Real World EV Range Listings

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

danrjones

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 17, 2019
Messages
1,443
Location
Ridgecrest, CA
I've been making a spreadsheet with what I call "Real World" EV Ranges.

I've never felt the EPA number does any justice. For pretty much any new EV the city range is far more than you will ever need, so what I care about is rural highway and freeway range. To that end, I put together a table using data from ABRP (A Better Route Planner).

I put the same route and conditions in - mostly a highway freeway route at 70 mph, and run it for all the EVs. Divide out based on the % used to get the total range. These are notional but interesting. I would expect older EVs to be more accurate as ABRP has more data. I'm also not sure how ABRP handles the cold, and whether it takes into account heat pump or lack thereof. Don't get too riled up over the numbers but feel free to discuss.



EV / 20 deg C Range (Miles) / 0 Deg C Range (miles)


3 LR / 290.3 / 272.7
Y AWD LR AWD / 243.2 / 225.0
S LR / 333.3 / 300.0
Mach E LR RWD / 281.3 / 230.8
Mach E LR AWD / 257.1 / 214.3
Mach E SR RWD / 214.3 / 180.0
Kona / 219.5 / 183.7
Niro / 209.3 / 173.1
Leaf (2018->) / 115.4 / 100.0
Leaf Plus / 173.1 / 150.0
Ariya LR / 250.0 / 219.5
ID4 / 230.8 / 191.5
Bolt / 225.0 / 187.5
Bolt EUV / 204.5 / 173.1
Q4 Etron / 219.5 / 183.7


The "EPA" for those same vehicles:

353
326
402
300
270
230
258
239
149
215
?
250
259
250
?

And the % of the Real vs EPA (for 20 Deg C):
82.2%
74.6%
82.9%
93.8%
95.2%
93.2%
85.1%
87.6%
77.4%
80.5%
?
92.3%
86.9%
81.8%
?
 
danrjones said:
To that end, I put together a table using data from ABRP (A Better Route Planner).

Simulated ranges are not real world ranges.

LEAF ABRP estimates are better than eTron estimates. Owning and driving both.
 
The EPA highway sticker fuel economy is a pretty good approximation of 65 mph driving in dry, moderate weather without wind.
 
WetEV said:
danrjones said:
To that end, I put together a table using data from ABRP (A Better Route Planner).

Simulated ranges are not real world ranges.

LEAF ABRP estimates are better than eTron estimates. Owning and driving both.

Maybe not, but neither are EPA. But the ABRP is pretty spot on for my 2018, when I add in degradation and extrapolate max range. (Unwilling to actually try it)

As I said, don't get too hung up on it. Everyone's real world range is going to be different. Some who drive a Leaf Plus and nanny it and drive 55 on a freeway and get 250 miles. Others might drive 80 mph and end up less than 200 miles. Everyone is different. I assume ABRP uses averages and such so its as good as anything, and IMO better than anecdotal experiences of folks who hang around here.

I also know some groups have done their own real world testing and I'll add that later as I dig it up.

If anyone really thinks the Leaf plus is under rated, you'd have to ask ABRP why, not me. Maybe people here are not a good sample.
 
SageBrush said:
danrjones said:
I assume ABRP uses averages
ABRP defaults to road speed limits but you can set your own.

I left it at default, for the route I planned its mostly a mix of 65 and 70.

Some people will say that's too fast, some will say its too slow.

You can't please everyone all the time.
 
danrjones said:
You can't please everyone all the time.
Hell, good luck pleasing the majority :)

This is why I find "real world" testing to be an oxymoron. The best you can hope for is a transparent statement of drive and test conditions. As I have posted before, I think Bjorn Nyland does a really good job in his comparison spreadsheet because he tries to record the important test parameters. A pivot table groups the data into a nice format.

Tom Malouney (sp ?) also has a nice series of car tests at 70 mph although there is more climate variation. Winter conditions are the real weak point of all these comparo tests. The test distance matters a LOT, and the differences in heating systems between cars makes for big differences.
 
SageBrush said:
danrjones said:
You can't please everyone all the time.
Hell, good luck pleasing the majority :)

This is why I find "real world" testing to be an oxymoron. The best you can hope for is a transparent statement of drive conditions. As I have posted before, I think Bjorn Nyland does a really good job in his comparison spreadsheet because he tries to record the important test parameters. A pivot table groups the data into a usable format

Indeed, I might add a column to compare his data.
 
Wayne Gerdes at CleanMPG does a lot of very thorough steady-state tests at different highway speeds, though he hasn’t done that many EVs. He did the Niro, Mustang Mach-E, and Ioniq, but I’m not sure if he’s done many others.
 
Edmunds has updated their real world range charts. You can see their testing on a YouTube Video posted yesterday. This time they went beyond driving to zero estimated range, they drove them at 65mph until they died. But I agree with them at the end of the video, I'm not driving my vehicle down that low, so hiding part of the EPA range is not helpful (to me).

ev-range-leaderboard-infograph.jpg




https://www.edmunds.com/car-news/electric-car-range-and-consumption-epa-vs-edmunds.html
 
They had a great test procedure for the run between the cars. I would have liked if they took the other EVs to dead as well. I am still also waiting for a single car review show to test the Leaf S+.
 
DougWantsALeaf said:
They had a great test procedure for the run between the cars. I would have liked if they took the other EVs to dead as well. I am still also waiting for a single car review show to test the Leaf S+.

What creates an efficiency difference between S+ and SV+ / SL+? Slight weight change? heat pump?
 
danrjones said:
DougWantsALeaf said:
They had a great test procedure for the run between the cars. I would have liked if they took the other EVs to dead as well. I am still also waiting for a single car review show to test the Leaf S+.

What creates an efficiency difference between S+ and SV+ / SL+? Slight weight change? heat pump?

wheel size.
 
danrjones said:
But I agree with them at the end of the video, I'm not driving my vehicle down that low, so hiding part of the EPA range is not helpful (to me).
But you are driving down that low, if you are talking about any car other than a Tesla

Tesla's point, which should be acceptable to all, is to have an Apples to Apples comparison.
And since Edmunds thinks that it is important to compare to EPA, and the EPA range test is until a depleted battery, consistency requires that their tests follow the EPA discharge routine.

I find it depressing that this has to be discussed at all.
 
SageBrush said:
danrjones said:
But I agree with them at the end of the video, I'm not driving my vehicle down that low, so hiding part of the EPA range is not helpful (to me).
But you are driving down that low, if you are talking about any car other than a Tesla


And they redid their test, so Tesla can be happy now. they ran them until they died.


But as far as me driving down that low, I don't know what you mean. I don't think i have ever taken my car below 10%. Certainly not 0%.

I would prefer 0% to mean 0% useable range to the user. YMMV.
 
danrjones said:
I would prefer 0% to mean 0% useable range to the user. YMMV.
Usable as in ... the car still moves uphill ? Downhill ? At highway speeds on the grapevine ?
Or something else ?

I'm old enough to remember liquid fuel tanks in cars. All the cars I owned of that type had a fuel gauge that pointed to 'Empty' before I ran out of petrol. Practically no-one knew *how much* fuel remained, only that they should fuel up at the next opportunity. Tesla chose that same approach, and it surely has merit. But only a fool at Edmunds would design a range test based on fuel gauges designed to be inaccurate.

I realize that EVs are a bit different, at least to some of us. For the nerds, I say get LeafSpy or equivalent and then the last kWh of energy can be monitored.
 
SageBrush said:
danrjones said:
I would prefer 0% to mean 0% useable range to the user. YMMV.
Usable as in ... the car still moves uphill ? Downhill ? At highway speeds on the grapevine ?
Or something else ?

I'm old enough to remember liquid fuel tanks in cars. All the cars I owned of that type had a fuel gauge that pointed to 'Empty' before I ran out of petrol. Practically no-one knew *how much* fuel remained, only that they should fuel up at the next opportunity. Tesla chose that same approach, and it surely has merit. But only a fool at Edmunds would design a range test based on fuel gauges designed to be inaccurate.

Sorry but I'm going to agree to disagree, I think Edmunds did a good job considering it was "real world" range test.
 
Back
Top