It's an impressive range number, but don't try to compare it directly to range numbers for other EVs.
The current gen SU7 is available with an 830km CLTC range. If you drive one on real roads, you will not get 830km of range. :)
My Tesla long range gets about 60% of advertised range in real world conditions. I'm talking stop signs every block, mountains you need to drive across, insanely hot days, i.e. the real world.
I knew that would be the case, but I really wish there was a crackdown on this. Advertised range should be the mean of the distribution, not the max.
In fact EV manufacturers should be required to publish the distribution and they should have to pay a KL divergence penalty on it that will be distributed to EV buyers as rebates. It would also require the courts to learn about KL divergence, which I would really love to happen. We need countries run by engineers, not clowns.
Distribution of what? Assuming you mean the distribution of driving range achieved 'in the real world', how would that work before a car is sold? How often would it have to be updated in their advertising material? Over what sort of area would the distribution be calculated? How would anyone know if the advertised range of two different cars was even comparable?
Whilst the standardised tests could be improved, they are still the best way to compare products.
> should have to pay a KL divergence penalty on it that will be distributed to EV buyers as rebates
I get about 15% more range than advertised, should I have to pay a penalty for this?
Anyway Tesla has data from all their cars, they could use that.
It was absolutely not meant to come across that way. I just think it wasn't thought all the way through.
> And a poor car vendor definitely can't build at least 10 pre-production cars, run them with both a lightest and heaviest loads and different patterns and calculate the mean and use it instead of the one with the maximum distance with a minimal load, right?
This just sounds like vendor controlled slightly-less-standardised testing, not the real world based system they seemed to be arguing for.
No. You are just one datapoint within the distribution. If the distribution aligns with manufacturer's advertised distribution, nobody gets a rebate. If distribution is not aligned, manufacturer is penalized and everyone gets a rebate for being misled.
The same car measured under CLTC would have an even higher rated range.
A Chinese car rated under American regs would see a lower rated range.
This person is using their ev as a car, the same way they would use any other car in their possention. Evs are presented as ice car replacements but when their lack of ability as ice car replacements is pointed out the response is “well maybe you shouldn’t do that. WELL MAYBE THEYRE NOT ICE REPLACEMENTS /rant
An ICE car comes nowhere near it's EPA rated mpg ratings at over 75mph either.
Don’t know where you live but it’s rare for traffic to move at 55 in many places. Either in city 25-45 or 65+ highway.
It is totally legal and fine to drive the EPA 55mph in places where traffic normally moves at 70, but must also recognize that when semis have to go around those vehicles, they cause ripples through traffic every time and increase risk of collisions for everyone.
>And since energy usage is exponential vs speed
https://www.aaa.asn.au/2025/12/new-test-results-to-help-ev-b...
AAA is the Australian Automobile Association
https://www.adac.de/rund-ums-fahrzeug/elektromobilitaet/elek...
One of the reasons i quit my 20 year+ membership with them.
I mean - have some bias? Fine with me, i can read between the lines. Come up with ridiculous crap and reasons to favour domestic brands? There is a line, at least for me and many others that do know when they're intentionally ignoring, downrating, downplaying etc. etc. etc.
Another example? German IT magazine "c't" by heise recently featured a test (4/2026, page 16ff.), in cooperation with ADAC, about subscriptions in electric vehicles - actually one thing where Tesla shines (it's a flat 10€ per month, other countries get a 99$ a year deal) - others don't even bother listing prices until you order, for example.
With no single word that test mentioned Tesla (yet, priding themselves having queried 16 brands for information) - only in the final table overview, there indeed is one column for them.
The bias is showing, it's ridiculous and they can, as far as i'm concerned, go the way of the dodo.
If they aren’t fake, it’s pretty obvious why Tesla doesn’t get much of a mention.
There are also Corean Cars in the Top 10, which makes sense as the Australian Article also rates them quite good.
Do you have any real criticism on their standardized range test?
My point is that you can’t compare ratings done to different standards.
Chinese CLTC exaggerates real world range a lot more than any other major measure.
The CLTC doesn't measure actual highway usage well at all. If you drive a lot on highways and use the air conditioning you could be closer to 60% of rated range.
So for 900km CLTC, I think it will go like at least 600~650km easily.