Without any real world experience of my own I was previously led to believe that EV’s were less efficient on the highway and more efficient in stop and go due to the increased opportunity for re gen.....

 

Seems like you're getting WLTP range for the e-Tron almost exactly.

 

Interesting article on how efficiency is just as important as charging speed when you combine the two together. These are just estimates, but it brings up some interesting points.

First chart show the theoretical charing power versus the battery state of charge. Obviously the Taycan charges at a higher power level because of the 800V system. But the second chart shows that due to the Taycan's poor efficiency, the amount of miles added per minute is generally less than the Model 3 or Model S.

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/09/05...t-of-the-time/

 

Regen definitely helps, but you don't regen at the same rate as you use battery. So ultimately while stop / start can extend your range, it's not as efficient as driving in the "sweet spot".

Aero drag increases at the SQUARE of speed. So your efficiency penalty really piles on fast. This is the same for both EV and ICE, however an ICE is so inefficient compared to an EV, that you don't really notice the difference. It's like the difference between speaking very loudly and shouting at the top of your lungs...when you're at the Super Bowl. An EV is making do with so much less potential energy that every little bit counts. My GTI took 10 gallons of gas to go 300 miles, averaging about 29 MPG. 1 gallon of gas hast the same potential energy as 33.7 kWh of electricity. Meaning that the battery in my Model 3 has the same energy of 2.25 gallons of gas. And I can still go 310 miles.

 

I modified my website bikecalculator.com to make predictions about the Model 3, the physics being identical. bikecalculator.com/tesla .

You can use it to make fairly accurate predictions about the effect of speed and other parameters on energy use. There are many factors we can only guess about, so I've left them open to your own guesses.

Anyway, it's a good tool to settle arguments among rational people. Makes irrational people angry, so beware.

Fellow 928 owners: note the wheels of the car in the header graphic.

 

Check out page 49 of this PDF brochure: https://files1.porsche.com/filestore...n-Brochure.pdf

One very interesting distinction between the standard tires mounted to the Taycan Turbo (245/45R20-F & 285/40R20-R) vs those for the Turbo S (265/35R2-F & 305/30R21-R) is that the 20" tires are listed as "Energy Efficiency Class" B and the 21" tires are "Energy Efficiency Class" C.

The 20" setup appears to contribute to the 9% better energy usage of the Turbo compared to the 21" wheel/tire combos on the Turbo S.

Also, there is a specification called "Range (long-distance)(km)" that measures 370 km for the Turbo and 340 km for the Turbo S. The footnote reads "Guide value determined in accordance with a partial WLTP cycle (including allowing for auxiliary equipment such as air conditioning)"

Not all the energy consumption specifications show a 9% difference. The "Electricity consumption (combined)(kWh/100km)" is only 3% different at 26.0 Turbo vs 26.9 Turbo S.

Somebody help me out regarding the tire classes and sizes.

 

No chance anyone will get 189 miles of range at 75 MPH in this car. Even the Tesla “310 mile battery” only delivers like 240 of usable range at highway speed with sporty tires.

 

we are also forgetting the 20-30% penalty in winter fir BEVs - a low range BEV is even lower range in very cold conditions - 289 range is way different vs 236 miles when you discount real life consumption and then take the cold weather penalty...

 

289 might be possible in range mode. We've all seen the pictures showing 236 miles of range in the sport mode, After reviewing the detailed Jalopnik article it seems that there might be a pretty big difference in range between "sport" and "range" modes. See the picture below. It describes how the different modes run in a different gearing and how the rear motor can be decoupled for more efficiency. So my guess is Porsche changes the miles remaining gauge depending on the mode. It will be interested to see how they account for this in the actual EPA ratings.

 

I wonder what the WLTP testing requirements say regarding what modes you are allowed to run in. That could account for the disparity between that figure and this real world test result. And since the mode affects the operation of the rear transmission so severely, that could account for a significant difference.

 

The different modes remind me of the skip shift in the Corvette manuals. They force the driver to shift from first to fourth (correct me if it's a different gear) by locking out second and third for fuel economy rating. But if you hammer the throttle it "unlocks" second and third.

The range mode forcing the Taycan to use more efficient gearing feels similar. So I bet the EPA rating will be based on this mode.

 

No different than many cars with adjustable modes these days which cannot be set to default to sport or sport plus upon startup. They default to normal.

 

Interesting comparison of the Model X and Audi Etron. Bjorn took both vehicles on the same 1000km route. They both completed the journey in identical times. So the extra range didn't help the Model X with the Etron having a faster charging rate.

 

that is awesome data! charge rate can be a game change, and the S/X are clearly behind industry standard at this time for fast charging.

 

[/QUOTE]


So now we are giving cars short term and long term memory, I can see personality as a choice soon. He he