The DOJ Tesla probe has expanded to include EV driving ranges

[Big Earl]

Thank you for the clarifications. Why is there such a discrepancy between the EPA estimated range and the real world on Tesla compared to the other manufacturers?

Because the EPA offers a choice of two tests (2-cycle and 5-cycle) and they allow manufacturers to arbitrarily reduce their range figure.

While MPGe is important for efficiency comparisons, people don't compare efficiency on EVs during the research gathering phase of the shopping experience (at least not the general public in my experience).

If true, the general public makes poor purchasing decisions. No surprise.

What I've found is most buyers compare range and charge times, completely flipped from ICE vehicles where tank size and refuel times are more or less irrelevant due to the relative ease of refueling. To your point about efficiency, I think EVs are so efficient that the difference in efficiency is as irrelevant in general consumer's eyes as tank size on ICE vehicles. That combined with the consumer confusion over what MPGe is, results in misunderstandings.

Consumers could certainly be better educated on what they’re buying. Unfortunately, a lot of these big purchase decisions are made in haste and are clouded with emotion.

If a company made a 500kWh battery with 500wh/m efficiency and a 10 min charge time it would sell like hotcakes because the range would be 1000 miles.

Except for the fact that a 500 kWh battery would have a $50,000 cost associated with it. That would put the brakes on most new car transactions even if it offered 1,000 miles of range.

The average car buyer doesn't actually look at the cost difference overall, they just assume the cost of fuel is cheaper (regardless of efficiency or $/kWh of their home).

They should. We all know what happens when we assume.

I'm saying that the EPAs ratings are not well understood by consumers, and as such there are differences in the real world range of a Model Y as compared to a Mach E for instance.

100%. It doesn’t help that the EPA lets manufacturers choose between a couple of different tests and apply their own correction to the final results.

That leads to consumers thinking the Model Y gets more range than it does, if there is more than one test available, the less accurate one should be eliminated, and then, at the very least, range would be apples to apples

Agreed. Test them all the same way so consumers can have accurate comparisons between vehicles. My issue is with the EPA’s structure, not with the individual manufacturers.

 

[mongo]

Because the EPA offers a choice of two tests (2-cycle and 5-cycle) and they allow manufacturers to arbitrarily reduce their range figure.

The 5 cycle test is for MPGe and is the preferred methodology not the old city/highway.

The range test is either
Highway until dead averaged with city until dead
Or
City, highway, city, constant speed, city, highway, city, ending with constant speed until dead.

Tesla uses the two part range test and also runs the cold cycle until depletion.

 

[Gloff]

And I'm saying that conclusion does not follow unless the rear world to test variance is a ratiometric shift for both vehicles.
A high energy usage low range vehicle will have a lower range (in miles) impact for the same energy/mile variance than a high efficiency, high range vehicle will.

20Wh/mile of load added to a 200Wh/mile vehicle has the same percentage range impact as 40Wh/mile added to a 400Wh/mile vehicle. Adding 20Wh/mile to both only drops the 400/Wh range half as much from it's original range.

Thank you for that, is the load difference so great that it results in an additional 13.8kWh of consumption in real world (based on the EPA consumption of 276 wh/mi), or 15% of the EPA estimated range?

 

[Gloff]

100%. It doesn’t help that the EPA lets manufacturers choose between a couple of different tests and apply their own correction to the final results.

Agreed. Test them all the same way so consumers can have accurate comparisons between vehicles. My issue is with the EPA’s structure, not with the individual manufacturers.

Agree 100%, the EPA needs to come up with a better solution so you can get accurate comparisons.

 

[mongo]

Thank you for that, is the load difference so great that it results in an additional 13.8kWh of consumption in real world (based on the EPA consumption of 276 wh/mi), or 15% of the EPA estimated range?

Unadjusted range depleting values for Y LR AWD:

92.243 kWh recharge
City (UDDS): 505 miles, 183 Wh/mile
Highway: 475 miles, 194 Wh/mile

Cold: 306 miles 86.073 kW recharge, 281Wh/mile

@Big Earl , i was mistaken, these values are from a single multicycle range depletion run. The highest Wh/mile is from the constant speed runs so Tesla's choice yeilds a lower range number. Here is the breakdown:

 

[DrChaos]

And I'm saying that conclusion does not follow unless the rear world to test variance is a ratiometric shift for both vehicles.
A high energy usage low range vehicle will have a lower range (in miles) impact for the same energy/mile variance than a high efficiency, high range vehicle will.

20Wh/mile of load added to a 200Wh/mile vehicle has the same percentage range impact as 40Wh/mile added to a 400Wh/mile vehicle. Adding 20Wh/mile to both only drops the 400/Wh range half as much from it's original range.

The electrical load, particularly computers, may be independent of travel distance and scales with travel time.

 

[mongo]

The electrical load, particularly computers, may be independent of travel distance and scales with travel time.

Yep, and my more indepth calculations upthread divided the hourly energy consumption by miles traveled for the 60 vs 70 MPH scenarios.

 

[Unobtanium]

How long has the Kia EV drivetrain been out? Hard to compare it to a time-tested one like Tesla. Get back to me in 8-10 yrs.

I don't have a Kia, so I haven't compared the softwares directly. Maybe someone has, maybe there's a YT video, I haven't looked.
I'm basing that statement on all the posts I've read about many other manufacturers who seem to always be behind Tesla in that category.
You mention the nav in Kia being shite, That's a pretty big piece of it. Tesla can get you to any level charger you want, and show you how much charge you'll have when you get there. My opinion, that should be the minimum any EV software should be able to do.
"Hopes and OTA fixes" - How long are you willing to wait? Because you can have it right now with a Tesla.

Build quality is always the low-hanging fruit when it comes to Tesla critics. Every new car company has those growing pains.
And from what I can see, every iteration of a Tesla model gets better. So Are expecting perfection? That's not realistic.
Kia has existing infrastructure to fall back on when it comes to build quality. They're not starting at zero with their EV's.
And yet they're still playing catchup in many other categories.
So I'll take the better in most categories over the slightly better (for now) in that one.

Demand is what sets the price. As long there are people who will pay Tesla's price, that's where it will be. That's basic capitalism.
If you choose not to buy, that's your personal choice.

Don't blame Elon for running a for profit business. Actually, credit is deserved for finding more efficient, cost-effective ways to run that business that allows for those higher profit margins.
Instead of being mad at Elon, why not ask yourself, why can't Kia lower their prices?

1) You have a valid point about drivetrain and years in service. That said, it doesn't seem to be everything.

Tesla Halts Deliveries of German Model Y Performance Due to Rear Motor Defect

Tesla was supposed to attain a few firsts with Giga Grünheide in Germany. It would have been the first factory to make a vehicle with massive castin...

www.autoevolution.com

2) Software...I want the software to run the car, which it does just fine in Kia and Tesla. Now, the NAV system regarding charging in the Kia is dogwater, noone
can argue.

3) Why can Kia not lower prices? Because they build quality cars. That increases parts reject rate, increases inspection, increases assy line time, etc. etc. etc. Also, yes, Elon came in sortof from the ground up (adapting Lotus, so...), and has streamlined processes around making his Teslas. That said, this also increases repair costs to nosebleed levels. None of this, however, makes me want to congratulate him by funding large profit margins "Because he is smart". We are not contesting his personal validity. I just see no need to pay the man more margin and then brag that he made more money off of me. Why?

4) You brush off build quality as "low hanging fruit" and just a little quirk or whatever. Nah man, Tesla is putting out pure low-end kit car trash. It's not just fit and finish, but materials as well. Maybe the X or Y are better, but not the ones I've seen in person, so maybe new new ones? Believe it when I see it. I hope the Highland M3 marks a pivot for them here. I see posts like this daily in my feed from Tesla FB groups.

 

[Unobtanium]

In what way do you prefer the drivetrain? To me that's a strength of Telsas.

The drivetrain in my Kia does not "nose over". It just PULLS. To get that out of a Tesla, you have to spend a lot more and step in to S/X. Also, eLSD is pretty awesome. That's part of why the much heavier EV6 GT outperforms the M3P on the track by a large margin (stock for stock). The Biermann developed suspension should get credit too, I guess.

 

[ChooseFreedom]

3) Why can Kia not lower prices? Because they build quality cars. That increases parts reject rate, increases inspection, increases assy line time, etc. etc. etc. Also, yes, Elon came in sortof from the ground up (adapting Lotus, so...), and has streamlined processes around making his Teslas. That said, this also increases repair costs to nosebleed levels. None of this, however, makes me want to congratulate him by funding large profit margins "Because he is smart". We are not contesting his personal validity. I just see no need to pay the man more margin and then brag that he made more money off of me. Why?

4) You brush off build quality as "low hanging fruit" and just a little quirk or whatever. Nah man, Tesla is putting out pure low-end kit car trash. It's not just fit and finish, but materials as well. Maybe the X or Y are better, but not the ones I've seen in person, so maybe new new ones? Believe it when I see it. I hope the Highland M3 marks a pivot for them here. I see posts like this daily in my feed from Tesla FB groups.

Fully respect your perspective.

Question: If the KIA CEO was out there gloating about their profit margin, would you feel the same way?
One CEO is public about their profits, the other isn't. We don't know either actual profits unless you're in both company's P&L meetings.
Maybe KIA could lower their prices. But they're new(er) to the EV game. So they're probably still learning their margins.

Definitely not brushing off the build quality issues at all.
It's a different approach than other car makers for sure. Tesla would rather move fast, and adjust later, versus other makers who move slow and yes, catch more issues before launches. It's a known, and apparently publicly accepted, approach Tesla has taken. Now, that being said, I agree with you that Tesla will have to tightening things up going forward now that the competition has raised it's game. But credit should be given to Tesla for forcing them to do that in the first place.

 

[Gloff]

Unadjusted range depleting values for Y LR AWD:

92.243 kWh recharge
City (UDDS): 505 miles, 183 Wh/mile
Highway: 475 miles, 194 Wh/mile

Cold: 306 miles 86.073 kW recharge, 281Wh/mile

@Big Earl , i was mistaken, these values are from a single multicycle range depletion run. The highest Wh/mile is from the constant speed runs so Tesla's choice yeilds a lower range number. Here is the breakdown:
View attachment 990959

Do you have this equivalent for the Mach E or can you point me in that direction?

 

[mongo]

Do you have this equivalent for the Mach E or can you point me in that direction?

2021 Mach-E RWD
77.6 kWh recharge
City: 335
Highway: 292.1
https://dis.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=54828&flag=1

2022 Mach-E AWD extended
101.2 kWh recharge
City: 371.5
Highway: 338.9
https://dis.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=54568&flag=1

Search methodology: use Google
site:epa.gov udds vehicle_name

 

[Gloff]

2021 Mach-E RWD
77.6 kWh recharge
City: 335
Highway: 292.1
https://dis.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=54828&flag=1

2022 Mach-E AWD extended
101.2 kWh recharge
City: 371.5
Highway: 338.9
https://dis.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=54568&flag=1

Search methodology: use Google
site:epa.gov udds vehicle_name

Apples to apples:
Model Y EPA Testing

https://dis.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=51237&flag=1

Page 30 UDDS Charge Depleting Test: 446 miles
Page 32 HWY Charge Depleting Test: 398 Miles

Range based on these tests (as is done on the Mach E, others...) would be
(446*.7)*.55= 172
+
(398*.7)*.45= 125
=
297 Miles of range, much closer to the real world.

Good on Tesla for exploiting the rules and increasing their EPA range on the label. I've gotten out of many speeding and parking tickets on technicalities and following the rules as written, so I get it.

The EPA needs to have only one way to test for range so that range can be accurately compared between two vehicles. This has been my argument all along. Tesla should utilize the lower figures as an ownership experience measure, but it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission, once the vehicle is sold, it's sold.

 

[Unobtanium]

Fully respect your perspective.

Question: If the KIA CEO was out there gloating about their profit margin, would you feel the same way?
One CEO is public about their profits, the other isn't. We don't know either actual profits unless you're in both company's P&L meetings.
Maybe KIA could lower their prices. But they're new(er) to the EV game. So they're probably still learning their margins.

Definitely not brushing off the build quality issues at all.
It's a different approach than other car makers for sure. Tesla would rather move fast, and adjust later, versus other makers who move slow and yes, catch more issues before launches. It's a known, and apparently publicly accepted, approach Tesla has taken. Now, that being said, I agree with you that Tesla will have to tightening things up going forward now that the competition has raised it's game. But credit should be given to Tesla for forcing them to do that in the first place.

Yes, I would indeed feel ripped off if the CEO of Kia was like "Bruh! We charged you $64K for a $36K car!" You bet I'd 1) be mad if I had already bought, or 2) not buy that car. That said, we know that Tesla is padded to the gills with profit per car, and it absolutely shows in the total lack of quality in both materials and fit/finish. The only part of a Tesla that is quality is the battery pack and the motors. The software is only "good" because Tesla is a sole-source for components in the car that involve software, whereas legacy manufacturers like say, Ford, are having to get a Delphi item to talk to a Bosch item, and it's going predictably poor.

I do not want to buy a car so I can help build it. I want to buy a car to drive it. If I wanted to buy a car to tinker with, I'd buy a Classic or Antique or something, not an EV.

Tesla has indeed forced the EV game to evolve, and I hope car manufacturers can help Tesla figure out how to make a car. That said, my EV6 competes directly in the performance category with the 3/Y Performance models, and absolutely dominates anything Tesla has in the QA/QC/Materials/Fit/finish category. So it was worth $15K to me over a MYP. I got that much and more in quality, performance, etc. Now, were I looking to save every penny, the MY LR is a helluva bargain! But this was a luxury purchase for me, so why? But also...why pay more than the car cost to make, by such a large margin? Huge turn-off. Tesla has moved to fix this by and large, but it is kindof disgusting to previous buyers to see their car immediately worth $20K less just because a faux barrier to entry was removed for the sake of market share takeover.

Even more than the loss in value, it just tells me "We are all about cutting corners" when a manufacturer has a price/cost structure like this, and, predictably, look at them. Kia does not have these massive profits per car, and they dominate Consumer Reports, JD Power, etc. They are what Toyota was in the early 2000's. Still learning a few things, but absolute monsters in quality and value. They bring a high level of immaturity with them that I find endearing, too. Drift mode? 160+mph top speed? Fully defeatable traction control? Very un-Toyota of them! Tesla? Fart noises and leaking cars with leather that withers under your touch if you use any kind of lotion or hair product, but with great NAV systems and solid powertrains. If Tesla could hire someone...ANYONE...and get their interiors and exteriors and suspensions figured out, they would be an absolute powerhouse. As it is, all they are is a legacy EV provider that's being forced to stop making trash. The Highland is a perfect example....what changed about it? Better motors? Better battery? Nah mate! They tried to fix the suspension, fix the interior, make it ride quieter, better, handle decent, all the stuff everyone else is already doing. They are trying to make a car. I love it and want to see it!

 

[ChooseFreedom]

Yes, I would indeed feel ripped off if the CEO of Kia was like "Bruh! We charged you $64K for a $36K car!" You bet I'd 1) be mad if I had already bought, or 2) not buy that car. That said, we know that Tesla is padded to the gills with profit per car, and it absolutely shows in the total lack of quality in both materials and fit/finish. The only part of a Tesla that is quality is the battery pack and the motors. The software is only "good" because Tesla is a sole-source for components in the car that involve software, whereas legacy manufacturers like say, Ford, are having to get a Delphi item to talk to a Bosch item, and it's going predictably poor.

I do not want to buy a car so I can help build it. I want to buy a car to drive it. If I wanted to buy a car to tinker with, I'd buy a Classic or Antique or something, not an EV.

Tesla has indeed forced the EV game to evolve, and I hope car manufacturers can help Tesla figure out how to make a car. That said, my EV6 competes directly in the performance category with the 3/Y Performance models, and absolutely dominates anything Tesla has in the QA/QC/Materials/Fit/finish category. So it was worth $15K to me over a MYP. I got that much and more in quality, performance, etc. Now, were I looking to save every penny, the MY LR is a helluva bargain! But this was a luxury purchase for me, so why? But also...why pay more than the car cost to make, by such a large margin? Huge turn-off. Tesla has moved to fix this by and large, but it is kindof disgusting to previous buyers to see their car immediately worth $20K less just because a faux barrier to entry was removed for the sake of market share takeover.

Even more than the loss in value, it just tells me "We are all about cutting corners" when a manufacturer has a price/cost structure like this, and, predictably, look at them. Kia does not have these massive profits per car, and they dominate Consumer Reports, JD Power, etc. They are what Toyota was in the early 2000's. Still learning a few things, but absolute monsters in quality and value. They bring a high level of immaturity with them that I find endearing, too. Drift mode? 160+mph top speed? Fully defeatable traction control? Very un-Toyota of them! Tesla? Fart noises and leaking cars with leather that withers under your touch if you use any kind of lotion or hair product, but with great NAV systems and solid powertrains. If Tesla could hire someone...ANYONE...and get their interiors and exteriors and suspensions figured out, they would be an absolute powerhouse. As it is, all they are is a legacy EV provider that's being forced to stop making trash. The Highland is a perfect example....what changed about it? Better motors? Better battery? Nah mate! They tried to fix the suspension, fix the interior, make it ride quieter, better, handle decent, all the stuff everyone else is already doing. They are trying to make a car. I love it and want to see it!

Yeah, I personally wasn't looking for a "performance/luxury" purchase. But what I get for a what I paid is damn good. (used MS, 1/3 the price new)
The Kia's aren't my cup of tea. Just not a fan of their EV styling, but they're not ugly, personal preferences.

Like you said, each has it's strengths and weaknesses, and both are moving in the right direction on improvements.

 

[Macb00kemdanno]

As if we needed any more proof

Tesla Model Y range estimate reduced by 6%, becoming more realistic

The Model Y Long Range and Performance trims each lost about 20 miles of range, with no change in pricing. RWD Model Y is unchanged.

electrek.co

 

[MP3Mike]

As if we needed any more proof

Tesla Model Y range estimate reduced by 6%, becoming more realistic

The Model Y Long Range and Performance trims each lost about 20 miles of range, with no change in pricing. RWD Model Y is unchanged.

electrek.co

That isn't proof of anything other than Tesla following EPA procedures. (The EPA changed the testing procedures starting with model year 2024 vehicles, which results in a different EPA range estimate.)

 

[zroger73]

I wonder if Tesla has or will update the indicated range in existing vehicles to reflect this change? (I have 2023.44.30.7, but I'm not near the vehicle right now to check.)

 

[ChooseFreedom]

I wonder if Tesla has or will update the indicated range in existing vehicles to reflect this change? (I have 2023.44.30.7, but I'm not near the vehicle right now to check.)

I'm guessing the EPA will be too busy testing all the other 2024 vehicles to bother going back and retesting older cars.
There are probably minor adjustments to their testing every year. We're just aware of them this time because it affected a Tesla.

 

[zoomer0056]

As if we needed any more proof

Tesla Model Y range estimate reduced by 6%, becoming more realistic

The Model Y Long Range and Performance trims each lost about 20 miles of range, with no change in pricing. RWD Model Y is unchanged.

electrek.co

Electrek is not a reliable source of info. Especially because they lie and cherry pick info for FUD viewership. They say they don't know why ... they don't want their fellow FUD viewers to be alienated. One can not get full view of true story by reading only them.