I think this is a bit misleading. Edmunds and the EPA ran two very different tests. For instance, Edmunds drives the car until it indicates it's empty. However, in the EPA test, "the vehicle is driven over successive city cycles until the battery becomes discharged" [1]. Tesla vehicles, like many others, have a not so insignificant buffer of "extra" miles that you can still use after the vehicle indicates that its "empty".
Furthermore, Edmunds tested the Teslas at temperatures that are roughly 14F lower than the 68F used by the EPA. This can make a big difference in the range you get.
My point is that these articles are acting like they are comparing apples to apples--the EPA test vs the Edmunds test--but they're not.
I admit that I'm a Tesla fan and shareholder. But my first loyalty is to the truth. Ding Tesla and Elon when they mess up. Nobody is above reproach or constructive criticism.
So let's not pretend that Edmunds (or The Drive for that matter) are either. Edmunds ran what appears to be a not very scientific test, and came to a highly debatable conclusion that Tesla vehicles don't meet the EPA mileage guidelines. I think the tests are not comparable. Maybe that's just me.
I’m not a big Tesla fan because I dislike their lack of quality control. On the other hand I do like how they single handedly proved viability of electric cars and jump started the market. I am not a shareholder.
I agree the analysis was unfair to Tesla and bad science. Tesla gets hit by both extremes, people who love to bash them and people who love to defend them. Both extremes don’t bother questioning shoddy analysis if it proves their point. Yeah this is common with basically every topic, but with Tesla it’s extra visible.
This new test seems slightly better in that they appear to have run the two non Tesla’s at the same time, but it still doesn’t sound like measuring the same thing as the epa.
There are only two temperatures it is valid to test range at: -50c, and +50c (120f). The extremes matter because the 1% of the time when you are in the extreme you need to know real numbers, not ideal ones. When the weather is potentially deadly if you run out of power you need to plan to ensure that you have enough range to safely make it to the recharge station.
Hopefully you never have to deal with the above extremes, but if you do the car better be there for you.
"Testing" implies the Edmunds report is in some way scientific while it is anything but. They drove the Tesla cars in temperatures as much as 20 degrees colder than the other cars. The EPA ranges are derived by testing in a controlled environment to ensure cars are treated in the same manner. There is variability in range when driving an EV, but this report is deeply skewed and unscientific.
On the other hand, just seeing the headline I can't say I found it hard to believe - among the major car manufacturers, Tesla seems particularly prone to tweaking the performance numbers they put out. 0-60 figures measured from a rolling start instead of dead stop (that no one seems to be able to reproduce either way), hp figures that are a "peak system power" calculated by adding things up in weird ways and which can't be sustained for any length of time, range figures no one hits in the real world, ... they're very aggressive at this, and it'd be a mistake to think everyone does it this way - for example professional testers regularly exceed 0-60 figures Porsche releases officially.
I've seen a fair amount of professional testers/journalists reprimand them along the lines of "every manufacturer is guilty of this to some extent, but Tesla really ought to tone it down" (e.g. Alexander Bloch, who is generally very positive on the brand). As EV tech is commodifying swiftly and the competition closing in, I expect this to become a larger discussion.
They drove one of the Teslas in a temperature 20 degrees below the warmest temperature they tested in, and that was the Tesla test that underperformed EPA range by the least. Most of the Teslas were tested in the same temperature range as all the other cars and still undershot EPA range.
Guessing you didn't read the article? This article is saying that when Tesla made those complaints, Edmunds reran the test the way that Tesla suggested and got the following results.
Sure, maybe its not a big deal that the cars come up a few miles short of the advertised range under these conditions, but the Tesla ones were the _only_ ones to do so, which is at least interesting.
Also, the 1st version of the Edmunds report didn't account for the buffer all batteries have while showing "zero range." Turns out the Teslas have more of that buffer. (Though Tesla itself is kinda coy about how big that buffer is, for obvious reasons.)
The range estimates my 2014 Tesla provides are, at best, very generous. It is frequently generous to the tune of 50 miles on a 200 mile range. Sometimes it's dead on.
Yes, I might not always be driving the most efficiently, but even when I set the cruise and drive on a flat, constant speed I can see swings of 40 miles. I'm generally a conservative, relaxed driver and rarely exceed the speed limit, happily just cruising along in the slow lane on the right.
I no longer trust Tesla to accurately measure mileage and assume the I'll get 70-80% of the car says I will.
My 2019 Model 3 is pretty good at estimating the range remaining, but it drops significantly overnight to the tune of 40-50 MPH in the dead of winter. That's not as big of a problem for me since I have a home charger, but it's definitely led to a few close calls getting home from work.
Seems like the cars didn't fall that far short, but I think the implied grievance is that Tesla is systematically optimistic about the range of their cars where other automakers (Mini Cooper, Porsche, etc) make very conservative estimates. The "surprise" being that published specifications like driving range are really marketing tools, and some companies are more aggressive than others.
Rob Mauer's early objections came from Edmunds knowingly introducing variations in conditions which would disadvantage the Teslas (like lower temperatures) but not being very clear about that.
Also, Edmunds originally did this thing, where they didn't account for the "zero remaining" buffer. Teslas put more of their capacity under the reading "zero remaining," to encourage low battery level drivers to seek charging sooner. Edmunds also had to be called out for that.
If I was a butcher selling you a pound of meat, and "surprisingly" was shorting you 10% on a consistent basis, would you say I was just doing more aggressive marketing than my competitors?
> I think the implied grievance is that Tesla is systematically optimistic about the range of their cars where other automakers (Mini Cooper, Porsche, etc) make very conservative estimates
Seems like it would be a rather better article had it included facts detailing that allegation rather than just implying it.
FWIW: I don't doubt that Tesla spins their numbers, but then automakers have been cheating on mileage statistics with testing conditions for decades. Is this really so different?
The problem with these range tests is no one is driving 100% to 0%. People are more likely going 80% - 15% on road trips. Charging to 100% takes forever past 80% and getting under 20% starts making people nervous. Under 10% the car starts to cut power.
I'd like ranges also listed as the common range you'd expect. Maybe it can be standardized as an 80-20 test. For those on freeway driving I'm getting more like 150-200 miles on a M3LR.
Quick edit: I know some people might think 150-200 is low. Really could get more but I drive like it's a normal car and stopped caring about trying to optimize my efficiency. As long as I can get to the next supercharger that's all I care about.
Using the full battery (below zero) the 2021 Model 3 went 345+26 = 371 miles. Base price plus long range battery: $46,500.
The 2nd highest range among the cars tested was the Taycan at 323 miles (no adjustment for past zero was offered in the article). Base price for Taycan 4S: $104,000.
The story I'd like to understand is: Does the EPA actually publish results with one car underrated by 60% (Taycan 4S) and another overrated by 2% (2021 Model 3 LR)?
> The story I'd like to understand is: Does the EPA actually publish results with one car underrated by 60% (Taycan 4S) and another overrated by 2% (2021 Model 3 LR)?
My understanding is that in the USA: the manufacturers do the test and then report them to the EPA.
So the Taycan numbers were tested and reported by Porche. In contrast, the Tesla numbers were tested and reported by Tesla.
> Fuel economy is measured under controlled conditions in a laboratory using a series of tests specified by federal law. Manufacturers test their own vehicles—usually pre-production prototypes—and report the results to EPA. EPA reviews the results and confirms about 15%–20% of them through their own tests at the National Vehicles and Fuel Emissions Laboratory.
Note: EPA only reviews the tests, not conduct them. The manufacturers self-test.
My 2021 Model Y hasn’t hit 325 miles. Ever. I drove 306 miles yesterday and I needed 47 minutes of >60kW charging and 9 minutes of <60kW at superchargers. I left home at 90%, and returned home with 23% battery, so I could have cut it closer. I wish Tesla SuperCharger history would tell me exactly the kWh per charge. And honestly, I wish the on-board miles remaining estimate were based on the energy used over the last 30 miles and not EPA rating.
You can form your own opinion but Edmunds is roasted in the comments of this interview.
If you ask me Edmunds goes to great length to not report actual numbers. In the article they only tell you how many miles Teslas have driven after the car shows 0 range. This is to account for safety buffer.
They were criticized for an earlier test where they didn't account for this.
But instead of just telling what are the new numbers, they apparently want you to add number from earlier test (which was done in different conditions like outside temperature and driving style) and this delta from new test to arrive at total number.
It's almost as if the new test mostly invalidated their previous result but they're going out of their way to not admit that. Reeks of dishonesty.
I’d be curious to know how “range” is computed for ICE vehicles. Do you end when the gas gauge reaches “e” or until the engine stops? Seems to be perfectly analogous to the two possibilities with the Tesla. Either when the cars says it’s out, or when it actually stops.
Granted folks don’t seem to obsess over the range metric when it comes to ICE cars so the point may be moot.
People don't obsess over ICE range because it is hard for the average person to get more than 20 miles from a gas pump which can then fill the car to full in 5 minutes. As such the only time you run out of fuel is when you don't refuel despite multiple opportunities.
Today if you buy an electric car you are mostly fine for in town - the 95% of trips. However that last 5% is a real problem: there are not many places to charge, not all of them actually work, and even if you find a place you need to wait a fairly long time someplace where you don't wish to be for it to recharge. Some of this will change as electric cars become more popular, but for now if you are looking at an electric car it either needs to be a second car (use the ICE for long trips), or you need to obsess about range.
For electric cars with the least range the average commute in the US couldn't make it there, eat lunch, and back home on a cold day.
I was surprised how much of a buffer modern Mazdas keep. The "range" is based on 2 gallons hidden. At 3 gallons remaining, it appears as if you have 1 gallon remaining (i.e. 25-35 miles depending on your average gas mileage since the last reset.) So "0 miles remaining" happens when you really could go another 50-70 miles.
This is based on the total gas tank size compared to how much it takes to fill, but also because I'm stubborn and have pushed it several miles past "0" out of curiosity (but not regularly, as I have no wish to overheat my fuel pump or run out of gas!)
Most cars keep a little gas under 0 miles left in order to preserve the fuel pump. If you run a car out of gas completely in a modern car, you can cause a lot of damage to the fuel system.
There is a pretty humorous video of some guys testing how far past empty an ICE vehicle can go. They were guessing 10-15km. It ended up being over 100! [1]
Yep, this was not an issue with free charging previously. But with free charging gone now, the range will be noticed more and will become an issue. I also see lot of Musk fans believing him over other agencies when the discussion eventually happens though.
EPA testing is a specific, defined drive cycle that is meant to reflect actual real-world use cases.
The goal isn't to maximize range in artificial conditions. The goal is to estimate how it might perform in standardized scenarios that can be repeated across different cars.
So I didn't see any actual numbers or precentages about how far the Tesla fell short, did it fall short by like 2% of 25% because that would be a very big difference which the article seems to go to great lengths to avoid. In fact there is only one vehicle that we get what the EPA estimates were for it and it's not a Tesla.
This seems to me like someone is going to great lengths to avoid putting in actual numbers and is instead just using this as a hit piece on Teslas.
The rest of the article has a lot of specific numbers:
> For the other Teslas tested, however, things didn't go as "well." The 2018 Model 3 Performance was off by 54 miles—this might not look that notable on a couple-year-old model—but when the testing is performed in such friendly conditions that the 2020 Mini Cooper SE, with an EPA range of 110 miles, is exceeding that by 40 miles, then it just doesn't paint a pretty picture for the Tesla cars.
The edmunds article is probably the best source, but this is the article that I saw yesterday with some of the numbers. Some are quite noticeable in their drops like the 2018 S Performance went from 310 mi to 256 mi. All the non-Teslas got higher than their EPA rating. With the Porsche Taycan 203 mi to 323 mi.
Yes. Ever since they changed the design to include using the AC, etc, they have or have been better than it for gas-powered cars under conscientious driving.
depends how you drive. if I try, I find it pretty easy to beat the epa highway rating on most cars. if you're not paying attention, it's also really easy to get poor efficiency out of the turbocharged low-displacement engines that are common today. efficiency tends to drop off pretty rapidly when you get into the turbo.
Has anyone ever gotten the EPA mpg estimates for their vehicle? I don't drive very aggressively, and I've never gotten even 80% of the mileage that the dealership sticker advertises.
I get almost exactly the EPA estimate on fleet of ~25yo cars, trucks and minivans. The car is almost always on the high end. I'm supposed to get 22. I get 21.something or 22.something or 23.something from week to week with 22 being most common. The vans and the trucks I don't drive enough to have a good feel for if they're less than an mpg high or low but they are definitely within +/-1mpg.
My commute is pretty much exclusively 70-90mph highway driving with approx four pulls (stoplights) from 0 to 50/70 (traffic speed in that area, depending on conditions) and am not shy about using all of 2nd gear.
You may need to drive less in the cities (where gas engines are weakest), and be more conscious of braking and accelerating.
From what I understand, the EPA changed their measuring method many, many years ago, to include using the air conditioner, etc; and, from what I can see, mine is well within that range. In fact, I believe it regularly does better than its estimated EPA or right on it. Subaru WRX.
I only approach EPA estimates when the tank nears empty and my right foot changes its behavior dramatically due to anxiety. I don't doubt that it is possible, but I find the kind of driving it requires to be unenjoyable. I don't have a lead foot and I enjoy spending less money to travel a given number of miles, but I do not often reach the optimal MPGs.
I exceed the EPA highway MPG when using cruise control for 100s of miles w/ little traffic. When driving manually or being a bit more aggressive with passing, MPG falls below the MPG estimates.
I had to look up the EPA mpg for my car, but I routinely get over the highway mileage (most of my driving is 400mi+ highway trips)--I got about 42-ish mpg and the highway mileage is 38mpg.
[+] [-] Bob_LaBLahh|5 years ago|reply
Furthermore, Edmunds tested the Teslas at temperatures that are roughly 14F lower than the 68F used by the EPA. This can make a big difference in the range you get.
My point is that these articles are acting like they are comparing apples to apples--the EPA test vs the Edmunds test--but they're not.
I admit that I'm a Tesla fan and shareholder. But my first loyalty is to the truth. Ding Tesla and Elon when they mess up. Nobody is above reproach or constructive criticism.
So let's not pretend that Edmunds (or The Drive for that matter) are either. Edmunds ran what appears to be a not very scientific test, and came to a highly debatable conclusion that Tesla vehicles don't meet the EPA mileage guidelines. I think the tests are not comparable. Maybe that's just me.
[1] https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/pdfs/EPA%20test%20procedure%...
[+] [-] mint2|5 years ago|reply
I agree the analysis was unfair to Tesla and bad science. Tesla gets hit by both extremes, people who love to bash them and people who love to defend them. Both extremes don’t bother questioning shoddy analysis if it proves their point. Yeah this is common with basically every topic, but with Tesla it’s extra visible.
This new test seems slightly better in that they appear to have run the two non Tesla’s at the same time, but it still doesn’t sound like measuring the same thing as the epa.
[+] [-] bluGill|5 years ago|reply
Hopefully you never have to deal with the above extremes, but if you do the car better be there for you.
[+] [-] justina1|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sho_hn|5 years ago|reply
I've seen a fair amount of professional testers/journalists reprimand them along the lines of "every manufacturer is guilty of this to some extent, but Tesla really ought to tone it down" (e.g. Alexander Bloch, who is generally very positive on the brand). As EV tech is commodifying swiftly and the competition closing in, I expect this to become a larger discussion.
[+] [-] 1986|5 years ago|reply
Source: https://www.edmunds.com/car-news/electric-car-range-and-cons...
[+] [-] pbecotte|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stcredzero|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Hypocritelefty|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] apercu|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Pfhreak|5 years ago|reply
Yes, I might not always be driving the most efficiently, but even when I set the cruise and drive on a flat, constant speed I can see swings of 40 miles. I'm generally a conservative, relaxed driver and rarely exceed the speed limit, happily just cruising along in the slow lane on the right.
I no longer trust Tesla to accurately measure mileage and assume the I'll get 70-80% of the car says I will.
[+] [-] moistbar|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] robbmorganf|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stcredzero|5 years ago|reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rb1toreNTrU
Rob Mauer's early objections came from Edmunds knowingly introducing variations in conditions which would disadvantage the Teslas (like lower temperatures) but not being very clear about that.
Also, Edmunds originally did this thing, where they didn't account for the "zero remaining" buffer. Teslas put more of their capacity under the reading "zero remaining," to encourage low battery level drivers to seek charging sooner. Edmunds also had to be called out for that.
[+] [-] cool_dude85|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] newacct583|5 years ago|reply
Seems like it would be a rather better article had it included facts detailing that allegation rather than just implying it.
FWIW: I don't doubt that Tesla spins their numbers, but then automakers have been cheating on mileage statistics with testing conditions for decades. Is this really so different?
[+] [-] dawnerd|5 years ago|reply
I'd like ranges also listed as the common range you'd expect. Maybe it can be standardized as an 80-20 test. For those on freeway driving I'm getting more like 150-200 miles on a M3LR.
Quick edit: I know some people might think 150-200 is low. Really could get more but I drive like it's a normal car and stopped caring about trying to optimize my efficiency. As long as I can get to the next supercharger that's all I care about.
[+] [-] 11thEarlOfMar|5 years ago|reply
The 2nd highest range among the cars tested was the Taycan at 323 miles (no adjustment for past zero was offered in the article). Base price for Taycan 4S: $104,000.
The story I'd like to understand is: Does the EPA actually publish results with one car underrated by 60% (Taycan 4S) and another overrated by 2% (2021 Model 3 LR)?
[+] [-] dragontamer|5 years ago|reply
My understanding is that in the USA: the manufacturers do the test and then report them to the EPA.
So the Taycan numbers were tested and reported by Porche. In contrast, the Tesla numbers were tested and reported by Tesla.
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/how_tested.shtml
> Fuel economy is measured under controlled conditions in a laboratory using a series of tests specified by federal law. Manufacturers test their own vehicles—usually pre-production prototypes—and report the results to EPA. EPA reviews the results and confirms about 15%–20% of them through their own tests at the National Vehicles and Fuel Emissions Laboratory.
Note: EPA only reviews the tests, not conduct them. The manufacturers self-test.
[+] [-] BooneJS|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kjksf|5 years ago|reply
Here's a Tesla Daily podcast where Rob Mauer interviews head of Edmunds about the test: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rb1toreNTrU
You can form your own opinion but Edmunds is roasted in the comments of this interview.
If you ask me Edmunds goes to great length to not report actual numbers. In the article they only tell you how many miles Teslas have driven after the car shows 0 range. This is to account for safety buffer.
They were criticized for an earlier test where they didn't account for this.
But instead of just telling what are the new numbers, they apparently want you to add number from earlier test (which was done in different conditions like outside temperature and driving style) and this delta from new test to arrive at total number.
It's almost as if the new test mostly invalidated their previous result but they're going out of their way to not admit that. Reeks of dishonesty.
[+] [-] matt-attack|5 years ago|reply
Granted folks don’t seem to obsess over the range metric when it comes to ICE cars so the point may be moot.
[+] [-] bluGill|5 years ago|reply
Today if you buy an electric car you are mostly fine for in town - the 95% of trips. However that last 5% is a real problem: there are not many places to charge, not all of them actually work, and even if you find a place you need to wait a fairly long time someplace where you don't wish to be for it to recharge. Some of this will change as electric cars become more popular, but for now if you are looking at an electric car it either needs to be a second car (use the ICE for long trips), or you need to obsess about range.
For electric cars with the least range the average commute in the US couldn't make it there, eat lunch, and back home on a cold day.
[+] [-] neogodless|5 years ago|reply
This is based on the total gas tank size compared to how much it takes to fill, but also because I'm stubborn and have pushed it several miles past "0" out of curiosity (but not regularly, as I have no wish to overheat my fuel pump or run out of gas!)
[+] [-] xeromal|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] legohead|5 years ago|reply
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpU72eM8vCo
[+] [-] yalogin|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yumraj|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cobookman|5 years ago|reply
They also ran the AC/heat with cabin set at 72F. With them doing the driving not on a track but real life (stop & starting).
Technically speaking the EPA numbers aren't necessarily "real life". Its a repeatable test environment: https://cleantechnica.com/2020/08/18/how-does-epa-calculate-...
[+] [-] PragmaticPulp|5 years ago|reply
The goal isn't to maximize range in artificial conditions. The goal is to estimate how it might perform in standardized scenarios that can be repeated across different cars.
[+] [-] hpoe|5 years ago|reply
This seems to me like someone is going to great lengths to avoid putting in actual numbers and is instead just using this as a hit piece on Teslas.
[+] [-] PragmaticPulp|5 years ago|reply
> This seems to me like someone is going to great lengths to avoid putting in actual numbers
The first sentence of the article includes a link to one of the tests, with graphs and comparisons to other vehicles: https://www.edmunds.com/car-news/electric-car-range-and-cons...
The rest of the article has a lot of specific numbers:
> For the other Teslas tested, however, things didn't go as "well." The 2018 Model 3 Performance was off by 54 miles—this might not look that notable on a couple-year-old model—but when the testing is performed in such friendly conditions that the 2020 Mini Cooper SE, with an EPA range of 110 miles, is exceeding that by 40 miles, then it just doesn't paint a pretty picture for the Tesla cars.
[+] [-] jmisavage|5 years ago|reply
https://insideevs.com/news/496740/tesla-disputed-edmunds-tes...
[+] [-] blakesterz|5 years ago|reply
https://www.edmunds.com/car-news/electric-car-range-and-cons...
They range from -2% for the S to -17% for the 2018 Model 3.
[+] [-] jarbus|5 years ago|reply
It seems like it falls just short, not anything worth writing about imo
Model 3 Long Range: 353 claimed, 345 actual for an example
[+] [-] paxys|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] avs733|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] t-writescode|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] leetcrew|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _ea1k|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thrower123|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwaway0a5e|5 years ago|reply
I get almost exactly the EPA estimate on fleet of ~25yo cars, trucks and minivans. The car is almost always on the high end. I'm supposed to get 22. I get 21.something or 22.something or 23.something from week to week with 22 being most common. The vans and the trucks I don't drive enough to have a good feel for if they're less than an mpg high or low but they are definitely within +/-1mpg.
My commute is pretty much exclusively 70-90mph highway driving with approx four pulls (stoplights) from 0 to 50/70 (traffic speed in that area, depending on conditions) and am not shy about using all of 2nd gear.
[+] [-] t-writescode|5 years ago|reply
From what I understand, the EPA changed their measuring method many, many years ago, to include using the air conditioner, etc; and, from what I can see, mine is well within that range. In fact, I believe it regularly does better than its estimated EPA or right on it. Subaru WRX.
[+] [-] quitethelogic|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tagx|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jcranmer|5 years ago|reply