When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
does their own SOC's primary for experience control & power management - off the shelf commodity hardware is _NOT_ power efficient - something Intel is currently struggling with…
the sauce isn't so much "secret" as it is non-standard - none of Audi's existing infrastructure is designed to source parts based on extremely efficient electrical consumption metrics, nor are they capable of realizing and then pursuing custom hardware when the supply chain stuff just won't do the job.
Tesla is primarily a tech company and that means they are good at hardware design, software, integration, and the Mechanical engineers are a necessary evil to make a car.
At Porsche is primarily a Technical Engineering company, and the EE's and CS's dudes are the necessary evil…the Taycan shows who was in charge, and it wasn't the EE's or CS dudes with a power budget.
I have no doubt that the Tesla is more efficient than the Taycan as they were designed with different intents, however I would love to know what form of super tech that Tesla has that Porsche isn't able to find/buy. I just don't see how the Taycan is using all those extra kW's. Bad motors, waste heat, junk batteries, poor drag? Maybe more weight but that can't be all of it. I keep coming back to better suited to the range test. Hopefully someone will run a side by side test of the two cars so we can see their range.
No proper testing is useless. All testing has limitations that need to be recognized.
So I've been thinking about this. I recall being astounded at the WLTP number when it was announced and what that meant for the EPA number...and those are tracking as bad, if not worse, than predictions. But then I see the results of this independent test. And I also recall the Niagra to NYC trip and how far they actually pushed the car, and the numbers aren't adding up. Somehow this car is well bettering it's EPA rating. Which is possible, but not easy to do to be honest. So what's going on?
Clearly this is a major embarrassment for Porsche. They knew this was coming and they had paid for (probably handsomely paid for!) this test from this third party company. That didn't just happen overnight folks, and magically get sent out the day the EPA ratings were announced. This is damage control 101. And as was said above, it would be interesting to see a Model 3 or Model X put through the same test and see what that shows as "real world" range vs. the EPA test.
As I've said elsewhere, the EPA rating is based on a certain consumption level. In the Model 3, I believe that's 232 Wh/mile (you can see why the EPA rating of over 400 for the Taycan looks really piggish). That is fairly achievable on a LR RWD with Aero wheels,the standard configuration. It also happens to be, or used to be, the same rated range for both the LR AWD and the LR AWD Performance. The AWD comes standard on 18" Aeros, the performance on 20" non-aeros. Now, Tesla has revised, and kept the performance at 310 while boosting the AWD to 322. So about a 4% range loss from the wheels (as essentially the AWD and Performance have the exact same drive train).
So what's going on with the Taycan? I suspect that it likely comes down to the EPA dictating what mode that the Taycan has to be tested in. I suspect that the gearbox may be working against the Taycan as I wonder if it has to be tested in a mode that keeps the car in first gear longer? Or, potentially, this magic range is coming from range mode with the regen on as in one of the AMCI tests? Perhaps the EPA requires regen to be set to "off"? Not sure as I don't know the particulars of the EPA test. I do know that for an ICE car, the EPA dictates exactly how hard you can apply the brakes (specifically how many g you need to stop at) and I wonder if that's causing an artificially low amount of regen? Not sure, but it's unusual for there to be that much of a gap between EPA range and "real world" range.
“70 years Of racing engineering” only accomplishes 201 miles!
This happens when a company allows marketing to build a product. Those jeans and tshirt wearing, Starbucks and red bull drinking Tesla baby engineers (pictured at Nurburgring) have put the suit wearing old men to shame!
EPA rating to real world range ratio is different for every car.
This might be related to the 0.7 multiplier in the EPA rating that accounts for "additional real world driving losses".
Another factor is the regen. On the road regen is converting the kinetic energy of a 5000lbs car into electric energy. On the dyno however the only stored kinetic energy is the rotating wheels.
I think the highway range is more important. Constant ~70mph. Range matters when traveling far on the highway anyway. Looking forward for someone doing this test. Probably nextmove will be the first to report it.
perhaps all the aero drag on the front and the ducts for brake cooling could be worth reconsidering - all of this helps with handling performance no doubt - but is a drag nightmare…and therefore sucks range badly at speeds above 40 mph where aero drag takes over as the major force to be over come and has a ^2'd component…but what the hell do I know?
the Chevy Bolt has better numbers than Taycan - so we know the old guys can do it, they just have to want to do it.
one part of me say - my god how did porsche screw this up so badly
the other part of me says 'what part of performance sedan did you not understand'
what will happen long term is that porsche will get both performance and efficiency once they understand with an EV it doesn't have to be one or the other, it can be both, but ICE design techniques are not the path forward. Need brake cooling, great make so that it's active an only "invoked" when necessary.
yeah - this is going really really well for Porsche - marketing dream - they have this whole EV thing figured out - Tesla will be out of business tomorrow and now that the big boys have arrived it's fun and happiness for everyone! Headlines like this are marketing gold! Victory for Porsche, no one cares about range.
Porsche Taycan Turbo's EPA range of 201 miles is much lower than expected
"The Porsche Taycan Turbo already passed its biggest initial test. By our estimations, it drives and feels like a real Porsche and deserves the name and crest it wears (the Turbo part is a different story). But its second major test is serving as a properly usable everyday electric car, and its credibility in that regard just took a right hook from the EPA."
who was saying no one cares about range? and it will be fine?
You can toss the E-tron in there as well and the Taycan is even worse. I only need 20 miles a day so I'm likely good for a week.
The EPA says they only test 15 to 20 percent of cars so this number may have even come from Porsche?
If you think you only "need 20 miles a day" then I'm guessing you are basing your requirements strictly on your daily commute...
Your "needs" shouldn't be strictly based on your distance to/from work. Anyone who has owned EV's for the long term will tell you that your range needs to consider all the daily "life" that slips into your days. You need range that will easily cover any additional requirements (besides your commute) that could pop up on any given day (trips to the grocery store, going out to dinner, running general errands, a trip to the airport, taking the kids somewhere, etc, etc, etc). If your daily commute is 20 miles, then I'm guessing you could get away with a 200 mile range. ...but I wouldn't want any less and I have a extremely short commute (< 5 miles each way).
If I can plug in my car at home overnight and still meet the "average longest day" of local driving without worrying about range, then it works for me!
If you need to go for “every little win” to achieve efficiency then the gummy wide tires + aero downforce + brake cooling + wheel design are adding up fast. Perhaps mind bending acceleration is a byproduct of chasing efficiency rather than the other way around?
I've done a lot of performance work in the CS industry for years
and more recently with my track habit…
real wins in both cases come from sweating the details - wanna go 2 seconds faster @ laguna - well then you need .2 seconds in each of the 11 turns - there is no one place where you will gain 2 seconds...
same with software - want your webpage to render faster, well then there is a whole bunch of code that needs to do everything just a little bit faster…
EV efficiency is about sweating the details and understanding the range impact of your designed, it's pretty clear to me Porsche designed a performance sedan with an EV drive train, but did not design a Performance EV - if they had I think the Taycan would look very very different and we'd be hearing less about 800 volts, and more about active aero so than range doesn't suffer.
according to a little birdie that I know - really really long wiring high voltage DC wiring runs like the one's you see in the Taycan chassy pictures are worth 0.32% percent if you can make them significantly shorter (order wires too long according to this guy) - also saves on the cost of copper, but harder to manufacture due to layout requirements…but that's a continuous 0.32% while the car is powered - it's just a "tax" with no benefit - it "leaks" electrons that are never used to move the EV rotor…
it's a game of inch's…and you have to add them all up.
Ugh. That is horrible. No wonder they have been dragging their feet to announce the EPA numbers.
Take a hypothetical road trip between San Jose and Disneyland, about 370 miles, arriving with 10% charge. ABRP (https://abetterrouteplanner.com/) estimates you'd have to stop twice in a Taycan 4S (93 kWh version), for a total of 23 minutes, for charging. My Model 3 (LR RWD w/aero wheels) would need one stop for 15 minutes by comparison.
Between my Volt and TM3, I've found the EPA numbers to be pretty realistic. My TM3 is showing a lifetime average of 244 Wh/mile (4.1 miles/kWh) - which is almost exactly what the EPA numbers were for my particular configuration. Volt numbers are pretty close too.
one part of me say - my god how did porsche screw this up so badly
the other part of me says 'what part of performance sedan did you not understand'
what will happen long term is that porsche will get both performance and efficiency once they understand with an EV it doesn't have to be one or the other, it can be both, but ICE design techniques are not the path forward. Need brake cooling, great make so that it's active an only "invoked" when necessary.
Apparently Tesla understood this long time ago. Porsche should too because it has been benchmarking the Tesla. What you know and what you are able to do are two different things though. Whatever needed to do Porsche probably just don't have the means to make one at the cost. In the ICE world everyone understand what Porsche or Merc are doing but these few are still the only ones that could provide that kind of car.
The worst of this whole fiasco is is not just the number but Porsche put so much effort to cover up the deficiency it knew all along. Don't tell me it has no idea what this could be for the car they've tested for so long. Some buyers may not care but I'd be real upset if I have committed the purchase and found it out at this stage.
yeah - this is going really really well for Porsche - marketing dream - they have this whole EV thing figured out - Tesla will be out of business tomorrow and now that the big boys have arrived it's fun and happiness for everyone! Headlines like this are marketing gold! Victory for Porsche, no one cares about range.
Porsche Taycan Turbo's EPA range of 201 miles is much lower than expected
who was saying no one cares about range? and it will be fine?
i don’t care about range because like most people my commute is < 20mi. And it will be fine. There will be a .2 in a few years that’s much better and a new model a few years after that on a new architecture that’s vastly better. Look at what’s happened with Tesla between 2012 and 2018. Huge improvements. The other automakers will pay for wasting so much time. This is VW group paying for 6 less years of experience. It’ll be fine. They literally cannot make enough for demand, so feel free to pass on v1.0.
It’s a Porsche. Most Porsche owners have multiple cars. Need more range ? Take the other car.
you want to ratchet up the lolz, let’s talk about BMW or Toyota. This whole industry requires an amazon prime popcorn subscription.
Ugh. That is horrible. No wonder they have been dragging their feet to announce the EPA numbers.
Take a hypothetical road trip between San Jose and Disneyland, about 370 miles, arriving with 10% charge. ABRP (https://abetterrouteplanner.com/) estimates you'd have to stop twice in a Taycan 4S (93 kWh version), for a total of 23 minutes, for charging. My Model 3 (LR RWD w/aero wheels) would need one stop for 15 minutes by comparison.
Between my Volt and TM3, I've found the EPA numbers to be pretty realistic. My TM3 is showing a lifetime average of 244 Wh/mile (4.1 miles/kWh) - which is almost exactly what the EPA numbers were for my particular configuration. Volt numbers are pretty close too.
... so it charges faster, I need to stop a second time for the kids bladder anyway, and the total trip time is less than 2% worse but I don’t have to drive an appliance with no feeling for 6 hours ?
i don’t think this example is really supportive of your argument because this makes the taycan sound pretty awesome compared to a Tesla
12-11-2019, 04:40 PM
