Yes, I know. So somehow the Model S performance has an WLTP that is 4.8% higher than the EPI, while the Taycan has a WTLP that is 38% higher and about the same as the AMCI test. one of these things is not like the other.

 

Porsche. Has. Not. Disputed. The. EPA. Test.

 

He has some good points, however I wouldn't take the EPA ratings as a base. WLTP is real driving, not dyno (where cars have dyno mode turned on during the EPA test ... ). And EPA relies on numbers coming from the car manufacturer. WLTP on the other side is a bit optimistic. 0.8 x WLTP is a better reference than the EPA number.

Not exactly. There is a bottom buffer and there is a top buffer. So the displayed 0% SoC could be somewere in the real 3-4% SoC and the displayed 100% is somewhere in the real 92% SoC. I don't know the exact numbers for the Taycan. Tesla has 4% buffer at the bottom. For the Model X it means 4kWh buffer out of the 102kWh battery. S might be different.

This is not as critical for the Taycan as it is for the Tesla since the former has top buffer.

Yes. The difference is however not like day and night. WLTP ratio of these cars is 365/279 ( Model S P / Taycan Turbo). If we don't compensate for anything, like difference in battery reserve, wheel size and whatever, the Taycan would need <400lbs more battery to match the S range. The car weights about 5300 lbs with driver, so the weight increase is <7.5%. These cars are super heavy.

This is what I'm waiting for as well. Best would be constant speed consumptions at all speeds. Range matters mostly at a constant 75mph. Would be nice if EPA measured this as well.

 

Very informative video.

What this video and the very well thought out analysis of the "lack of efficiency" of the Taycan really underscores one thing: The wrong metric is being used to judge the merits of the Taycan.

Porsche built the Taycan to be a Porsche that happens to be an electric vehicle. The Taycan was developed with the goal of making an EV drive like a regular ICE car -- from the throttle modulation to the brake regen (or lack thereof depending on one's perspective), to its ability to pull astounding lateral g's, to its astounding ability to hide its gargantuan weight at well over 2 (freaking!) tons, and even to its unabashedly fake engine sound on acceleration. Thus, to use an EV metric (like efficiency and range) to critique the Taycan misplaces the target. The Taycan should be judged as all other ICE cars are judged. Does it handle well? What's the acceleration like? Is the steering quick and responsive? Is it numb? How does it corner? Does it have excessive body roll? Etc.

Even Jason in the video indirectly implies this in the video when he talks about the two different philosophies that went into building the Taycan vis-a-vis the Model S. The former caps battery capacity at 80%, maintains consistent throttle and brake response feedback; whereas the Tesla leaves it up to the driver to maintain battery health and capacity and varies the throttle modulation and brake regenerative feel based on battery level and ambient temperature. Porsche eschewed all of that because allowing for those variables would make the Taycan drive like an EV, which is exactly what Porsche did not want. It wanted the Taycan to drive like, well, the Panamera. And to that end, I think Porsche has succeeded (at last based on my quick 15 minute test drive).

Just as it would be unfair to judge the merits of the Model S (or any Tesla offering) based on an ICE car metric (i.e., handling, body roll, lateral g's, braking, etc.), it is equally unfair to judge the Taycan based on EV metrics.

This is why using "efficiency" (or lack thereof) to judge the Taycan really misses the point. If Porsche was simply trying to make a pure EV, then, yes, efficiency would be key. But Porsche was not trying to do that (at least that wasn't the ultimate end goal). It was trying to make a regular car that happened to use only electric power.

Having said all that, I think both Tesla and Porsche (with the Taycan) needs to be given credit here.

• Tesla made the world realize that an EV can be like a regular car.
• Porsche (with the Taycan) is trying to make the world realize that regular cars can also be an EV.

Kudos to both, but to be fair to both, each should be judged based on the foundational metrics that each car was intended for.

 

Well, we'll have none of that kind of talk here. Reported

 

Wait, did you just watch a video and form your own independent, reasoned, and well thought out conclusions based on a thorough analysis of the material presented? I wasn’t sure that was even possible!

 

I drove the Taycan Turbo today. I have been pretty negative on this car as I was disappointed in the final styling, price and performance. That being said, it feels like a very fast capable Porsche and the styling is good enough- just not wow. I won’t be purchasing one mostly because of the range. Otherwise it’s very impressive- ignoring the price. A future electric Porsche will be in my future- just not this one.

 

I.
Never.
Said.
They.
Did.

THAt. Is. Because. The EPA didn't. Test. The. Car.

TherE. aRe. otHer. TeSts. That. May.
Be.
More.
Accurate.
Respresentations.
Of.
Real. World. UsAGE.

edit.
In the email they sent out with the “epa estimate”, they did say they had an independent research org that “specialized in unbiased evaluations” actually drive the car on roads In 5 different test cycles.

so that is not explicitly stating “we formally dispute the epa estimates based on their calculations” it is clear what their view is

 

I don't have a link to the interview mentioned, but I saw this on Reddit. IIRC, this user is German, so may be a German interview:

"In an interview Porsche gave 4 reasons for the disappointing EPA results:

1. WLTP tests are done with air conditioning turned off, EPA tests are done with air condition turned on. To account for this difference in consumption the EPA tests use an adjustment factor of 0.7 without actually testing the car with these features turned on - according to Porsche this is too much and doesn't represent real world energy consumption of the Taycans air conditioning system.
   
2. Porsche optimized the car for european highway driving, which has average speeds of 130 km/h. The WLTP tests are done at up to 131 km/h while EPA tests only go up to 96 km/h. Porsche says 96 km/h highway speed doesn't represent real world driving patterns of Porsche cars.
   
3. EPA uses all available drive modes while WLTP only uses normal mode. Porsche says the available sport, sport+ and race mode in the Taycan Turbo S lead to an unfair test result.
   
4. WLTP uses base cars while EPA includes extras. Porsche offers much more extras than most other cars which again leads to a disadvantage in tests."
   
   
   https://www.reddit.com/r/RealTesla/c...nge_290_miles/
   
   
   

 

Porsche seems to be suggesting that one way to get closer to WLTP range is to drive faster, like a Porsche owner should!

Physics says otherwise, but the testing protocols might be so screwy that the assertion is somehow true.

 

I'm pretty sure something got lost in translation. There's no way you'd get a lower range at a slower speed in an EV. That would rewrite the laws of physics.

 

I've hosted a website called bikecalculator.com for many years, where cyclists can estimate speed or power based on various parameters. Last year I put a hidden page up that does the same sort of calculations for a Tesla Model 3 (add a "/tesla" if you're curious). To do it, I had to look into the data generated for the EPA ratings.

It was weird.

It's obtained from dyno-testing done by the manufacturer, not in a wind tunnel. The resistance put on the drums is figured from a calculation based on Cd and frontal area, apparently. I don't know if the EPA measures CdA or uses the manufacturer's information. Odd things are allowed by the EPA. For example, the single- and dual-motor Model 3's tested differently, but Tesla asked and got permission to give them the same range. I understand the EPA has granted permission in other cases (Ford, notably) that has led to very misleading ratings.

I'd prefer they just drove the cars around in some standardized manner.

 

which is what that AMCI test did.

I know that some Tesla nuts will then say "but AMCI didn't test the Tesla, so you need to use EPA for comparison" - which misses the point that it isn't a d*** measuring contest, it is about whether the car you are considering meets your needs under real world conditions.

Edit. that above comment was NOT directed at adk46.

 

There are a couple of really big issues with AMCI tests:
1. We don't have data for any other EV. That's a big argument against AMCI, as even a novice driver knows that energy consumption relies heavily on traffic, temperatures (more so for an EV) and how aggressive the driver is.
2. Their test was done on (iirc) two routes, with HVAC set either to off/eco. The latter is already a huge question mark for me, as it doesn't represent a realistic use-case for day to day operation. Who's going to pay 150k for a car and then set the HVAC to 'eco' in order to get to work?
3. An EV's range is killed by highway driving. AMCI fudged the tests a bit, as they only did either city-only or city-highway combined tests, never just highway. Also it's unclear what combination of the two was present in the "combined" cycle.

In my opinion, the AMCI test is useful just as much as any anecdotal evidence from a really conscious user is. It's nothing different from a user posting their energy consumption and range on a certain commute route, averaged over a few weeks. If your use profile matches his, great, otherwise, mileage might vary. Literally.

 

Which is no different than any other estimate. If your actual, real world driving matches the models and calculations used to create the EPA estimates, you will get similar results to the EPA estimates.

The only interesting part about all this is why is the EPA estimates are such an outlier compared to AMCI, WLTP, CA Carb and all the reports of real world usage?

No. Not having published results from other cars says nothing against them. They are legit, unbiased testing organization.