Every car I've owned except a 2015 awd 2.5 mazda cx5 has done the same, beating highway epa. My volvo c40 was right on it, though. My ev6 gt beats it. My rav4 prime was too difficult to gauge due to its nature.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
The DOJ Tesla probe has expanded to include EV driving ranges
- Thread starter Macb00kemdanno
- Start date
Although they are falling short they are still performing better than anyone else ratings aside.. could they be more honest? Probably.. has the anti EV / anti Tesla crowd been honest with them? Not really
Until anyone drives it till it dies like the EPA test we may never know
My Kia is supposed to get 25mpg but I usually average about 20 mpg so go figure
Curious what you meant by that you're rev4 prime is too difficult to gauge due to its nature? I had a friend that had one of these and she was always bragging that it got like close to 50 MPG. I had a tucson PHEV, which was pretty good with its electric only miles around 30 but on the highway when we were traveling long distances didn't really get much above 29 and often closer to 26, which was a real disappointment to me.
Last edited:
ChooseFreedom
Member
An uninformed/uneducated consumer gets what they deserve. Who buys an expensive vehicle w/o due diligence?
In today's clickbait/fake news society, who in their right mind believes everything they see online?
I have zero pity for anyone who buys an EV and complains about not getting the EPA range. Take some responsibility for your own actions.
You weren't duped into buying. You weren't tricked by the marketing. You were lazy and didn't research your purchase. That's it. Own it.
While I’m happy with my 23 YLR, I’m also a little disappointed with Tesla on it efficiency reporting & true range. Being a front runner for “gas saving” & “tax credit saving”, I wished Tesla being more honest about its range. I bought the car 24 hours after price drop in January & had told coworkers/friends “a great car that I can drive 300 miles” in the earlier days. Now after 10 month 12000 mile true driving & high percentage of non-driving battery power consumption, it is more like “a good car with easy charging at home & a lot of superchargers along interstates”.
While I believe EV is the way for the near future, I think Tesla needs to do a better & honest job for the mass while trying to get more car sold in the US while driving is a culture. While we like it or not, people will look at Tesla more critically when Tesla tries to sell cars using “gas saving” & “tax credit”.
Tesla isn’t the one that puts the range numbers out. It’s the EPA.
I don't think the OP's asking for pity. Posts like this actually may be part of what educates future consumers who are interested in Tesla or any of the other EVs. And part of research is actually looking at the EPA range and comparing them. Pretty harsh to take a "they get what they deserve" stance. I'd like to see what they're referring to, the CR report, actually lead to some more accurate EPA data. This is an increasingly difficult world to do accurate research in and I can't think of anybody that hasn't been fooled at one point or another. Live and learn and move forward
I hold CR in generally high esteem, but having reviewed all posts in this thread this seems like a bogus complaint. "Real World" is not a scientifically meaningful thing with repeatability. Is driving at 10 mph in a snowstorm at -10F real world? Yes. Is driving at 30 mph constant speed on flat in 65f degrees also real world? Yes, and yet the first might give any EV 30% of its rated range and the second condition 125%. Which is right? Both of them.
CR saying that its testing doesn't match claims from EV manufactures is placing the blame wrongly--those manufacturers are supposedly going by EPA rules. So unless Tesla is lying about its EPA results, the problem here is not Tesla, but it's either the EPA testing (i.e. it's not good), or CRs testing (i.e. it's not good), or both (both of them aren't good). My money is probably on the EPA testing (although why the hell did CR turn down regen on the tesla? Lol), but it is the standard, and if Tesla is being honest with its EPA ratings they should not be held responsible for those numbers rarely materializing in the "real world".
It's triggering language. Implicit in it is that a car going at steady state 30 mph would have less range than one regularly going down to 0 and back up to 30 because the second benefits from regeneration, which is impossible. They muddy the waters with such statements; they should instead be saying that EVs tend to get better range in the city, due to much lower wind resistance (something ICE don't benefit from because the lower wind resistance is more than offset by their inability to recover energy from regen during regular braking--the problem is even as I try to simplify that it's already over the heads of the general physics-inept public
).
CR saying that its testing doesn't match claims from EV manufactures is placing the blame wrongly--those manufacturers are supposedly going by EPA rules. So unless Tesla is lying about its EPA results, the problem here is not Tesla, but it's either the EPA testing (i.e. it's not good), or CRs testing (i.e. it's not good), or both (both of them aren't good). My money is probably on the EPA testing (although why the hell did CR turn down regen on the tesla? Lol), but it is the standard, and if Tesla is being honest with its EPA ratings they should not be held responsible for those numbers rarely materializing in the "real world".
It's triggering language. Implicit in it is that a car going at steady state 30 mph would have less range than one regularly going down to 0 and back up to 30 because the second benefits from regeneration, which is impossible. They muddy the waters with such statements; they should instead be saying that EVs tend to get better range in the city, due to much lower wind resistance (something ICE don't benefit from because the lower wind resistance is more than offset by their inability to recover energy from regen during regular braking--the problem is even as I try to simplify that it's already over the heads of the general physics-inept public
).Interesting point. Wondering how the EPA got it so wrong, and why the numbers aren't skewed consistently across all the car makers? Not implying anything, I'm just thinking it through.
Well...is it 50mpg when I use my EV mode on it and then switch back? Nah, more like 99mph or something. But what if I go on a trip, should I count the first 30+ miles of EV into the mpg equation? SHould I lock it into engine-only mode? How exactly should I run the test?
Yes this is exactly what I found too The numbers were very misleading because at least personally my daily drive is right around 30 miles a day so my 31 mi ranged PHEV was great for me except after over a year driving it almost exclusively on that electric only range I began to feel that the car simply wasn't designed to never use the ICE engine. So I ended up selling the car because it I felt uneasy about using a car meant to be used as a hybrid as an electric only car for years. So it would take me months to go through a tank of gas. Conversely the only time I did use the full hybrid engine was when I was traveling across country so those 31 miles were a mere drop in the bucket first thing in the morning. The rest of the day, driving about 300 or 400 mi a day, when I would add up what the mileage was it often came in about 26 MPG which included that smattering of electric miles in the morning. I honestly really expected better from it since with my previous full ICE car, I consistently always got at least 30 and often 36 mpg if I was highway driving.
On several hundred mile highway trips, I got mid/high 30's. Ultimately, I wanted better performance. I traded for an RDX loaded out, then a C40, now an EV6 GT. It's kindof the sweet spot for me for now until higher performance options exist in that price bracket in an AWD format with 6"+ ground clearance.
Tesla is full of misleading and exaggerated information from range to purchase price to efficiency to functionality - this information can be found on their website, from their CEO, and indicated by the vehicle itself. Fortunately, when you remove the lies, you're still left with a pretty impressive product. Still, I believe it is better to underpromise and overdeliver.
Even that test didn’t drive the car to empty. Look if you’re going to complain about not getting EPA mileage, then bloody well test to the EPA end limit, which is drive until the car stops. Or complain about EPA methodology, but stop complaining about the car.Not many people drive like this..but...
2021 Tesla Model 3 70 MPH Highway Range Test Nets 310 Miles
We fully charge a 2021 Tesla Model 3 and drive it at a constant 70 mph to determine how far the vehicle can go at highway speeds.insideevs.com
For myself, I drive fast on the freeway (when I can), so I never expect to get rated range on either my Rivian or my Teslas. I make sure to get a vehicle that has more than 300 miles EPA range and that is more than enough to drive quickly between Superchargers before I need a break, or to drive to more remote places or even to tow when I very occasionally need to do that.
ChooseFreedom
Member
Fair.
The reality is, we probably need a completely revamped way to test EV's altogether.
They're just different, and should be tested as such. No more comparing to ICE.
Everyone should be looking for real world examples, many of them, before being comfortable about an EV's range. EPA should not even be in the equation when deciding to buy. Can we all agree on that at this point?
As for these CR "tests", waaay too many variables they've tried to "level". Reducing the regen to each car's "lowest setting"? I mean each car could have a different lowest setting. Furthermore, that's not really the "real world" setting, is it?
Each car is going to have it's own strengths and weaknesses.
If any test is going to remove any of those, then it's a sh!t test if you ask me. I want know, with the settings at the most common/popular, how does each car perform.
If regen is a strength of one model, but a weakness of another, the test should reflect that. That's the whole reason we have separate ratings for city vs hwy.
This CR "test" is being portrayed as some kind of all-encompassing final result.
But really it's only good for one scenario, under one set of parameters.
It's a single data point on a graph that needs dozens (at least) of data points before any real conclusions could be made.
So at best, I'd call it incomplete.
EPA: 55% highway
ICE range is based on tested MPG vs the reported fuel tank size. They also knock off 10% for ethanol blends and 20% for other factors (CAFE vs EPA). Actual fuel tank size is typically 10-15% larger, then there is the fuel filler neck if one really tops off. Fuel usage is determined by exhaust analysis.
EV range is based on running cycles until the car dies then multiplying by 0.7 or so. AFAICT Regen is set per manufacturer's guidance (high).
CR:
For ICE, they add a high accuracy fuel meter to the car and drive a highway section and do 'city' on site.
For EV, they drive a 142 mile highway/rural loop and use the in car SOC display and extrapolate 100% from their test loop. Any buffer is lost. Regen is set to lowest level possible.
Edmunds:
For ICE, they drive the cars a lot and record mileage and fuel to get MPG, (then apply that to tank size?)
For EV, they stop testing at 10 miles remaining or son adding that number in. Any additional buffer is lost. 60% highway. Regen left at vehicle default.
ICE range is based on tested MPG vs the reported fuel tank size. They also knock off 10% for ethanol blends and 20% for other factors (CAFE vs EPA). Actual fuel tank size is typically 10-15% larger, then there is the fuel filler neck if one really tops off. Fuel usage is determined by exhaust analysis.
EV range is based on running cycles until the car dies then multiplying by 0.7 or so. AFAICT Regen is set per manufacturer's guidance (high).
CR:
For ICE, they add a high accuracy fuel meter to the car and drive a highway section and do 'city' on site.
For EV, they drive a 142 mile highway/rural loop and use the in car SOC display and extrapolate 100% from their test loop. Any buffer is lost. Regen is set to lowest level possible.
Edmunds:
For ICE, they drive the cars a lot and record mileage and fuel to get MPG, (then apply that to tank size?)
For EV, they stop testing at 10 miles remaining or son adding that number in. Any additional buffer is lost. 60% highway. Regen left at vehicle default.
Well, we don’t really know that they did. They certainly don’t drive the car at 70+ mph for hours and figure out how far it will go… nor do they drive it in 104 heat in AZ, around town and on the highway to test range. They have a test Loop they use, which mimics urban and highway driving. Acceleration needs, HVAC, etc. Then, some of that range measurement is reduced due to a multiplier, like .6 or .7, to indicate essentially “real world mileage expectation”.
MAYBE Tesla has figured out how to game the system, essentially knowing the test parameters, and ultimate outcome so they setup the car - and not just test mules - to be able to make most use of the test. I’ll call this the Kobayashi Maru effort. ;-)
My 2018 M3 LR will go 550-600 miles, IF I drive it on a flat surface at 32 miles an hour, not using the heater or the HVAC. That just isn’t realistic of course, but I know that I can get to 120 watts per mile if I REALLY need to. Nobody wants that though.
Overall, driving around town, driving on highways - usually faster than 95% of other cars, 73 in 65, 83 in 70, etc. I average ~ 93% efficiency, which means I can expect ~ 285 miles on a car rated at 310. At highway speeds, agains 77-80, cool temps, no heat, no elevation changes I’m doing ~ 265 watt/mile. That puts my expected range at about 300 miles. My average summer season wh/mile is 220, my overall LIFETIME average is 235 wh/mile.
As others have indicated, speed ‘kills’ efficiency. Not as much as some have indicated though. While the difference in efficiency between 55-60 average speed and 70 overall is measurable, it’s not as “dramatic” as one might think. It’s not 25% less efficient, or 50% less efficient - all things remaining equal. It’s probably closer to 12-15% less efficient, maybe 20% at the outside.
I am certain that if I charged my car to 100%, drove 60-65 mph on a highway in late May, just drove a circular test loop so reducing lots of elevation changes, i could get at least 290-300 miles on a full charge. I just don’t have 5-6 hours to test it out.
I will say, that one thing that is VERY different in EV cars vs. the majority of ICE cars is instant torque. And it’s quite addictive. From stop to launch, even in lower performance models, the cars get their HIGHER overall mass up to speed much faster than average ICE cars. Same with passing, accelerating from an on ramp. Passing cars on a highway, etc. EVERY time one does that, which the cars do VERY well is a significant energy drain and essentially the LEAST efficiency one can have. It’s why cars have “chill” mode, because it nerfs that ability a bit and makes people drive or at least accelerate more conservatively overall - at least from an acceleration standpoint. I have the feeling that a lot of ppl with new EV and that are NEW to EV really enjoy all that POWER and use it often - I mean WHY NOT… but at the cost of reducing overall efficiency quite a bit.
here’s a little bit about how the EPA tests range
Last edited:
Anyone else’s driving: different from all the above.
BTW, if you want to see people really bitching about mileage, go to an F150 Lightning forum. Lots of people bought the low mileage F150 (230 miles I think) and are now disappointed about winter range, snow tire range, towing range, and just doing regular pickup stuff range.
My point being that the real sin is selling a vehicle with under 300 miles range, be it accurate or not.
Think the Porsche Taycan with its 206-246 mile range can hang with a Model S with its (inflated) 400 mile range, even as the Porsche costs a lot more? Yeah, no.
They do drive it for hours, but it's on a dynamometer the entire time. The 5 cycle test includes hot and cold along with higher speeds.
Hard to game when EPA controls the variables. Coast down can be verified, so it's only the adjustment factor that can be tweaked.
70 vs 55 is 62% more aero load. Of course, aero is not the only load, rolling is in play also and that's fairly constant on a per mile basis. If aero started as 1/3 of the energy usage and Wh/mile were 240:
80 Wh/mile aero * 1.62 = 130
160 Wh/mile rolling = 160
Total: 290, for a 21% increase in consumption or 21% drop in range.
Similar threads
