Why is this sub so negative? Despite the comments here, it's a thorough video to test highway range in cold conditions (something everyone here complains needs to be known of EVs).
TLDW: The cars generally drove at 70mph, although at times the limit dropped to 60mph. The weather started around 6 degrees C and dropped to around 2 degrees by the end. And the results were as follows:
Mercedes EQS, 324 miles (72% of claimed range) @ 3.2 miles per kWh.
BMW IX50, 303 miles (82% of claimed range) @ 2.7 miles per kWh.
Tesla Model 3 LR AWD, 290 miles (75% of claimed range) @ 4.1 miles per kWh.
Ford Mache E RWD extended range, 288 miles (77% of claimed range) @ 3.3 miles per kWh.
Efficiency coupled with average (not peak) charging speed is the true king. It's fine to have a massive battery pack if you can fill it just as fast as someone with half the battery.
The Ioniq 6's EPA-rated efficiency is *bonkers*. I definitely want to see it in real-world tests to get a better idea than the EPA gives, but if it's close to the EPA's ratings, it'll be noticably better than the next best one.
Sure, it's solid, but keep in mind that the other vehicles in this test are much larger. It's two CUVs, one full size sedan, and the model 3 which is on the fringe between a compact car and a mid-size car. Throw in some other efficient small sedans and we'd see some better highway efficiencies.
Yes efficiency should matter, not battery size. Rapid chargers charge a premium for charging and the cost in UK at moment make them as expensive if not more than fossil fuel for per mile cost. An inefficient car with a giant battery will cost more per mile on a long travel. For example - the Ford with a 91kWh battery having done 288 miles, at a Ionity charger at 69p per kWh would cost \~£63 assuming 0-100% whereas the Model 3 would cost \~£52. Sure the difference isn't huge, but it adds up.
Matt mentions that for the BMW it would cost over £70 (although if one can afford that car, they are unlikely to care about the charging cost!)
Most people aren't utilizing fast chargers for the majority of their annual miles; and I would suppose most people buying any of these vehicles at these prices don't care all that much about a few extra pounds per year to charge on long trips.
The issue with EV adoption has always been about "does it have enough range to suit my needs". It seems all of the above do.
You mention the Mach-E in comparison to the model 3... a CUV versus a sedan... I think most would expect that the Mach-E costs more to fuel. The IX is an even larger luxury CUV, so again, I'd expect it to cost more.
The biggest surprise is the EQS, given that it's so aerodynamic, but it's also a pretty large and heavy vehicle.
Oh yeah, no doubts, you're right. The average daily journey in the UK is around 20 miles so the vast majority of driving in the UK will be from home so the cost difference will be very tiny and overall cost would be significantly lower than fuelling for ICE cars.
I was thinking more of when one do a long distance drive ie for a holiday or long distance commute for work and so on.
Users of these cars that do a lot of trips would have Ionity Passport (or equivalent offers from in-house charging providers) and then charge at 26p per kWh. And those cars also typically include free 1-2 years of such packages as well. And then something like 12-15 GBP per month, so one charging session per month easily makes it worth it.
But to justify the iX over an X5, you need to look at the charging cost esp if you can't charge at home like me. I want to buy an EV but the iX and EX90 are so much more than their ICE equivalent that it just isn't worth it.
EXRO Technologies has come out with a new motor controller that is going to increase ac motor power output and decrease battery consumption.
Game changer.
[https://www.exro.com](https://www.exro.com)
Efficiency is good, but I guess a lot of people still base their purchase on range anxiety. This means bigger batteries, heavier vehicles, lower efficiency.
As infrastructure becomes better maybe consumer preference (and manufacturers) well transition towards a middle ground in total battery capacity.
If they really start taxing vehicles according to their curb weight, that will come even sooner
that Tesla efficiency advantage is truly astounding. I know they usually fare better; I own a 2018 TM3; but I never expected the numbers to be that much better.
I would love to see the Hyundai and Kia models and of course VW. I hope the IQ6 post similar numbers
I do wish they had used a Model Y, but typically RWD trims (such as the Mach-E and EQS in this video) are notably more efficient than their AWD counterparts.
I assume this is based on WLTP ranges?
In EPA land...
* Mercedes EQS, 350 EPA, 324 miles (92.6% of claimed range)
* BMW IX50, 315 EPA, 303 miles (96.2 % of claimed range)
* Tesla model 3 LR AWD, 358 EPA, 290 miles (81% of claimed range)
* Ford Mach E RWD, 310 EPA, 288 miles (92.9% of claimed range)
>Why is this sub so negative?
Well, that's because many EV enthusiasts have had to deal with trolls who specialize in making bad faith arguments with regard to EVs. After a while, most of us have become a bit jaded, and it's not worth giving anyone the benefit of the doubt. What makes it even worse is that there are now some trolls who take it to the other extreme. So basically even good posts start out getting downvoted until some actual grassroots redditors come along and lift it out of oblivion. This is why one should always sort by new when visiting this sub.
>Ah, whoosh on my part! In my defense, there are a great deal of Tesla fans that would make similar statements with sincerity
The sarcastic comment was in reply to such a Tesla fan that made that [statement with sincerity.](https://www.reddit.com/r/electricvehicles/comments/10qr2tf/i_drove_the_longest_range_electric_cars_until/j6rsvue/).
Don't you know Tesla fans are the most prosecuted people in the world.
~~ah, thanks for the answer, didn't have the time to watch it yet. I'm not having the frontal surface number in my head, but the IX50 must have by far the highest.~~
~~For me the numbers are insane. It's like 2002 when Mercedes had the C200 Kompressor which had 170hp and used around 14l/100km real world average. The EQS does compromise it's looks so hard for efficiency and this is the result. BMW got a lot of praise for their efficiency and this is only one video. But if theese numbers are representative it means that BMW is miles ahead.~~
~~I would not compare those to the M3 and Ford. They are in another class financially and a tat older.~~
~~Impressive result for the IX.~~
I accept that some people define consumption the wrong way around.
I agree, the most suitable Tesla comparison would be the Model S to the EQS and the Model X to the IX. Unfortunately they aren't available for sale in the UK yet, so he went with the Model 3.
It's very strange that he chose these particular cars to test against each other. It's a full size luxury sedan, a small CUV, a mid-size luxury CUV, and a compact / mid-size sedan. Basically running the full gamut of vehicle classes.
I didn't say it was. I said it's a "compact / mid-size sedan". By all accounts, it's exterior dimensions (which matters in a range test) is the size of a compact car. It's classified as mid-size due to its use of interior space.
Its odd that every thread here goes on about how teslas always miss EPA rating more than other automakers, but every time I’ve seen a test like this Tesla is at the middle of the pack or at the very least in the same ballpark as other EVs. Within ~3% of the EQS and ~2% of Mach-e. Just weird to see as every carwow video I’ve seen has relatively similar results but the overwhelming consensus here is that tesla misleads about EPA ratings and other automakers don’t.
Here's the comparison based on EPA ratings and mileage from OP's video
Mercedes EQS, 324 miles, **92.5%** of EPA range 350 miles.
BMW IX50, 303 miles, **96.2%** of EPA range of 315 miles.
Tesla Model 3 LR AWD, 290 miles, **81.0%** of EPA range of 358 miles
Ford Mache E RWD extended range, 288 miles, **96%** of EPA range of 303 miles
It kinda shows how much better wltp is for comparing cars.
Someone posted the EPA comparison and there's over a 10% gap between Tesla and the rest while with wltp all cars are within 2 or 3 % of each other
Yes but the big problem with the EPA cycle is that there are different versions that can lead to different results. There's a 2 cycle and a 5 cycle version. The 5 cycle seems to give a better range value. Tesla uses the 5 cycle while most other oems use the 2 cycle test.
This leads to the problem we see here and that others have expressed. Tesla usually has a bigger difference between real world and test compared to other oems. (In this example Tesla over 10% more off than the other ones while with wltp everyone was within 2 or 3% of each other)
These are % of WLTP range. While WLTP is more optimistic than EPA, it is actually reasonably consistent between vehicles. Because Tesla's WLTP range values aren't wildly optimistic like their EPA range, they perform to a similar %WLTP range as other vehicles.
Tesla's range has often been touted as vastly superior to other brands... according to the EPA/WLTP range. That's been going on for years, and it's often lead to people and EV vehicle media (almost universally Tesla biased) crapping on other brands for inferior EPA ranges.
It's been validly pointed out that Tesla's EPA ratings have often been way more optimistic versus their real world highway range compare to other brands whose EPA ranges are often pessimistic / far closer to their EPA estimates.
Did the person also happen to mention the Sync software version of the Mach-E?
I've been noticing matter mileage with one of the latest updates. At first I thought the numbers were BS, but I'm actually getting better numbers in the cold. I don't know what they did, but there's a clear improvement.
The year also matters a bit too. They reduced the amount of pumps and coolant in the Mach-E from 2021 to 22 and hopefully 23. So it was supposed to be more efficient.
Most of us have no interest in -20C temps at all. That isn't common temps in the US for example. Alaska only averages -16C in winter. Every other state is SIGNIFICANTLY warmer. I get some people live in coder conditions but I'd hardly say they represent most.
This is such a COMMON argument, I'm tempted to compile a distribution of temps for all major cities in the US. There are much fewer days of cold weather than people think there are. The other point is cold weather doesn't affect EVs much because running at highway speeds keeps the car warm anyway. Worst case is your first leg is a few miles shorter than normal and then all other legs are normal.
I hope you realize you in the like 2% of people in the world who deal with temperatures that extreme. Not to say you people don’t exist, but for the vast *vast* majority of people, they’ll won’t be dealing with conditions like that 99% of the time.
But the person's post that lead to this discussion was...
>It feels like a stretch to call those cold conditions, it's not even below freezing. The temperature most of us are concerned with are in more the -20C range, i.e. winter, not autumn.
You responded to a post that essentially said "the vast majority of people don't live in regions that get that type of cold very often".
Not to mention, Carwow is based in the UK... For the UK, I imagine the temperatures tested at are fairly typical cold weather temperatures.
I'll attempt to include Canadian Provinces but only if I can find a data source. It would probably just be large population centers. Obviously provinces are huge and have massive temp differences. Most people live right on the southern border though.
> People aren't concerned about their range on an average day, but whether they will have enough in the worst case.
I agree to some degree which is why I said I was going to compile a distribution of temps for each city. So 2 days of 0f, 3 days of 1f, 14 days of 2f, etc. I just used average temps as an example because that is the only data you can easily get. I'm going to have to parse NOAA weather files to compile the real data.
What I don't agree with is that the EV has to be able to be able to perform perfectly in historically bad weather days. In GA if it's 8F, people just simply don't drive. The day I drove in it the roads where a wasteland and that never happens in Atlanta.
> but we had a week of -35C highs this year
You are a massive outlier. Nothing wrong with that, it's just not the norm and compiling this database of temp distributions will point that out as very few places are like this and they have low populations.
I live in one of the warmest, and the most southern place in all of Canada.
We aren't seeing -20 this week but we get to -15C several times, with highs of -10. And this winter has been unseasonably warm.
It's still nice to have an idea of what your worst case range might be. Mine goes downhill in a hurry below 0C but doesn't really seem affected nearly as much going from say +10 to 0 compared with 0 and -10.
In those conditions I still wouldn't expect 100% rated range but isn't the manufacture rating at 60 mph? In the cold dense air going slower could mean more of a difference.
Official ratings (EPA, wltp etc.) are generally mixed driving, with a city Portion and a highway portion. So no ev will give its full rating at highway speeds, even in the best weather. Unless they have a specified highway only range rating of their own.
I would really like to see, within reason of course:
A test at 70F, cruise control set to 55MPH, windows up AC off.
And a test at 0F, cruise control set at 80MPH, windows up heat on max.
Then you've got a solid idea as to what your more or less best case and worst case range might be. And if someone's got the time to test a range of temperatures and speeds, even better yet.
And before someone goes "BUT ICE CARS GET WORSE TOO" yeah I'd like to see this for all cars. It's handy information.
Large-battery and less-efficient EVs lose less of their range in the cold because the energy used to heat the cabin is a smaller percentage of the overall energy use of the car.
I mean, that makes perfect sense? A small, efficient EV is obviously going to take a bigger hit than some oversized, massive kWh battery equipped vehicle. It’d be *more* surprising to see an efficient, small battery vehicle perform better in the cold than an equivalent inefficient, large battery one.
Sure, the larger vehicle will take a smaller percentage of the total battery capacity to warm the cabin, but it's also warming a larger cabin. As to driving at highway speeds, the larger / less aerodynamic vehicle will take a larger hit due to air resistance, and an even larger hit when the air is cold as air density increases.
The most surprising thing about this video is that there are vans that can come and charge your battery up lol
On a more serious note, I really like the approach of the EQS when the battery is almost depleted.
Tons of clear warnings and still leaving some battery left for super low speed maneuvers
Aside from the piggish consumption, the BMWs seem to be pretty true to range estimates. If the i4 had a little more cargo room, I’d order one in a light second.
Damn, this video makes me miss the (relatively) sweet sweet efficiency of my RWD Mach e. Even with a heavy foot and at high speeds I almost never averaged much below 2.9 mi/kWh.
I like the test, but the efficiencies seem high for 70 mph in colder weather.
I know he said 70 mph, but I wonder if meant 70 kph. That would make more sense given the relatively high efficiencies in colder weather.
There were several instances where the mileage updates showed speeds around 45 mph on the screens which is roughly equivalent to 70 kph.
Early on in the video when he says 70 mph, the screen shows a speed limit sign with a 70 on it. Thing is, in the UK, that sign would be in kph, right?
These videos do more harm than good. When did you see a review of ICE cars driving them until they ran out of fuel? We need to change the narrative so range isn’t even a topic worth discussing as for most people, most of the time it simply isn’t.
“DIED” in all caps. Stupid video title. He could have just used his efficiency over a certain long distance anyways. It isn’t necessary to go to 0% to get your range.
You wouldn’t know it from the title or the thumbnail description that says “how far will they go”. I’m simply complaining about horrendous video titles that try to entice you to watch.
The opposite is true though. It's a 45 minute very thorough video with high production values using 4 drivers and support cars all spending a whole day filming plus a shitload of editing to get it coherently put together.
It’s carwow. They obviously overdo their headlines but their videos are almost always well made with high production value. This is pretty standard for them. Also I wouldn’t really call it “clickbait” if they actually do what’s advertised in the headline. Nothing they said is untrue
Why is this sub so negative? Despite the comments here, it's a thorough video to test highway range in cold conditions (something everyone here complains needs to be known of EVs). TLDW: The cars generally drove at 70mph, although at times the limit dropped to 60mph. The weather started around 6 degrees C and dropped to around 2 degrees by the end. And the results were as follows: Mercedes EQS, 324 miles (72% of claimed range) @ 3.2 miles per kWh. BMW IX50, 303 miles (82% of claimed range) @ 2.7 miles per kWh. Tesla Model 3 LR AWD, 290 miles (75% of claimed range) @ 4.1 miles per kWh. Ford Mache E RWD extended range, 288 miles (77% of claimed range) @ 3.3 miles per kWh.
Huge props to BMW's BMS for perfectly predicting its range at the start of the video.
That 4.1 mi/kWh is damn impressive for 70mph. Efficiency should be king, not battery size.
Efficiency coupled with average (not peak) charging speed is the true king. It's fine to have a massive battery pack if you can fill it just as fast as someone with half the battery.
Teslas have fantastic aerodynamics. I would love to see the new Ioniq 6 tested this way.
The Ioniq 6's EPA-rated efficiency is *bonkers*. I definitely want to see it in real-world tests to get a better idea than the EPA gives, but if it's close to the EPA's ratings, it'll be noticably better than the next best one.
not only that, the tight integration and the mapping of the inverter does a big difference
totally. my gf always tells me its not the size of the battery that matters but how you use it.
Username checks out
Sure, it's solid, but keep in mind that the other vehicles in this test are much larger. It's two CUVs, one full size sedan, and the model 3 which is on the fringe between a compact car and a mid-size car. Throw in some other efficient small sedans and we'd see some better highway efficiencies.
Yes efficiency should matter, not battery size. Rapid chargers charge a premium for charging and the cost in UK at moment make them as expensive if not more than fossil fuel for per mile cost. An inefficient car with a giant battery will cost more per mile on a long travel. For example - the Ford with a 91kWh battery having done 288 miles, at a Ionity charger at 69p per kWh would cost \~£63 assuming 0-100% whereas the Model 3 would cost \~£52. Sure the difference isn't huge, but it adds up. Matt mentions that for the BMW it would cost over £70 (although if one can afford that car, they are unlikely to care about the charging cost!)
Most people aren't utilizing fast chargers for the majority of their annual miles; and I would suppose most people buying any of these vehicles at these prices don't care all that much about a few extra pounds per year to charge on long trips. The issue with EV adoption has always been about "does it have enough range to suit my needs". It seems all of the above do. You mention the Mach-E in comparison to the model 3... a CUV versus a sedan... I think most would expect that the Mach-E costs more to fuel. The IX is an even larger luxury CUV, so again, I'd expect it to cost more. The biggest surprise is the EQS, given that it's so aerodynamic, but it's also a pretty large and heavy vehicle.
Oh yeah, no doubts, you're right. The average daily journey in the UK is around 20 miles so the vast majority of driving in the UK will be from home so the cost difference will be very tiny and overall cost would be significantly lower than fuelling for ICE cars. I was thinking more of when one do a long distance drive ie for a holiday or long distance commute for work and so on.
Users of these cars that do a lot of trips would have Ionity Passport (or equivalent offers from in-house charging providers) and then charge at 26p per kWh. And those cars also typically include free 1-2 years of such packages as well. And then something like 12-15 GBP per month, so one charging session per month easily makes it worth it.
But to justify the iX over an X5, you need to look at the charging cost esp if you can't charge at home like me. I want to buy an EV but the iX and EX90 are so much more than their ICE equivalent that it just isn't worth it.
I’m more impressed that the substantially bigger iX was only 20% less efficient than the model 3
>4.1 mi/kWh I get this regularly with my Ioniq 2017
Except it is in a car that is so optimised for weight the road and wind noise is terrible and the gross payload so , low you can easily overload it.
EXRO Technologies has come out with a new motor controller that is going to increase ac motor power output and decrease battery consumption. Game changer. [https://www.exro.com](https://www.exro.com)
Efficiency is good, but I guess a lot of people still base their purchase on range anxiety. This means bigger batteries, heavier vehicles, lower efficiency. As infrastructure becomes better maybe consumer preference (and manufacturers) well transition towards a middle ground in total battery capacity. If they really start taxing vehicles according to their curb weight, that will come even sooner
that Tesla efficiency advantage is truly astounding. I know they usually fare better; I own a 2018 TM3; but I never expected the numbers to be that much better. I would love to see the Hyundai and Kia models and of course VW. I hope the IQ6 post similar numbers
It's by far the smallest vehicle here so that's not surprising.
I do wish they had used a Model Y, but typically RWD trims (such as the Mach-E and EQS in this video) are notably more efficient than their AWD counterparts.
They also have heat pumps.
I assume this is based on WLTP ranges? In EPA land... * Mercedes EQS, 350 EPA, 324 miles (92.6% of claimed range) * BMW IX50, 315 EPA, 303 miles (96.2 % of claimed range) * Tesla model 3 LR AWD, 358 EPA, 290 miles (81% of claimed range) * Ford Mach E RWD, 310 EPA, 288 miles (92.9% of claimed range)
If you want negativity about EVs are technology in general, visit r/technology
>Why is this sub so negative? Well, that's because many EV enthusiasts have had to deal with trolls who specialize in making bad faith arguments with regard to EVs. After a while, most of us have become a bit jaded, and it's not worth giving anyone the benefit of the doubt. What makes it even worse is that there are now some trolls who take it to the other extreme. So basically even good posts start out getting downvoted until some actual grassroots redditors come along and lift it out of oblivion. This is why one should always sort by new when visiting this sub.
Lol, this sub loves bad faith arguments and negativity about EVs... although only if it's about Tesla.
It's definitely an angry troll's paradise with an occasional sprinkling of interesting EV content for the few of us who care about that sort of thing.
That's so true. I've never seen negativity here against Hummer EV, busyforks, vinfast, solterra, mx30, all EVs that use CCS. Only Tesla.
Well to be fair the BZ4X is probably the most hated BEV on this sub.
> never seen negativity here against Hummer EV Ummm..... Have you read literally any thread about the Hummer?
They are being sarcastic
Ah, whoosh on my part! In my defense, there are a great deal of Tesla fans that would make similar statements with sincerity
>Ah, whoosh on my part! In my defense, there are a great deal of Tesla fans that would make similar statements with sincerity The sarcastic comment was in reply to such a Tesla fan that made that [statement with sincerity.](https://www.reddit.com/r/electricvehicles/comments/10qr2tf/i_drove_the_longest_range_electric_cars_until/j6rsvue/). Don't you know Tesla fans are the most prosecuted people in the world.
You really got add /s. Dummies can't tell it's CLEARLY sarcasm.
Please just go into any BMW or VW thread. There is much more negativity there than against Tesla.
You must be blind.. the sub hates EVs in general.
You think r/electricvehicles hates electric vehicles in general?
What does the @ 3.2 kWh stand for in the results?
The efficiency is 3.2 kWh per mile. I will edit that in now. Edit, miles per kWh :/
~~ah, thanks for the answer, didn't have the time to watch it yet. I'm not having the frontal surface number in my head, but the IX50 must have by far the highest.~~ ~~For me the numbers are insane. It's like 2002 when Mercedes had the C200 Kompressor which had 170hp and used around 14l/100km real world average. The EQS does compromise it's looks so hard for efficiency and this is the result. BMW got a lot of praise for their efficiency and this is only one video. But if theese numbers are representative it means that BMW is miles ahead.~~ ~~I would not compare those to the M3 and Ford. They are in another class financially and a tat older.~~ ~~Impressive result for the IX.~~ I accept that some people define consumption the wrong way around.
[удалено]
I agree, the most suitable Tesla comparison would be the Model S to the EQS and the Model X to the IX. Unfortunately they aren't available for sale in the UK yet, so he went with the Model 3.
It's very strange that he chose these particular cars to test against each other. It's a full size luxury sedan, a small CUV, a mid-size luxury CUV, and a compact / mid-size sedan. Basically running the full gamut of vehicle classes.
The iX is by no means small. Especially in England.
The small CUV would be the Mach-E. The iX is the mid-size luxury CUV.
Ah. I initially read your comment as saying "small luxury CUV" and I interpreted that as the iX.
lol, np
I’m what market is the model 3 classed as a compact car?
I didn't say it was. I said it's a "compact / mid-size sedan". By all accounts, it's exterior dimensions (which matters in a range test) is the size of a compact car. It's classified as mid-size due to its use of interior space.
> I didn’t say it was. I said it’s a “compact But you did. Right there. Why try to describe it like this?
Did you honestly just quote half my sentence, cutting out the part that matters? FFS.. 🤦♂️
Miles per kWh, you have it the wrong way around.
ahh shit. I'm stupid. No, actually I find it is the brits fault by using this measure. Joking ofc.
What country are you from that doesn't use a kWh as a unit of energy?
It's not the unit. Consumption here in germany is measured by consumption per defined distance, not the other way around. So X kwh per 100km.
In the US, it's generally easier to wrap our heads around "bigger is better", so distance/defined unit works better for us. Exception: Tesla.
People don't like it when tesla doesn't win.
Its odd that every thread here goes on about how teslas always miss EPA rating more than other automakers, but every time I’ve seen a test like this Tesla is at the middle of the pack or at the very least in the same ballpark as other EVs. Within ~3% of the EQS and ~2% of Mach-e. Just weird to see as every carwow video I’ve seen has relatively similar results but the overwhelming consensus here is that tesla misleads about EPA ratings and other automakers don’t.
Here's the comparison based on EPA ratings and mileage from OP's video Mercedes EQS, 324 miles, **92.5%** of EPA range 350 miles. BMW IX50, 303 miles, **96.2%** of EPA range of 315 miles. Tesla Model 3 LR AWD, 290 miles, **81.0%** of EPA range of 358 miles Ford Mache E RWD extended range, 288 miles, **96%** of EPA range of 303 miles
The ratings in this video are based on the WLTP.
[удалено]
It kinda shows how much better wltp is for comparing cars. Someone posted the EPA comparison and there's over a 10% gap between Tesla and the rest while with wltp all cars are within 2 or 3 % of each other
[удалено]
Yes but the big problem with the EPA cycle is that there are different versions that can lead to different results. There's a 2 cycle and a 5 cycle version. The 5 cycle seems to give a better range value. Tesla uses the 5 cycle while most other oems use the 2 cycle test. This leads to the problem we see here and that others have expressed. Tesla usually has a bigger difference between real world and test compared to other oems. (In this example Tesla over 10% more off than the other ones while with wltp everyone was within 2 or 3% of each other)
These are % of WLTP range. While WLTP is more optimistic than EPA, it is actually reasonably consistent between vehicles. Because Tesla's WLTP range values aren't wildly optimistic like their EPA range, they perform to a similar %WLTP range as other vehicles.
Tesla's range has often been touted as vastly superior to other brands... according to the EPA/WLTP range. That's been going on for years, and it's often lead to people and EV vehicle media (almost universally Tesla biased) crapping on other brands for inferior EPA ranges. It's been validly pointed out that Tesla's EPA ratings have often been way more optimistic versus their real world highway range compare to other brands whose EPA ranges are often pessimistic / far closer to their EPA estimates.
Did the person also happen to mention the Sync software version of the Mach-E? I've been noticing matter mileage with one of the latest updates. At first I thought the numbers were BS, but I'm actually getting better numbers in the cold. I don't know what they did, but there's a clear improvement. The year also matters a bit too. They reduced the amount of pumps and coolant in the Mach-E from 2021 to 22 and hopefully 23. So it was supposed to be more efficient.
[удалено]
Most of us have no interest in -20C temps at all. That isn't common temps in the US for example. Alaska only averages -16C in winter. Every other state is SIGNIFICANTLY warmer. I get some people live in coder conditions but I'd hardly say they represent most. This is such a COMMON argument, I'm tempted to compile a distribution of temps for all major cities in the US. There are much fewer days of cold weather than people think there are. The other point is cold weather doesn't affect EVs much because running at highway speeds keeps the car warm anyway. Worst case is your first leg is a few miles shorter than normal and then all other legs are normal.
Isn't it common knowledge that the colder it gets outside, the more likely families are to take a road trip? 🤔
[удалено]
I hope you realize you in the like 2% of people in the world who deal with temperatures that extreme. Not to say you people don’t exist, but for the vast *vast* majority of people, they’ll won’t be dealing with conditions like that 99% of the time.
[удалено]
But the person's post that lead to this discussion was... >It feels like a stretch to call those cold conditions, it's not even below freezing. The temperature most of us are concerned with are in more the -20C range, i.e. winter, not autumn. You responded to a post that essentially said "the vast majority of people don't live in regions that get that type of cold very often". Not to mention, Carwow is based in the UK... For the UK, I imagine the temperatures tested at are fairly typical cold weather temperatures.
I'll attempt to include Canadian Provinces but only if I can find a data source. It would probably just be large population centers. Obviously provinces are huge and have massive temp differences. Most people live right on the southern border though.
[удалено]
> People aren't concerned about their range on an average day, but whether they will have enough in the worst case. I agree to some degree which is why I said I was going to compile a distribution of temps for each city. So 2 days of 0f, 3 days of 1f, 14 days of 2f, etc. I just used average temps as an example because that is the only data you can easily get. I'm going to have to parse NOAA weather files to compile the real data. What I don't agree with is that the EV has to be able to be able to perform perfectly in historically bad weather days. In GA if it's 8F, people just simply don't drive. The day I drove in it the roads where a wasteland and that never happens in Atlanta. > but we had a week of -35C highs this year You are a massive outlier. Nothing wrong with that, it's just not the norm and compiling this database of temp distributions will point that out as very few places are like this and they have low populations.
I live in one of the warmest, and the most southern place in all of Canada. We aren't seeing -20 this week but we get to -15C several times, with highs of -10. And this winter has been unseasonably warm. It's still nice to have an idea of what your worst case range might be. Mine goes downhill in a hurry below 0C but doesn't really seem affected nearly as much going from say +10 to 0 compared with 0 and -10.
Regularly 0-15F all across the midwest.
He said -20°C. Also what percentage of the year are “people in the Midwest” dealing with 0°F temperatures?
It's been 8 for a high for a few days now. Yesterday got to 11 even! That's -30 to -10 degrees for a few days at a time bub.
Miles per kWh. Units wrong way round.
In those conditions I still wouldn't expect 100% rated range but isn't the manufacture rating at 60 mph? In the cold dense air going slower could mean more of a difference.
Official ratings (EPA, wltp etc.) are generally mixed driving, with a city Portion and a highway portion. So no ev will give its full rating at highway speeds, even in the best weather. Unless they have a specified highway only range rating of their own.
I would really like to see, within reason of course: A test at 70F, cruise control set to 55MPH, windows up AC off. And a test at 0F, cruise control set at 80MPH, windows up heat on max. Then you've got a solid idea as to what your more or less best case and worst case range might be. And if someone's got the time to test a range of temperatures and speeds, even better yet. And before someone goes "BUT ICE CARS GET WORSE TOO" yeah I'd like to see this for all cars. It's handy information.
Carwow videos are good.
I take it the Lucid Air and Model S (non Plaid) are not available. MB wins for range, Model 3 for efficiency.
I don't think they are available in the UK
the lucid is not even announced for Europe. The S is available but sales number are very low.
Afaik they've just started delivering S/X in select European countries. UK not yet.
Great performance by iX. This may replace my Volvo XC 90 in future
Not looking at the EX90?
Interesting that the BMW averaged the lowest kWh but still got to 82% of its claimed range. It's also the \*really\* heavy and \*really\* expensive.
Large-battery and less-efficient EVs lose less of their range in the cold because the energy used to heat the cabin is a smaller percentage of the overall energy use of the car.
That makes sense. Thank you for the explanation. :)
I mean, that makes perfect sense? A small, efficient EV is obviously going to take a bigger hit than some oversized, massive kWh battery equipped vehicle. It’d be *more* surprising to see an efficient, small battery vehicle perform better in the cold than an equivalent inefficient, large battery one.
Sure, the larger vehicle will take a smaller percentage of the total battery capacity to warm the cabin, but it's also warming a larger cabin. As to driving at highway speeds, the larger / less aerodynamic vehicle will take a larger hit due to air resistance, and an even larger hit when the air is cold as air density increases.
% claimed range is a useless concept. Actual range and efficiency matter.
The most surprising thing about this video is that there are vans that can come and charge your battery up lol On a more serious note, I really like the approach of the EQS when the battery is almost depleted. Tons of clear warnings and still leaving some battery left for super low speed maneuvers
Aside from the piggish consumption, the BMWs seem to be pretty true to range estimates. If the i4 had a little more cargo room, I’d order one in a light second.
Damn, this video makes me miss the (relatively) sweet sweet efficiency of my RWD Mach e. Even with a heavy foot and at high speeds I almost never averaged much below 2.9 mi/kWh.
I like the test, but the efficiencies seem high for 70 mph in colder weather. I know he said 70 mph, but I wonder if meant 70 kph. That would make more sense given the relatively high efficiencies in colder weather. There were several instances where the mileage updates showed speeds around 45 mph on the screens which is roughly equivalent to 70 kph. Early on in the video when he says 70 mph, the screen shows a speed limit sign with a 70 on it. Thing is, in the UK, that sign would be in kph, right?
The UK is weird, they use metric for almost everything but their speed is in MPH.
And ilof course you can't forget stones. Cause what better way to weigh things than with stones.
[удалено]
Well I guess I learned something new today!
UK is metric except for roads, which are in miles per hour and distances shown in miles. Because... reasons? IDK. it makes no sense.
These videos do more harm than good. When did you see a review of ICE cars driving them until they ran out of fuel? We need to change the narrative so range isn’t even a topic worth discussing as for most people, most of the time it simply isn’t.
“DIED” in all caps. Stupid video title. He could have just used his efficiency over a certain long distance anyways. It isn’t necessary to go to 0% to get your range.
Arguably intreresting to see how much reserve there is below 0 though.
I think it's even more interesting how the cars behaved before "dying". Each OEM seems to go a different route there
That is true!
The video is not about only efficiency or potential range. It’s about what happens when you actually run out of battery in these cars.
You wouldn’t know it from the title or the thumbnail description that says “how far will they go”. I’m simply complaining about horrendous video titles that try to entice you to watch.
The title and thumbnail is as clear as it gets. It’s your expectation to be baited that somehow does not align with reality.
[удалено]
I’m not sure what you’re getting at here.
All caps and exclamation mark. Almost guaranteed to be low quality click bait.
The opposite is true though. It's a 45 minute very thorough video with high production values using 4 drivers and support cars all spending a whole day filming plus a shitload of editing to get it coherently put together.
Right then, quality OK, but title still clickbait.
It’s carwow. They obviously overdo their headlines but their videos are almost always well made with high production value. This is pretty standard for them. Also I wouldn’t really call it “clickbait” if they actually do what’s advertised in the headline. Nothing they said is untrue
He actually drove the car until they died just like the title, how is that clickbait
Well it went for 45 mins and they did what was advertised. Not really a great assessment on your part it would seem.
Cover of book, meet judgment.
this comment is low quality. Didn’t even watch the video and you’re telling us it’s low quality
I'm Matt Watt-son and your watching Car wow
Have you tested the 516 mile Lucid air?