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.
Depends on how much a manufacturer is willing to pay a tire company to develop new compounds that's tailored to the car.
Some just take off the shelf run of the mill tires, as that's cheaper than custom designing a compound.
See the 918 as an example for custom compound. The stock tires, Cup 2 N0 version, is ECO rated LRR tires. Yet they don't give up much lateral grip if at all compared to normal Cup2s. 991.1 GT3RS was fitted with non-ECO N1 versions of the same size, but there is more differences between the N0 and N1 as the sidewalls of the N1 version is also different than the N0 as the 918 is mid-engined vs rear engined for the GT3RS. Now they are onto N2 version of the Cup2s for the 991.2 GT3RS. N2 is just a stickier version of N1.
ECO rated tires gives about ~10% extra mileage. A few years ago I had a Odyssey that came with ECO tires, I replaced them with non-ECO version and the gas mileage instantly got 10% worse.
Originally Posted by acoste
Yes.
One more thing I found is that Tesla uses tire compounds with low rolling resistance. This usually results in less grip (and longer range of course).
Find the EPA rating of 201 miles hard to believe, or at least something achieved with spirited driving in Sport plus mode, not ECO mode or normal mode.
Living in Norway, we have lots of discussions in the media around electric vehicles, as around half of all cars sold here are electric now. Very good government incentives, combined with high taxes on ICE cars is the main reason, but in the cities, every other car is a Tesla...
I used to have a Model S 100D, which averaged about 275 wh/km. Was extremely disappointed with Tesla from a build quality perspective, but the drivetrain and charging worked very well, and is their best feature. However, you got nowhere near their claimed range in real life usage. With the average consumption I had on the Tesla Model S 100D, with available battery being 98,4 kW, means a total range of 357 km, not the 612km that Tesla quoted. The Tesla I had was also supplied with narrow tires, "efficiency" type tires on 19" rims, not performance focused tires.
I now have a BMW i3S, which averages about 160 wh/km. (On recent full electric driving during the winter with my Panamera Turbo S e-hybrid I get around 350 wh/km, but it is not really comparing apples and apples).
I have a Taycan Turbo S in order, and tested a Turbo in Portugal. Here we where seeing around 280-320 wh/km, with very spirited driving, track driving, max acceleration to 185 km/h etc.
A range test that a Norwegian television did on the Taycan Turbo in Austria and Germany with some Sport plus driving and some ECO driving, it resulted in total consumption of 238 wh/km, with average speed of 60 km/h. On highway driving doing 100 km/h the consumption was 197 wh/km. In order to reach the 380-450 km range, it would have to consume 195 - 230 wh/km (with 87,4 kW being available from the 93,5kW battery).
So all in all, the enormous gap in efficiency that some claim that Tesla have is not that much. Yes, they have a very efficient and good drivetrain, but just tires could be 10-15% difference, and from the numbers quoted so far from tests, Porsche are close to Tesla on efficiency in real life use (and the build quality is soooo much better ).
A range test that a Norwegian television did on the Taycan Turbo in Austria and Germany with some Sport plus driving and some ECO driving, it resulted in total consumption of 238 wh/km, with average speed of 60 km/h. On highway driving doing 100 km/h the consumption was 197 wh/km. In order to reach the 380-450 km range, it would have to consume 195 - 230 wh/km (with 87,4 kW being available from the 93,5kW battery).
So all in all, the enormous gap in efficiency that some claim that Tesla have is not that much. Yes, they have a very efficient and good drivetrain, but just tires could be 10-15% difference, and from the numbers quoted so far from tests, Porsche are close to Tesla on efficiency in real life use (and the build quality is soooo much better ).
Thanks for this info
Interesting that the 60km/h driving, sometimes using ECO, was that less efficient than the 100km/h driving.
It would be good if they reported the specifics of each of the tests.
IIRC, this was one of the responses to the EPA test, which is that they have much lower speeds in the tests.
So a little more details about this test:
2 persons in car, 13-16 degrees celsius, wet roads.
- Initial part of driving was performed in "Range mode". In Range mode the air intakes in the front are closed, getting cd down to 0,22. After some city driving and 19,7 km drive, the consumption hit 197 wh/km (in an electric car, if the temperature does not require HVAC to be running max, city driving is actually not very bad for consumption compared to an ICE vehicle). Average speed 49 km/h.
- After some highway driving in around 100 km/h, it brought the consumption up to 215 wh/km.
- In Austria for some twisty mountain driving, Sport plus was activated and consumption rose to 296 wh/km.
- After 2 hours and 34 minutes, 142 km driven, average speed of 56 km/h, the consumption hit 245 wh/km
They charged the vehicle, and had another drive back to deliver the car, upon which they also tested top speed in Germany (hitting around 260 km/h), and even including that the consumption totalled 238 wh/km.
In Portugal we tested 0-185 km/h-0 runs. The vehicles started at about 60% battery. After about 8 runs (can´t remember exactly), we still had 56% battery left
In the Tesla, the most economic run I had, I was able to squeeze the consumption down to about 185 wh/km, however as stated in my previous post, the total average for the car under all circumstances and a few thousand km driven, was about 275 wh/km. In the wintertime, even with starting the car from a heated garage heading to work, starting in freezing temperatures at work, the consumption would hit around 350 wh/km. Given the very powerful HVAC in the Tesla (I believe it is around 13 kW heat pump), we could see consumption of around 580-600 wh/km after start, when starting in sub-zero temperatures. In the summertime, if supercharging, the consumption would also go through the roof immediately after charging, as the car needed to cool down (resulting in the whole front bumper vibrating), and thereby range affected considerably.
In my opinion the consumption and range compared to battery size will be quite similar on the Taycan and the Tesla. They are both heavy vehicles with powerful engines. I wished the Taycan would come with a 100kW battery, as it is a fairly ideal size for a battery, but the faster charging will compensate to some degree. For most use, the battery will be more than sufficient if you charge it at home over night, but for long road trips, some charge planning will have to be made.
I am looking forward to seeing some more detailed testing, and also curious as to what potential improvements Porsche is making given the couple of months delay in production
I haven't heard about the vibrating front bumper before. Was that something you can notice while sitting in the car or only if you stand by the bumper? How long would it vibrate?
I haven't heard about the vibrating front bumper before. Was that something you can notice while sitting in the car or only if you stand by the bumper? How long would it vibrate?
I experienced it a couple of times. After Supercharging it would last for about 10-15 minutes. Could definitely be felt inside the vehicle, and the bumper vibrated about 2-3 cm back and forth quite heavily. The first time I experienced this it happened during a charge that took place in around 18-20 degrees celsius doing a road trip going at around 100 km/h for a long period of time, so no extreme conditions for the battery (I could have understood it better if it was 35-40 degrees at the time of the charge). It did not happen during all supercharges, but I experienced it a couple of times.
I'm wondering if most of the range different is stickier tires and less aero-dynamic wheels as standard equipment (the way the car is tested for range)…the numbers are about right for a tire/wheel difference - potential EV power alone isn't typically that much of a drag on efficiency unless you "use" the power as part of your testing
I am not trying to stir the pot, or dig up a dead horse to beat it, but can someone explain to me range anxiety when an EV is used as a daily, especially when one has an EV charger at home?
Assuming one's daily commute is less than 100 miles (very likely), and you have an EV charger at home, how is range anxiety ever an issue?
Even on weekends, or non-work days, are there really excursions that would bump up to the upper limit of 200 miles?
Granted, all of this assumes that the owner has an EV charger at home, not necessarily a safe assumption, but I'd assume for a person who owns a 100K+ BEV, such an assumption isn't unreasonable nor unlikely.
Of course, for long-distance commutes (say for a vacation or some other one-off purpose), it's a different story and range anxiety (when the total range is in the low 200s) is a real thing and I get that.
But for a daily commuter when a person has an in-home EV charger, how is a total range of +/- 200 miles really an issue with respect to range?
I'm wondering if most of the range different is stickier tires and less aero-dynamic wheels as standard equipment (the way the car is tested for range)…the numbers are about right for a tire/wheel difference - potential EV power alone isn't typically that much of a drag on efficiency unless you "use" the power as part of your testing
I was just thinking the same thing with regard to the wheels. The Turbo S has the 21", the Turbo 20", and the 4S 19" which would make for less range on the TS
I am not trying to stir the pot, or dig up a dead horse to beat it, but can someone explain to me range anxiety when an EV is used as a daily, especially when one has an EV charger at home?
Assuming one's daily commute is less than 100 miles (very likely), and you have an EV charger at home, how is range anxiety ever an issue?
Even on weekends, or non-work days, are there really excursions that would bump up to the upper limit of 200 miles?
Granted, all of this assumes that the owner has an EV charger at home, not necessarily a safe assumption, but I'd assume for a person who owns a 100K+ BEV, such an assumption isn't unreasonable nor unlikely.
Of course, for long-distance commutes (say for a vacation or some other one-off purpose), it's a different story and range anxiety (when the total range is in the low 200s) is a real thing and I get that.
But for a daily commuter when a person has an in-home EV charger, how is a total range of +/- 200 miles really an issue with respect to range?
Thank you.
As a daily commuter driver if you have a charger at home there are no issues. It more has to do with freedom and non commute driving like a day trip plus some shopping or a weekend long drive its very easy to do 200 miles. Having a car that only dose 180 miles limit its use and adds the need to add time to your day to charge the car something that currently takes a few hours at any destination charger.
01-11-2020, 10:05 PM
).
