As the budding EV continues to grow, concerns over range remain ever-present. While new electric vehicles are boasting more and more range from a single charge, a new report demonstrates that some of the quoted figures may be distorted.
According to a report from Car and Driver, all-electric vehicles, on average, underperform on real-world highway tests relative to EPA figures. In comparison, ICE-powered vehicles generally return similar efficiency figures relative to EPA estimates. In an effort to explore this phenomenan, a recent test on fuel economy was performed. In this test, ICE-powered vehicles generally returned four percent better efficiency as compared to EPA figures, while EVs fell short by as much as 12 percent.
So why the discrepancy? While separate city and highway ranges are calculated in secret, the combined range is what a customer sees on the window sticker of electric vehicles. Often times, this combined figure weighs city driving – where EVs are more efficient – higher than highway driving.
“There’s a balance,” Car and Driver‘s testing director Dave VanderWerp was quoted as saying. “The marketing team wants to tout a big range number, but to customers you want to be conservative. This leads to different approaches from various brands. The German automakers – BMW, Mercedes, Audi, and Porsche – typically provide a relatively conservative range figure, allowing us to meet or even at times exceed the range numbers in Car and Driver‘s real-world tests. Tesla, meanwhile, pursues an impressive figure for its window stickers, and ends up returning real-world results that are on average two times as far off the label value as most EVs. A range discrepancy between EVs from different companies might not be as extreme as the numbers would suggest. 400 miles of stated range for a Tesla and 300 miles for a Porsche is pretty much the same number at real highway speeds.”
There are two notable suggestions that could help reduce this inconsistency. Firstly, the EPA could shift its reduction factor closer to 0.6, which would allow estimates to be closer to real-world applications. Secondly, the EPA could mandate a universal testing procedure for range estimates to create an even playing field among automakers, including General Motors.
Subscribe to GM Authority for more GM-related EV news and around-the-clock GM news coverage.
Comments
I will say it again in the face of inevitable downvotes from the vision impaired: EV are being oversold. They are far from magic.
What a BS article. So the EPA estimates are 12% lower. The mpg equivalent for my Bolt is 120 miles. 12% is only 14.2 miles of range, my Bolt is vastly more efficient than any ICE vehicle.
It’s really too bad the Volt and series hybrid concept in general died. A decent battery range for all city trips and a gas motor for long highway travel is the best of all worlds. I can drive on electric 90%+ of the time with mine but still have the gas power for road trips.
It would have been the perfect car and power train concept for the US market right now, and the perfect way to teach drivers how to drive on electric and how little you actually need to use fast charging. RIP
David, I and many others have been saying the exact same thing. The Voltec architecture was a perfect marrying of ICE and battery where the ICE provided charge to the battery.
If the Voltec architecture was still available and in different applications I would consider it.
When I hear that RAM is going to have a similar application in their truck, it makes me disappointed that GM did not stick to Voltec program.
That was “Prius” moment and they blew it.
The bigger problem is energy consumption, not actual range. So by overrating range on an EV, the EPA is understating how much energy it consumes… artificially widening the gap of total emissions vs ICE vehicles. It’s another incident of government putting their finger on the scale when it comes to comparing green energy vs reality. Real world numbers need to be used when comparing EV’s to anything. Real easy to do… all these cars are connected to the cloud. Report the average usage (speed-distance) for every model by disclosing the information the manufacturers are already watching without your knowing. That number will be much more realistic and be fair for rating energy consumption.
Oh well, the pie in the sky thing comes home to roost lol.
The infrastructure in the US is severely behind vs. China and Europe. Until it catches up in 5-10 years minimum, hybrids are a better option for now.
As has been stated many times by me and many others with common sense, until the infrastructure is in place to support nationwide EV’s these are great commuters and rich kids toys. Everyone touts the charging at home as the solution to the recharging nightmare. Well what about the millions of people who live in apartments or condos, or me where I don’t have a garage? We still have to recharge at recharging stations which may or may not work. I’m sure when ICE vehicles hit the roads back in the last century they had infrastructure problems, but general stores also carried gas in cans. You can’t put a can of electricity in a Dollar General store, the recharging infrastructure has to be in place like gas stations are today, and battery technology has to be where you can recharge in 15 minutes and be on your way.
You are totally ignoring people who buy EVs for in town or within range trips. Homeowners will put a charging station in the garage eliminating local infrastructure issues. I will keep my Q5 TDI for long range as I don’t like the idea of the extra time added to a long trip even if the infrastructure existed.
Young apartment dwellers, unless there are charging stations at the location, really should reconsider ICE. One the cost is much less as it is better to save for a condo or home rather than dumping cash into an EV at that stage of their life. Also over reliance on DC fast charge does impact battery life and storage.
EVs are great for around town driving but there is no way in hell I would ever take one on one of our 2900 mile Michigan to Florida and back trips. Time is money and three five minute fill ups in our diesel Suburban sure beats hours and hours plugged into a charger if you can find a working one 🙂 LOL
Most EV drivers that I see out in traffic everyday drive like they have a lead foot especially the Tesla drivers. I’m sure the acceleration of EVs becomes addictive after taking delivery, but just like I.C.E. cars, continuous jackrabbit starts will effect mileage. there also the effect cold weather has on battery power. I Still plan to buy one soon. Either the Equinox EV or the Blazer EV. I can’t wait.
RSB, That lead foot stuff is built right into teslas, it’s actually one of the things that makes them so dangerous; they’ll dip fully into their power reserves regardless of long term battery health and can be set to default to delivering maximum torque on startup. While all EVs can have that kind of torque, the ones by more reputable manufacturers default to a safer mode of operation. GM ones like the Volt default to a safe ‘normal driving’ mode every time they are started and you have to intentionally switch it into Sport mode to make it zoom like that. I never see an Ioniq or Bolt being a maniac, it’s always Teslas acting like an extra from a fast and furious movie.
Because of the energy mechanics involved that kind of lead foot ruins your efficiency and range too, it takes a ton more kilowatts to get that acceleration vs a smoother start. Smooth braking that never pinches the pads puts most of the power spent back in the battery with regen too, you only actually lose only a little energy going back and forth… Drag is the only energy you spend you can’t recover, which is why EVs have weak highway miles but can go crazy distances on a small charge at surface street speeds.
What’s the expected range difference up north when it’s -15 with the heater and defrosters on high driving through 6 inches of snow?
The EPA could at least mandate that both City and Highway numbers be posted and let the buyer decide based on his or her needs.
For the record, 2021 Lyriq (I assume due to quoted range of 312 miles) got 270 miles at 75 mph. That placed them 8th with only one Tesla (Model S Plaid) beating it. As the article noted the top was mostly Getman EVs and the Hummer. Lyriq lost 13% of its quoted range. Mach-e GT lost only 7%, but started w less overall range so it was right behind Lyriq.
A single 120v exterior rated plug – the regular outdoor plug kind with a flap over it to block rain – is all you actually need to charge an ev. The plug into the car is water proof. Even the slowest trickle charging is fast enough to more than cover most people’s daily commutes and then some. Making simple plugs code-required in apartment parking lots would be more that enough for most people. You don’t need a DC fast charge outside of road trips, and even level 2 charging with a hard wire to the service or plugged in to a dryer plug is overkill in most scenarios.
No. Level 1 charging returns approx. 3 miles of range per hour. if you drive 60 miles per day, It would take 20 hours to recover that range. Plug in at 6:30PM, unplug at 6:30AM the next morning and you *might* have recovered 36 miles of range. If you drove 60 miles the day before you are still down 24 miles. Continue that for a full week, and you will need to find a fast charger to top off the battery to start the next week of driving. EV owners need access to at least a Level 2 charger to reduce range anxiety.
Level 1 only works if you are driving 20 or less miles per day.
An exterior rated circuit will likely be 20 or 15 amps breaker, not 10 amps. At 120v with a safety margin so it only pulls reduced amps, you’d expect to get more like 1.9-2.4 kWh per hour, or about 20 kwh on a 10 hour overnight charge. That’s more like 50 miles on a highway in most EVs, and significantly more on efficient surface street driving instead of highways, or in traffic.
Level 1 really is enough for almost anyone’s daily drive. I had a 20 minute commute each way and get home with battery to spare before I got a level 2 hooked up to a dryer plug. And this is with a Volt which only has ~14 kWh of usable battery and will only pull at 8 amps on level 1 for safety.
CCS fast charging is for road trips basically universally. Which is also why the Bolt’s low peak wattage (55kw) for CCS was an issue, it took an hour to fill. Newer EVs can charge at 350kw which brings a full charge into the same 5-10m time range as gassing up a car.
There absolutely needs to be a standardized testing procedure for EVs, and separate estimates for city/highway/combined should be given just like with ICE vehicles. This would help people make more informed choices to avoid disappointment.
I still say my bar of entry to owning an EV is do be able to complete my ~310 mile trip to visit family a few states away without stopping to recharge, just like I have done in every ICE vehicle I’ve owned countless times regardless of weather… in the heat of summer and the dead of winter using the AC, defroster and heater (or some combination) including on wet/slushy/snow covered roads. If the average EV gets 12% lower highway range than advertised, can lose up to 40% range in subfreezing temps, and up to 10% range in battery degradation over time, a 700 mile range would only leave me with about 22 miles of range to spare under those conditions, which is anxiety inducing. I’d probably need an advertised range of 750 miles using current testing methods to feel comfortable switching to an EV.
My 2023 Chevrolet bolt EUV under normal driving conditions between 70 and 80° weather with no air I can average over 5kWH per mile! That’s over 300 mi on a single charge!!! So I know the EPA is not talking about the Bolt as it’s only supposed to average 247 mi! The equinox replacement will not do better or be a better replacement for that EUV it will only cost more! Another will made popular car from GM that is killed off!!!
It is a shame. All the manufacturers forgot about the working man.
Hold on a sec… you said “popular”? They’ve sold a mere pittance worth of Bolt and Bolt EUV over its lifespan.