Hacker News Reader

Comment by belter | Hacker News Reader

Approximately two months ago AutoBild made a range test with several models.

"German AutoBild March 2022 – EV Range Test at Highway Speed" (In German): https://www.autobild.de/artikel/e-auto-autobahn-reichweite-t...

They Tested 28 Models - Top 10:

---------------------------------------------

Mercedes EQS -> 444 km ( 276 Miles)

BMW iX xDrive 50 -> 434 km ( 270 Miles)

Ford Mach-E GT -> 367 km ( 228 Miles)

Audi RS e-tron GT -> 367 km ( 228 Miles)

Porsche Taycan 4S -> 352 km ( 219 Miles)

Tesla Model 3 Performance -> 337 km ( 209 Miles)

VW ID.4 GTX -> 332 km ( 206 Miles)

VW ID.4 Pro -> 328 km ( 204 Miles)

Audi Q4 e-tron 40 -> 326 km ( 203 Miles)

Skoda Enyaq iV80 -> 316 km ( 196 Miles)

---------------------------------------------

View on HN

Such a meaningless article as it does not take battery size into account...

Sure your EQS has 444 km but have fun recharging that 107 kwh monster battery...

The name of the game is efficiency and here are the result in that test:

    | Model                     | Range KM | Battery (kwh) | Efficiency |
    | ------------------------- | -------- | ------------- | ---------- |
    | Tesla Model 3 Performance | 337      | 75            | 222.55     |
    | Mercedes EQS              | 444      | 107.8         | 242.79     |
    | VW ID.4 GTX               | 332      | 82            | 246.99     |
    | VW ID.4 Pro               | 328      | 82            | 250        |
    | Audi Q4 e-tron 40         | 326      | 82            | 251.53     |
    | Audi RS e-tron GT         | 367      | 93.4          | 254.5      |
    | BMW iX xDrive 50          | 434      | 111.5         | 256.91     |
    | Skoda Enyaq iV80          | 316      | 82            | 259.49     |
    | Porsche Taycan 4S         | 352      | 93.4          | 265.34     |
    | Ford Mach-E GT            | 367      | 98.8          | 269.21     |

The real winner is Tesla by a large margin and LR and SR version are ever more efficient than this.

Also I find the result of the EQS suspicious low given the weight of the vehicule, whereas the Tesla's consumption is surprisingly high. I don't think it should be over 200wh/km at 130km/h under normal conditions.

What unit is "Efficiency" in? Wh/km?

It's interesting that VW seems to use a standardized 82kWh battery back in their MEB platform and achieves basically the same range as the Tesla 3 with 75kWh. Appears this is engineered to the point.

Why is Teslas Efficiency 10% better? My understanding is that they use SiC transistors in their inverter while the MEB uses Silicon IGBTs. A trade-off between reliability (Si), cost (Si), performance (SiC). How much of the difference is caused by this?

Yes, wh/km.

I don't know why they get better efficiency but I suppose that they still have some significant technological advantages compared to the others.

Same as for ICE? Better weight to power ratio. Less drag (aerodynamics, wheels).

Plus better EV tech? More efficient power curves. More efficient regenerative braking.

Efficiency seem to be Wh/km. During the summer, with mixed driving I get about 168 Wh/km, and year round 185 Wh/km in a Tesla Model 3 AWD. Not everyone needs to drive autobahn speed. ;)

> It's interesting that VW seems to use a standardized 82kWh battery back in their MEB platform and achieves basically the same range as the Tesla 3 with 75kWh

The table is mixing net (usable capacity) and gross (total capacity) battery sizes. The battery in the ID.4 is 82 kWh gross but 77 kWh usable. The ID.4 is also an SUV model whereas the Model 3 is a sedan.

Well, Tesla also has a buffer after 0% and still some energy after it stop moving. This might be what explain the "bad" figure here. A model 3 at 130km/h on the flat in good weather conditions should not exceed 200wh/km normally. (Based on experience with my own car).

My point was that the posted article is non-sense, and likely really just an advertisement piece for the german cars.

Claiming the EQS is best because it has a decent range with a 107kwh battery is infuriating. We should be moving to smaller battery on light efficient vehicles and not make monster 3 tons EV like this.

> Tesla also has a buffer after 0% and still some energy after it stop moving.

The Model 3 performance is 80 kWh total capacity (82 kWh on the newer ones).

> We should be moving to smaller battery on light efficient vehicles

No. People will buy the cars they want. If they want the luxury of an Mercedes EQS then that's what they'll buy. If they want the excess of a Hummer EV then they'll buy that too.

There need to be better batteries with greater energy density for a smaller pack weight once decent range is achieved.

Amen. Limiting oursleves will never be the answer.

It's time for tree huggers to provide the same quality of life of oil.

If they can't then it's on them not on the consumer. Time to put up or shut up.

The new Cadillac Lyriq is a step in the right direction.

But I also must say that the 59,995$ MSRP Gasoline Corvette C8 is a step in the right direction as well.

When people dream that's the sort of cars they dream about: attainable luxury of a Lyriq or the attainable C8 which is essentially an affordable Ferrari made in Detroit.

People don't want to own a Tesla which is plain on the outside and frankly speaking very empty and low quality once you step inside

Depends on the model they actually used. If you assume the Tesla had a 80 kwh battery, the whole test does not make any sense in regards to the ID4 results for example.

The facts are the following:

- Tesla is known for its electrical system efficiency

- The model 3 as a drag coeff of 0.23 vs 0.28 for the ID4.

- The model 3 perf weight 1844 kg vs 2045 kg for the ID4.

Regardless of how badly this test was conducted, especially at highway speed, there is no way in hell the model 3 does not beat the ID4 in this test unless it was conducted in bad faith (which I think is likely).

So either the Tesla they used did not have a 80kwh battery, or they didnt conduct a fair test. It's impossible for an ID4 to beat a model 3 in efficiency in the same conditions on the highway.

Edmunds comes to the same conclusions independently [1]. Maybe Tesla's efficiency is overstated? No idea.

ID.4 seems to outperform their WLTP/EPA range numbers whereas most Model 3s seem to under-perform in the real world. Maybe VW has learnt from the Diesel scandal.

[1] https://www.edmunds.com/car-news/electric-car-range-and-cons...

> If you assume the Tesla had a 80 kwh battery, the whole test does not make any sense

It does have an 80 kWh battery. Again, you're confusing usable capacity and total capacity. Your table is wrong. You're comparing a Model 3 Performance's usable capacity with the MEB cars' total capacity.

> there is no way in hell the model 3 does not beat the ID4 in this test unless it was conducted in bad faith

Maybe this will help you. Here's a range test of a Model 3 Performance with the 82 kWh battery. Note that he measures the usable capacity at 76 kWh:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sj3vUh5RqMc

A similar test in an ID.4 GTX. Measured at 75 kWh usable:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFz2mz5GOL0

The actual kWh you get out of the battery depends on a variety of factors like driving speed, temperature, battery condition and age, etc.

Inside EVs has the EQS charging very quickly, faster than the Model 3 and Model S Plaid.

It also seems arbitrary to claim efficiency is the "name of the game".

Surely consumers will choose whether they prefer long range, low cost of charging, fast charging etc, and there's no one right answer?

https://insideevs.com/news/522577/mercedes-eqs-fast-charging...

Aren't all these cars (except Ford and Porsche) like a class bigger than Model 3? Id4 has 550l of boot space vs Model 3's 425l. It also sits a lot higher. Of course an SUV will be less efficient (but somehow people still choose to drive them)

I don't dispute that.

I dispute the fairness of claiming the Model 3 has worse range when it's obviously the most efficient vehicle of the lot and the most appropriate BEV if you care about driving at highway speed.

> I dispute the fairness of claiming the Model 3 has worse range when it's obviously the most efficient vehicle

This is a crazy twisting of thought. Like, it's 100% true that the model 3 has worse range. That's like "oh, it's not fair to claim that the model 3 is smaller when it's actually the lightest vehicle". I mean, "oh, it's not fair to claim X about the model 3 because while that's true, on this other metric Y the model 3 ranks differently".

They are probably deep into Tesla equity , which clouds the judgement of the cult memeb...ehm I mean shareholders.

the EQS is like 2000lbs more than a Model 3 - you should compare its efficiency to a similarly sized Model S.

Comparing the mileage of cars that are sized wildly different is kind've pointless.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com