Battery Electric Vehicle News / Enjoying the Transportation Revolution

EVandPV

Solarchaser said:

Hi Ken, that's a mass of information right enough, and I don't have experience of all of those cars, only leaf 24 and tm3 long range, but I also know you have the newer leaf, I guess the 40, does 3.1 seem right to you?

All of those figures seem low to me.
I'd put the 24 leaf at between 3.6 and 4 m/kwh and tbh probably the same for the tm3.

To answer why are tesla figures so bad, id say this from my own observations,  (which are anecdotal I admit) on the motorway I see plenty of id3's, ioniques, leafs and kona's... and they are all (with very few exceptions) sitting on the inside lane doing around 60-65mph, conversely it's very rare to see any tesla doing the same, it tends to be only me (if I'm on the phone to someone and trying to limit road noise same as in any car) doing that kind of speed in a Tesla, most are blasting past at 70-80-...

What I'm getting at is that tesla will show lower consumption figures generally because they are generally bought to run motorway miles, whereas most other evs are bought to do non motorway miles, and as we all know, where ice cars do better mileage at motorway speeds, evs do worse.

Anyway, just my meanderings.

I can only speak for the Zoe as haven't driven any other EVs yet but 3.1 m/kwh seems low to me too.
Mine is an R110 and I'm easily getting 4 m/kwh, 4.5 m/kwh if I'm stingy with the throttle on motorways.
I wouldn't think there would that much of a difference between the R110 and R135.

JKenH

One of the possible explanations for Tesla’s relatively poor performance in the What Car test was I believe that Teslas are optimised for “Highway” driving  (motorways to you and me) whereas other cars fare better at town driving. I don’t know if there is any truth in that or indeed if that is possible. With ICE cars gearing affects economy - that’s why light cars like the MX5 are so poor on motorways - but does that apply with electric cars; I don’t know?

Given how Tesla always seem to be in the outside lane of motorways you may have a point about a higher average consumption in the Spritmonitor.de real life data being down to the way they are driven. That’s a true real life test but perhaps a bit unfair as a comparison if the Leafs and Zoes are driven at 56 on the inside lane of a motorway( as they often are). The same problem probably affects the e-tron and EQC. If you are spending £50k plus on a car, a few pence extra on electricity is not a problem.

As far as my Leaf is concerned I have on a couple of occasions seen over 5mpk (miles/kWh) indicated on the dash and tend to run around 4.2 in summer but the last month or so have been seeing 3.6. (I tend not to reset the trip meter unless I do a 100% charge so my averages can often be over several hundred miles or in the case of the second trip meter 999miles+). I have certainly seen below 3 in winter when a 100 mile trip needs a lot of careful driving. I remember driving to Cadwell Park early one dry March morning and averaging an indicated 2.9.

What I have found though is that the dash display doesn’t quite match reality (as is also often the case with ICEvs). Soon after I got the car I did an economy run over several days to go from 100% to 1% and managed 170 miles at an indicted 5.2 mpk. I know from LeafSpy that the actual energy used was 34.8kwh (3.6kwh remaining) and that worked out at a real 4.9mpk. In September this year on a hot day I left home fully charged (36.4kWh in LeafSpy) and covered 137 miles with an indicated 13% and 23 miles remaining (that’s an easy 160 mile range. LeafSpy said I had 22% and 8.1 kWh left so my average was 4.84mpk against an indicated 5.1mpk on the display.

I did a calculation a month or two back based on indicated battery % in the upper part off the battery range (which is the more accurate part) and a 3.6mpk trip actually worked out at 3.1mpk.

MPGe of course is a measure of efficiency from the wall (it takes into account charging losses) and so is probably 15% less than is what is used in the car and the What Car test was also measuring what was taken from the charger so a sub 3mpk figure is not unrealistic for a Leaf - depending on the time of year. IRIC the What Car test was done around 15C which was probably not dissimilar to my 3.6 mpk run. So my 3.6 indicated, 3.1 real could come down to 2.6 after charging losses are factored in. 

I know your experience differs but I did see a report on charging efficiency and the TM3 was near the bottom at around 80% efficiency. I recall on a Tesla forum thread someone who had monitored his charging over a long period only recording 75% charging efficiency. (That was in America and may have been from a 110 volt charger though).

The other point I suppose to take into account with the TM3 is the battery management does use energy to heat up the battery which may not appear on the consumption display but might have come into play with the What Car figures. This would presumably affect short trips more than long runs and might have had a disproportionate effect on range and efficiency. 

I don’t have the answers only questions. 

Edit: I posted the above article in a rush without checking and a couple of corrections were needed, in particular to change ‘do’ to ‘don’t’ in the last sentence. 

Martyn1981

Solarchaser said:

All of those figures seem low to me.
I'd put the 24 leaf at between 3.6 and 4 m/kwh and tbh probably the same for the tm3.

Yeah, same here. The TM3 will do about 4m/kWh, even at motorway speed limits ...... but if you do a lot of higher speeds, or childishly enjoy the point and squirt playability of the car <cough like me cough>, then efficiency will suffer. Over the last year and a bit we've averaged 3.45m/kWh. I think the 24 Leaf was similar, but the Ioniq remains king with a relatively easy 5m/kWh if driven gently (not ECO mode), and a running average now of 4.4m/kWh despite myself and wifey always choosing sport mode.

If I recall correctly, both Michaels(?) and CW seem to get really good numbers from their newer Leafs.

[Edit - For anyone interested, Byorn Nyland has a Youtube channel that's very informative, and he tests all the cars he can get his hands on, on a 1,000km 10hr(ish) drive.

This vid shows the Ioniq 5 being tested, and at the 20m 30s mark, you can see a table of other cars he's tested. Obviously the TM3's stand out for breaking the 200Wh/km mark, but the temp was relatively warm, and the ID3 scores well with a 200Wh/km result. The Mustang does poorly with a 320Wh/kM, but the temp is very low and the road is wet. M.]



Slight segue, but speaking of Leafs, recently I was thinking about battery degradation, and how it doesn't seem to make the news so much. My mind kinda automatically went to the early Leaf, but I think I'm right in believing that it's not really an issue on the later models. I also recently heard of an ID3 that had about 10% degradation after about 15,000 miles, but the owner openly admitted to almost entirely using rapid chargers and charging from 0-100% all of the time, so that also seems to be an understandable outlier.

So ..... famous last words ..... but have we reached the end of high battery degradation? Is it not really an issue* going forward, when perhaps secondhand vehicles have 80%+ range after 100k to 200k miles?

*Still an issue for those thinking about BEV's, just like range anxiety, but perhaps not a real issue?

michaels

Our leaf is older (a 15 24kwh) - we tend to get a year round average indicated miles per kwh of 4 but I have no idea of the accuracy of this.  The v2g charger is chademo which puts the car at quite a high level of 'standby' even when it is neither charging nor discharging so we try not to leave it switched on in the day (plug it in in the evening it discharges, leave it plugged in and it is 'full' at our set time in the morning, it chooses when to charge - but these 12 odd hours probably suffer 1kwh of standby losses.

JKenH

michaels said:

Our leaf is older (a 15 24kwh) - we tend to get a year round average indicated miles per kwh of 4 but I have no idea of the accuracy of this.  The v2g charger is chademo which puts the car at quite a high level of 'standby' even when it is neither charging nor discharging so we try not to leave it switched on in the day (plug it in in the evening it discharges, leave it plugged in and it is 'full' at our set time in the morning, it chooses when to charge - but these 12 odd hours probably suffer 1kwh of standby losses.

I think we can excuse the standby losses as they are incurred for the benefit of V2G and not really part of owning the car. I noted before the good mpk you get. What’s your use profile like? When I first got a Leaf I used to try and squeeze the last mile out of every KWh but now I only tend to do that on long trips. Driving around locally I tend to drive the car like an ICEv (70 on dual carriageways and motorways etc) and enjoy the torque but still make the most of the regen making full use of the ePedal. That means I don’t lift off quite as early as I would when trying to stretch the mileage.

Perhaps it’s because I like numbers and also have a Zappi (shows kWh used to 2 decimal places) and LeafSpy that I pay so much attention to efficiency. From an economics point of view charging on Go Faster it’s neither here nor there whether I get 3 or 4mpk but of course it does come into play on a long run when I do change my driving style to minimise charging stops. 

As far as the point Mart made about the Ioniq, I agree that Hyundai/Kia seem to be the kings of efficiency. I saw someone a while back post an indicated 6+ mpk from an e-Niro on Facebook which gave a theoretical range of 350 miles. I asked if it really did translate into that in practice and apparently some people have done over 350 miles on a charge!

As far as battery degradation is concerned, it is still happening. My son’s 2017 30kwh Leaf is down to 81% battery state of health (one battery bar gone) at just 30,000 miles. It has had a gentle life charging with not that many rapids. People are reporting losing more than 4bars (dropping below 70%) and Nissan are doing a BMS reset to restore the bars rather than swapping batteries. 

My 40kwh Leaf (20 months old) is at 93% SoH according to LeafSpy but the majority of that drop occurred in the first 12 months. I could still get 160 miles on a good day (100 on a bad day) and haven’t really noticed any drop off in range. The weather on the day is a bigger factor. Tesla battery health seems good but it is too early to say how the newer BEV manufacturers will fare. 

My wife now uses the Leaf for 90% of her journeys, only using the Picanto if her destination has really tight parking (or when she wants to take her bike). She likes driving the Leaf but insists her next car will still be a petrol Picanto. She is going to buy the  last one ever made, she says. 

JKenH

2021 Tesla Model Y review: Nearly great, critically flawed

The Model Y is a phenomenal achievement in many ways, a great blend of range and practicality and even performance mixed with a suite of unique features that are as useful as they are distinct. But, as it stands, you absolutely should not buy one. Let me elaborate on the why.

https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/reviews/2021-tesla-model-y-review/

Martyn1981

This appears to be just rumours so far, but looks like Herbert Diess has survived. So that's good news for him and VWG.

Diess Survives Volkswagen Board Review — For Now

The crux of Diess’ recent remarks is that Tesla will soon be building electric cars in Grünheide in much less time with fewer workers. Stripping away all the emotional content of his recent remarks, it should be intuitively obvious to the most casual observer that you can’t compete successfully if your cars cost more to build than the cars your competitor is making. It’s as plain as the face on your nose, and yet Diess has been called to account for saying out loud what should be evident to everyone.

Sources tell Reuters that the committee is working to craft a position that will satisfy all parties — which means it will probably satisfy no one. Diess will be asked to change his management style, which is a little like asking a leopard to change its spots, while new board members will be announced, new assurances on job prospects for employees will be given, and new investment plans for Volkswagen Group will be put forth.

Swan_Valley

Work starts on the UK’s largest public electric vehicle charging hub at Redbridge Park & Ride

"The Oxford Superhub, which is being developed by Pivot Power, part of EDF Renewables, and Oxford City Council, as part of Energy Superhub Oxford (ESO), will be located at Redbridge Park & Ride and will see the installation of 38 fast and ultra-rapid chargers – making it the UK’s largest public EV charging hub."

JKenH

CR: EVs Worst For Reliability But Not Due To Their Powertrains

Analysts noted luxury EVs tend to be more unreliable as they have more complex infotainment and general technology features. Cheaper EVs using more dated, simplistic tech such as the Nissan Leaf perform much better per the report.

https://insideevs.com/news/550873/evs-worst-reliability/

Grumpy_chap

JKenH said:

Edit: summary off the results of the Autocar test by Inside EVs

The list is as follows:

 

1. Hyundai Kona Electric, 259 miles (258 EPA miles)

2. Jaguar I-Pace, 253 miles (234 EPA miles)

2. Kia Niro EV, 253 miles (239 EPA miles)

4. Tesla Model 3 Performance, 239 miles (299 EPA miles)

5. Tesla Model X P100D, 233 miles (289 EPA miles)

6. Nissan LEAF e+, 217 miles (226 EPA miles)

7. Mercedes-Benz EQC, 208 miles (259 WLTP miles - anticipated 220 EPA miles)

8. Tesla Model S 75kWh, 204 miles (259 EPA miles)

9. Audi e-tron, 196 miles (204 EPA miles)

10. Renault ZOE R135, 192 miles (238 WLTP miles)

11. Tesla Model 3 Standard Range Plus, 181 miles (250 EPA miles)

12. BMW i3 120Ah, 165 miles (153 EPA miles)

JKenH said:

One of the possible explanations for Tesla’s relatively poor performance in the What Car test was I believe that Teslas are optimised for “Highway” driving  (motorways to you and me) 

These articles seem somewhat selective in a significant manner to provide an anti-Tesla narrative.  Now I don't have any EV and certainly no reason to favour any company over another but, as a prospective consumer, I would expect to see fair and objective reporting to allow proper comparison.

Is that achieved with these articles comparing a Kona EV (which is a fairly sedate family hatchback, and not sure which edition of the vehicle is included) but then for the TM3 only the Performance and SR versions are included in the assessment? 
That seems like listing a Focus Ecoboost and then a BMW M2 Competition and then saying the BMW 2-Series is not very fuel efficient, whereas a more regular 2-Series is likely comparable to the equivalent Focus.
Surely, any independent review and reporting of "best" EV's when range is considered as the criteria of "best" must take the most long-range version of any model to be anywhere near comparable.

I am also surprised not to see the MG5 LR making the list.  Perhaps the research was undertaken before the latest versions of the MG5 were launched.