisons with and without a roof box... I saw it looked like a 10% range hit... One guy said 13%, but in his test, he drove 5mph faster with the box than in his test without.... That happens to line up with what @TheLex said his hit with the box was on his subie.. If I used his 316 whm figure, and inflated it by 10%, that would net 560 kwh for 1600 miles. Using his 23 mpg figure, that would equate to 69 gallons of gas. Regular unleaded is still right around $5 gallon in the PacNW... Using $4.79 as an example, (as that's the cheapest it is around here), that's $330 for 69 gallons... 560 kwh @ 43 cents kwh is $240. If you use EA Pass+ and pay 31 cents/kwh that is $173.

Now I personally think this is worst case... Because I actually drove from Canada to Central California several times.. I didn't pay attention to the Seattle to BC leg... But the Seattle to San Jose leg, I made that trip a few weeks ago, and only paid $92 for superchargers one way.... I made that same trip earlier in the summer, and paid $54 one way when I used Pass+ for all but one stop. And I'm running taller tires on my induction wheels, and I have a roof rack, and had 5 people in my car. My consumption was over 400 whm in the mountains, but I got it < 300 in the valley in OR/WA. in California I was averaging around 310-320 whm. This was with driving 75 in OR/WA, and 80 in California.

 

[TheLex]

I don't think it's that bad, actually... I looked at other threads where people tried to do comparisons with and without a roof box... I saw it looked like a 10% range hit... One guy said 13%, but in his test, he drove 5mph faster with the box than in his test without.... That happens to line up with what @TheLex said his hit with the box was on his subie.. If I used his 316 whm figure, and inflated it by 10%, that would net 560 kwh for 1600 miles. Using his 23 mpg figure, that would equate to 69 gallons of gas. Regular unleaded is still right around $5 gallon in the PacNW... Using $4.79 as an example, (as that's the cheapest it is around here), that's $330 for 69 gallons... 560 kwh @ 43 cents kwh is $240. If you use EA Pass+ and pay 31 cents/kwh that is $173.

Now I personally think this is worst case... Because I actually drove from Canada to Central California several times.. I didn't pay attention to the Seattle to BC leg... But the Seattle to San Jose leg, I made that trip a few weeks ago, and only paid $92 for superchargers one way.... I made that same trip earlier in the summer, and paid $54 one way when I used Pass+ for all but one stop. And I'm running taller tires on my induction wheels, and I have a roof rack, and had 5 people in my car. My consumption was over 400 whm in the mountains, but I got it < 300 in the valley in OR/WA. in California I was averaging around 310-320 whm. This was with driving 75 in OR/WA, and 80 in California.

Good discussion! Personally, I'd more likely use Superchargers instead of EA due to 1) Superchargers are more plentiful and 2) there don't seem to be nearly as many EA chargers along the I-5 route. So the cost of charging would be $0.46 x 560 kWh = $257.60, or $258. So just a bit more.

Another thing to consider is I tend to make these 1600 mile journeys in the summer, when it's well over 100° outside. So we have to factor in the extra energy consumption on the Tesla. I notice when driving on very hot days with my air con at speed 7 and temp set at 65°, my energy consumption can get as high as 390 Wh/mi.

So I may end up using somewhat more than 560 kWh for the whole trip. On the Subaru, because as someone aptly pointed out that it's massively inefficient anyway, using air con doesn't really affect my MPG very much at all. In fact, we got the 23 MPG with the rooftop carrier and running the AC in 100°+ weather, while driving 75-80 mph.

At the end of the day, honestly my feeling is that it'll be close to a tossup between the two under those circumstances.

We will be heading up again this Christmas and on that trip I will have no choice but to use the Subie since it has all-terrain 3PMSF tires. And that's a requirement in BC during the winter. I don't want to be on the Tesla's Continentals and get caught in snow or ice. Summertime, we might just take the Tesla as an experiment and see what the difference is

 

[avs007]

Good discussion! Personally, I'd more likely use Superchargers instead of EA due to 1) Superchargers are more plentiful and 2) there don't seem to be nearly as many EA chargers along the I-5 route. So the cost of charging would be $0.46 x 560 kWh = $257.60, or $258. So just a bit more.

Another thing to consider is I tend to make these 1600 mile journeys in the summer, when it's well over 100° outside. So we have to factor in the extra energy consumption on the Tesla. I notice when driving on very hot days with my air con at speed 7 and temp set at 65°, my energy consumption can get as high as 390 Wh/mi.

So I may end up using somewhat more than 560 kWh for the whole trip.

All this is already factored in my numbers... I made this trip twice this summer, when temps were around 110 in California and > 100 in Oregon. And my climate was always set between 62 and 67. And like I said, using exclusively supercharging, I paid $92 to get from Seattle to San Jose in each direction. As far as EA is concerned. The only one that was problematic was Springfield Oregon, because that whole place always seems to be down... For for the rest of I-5 from Central California to Vancouver BC is fine, as I've used them before... They tend to get busy on weekends, but during the week, I didn't have any problems finding an open charger. But even then, Supercharging in OR and WA is cheaper than California... The "expensive" rates in WA for example is 44 cents kwh. But there are a bunch that have a lower rate all day, and some that have half the rate during offpeak, which starts at 7pm, and ends at 11am.

 

[TheLex]

All this is already factored in my numbers... I made this trip twice this summer, when temps were around 110 in California and > 100 in Oregon. And my climate was always set between 62 and 67. And like I said, using exclusively supercharging, I paid $92 to get from Seattle to San Jose in each direction. As far as EA is concerned. The only one that was problematic was Springfield Oregon, because that whole place always seems to be down... For for the rest of I-5 from Central California to Vancouver BC is fine, as I've used them before... They tend to get busy on weekends, but during the week, I didn't have any problems finding an open charger. But even then, Supercharging in OR and WA is cheaper than California... The "expensive" rates in WA for example is 44 cents kwh. But there are a bunch that have a lower rate all day, and some that have half the rate during offpeak, which starts at 7pm, and ends at 11am.

OK thanks for the info. I'll keep this in mind when we take our trip. The lower rate of the EA chargers is appealing. I'm assuming I need to have a CSS adaptor to use them?

 

[ElectricAnt54]

OK thanks for the info. I'll keep this in mind when we take our trip. The lower rate of the EA chargers is appealing. I'm assuming I need to have a CSS adaptor to use them?

Yes, you need a ccs1 adapter to use electrify America. I have the Tesla adapter works well but hard/impossible to get from Korea now I hear. Hansshow, A well known third party vendor, has made a visually identical ccs1 adapter and the YouTube reviews suggest it performs same as Tesla’s & priced similar. Hansshow probably dissected Tesla’s which is said to be a simple pass through kinda device.

I believe some Electrify America & Tesla Supercharger locations have discounted prices during certain hours. I know Tesla does at many locations in California. I charged up at one last month at $0.19 kWh . Special pricing info was on teslabinfotainment screen. For EA, you might need their app. I have apple carplay in my Tesla and have the EA app in CarPlay which is handy for comparing prices.

 

[avs007]

OK thanks for the info. I'll keep this in mind when we take our trip. The lower rate of the EA chargers is appealing. I'm assuming I need to have a CSS adaptor to use them?

Yes. From what I can tell, the A2Z one is the one to get these days. I found the biggest benefit of the CCS adapter is when tooling around town, as often times they are more convenient then SC locations. At least in my experience. Except in Canada maybe. I only used SC up there cus most of the CCS chargers within the city were all 50kw.

I drove to Canada a few times in the winter as well. I didn't really notice that much of a range reduction as long as it wasn't raining or windy. I drove up a few times when it was around 20 degrees F. I had worse range when it was 40 and raining, but even then I only used an extra 10% soc at one of the SC stops.i didn't need to bail out and make extra stops or anything.

Granted PacNW winters are pretty mild compared to the Midwest/east etc.

 

[Terpslax]

In summary it all comes down to managing the THREE T’s - Temperature, Terrain and Technique

But a COLD WET HIGWAY trip with some hills and heavy foot and you have the perfect storm.

I learned that 2 months after I got my Y. Driving uphill on wet roasways through a light snowstorm going about 70-75 mph with temps in the teens; got about 210 miles of range that day.