The vehicles tested originally got about 70% of their EPA estimated range in highway driving. After 3 years that was down to 64%. Since they clearly were never at 100%, the actual drop in range was much smaller than the 64% would suggest.
Saying that they lost 8% over 3 years doesn’t sound as dramatic as saying that they only had 64% remaining.
Exactly this. The biggest takeaway to me is that Tesla never delivered on their range estimates. I would not be happy if I only ever got 70% of what was promised.
If an electric car can travel 70mph and beat it's EPA range then the manufacturer did a terrible job of designing the car.
Wind resistance should be the major determining factor with an EV. Low speed regenerative breaking is such an efficient process that if your car gets bad mileage in "stop and go" traffic it's probably designed by a committee of fools.
EPA range is a defined value based on published metrics and measurement principles.
The idea that a manufacturer should under report range is a bit strange. Are there examples of ICE manufacturers under reporting their gad mileage? I doubt it.
There are two different EPA test cycles. One is more generous than the other. Manufacturers can choose which one to use.
Additionally, the cars will typically have multiple driving profiles to select between more performance or more efficiency.
Porsche, for example, uses the least generous test cycle with the most performant (least efficient) car settings. It makes their EPA numbers look bad but they are honest numbers.
An underquote is more customer friendly than an overquote.
Because you get what you pay for and then some. With fairy tale numbers you don't get what you thought you were paying for.
How many numbers do you want them to quote? For the Porsche Taycan there's a 35% difference between the performance settings and the eco settings. It also depends on the wheels you choose. Smaller wheels are more efficient.
It isn't an artificially low range number. It's the worst case number.
More drag I see as a valid reason, but less regenerative breaking? There would be less breaking, period, and I don’t see why breaking on highways couldn’t typically be regenerative. Can you explain?
The title states that Teslas have 64% of rated EPA range after 3 years.
The data in the article shows that after 3 years, Teslas were measured as having 64% of their rated EPA range.
The title is 100% accurate. You're just being insanely pedantic to dismiss the data in a, quite frankly, completely ridiculous way.
Whatever rating they achieved when they were initially delivered makes no difference. They were officially rated at a certain amount. After 3 years they make 64% of their rated amount. This is what the title says.
New study proves 100% of people who consume Oxidane (water) die within one week of consuming it.
A title which is accurate, but very misleading.
100% of people drink water, and not drinking water (or something with water in it) for more than a week or so will kill you. How I've phrased it implies the water kills you, when it's exactly the opposite.
The vehicles tested originally got about 70% of their EPA estimated range in highway driving. After 3 years that was down to 64%. Since they clearly were never at 100%, the actual drop in range was much smaller than the 64% would suggest.
Saying that they lost 8% over 3 years doesn’t sound as dramatic as saying that they only had 64% remaining.
Gotta get those click.