Zcd1

How about if we use the EPA's actual data: https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Powe...=0&rowLimit=25

You'll note that there are multiple entries, taking into account the various models and configurations.

Tesla does not make any claims that aren't supported by EPA data, which directly refutes your claim about Tesla artificially inflating numbers.

acoste

Based on your response you haven't read or didn't take the time to understand the link I posted. So I'm not going to spend time correcting you either.


But I'm responding to others with something relevant I found here.

In Consumer Report's range test https://www.consumerreports.org/hybr...tric-vehicles/ which they claim "Our EV range test involves some mixed driving, but much of it is done by driving a constant 65 mph on highways."

And then quoting from Tesla Model 3's test results: https://www.consumerreports.org/hybr...ecommendation/

"the Model 3 set a range record in CR testing. It managed to go 350 miles on a single charge—the longest distance we’ve ever recorded in an EV—when set to Tesla’s higher regenerative braking mode (which the company refers to as Standard Regenerative Braking Mode)."

"When set to the lower regenerative braking mode, which more accurately reflects the driving experience of a conventional vehicle, the EV still managed to go an impressive 310 miles, which is in line with what Tesla estimated for the car."

Additional info: Tesla Bjorn't constant 55mph range test resulted in 310mi range.

2 conclusions:
- a good amount of CR's test is acceleration and deceleration even though they claim "much of it is done by driving a constant 65 mph". // this is what the guy in the teslarati link didn't get
- there is a great difference in range between the 2 settings. So one can easily pump EPA range by setting the default regen stronger.

goin2drt

So are you saying Tesla fudges EPA ratings? if so then you are also saying that Porsche is not? So you are comparing a real life true range of the Porsche with a fudged not real range of the Tesla? I would assume ALL companies use the same method of fudging. Either way the Taycan range sucks. I guess the actual true test will be when enough of these cars get released and the “true” range in the exact same scenarios will be revealed by real people not “paid” journalist who sway their opinions based on what is their motive just like a good politician. My guess is Taycan will still be substantially lower.

acoste

I learnt that EPA rating can be skewed by many parameters. And the published EPA range does not apply to a situation where range matters (road trips). I believe EPA should share a range which the car can achieve at a constant 65mph instead of this city weighted numbers and should be based on real world driving, not dyno. City consumption makes sense only for ICE which can go skyhigh due to the lack of regen. Tesla Bjorn, Caranddriver and some others share constant speed consumption for EVs.
Constant speed consumption is not a straight indication of drive train efficiency yet, but give some hints if someone takes the time and compares accessories, tires, pressures, battery buffers.

Porsche clearly didn't play the regen trick in EPA. However I don't have much more information about the exact test results yet so I don't know how far they are from the 0.7 multiplier. Maybe in 6 months. There are some clues based on the WLTP ratings.

Zcd1

I've seen the file you referenced previously - it's old news to me, and it STILL doesn't support your statement that Tesla artificially inflates their efficiency claims.

My statement (unlike yours) is fact - TESLA doesn't make any range claims that aren't supported by the EPA's figures.

As to regenerative braking, if you owned a Tesla Model 3 (like I do) you'd know that:
1) "Standard" regen is the default setting. The other option is "Low". Few owners leave their car set to "Low" after the first few hours of driving. One-pedal driving (slowing to a complete stop via regenerative braking and without using the brake pedal) is a much more convenient way to drive.
2) That the regenerative braking deceleration rates have gotten stronger over time via OTA updates.

Zcd1

If you have an issue with the way the EPA tests EVs, that's all well and good, but take it up with the EPA, rather than accusing Tesla of playing games. Tesla uses the EPA figures - end of story.

acoste

You still have a lot to learn and totally don't get this regen part. But I will show you something (which you would already knew if you read my teslike link).

Chevrolet Bolt https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/displ...d=48000&flag=1
EPA city test cycle: 396.774mi
EPA hwy test cycle: 335.799mi

EPA rated range: (396.8*0.55+335.8*0.45)*0.7 = 258.5mi

Tesla Model S LR https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/displ...d=48714&flag=1
EPA city test cycle: 513.95mi
EPA hwy test cycle: 479.48mi

EPA rated range: (513.95*0.55+479.48*0.45)*0.7 = 349mi

Now look at the EPA rated range of these cars: https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find...42282&id=42191
Bolt: 259 mi
S: 373 mi

Additionally there is one more part I don't understand: how was EPA able to withdraw 99,617Wh, 98,861Wh and 100,441Wh out of the 100kWh battery when Tesla Bjorn got out less than 92kWh in his test?
One answer is the bottom buffer. But Tesla as far as I know doesn't have 8% bottom buffer. Rather 3-4%.
Second answer is the lower consumption during EPA test (batteries provide more capacity with lower current). Still does not explain all.

Zcd1

You said Tesla artificially inflates its range claims. The fact is that Tesla quotes the EPA's numbers, same as Chevy, Jaguar, Audi, Porsche and other EV mfrs. do. That's not artificially inflating - that's following industry standard procedure.

Quoting 3rd party, unscientific, uncontrolled, non-standard testing to try to "prove" your statement is weak at best and dishonest at worst.

Again, take up your beef with the EPA - not with Tesla.

acoste

OMG. I don't know what else to say. Do you realize all my links in the post above are from EPA?

Do you realize that one company used the adjustment of 0.7 and the other used 0.75?

Whoopsy

BTW my post isn't targeting yours. It's about people keep comparing non-equal class cars.

Right now there is only one thing that are very plain and clear and simple:

A Taycan is in a difference class compared to a Model S, also a completely different class vs a Model 3. Just like a Corella is in a very different class as compared with a Ghost. The only thing common is they are both a sedan and has 4 doors and powered by a combustion engine, and in the Taycan vs Tesla case, EV motors instead of a combustion engine, THAT'S IT!!!

Tesla made the Model 3 to be a mainstream volume EV car, like a Corella. That can mostly be used in a single car household. Has great range and economical to run. Same can be said of the Model S with the Tesla level interior. A Taycan isn't in that category, just the price tag alone means it will be a second or 3rd car, like nay household with a Ghost. And in that category, range isn't an issue, that said household will have another with a longer range to fulfill that duty.

I have been living with my e-Tron for longer and put more mileage than Harry did on the I-Pace btw. Both are more luxurious than any Tesla. AND cheaper than a comparable Model X if one really want to compare.

Within the limitation, the Audi and the Jaguar is a wonderful urban car, perfectly capable and exactly for what they are made for. A Taycan will also be like that too. These are not made to be the be-all end-all car. My pickup can haul more than a Model 3, so does that means a Model 3 is a bad car? No. A minivan can seat more than my pickup, so now my pickup is a bad car? Comparing cars out of their limitations it's meaningless.

With the increase competition in the EV segment, manufacturers are coming in with better trim levels for the buyers looking for them, not everyone is only looking for the longest range EV. They simply want a better car and can live with shorter range as range is a non-issue now. Mostly. Harry's video just highlight the fact that EV still isn't mainstream, and won't be for a while, until charing network catch up to gas stations. Not even Tesla's own network is enough for mainstream buyers.

The most stupid mistake one can do right now is ' buy' a EV vs leasing it. EVs are currently in it's infancy, and it's mostly tech driven. Why get stuck on last gen tech? And technology for EV is advancing a lot and quite fast. One reason I lease my e-Tron. I know in 3 years there will be much better EV to replace it. I am not getting a Taycan, it doesn't fit what I needs, I already have a better sedan in a Panamera Turbo S, but IF I were to get a Taycan, ti will surely be on a lease. Any Tesla is cheaper so the depreciation will be lower, but I don't want a Tesla either as the interior really is too subpar for the price it commands. e-Tron is much better equipped yet a cost a lot less than a Model X, which is exactly why I have it in the first place.

Before the Tesla cult start saying they have this and that from software updates, remember those are just fluffs, software codes can doing do so much when the limitation is hardware. And for tech stuff, by the time software caught up, the hardware is already a few generations ahead. Look no farther than your own phone. Do you still want to use that Nokia slider in your drawer?

Right now one can find and buy a 50 year old normal car and fully enjoy it, do someone here still want a 50 year old Model 3 40 years later?

Petevb

I’d almost say the opposite- Porsche was the one that felt they needed to release an EV (counter to their prior plans and in a hurry), and in important ways they ended up with a compromised car as a result. I’m struck by just how behind the curve in efficiency (and by extension range, weight and cost) Porsche/ VW AG has found themselves...

I get there are uses-cases where range isn’t important, but for my case (and I suspect many others) it is. I’m trying to cover a number of missions with one car to free up garage space. Thus while I look to my current EV to tick the commuter car box the more other boxes it can check the better- ski mobile, people mover, dog car, canoe hauler, stuff carrier, fun car, etc are all desirable. The more boxes it ticks the more the other cars (four of them currently) can be focused. The Taycan in theory could check many boxes- it’s undoubtedly a better commuter and fun car than my Model 3D and could likely do most of the other tasks at least as well... if it weren’t for the range.

It’s 186 miles from our house to our favorite ski lodge in Tahoe (which has overnight charging), yet in practice after climbing a 7.4k foot pass on a snowy road in variable traffic with the heater on full my 310 mile range M3D will rarely get there without a splash and go- not with enough reserve range to get back to safety if the pass is unexpectedly closed. But where the Tesla might need 5-10 minutes worth of charge on that trip (in one direction, coming back is always fine) the Taycan looks more like two significant stops for ~40 minutes total. Nearly ditto when we go canoe camping, etc.

I personally might get over a handful of extra stops for the pleasure of driving a nicer car the rest of the year. Unfortunately in all honesty my wife probably couldn’t- I get crap as it is when we need to stop in the Tesla (she’d apparently rather stop for 10 minutes 52 times a year at a gas station than spend an hour total at a supercharger but at less convenient times). Thus turning that hour into five hours, which seems like a possibility given our use case, or exacerbating her somewhat irrational range anxiety probably makes the Taycan a no-go for us.

This seems a vaguely ludicrous given that my previous electric Fiat would only eek out 85 miles on a good day and we loved it, but the Tesla has now taken over the “everything else” role in our garage, meaning we don’t view it as an electric at all: we view it simply as a car, with all the expectations that entails.

Porsche looks like they have built a very good electric car, and if your expectations are somewhat limited it will no doubt be superior at everything it can do. Tesla, on the other hand, has built something that I suspect from a driver’s perspective is slightly less good at nearly everything the Porsche does, but critically tips past the point of being an “electric” (ie limited) vehicle and is simply capable of doing virtually everything most people would ask of it. At least normal people around here, anyway- no 4K mile road trips, etc.

Porsche rushed the Taycan, which is what happens when you do a technical about-face in a matter of years. They also obviously chose a different philosophy prioritizing performance to the detriment of range (from the two speed gearbox with cooling lubrication to the higher rolling resistance tires they made many conscious choices in that direction) but as others have pointed out these don’t fully explain the efficiency gap. Viewed as a first effort the Taycan is very impressive, but I feel they still have significant catching up to do on the technical side particularly vs the M3D, and I expect Porsche’s second effort to big leap forwards. After all Porsche does have deep experience with things like low rolling resistance performance tires (ie on the 918) etc. My impression of the Taycan is that there was only so much time available and they chose to focus on core brand values. Long term however I think they know that won’t be enough. Tesla’s going after the car market not the EV market. The former is both much bigger and more interesting; I’m quite sure Porsche won’t let them play on their own for much longer.

BTW some of us do cross-shop the Taycan, Model 3 and even Cayenne/ Macan trying to cover the bases. Sure they are different classes but given a “fleet” philosophy some rolls can move between vehicles as needed to juggle. So while it’s true that Porsche doesn’t have a car in the Model 3’s class that doesn’t mean they aren’t loosing sales to it (as I suspect others here can attest).

AlexCeres

had to be done. Some things can only be learned by doing and keeping the taycan in development longer wouldn’t improve things as quickly. Letting Tesla just keep on accumulating wins isn’t a plan. In the grand scheme of things, the taycan isn’t nearly as important a product as the macan and Cayenne. Tesla really is years ahead on efficiency and EV manufacturing. VW at least recognizes this is an existential threat and is developing dedicated BEV platforms. Compared to BMW’s plan and Toyota which are absurd.

svp6

And back to the Taycan range. Courtesy of epirali on the other forum (happy owner of a gentian blue turbo S):

"Ok so I suffered all the way back today in Range mode. I drove mostly on highways in Range mode, which limits you to 70 mph.. I was driving 65-70 most of the way. There was not preconditioning, temp was 30, the car was outside all day and I had heat set to 72 (and seat heat and wheel heat on). Same driving style. I drove a total of 75 miles and battery went from 85 to 50 for this trip. So 35% for 75 miles=214 mile for 100%->0. This is actually pretty good for temperature that ranged from 26-30 and with cabin heat. This lines up with the cars self reported 37.9 KWHr/100 miles (221 mile range for 84 KWHr capacity)."

This is very good for the turbo S in winter - I am a happy camper.

Needsdecaf

What does that even mean? An iPace isn't in a similar class to a Taycan? Hate to break it to you, the Taycan is a 4 door sedan. It's no sports car.

Thanks for making this about Tesla. I didn't. You did. You seem to be stuck on that.

Not arguing your definition of the Tesla.

I definitely argue your definition of the Taycan. It's a driver's sedan. But it's not big enough to really shuttle 4 adults in comfort. It's not a third car. It's a daily driver. Now, I do agree that it'll be bought by multiple-car households, but still, not having good range really limits it as a daily driver.

Again, you're making it about Tesla. You seem to be hung up on this. I'm not disputing any of those facts.

You're comparing apples to oranges. I'm not comparing out of class. I never said that the Taycan was supposed to be an end-all be-all car. Are you telling me that you don't think that someone living in, say, Westchester county NY wouldn't want to drive it into NYC for work, even occasionally? Depending on weather and how far out they live, that might not be possible with the range.

Never said that people are only buying based on the longest range. But you just made my point. The charging network is woefully behind if you're outside of the Tesla network. Yes, both will have to grow, but right now, the charging network is a HUGE limiting factor in EV's rolling out. Especially as more models from VAG, Ford, etc. roll out. That is my point. Range isn't as much of a non-issue as you'd believe it to be. Because you're point, which I will repeat again:..is incorrect. EV's are going to become mainstream, because manufacturers are forcing them on the public. Look how many EV's are set to hit the market in the next 24 months. Etron GT, Polestar, EV Mustang, Hyundai Kona EV, and on and on. The charging network is ALREADY a huge weak point and it's about to become overwhelmed. Range is important to all EV's. Even the Taycan.



Read petevb's post above. Another perfect point about why range matters to the Taycan. It's not some magical weekend only car like a GT3 RS. It's a daily driver, a family car.

​​​​​​​
​​​​​​​
​​​​​​​

Whoopsy

Taycan is a 4 door sedan, I-Pace/e-Tron are not sedans, crossover/SUV. One seats higher up in the Jaguar/Audi.

EVs are still CARS. And Porsche already have a better car in their offerings, it's called the Panamera. Longer range and roomier. In hybrid guise, they also get all the benefits of a being a green car.


EXACTLY!!! This is exactly WHY Taycan is NOT for everyone, and Porsche never said anything about Taycan is for EVERYONE!!

They published the specs already, people who put down a deposit have a chance to see that before committing to a car, no one FORCED them to buy one that doesn't work for their own scenarios. This is like buying a Mini Convertible as a work truck and then complaining it can't carry 4x8s



This is a FREE MARKET. No one forces ANYONE to buy a EV. Each person has their own individual needs that's unique. For some a EV, from Chevy will work already. For others it could be a Tesla, or a Taycan, or a I-Pace. Or a whatever. For a select few, 200 miles a tank isn't enough, for others, that could be 10 days worth of driving. And maybe someone is still on the fence waiting for a 500 mile range EV so they still haven't bought into the EV segment. All good. For some a 200 miles range is a non-starter, others think a cheap interior is a non-starter, everyone's choice is DIFFERENT!

Isn't it wonderful to have choices? There is no one single best choice that works for everyone.



It's why Porsche makes the Panamera still and didn't killed it for the Taycan.
​​​​​​​
​​​​​​​[/QUOTE]