Good point.The more efficient the vehicle is (lower Wh/mile), the greater the range impact will be when increasing the drive load due to increased speed, using a reduced regen setting, or unfavorable environmental conditions.
You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Good point.The more efficient the vehicle is (lower Wh/mile), the greater the range impact will be when increasing the drive load due to increased speed, using a reduced regen setting, or unfavorable environmental conditions.
I don't doubt your experience. But that is far from anything that can be used to prove Tesla cheats. You better believe that any credible accusation would be litigated to the max. VW got caught big time.I believe, based on my experience, they are cheating somehow.
That can’t be true! Everyone knows that Tesla is blatantly lying and it’s impossible to get the rated mileage!When not carrying stuff on the roof rack, I usually get better than the EPA rating in normal commuting (lots of highway, but often traffic limited to 40-60mph). Granted, this differs from the forum-typical 80+mph highway driving or flooring the pedals often, but it is real world results.
Seems highly unlikely that they are cheating when at least some of the tests were performed by the EPA themselves...I believe, based on my experience, they are cheating somehow. If the EPA test energy consumption doesn't add up to the range, something is fishy.
The reason is Tesla's cars are simply better optimized for the EPA test, especially the Regen braking. That however doesn't mean it can't get that range when driven at EPA cycle conditions.That's fair. OTOH, the issue wasn't that CR's test showed all EVs get less real world range than advertised (based on the EPA guidelines). Rather, it exposed that Tesla vehicles get far less real world range compared to every other car in respect to their advertised numbers. The takeaway from their test was: if all EVs are tested equally, why are Tesla's number so much more inflated?
This isn't a new finding. I've been trying to find some info on this and didn't get far. Part of the issue seems that the majority of car manufacturers self report. Basically they just tell the EPA. Part of the issue is it isn't just one test. As far as I understand, the manufacturer has some freedom on the different test cycles. I'm not an expert, but it seems to me that entire process was designed to leave enough 'wiggle room' and ambiguity in favor of the manufacturer.
Did you drive it until the car came to a stop? If not, you have not replicated the EPA test. The EPA test ignores the indicated range and drives the car until it can't continue the test. Because Tesla leaves an emergency bottom buffer below indicated 0, you have to account for that.Fact is, when you drive a Tesla at the EPA rated consumption, you won't be able to get rated range. That has been the case with all my 3 Tesla vehicles.
Why wouldn't a car manufacturer use the method that gives them the highest range number?
Tesla's number are extremely hard to match. Here are the top 5 longest drives doing in a Model Y. These are from Teslafi.com which tracks thousands of Tesla vehicles. There are only 2 drives that exceed the rated range of the Model Y. Both drove an average of 45 and had an energy consumption of under 200 Wh/mile. That is way below the rated range consumption. It is extremely difficult to get the rated range let alone exceeding it.Tesla numbers are not hard to match or beat as a normal commuter. But the forum demographic that drives 80+mph and put the pedals to the floor should not expect EPA numbers in any car.
Looking at long drives are going to favor sections of high speeds, so it's unlikely to match EPA cycle conditions. Also unless those drivers drove from 100% full until their cars stopped, it won't replicate an EPA test.Tesla's number are extremely hard to match. Here are the top 5 longest drives doing in a Model Y. These are from Teslafi.com which tracks thousands of Tesla vehicles. There are only 2 drives that exceed the rated range of the Model Y. Both drove an average of 45 and had an energy consumption of under 200 Wh/mile. That is way below the rated range consumption. It is extremely difficult to get the rated range let alone exceeding it.
View attachment 1010295
Miles (full) | Miles | Wh/Mile | kWh used | Scaled Wh/Mi to match EPA |
414.61 | 356.07 | 187 | 66.73 | 237.83 |
429.54 | 343.02 | 181 | 62.05 | 238.48 |
393.39 | 335.52 | 198 | 66.27 | 238.93 |
409.85 | 324.61 | 190 | 61.54 | 238.87 |
462.20 | 314.32 | 168 | 52.84 | 238.19 |
373.60 | 312.73 | 208 | 65.04 | 238.37 |
381.99 | 308.15 | 203 | 62.68 | 237.87 |
465.59 | 307.28 | 167 | 51.28 | 238.51 |
FWIW, 2020 Model S Long Range Plus (mid year release) was tested and reported at 402 miles rated range a month later.Looking at long drives are going to favor sections of high speeds, so it's unlikely to match EPA cycle conditions. Also unless those drivers drove from 100% full until their cars stopped, it won't replicate an EPA test.
Digging it up, the 2021 Model Y which ended up with 326 miles combined cycle range achieved that consuming 77.7kWh energy. And the stats from people seem to indicate the pack has 77 kWh usable. That means none of the cars you show are anywhere close to 100% to empty.
2021 model Y scan my Tesla battery size
Compare Side-by-Side
I did a graph scaling the kWh used to the actual usable capacity as measured by EPA (77.7kWh) to get the range full. I also scaled the Wh/Mile to figure the necessary Wh/Mi needed to match EPA range of 326 miles. It ends up extremely consistent and also consistent with the gray line on the Energy graph (which from a search is around 235 Wh/mi to match EPA). So the results you post are completely consistent with Tesla's reported EPA range.
Miles (full) Miles Wh/Mile kWh used Scaled Wh/Mi to match EPA 414.61 356.07 187 66.73 237.83 429.54 343.02 181 62.05 238.48 393.39 335.52 198 66.27 238.93 409.85 324.61 190 61.54 238.87 462.20 314.32 168 52.84 238.19 373.60 312.73 208 65.04 238.37 381.99 308.15 203 62.68 237.87 465.59 307.28 167 51.28 238.51
So still not seeing any evidence that Tesla's results are inconsistent with EPA (which to repeat again EPA certainly have done confirmation testing by now and would have requested corrections if they found Tesla results were not repeatable).
If you want evidence of this, from Elon's dispute of the 2020 Model S results, the EPA outright said they were the ones who did the testing (and claimed they didn't do it wrong when Elon claimed the tester left the door open):
Elon Musk lied about the EPA’s Tesla Model S test, agency claims
So unless the EPA is helping Tesla cheat, there is no way the results are wrong.
True... but to the average Joe, who hasn't spent significant time learning the technical details, "range" means "how far can I go on a trip?". And for the vast majority of people in the US, that means driving on the interstate at speeds in the 70-80mph range.But the forum demographic that drives 80+mph and put the pedals to the floor should not expect EPA numbers in any car.
That may be but you need to take that up with the EPA, not Tesla.True... but to the average Joe, who hasn't spent significant time learning the technical details, "range" means "how far can I go on a trip?". And for the vast majority of people in the US, that means driving on the interstate at speeds in the 70-80mph range.
That's the number people want to know, not some silly meaningless MPGe number. I submit that the EPA needs to require a second range number--"highway range" which is straight up 75mph with the HVAC running. Call the current EPA number "city range". Stubbornly insisting that consumers are stupid and need to educate themselves about what the test really encompasses is at best a fine and counterproductive example of bureaucratic government arrogance.
Exactly my point. The EPA test sucks from an actual value-to-consumer standpoint. Tesla is playing by the rules and I don't blame them one bit.That may be but you need to take that up with the EPA, not Tesla.
It's that a fact for Honda ECUs? Many manufacturers tout HP/TQ figures using premium (usually 93 octane)....if the ECU is tuned to take advantage of higher octane fuel.
Take Honda's 3.5L V6, for example.
In Honda applications, this engine develops 280 HP using regular gasoline.
In Acura applications, this engine develops 290 HP using premium gasoline.
However, using premium in a Honda won't get you 290 HP. Using regular in an Acura will get you less than 290 HP, though.
Agreed, the EPA should not be allowing separate tests for the same function. The whole point of EPA ratings is so consumers can compare different vehicles efficiency using the same conditions. That's simply not the case for range in EVsExactly my point. The EPA test sucks from an actual value-to-consumer standpoint. Tesla is playing by the rules and I don't blame them one bit.
Yes.It's that a fact for Honda ECUs?
I wouldn't say "many".Many manufacturers tout HP/TQ figures using premium (usually 93 octane).
So interesting enough, my MYP with 20 inch wheels does get 300 to 330 miles when I am on trips in decent weather. (weather not in the freezing temperature area.)That's fair. OTOH, the issue wasn't that CR's test showed all EVs get less real world range than advertised (based on the EPA guidelines). Rather, it exposed that Tesla vehicles get far less real world range compared to every other car in respect to their advertised numbers. The takeaway from their test was: if all EVs are tested equally, why are Tesla's number so much more inflated?
This isn't a new finding. I've been trying to find some info on this and didn't get far. Part of the issue seems that the majority of car manufacturers self report. Basically they just tell the EPA. Part of the issue is it isn't just one test. As far as I understand, the manufacturer has some freedom on the different test cycles. I'm not an expert, but it seems to me that entire process was designed to leave enough 'wiggle room' and ambiguity in favor of the manufacturer.
Fact is, when you drive a Tesla at the EPA rated consumption, you won't be able to get rated range. That has been the case with all my 3 Tesla vehicles.
Like most things Tesla, its biggest advantage is marketing and deceptionMy Model S rated 405 gets about the same range as my Porsche Taycan 4S rated at 199. It’s a bit under 340. The Porsche has the perf plus battery which I believe is 93.4 kWh.
i just leased a EQS 580 sedan rated for 340 and can up a bit short in a test I saw with winter tires on it. I’m going to take it on really long road trip second half of February. It’s very comfortable.
I'm probably reading this wrong. R U saying the Taycan rated at 199 gets 340?My Model S rated 405 gets about the same range as my Porsche Taycan 4S rated at 199. It’s a bit under 340.
337 in mixed driving. My Model S does a bit better. Out of spec got 280 at 70 MPH on older software.I'm probably reading this wrong. R U saying the Taycan rated at 199 gets 340?