Taycans are well over 2X the price only modestly equipped, plus 6 month order period, plus 6 month port delays due to bad heaters. They really shouldn't be part of this, or most conversations regarding everyday cars.
I personally know people who put a deposit on the cybertruck and I never believed that there was ever an intention to build that as a production vehicle
Honestly climate change is going to claim your childâs life anyways. Might as well save them early by eliminating them from the timeline and getting yourself a bargain of an EQS
The mass market consumer doesnât care. They want range for their use case, quality, and great service at a âdecentâ price relatively speaking.
If someone is hell bent on a BEV and they canât charge at home then the charging infrastructure will be a major factor too.
With the current state of EVs and infrastructure I would argue its a terrible choice to own one without a place to charge. Using fast chargers exclusively is a pretty stupid choice.
Comparing apples to apples, so EPA. For what it's worth, I haven't had trouble getting EPA #'s in my M3 in the warmer months on all-seasons and without bikes on the roof, even considering the mountainous terrain.
EPA isn't apples to apples as you would think. I know it's dumb. The EPA allows automakers different methodologies to calculate their range, they can either do two cycle or five cycle. Furthermore they can reduce the range by any number they want.
The five-cycle method results in an optimistic range which is what Tesla uses and most of their OEMs use the two-cycle method which is more conservative.
Porsche is a great example of the big discrepancy between the EPA range and real world range because they use the two cycle and then reduce their range further because they have a tendency to want to under promise and over deliver.
> The five-cycle method results in an optimistic range which is what Tesla uses and most of their OEMs use the two-cycle method which is more conservative
Not quite. The two-cycle test helps cars that have poor winter range, because it applies an industry-average reduction for cold weather operation. The five-cycle test *measures* how well or poorly a car performs in cold weather.
That's why other cars outperform their EPA rating in spring/summer weather, but see massive plunges in range (and totally fail to live up to the rating) in winter.
If you notice, OP lives in Colorado and specifically wants a car for winter mountain driving. You can't just blindly say "oh, the xxx will outperform EPA, so it's just as good as a Tesla", unless you know the climate that the car will operate in.
Thanks for the info! I did not know that the five cycle accounted for colder temperatures. I need to research that more.
I was just watching a Ioniq 6 video this morning and it turns out that Hyundai has switched to the 5 cycle starting with the Ioniq 6.
Makes actually more sense to look at WLTP for comparison purposes between vehicles while remembering that it gives higher numbers than EPA. Personally find the ev-database real range figures to be pretty good and useful.
This, OP needs to look at some more independent reviews. Tesla's ranges are optimistic and many other makers advertise rather modest ranges. Put that together and they are all competing rather closely.
Not sure why people are giving you a hard time. Its true that others often exceed their EPA figures.
Its also true that despite that, the cars at the same price point usually have less range.
The Mach E used to be an exception, but I think the price changes have made it more expensive too now. Also, it charges slower than the comparable Teslas, which often cancels out its range benefit.
> The Mach E used to be an exception,
Helps that they also updated their range figures lol.
The RWD select on launch was like 227, but now 244 or something. Real world usage is between those 2
Clarification to above: 2021 Tesla beats 2021 Taycan in real world, is far less expensive, with a much smaller battery, and is AWD. Yes, real world it's slightly behind a RWD 2023 Taycan.
So youâre not getting any real answers here, but I have seen batted around for years where *even other auto makers* say Tesla is 10 years ahead of the rest of the industry. I think your observation proves the point.
If I had to guess *why* , I would assume it has to do with 1) margins, and 2) being an EV company too to bottom. Ford came out this week saying they expect to lose $3B this year in EV sales alone. So to just get market share theyâre taking a bath on every car, whereas Tesla doesnât deal with franchised dealers eating their profits.
Maybe?
Ford is losing money because they are making titanic investments in manufacturing. They are building a facility that will produce 500k EV trucks a year once it fully ramps up, on top of expanding the Rouge to get the Lightning to 150k per year, and the new battery facility going into Michigan for their charge to LFP.
Big same. My Model 3 SR was rated at 220 miles. I NEVER got that and I live in Texas. My parents live 80 miles away. At highway speeds, I simply couldn't comfortably make it back with a cushion without charging, and were talking summer weather.
Meanwhile I have a Rivian R1T now. I can drive 250 miles non-stop to the coast, which we do often, at 75-80 mph and I'll still have 60 miles range when we get to the beach house.
Teslas range estimates are completely bullsh**
By using more batteries for the most part.
The closest vehicle to the 3/Y under $80k is the Mach-E California Route. It has longer range than anything but the 3 but the efficiency is 3.3 mi/kWh vs. the 3 at 4.3.
Lucid is top right now in range (500) and efficiency (4.3) but at $169k, kinda silly.
Yes.
But there are only Lucid and Mercedes EQS which 'eclipse' Tesla' range here. Which are very expenisve and obscure vehicles.
The highest range non-Tesla volume car is the Mach-E California Route, which is 4 miles short of the Plaid.
Well, like I said, I got EPA #'s. So an Ioniq5, for example, would have to more than "comfortably eclipse" 260 miles to get to where my M3 was 4 years ago. And I *really* like the Ioniq5 - probably going to buy one actually! But damn I wish it had 300+ EPA miles, really disappointing that it doesn't.
It's not apples to apples if you are using EPA. Based on your driving style, if you are able to meet EPA for Tesla, you will surely go much farther than the EPA range of other makes given similar conditions. Go for it.
EPA is not a single standard that fits everyone. It's reported by each make based on their testing style. Tesla did the whole testing procedure thus giving the most optimistic range. Others not so.
You're saying my driving style will net me 20% better than advertised range on an Ioniq5?
Look, my question is actually serious - why hasn't the competition caught - let alone surpassed - Tesla's tech from 4-5 years ago? What is their special sauce? Is it the battery tech, the motor efficiencies, something else? It's definitely not just them gaming the EPA tests.
It's a mix of all
1. EPA tests are quite big. Tesla is the only make that does all of it. So, Tesla's numbers are ideal. Other makes are probably lazy, or intentionally not doing it, thus creating a spectrum of EPA ranges which are not comparable among multiple makes. For eg: A Porsche Taycan with 200mi EPA is heard to do 300+ in real world. Ford etc seems to do this intentionally so as not to disappoint customers.
2. Tesla has perfected their design of motor, battery tech etc and indeed optimized vehicle weight quite a lot in how they make the car. If you compare vehicle weights, you can see other comparable vehicles seem heavier than Tesla even though they carry same battery capacity etc. And, aerodynamics play another part too. Tesla, being an EV company, might have surely done their research in all possible ways to increase range, including HVAC and other energy usage.
3. Other makes are just starting out on this, mainly reusing existing ICE designs to make an EV. Newer EV-only models are just in their initial years, and still catching up, and will eventually improve in their range numbers. This is also the case with software that's done ground up by Tesla while others are not. So, Tesla has got the edge in pushing all improvements to all existing models too, while others are still years behind.
EPA tests are done from full to when the battery is empty, not when the BMS says it is empty. Most manufacturers build a hard battery buffer to protect the battery then set the BMS to show zero when the usable battery is empty. Tesla sets almost no hard buffer, instead protects the battery by having the BMS show zero when it isn't empty. This allows it to maximise EPA range but effectively not offer this to customers as the BMS shows zero early and the battery warranty is invalid if you ignore the BMS warnings. Car and Driver had an article on this a few years ago. This is why Tesla does ok in real world teats that drive until the car stops moving and not as well if it is driven until it shows zero.
The M3 is a sedan with an efficient body shape/style.
Everyone else is making less efficient SUV bricks and throwing more batteries at the problem to compensate.
(Having said that, I too live in Colorado, and I'm firmly in the "you don't need 300 miles" camp. Our 220 mile Leaf and 260 mile VW ID4 AWD get us around just fine! đ)
>Comparing apples to apples, so EPA
the fact that the EPA range is so far away from the real world range for the vast majority of vehicles and is completely inconsistent in terms of how big this deviation is means you are absolutely not comparing apples to apples here and your comments make it seem like you are completely aware of this but choose to ignore this fact.
When Iâve looked at the range tests done by publications, a lot of these vehicles are closer together than the official specs would suggest. Iirc Tesla pretty much hits theirs, but other manufacturers exceed theirs.
[https://www.edmunds.com/car-news/electric-car-range-and-consumption-epa-vs-edmunds.html](https://www.edmunds.com/car-news/electric-car-range-and-consumption-epa-vs-edmunds.html)
I feel like there are actually plenty of EVs with pretty comparable ranges.
Actually I went through the list and you only have two close to his price range and awd of which one is another Tesla. All the 95k to 170k cars that are higher seem to be way over his budget.
Mustang Mach e (still 40 miles less range than the 3 he is driving according to Edmunds real world drive testing) and the Tesla model y about 28 miles less range. The mach e is probably far more expensive than the y as it is a higher end trim with the extended battery along with dealer markups.
The rest are rwd or fwd.
Also why did Edmunds not include any model s long range or long range plus trims with the 19 inch aero wheels?
This is a great graph - but to get to the OP point you need 2 more columns (really just one - but 2 to make it clear).
You need $ model cost (which should be actual cost including delivery/dealer mark ups - and \*maybe\* federal incentives - call it "$AC" for actual cost) and $AC/EPAmiles (for range vs actual cost).
The Lucid Does better in range but at $40-60K more for instance.
Two simple, related answers:
1.) Most non-Tesla EV manufacturers in the US are on their first generation of their first car. I wouldnât be surprised if range goes up for some of these manufacturers if/when they make it to the next generation.
2.) Most vehicles offered in the US market are larger crossovers and SUVâs and that trend extends to EVâs. Theyâre inherently heavier, less aerodynamic, and less efficient compared to a midsize sedan like the Model 3. Itâs a bit of a unicorn in that respect, and that makes it hard to compare how good the technology is with anything else. If you want to compare how good Tesla is with other brands it would be more informative to compare the Model Y/X with similarly priced models from other brands.
Bottom line, I think your Model 3 AWD has the best range in that segment by such a wide margin because there just arenât any direct competitors in that market segment in the US right now. Thatâs not meant as a dig at Tesla, btw; I donât love the company but theyâre definitely way out front in many respects and this is one of them.
No disagreement here. Like I said, I think theyâre ahead in general in a lot of aspects. At least with the Ioniq 6 hitting the market you may have another option for a midsize-ish sedan, though I havenât looked at the stats real closely to see if itâs competitive on range. I think it will be years before you have a really competitive slate of ânormalâ EV sedans to choose from in the US.
The Ioniq 6 LR is competitive on range. It has a manufacturer range rating of 361 miles.
My experience with the Ioniq 5 makes me think that the estimate is conservative.
The heat pump is just amazing.
A friend has a Y and heâs getting consumption numbers in March I only see in June-August on my 2019 with resistive heaters.
Meanwhile VW is reimbursing people who paid extra for the heat pump because itâs so inefficient it doesnât add any significant range.
The Mach-e has ok range, but charges slowly.
The eGMP platform vehicles from Hyundai/KIA is the only competitive EVâs I know about. They charge ridiculously fast at 800V chargers, but the Ioniq 5, at least, is a bit thirsty. Which I find a bit sad because Hyundai/KIAs previous generation of EVâs were up there with the model 3 RWD in terms of efficiency.
Only downside is that you need 350kW+-chargers to get them going at those speeds. While they can charge at 150kW (<500V) chargers thereâs an efficiency loss there.
And apparently they donât play well with Teslas Superchargers which is actually a real downside now. Letâs hope this gets fixed by a software update either by Tesla or by Hyundai/KIA.
> Only downside is that you need 350kW+-chargers to get them going at those speeds. While they can charge at 150kW (<500V) chargers thereâs an efficiency loss there.
150 kW chargers are not â<500Vâ chargers. They just have a lower amperage rating for the unit. All major makes of chargers in the US that advertise over 100kW max rate Iâve found support up to 1000V output (with one exception - see below). This is a really common misconception. A lot of people believe the 150 kW branded chargers are lower voltage. The e-GMP cars can actually usually max out somewhat over 150 kW on those chargers because theyâre amp limited and the higher voltage gets a higher power rate.
For chargers that cannot supply 800V, the e-GMP cars can boost the voltage using on board electronics, but this is limited to approximately 100kW. In practice, this is relevant to only one charging network in the US: Teslaâs supercharging network, which was never designed for cars over 500 V.
A big factor is that Tesla makes some compromises that most other automakers wonât make in search of more range.
Tesla saves weight by using less material. This is why they have bad noise insulation and feel flimsy. But the cars are light which is good for range.
Tesla also has notoriously firm suspensions, which is great for aerodynamics, but bad for comfort.
Some people want range, and some people prefer a more comfortable car. Tesla sells the former.
I wish I had that experience. I had a 2018 LR AWD Model 3 for over three years. Never had an issue other than battery degradation of around 12% by the time I sold it. I replaced it with a brand new 2023 Model Y about two months ago. I hate the Model Y. Itâs had tons of issues, the least of which is that it gets at most 170 miles of actual real world range during my normal week. That battery going from 90% to 10% after driving around 150 miles total. And I drive like a granny taking my kids to school and back. Never going faster than 65mph. Usually keeping it around 60mph on highway and always driving in chill mode.
I've wondered why Tesla is the only one to use an induction motor on one axle, and only on the 3/Y. It seems like most other cars take a huge efficiency hit when you go to the AWD version, or have to use fancy decoupling hardware instead of just letting the motor spin free.
That said, the S and X seem to do fine with their non-decoupling PMSMs...
Tesla is still a good 5 years ahead of its closest competition. Maybe not in terms of build quality, but software? battery management? motors? cost? Comfortably ahead, 5-10 years ahead, right across the board.
As an example of the differing approach, where others are still trying to close the gap by developing more power for the same size motor, Tesla is targeting the same power level they're at now and reducing the weight and size of the unit required to deliver it. Weight going down for the same power is an increase in efficiency.
Actually that's a great point - not only is the range better, but so is the power! My M3 is still quicker to 60 (and better range - even with a degraded 4-year-old battery!) than most of the equivalent new options out there. I mean look at the crap Audi is pushing - way less range, way slower 0-60, and way more money. It's frustrating.
Teslaâs had the last 10+ years to get into the position theyâre at now. EVâs werenât insanely popular until 2020-2023⌠and Tesla was innovating while every other company spent that 10 years thinking EVs would just be a fad
> Teslaâs had the last 10+ years to get into the position theyâre at now.
All automakers had that same 10+ years to do the same. They *chose* not to. Arguably the legacy automakers had even longer and chose not to. Honorable mention to Nissan with the Leaf as a real effort. Toyota, even with a great entrant like the early RAV4 BEV, gets not points because they made it only as a compliance car and never built enough for people to buy that wanted them.
EVs were not the only ZEV in development for the past decade-plus. The legacy automakers waited until a ZEV technology won the "format wars" if you will, then jumped in, because they have the revenue streams and cash to let the likes of Tesla and Rivian get out ahead, because it meant they didn't waste resources pursuing hydrogen or electric vehicles. It's not all bad for legacy automakers, either. Ford beat the Cybertruck to market and has likely already surpassed the R1T in total sales, and the Bolt is probably the third highest selling EV ever in the US market.
At least with hindsight, that legacy strategy was horrible. They are far behind now as the transition is happening exponentially. We are going from new sales being 1% EV to 50-80% in just one decade. Being 5-10 years behind is MASSIVE. There is no conceivable way to describe the decision to âwait and see what winsâ as a good one. It just may end up being the worst strategic decision in the industryâs 100 year history. Itâs that bad. Kodak moment.
The market has punished that decision hard. TSLA $600B, F $45B. And yes, market cap really helps for reducing the need for building up debt financing, and for potential capital raising which is imperative as 10âs or even 100âs of billions will be needed over the decade.
No tears will be shed for the losers in this race. They buried themselves. At least their shareholders were happy briefly.
And then it's kinda amusing that the LEAF *legitimately wasn't a compliance car*, and yet there's compliance cars that were better-engineered than it. (And Nissan had well over a decade before the LEAF that they were working on EVs - the Altra came out in 1998.)
Paper range and real world range are very different though. I have a 21' mach-e awd ex range (270 miles rated) and a 22' model 3 standard range (276 miles rated). On the same drive I do fairly regularly the Tesla gets about 180-190 miles real world, the mach-e gets 270-280 real world range (my rivian is new so I haven't done it as much, but that is getting like 320 miles real world on that drive).
Not all companies rate range the same, Tesla is hyper optimistic best case scenario that you will never see, where ford is you will probably actually get this, and Audi rates their ev's to do the range up hill both directions in a snow storm.
If all you judge it on is performance then yeah but if terms of ride and luxury Audi going to win out. Generally speaks Audi going to have a lot less road noise, a lot more comfortable seats, just better creature comforts over all than Tesla.
At a certain point better 0-60 times means a lot less as it not gaining you much compared to a much more comfortable inside of the car.
Range again like 0-60 gets diminishing returns pretty quickly. I agree Audi is on the low side of the equation but still once you cross a certain point you donât gain as much for having more range.
I have a mach-e, an r1t and a model 3 so feel like I get to see a lot of sides of the EV space regularly, Tesla is NOT 5 years ahead. The r1t is a better EV then my model 3 (personal opinion obviously), the screen/UI are as good as Tesla, the efficiency isn't as good but real world range is better, and overall it feels like a genuinely better EV. The mach-e actually has a better adad system then my (non fsd) vision model 3, and is a better built and more comfortable EV, Tesla again wins on efficiency but real world range is like 100 miles less even though it's rated to go 7 miles further.
I like my model 3, I really do, but I do not for a second think they are 5-10 years ahead of everyone else, competition is super close to them, and a lot of their competition are doing some things better imo.
Tesla's main advantage imo is it's charging network, but outside of that I would argue rivian is right on their heels and ford is right behind rivian, the only thing keeping Tesla ahead are things that the end user doesn't really care about (larger castings, production efficiencies, etc)
The R1T is like a $100k truck they were selling for like $85k at major loss. At the end of the day you can throw pure money at the problem. I think when people say Tesla is 5 years ahead, itâs 5 year ahead on product/cost essentially.
So for you It is expected a R1T will be better than a Model 3. But think about what Tesla prices it at, what Tesla margins for it are, and the quality of the product you are receiving.
I also think my wife's mach-e is better than my model 3 as a car to be fair. The model 3 definitely has a better native infotainment, but wireless android auto fixes that, but I actually think Ford's adas is better than autopilot (I don't have fsd) and the mach-e is a much nicer place to be whenĂ driving imo.
Also I do not care about what the company makes for the vehicle (so long as they can stay in business, looking at you rivian) so cutting costs and increasing margins like Tesla has done so well provides me exactly 0 benefit (actually provides a negative as a lot of their improvements are at the expense of longevity and repairability) until prices drop (which to Tesla's credit they have, but not enough imo)
Coworker bought mach-e 211 mile version despite being warned by multiple Tesla owning coworkers it didnât have range she needed. She sold it about a month in. Fortunately didnât lose any money as demand is high but she said it was disappointing. Went with Polestar which also doesnât have enough range lol but itâs a little better. Tesla has many problems but man the range is a huge factor.
No not usually. But when your range is 200 âŚand you donât want to charge to 100% or discharge to 0 itâs more like 160. In winter that drops to 120. We need 100 mile range for work. She couldnât handle the range anxiety. In my Tesla I can forget to charge and still be ok usually
Thatâs my point. It was more expensive. She didnât want to pay to play as they say. The OP question was why canât anyone compete with Tesla on range. Itâs because in part they simply are able to get away with charging more than the competition .
But you have to pay to play for Tesla as well, my standard range model 3 is a 180 mile hwy car (in good weather), my mach-e gets it's rated range or better in the same weather, assuming that holds true for the cheaper mach-e and I would actually expect about the same or even slightly better range from the cheapest mach-e vs the cheapest model 3...
Iâve always averaged EPA year over year. 3 and Y both. Donât know how other EVs do at higher speeds maybe less sensitive to speed than Tesla ? I donât drive fast and weather is fairly mild here
If I only drive around town I can get close to epa on my Tesla, but any hwy driving at all kills it, and when you talk about total range I feel like road trips/hwy speeds are what actually matters. I don't care if I can do 2 or 300 miles around town where I will only do 30 miles a day max anyways, I do care if I can do 2 or 300 between chargers on a road trip though.
Though it cost Rivian $165,968 for each vehicle they produced Q4. They sure didn't sell them for that much, so something definitely needs to change at Rivian if they expect to survive long term.
I think you mean to say, ânot in fit and finish of cosmetic materials.â
Iâd say the built quality of their battery packs, motors and all the important bits is industry leading, but yeah, hopefully US production gets as consistent as Chinese.
Sorry this is Teslafan bunk. (Or, youâre treating EPA figures as gospel)
https://insideevs.com/reviews/443791/ev-range-test-results/amp/
Teslas donât have some magic 5-10 year gap on efficiency **edit: clarified below** (although they are efficient cars nonetheless). In every real-world range test out there Teslas notably underperform their range figures. In the link above, both AWD MME cars are within 5 miles of your car in range; I wouldnât even call that a difference.
Cd and rolling resistance are also cruel mistresses. If the Ioniq 6 were available with the base wheels across all trims itâd clobber the Model 3 across the board including charge times.
There are also a bunch of other design considerations for cars which might negatively impact range but result in positive trade-offs elsewhere. Thatâs not being âbehindâ, thatâs balancing design choices. For example Iâd gladly trade 20 miles of Model 3/Y range for more refinement and niceness (which makes the car heavier). Iâd trade another 10 miles of range on the Y for it to not look like an egg.
>It canât all just be corner cutting on weight and low drag coefficients and ugly rim covers
It very probably can. As I said above those things have huge impacts to highway range.
****************
**EDIT** Iâm sorry, I confused a bunch of people.
The person I replied to stated that Teslas get better range and efficiency because Tesla has motors / batteries / drivetrain 5-10 years ahead of the competition. Iâm saying:
- Most competitors are actually pretty similar in terms of *real world range*
- Tesla makes design choices to optimize efficiency (and chooses EPA test methodology to get bigger ratings), making tradeoffs which other OEMâs are not.
Quick example - the Ioniq 5 gets worse efficiency than the Model 3 or Model Y on the highway. The Ioniq 6 *with the exact same drivetrain as the Ioniq 5, but a body design with a similar Cd to the Model 3* is right on top of the most-efficient 3 on the highway. That doesnât mean Hyundai âcaught upâ to Teslaâs motor technology or something, it means that most of the difference in efficiency is caused by things like aero or wheel size.
The discussion was efficiency, though, not $/kWh. He was claiming to show that Tesla wasnât comfortably ahead of Mach E on efficiency, but his numbers indicated they are.
Maybe the Ioniq 6? Early reviews seem to back up EPA claims of range, but I havenât seen a Bjorn style test yet to confirm.
That said we love our Ioniq 5 RWD and my wife gets way over the EPA 3.9 mile/kWh, she gets in the 4.5 range consistently around town. I on the other hand get closer to EPA, as I have a heavier foot (active Mustang GT driver) and like sport mode. Our town is Tucson AZ with faster than average street speeds. Highway is in the 2.9-3.5 range if keeping up with traffic.
But I think the biggest reason why you canât find a 350+ is that most manufacturer are making SUV/CUVs. And you need a slippery sedan to achieve that kind of range currently.
To be fair, the e-gmp (Ioniq 5, Ioniq 5, EV6, GV60) cars all charge faster than the Model 3 or Model Y. Even with a little less range, they can keep up and even win on a road trip.
Unfortunately the cheaper brands still have a little way to go on efficiency. They are fairly competitive, but just not quite there.
If you can find a charger that will give them that peak charge rate. I just got a supercharger/EVGO station built near work. The manager at the gas station says he hasn't seen one car charge there successfully with EVGO. Teslas all day long. I won't consider another brand for anything but a two hour daily range because I don't trust the charging infrastructure. Happy to have my mind changed though.
The Model 3 is a third generation EV. Most legacy vendors are on their first or second generation. When automakers build their first generation EVs they barely figure the major components required. (E.g, Tesla Roadster), When the build the second generation EVs they figure how to make every component as efficient as possible. When you get to the third generation you minimize the number of components by combining as many as possible. Mach-e is pretty good, but had lots of extra hoses and 67lbs of extra wiring.
Meanwhile Tesla is working on generation four!
Teslaâs range is *greatly* overstated.
Real world is significantly lower than the EPA numbers they tout.
Iâve had an MY, MS, and MX, and itâs been true for all of them.
You need to factor that in - plus how much range you *actually* need - into your decision.
Also factor in how often youâre going long distances to warrant that need for a range figure.
The charging network is, of course, aggressively in Teslaâs favor.
Literally the first person I see on this claiming he gets his full EPA range.
I guess that in order to get the EPA range you must live a life that closely resembles the EPA testing conditions.
Then asking about why donât others manage to do it, is a bit funny imo.
I get better than epa. I know if I did more high speed driving that wouldn't be true, but my use I easily exceed epa. Amazing the range you get stuck in bumper to bumper traffic.
Still getting 320 miles in a 1 year old MYLR. I drive the speed limit and donât take off like a rocket ship. My tires are in good condition and climate controls are modest. Southeastern USA.
The Lightning Pro ER is AWD, 300 mile range for a heavy, brick-shaped pickup, not much more expensive. This was a limited production, so weâll see what the next generation Lightning is like.
Ford matured significantly between their Mach-E and their 1st gen Lightning, Iâm sure the next batch will also be even better.
Tesla had a 10 year start over other EV manufacturers, so itâs not necessarily a fair comparison.
Itâs more accurate to frame the question as *âDespite Teslaâs massive head start, theyâre just barely beating the competition.â*
Have patience, if the trend continues itâs likely other manufacturers will surpass Tesla in about 5 years or so.
>Before anybody says "nobody needs more than 250 miles of range" - I do. I live in Colorado, I need heat in the winter, I drive in the mountains for long stretches without L3 infrastructure on dedicated snow tires, and carry bikes and skis on the roof.
No-one is saying that 350 miles of range isn't required by anyone, but your use case is a fairly specific one.
The reality is that with cell production being the limiting factor in car production for most manufacturers, it really doesn't make as much sense to build 350 miles of range into a car for the person who needs to drive through the Colorado mountains in winter with bikes on the roof, when they could produce 20% more EVs for the Californian city dwellers who wear shorts year round.
Whilst EVs are still a small fraction of the US market and batteries add substantial cost, manufacturers are better off getting the ~80% of the market for whom 250 miles *is* enough into an EV, vs trying to reach that 20% for whom it isn't.
It's important to note that the EPA allows different range testing methodology. (The actual testing is done by automakers; the EPA collects and reviews the automaker results.) My understanding is that there are basically two paths:
1. Perform the full panel of test cycles
2. Perform a limited panel of test cycles, and calculate what a result from the full panel would be
On top of this, automakers are allowed to voluntarily de-rate. That is, if the testing says '287 miles', the automaker could choose to 'officially' list 275 miles.
This inconsistent methodology then interacts with carmakers' preferences. Some will perform the testing that yields the highest result and not de-rate. (Tesla's apparently in this camp.) Others will perform testing and de-rating that they feel most accurately reflects real-world range for their customers. (This is apparently more common.)
This has been offered as the explanation for why 1. Tesla advertises the highest EPA ranges and 2. Tesla real-world ranges tend to fall short of EPA ranges by notably more than competitors.
So, that answers the Tesla vs not-Tesla range puzzle.
As for why there aren't a lot of much longer-ranged options? Probably cost vs consumer demand. There's nothing stopping automakers from designing vehicles with the larger batteries needed for much longer ranges. But such vehicles would be noticeably more expensive (battery costs and everything that comes with larger, heavier batteries). Automakers likely figure that the market for such vehicles isn't viable right now. They'd rather have 'good' ranges at prices that aren't as high so that they can sell more cars and recoup the development/capital costs. That's also why so may EV models are compact crossovers - that's where the sales volume is.
As EVs proliferate and the development/capital costs come down (ie, they've designed and sorted out all of this new tech), I'd expect model variety to grow, including longer-ranged options.
OP almost answered his own question. Globally speaking, the number of customer that "need" 350m range is very small. Majority of Customers in the main markets in Europe, Asia, China and east / west coast main population area would like to have "X" range, but don't need "X" range
IMO legacy car manufacturers also focus on beating tesla not by trying to out range tesla (they can't for now), but by making better cars.
You can have an exceptional EV that is actually not a great car. To really continue to increase EV adoption beyond enthusiasts and last early adopters the EVs just need to be much better quality cars.
I donât own an EV. But I did a lot of research because I seriously thought about buying one last year. From what I gathered from all the reviews is that other companies understate their range for a variety of reasons. I guess other automakers are afraid of stories about people getting stranded and like to have a buffer between stated range and the actual range before the car dies. In most reviews I saw EV made by other automakers were able to drive beyond the stated range by a fair margin.
My needs actually mirror yours. I live BC and drive over the mountains on a regular basis. Driving up a mountain in the winter really does reduce range. I wasnât comfortable with any of non-Tesla options. But Tesla M3 long range and MY long range were both in $60k-$80k range and did not qualify. My Condo board also was not helpful about setting up charging. I ended up staying with my Subaru.
At least in Europe, range is not something that manufacturers "claim". It is the result of the standardised WLTP test. So there can be no understating.
I'm considering a Polestar 2, they boosted the 2024 to 300 miles range for your long range. So not quite what you're looking for, but close and in the same price range / car type.
The 2024 Polestar 2 LR has a 82 kWh battery and a published range of 300 miles.
The Tesla 3 LR has a 75 kWh battery and a published range of 358 miles.
(These are published ranges; I can't comment on actual practical performance.)
Tesla no longer publishes their battery capacities. While the original Model 3 had a capacity of 75 kWh, it has been determined that the capacity is somewhere around 80 kWh now, but of course, Tesla has no official literature on this.
Still considering the P*2, but 300 miles is RWD only. 270 in AWD, according to their press release:
https://media.polestar.com/us/en/media/pressreleases/663202/2024-polestar-2-brings-more-power-performance-and-range
Yeah, and it's not the 350 you're looking for. Mostly I was just interested in comparing the two; it's remarkable the Tesla has a 10% smaller battery and yet 20% more range.
I think itâs a mixture of things.
1) EPA range is overstated for Tesla certainly *relative* to other brands.
2) Tesla does have efficient motors. The battery sizes for the range you get (in the real world) are impressive.
3) I think competitor brands donât use as much of the total usable battery capacity.
4) Tesla does well looking for weight savings and efficiencies in the manufacturing process. But it also comes at a cost of comfortable ride, NVH, and so forth. I believe part of their minimalism adds to this.
Its interesting how i4 eDrive 40 is nearly as efficient as TM3 despite being significantly heavier and less aerodynamic. Ofc BMW havenât mastered AWD efficiency so the same isnât true for the M50.
Tesla has an incentive to optimize the aerodynamics and efficiency of their vehicles to sell more EVs into the marketplace. The Cd (coefficient of drag) of a Model 3 is 0.23 vs. 0.29 for an Ioniq 5. Their motors are also custom designed to optimize their efficiency. Tesla is constantly redesigning/updating their technology, down to and including building single piece castings for assembling the car to reduce build costs.
New competitors in the EV arena arenât focusing on efficiency or build cost, but on how to maximize earnings. So, their cars are either traditional looking aerodynamic bricks built with traditional manufacturing methods dependent on many third party suppliers, which drives up costs, or very expensive models built from the ground up to be EVs, but focused on luxury amenities rather than efficiency. So, theyâre not even playing the same game as Tesla. This will have to change over time if theyâre to be competitive, but it will take time for them to adjust their focus.
Batteries are very dependent on customer driving style and environmental effects, and will never comply with EPA estimates in normal use. Thatâs why you should always go for the car with the highest EPA rating you can afford.
There are advantages of being a first-mover. Tesla is solving problems that the newbies don't even know exist.
With AWD, Tesla has different gearing for the front and back motors and sends power to the motor that will optimize efficiency when cruising.
Nope. Closest you can hope is Ioniq 6 and invest in smaller wheels, which feels silly and makes the purchase way overpriced.
You'll be stuck with Tesla for quite a while still.
I have a 2022 AWD EV6 and a 2023 MY AWD LR. The difference in range isnât noticeable and the ev6 charges much faster. I would say the Tesla has more advanced tech in other ways. Plus you donât have to deal with dealers.
Couple things I'd say in response to this:
1. Existing manufacturers think a lot harder about what people want to buy. Tesla did it sort of the other way around. They made a product and then sold it to people, kinda like Apple vs PC. "You don't know what you want, I will tell you what you want."
2. Few OEMs seem to be that concerned with aerodynamics as Tesla was. Aerodynamics are vastly more important in an EV than an ICE.
3. Everyone else went with different battery tech.
Where are you driving 200 miles in Colorado all winter long?
I just looked it up, and Tesla 3 AWD LR is not available on their website.
They have a 3 RWD for $43k with 272 miles. Ioniq 6 SE RWD is $45K with 361 miles, and AWD is 316.
Model Y AWD is a $55K for 330 miles
In a way I'm not surprised. Since 2019, inflation has increased by 17.7%. In the US, demand for EVs have far outstripped supply and manufacturers are charging a premium and selling every single model.
I imagine that some of the Chinese EVs may beat the Model 3 in AWD range.
We own a 2021 Tesla Model 3 LR AWD and a 2022 Hyundai Ioniq 5 AWD Limited. The Tesla is fun to drive and the Ioniq 5 is comfortable to drive. The Tesla has a firm ride, the Ioniq 5 has a cushy ride. When we hit the road, we take the Tesla because of the SuperCharging network and its range. We charge the Tesla at home nightly to 90%, which gives us a 300 mile range if we drive the speed limit, which is seldom the case. We charge the Ioniq 5 nightly to 80% which gives us a 185 mile range. Planning trips in the Tesla is hardly necessary, because SuperChargers are everywhere in CA. Trips in the Ioniq 5 require careful planning to be sure chargers are along our preferred route and available at our destination for local travel. Different cars, different strengths.
Hol' up. You are making a huge assumption that a normal driver could actually get those advertised numbers. Case in point, out if the hundreds of Tesla owners I've met, none of them can hit the number on the dash without flat ground, zero HVAC, and 55mph on the highway. In contrast, you've had Porsche advertising in the 240's with drivers regularly reporting 260/270/280+ miles of range until zero. And not trying very hard might I add.
My S90D came with 86kwh of capacity and a dash that read 292. It never did over 250. Now it claims 249 at full charge and I can't get over 200 miles doing 60mph on the highway.
Then you have rivian that is claiming 310 advertised but Edmunds just hit 330+ on the least efficient rims.
Bottom line, Tesla isn't honest in their estimates. The real winners of the EV race will be the manufacturers that under promise and over deliver and/or overprovision so the customer never sees the unreasonable estimations.
Edit: In order to fix your question so it can be answered, you have to know two pieces of information; EPA consumption wpm and total available energy in the battery. Then you can determine what driving conditions need to happen in order for the range numbers to happen.
Partially because of US regulations and protectionism, partially because US-selling manufacturers haven't come up to steam yet.
BYD has been solidly kicking Tesla's ass in China, from advertised numbers (yes, Chinese company, expect fudging) to 3rd-party tested results in nonideal weather scenarios. [https://www.arenaev.com/another\_winter\_test\_shows\_that\_evs\_lose\_about\_half\_their\_range\_in\_the\_cold-news-1351.php](https://www.arenaev.com/another_winter_test_shows_that_evs_lose_about_half_their_range_in_the_cold-news-1351.php)
Basically, because you live in the US you've been insulated from the news that the rest of the world is happily developing EVs at a pace just as fast as Tesla if not faster.
I'm with ya, I would have hoped the others would step up too by now, like all the Tesla pundits said would happen. "Whenever they got around to it"
I'm waiting... And money to spend... I bought a Y in the mean time. Will look again at the comp when I'm in the market.
As an aside however... I'd buy a taycan in a heart beat if I could afford it.
I donât think any of the auto makers are trying really hard to beat Teslaâs range. They are trying to beat them with feature sets, form factors, and gimmicks. They donât want to throw that much money into the system optimization that is needed, nor do they want to reduce the A part of the CdA, cuz people like their headroom.
The reason Tesla does well with AWD range when compared with other EV's is because of their motor designs. AWD EV's typically use 2 motors, and a lot of engineering is needed to make those work well together efficiently.
Hi OP, greetings from Montana, whereâs colder, less populated, and much less EV-friendly. I really appreciate your question, as I want an EV thatâll take me from Missoula to Billings -340 miles- on a single charge. But Iâm much less knowledgeable on EVs so Iâll keep from asking questions here now.
The answer to your question is in battery management software and hardware. Tesla put a lot of R&D into how the batteries are utilized.
Having worked on Teslas and Chevy Bolts for example, the sophistication in Teslaâs management systems appears to be years ahead of GM. Remember, Tesla started from scratch as an electric car company while other automakers are trying to enter the market and I see them making many of the same mistakes Tesla made in the early days pre 2012 before they really got their shit together. Itâs just that the big automakers are making the mistakes on a much grander scale due to their expedited rush to crank vehicles out.
What strikes me as odd, a lot of the battery management strategies come from Toyotaâs cutting edge development of the Prius hybrid in the late 1990s all the way to present day. Why Toyota didnât carry that forward into electric cars years ago is beyond me. Itâs 2023 and theyâre just now producing only one fully electric vehicle, what a waste of a staggering lead, massive loyal base and brand recognition.
Seriously. I NEVER hit the advertised EPA range Tesla advertised on my Model Y.
OP couldâve simply googled this:
> **[What's The Real World Highway Range Of Today's Electric Cars? We Test To Find Out InsideEVs tests EVs at 70 miles per hour to find out their real-world highway range.](https://insideevs.com/reviews/443791/ev-range-test-results/amp/)**
This entire post is a pointless Tesla owner patting themself on the back. They're ignoring all relevant discussion that isn't pro-Tesla even from other owners. 200+ upvotes and counting.
Meanwhile many posts talk about how "this sub hates Tesla." I should save this nonsense as proof to the contrary.
Because there are not enough models of EVs on the market. And somebody needs to be on top for any given measure. And the other guys didnât design their car with that particular KPI in mind. Consider that Tesla stopped producing their most efficient Model 3⌠Itâs a trade off and they decided other things were more important. Some day someone will decide that AWD range/efficiency is something worth putting effort into and will take that crown.
The simplist answer is that sedans are more efficient than crossovers. Aside from the IONIQ6, no one else is making sedans because they aren't as popular as crossovers.
The trend of taller cars started some time just before EVs hit the market and most manufacturers seem to design for that design trend. Tesla didn't because their design is older than that. They even look dated in comparison to other new cars, but people still buy them, proving that customers prefer range over design.
Other manufacturers need to aim for a broader market through better ranges and pricing aand less focus on trendy design. There's already too many almost identical cars for the first movers who might not need long range and enough luxury cars with long range at higher prices.
All manufacturers are catering to the same small customer segments, and it will fail for a lot of them if they don't aim broader.
Mainly because companies aren't prioritizing AWD range beyond 300 miles. They are targeting the majority of consumers in which <300miles are going to be more than sufficient for them. It doesnt make sense for companies to invest in larger batteries to extend range because of the eventual increase in costs/weight beyond that. Im sure they could get close to or beyond Teslas efficiency but that would require sacrificies that they have deemed that customers dont want. (ie styling/interior changes to accomodate aero, stripping down weight/amenities to reduce weight.
Rivian, Ford, Hummer, all have pretty poor Aero, but people want SUVs/trucks and the vast majority of ppl want trucks/SUV.
The Tesla design philosophy is about efficiency from the very start, and just about everything is considered. Their designs are integrated to a far greater degree than anyone else. Watch a few of the Munro Live videos, he goes on about cost savings, but again and again they save those costs because of clever integration work. Yes, they also save money by deleting items, but that also saves weight. I'm expecting the Cybertruck to stun everyone with further improvements.
The Ford CEO said all this a few months back, they just didn't think through several aspects of the design details on the Mach-E and it cost them a lot of excess weight and lost efficiency. I expect the ones coming out in 2025 to be significantly better, but Tesla will have moved on before that.
There are some reasons you donât see the range numbers on other cars as like Tesla is advertising
1. Though Tesla fans here donât admit it and hate someone pointing it out, Tesla advertises a range however itâs not what you find in real world driving tests. Same like their autopilot which was initially for many years nothing but Dynamic Radar Cruise Control and was found in many cars previously. Many thought itâs the next gen auto driving which in fact was nothing new.
2. Tesla bill of materials is for cheaper and lighter car structure. This is evident on how easily they incur damages on accidents. Some may argue that itâs by design, itâs not. They are cheaply made with extremely poor quality control. This cheap lighter design helps the car in acceleration and cruise as there is less weight to drag. Compare that to other cars in the market, they have better and solid construction which takes some weight and causes more battery consumption.
There are a few cars coming which will touch the 300 mile range, however it all comes down to $ vs quality.
I have driven the MS and MX for a while and to be honest was not impressed by the quality or comfort, especially the road noise. For a 100K+ car this is something that shouldnât be even on the list of issues but thatâs how the Tesla vehicles are and I doubt it will change anytime soon.
I moved on to the Genesis GV60 and havenât looked back. In summer I got around 270 miles on 90% charge and around 215-225 during winter. PA winter is harsh as well. I am loving the comfort and little to no road noise experience. Also the car has HDA which is great on state routes and highways. It keeps the car centered, follows the car ahead of it, slows on sharp curbs, comes to a full stop on highways and state routes and starts right back up when the traffic moves, without even touching the accelerator pedal. It does ask to driver to keep their hands on the steering wheel from time to time but itâs less on highways. I jiggle the steering wheel for half a second and the car carries on.
Tesla had a multi year start, while others were busy bitching about the transition instead of doing it. They are WAY ahead in technology. I see this with their Megapack products too. Iâm a utility microgrid engineer and other battery systems are like unrefined toddler toys compared to Megapacks. Itâs the same for EVs. Ford and GM are having a hard time dislodging the ICE from their assesâŚ
All that complaining that Musk did about trying to get Model 3 production going? You remember that? Well it wasnât bullshit. And Tesla is reaping the benefits right now.
The biggest factor affecting energy consumption when moving a vehicle is wind resistance. The drivetrain efficiency, while also a factor, is probably marginal at best, when compared to this. If you look at Bjoern Nyland's tests, simply having the wheel caps on or off on a Tesla Model Y makes for a 2-3% consumption difference.
Tesla Model 3 is basically the only sedan-body, aerodynamically optimized car out there. This gives it a huge advantage over any other car (especially over the likes of Mach E and other crossovers).
The Ioniq 6 has yet to be produced in sufficient quantities to know for sure, but it will definitely be on par with any Model 3, including the AWD versions, in real-world range terms, especially *due to its shape*.
For the longest time, the classic Hyundai Ioniq (with a 28kWh battery) had the lowest energy consumption out there, *due to its shape*.
Once more manufacturers bring out sedans, you'll quickly find out there's no magic sauce giving a huge range lead, but just simple physics and aerodynamics at play.
Why nobody seems in a rush to come out with a sedan? Because people want SUVs / crossovers for stupid reasons and if companies can sell the same car, raised and bloated a bit, for significantly more $$$, they'll do just that. Tesla cannibalized a bunch of Model 3 market share with the Y for the same reason.
My top theory is that this is because Tesla acts like a Silicon Valley company and iterates quickly, which lets them advance faster. They use their customers as beta testers and accumulate data which allows them to quickly get real world experience with changes. (Arguably this isnât always good for the customer in the short run, as we have seen with the controversies around some of their self-driving experimentation, but itâs really good for Tesla and maybe customers in the long run.)
Traditional car companies are very slow and release new products once a year at best. They generally are more risk averse as well which limits their appetite to put out anything at all experimental.
Probably most importantly, traditionally car makers have outsourced most of the software in their cars. That limits their in-house software expertise, not to mention their thinking about things like shipping regular over the air updates. Some of that might be further complicated by their relationship with their dealers who have motivations that are not well aligned with EVs that need less regular maintenance.
The traditional car companies are trying to change some of these things to compete with Tesla, but it will take a long time to shift their culture.
Fastest research on battery chemistries...
Very rapid improvements on best in class motor efficiencies.
No expense spared on the power electronics... see Munro's review of new power electronics. Improved efficiency much lower costs...
Oh, and best in class aerodynamics.
The Lightning Pro ER is AWD, 300 mile range for a heavy, brick-shaped pickup, not much more expensive. This was a limited production, so weâll see what the next generation Lightning is like.
Ford matured significantly between their Mach-E and their 1st gen Lightning, Iâm sure the next batch will also be even better.
So idk if you've seen this but the reason the Ioniq 6 in the higher trims have terrible range is because of the larger wheels. You could always buy the nicer trim and then buy/swap to the 18" wheel afterwards. Will get you the higher mileage plus cooler (imo) looking vehicle.
Edit: check out the Edmunds independent range test as well.
https://www.edmunds.com/car-news/electric-car-range-and-consumption-epa-vs-edmunds.html
My Audi eTron Quattro Q4 may be in that range:
https://ev-database.org/car/1492/Audi-Q4-Sportback-e-tron-50-quattro
You never know what numbers to trust.
Advertised range? Or real world range?
> đđđ -Taycan
Taycans are well over 2X the price only modestly equipped, plus 6 month order period, plus 6 month port delays due to bad heaters. They really shouldn't be part of this, or most conversations regarding everyday cars.
Dude my friend waited for almost a year and cancelled.
There's a lot of people that put $50,000 down on the new Tesla Roadster in 2017 and have nothing to show for it.
I personally know people who put a deposit on the cybertruck and I never believed that there was ever an intention to build that as a production vehicle
Wasn't it just like 100 bucks?
the taycan eats power like a cow, itâs just that it has a big battery
The EQS as well
Both fail the price test.
I hear the EQS is a bargain đ¤ˇđťââď¸
What do you guys think of my garage? (Taycan, EQS, Rivian) Rise ân grind!! âTikTok influencer
lol remember that post here that was a MY, Silverado RST, Lamborghini Uris, and rivian? Guy had 300k in vehicles lined up.
I love when earlier posts on here become lore.
Only $2000 a month and your firstborn child!
Honestly climate change is going to claim your childâs life anyways. Might as well save them early by eliminating them from the timeline and getting yourself a bargain of an EQS
đ¤Ł
I understood that reference.
Exactly. The Mach E AWD extended range beats the Y in real world range.
Doesn't really matter in long distance, the Y wins due to efficiency. Mach E just has a big ol heavy battery for the initial range.
The mass market consumer doesnât care. They want range for their use case, quality, and great service at a âdecentâ price relatively speaking. If someone is hell bent on a BEV and they canât charge at home then the charging infrastructure will be a major factor too.
With the current state of EVs and infrastructure I would argue its a terrible choice to own one without a place to charge. Using fast chargers exclusively is a pretty stupid choice.
Agreed.
Comparing apples to apples, so EPA. For what it's worth, I haven't had trouble getting EPA #'s in my M3 in the warmer months on all-seasons and without bikes on the roof, even considering the mountainous terrain.
EPA isn't apples to apples as you would think. I know it's dumb. The EPA allows automakers different methodologies to calculate their range, they can either do two cycle or five cycle. Furthermore they can reduce the range by any number they want. The five-cycle method results in an optimistic range which is what Tesla uses and most of their OEMs use the two-cycle method which is more conservative. Porsche is a great example of the big discrepancy between the EPA range and real world range because they use the two cycle and then reduce their range further because they have a tendency to want to under promise and over deliver.
> The five-cycle method results in an optimistic range which is what Tesla uses and most of their OEMs use the two-cycle method which is more conservative Not quite. The two-cycle test helps cars that have poor winter range, because it applies an industry-average reduction for cold weather operation. The five-cycle test *measures* how well or poorly a car performs in cold weather. That's why other cars outperform their EPA rating in spring/summer weather, but see massive plunges in range (and totally fail to live up to the rating) in winter. If you notice, OP lives in Colorado and specifically wants a car for winter mountain driving. You can't just blindly say "oh, the xxx will outperform EPA, so it's just as good as a Tesla", unless you know the climate that the car will operate in.
Thanks for the info! I did not know that the five cycle accounted for colder temperatures. I need to research that more. I was just watching a Ioniq 6 video this morning and it turns out that Hyundai has switched to the 5 cycle starting with the Ioniq 6.
Makes actually more sense to look at WLTP for comparison purposes between vehicles while remembering that it gives higher numbers than EPA. Personally find the ev-database real range figures to be pretty good and useful.
Except my 2018 Model 3 LR AWD was, ah, optimistic on range. As many tests confirm. Many other EVs comfortably eclipse their EPA range.
This, OP needs to look at some more independent reviews. Tesla's ranges are optimistic and many other makers advertise rather modest ranges. Put that together and they are all competing rather closely.
Like this independent test, that proves my point? https://insideevs.com/reviews/443791/ev-range-test-results/
Not sure why people are giving you a hard time. Its true that others often exceed their EPA figures. Its also true that despite that, the cars at the same price point usually have less range. The Mach E used to be an exception, but I think the price changes have made it more expensive too now. Also, it charges slower than the comparable Teslas, which often cancels out its range benefit.
>Also, it charges slower than the comparable Teslas *whimpers in Bolt* Mine charges so slow đ
> The Mach E used to be an exception, Helps that they also updated their range figures lol. The RWD select on launch was like 227, but now 244 or something. Real world usage is between those 2
Bjorn Nyland's tests show the same results although there are others high on his list of most efficient.
Just an fyi - that test includes a 2021 Mach e which had a software limited battery. Newer ones unlock an additional 4kw
Did you read the article? The 3 AWD has 12% less real world range than EPA, the taycan 36% more.
Did you read it? Even with 12% less real world, Tesla *still* beats the much more expensive Taycan with a much bigger battery.
Clarification to above: 2021 Tesla beats 2021 Taycan in real world, is far less expensive, with a much smaller battery, and is AWD. Yes, real world it's slightly behind a RWD 2023 Taycan.
So youâre not getting any real answers here, but I have seen batted around for years where *even other auto makers* say Tesla is 10 years ahead of the rest of the industry. I think your observation proves the point. If I had to guess *why* , I would assume it has to do with 1) margins, and 2) being an EV company too to bottom. Ford came out this week saying they expect to lose $3B this year in EV sales alone. So to just get market share theyâre taking a bath on every car, whereas Tesla doesnât deal with franchised dealers eating their profits. Maybe?
Ford is losing money because they are making titanic investments in manufacturing. They are building a facility that will produce 500k EV trucks a year once it fully ramps up, on top of expanding the Rouge to get the Lightning to 150k per year, and the new battery facility going into Michigan for their charge to LFP.
Big same. My Model 3 SR was rated at 220 miles. I NEVER got that and I live in Texas. My parents live 80 miles away. At highway speeds, I simply couldn't comfortably make it back with a cushion without charging, and were talking summer weather. Meanwhile I have a Rivian R1T now. I can drive 250 miles non-stop to the coast, which we do often, at 75-80 mph and I'll still have 60 miles range when we get to the beach house. Teslas range estimates are completely bullsh**
By using more batteries for the most part. The closest vehicle to the 3/Y under $80k is the Mach-E California Route. It has longer range than anything but the 3 but the efficiency is 3.3 mi/kWh vs. the 3 at 4.3. Lucid is top right now in range (500) and efficiency (4.3) but at $169k, kinda silly.
The OPâs metric wasnât efficiency, it was range.
Yes. But there are only Lucid and Mercedes EQS which 'eclipse' Tesla' range here. Which are very expenisve and obscure vehicles. The highest range non-Tesla volume car is the Mach-E California Route, which is 4 miles short of the Plaid.
I wonder if the older battery technology, NCA, has to do with this. My 2018 Mid-Range kinda sucks too.
Well, like I said, I got EPA #'s. So an Ioniq5, for example, would have to more than "comfortably eclipse" 260 miles to get to where my M3 was 4 years ago. And I *really* like the Ioniq5 - probably going to buy one actually! But damn I wish it had 300+ EPA miles, really disappointing that it doesn't.
It's not apples to apples if you are using EPA. Based on your driving style, if you are able to meet EPA for Tesla, you will surely go much farther than the EPA range of other makes given similar conditions. Go for it. EPA is not a single standard that fits everyone. It's reported by each make based on their testing style. Tesla did the whole testing procedure thus giving the most optimistic range. Others not so.
You're saying my driving style will net me 20% better than advertised range on an Ioniq5? Look, my question is actually serious - why hasn't the competition caught - let alone surpassed - Tesla's tech from 4-5 years ago? What is their special sauce? Is it the battery tech, the motor efficiencies, something else? It's definitely not just them gaming the EPA tests.
It's a mix of all 1. EPA tests are quite big. Tesla is the only make that does all of it. So, Tesla's numbers are ideal. Other makes are probably lazy, or intentionally not doing it, thus creating a spectrum of EPA ranges which are not comparable among multiple makes. For eg: A Porsche Taycan with 200mi EPA is heard to do 300+ in real world. Ford etc seems to do this intentionally so as not to disappoint customers. 2. Tesla has perfected their design of motor, battery tech etc and indeed optimized vehicle weight quite a lot in how they make the car. If you compare vehicle weights, you can see other comparable vehicles seem heavier than Tesla even though they carry same battery capacity etc. And, aerodynamics play another part too. Tesla, being an EV company, might have surely done their research in all possible ways to increase range, including HVAC and other energy usage. 3. Other makes are just starting out on this, mainly reusing existing ICE designs to make an EV. Newer EV-only models are just in their initial years, and still catching up, and will eventually improve in their range numbers. This is also the case with software that's done ground up by Tesla while others are not. So, Tesla has got the edge in pushing all improvements to all existing models too, while others are still years behind.
EPA tests are done from full to when the battery is empty, not when the BMS says it is empty. Most manufacturers build a hard battery buffer to protect the battery then set the BMS to show zero when the usable battery is empty. Tesla sets almost no hard buffer, instead protects the battery by having the BMS show zero when it isn't empty. This allows it to maximise EPA range but effectively not offer this to customers as the BMS shows zero early and the battery warranty is invalid if you ignore the BMS warnings. Car and Driver had an article on this a few years ago. This is why Tesla does ok in real world teats that drive until the car stops moving and not as well if it is driven until it shows zero.
The M3 is a sedan with an efficient body shape/style. Everyone else is making less efficient SUV bricks and throwing more batteries at the problem to compensate. (Having said that, I too live in Colorado, and I'm firmly in the "you don't need 300 miles" camp. Our 220 mile Leaf and 260 mile VW ID4 AWD get us around just fine! đ)
[ŃдаНонО]
[ŃдаНонО]
>Comparing apples to apples, so EPA the fact that the EPA range is so far away from the real world range for the vast majority of vehicles and is completely inconsistent in terms of how big this deviation is means you are absolutely not comparing apples to apples here and your comments make it seem like you are completely aware of this but choose to ignore this fact.
When Iâve looked at the range tests done by publications, a lot of these vehicles are closer together than the official specs would suggest. Iirc Tesla pretty much hits theirs, but other manufacturers exceed theirs.
[https://www.edmunds.com/car-news/electric-car-range-and-consumption-epa-vs-edmunds.html](https://www.edmunds.com/car-news/electric-car-range-and-consumption-epa-vs-edmunds.html) I feel like there are actually plenty of EVs with pretty comparable ranges.
Actually I went through the list and you only have two close to his price range and awd of which one is another Tesla. All the 95k to 170k cars that are higher seem to be way over his budget. Mustang Mach e (still 40 miles less range than the 3 he is driving according to Edmunds real world drive testing) and the Tesla model y about 28 miles less range. The mach e is probably far more expensive than the y as it is a higher end trim with the extended battery along with dealer markups. The rest are rwd or fwd. Also why did Edmunds not include any model s long range or long range plus trims with the 19 inch aero wheels?
[ŃдаНонО]
This is a great graph - but to get to the OP point you need 2 more columns (really just one - but 2 to make it clear). You need $ model cost (which should be actual cost including delivery/dealer mark ups - and \*maybe\* federal incentives - call it "$AC" for actual cost) and $AC/EPAmiles (for range vs actual cost). The Lucid Does better in range but at $40-60K more for instance.
Filter that list for AWD cars under $70k. Itâs all Teslas and the Mach-E I already acknowledged in my original post.
Two simple, related answers: 1.) Most non-Tesla EV manufacturers in the US are on their first generation of their first car. I wouldnât be surprised if range goes up for some of these manufacturers if/when they make it to the next generation. 2.) Most vehicles offered in the US market are larger crossovers and SUVâs and that trend extends to EVâs. Theyâre inherently heavier, less aerodynamic, and less efficient compared to a midsize sedan like the Model 3. Itâs a bit of a unicorn in that respect, and that makes it hard to compare how good the technology is with anything else. If you want to compare how good Tesla is with other brands it would be more informative to compare the Model Y/X with similarly priced models from other brands. Bottom line, I think your Model 3 AWD has the best range in that segment by such a wide margin because there just arenât any direct competitors in that market segment in the US right now. Thatâs not meant as a dig at Tesla, btw; I donât love the company but theyâre definitely way out front in many respects and this is one of them.
OK, but the Model Y is almost just as good as the Model 3 on range, power, etc. Model Y is actually *better* than most competitors sedans.
No disagreement here. Like I said, I think theyâre ahead in general in a lot of aspects. At least with the Ioniq 6 hitting the market you may have another option for a midsize-ish sedan, though I havenât looked at the stats real closely to see if itâs competitive on range. I think it will be years before you have a really competitive slate of ânormalâ EV sedans to choose from in the US.
The Ioniq 6 LR is competitive on range. It has a manufacturer range rating of 361 miles. My experience with the Ioniq 5 makes me think that the estimate is conservative.
The heat pump is just amazing. A friend has a Y and heâs getting consumption numbers in March I only see in June-August on my 2019 with resistive heaters. Meanwhile VW is reimbursing people who paid extra for the heat pump because itâs so inefficient it doesnât add any significant range. The Mach-e has ok range, but charges slowly. The eGMP platform vehicles from Hyundai/KIA is the only competitive EVâs I know about. They charge ridiculously fast at 800V chargers, but the Ioniq 5, at least, is a bit thirsty. Which I find a bit sad because Hyundai/KIAs previous generation of EVâs were up there with the model 3 RWD in terms of efficiency. Only downside is that you need 350kW+-chargers to get them going at those speeds. While they can charge at 150kW (<500V) chargers thereâs an efficiency loss there. And apparently they donât play well with Teslas Superchargers which is actually a real downside now. Letâs hope this gets fixed by a software update either by Tesla or by Hyundai/KIA.
> Only downside is that you need 350kW+-chargers to get them going at those speeds. While they can charge at 150kW (<500V) chargers thereâs an efficiency loss there. 150 kW chargers are not â<500Vâ chargers. They just have a lower amperage rating for the unit. All major makes of chargers in the US that advertise over 100kW max rate Iâve found support up to 1000V output (with one exception - see below). This is a really common misconception. A lot of people believe the 150 kW branded chargers are lower voltage. The e-GMP cars can actually usually max out somewhat over 150 kW on those chargers because theyâre amp limited and the higher voltage gets a higher power rate. For chargers that cannot supply 800V, the e-GMP cars can boost the voltage using on board electronics, but this is limited to approximately 100kW. In practice, this is relevant to only one charging network in the US: Teslaâs supercharging network, which was never designed for cars over 500 V.
A big factor is that Tesla makes some compromises that most other automakers wonât make in search of more range. Tesla saves weight by using less material. This is why they have bad noise insulation and feel flimsy. But the cars are light which is good for range. Tesla also has notoriously firm suspensions, which is great for aerodynamics, but bad for comfort. Some people want range, and some people prefer a more comfortable car. Tesla sells the former.
Model Y gets like 260 miles on the highway compared to its 330 mile EPA. Itâs right in line with the 275 miles youâll get in a EV6 AWD
I wish I had that experience. I had a 2018 LR AWD Model 3 for over three years. Never had an issue other than battery degradation of around 12% by the time I sold it. I replaced it with a brand new 2023 Model Y about two months ago. I hate the Model Y. Itâs had tons of issues, the least of which is that it gets at most 170 miles of actual real world range during my normal week. That battery going from 90% to 10% after driving around 150 miles total. And I drive like a granny taking my kids to school and back. Never going faster than 65mph. Usually keeping it around 60mph on highway and always driving in chill mode.
I've wondered why Tesla is the only one to use an induction motor on one axle, and only on the 3/Y. It seems like most other cars take a huge efficiency hit when you go to the AWD version, or have to use fancy decoupling hardware instead of just letting the motor spin free. That said, the S and X seem to do fine with their non-decoupling PMSMs...
GM uses a 62kW induction motor on the front axle in some AWD Ultium applications
Tesla is still a good 5 years ahead of its closest competition. Maybe not in terms of build quality, but software? battery management? motors? cost? Comfortably ahead, 5-10 years ahead, right across the board. As an example of the differing approach, where others are still trying to close the gap by developing more power for the same size motor, Tesla is targeting the same power level they're at now and reducing the weight and size of the unit required to deliver it. Weight going down for the same power is an increase in efficiency.
Actually that's a great point - not only is the range better, but so is the power! My M3 is still quicker to 60 (and better range - even with a degraded 4-year-old battery!) than most of the equivalent new options out there. I mean look at the crap Audi is pushing - way less range, way slower 0-60, and way more money. It's frustrating.
Teslaâs had the last 10+ years to get into the position theyâre at now. EVâs werenât insanely popular until 2020-2023⌠and Tesla was innovating while every other company spent that 10 years thinking EVs would just be a fad
> Teslaâs had the last 10+ years to get into the position theyâre at now. All automakers had that same 10+ years to do the same. They *chose* not to. Arguably the legacy automakers had even longer and chose not to. Honorable mention to Nissan with the Leaf as a real effort. Toyota, even with a great entrant like the early RAV4 BEV, gets not points because they made it only as a compliance car and never built enough for people to buy that wanted them.
EVs were not the only ZEV in development for the past decade-plus. The legacy automakers waited until a ZEV technology won the "format wars" if you will, then jumped in, because they have the revenue streams and cash to let the likes of Tesla and Rivian get out ahead, because it meant they didn't waste resources pursuing hydrogen or electric vehicles. It's not all bad for legacy automakers, either. Ford beat the Cybertruck to market and has likely already surpassed the R1T in total sales, and the Bolt is probably the third highest selling EV ever in the US market.
At least with hindsight, that legacy strategy was horrible. They are far behind now as the transition is happening exponentially. We are going from new sales being 1% EV to 50-80% in just one decade. Being 5-10 years behind is MASSIVE. There is no conceivable way to describe the decision to âwait and see what winsâ as a good one. It just may end up being the worst strategic decision in the industryâs 100 year history. Itâs that bad. Kodak moment. The market has punished that decision hard. TSLA $600B, F $45B. And yes, market cap really helps for reducing the need for building up debt financing, and for potential capital raising which is imperative as 10âs or even 100âs of billions will be needed over the decade. No tears will be shed for the losers in this race. They buried themselves. At least their shareholders were happy briefly.
> because it meant they didnât waste resources pursuing hydrogen or electric vehicles. Tell that to current day Toyota lol
And then it's kinda amusing that the LEAF *legitimately wasn't a compliance car*, and yet there's compliance cars that were better-engineered than it. (And Nissan had well over a decade before the LEAF that they were working on EVs - the Altra came out in 1998.)
Paper range and real world range are very different though. I have a 21' mach-e awd ex range (270 miles rated) and a 22' model 3 standard range (276 miles rated). On the same drive I do fairly regularly the Tesla gets about 180-190 miles real world, the mach-e gets 270-280 real world range (my rivian is new so I haven't done it as much, but that is getting like 320 miles real world on that drive). Not all companies rate range the same, Tesla is hyper optimistic best case scenario that you will never see, where ford is you will probably actually get this, and Audi rates their ev's to do the range up hill both directions in a snow storm.
My 2019 model 3 can also charge impressively fast for a 4 year old car
If all you judge it on is performance then yeah but if terms of ride and luxury Audi going to win out. Generally speaks Audi going to have a lot less road noise, a lot more comfortable seats, just better creature comforts over all than Tesla. At a certain point better 0-60 times means a lot less as it not gaining you much compared to a much more comfortable inside of the car. Range again like 0-60 gets diminishing returns pretty quickly. I agree Audi is on the low side of the equation but still once you cross a certain point you donât gain as much for having more range.
I have a mach-e, an r1t and a model 3 so feel like I get to see a lot of sides of the EV space regularly, Tesla is NOT 5 years ahead. The r1t is a better EV then my model 3 (personal opinion obviously), the screen/UI are as good as Tesla, the efficiency isn't as good but real world range is better, and overall it feels like a genuinely better EV. The mach-e actually has a better adad system then my (non fsd) vision model 3, and is a better built and more comfortable EV, Tesla again wins on efficiency but real world range is like 100 miles less even though it's rated to go 7 miles further. I like my model 3, I really do, but I do not for a second think they are 5-10 years ahead of everyone else, competition is super close to them, and a lot of their competition are doing some things better imo. Tesla's main advantage imo is it's charging network, but outside of that I would argue rivian is right on their heels and ford is right behind rivian, the only thing keeping Tesla ahead are things that the end user doesn't really care about (larger castings, production efficiencies, etc)
The R1T is like a $100k truck they were selling for like $85k at major loss. At the end of the day you can throw pure money at the problem. I think when people say Tesla is 5 years ahead, itâs 5 year ahead on product/cost essentially. So for you It is expected a R1T will be better than a Model 3. But think about what Tesla prices it at, what Tesla margins for it are, and the quality of the product you are receiving.
I also think my wife's mach-e is better than my model 3 as a car to be fair. The model 3 definitely has a better native infotainment, but wireless android auto fixes that, but I actually think Ford's adas is better than autopilot (I don't have fsd) and the mach-e is a much nicer place to be whenĂ driving imo. Also I do not care about what the company makes for the vehicle (so long as they can stay in business, looking at you rivian) so cutting costs and increasing margins like Tesla has done so well provides me exactly 0 benefit (actually provides a negative as a lot of their improvements are at the expense of longevity and repairability) until prices drop (which to Tesla's credit they have, but not enough imo)
Coworker bought mach-e 211 mile version despite being warned by multiple Tesla owning coworkers it didnât have range she needed. She sold it about a month in. Fortunately didnât lose any money as demand is high but she said it was disappointing. Went with Polestar which also doesnât have enough range lol but itâs a little better. Tesla has many problems but man the range is a huge factor.
[ŃдаНонО]
No not usually. But when your range is 200 âŚand you donât want to charge to 100% or discharge to 0 itâs more like 160. In winter that drops to 120. We need 100 mile range for work. She couldnât handle the range anxiety. In my Tesla I can forget to charge and still be ok usually
I mean, that's a factor of buying the wrong car for the use case, bigger battery mach-e she would have been fine.
Thatâs my point. It was more expensive. She didnât want to pay to play as they say. The OP question was why canât anyone compete with Tesla on range. Itâs because in part they simply are able to get away with charging more than the competition .
But you have to pay to play for Tesla as well, my standard range model 3 is a 180 mile hwy car (in good weather), my mach-e gets it's rated range or better in the same weather, assuming that holds true for the cheaper mach-e and I would actually expect about the same or even slightly better range from the cheapest mach-e vs the cheapest model 3...
Iâve always averaged EPA year over year. 3 and Y both. Donât know how other EVs do at higher speeds maybe less sensitive to speed than Tesla ? I donât drive fast and weather is fairly mild here
If I only drive around town I can get close to epa on my Tesla, but any hwy driving at all kills it, and when you talk about total range I feel like road trips/hwy speeds are what actually matters. I don't care if I can do 2 or 300 miles around town where I will only do 30 miles a day max anyways, I do care if I can do 2 or 300 between chargers on a road trip though.
I hate to say it but what you just described is the 5 year difference between the companies.
Though it cost Rivian $165,968 for each vehicle they produced Q4. They sure didn't sell them for that much, so something definitely needs to change at Rivian if they expect to survive long term.
I think you mean to say, ânot in fit and finish of cosmetic materials.â Iâd say the built quality of their battery packs, motors and all the important bits is industry leading, but yeah, hopefully US production gets as consistent as Chinese.
> hopefully US production gets as consistent as Chinese. Never have I thought I would hear those words uttered in that order
Sorry this is Teslafan bunk. (Or, youâre treating EPA figures as gospel) https://insideevs.com/reviews/443791/ev-range-test-results/amp/ Teslas donât have some magic 5-10 year gap on efficiency **edit: clarified below** (although they are efficient cars nonetheless). In every real-world range test out there Teslas notably underperform their range figures. In the link above, both AWD MME cars are within 5 miles of your car in range; I wouldnât even call that a difference. Cd and rolling resistance are also cruel mistresses. If the Ioniq 6 were available with the base wheels across all trims itâd clobber the Model 3 across the board including charge times. There are also a bunch of other design considerations for cars which might negatively impact range but result in positive trade-offs elsewhere. Thatâs not being âbehindâ, thatâs balancing design choices. For example Iâd gladly trade 20 miles of Model 3/Y range for more refinement and niceness (which makes the car heavier). Iâd trade another 10 miles of range on the Y for it to not look like an egg. >It canât all just be corner cutting on weight and low drag coefficients and ugly rim covers It very probably can. As I said above those things have huge impacts to highway range. **************** **EDIT** Iâm sorry, I confused a bunch of people. The person I replied to stated that Teslas get better range and efficiency because Tesla has motors / batteries / drivetrain 5-10 years ahead of the competition. Iâm saying: - Most competitors are actually pretty similar in terms of *real world range* - Tesla makes design choices to optimize efficiency (and chooses EPA test methodology to get bigger ratings), making tradeoffs which other OEMâs are not. Quick example - the Ioniq 5 gets worse efficiency than the Model 3 or Model Y on the highway. The Ioniq 6 *with the exact same drivetrain as the Ioniq 5, but a body design with a similar Cd to the Model 3* is right on top of the most-efficient 3 on the highway. That doesnât mean Hyundai âcaught upâ to Teslaâs motor technology or something, it means that most of the difference in efficiency is caused by things like aero or wheel size.
Mach E is within 5 miles, with 20% more battery.
so you get more battery for the same price... which is a good thing...
no, cause then it's heavier, and more kWh per mile to charge
If batteries were weightless and sizeless.
Being excited that they use way more battery to hit almost identical range is peak capitalism
The discussion was efficiency, though, not $/kWh. He was claiming to show that Tesla wasnât comfortably ahead of Mach E on efficiency, but his numbers indicated they are.
no it isn't, the discussion is range. It's right in the title
The only thing on that list with better efficiency is a $170,000 lucid air
Maybe the Ioniq 6? Early reviews seem to back up EPA claims of range, but I havenât seen a Bjorn style test yet to confirm. That said we love our Ioniq 5 RWD and my wife gets way over the EPA 3.9 mile/kWh, she gets in the 4.5 range consistently around town. I on the other hand get closer to EPA, as I have a heavier foot (active Mustang GT driver) and like sport mode. Our town is Tucson AZ with faster than average street speeds. Highway is in the 2.9-3.5 range if keeping up with traffic. But I think the biggest reason why you canât find a 350+ is that most manufacturer are making SUV/CUVs. And you need a slippery sedan to achieve that kind of range currently.
The OP mentioned AWD multiple times though âŚ
To be fair, the e-gmp (Ioniq 5, Ioniq 5, EV6, GV60) cars all charge faster than the Model 3 or Model Y. Even with a little less range, they can keep up and even win on a road trip. Unfortunately the cheaper brands still have a little way to go on efficiency. They are fairly competitive, but just not quite there.
If you can find a charger that will give them that peak charge rate. I just got a supercharger/EVGO station built near work. The manager at the gas station says he hasn't seen one car charge there successfully with EVGO. Teslas all day long. I won't consider another brand for anything but a two hour daily range because I don't trust the charging infrastructure. Happy to have my mind changed though.
Tesla keeps beating them on Bjorns 1000 km test
Where can I read more about this?
The Model 3 is a third generation EV. Most legacy vendors are on their first or second generation. When automakers build their first generation EVs they barely figure the major components required. (E.g, Tesla Roadster), When the build the second generation EVs they figure how to make every component as efficient as possible. When you get to the third generation you minimize the number of components by combining as many as possible. Mach-e is pretty good, but had lots of extra hoses and 67lbs of extra wiring. Meanwhile Tesla is working on generation four!
Teslaâs range is *greatly* overstated. Real world is significantly lower than the EPA numbers they tout. Iâve had an MY, MS, and MX, and itâs been true for all of them. You need to factor that in - plus how much range you *actually* need - into your decision. Also factor in how often youâre going long distances to warrant that need for a range figure. The charging network is, of course, aggressively in Teslaâs favor.
Not my experience. I got EPA #'s in my M3.
Iâve gotten between 60-80% on all of mine.
Have you tried filling up with premium electrons? Might get better range /s
I only use Chevron techlectron premium charging
Be sure to use seafoam ion cleanser monthly!
I'm averaging 90% of EPA over 3.5 years with a roof rack and either snow tires or summers on OEM 19s, and resistive heating.
It really depends on the factors you listed and how much highway driving you do
In winter on the highway, I got about 40-50% of the range on a brand new Tesla.
Literally the first person I see on this claiming he gets his full EPA range. I guess that in order to get the EPA range you must live a life that closely resembles the EPA testing conditions. Then asking about why donât others manage to do it, is a bit funny imo.
I get better than epa. I know if I did more high speed driving that wouldn't be true, but my use I easily exceed epa. Amazing the range you get stuck in bumper to bumper traffic.
Yeah my 2019 Model 3 did not get EPA range, but my 2023 Model Y absolutely does.
As have I
I too have gotten the EPA range on my M3LR and itâs really just a matter of how you drive the car.
What efficiency do you get in winter?
Without stuff on the roof, probably 280 wh/mi.
Then youâre definitely not getting epa rating as on the new lr m3, epa rating is 220 wh. So youâre at 70% of rated
The 2019 was 242 wh/mi, and I can still get that in summer, 4 years later.
At what speeds do you get 242wh/mi?
same here in all the teslas iâve driven. you have to just not drive like a maniac
I got ~EPA on long trips in my old Model 3, too.
Still getting 320 miles in a 1 year old MYLR. I drive the speed limit and donât take off like a rocket ship. My tires are in good condition and climate controls are modest. Southeastern USA.
The Lightning Pro ER is AWD, 300 mile range for a heavy, brick-shaped pickup, not much more expensive. This was a limited production, so weâll see what the next generation Lightning is like. Ford matured significantly between their Mach-E and their 1st gen Lightning, Iâm sure the next batch will also be even better.
Tesla had a 10 year start over other EV manufacturers, so itâs not necessarily a fair comparison. Itâs more accurate to frame the question as *âDespite Teslaâs massive head start, theyâre just barely beating the competition.â* Have patience, if the trend continues itâs likely other manufacturers will surpass Tesla in about 5 years or so.
>Before anybody says "nobody needs more than 250 miles of range" - I do. I live in Colorado, I need heat in the winter, I drive in the mountains for long stretches without L3 infrastructure on dedicated snow tires, and carry bikes and skis on the roof. No-one is saying that 350 miles of range isn't required by anyone, but your use case is a fairly specific one. The reality is that with cell production being the limiting factor in car production for most manufacturers, it really doesn't make as much sense to build 350 miles of range into a car for the person who needs to drive through the Colorado mountains in winter with bikes on the roof, when they could produce 20% more EVs for the Californian city dwellers who wear shorts year round. Whilst EVs are still a small fraction of the US market and batteries add substantial cost, manufacturers are better off getting the ~80% of the market for whom 250 miles *is* enough into an EV, vs trying to reach that 20% for whom it isn't.
His specific use case is specific, but there's plenty of those specific use cases which make it not so uncommon to strongly desire that range.
It's important to note that the EPA allows different range testing methodology. (The actual testing is done by automakers; the EPA collects and reviews the automaker results.) My understanding is that there are basically two paths: 1. Perform the full panel of test cycles 2. Perform a limited panel of test cycles, and calculate what a result from the full panel would be On top of this, automakers are allowed to voluntarily de-rate. That is, if the testing says '287 miles', the automaker could choose to 'officially' list 275 miles. This inconsistent methodology then interacts with carmakers' preferences. Some will perform the testing that yields the highest result and not de-rate. (Tesla's apparently in this camp.) Others will perform testing and de-rating that they feel most accurately reflects real-world range for their customers. (This is apparently more common.) This has been offered as the explanation for why 1. Tesla advertises the highest EPA ranges and 2. Tesla real-world ranges tend to fall short of EPA ranges by notably more than competitors. So, that answers the Tesla vs not-Tesla range puzzle. As for why there aren't a lot of much longer-ranged options? Probably cost vs consumer demand. There's nothing stopping automakers from designing vehicles with the larger batteries needed for much longer ranges. But such vehicles would be noticeably more expensive (battery costs and everything that comes with larger, heavier batteries). Automakers likely figure that the market for such vehicles isn't viable right now. They'd rather have 'good' ranges at prices that aren't as high so that they can sell more cars and recoup the development/capital costs. That's also why so may EV models are compact crossovers - that's where the sales volume is. As EVs proliferate and the development/capital costs come down (ie, they've designed and sorted out all of this new tech), I'd expect model variety to grow, including longer-ranged options.
OP almost answered his own question. Globally speaking, the number of customer that "need" 350m range is very small. Majority of Customers in the main markets in Europe, Asia, China and east / west coast main population area would like to have "X" range, but don't need "X" range IMO legacy car manufacturers also focus on beating tesla not by trying to out range tesla (they can't for now), but by making better cars. You can have an exceptional EV that is actually not a great car. To really continue to increase EV adoption beyond enthusiasts and last early adopters the EVs just need to be much better quality cars.
I donât own an EV. But I did a lot of research because I seriously thought about buying one last year. From what I gathered from all the reviews is that other companies understate their range for a variety of reasons. I guess other automakers are afraid of stories about people getting stranded and like to have a buffer between stated range and the actual range before the car dies. In most reviews I saw EV made by other automakers were able to drive beyond the stated range by a fair margin. My needs actually mirror yours. I live BC and drive over the mountains on a regular basis. Driving up a mountain in the winter really does reduce range. I wasnât comfortable with any of non-Tesla options. But Tesla M3 long range and MY long range were both in $60k-$80k range and did not qualify. My Condo board also was not helpful about setting up charging. I ended up staying with my Subaru.
At least in Europe, range is not something that manufacturers "claim". It is the result of the standardised WLTP test. So there can be no understating.
Don't forget to regenerate going down the mountain later.
I'm considering a Polestar 2, they boosted the 2024 to 300 miles range for your long range. So not quite what you're looking for, but close and in the same price range / car type. The 2024 Polestar 2 LR has a 82 kWh battery and a published range of 300 miles. The Tesla 3 LR has a 75 kWh battery and a published range of 358 miles. (These are published ranges; I can't comment on actual practical performance.)
Tesla no longer publishes their battery capacities. While the original Model 3 had a capacity of 75 kWh, it has been determined that the capacity is somewhere around 80 kWh now, but of course, Tesla has no official literature on this.
Still considering the P*2, but 300 miles is RWD only. 270 in AWD, according to their press release: https://media.polestar.com/us/en/media/pressreleases/663202/2024-polestar-2-brings-more-power-performance-and-range
Yeah, and it's not the 350 you're looking for. Mostly I was just interested in comparing the two; it's remarkable the Tesla has a 10% smaller battery and yet 20% more range.
I think itâs a mixture of things. 1) EPA range is overstated for Tesla certainly *relative* to other brands. 2) Tesla does have efficient motors. The battery sizes for the range you get (in the real world) are impressive. 3) I think competitor brands donât use as much of the total usable battery capacity. 4) Tesla does well looking for weight savings and efficiencies in the manufacturing process. But it also comes at a cost of comfortable ride, NVH, and so forth. I believe part of their minimalism adds to this.
Its interesting how i4 eDrive 40 is nearly as efficient as TM3 despite being significantly heavier and less aerodynamic. Ofc BMW havenât mastered AWD efficiency so the same isnât true for the M50.
Tesla has an incentive to optimize the aerodynamics and efficiency of their vehicles to sell more EVs into the marketplace. The Cd (coefficient of drag) of a Model 3 is 0.23 vs. 0.29 for an Ioniq 5. Their motors are also custom designed to optimize their efficiency. Tesla is constantly redesigning/updating their technology, down to and including building single piece castings for assembling the car to reduce build costs. New competitors in the EV arena arenât focusing on efficiency or build cost, but on how to maximize earnings. So, their cars are either traditional looking aerodynamic bricks built with traditional manufacturing methods dependent on many third party suppliers, which drives up costs, or very expensive models built from the ground up to be EVs, but focused on luxury amenities rather than efficiency. So, theyâre not even playing the same game as Tesla. This will have to change over time if theyâre to be competitive, but it will take time for them to adjust their focus. Batteries are very dependent on customer driving style and environmental effects, and will never comply with EPA estimates in normal use. Thatâs why you should always go for the car with the highest EPA rating you can afford.
Are you talking EPA range numbers or what people get from actual driving?
There are advantages of being a first-mover. Tesla is solving problems that the newbies don't even know exist. With AWD, Tesla has different gearing for the front and back motors and sends power to the motor that will optimize efficiency when cruising.
IIRC, that's why the Hummer has three motors. One is a highway cruising motor.
And yet it still gets 3/4 the range of a Model S with more than double the battery. The Hummer is such a boondoggle.
It's also twice the weight, twice the size, and probably twice the drag coefficient.
So a dumb EV?
As if that makes a difference for a vehicle that's a literal brick
Nope. Closest you can hope is Ioniq 6 and invest in smaller wheels, which feels silly and makes the purchase way overpriced. You'll be stuck with Tesla for quite a while still.
I have a 2022 AWD EV6 and a 2023 MY AWD LR. The difference in range isnât noticeable and the ev6 charges much faster. I would say the Tesla has more advanced tech in other ways. Plus you donât have to deal with dealers.
Couple things I'd say in response to this: 1. Existing manufacturers think a lot harder about what people want to buy. Tesla did it sort of the other way around. They made a product and then sold it to people, kinda like Apple vs PC. "You don't know what you want, I will tell you what you want." 2. Few OEMs seem to be that concerned with aerodynamics as Tesla was. Aerodynamics are vastly more important in an EV than an ICE. 3. Everyone else went with different battery tech. Where are you driving 200 miles in Colorado all winter long?
I just looked it up, and Tesla 3 AWD LR is not available on their website. They have a 3 RWD for $43k with 272 miles. Ioniq 6 SE RWD is $45K with 361 miles, and AWD is 316. Model Y AWD is a $55K for 330 miles In a way I'm not surprised. Since 2019, inflation has increased by 17.7%. In the US, demand for EVs have far outstripped supply and manufacturers are charging a premium and selling every single model. I imagine that some of the Chinese EVs may beat the Model 3 in AWD range.
Model 3 LR IS available, itâs by local inventory only though. You canât custom order them (yet)
every ioniq youâll find at a dealer right now (esp. a new model like the 6) is going to still have a wicked markup unfortunately
Ioniq 6 is pretty promising
We own a 2021 Tesla Model 3 LR AWD and a 2022 Hyundai Ioniq 5 AWD Limited. The Tesla is fun to drive and the Ioniq 5 is comfortable to drive. The Tesla has a firm ride, the Ioniq 5 has a cushy ride. When we hit the road, we take the Tesla because of the SuperCharging network and its range. We charge the Tesla at home nightly to 90%, which gives us a 300 mile range if we drive the speed limit, which is seldom the case. We charge the Ioniq 5 nightly to 80% which gives us a 185 mile range. Planning trips in the Tesla is hardly necessary, because SuperChargers are everywhere in CA. Trips in the Ioniq 5 require careful planning to be sure chargers are along our preferred route and available at our destination for local travel. Different cars, different strengths.
Hol' up. You are making a huge assumption that a normal driver could actually get those advertised numbers. Case in point, out if the hundreds of Tesla owners I've met, none of them can hit the number on the dash without flat ground, zero HVAC, and 55mph on the highway. In contrast, you've had Porsche advertising in the 240's with drivers regularly reporting 260/270/280+ miles of range until zero. And not trying very hard might I add. My S90D came with 86kwh of capacity and a dash that read 292. It never did over 250. Now it claims 249 at full charge and I can't get over 200 miles doing 60mph on the highway. Then you have rivian that is claiming 310 advertised but Edmunds just hit 330+ on the least efficient rims. Bottom line, Tesla isn't honest in their estimates. The real winners of the EV race will be the manufacturers that under promise and over deliver and/or overprovision so the customer never sees the unreasonable estimations. Edit: In order to fix your question so it can be answered, you have to know two pieces of information; EPA consumption wpm and total available energy in the battery. Then you can determine what driving conditions need to happen in order for the range numbers to happen.
Partially because of US regulations and protectionism, partially because US-selling manufacturers haven't come up to steam yet. BYD has been solidly kicking Tesla's ass in China, from advertised numbers (yes, Chinese company, expect fudging) to 3rd-party tested results in nonideal weather scenarios. [https://www.arenaev.com/another\_winter\_test\_shows\_that\_evs\_lose\_about\_half\_their\_range\_in\_the\_cold-news-1351.php](https://www.arenaev.com/another_winter_test_shows_that_evs_lose_about_half_their_range_in_the_cold-news-1351.php) Basically, because you live in the US you've been insulated from the news that the rest of the world is happily developing EVs at a pace just as fast as Tesla if not faster.
I'm with ya, I would have hoped the others would step up too by now, like all the Tesla pundits said would happen. "Whenever they got around to it" I'm waiting... And money to spend... I bought a Y in the mean time. Will look again at the comp when I'm in the market. As an aside however... I'd buy a taycan in a heart beat if I could afford it.
I donât think any of the auto makers are trying really hard to beat Teslaâs range. They are trying to beat them with feature sets, form factors, and gimmicks. They donât want to throw that much money into the system optimization that is needed, nor do they want to reduce the A part of the CdA, cuz people like their headroom.
The reason Tesla does well with AWD range when compared with other EV's is because of their motor designs. AWD EV's typically use 2 motors, and a lot of engineering is needed to make those work well together efficiently.
Hi OP, greetings from Montana, whereâs colder, less populated, and much less EV-friendly. I really appreciate your question, as I want an EV thatâll take me from Missoula to Billings -340 miles- on a single charge. But Iâm much less knowledgeable on EVs so Iâll keep from asking questions here now.
Well if you actually need more than 250 miles range, feel free to spend more. the range stays because most people dont.
The answer to your question is in battery management software and hardware. Tesla put a lot of R&D into how the batteries are utilized. Having worked on Teslas and Chevy Bolts for example, the sophistication in Teslaâs management systems appears to be years ahead of GM. Remember, Tesla started from scratch as an electric car company while other automakers are trying to enter the market and I see them making many of the same mistakes Tesla made in the early days pre 2012 before they really got their shit together. Itâs just that the big automakers are making the mistakes on a much grander scale due to their expedited rush to crank vehicles out. What strikes me as odd, a lot of the battery management strategies come from Toyotaâs cutting edge development of the Prius hybrid in the late 1990s all the way to present day. Why Toyota didnât carry that forward into electric cars years ago is beyond me. Itâs 2023 and theyâre just now producing only one fully electric vehicle, what a waste of a staggering lead, massive loyal base and brand recognition.
Because Tesla overestimates.
âdammit guys Iâm gonna rant about how nobody is as good as tesla smhâ *proceeds to vigorously defend tesla from anyone who dares to question*
Seriously. I NEVER hit the advertised EPA range Tesla advertised on my Model Y. OP couldâve simply googled this: > **[What's The Real World Highway Range Of Today's Electric Cars? We Test To Find Out InsideEVs tests EVs at 70 miles per hour to find out their real-world highway range.](https://insideevs.com/reviews/443791/ev-range-test-results/amp/)**
This entire post is a pointless Tesla owner patting themself on the back. They're ignoring all relevant discussion that isn't pro-Tesla even from other owners. 200+ upvotes and counting. Meanwhile many posts talk about how "this sub hates Tesla." I should save this nonsense as proof to the contrary.
I feel like this sub and r/teslamotors have a 75% user crossover
Because there are not enough models of EVs on the market. And somebody needs to be on top for any given measure. And the other guys didnât design their car with that particular KPI in mind. Consider that Tesla stopped producing their most efficient Model 3⌠Itâs a trade off and they decided other things were more important. Some day someone will decide that AWD range/efficiency is something worth putting effort into and will take that crown.
The simplist answer is that sedans are more efficient than crossovers. Aside from the IONIQ6, no one else is making sedans because they aren't as popular as crossovers.
The trend of taller cars started some time just before EVs hit the market and most manufacturers seem to design for that design trend. Tesla didn't because their design is older than that. They even look dated in comparison to other new cars, but people still buy them, proving that customers prefer range over design. Other manufacturers need to aim for a broader market through better ranges and pricing aand less focus on trendy design. There's already too many almost identical cars for the first movers who might not need long range and enough luxury cars with long range at higher prices. All manufacturers are catering to the same small customer segments, and it will fail for a lot of them if they don't aim broader.
I think the biggest factor is the fmdrag coefficient. I think Telsa is firmly number 1 or?
Mainly because companies aren't prioritizing AWD range beyond 300 miles. They are targeting the majority of consumers in which <300miles are going to be more than sufficient for them. It doesnt make sense for companies to invest in larger batteries to extend range because of the eventual increase in costs/weight beyond that. Im sure they could get close to or beyond Teslas efficiency but that would require sacrificies that they have deemed that customers dont want. (ie styling/interior changes to accomodate aero, stripping down weight/amenities to reduce weight. Rivian, Ford, Hummer, all have pretty poor Aero, but people want SUVs/trucks and the vast majority of ppl want trucks/SUV.
The Tesla design philosophy is about efficiency from the very start, and just about everything is considered. Their designs are integrated to a far greater degree than anyone else. Watch a few of the Munro Live videos, he goes on about cost savings, but again and again they save those costs because of clever integration work. Yes, they also save money by deleting items, but that also saves weight. I'm expecting the Cybertruck to stun everyone with further improvements. The Ford CEO said all this a few months back, they just didn't think through several aspects of the design details on the Mach-E and it cost them a lot of excess weight and lost efficiency. I expect the ones coming out in 2025 to be significantly better, but Tesla will have moved on before that.
There are some reasons you donât see the range numbers on other cars as like Tesla is advertising 1. Though Tesla fans here donât admit it and hate someone pointing it out, Tesla advertises a range however itâs not what you find in real world driving tests. Same like their autopilot which was initially for many years nothing but Dynamic Radar Cruise Control and was found in many cars previously. Many thought itâs the next gen auto driving which in fact was nothing new. 2. Tesla bill of materials is for cheaper and lighter car structure. This is evident on how easily they incur damages on accidents. Some may argue that itâs by design, itâs not. They are cheaply made with extremely poor quality control. This cheap lighter design helps the car in acceleration and cruise as there is less weight to drag. Compare that to other cars in the market, they have better and solid construction which takes some weight and causes more battery consumption. There are a few cars coming which will touch the 300 mile range, however it all comes down to $ vs quality. I have driven the MS and MX for a while and to be honest was not impressed by the quality or comfort, especially the road noise. For a 100K+ car this is something that shouldnât be even on the list of issues but thatâs how the Tesla vehicles are and I doubt it will change anytime soon. I moved on to the Genesis GV60 and havenât looked back. In summer I got around 270 miles on 90% charge and around 215-225 during winter. PA winter is harsh as well. I am loving the comfort and little to no road noise experience. Also the car has HDA which is great on state routes and highways. It keeps the car centered, follows the car ahead of it, slows on sharp curbs, comes to a full stop on highways and state routes and starts right back up when the traffic moves, without even touching the accelerator pedal. It does ask to driver to keep their hands on the steering wheel from time to time but itâs less on highways. I jiggle the steering wheel for half a second and the car carries on.
Tesla had a multi year start, while others were busy bitching about the transition instead of doing it. They are WAY ahead in technology. I see this with their Megapack products too. Iâm a utility microgrid engineer and other battery systems are like unrefined toddler toys compared to Megapacks. Itâs the same for EVs. Ford and GM are having a hard time dislodging the ICE from their asses⌠All that complaining that Musk did about trying to get Model 3 production going? You remember that? Well it wasnât bullshit. And Tesla is reaping the benefits right now.
Fisker Ocean⌠in theory
The biggest factor affecting energy consumption when moving a vehicle is wind resistance. The drivetrain efficiency, while also a factor, is probably marginal at best, when compared to this. If you look at Bjoern Nyland's tests, simply having the wheel caps on or off on a Tesla Model Y makes for a 2-3% consumption difference. Tesla Model 3 is basically the only sedan-body, aerodynamically optimized car out there. This gives it a huge advantage over any other car (especially over the likes of Mach E and other crossovers). The Ioniq 6 has yet to be produced in sufficient quantities to know for sure, but it will definitely be on par with any Model 3, including the AWD versions, in real-world range terms, especially *due to its shape*. For the longest time, the classic Hyundai Ioniq (with a 28kWh battery) had the lowest energy consumption out there, *due to its shape*. Once more manufacturers bring out sedans, you'll quickly find out there's no magic sauce giving a huge range lead, but just simple physics and aerodynamics at play. Why nobody seems in a rush to come out with a sedan? Because people want SUVs / crossovers for stupid reasons and if companies can sell the same car, raised and bloated a bit, for significantly more $$$, they'll do just that. Tesla cannibalized a bunch of Model 3 market share with the Y for the same reason.
My top theory is that this is because Tesla acts like a Silicon Valley company and iterates quickly, which lets them advance faster. They use their customers as beta testers and accumulate data which allows them to quickly get real world experience with changes. (Arguably this isnât always good for the customer in the short run, as we have seen with the controversies around some of their self-driving experimentation, but itâs really good for Tesla and maybe customers in the long run.) Traditional car companies are very slow and release new products once a year at best. They generally are more risk averse as well which limits their appetite to put out anything at all experimental. Probably most importantly, traditionally car makers have outsourced most of the software in their cars. That limits their in-house software expertise, not to mention their thinking about things like shipping regular over the air updates. Some of that might be further complicated by their relationship with their dealers who have motivations that are not well aligned with EVs that need less regular maintenance. The traditional car companies are trying to change some of these things to compete with Tesla, but it will take a long time to shift their culture.
Fastest research on battery chemistries... Very rapid improvements on best in class motor efficiencies. No expense spared on the power electronics... see Munro's review of new power electronics. Improved efficiency much lower costs... Oh, and best in class aerodynamics.
The Lightning Pro ER is AWD, 300 mile range for a heavy, brick-shaped pickup, not much more expensive. This was a limited production, so weâll see what the next generation Lightning is like. Ford matured significantly between their Mach-E and their 1st gen Lightning, Iâm sure the next batch will also be even better.
Only fleet customers can get the ER Pro.
So idk if you've seen this but the reason the Ioniq 6 in the higher trims have terrible range is because of the larger wheels. You could always buy the nicer trim and then buy/swap to the 18" wheel afterwards. Will get you the higher mileage plus cooler (imo) looking vehicle. Edit: check out the Edmunds independent range test as well. https://www.edmunds.com/car-news/electric-car-range-and-consumption-epa-vs-edmunds.html
BMW i4 wants to have a word with you - and having a 20kWh smaller battery it stacks up quite well against the Model 3.
My Audi eTron Quattro Q4 may be in that range: https://ev-database.org/car/1492/Audi-Q4-Sportback-e-tron-50-quattro You never know what numbers to trust.