Also Tesla servicing is famously bad, and the way the employees treat service requests (as described in the article) explains a lot

So, if you plan to test drive a Tesla, evaluate its range this way. If you're curious for me the listed range is often around 300, and the effective drive range tends to be around 250 200, seldom less except in cold weather.

Our BMW i3 gets EPA range on my round trip commute in the summer. It starts at the top of a mountain with a “100%” (actually 90% according to reverse engineering) battery (a tesla couldn’t regen in that situation, the bmw can).

It can be as low as 80% of EPA range with the heat pump cranked up in low 30F’s weather.

I’ve carefully measured two other EVs (not Tesla) on that route. One gets 110% of EPA, but can’t regen at 100% (so, it is similar to the BMW model without the hard 90% charge cap). The other gets EPA in the winter and does not have a heat pump.

FWIW, Tesla drivers that live up here complain about bogus range estimates.

I agree with the “type in destination and let the computer estimate” approach. That works well on all three cars, despite the mountains.

Ah so BMW advertises (and charges to I assume?) 10% less capacity than actual, which both reduces wear and allows regen even on full battery?

That's actually pretty cool. They're effectively sacrificing marketing for user experience.

Many non-Teslas are also over-provisioned (my 2nd EV is as well based on YT testing videos).

That has to be an option, which you need to know exists, and actively use.

Hell, bmw could expose that exact same setting the other way around, and maybe they do. But defaults are important, and from a UX perspective I think they have the better one.

It's uphill both ways.

Most of my driving is in the Washington/PNW, so a bit more hilly and colder than California.

    > Also Tesla servicing is famously bad

Also, can you give a specific example of how Tesla servicing is "famously bad"? (I'm not doubting, but it will help me to better understand your comment.)

During the 4 years, it needed servicing (for actual faults, not for maintenance) 13 times.

4 of those times were "Car is dead" and it had to be towed.

To book service, you have to use the app. There's no phone number. You pick a date which is usually at least a week in advance, type in what's wrong, maybe attach a photo.

First, you'll get a reply in app's "chat" feature that your problem is actually normal, or it's somehow your fault, and it's not something they can fix.

After you've convinced them it's a real problem, your appointment comes around, and you take it into your service center, and wait about 30 minutes for someone to get around to seeing you. They repeat the previous message that it's your fault, or normal, etc. etc.

When they finally take it, there's zero feedback as to what's going on. In theory, you should get a loaner car while they repair, but they are usually "out".

3-14 days later, if you are lucky, your car is ready for pickup. No-one will be there to help you collect it, you just have to find it in the parking lot.

There's about a 50/50 chance of your problem being fixed, and 100% chance that they've added a couple of new ones. Your car will be filthy, inside and out, and need to be cleaned.

They also offer "mobile service" which is basically the same except they are rude to you in your driveway instead of at the service center.

Worst experience of any car. By far. Will never buy another one.

I've come to think of cars, and maybe other big purchases, as you're purchasing a culture; the company that made it and will service it - it's why Toyota is so highly regarded. I own a 20yo Toyota Tacoma - and it's making more frequent shop visits now; and there are some good independent shops, but the Toyota guys really do a good job and over-communicate what's going on when they have your vehicle. You also have a person who handles you through the entire process - it's a great experience.

Tesla culture is the opposite - buy the care and go away please.

At least they understood that if you see clean cars around you when you drive, you're more likely to buy the brand later, and keep happy clients.

Thats a very shitty service, even cheapest noname garages give replacements

AAA is exactly that business: call-out roadside assistance for flat/dead batteries, breakdowns, tows etc. They have 65 million members in North America. Response time varies greatly by day/time-of-day/your location/dispatching company, traffic but typically < 1.5-2h. https://mwg.aaa.com/ (And T-Mobile was even giving free AAA membership in 2024.)

Also look at this discussion on r/TeslaModelY "Do you still need AAA?" comparing reliability and response times: https://www.reddit.com/r/TeslaModelY/comments/17ju1z2/do_you...

Basic oil change is typically while-you-wait in non-peak hours; where on earth do you live? some 'services desert'? I've even gotten while-you-wait smog testing done within 45min out-the-door.

If I want to be more cost effective, I call my local repair shop and they usually have me sorted within the week.

The local mechanic here can do it the same day, and they're next to a restaurant. Last time I did an oil change and tire rotation I just grabbed lunch while they worked on it.

The dealership for my car is perpetually booked though, and my experience reflects what you mentioned.

....where do you live where that's true??? I just checked with my local Volvo garage - I can get an appointment tomorrow. Checked with our local Volkswagen garage - I can get an appointment on Wednesday. And all the big name "express service" chains like Kwik-Fit or ATS will see you while you wait. That's literally their entire business model.

>>Heck gettin haircut in my area they have calendars blocked so you have to plan with a week in advance.

Again, where the hell do you live. I know my wife has to book a hairdresser because she usually spends 4 hours in there, but I have never in my life had to book a haircut, you pop over, wait 15 minutes max, maybe 20 if it's busy and you get a haircut.

1. There is mandatory service with technical exam yearly. Few days before it I call my mechanic, drive car to him, then pick it up next day. He changes the oil, brake pads if they are getting bad, tightens a few nuts. Usually I pay less than 100€ for that, but price varies heavily by car model/mechanic/location.

2. I go change the wheels before and after winter (we have to use separate ones for summer and winter there due to snow). Again, I call the mechanic, drive the car to him same day, chat for 15min, then he is finished. Around 120€ if I need new wheels, just 40€ if previous season ones are still good.

Every so often a bit bigger service is needed (if exhaust needs to be replaced or something else). In this case the car stays at mechanic over weekend, maybe max 4-5 days if he needs to order parts he doesn't have in stock.

Average it's less than 400€ yearly and less than a week of downtime in total per year.

In most countries you have a mandatory safety check. Here in the UK it’s called an MOT and it is annual. It will check things like tyre tread depth, whether the windscreen wash is aimed at the windscreen, steering, suspension, brake pads, brake disks, condition of seatbelts.

Normally people try and service their car at the same time. The service typically will include things like oil changes and oil filter changes and air filter changes.

Regardless, even with a small gradient, the kinetic energy can never need 100% converted back into stored energy into the battery. There will always be a loss.

He definitely burns through the battery much quicker in mountains, and going down it recoups just a small fraction of energy spent going up. Also cold messes up the numbers pretty significantly, I think he mentioned 10-15% of battery consumed standing still each full day in freezing temperatures (he told me battery keeps itself warm).

Pushing up 1,5 tonnes (or 2+ in tesla's case) of our ICE car can burn up any fuel very fast in relatively short distance. I've estimated that our current petrol and previous (otherwise very efficient) diesel burn around 1/4 to 1/3 of the fuel tank on each 1000m of altitude gained.

Cruising along on a level highway at around 60 MPH, my EV uses like 2-3% the available power. Going up a incline and you're suddenly way above 40%.

This should come as no surprise to those who have ridden a bicycle outside of Holland.

(No offense intended.)

The issue isn't the driving range, but rather the unexplained loss of range. I'm talking about losses of 7.5% if I leave it parked in front of my house for an hour or two. I have photos too; if you reach out to Tesla, they curtly tell me the battery is fine.

A vague "you need to keep your car plugged in" is frankly insane, what if I went on a 100km trip, left my car outside for an hour or two, and came back without enough range to go home? I've heard people say to disable the app on my phone, but that frankly seems like a Tesla problem, not a "me" problem.

I still enjoy driving the car. I just wouldn't trust it for long range driving. I probably will buy Hyundai or BYD (if Canada lets them in) next time.

It is fine to turn these off, other cars don't even have these and they are fine.

I've also noticed a bit of drain when camping. It doesn't help that you often open/close the doors/trunk to access stuff ;)

BTW, for the cabin I did two things:

- I installed a permanent shade for the sun roof. The sun roof is the stupidest thing ever, I hate it.

- In the summer, I usually put one of those shiny umbrellas to the front windshield when parked.

These two things alone reduce the cabin heat to an okay level.

What I have seen is that the BMS may update its SoC estimate after driving, and I've seen it adjust the estimated SoC up or down by as much as 5% in some cases.

I get that from a planning perspective, it still stinks to have range than you thought you did an hour ago, but it's not all that different from the variation you might get with an analog dial on the gas tank, just that it's much easier to notice and track when it's digital and showed as a precise number.

https://imgdrop.io/image/IMG-2984.ADiI7

It's not the end of the world for driving around town with less than my whole family (which is 90% of my driving) but it's definitely annoying to come back to a car with 50% charge and see it with 43. I imagine it would be terrifying for a 20 -> 13, especially with the lack of supercharging infrastructure where I live (Calgary).

Does it only happen when you park in front of the garage at home, or does it also happen if you go out somewhere? For example, it might be struggling to connect to your WiFi at home (if you set it up with your home WiFi credentials) to download updates or upload telemetry, which would keep it awake longer than normal as it tries to make do with kilobits per second of usable bandwidth.

The issues do happen a lot in front of my house (which has very poor cell phone coverage). I've had lessor drops elsewhere.

I was wondering about the wifi myself too. I don't have wifi in front of the house and I didn't configure wifi either; I've actually installed wifi in my garage and left the car inside to see and I would get similar power losses.

I wonder if there is (a) a battery warming issue or (b) an issue because my phone w/ the Tesla app & bluetooth on is too close to the car, leading to it not going into standby mode? I don't think it is the former because it would be categorised differently (and it would not happen in summer). Turning off bluetooth on my phone everytime I come inside is honestly a bit insane and I would put that in the "It's a Tesla App problem"; but I don't hear about that issue from other drivers.

The real unfortunate part is that there is no way for me to get this diagnosed. It's been a problem since I bought the car, but it seems to be getting worse over time.

Anyway, I wonder if Tesla’s are missing the “if 12V is completely shot, give up” logic. Replacing it is cheap and might fix the car. Some models let you monitor the 12V charger with an OBD-II dongle.

That’d let you prove me right or wrong.

The problem did not improve.

Of course, this is from Tesla, and they famously puff up everything.. but I would expect even if not as good as claimed here, for the downhill part to certainly help a lot still.

What may not help is if they fully charge at work and have no battery capacity to soak up the regen on the way home. Regen ability gets limited the closer you get to 100%.

The results they report are incomparable for two reasons:

- straight line steep mountain roads don’t exist. On curvy roads (like mine) they’d need to repeatedly round trip energy to and from the battery, and that’s going to eat about 5% each time.

- the article claims going up and down the mountain uses as much energy as driving one mile. During the ascend/descend they drive 500 miles. The wind resistance for one mile flat and one mile on the mountain should be comparable, so their 95% efficiency number must be subtracting that (and rolling resistance) out.

But what if the battery heats up a lot during a climb and is still hot while going down? It is know batteries charge slow when they are hot.

Were you mislead about or unaware of the range claims when you bought the car?

I don't own an EV or have any real interest in them, but I know the range is highly dependent on driving conditions and automobile condition (often to a much greater degree than ICE vehicles) and I'd assumed that was made pretty clear in advertising materials and sales pitch. I could easily see unscrupulous companies and salesmen or just unaware 2nd hand buyers being caught out by the range claims though.

On all advertising marerials for cars (ICE or EV) i have seen only: consumption may vary with driving conditions. That's all. How much they vary, is left as an exercise for the reader.

1) for battery preservation, you generally do not fully charge every night. So, lose 10% from that

2) battery degradation, things are better, but 10% max loss is common I would say

3) people drive faster than testing. Knock off about 10% for that

4) cold? hot? AC? heat? another 10% off

5) there isn't a charger around every corner, so you have to plan ahead and to be safe get a charger when you're at like ... 10% left

Holy crap, 50% loss of range! And if you are in a scenario where you are recharging on the road, you are doing the "80% charge" which really is a loss of 10-20% more effective range. Ok, the poster isn't being that dramatic.

This is why for non-city non-commuter scenarios, especially in midwest/rural areas, a PHEV with a 50 mile all-electric range would simnply be a far better car, for far less battery supply. Daily city driving rarely exceeds 50%, the engine can do range extension on the rare long distance trips, and it can also help with heat/cooling that heat pumps can't help with. PHEV drivetrains will still have regen, peppy acceleration, and good torque if done correctly.

I'm hoping the Dodge Ramcharger does really well. 100 miles almost in all-electric, and an engine to recharge it for really long ranges and towing capacity.

A truly peer range EV will probably need another 50% density, so

If you have a big trip then you can charge to 100% if you need to.

Yes, if you go faster you'll use more energy per km. If you're pushing it then you're going to want to slow down a little.

In my "daily" driving I use about 20%-30% of capacity max and I have a pretty long commute. I tend to keep my battery around 50% most of the time and not go too low or too high.

There are certainly trips to remote places that I can't do with my EV and I have made some adjustments to trip plans to accommodate but all in all it's been a non-issue.

Btw, if we're running down a list of issues then phantom drain is another one. I do worry about energy loss when camping e.g. I've had a situation where I got to the campground with ~20% and the next day in the cold was something like ~10% and barely made it to the charger.

My Polestar 2 range is not great in the cold and on hills, but the real gotcha is charging it to 80% and then plugging in around 30%. Using about 42 kW / 100 U.S. mile that means 50% of a roughly 75 kW battery only gives me 89 miles between charges. (But some of that is self imposed.)

Still 180 mile range would be well under the advertised 260.

Now if I use 100% and I get closer to 35 kW / 100 miles in the summer, the range is about 215 miles. Curious how much better it'll be in the summer though.

I have a Model Y, several friends have Teslas, one uses his Model 3 for Uber. Everyone can get the expected range when doing 90 km/h in the summer, and at least half of the range on the highway in the winter, but usually more than that.

Maybe your consumption is that much when going steeply uphill, but then you will have to come back down and your consumption will be negative as it will recharge your battery.

I'd still reckon that range estimates should ignore these extreme edge cases, though.

This is one of those comments that continues to come up but has never added up. Certainly if you are comparing a Tesla compared to a compact or a Euro version of a compact. Absolutely there is a weight difference. The problem is if you did a like for like comparison..a Model Y is the same Weight as an X3. A Model 3 is a couple hundred pounds heavier than a Toyota Camry.

Batteries are heavy!

https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/volvo-xc40-2017-suv...

Stop that. 10 - 15% doesn’t constitute “much, much”.

The bit of code in the dashboard to exaggerate even more is a nice touch. I wonder what the commit message was for that PR ? (Or maybe Tesla does not do PRs or commits, and just let anyone build anything on their laptop and put the binaries in the car. I mean, all that "software engineering" process sounds like so much useless efforts, right ?)

Also, the author of the article takes a lot of pleasure in mentioning the EPA dozens of time - too bad the days of the agency are numbered.

A PR is only as good as the person evaluating it. You can't even say reliably that it's better than nothing because sometimes it isn't.

Git with no PRs.

It's very ironic that everyone is so afraid of Orwellian's "Ministry of Truth", and that we end in a world ruled by "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistical parrots, Inc."

And it' supposed to sound ridiculous and Terry Gilliam-esque, but it's now eerily realistic...

The guy says "Salvage is different from having structural damage, I have proof here that it's not salvage". Tesla informs the man that "according to Tesla, it's salvage, and they can't provide any more details about anything, if you want more you have to go through Tesla Legal"

So when it comes to Tesla, it's salvage if they says so, despite any other records, and if you don't like it, you can sue.

I don’t know if it is ironic, though — maybe more of an Orwellian inoculation that pushed the problem elsewhere.

Tesla advertised there that they were now the most popular selling car, outselling Camry... and were smacked down when Licensing records showed no such thing. Made to pull ads, pay a fine.

It's useful for the consumer, and is supposedly part or the normal "immune system" of a free market.

However, the "legal" part has to be handled by regulators, following laws enacted by lawfully elected representatives.

This part is being slashed by lawfully elected executives (in part) and by unelected "advisors". One of whom is actively doing things that should get him prosecuted.

Also, I hope the consumer protection association is not depending on any kind of public funding - otherwise, I hope their website doesn't use banned words like "diverse".

They "trust me". Dumb fucks.

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/apr/17/facebook-...

By altering my driving style, I can get more range than the estimate. It's extremely predictable and accurate, to the point where I can notice the power drain from the self driving computers/cameras, arrive at the next supercharger at exactly the 3% I aim for, etc.

There was a point in my road trip when I was on top of a mountain, and it said I would reach the next charger 100km away with 20km of range remaining, but I was only at 90km at the time. I made it with 17km of range remaining.

The estimates are really good and useful if you don't speed.

> The "highway" program, on the other hand, is created to emulate rural and interstate freeway driving with a warmed-up engine, making no stops (both of which ensure maximum fuel economy). The vehicle is driven for 10 miles over a period of 12.5 minutes with an average speed of 48 mph and a top speed of 60 mph

Further, the force of drag grows exponentially with speed. Going 75mph on the interstate is massively less fuel efficient than 48mph.

https://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/fuel-economy/...

No, it grows only polynomially [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_equation

You don't drive 100mph average on German motorways. Especially with the trucks not giving a damn and forcing themselves through to the left lane to pass their colleagues driving 2 kph slower, arriving traffic be damned.

A journey from Berlin to my parents in the Netherlands (525km) would probably take me at least 6 hours normally. That's including stops for lunch, bathroom, fueling, etc. That averages out to about 80-90 km/hour. Only about a fifth or less of the distance allows for driving faster than 130km/h; and usually not for more than 10-20km before you have to slow down for some reason. Driving fast is fun but also stressful because there is always a jerk with a faster car behind you flashing their lights because you are "only" doing 160km/h (100 miles per hour). And high speeds also means accidents are fatal, fairly frequent, and typically result in very long traffic jams.

My experience driving around in different countries in Europe is that you don't get to your destination faster in Germany. Probably France is the most efficient to cover long distances. They have nice, good quality toll roads and you can maintain an average of 120-130 there on long stretches. Spain is pretty decent as well. Roads in Germany are garbage in comparison. There's a reason people are complaining about the state of infrastructure here.

I don't actually own a car and rent cars. Usually, I prefer taking the train, which is not a high speed train even but does that same journey in a bit under four hours. Cheaper, more comfortable, and I can take a nap/relax a bit. Sadly, rail infrastructure is also not in a great state here.

I’ve gotten use to saying this incorrectly because most people aren’t trained on (or at least don’t remember) the difference between various types of growth functions. Exponential registers much more clearly in everyday conversation.

However, from what I can tell, the EPA numbers from all manufacturers are quite unrealistic, because the methodology doesn't match real-world driving.

Inb4 "just pick highway range and be conservative" -- no, because then you will buy a car with great aerodynamics and terrible regen and spend all day driving it around the city using the terrible regen and not using the great aerodynamics.

Displaying a marketing number on the dash is inexcusable, regardless of how fast or slow drivers are going.

The estimate the car gives you adjusts to what you are actually doing. So if you drive uphill very quickly (which is tempting because of all that wonderful torque you have), that number will get very low quickly. If you drive a really heavy car, physics dictates that you will use up a lot of kwh. The estimate will recover a bit if you level off for the remaining kwh. And you might even get a few kwh back if you go downhill via regenerative braking. But not all of it. It's probably merely reducing the number of kwh you lose rather than adding a lot back.

A more useful metric than range is miles per kwh at different speeds or under different conditions. The amount of kwh your battery has is a constant; but miles you get per kwh will vary depending on what you are doing. Teslas are normally around 3.5-4 miles per kwh on highways, which is pretty good for cars that size. But of course it matters how fast you are going. That puts them around the 200-250 miles range many people are reportedly getting; if you account for battery degradation, temperature, etc. and assume a 65kwh battery. Some recent cars are getting a lot of gains from improved aerodynamics and battery management. E.g. Kia is doing some great stuff on that front.

Also having less battery actually improves the miles per kwh number because there's less mass to drag around. Shoving 200kwh in a big truck makes it really heavy and combined with poor aerodynamics probably would make for less than stellar range than you might hope for. Probably you're getting less than 2 miles per kwh. So, more than triple the battery but nowhere near triple the range. And it makes the truck really expensive too. And you'll have to buy a lot more kwh to go the same distance.

Available max and continuous torque of electric vehicles isn't necessarily that high compared to ICE vehicles, whats really different is that torque is available instantly and from near 0 RPM and the motor reacts more or less "instantly".

BTW, combining "miles" and "kWh" is strange, shouldn't that be pound*mile²/h ?

This is how regenerative braking works

Generally people driving classic/collectible cars usually run at or below speed limits and...they are fine. You just have to embrace being overtaken by everyone.

It is especially hard for people suffering with fragile masculinity though.

These are the things they blame when they say EPA estimates are different becase blah blah…

(I own a Tesla)

EPA range estimates being inaccurate is a real problem. They do not, and are not designed to, give actual expected range. It’s meant to be an “average” of “mixed” driving.

Take latest Model Y as example. If you compare EPA range vs WLTP (commonly used in EU)

327mi EPA est. (526km) US version (long range) / 586km WLTP est. (364mi) EU version (long range)

The WLTP is “average” as well, so which of these is more accurate?

This problem is not unique to Teslas, and actually not unique to EVs either. It’s just more noticeable, as ICE vehicles usually advertise MPG and tank size, not total range. So EVs suffer from their own advertisement highlighting numbers that will never be accurate.

Some other manufacturers go to a lot of effort to make sure that they aren't overstating things (eg, Porsche), but you are right that this isn't the norm.

Also, EPA ranges expect mostly constant speed and driving within the speed limit, neither of which matches real world driving

By also providing the worst case scenario numbers in addition to the EPA numbers. Tesla could simply do a highway range test at 70mph, ideally in Winter:

https://insideevs.com/reviews/443791/ev-range-test-results/

They could also show towing range:

https://insideevs.com/news/713690/tesla-cybertruck-range-dro...

There's nothing stopping Tesla showing these things.

The one time Tesla did a towing demonstration those numbers turned out to be lies. Tesla never ran the quarter mile that they claimed to. When even your engineers lack basic honesty you've got a sick company culture:

https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/tesla-cybertruck-beast-vs...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5J3H8--CQRE

https://x.com/wmorrill3/status/1746266437088645551

I guess you could use the highest legal speed limit in the US alongside the lowest temp and fastest headwinds ever recorded in Texas. In conjunction with the heaviest, least aerodynamic thing that the vehicle can physically tow.

But that may be annoying to replicate in a controlled setting and will be even less relevant to most people than the EPA distance.

  Testing procedure:  
  - Tire pressure set to manufacturer recommendation   
  - DCFC to 100% SoC to ensure optimal battery temperature   
  - Most energy efficient drive setting   
  - Climate control set between 68-72 on most eco-friendly mode that still allows A/C, on lowest auto fan setting   
  - 70 mph constant GPS-verified speed with gentle acceleration to reach speed  
  - Avoid drafting trucks or other vehicles   
  - Stay on highway at 70 mph constant for as long as possible, until power is cut or low single digit SoC  
  - Use frontage roads at low SoC, try to maintain 55+ mph until stated remaining range depleted  
  - Arrive at charger just as car crosses 0-1 miles remaining and 0% SoC  
  Route:  
  - Drive from Wellington, CO up I-25 to Cheyenne, WY. Then east on I-80 into Nebraska   
  - Route ensures minimal elevation impact, and any wind is documented. Wind typically blows easterly, so the long stretch along I-80 allows for headwind to become tailwind at turnaround.  


 Tesla Model 3 Performance:   
    EPA: 303 mi  
    Actual: 288 mi / 265 Wh/mi  
   
 Tesla Model 3 LR AWD Panasonic:   
    EPA: 341  mi  
    Actual: 365 mi / 215 Wh/mi  
   
 Tesla Model 3 SR RWD LFP:  
    EPA: 272 mi  
    Actual: 277 mi / 213 Wh/mi  
   
 Tesla Model 3 LR AWD LG:   
    EPA: 305 mi  
    Actual: 308 mi / 249 Wh/mi  
   
 Tesla Model 3 LR RWD:   
    EPA: 363 mi  
    Actual: 386 mi / 206 Wh/mi  

[1]: https://outofspecstudios.com/70-mph-range

Another aspect of this debate from my own experience, Tesla's range estimates from the navigation system are much more accurate (which should be obvious because otherwise people would constantly get stranded when taking a road trip). Tesla would probably argue that is because all those factors you listed that impact range stop being assumptions when a defined time and route are known. But it is still no excuse for assuming the absolute best case scenario when defining the range used in marketing or displayed on the equivalent of the car's fuel gauge. If anything, the accuracy of those navigation estimates makes the other inaccuracies seem even more nefarious.

There is a standard for range - WLTP - does the US subscribe to it? The W stands for Worldwide.

My car has a WLTP range of 323 miles. I've managed better than that. The standard itself is pretty decent and far better than the old one.

EVs are different to ICEs. Mind you they are both pretty efficient at around 50mph - funny that. EVs hate cold but if you pre-heat the battery, then its not so bad. An ICE can always have a bigger tank and you can easily pop a 15l can in the boot (trunk) to grab an extra 50 miles or so. EVs don't have that flexibility.

However, I pay 7p per KWh to charge my car and I fuel up at home instead of at Tesco. My "tank" costs about £5 and I can get about 300 miles out of it.

My other car (Renault Clio) costs about £70 at the moment (it has been far worse) to fuel up and I'll get roughly 700 miles out of it.

In Europe I think that EV vs !EV is almost certainly won but I do get that in the Americas, where it can get proper chilly at times and the distances involved can be huge means that an EV might not be indicated without a lot of caveats. EVs mostly do cost more too for the initial purchase, which isn't helpful.

Despite all that, do note I routinely pay roughly £5 for 300 miles, and I don't have to piss around with garages. My car plugs into my house!

For people living in single family homes or in appartments with dedicated parking space, yes.

But lots of people are still living in apartments without a dedicated parking space. If you can't charge at home EV life is immediately a bit more compicated and expensive.

Here where I live people sometimes struggle to park their car in a 2km radius from their home and there are like 4 public street charging outlets in a 4-5km radius. We might eventually get there but it will take a while.

EVs have ferocious acceleration - no gears and no need to "wind up".

I used to own a Honda S2000 which was pretty funky - it could lift off in sixth gear and run up to around 150mph. EVs basically destroy ICEs - no gear box.

I did rather enjoy the S2000 when it hit 6500 rpm and then it decided to kick in and go a bit mental.

Not all of them. It's pretty easy for manufacturers to make ridiculously fast accelerating cars, and it seems those cars get all the attention. But there are others. I drive a Volvo XC40, which comes in two variants: one with two motors, one with a single engine. The two motors variant does 0 - 100 kmh in 4.9 seconds, which is pretty fast; to get that acceleration in an ICE car you'd need a pretty sporty sport car. But the variant with a single engine (which is the one I drive) does it in about 8 seconds, which is plenty fast for me but certainly not in ferocious acceleration territory.

I have no numbers on relative market shares of very fast vs more normal EVs. It wouldn't surprise me that the share of normally accelerating EVs will increase over time as we get cheaper cars meant for a larger public instead of expensive cars for enthusiasts.

BTW that fast acceleration of EVs is mostly at lower speeds. At higher speeds the benefits of an electric drive train diminish and depending on the specifics the EV might very well accelerate slower than an ICE.

I can't speak about their particular models but all EV have accelerator by wire were acceleration/power is electronically managed to avoid risks of wheelspins. Not all brands offer gimmicks such as "ludicrous mode" and launch control systems and most will prefer offering a default power management that favors range over acceleration.

So many can accelerate faster than comparable ICE vehicles, but not necessarily stupidly fast nor dangerous. Some even launch ridiculously slowly in standard settings.

I mean, those two were never "performance cars" (though the S2000 should be rather good in the bends for a convertible), but this isn't slow nor quick in my books.

20 years ago when S2000s were the shit everyone was running 100hp shitboxes. Locally, one of the local car guys in the early 2000s became a legend with an Opel Astra pulling about 200hp with nitrous and every mod he could afford.

Now the affordable and reasonable "enthusiast" cars are 250-400hp. You can get a 10-15 y/o Cayenne that does 0-100 in the 4-5s while being a nice New York apartment on wheels for 15k (converted from eastern european pricing, your local market may vary) or a remapped (~300HP) 330d E90 for ~5k.

What I mean is that if you put someone blindfolded in the S2K 15 years ago chances are he'll think it's very quick, nowadays I think he'll think "it's a'ight". It's interesting how quickly people get used to acceleration and we now have very quick, affordable cars on the market so I believe people have a higher standard for what's quick. Something feels fucking insane, you do 50 pulls over a month and it's normal (assuming it's not a deathtrap spinning at stupid speeds).

What can you get that trounces it for the price? Even a Golf GTI doesn't do much better (and you can't even get it in manual anymore).

Only time I've notice significantly lower range is on a hot day (38c/100f) when I had the aircon cranking for a nice cool inside temp of 20c.

Did you gas up your car every time you drove back from work? No, right? So why complain that the car doesn't sit at 100% all the time in your garage? Seems like a silly complaint to me.

> Did you gas up your car every time you drove back from work? No, right?

Right, you gas up your car when it needs more gas. You can't do that with an electric car for two reasons: (1) you need to fuel the car well in advance of trying to use it, because fueling is extremely slow; (2) you can't go low on fuel without damaging the car.

The only logical response to this state of affairs is to try to fuel the car whenever it's not in use.

> So why complain that the car doesn't sit at 100% all the time in your garage?

Capacity that you're not supposed to use is not capacity that you can usefully be said to have.

That said, it's usually not a big deal until your vehicle and its fuel tank has sat on the side of the road unused for a few years, and your fuel has degraded in place.

Edit: Or at least way less than bad shifting, lugging, not waiting for it to warm up, not letting turbos cool down, etc. The fuel thing is one of those things I hear a lot but then it comes from people (not you, don't know you) who start their car after sitting in a parking lot for an hour and immediately do a pull or hoon around all the way to the parking spot and immediately kill the engine when they stop, etc. Triggers my mechanical sympathy 'tism.

I do it all the time, just not every day. Going skiing? Set the car to charge in the morning. 40 minutes at 90%+ isn't going to hurt anything.

I think you've badly misunderstood that warning.

I mean, seriously? We're doing this?

And because it's bad for batteries to be fully charged/discharged they should probably take that into consideration as well since "you could go further if you damage your car" isn't exactly a normal driving scenario.

Tesla created secret team to suppress thousands of driving range complaints - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36891642 - July 2023 (746 comments)

The reality is there is lots of range loss when using the cabin heater, which obviously one is most likely to do when cold. All modern Tesla's use heat pumps for cabin heating, which ~halves the range loss, but it's still substantial.

I have a 150 mile round-trip commute when I need to go in to the office. My "summer range" (really more "not-winter range") is 240+ miles. I stick to posted speed limits for efficiency, 60-65 MPH. This winter I've been getting back home with 30 miles of range to spare. I haven't done the math or recall what power draw my gauge cluster reports when I toggle heat on/off, but I do remember it reduces my range estimate by ~5 miles when I turn the heat on.

Usually it's only pulling that much juice for the beginning of a drive and after a few minutes it reduces when it finds a steady-state.

2kW is about the same amount of juice that the drivetrain pulls when driving 35mph, so it can make a pretty big difference in the efficiency of shorter drives.

Sidenote: even though resistive heating is less efficient in heat per watt, using the heated seats is usually more efficient in terms of comfort per watt than heating the entire cabin

How are you getting "fraction of a percent of what is needed to move the car"?. Wikipedia says the model 3 (long range, RWD) has 82 kWh capacity and 363 mi range. If you drive at 40mph that's 9hrs of driving, meaning the car consumes 9kW at that speed. 1kW is not "fraction of a percent" of that.

Today, it's closer to 1.5kw, all-in, accounting for heat pumps, etc.

Cooling is less intensive.

Keep in mind: Homes are also often well-insulated, at least, much more so than a car. Most car insulation is designed for noise/etc, not for temperature control. The glass is usually R-1 or worse.

So if you want realism:

My wife's office, no more than 150 sqft, built in 1923, and with no real insulation in the walls (and no space for it), and a bunch of older windows, can't be kept at 68F by a 1500 watt space heater running 100% of the time on a cold day (IE 30deg F).

This is in GA, so not exactly a super-cold climate, eiher.

Meanwhile, my workshop, same property, built a few years ago, 2000 sqft, and amazingly well insulated, can easily be heated/cooled to 72F by a 1.5kw minisplit running basically never.

Mine doesn't have a heat pump, so I can definitely notice range decreases. Also consider that the battery likes to be at a good temperature, and that isn't going to be free if your car is parked outside for 8 hours. That changes range too

It's not the same as an immobile insulated house.

2kW in the civilized world.

Tesla's used to, not sure if they still do, had a four way valve that could be used to route coolant around the system in the right direction. High wear and failure rate part.

kind of odd article to post, just feels like rage bait

And the EPA standards have changed since then, so that newer Teslas are much closer to their rated ranges than they were back then.

Kind of weird to see this here now.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAccv8Wuoys

The fact is that WLTP is useless. I can do 2/3 WLTP range in summer and 1/3 WLTP range in winter on highway with long range Model Y. That’s bad joke. Luckily I drive long distances extremely seldom. Crawling at 60 mph all the time is not an option for me.

That’s such a VW sentence.

That's what I was hinting at, being a German native speaker myself. :)

The max range I get is pretty close to the advertised one, too.

So do not believe when somebody says it can't be done.

[1] https://www.reuters.com/technology/tesla-workers-shared-sens...

Foreshadowing.