Sorry, I have to admit, I didn’t look exactly into what the EPA does, but I have some experience regarding NEFZ, NDEC and WLTP, all of which don’t care about stuff like heating or AC.
But EPA has it’s own bag of flaws. For starters, these tests aren’t done by an independent agency or something, they are done by the manufacturers. They also don’t test the real road vehicles, but usually just pre-production prototypes.
they just multiply the lab test result by 0.7. Compared with the test results from ADAC, that’s a correct adjustment would be 0.6, which is a pretty massive difference. For e.g. the Tesla 3, that’s a difference from 415km -> 355km.
What’s also not part of either of these calculations is what percentage of the time these cars will have to be heated/cooled. There aren’t too many countries where the weather is 15-25°C for the majority of the year, yet still the EPA calculates that heating and cooling will only be used infrequently.
The link works ok here. 502 indicates a server problem, so that might have been temporary.
I’ll state that we don’t really need to discuss how standardized measurements will never be able to reflect every conceivable use case in every conceivable geography, because that is simply not what these ratings are there for. They exist to make vehicles simpler to compare.
And of course manufacturers will use (and emphasize) those estimates if that makes them look better. Doesn’t make a difference if EV or ICE manufacturer.
None of my past ICE vehicles ever got close to the rated consumption. Common sense tells me I shouldn’t expect things to be different with a different propulsion system.
I just get a 502 error on that link…
Sorry, I have to admit, I didn’t look exactly into what the EPA does, but I have some experience regarding NEFZ, NDEC and WLTP, all of which don’t care about stuff like heating or AC.
But EPA has it’s own bag of flaws. For starters, these tests aren’t done by an independent agency or something, they are done by the manufacturers. They also don’t test the real road vehicles, but usually just pre-production prototypes.
And to factor in all of:
they just multiply the lab test result by 0.7. Compared with the test results from ADAC, that’s a correct adjustment would be 0.6, which is a pretty massive difference. For e.g. the Tesla 3, that’s a difference from 415km -> 355km.
What’s also not part of either of these calculations is what percentage of the time these cars will have to be heated/cooled. There aren’t too many countries where the weather is 15-25°C for the majority of the year, yet still the EPA calculates that heating and cooling will only be used infrequently.
The link works ok here. 502 indicates a server problem, so that might have been temporary.
I’ll state that we don’t really need to discuss how standardized measurements will never be able to reflect every conceivable use case in every conceivable geography, because that is simply not what these ratings are there for. They exist to make vehicles simpler to compare.
And of course manufacturers will use (and emphasize) those estimates if that makes them look better. Doesn’t make a difference if EV or ICE manufacturer.
None of my past ICE vehicles ever got close to the rated consumption. Common sense tells me I shouldn’t expect things to be different with a different propulsion system.