The DOJ Tesla probe has expanded to include EV driving ranges

[David99]

The more efficient the vehicle is (lower Wh/mile), the greater the range impact will be when increasing the drive load due to increased speed, using a reduced regen setting, or unfavorable environmental conditions.

Good point.

 

[zoomer0056]

I believe, based on my experience, they are cheating somehow.

I don't doubt your experience. But that is far from anything that can be used to prove Tesla cheats. You better believe that any credible accusation would be litigated to the max. VW got caught big time.

 

[sleepydoc]

When not carrying stuff on the roof rack, I usually get better than the EPA rating in normal commuting (lots of highway, but often traffic limited to 40-60mph). Granted, this differs from the forum-typical 80+mph highway driving or flooring the pedals often, but it is real world results.

That can’t be true! Everyone knows that Tesla is blatantly lying and it’s impossible to get the rated mileage!

 

[MP3Mike]

I believe, based on my experience, they are cheating somehow. If the EPA test energy consumption doesn't add up to the range, something is fishy.

Seems highly unlikely that they are cheating when at least some of the tests were performed by the EPA themselves...

 

[stopcrazypp]

That's fair. OTOH, the issue wasn't that CR's test showed all EVs get less real world range than advertised (based on the EPA guidelines). Rather, it exposed that Tesla vehicles get far less real world range compared to every other car in respect to their advertised numbers. The takeaway from their test was: if all EVs are tested equally, why are Tesla's number so much more inflated?

This isn't a new finding. I've been trying to find some info on this and didn't get far. Part of the issue seems that the majority of car manufacturers self report. Basically they just tell the EPA. Part of the issue is it isn't just one test. As far as I understand, the manufacturer has some freedom on the different test cycles. I'm not an expert, but it seems to me that entire process was designed to leave enough 'wiggle room' and ambiguity in favor of the manufacturer.

The reason is Tesla's cars are simply better optimized for the EPA test, especially the Regen braking. That however doesn't mean it can't get that range when driven at EPA cycle conditions.

The EPA also does their own confirmation testing. I highly doubt they have not done confirmation testing on Teslas, given they are by far the most popular EVs.

Fact is, when you drive a Tesla at the EPA rated consumption, you won't be able to get rated range. That has been the case with all my 3 Tesla vehicles.

Did you drive it until the car came to a stop? If not, you have not replicated the EPA test. The EPA test ignores the indicated range and drives the car until it can't continue the test. Because Tesla leaves an emergency bottom buffer below indicated 0, you have to account for that.

Also what do you mean by "drive at EPA rated consumption"? Do you mean your actual average consumption is right on the gray line on energy screen?

Note you can NOT use the consumption on the window sticker. That number includes the changing losses, so can not be used to compare to the car display.

You also have to account for battery degradation. The EPA numbers are based on a brand new battery.

As for my personal experience, on my SR+, I tend to consume 1.1-1.25x depending on how fast I drive (70-75 mph typical, up to 85mph on higher speed roads). When I get stuck in traffic, I easily exceed the EPA range. My lifetime average is 222 Wh/mi, so I'm within 6% of rated consumption (which from the chart appears to be around 210 Wh/mi), and I'm quite happy with how efficient my car has been.

 

[3sr+buyer]

Why wouldn't a car manufacturer use the method that gives them the highest range number?

Porsche supposedly derates the economy and range numbers, because it assumes that Porsche drivers do not drive like EPA test drivers. This is probably a true assumption of its customers.

Tesla numbers are not hard to match or beat as a normal commuter. But the forum demographic that drives 80+mph and put the pedals to the floor should not expect EPA numbers in any car.

 

[David99]

Tesla numbers are not hard to match or beat as a normal commuter. But the forum demographic that drives 80+mph and put the pedals to the floor should not expect EPA numbers in any car.

Tesla's number are extremely hard to match. Here are the top 5 longest drives doing in a Model Y. These are from Teslafi.com which tracks thousands of Tesla vehicles. There are only 2 drives that exceed the rated range of the Model Y. Both drove an average of 45 and had an energy consumption of under 200 Wh/mile. That is way below the rated range consumption. It is extremely difficult to get the rated range let alone exceeding it.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Tesla's number are extremely hard to match. Here are the top 5 longest drives doing in a Model Y. These are from Teslafi.com which tracks thousands of Tesla vehicles. There are only 2 drives that exceed the rated range of the Model Y. Both drove an average of 45 and had an energy consumption of under 200 Wh/mile. That is way below the rated range consumption. It is extremely difficult to get the rated range let alone exceeding it.

View attachment 1010295

Looking at long drives are going to favor sections of high speeds, so it's unlikely to match EPA cycle conditions. Also unless those drivers drove from 100% full until their cars stopped, it won't replicate an EPA test.

Digging it up, the 2021 Model Y which ended up with 326 miles combined cycle range achieved that consuming 77.7kWh energy. And the stats from people seem to indicate the pack has 77 kWh usable. That means none of the cars you show are anywhere close to 100% to empty.
2021 model Y scan my Tesla battery size
Compare Side-by-Side

I did a graph scaling the kWh used to the actual usable capacity as measured by EPA (77.7kWh) to get the range full. I also scaled the Wh/Mile to figure the necessary Wh/Mi needed to match EPA range of 326 miles. It ends up extremely consistent and also consistent with the gray line on the Energy graph (which from a search is around 235 Wh/mi to match EPA). So the results you post are completely consistent with Tesla's reported EPA range.

Miles (full)	Miles	Wh/Mile	kWh used	Scaled Wh/Mi to match EPA
414.61​	356.07​	187​	66.73​	237.83​
429.54​	343.02​	181​	62.05​	238.48​
393.39​	335.52​	198​	66.27​	238.93​
409.85​	324.61​	190​	61.54​	238.87​
462.20​	314.32​	168​	52.84​	238.19​
373.60​	312.73​	208​	65.04​	238.37​
381.99​	308.15​	203​	62.68​	237.87​
465.59​	307.28​	167​	51.28​	238.51​

So still not seeing any evidence that Tesla's results are inconsistent with EPA (which to repeat again EPA certainly have done confirmation testing by now and would have requested corrections if they found Tesla results were not repeatable).

If you want evidence of this, from Elon's dispute of the 2020 Model S results, the EPA outright said they were the ones who did the testing (and claimed they didn't do it wrong when Elon claimed the tester left the door open):
Elon Musk lied about the EPA’s Tesla Model S test, agency claims

So unless the EPA is helping Tesla cheat, there is no way the results are wrong.

 

[mongo]

Looking at long drives are going to favor sections of high speeds, so it's unlikely to match EPA cycle conditions. Also unless those drivers drove from 100% full until their cars stopped, it won't replicate an EPA test.

Digging it up, the 2021 Model Y which ended up with 326 miles combined cycle range achieved that consuming 77.7kWh energy. And the stats from people seem to indicate the pack has 77 kWh usable. That means none of the cars you show are anywhere close to 100% to empty.
2021 model Y scan my Tesla battery size
Compare Side-by-Side

I did a graph scaling the kWh used to the actual usable capacity as measured by EPA (77.7kWh) to get the range full. I also scaled the Wh/Mile to figure the necessary Wh/Mi needed to match EPA range of 326 miles. It ends up extremely consistent and also consistent with the gray line on the Energy graph (which from a search is around 235 Wh/mi to match EPA). So the results you post are completely consistent with Tesla's reported EPA range.

Miles (full)	Miles	Wh/Mile	kWh used	Scaled Wh/Mi to match EPA
414.61​	356.07​	187​	66.73​	237.83​
429.54​	343.02​	181​	62.05​	238.48​
393.39​	335.52​	198​	66.27​	238.93​
409.85​	324.61​	190​	61.54​	238.87​
462.20​	314.32​	168​	52.84​	238.19​
373.60​	312.73​	208​	65.04​	238.37​
381.99​	308.15​	203​	62.68​	237.87​
465.59​	307.28​	167​	51.28​	238.51​

So still not seeing any evidence that Tesla's results are inconsistent with EPA (which to repeat again EPA certainly have done confirmation testing by now and would have requested corrections if they found Tesla results were not repeatable).

If you want evidence of this, from Elon's dispute of the 2020 Model S results, the EPA outright said they were the ones who did the testing (and claimed they didn't do it wrong when Elon claimed the tester left the door open):
Elon Musk lied about the EPA’s Tesla Model S test, agency claims

So unless the EPA is helping Tesla cheat, there is no way the results are wrong.

FWIW, 2020 Model S Long Range Plus (mid year release) was tested and reported at 402 miles rated range a month later.
This also explains why, due to the new EPA testing criteria, new 3/Y vehicles only come with hold mode for stopping, it's the most efficient.

https://www.tesla.com/blog/model-s-long-range-plus-building-first-400-mile-electric-vehicle

 

[gtae07]

But the forum demographic that drives 80+mph and put the pedals to the floor should not expect EPA numbers in any car.

True... but to the average Joe, who hasn't spent significant time learning the technical details, "range" means "how far can I go on a trip?". And for the vast majority of people in the US, that means driving on the interstate at speeds in the 70-80mph range.

That's the number people want to know, not some silly meaningless MPGe number. I submit that the EPA needs to require a second range number--"highway range" which is straight up 75mph with the HVAC running. Call the current EPA number "city range". Stubbornly insisting that consumers are stupid and need to educate themselves about what the test really encompasses is at best a fine and counterproductive example of bureaucratic government arrogance.

 

[sleepydoc]

True... but to the average Joe, who hasn't spent significant time learning the technical details, "range" means "how far can I go on a trip?". And for the vast majority of people in the US, that means driving on the interstate at speeds in the 70-80mph range.

That's the number people want to know, not some silly meaningless MPGe number. I submit that the EPA needs to require a second range number--"highway range" which is straight up 75mph with the HVAC running. Call the current EPA number "city range". Stubbornly insisting that consumers are stupid and need to educate themselves about what the test really encompasses is at best a fine and counterproductive example of bureaucratic government arrogance.

That may be but you need to take that up with the EPA, not Tesla.

FWIW, I routinely get sub-240 Wh/mi drives on my MYLR

 

[gtae07]

That may be but you need to take that up with the EPA, not Tesla.

Exactly my point. The EPA test sucks from an actual value-to-consumer standpoint. Tesla is playing by the rules and I don't blame them one bit.

 

[Gloff]

...if the ECU is tuned to take advantage of higher octane fuel.

Take Honda's 3.5L V6, for example.

In Honda applications, this engine develops 280 HP using regular gasoline.
In Acura applications, this engine develops 290 HP using premium gasoline.

However, using premium in a Honda won't get you 290 HP. Using regular in an Acura will get you less than 290 HP, though.

It's that a fact for Honda ECUs? Many manufacturers tout HP/TQ figures using premium (usually 93 octane).

 

[Gloff]

Exactly my point. The EPA test sucks from an actual value-to-consumer standpoint. Tesla is playing by the rules and I don't blame them one bit.

Agreed, the EPA should not be allowing separate tests for the same function. The whole point of EPA ratings is so consumers can compare different vehicles efficiency using the same conditions. That's simply not the case for range in EVs

 

[zroger73]

It's that a fact for Honda ECUs?

Yes.

Many manufacturers tout HP/TQ figures using premium (usually 93 octane).

I wouldn't say "many".

Only models that require or recommend premium advertise numbers based on the use of it.

Most vehicles on the road neither require nor recommend premium. Generally, only some luxury models and sports cars do.

Ford and Mazda are two non-luxury brands that comes to mind that have models they recommend premium for - and will advertise output for both regular and premium.

 

[Zer0t]

My Model S rated 405 gets about the same range as my Porsche Taycan 4S rated at 199. It’s a bit under 340. The Porsche has the perf plus battery which I believe is 93.4 kWh.

i just leased a EQS 580 sedan rated for 340 and can up a bit short in a test I saw with winter tires on it. I’m going to take it on really long road trip second half of February. It’s very comfortable.

 

[GBMaryland]

That's fair. OTOH, the issue wasn't that CR's test showed all EVs get less real world range than advertised (based on the EPA guidelines). Rather, it exposed that Tesla vehicles get far less real world range compared to every other car in respect to their advertised numbers. The takeaway from their test was: if all EVs are tested equally, why are Tesla's number so much more inflated?

This isn't a new finding. I've been trying to find some info on this and didn't get far. Part of the issue seems that the majority of car manufacturers self report. Basically they just tell the EPA. Part of the issue is it isn't just one test. As far as I understand, the manufacturer has some freedom on the different test cycles. I'm not an expert, but it seems to me that entire process was designed to leave enough 'wiggle room' and ambiguity in favor of the manufacturer.

Fact is, when you drive a Tesla at the EPA rated consumption, you won't be able to get rated range. That has been the case with all my 3 Tesla vehicles.

So interesting enough, my MYP with 20 inch wheels does get 300 to 330 miles when I am on trips in decent weather. (weather not in the freezing temperature area.)

Obviously, the car didn’t do as well with the original tires that were on it, but when I replaced the tires with low resistance, tires, and moved to 20 inch wheels… I started seeing the range that I wanted the card to have. Combined with turning on chill mode and using auto pilot… I make it up to Boston from Maryland getting 300 miles worth of range on an initial full charge.

Obviously, there are a lot of things that affect range. My great annoyance with Tesla is the fact that they basically tried to cover up all the things that affect how your car will compete with an ICE vehicle.

As I said before, the whole “don’t charge your car over 80%,” the car, won’t do well in freezing temperatures, and the car won’t get the range that it’s rated at because we’re happy to fudge the numbers (even though being empty on an EV is far more significant than on an ICE vehicle), etc., is pretty annoying.

 

[BlindPass]

My Model S rated 405 gets about the same range as my Porsche Taycan 4S rated at 199. It’s a bit under 340. The Porsche has the perf plus battery which I believe is 93.4 kWh.

i just leased a EQS 580 sedan rated for 340 and can up a bit short in a test I saw with winter tires on it. I’m going to take it on really long road trip second half of February. It’s very comfortable.

Like most things Tesla, its biggest advantage is marketing and deception

 

[zoomer0056]

My Model S rated 405 gets about the same range as my Porsche Taycan 4S rated at 199. It’s a bit under 340.

I'm probably reading this wrong. R U saying the Taycan rated at 199 gets 340?

 

[Zer0t]

I'm probably reading this wrong. R U saying the Taycan rated at 199 gets 340?

337 in mixed driving. My Model S does a bit better. Out of spec got 280 at 70 MPH on older software.