Model Y is more than a generation behind now and it gets nowhere near the advertised range, Tesla are one of the worst for that. Obviously you aren’t going to be getting 500 miles in real world driving in the other cars either but you will be a lot closer to the advertised range than the Tesla.
The Volvo is working on about 4.4 miles per kwh, which seems extremely optimistic for anything but hypermiling in the summer. I am expecting about 425 miles in the summer, or about half that if towing.
I tow with my Ioniq 5, just over half my annual mileage, so I have been waiting for this group to launch as its going to be a huge increase in range. The extra range means I can drive for four to five hours without a charge, which is more than I want to anyway as my (and my dogs) bladder wont last that long.
I cite WLTP because it is a standardised way to test and compare range. It’s not perfect, but it allows us to compare one vehicle to another. None of these cars will achieve WLTP in winter nor at high speed.
Also - the model Y is arguably newer than the Q6 - Juniper came out less than a year ago here!
I am in the same position as you though - generally charging stops on long drives are now driven by bladders rather than batteries.
Nobody hits the WLPT but Tesla are usually the furthest from it.
I know the Tesla had a refresh but its not updated the fundamentals to the same level, its more than an actual generation with its current tech levels and specs vs. the latest competition.
I was just speaking generally. In either case, OEMs don’t just make these numbers up, they have to be certified by the relevant org. If said org doesn’t have accurate tests, the results won’t be accurate either.
Its been a consistent story with Tesla that they are always miles off regardless of the test, not suggesting that they might be cheating with software as with VW and dieselgate no sir
Optimising for the test is a widespread practice with everything from smart phones to cars
It wasn’t consistent in the first place, EU cars usually had much lower ratings than Tesla, yet would be far far closer to the official EPA rating because Tesla got away with more optimisation before.
Tesla are the same in the EU despite it being a completely different setup thats been revised a few times over years.
No test is going to give accurate numbers, we all drive differently over different conditions with different loads in the car. We can just get closer than we are now, there is still too much space to hypermile in the current tests for WLPT.
What should happen is manufacturers who are clearly missing by a lot should be heavily fined as with VW and dieselgate.
Most quoted ranges from reviewers are considerably under what I get from normal driving so they are no better, I presume they drive with a heavy foot.
Real world numbers from EV database tend to be my starting point
But its perfectly possible to optimise just for the test and it no longer matches real life, this is exactly what VW did. When it gets to that point that the car is detecting the test (or otherwise put into a test mode) then its clear cheating and time for large fines.
I don’t really buy the Edmunds test for this as it seems to be a sole one at the moment. It also has an average speed of 40. Also how are they accounting for environmental conditions as these are massive for EVs? It just feels like PR puff piece to me after Tesla had been slated everywhere for very obvious fixing of their range estimates.
Model Y is more than a generation behind now and it gets nowhere near the advertised range, Tesla are one of the worst for that. Obviously you aren’t going to be getting 500 miles in real world driving in the other cars either but you will be a lot closer to the advertised range than the Tesla.
The Volvo is working on about 4.4 miles per kwh, which seems extremely optimistic for anything but hypermiling in the summer. I am expecting about 425 miles in the summer, or about half that if towing.
I tow with my Ioniq 5, just over half my annual mileage, so I have been waiting for this group to launch as its going to be a huge increase in range. The extra range means I can drive for four to five hours without a charge, which is more than I want to anyway as my (and my dogs) bladder wont last that long.
I cite WLTP because it is a standardised way to test and compare range. It’s not perfect, but it allows us to compare one vehicle to another. None of these cars will achieve WLTP in winter nor at high speed.
Also - the model Y is arguably newer than the Q6 - Juniper came out less than a year ago here!
I am in the same position as you though - generally charging stops on long drives are now driven by bladders rather than batteries.
Nobody hits the WLPT but Tesla are usually the furthest from it.
I know the Tesla had a refresh but its not updated the fundamentals to the same level, its more than an actual generation with its current tech levels and specs vs. the latest competition.
EPA fixed that about a year ago.
These are WLPT, which is a European rating. No manufacturer hits this rating but Tesla are still the furthest off.
I was just speaking generally. In either case, OEMs don’t just make these numbers up, they have to be certified by the relevant org. If said org doesn’t have accurate tests, the results won’t be accurate either.
Its been a consistent story with Tesla that they are always miles off regardless of the test, not suggesting that they might be cheating with software as with VW and dieselgate no sir
Optimising for the test is a widespread practice with everything from smart phones to cars
It’s not consistent any longer, as I said, because EPA updated their testing procedures. So no, it is not regardless of the test.
My point precisely. The test needs to be updated and optimized or else the best cheater wins.
It wasn’t consistent in the first place, EU cars usually had much lower ratings than Tesla, yet would be far far closer to the official EPA rating because Tesla got away with more optimisation before.
Tesla are the same in the EU despite it being a completely different setup thats been revised a few times over years.
No test is going to give accurate numbers, we all drive differently over different conditions with different loads in the car. We can just get closer than we are now, there is still too much space to hypermile in the current tests for WLPT.
What should happen is manufacturers who are clearly missing by a lot should be heavily fined as with VW and dieselgate.
Most quoted ranges from reviewers are considerably under what I get from normal driving so they are no better, I presume they drive with a heavy foot.
Real world numbers from EV database tend to be my starting point
This is the entire point of these benchmarks. To remove variables and create a even comparison across models.
Fined for what? Optimizing for the test?
You are looking at old reviews. Ones in the last year or so show the opposite.
But its perfectly possible to optimise just for the test and it no longer matches real life, this is exactly what VW did. When it gets to that point that the car is detecting the test (or otherwise put into a test mode) then its clear cheating and time for large fines.
I don’t really buy the Edmunds test for this as it seems to be a sole one at the moment. It also has an average speed of 40. Also how are they accounting for environmental conditions as these are massive for EVs? It just feels like PR puff piece to me after Tesla had been slated everywhere for very obvious fixing of their range estimates.