Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

The DOJ Tesla probe has expanded to include EV driving ranges

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
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.)
The result is still the same. The EPA numbers are revising DOWNWARD to a more realistic driving range that people were actually getting. Not the previously inflated EPA numbers. The real change, which I found on VW Vortex is this:

Just to be clear that this wasn't Tesla's decision but a new EPA change which doesn't allow off-cycle testing to determine the adjustment factor. Tesla must now use the same 0.7 adjustment factor as everyone else.

I don't know many people who were getting 330 miles in a Model Y unless they were driving like a granny at 55 mph. 300-ish miles is more plausible, and these numbers reflect that.

My whole "Problem" is that Tesla's range disparity between EPA and real world was far greater than its competitors. This change should put things on a more level playing field and provide more transparency to customers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hurricane4911
Just to be clear that this wasn't Tesla's decision but a new EPA change which doesn't allow off-cycle testing to determine the adjustment factor. Tesla must now use the same 0.7 adjustment factor as everyone else.

I haven't seen that, but I did see that they now require testing in both the worst, and best, settings for both drive mode and height, and you have to then average the results. There may be other changes to the procedures as well.

My whole "Problem" is that Tesla's range disparity between EPA and real world was far greater than its competitors. This change should put things on a more level playing field and provide more transparency to customers.
That all depends on your testing and definition of "real world"... Edmunds tests show that Tesla's range estimates are more accurate than just about everyone else:

Edmonds, who doesn't tend to be pro-Tesla, tested actual range against the rated EPA range: Edmunds Tested: Electric Car Range and Consumption | Edmunds And Tesla came out the closest to the EPA range of all of the cars they tested.

They haven't tested a 2023, but there is no reason to think that they would perform much different than everything else they tested.

The data for the top, and bottom, 10 stolen from @exxxviii's post in another thread:
RankVehicleEPA RangeEdmunds RangeRange Precision
12021 Tesla Model S Plaid348 miles345 miles0.9%
22022 Rivian R1T Launch Edition314 miles317 miles1.0%
32021 Tesla Model 3 Long Range353 miles345 miles2.3%
42020 Tesla Model S Performance326 miles318 miles2.5%
52021 Tesla Model Y Long Range326 miles317 miles2.8%
62022 Lucid Air Dream Range520 miles505 miles2.9%
72022 Kia EV6 GT-Line dual motor274 miles283 miles3.3%
82022 Kia EV6 Wind RWD310 miles323 miles4.2%
92021 Ford Mustang Mach-E GT Performance260 miles272 miles4.6%
102022 Porsche Taycan GTS246 miles259 miles5.3%
222021 Volkswagen ID.4 Pro260 miles288 miles10.8%
292021 Volkswagen ID.4 Pro S dual motor240 miles272 miles13.3%
352021 Volkswagen ID.4 First Edition250 miles287 miles14.8%
442020 Hyundai Ioniq Electric170 miles202 miles18.8%
452020 Kia Niro EV239 miles285 miles19.2%
462022 Hyundai Kona Electric258 miles308 miles19.4%
472022 BMW iX xDrive50 (22-in wheels)315 miles377 miles19.7%
482022 Mercedes-Benz AMG EQS 53 4Matic277 miles332 miles19.9%
492022 Mercedes-Benz EQS 450+350 miles422 miles20.6%
502022 Audi RS e-tron GT232 miles285 miles22.8%
512022 Porsche Taycan (20-in wheels)225 miles286 miles27.1%
522020 MINI Cooper SE110 miles150 miles36.4%
532020 Porsche Taycan 4S (20-in wheels)203 miles323 miles59.1%
 
I'm guessing the EPA will be too busy testing all the other 2024 vehicles to bother going back and retesting older cars.
The EPA doesn't test every vehicle. They publish test procedures. The automakers perform the testing and report the results to the EPA. The EPA "spot checks" less than 1 out of 5.

 
My whole "Problem" is that Tesla's range disparity between EPA and real world was far greater than its competitors. This change should put things on a more level playing field and provide more transparency to customers.
The problem is that the EPA protocol is a disaster created by morons. Tesla follows the protocol flawlessly and produces ranges that meet the EPA criteria. Reviewers get Tesla's range numbers when they simulate the test protocol. So, external verification. The other automakers dramatically (and arbitrarily) sandbag their EPA numbers which makes the whole thing useless for vehicle comparison. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

EPA needs to scrap and totally recreate a BEV protocol that makes sense. They need to delete "MPGe," because that is even stupider than the overall protocol. New EPA could include a city range test, but it also needs a highway range protocol, like steady 65 MPH, 70 MPH, or 75 MPH range. InsideEVs, Car & Driver, and now Consumer Reports are all doing range tests like these, and they are more valuable than EPA for judging a car's range during highway driving.
 
Here's the full list of changes:



2023 EPA Rating2024 EPA Rating
Model S Long Range405 mi405 mi
Model S Plaid396 mi359 mi
Model X Long Range348 mi335 mi
Model X Plaid333 mi326 mi
Model Y RWD260 mi260 mi
Model Y Long Range330 mi310 mi
Model Y Performance303 mi285 mi

 
  • Informative
Reactions: Big Earl
EPA needs to scrap and totally recreate a BEV protocol that makes sense. They need to delete "MPGe," because that is even stupider than the overall protocol. New EPA could include a city range test, but it also needs a highway range protocol, like steady 65 MPH, 70 MPH, or 75 MPH range. InsideEVs, Car & Driver, and now Consumer Reports are all doing range tests like these, and they are more valuable than EPA for judging a car's range during highway driving.
More faster would likely be handy.
Some hings to be aware of:
The EPA 5 cycle does have a high speed test (80MPH max, but 48 MPH average) and the results are available for manufacturers that use it.

The EPA multicycle range test includes two sections at 65 MPH (these consume the remainder of the battery not drained by the four city and two highway cycles).

The range test and MPG test for EVs are different whereas ICE only has MPG and range is determined by reported tank size.

MPGe is just a scaled kWh/100mile number for comparison


SmartSelect_20240105_100507_Firefox.jpg
 
  • Informative
Reactions: zoomer0056
Here's the full list of changes:



2023 EPA Rating2024 EPA Rating
Model S Long Range405 mi405 mi
Model S Plaid396 mi359 mi
Model X Long Range348 mi335 mi
Model X Plaid333 mi326 mi
Model Y RWD260 mi260 mi
Model Y Long Range330 mi310 mi
Model Y Performance303 mi285 mi

Wow, that model S plaid to a hit.
 
The real change, which I found on VW Vortex is this:
Just to be clear that this wasn't Tesla's decision but a new EPA change which doesn't allow off-cycle testing to determine the adjustment factor. Tesla must now use the same 0.7 adjustment factor as everyone else.

I can't find anything that supports that. Just this EPA document on the changes to the procedures starting in 2024 which don't mention the adjustment factor:

 
Last edited:
MPGe is just a scaled kWh/100mile number for comparison
The problem with "MPGe" is that there is no "G." It is an asinine, contrived metric to try to equate BEV efficiency into something familiar for legacy ICEV-minded people. They should have made a clean break and specified watt-hours/mile or watt-hours/km as the metric. That 33.7 equivalency factor is work of preschoolers. That constant isn't even true, because the energy varies greatly between types of gasoline and seasonal mix.

It is not scaled version of kWh/100mile, because they flipped the fraction with MPGe. Also, whomever created kWh/100mile should be spanked. That is a terrible unit of measure with an unneeded constant baked in. The no-brainer is simply Wh/mile. These idiots are just making society stupider. (I also dislike miles/kWh as a metric too, but that is a whole other rant.)
 
Last edited:
"Ge" Gallon equivalent (amount of energy)...


Inversely proportional then...


Do you want pack size in Wh also?

View attachment 1006219
Just add a 0 to the 28...
I'm kind of tongue-and-cheek on this. But at a summary level, it is terrible science and misleading. "Ge" is made up and fundamentally just wrong. It is literally not a "gasoline equivalent." A BEV has the same efficiency year round and because electricity does not change its energy density. Gasoline energy density is practically arbitrary based on when, where, and with what someone fills up, so 33.7 is el-stupido.

Pack size at Wh would be ridiculous. The metric system solves for this. kWh is the appropriate scaled metric for pack size. Due to scale, Wh is appropriate for efficiency.

That said, mixing pseudo-SI units with Imperial units is also pretty stupid. But that is another rant for another day. Could you imagine the mental chaos if carmakers were required to express efficiency in joules/mile? Or BTU/mile? Or calories/mile?
 
Last edited:
I'm kind of tongue-and-cheek on this. But at a summary level, it is terrible science and misleading. "Ge" is made up and fundamentally just wrong. It is literally not a "gasoline equivalent." A BEV has the same efficiency year round and because electricity does not change its energy density. Gasoline energy density is practically arbitrary based on when, where, and with what someone fills up, so 33.7 is el-stupido.

Pack size at Wh would be ridiculous. The metric system solves for this. kWh is the appropriate scaled metric for pack size. Due to scale, Wh is appropriate for efficiency.

That said, mixing SI units with Imperial units is also pretty stupid. But that is another rant for another day. Could you imagine the mental chaos if carmakers were required to express efficiency in joules/mile?
Rods per hogshead 😉
 
And what adjustment factor was Tesla using previously?
I'm assuming the 5-cycle test:

Every original equipment manufacturer (OEM) is required to run at least 2-cycle to certify range for EVs in North America, but the drive cycles under consideration in 2-cycle tests are low-speed tests that aren’t truly representative of the real world. This forces the EPA to use an adjustment factor to yield a more realistic customer that experiences range. The default adjustment factor is 0.7, which reduces the raw range by 30% when an OEM opts to certify the range with just a 2-cycle methodology. For example, a car that achieves 500 miles of range during a 2-cycle test ends up with a 350-mile label range by using the default adjustment factor. However, the EPA allows manufacturers the option to run three additional drive cycles (US06, SCO3, and FTP cold drive cycle) and use those results to earn a more favorable adjustment factor. The adjustment factor can never be less than 0.7, in the case that the estimated adjustment factor from the 5-cycle test is less than 0.7 then a default adjustment factor of 0.7 can be applied.

So the best I can gather is that

1) Tesla was using the old 5-cycle test prior to 2024, which was overly optimistic
2) Tesla is now using the 2-cycle test with the 0.7 default adjustment factor like all the other EV manufacturers were using due to new EPA guidance

Someone, please correct me if I'm wrong.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: zoomer0056
Here's the full list of changes:



2023 EPA Rating2024 EPA Rating
Model S Long Range405 mi405 mi
Model S Plaid396 mi359 mi
Model X Long Range348 mi335 mi
Model X Plaid333 mi326 mi
Model Y RWD260 mi260 mi
Model Y Long Range330 mi310 mi
Model Y Performance303 mi285 mi

So either the Model 3's 2023 ratings were bang-on, or they didn't bother re-rating the 2024 Model 3s due to imminent Highland rollout. My money is on Door #2.