boyko23

These people conducted a second test, especially for the us speed limits and conditions and some people still aren't happy?

CarMaven

Okay. But didn't Next Move say the Taycan charged faster already?... And the real world difference is much more, particularly 5-20-80%?? Car and Driver (and others) have came to the same conclusion on the Taycan charging advantage as well. It appears, the Model 3 can compete in particular criteria, and/but not for long, with it ultimately taking considerably longer in most instances? Yes/No?

I can see, why you want to have more local type driving between both cars. However, there's plenty concerning the Taycan (Autoblog; Motor Trend; Electrek; Teslanomics; Fully Charged; Inside EV's, etc.) with mixed driving. You also have plenty owner feedback as well on other sites. Plus, as I mentioned: Car and Driver did perform that type testing you're looking for. However, I don't think I've seen you acknowledge it?.... This other metric corroborated the oft mentioned Highspeed oval test, giving both cars an identical MPGe rating of 70 based off C&D's 3 days worth of driving. So, the oval test was proven right, they would argue. We'll see what happens in the future?

You can read the article here. However, the last two paragraphs deal with what I just said (Oval Test vs 3 Days Of Driving).

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...tesla-model-s/

jkjjpc

Note that this latest test was a 4S, but they use the EPA data for the Turbo in their graphics. Most people expect the 4S to have a slightly higher EPA range than the Turbo (perhaps 220mi?). Multiple tests have shown that the range difference between the Taycan and the Teslas is not as great as would be suggested by the EPA data. At high speeds, the Taycan seems to achieve, or slightly exceed, its EPA rating, while the Teslas (3 and S) are well below their EPA rating. Clearly, the Teslas do better on the EPA test than the Taycan, perhaps that is related to the different approach to regeneration and other factors such as weight and tire size/grip. But range is most important for long distance trips and the data suggest the difference between the Taycan and Teslas is 10% or less. Plus, NextMove and Car and Driver did charging speed tests that showed the Taycan charged faster, which tends to offset the Tesla highway range advantage assuming equal charging infrastructure (which does not currently exist). This is good news for those of us who have a Taycan on order and have been worried about long-distance trips.

whiz944

They've also been testing in cold, but not freezing ambient temps. Would allow a car with a heat pump heating system (e.g., Taycan) to gain a bit more efficiency compared to a car without (e.g., Tesla).

Last year Motor Trend did a road trip from Fremont, CA to Hawthorne, CA in a Raven Model S 100D on a single charge. Distance was 359 freeway miles - including driving I-5, and the grades on CA 152 and the Grapevine. Still had about 40 miles on the GOM when they arrived. Granted this was the 100D, and not the P100D. (https://www.motortrend.com/cars/tesl...odel-s-review/)

Zcd1

I read the article when it first appeared, weeks ago. If you read the comments, you'll find that C&D was roundly lambasted for their half-assed range testing - to call their methods "unscientific" would be severely understating the actual case.

No, the Taycan isn't really significantly faster to charge than the Model 3, though it does charge faster than the current Model S.

The real issue for long-distance travel in the Taycan isn't the range or lack of charging speed, though - it's the lack of charging infrastructure and its patchwork nature.

daveo4porsche

https://www.yahoo.com/autos/tesla-mo...152908843.html

​​​​​​​
350 miles for 75 kWh vs. the Taycan 250 miles for 85 kWh…we all know who the efficiency champion is - kudos to Porsche for not sucking as much as the EPA test would indicate, but let's not lose sight of how inefficient the Taycan (and Model S) by today's standards.

acoste

Model S inefficient. Model 3 with the same drive train is efficiency champion. ... ?


The 2 authors I skip on Insideevs due to their massive bias and low quality articles are Evannex and this Loveday. He didn't bother looking for the answer to his question that I found in a minute.

"When we originally tested the 3 we measured the driving range at 310 miles with the regenerative braking set to Low and 350 miles in the more aggressive regen mode (labeled as Standard)."

HVAC is off in CR's test and although they claim "Our EV range test involves some mixed driving, but much of it is done by driving a constant 65 mph on highways." The large variation of range based on regen shows city diving is dominant there.

Closest Taycan result to this is the AMCI Testing City/Highway Route. "Both the Taycan Turbo and Taycan Turbo S were operated in Normal Mode with Regen set to “Auto” and HVAC to “ECO”"
In their mixed test they achieved 275 and 278 mi for Turbo and Turbo S respectively.
HVAC needs 1kW even in ECO mode. Consumer Reports turns that off, that's 6% more range. ~290mi. Then think about the wheel size difference and weight difference (why are you comparing these 2 cars anyway?). Regen is set to low in the Taycan. That's closer to Model 3's low regen setting and CR achieved 310mi that way.

CarMaven

Lambasted by who?.....Tesla Diehards? Didn't really hear many complaints except from that arena.

You don't have to agree with their methods. But it was certainly scientific (same location; speed; distance; weather, etc.). They already explained they couldn't run the vehicles past 100 miles due to light issues. However, it's a similar test that they've performed over the years with nary a complaint, except now/lately.

Again: Car and Driver had 3 days of actual consumption data, which you've still yet to mention. Can you acknowledge that they did it? This three days of data corroborated the Oval Test which you feel was unscientific (i.e., both cars got the same MPGe rating of 70 based off actual real driving). So, what's unscientific about that, and the fact they have two corroborating metrics?

Zcd1

Then you didn't actually read the comments.

Given the way the rest of the "range test" was conducted, (you cannot accurately "project" an EV's range based on its in-car efficiency readout) I see no reason to believe anything they stated regarding range.

Motor Trend, by contrast, contracts with a company that specializes in measuring vehicle efficiency and range for their reporting. That company recently tested the Taycan, and should soon be testing the Model S Performance. They provide city/hwy/mixed ratings - then we'll have real-world results to compare.

CarMaven

Why do you keep Talking about the Range Test? And no, I didn't see many complain about it except for assorted Tesla True Believers.

My guess: If the Tesla would have projected having 100 more miles than the Taycan, you would have been fine with it? Be honest.

Again: Who cares about the (oft discussed by Tesla many Holdouts) Range Test, when Car and Driver had their actual 3 days of consumption data to buttress the oval? You keep seeming to miss this. You may not like the outcome. But you can't say that both metrics are flawed (especially when both cars went through the same regimens on the same day), can you?

I would say: 100% of the complaints I've seen regarding the Car and Driving Range comparison from Tesla fans, have to do with the 100 mile oval (not running it to near empty). I haven't seen any bring up their 3 days worth of consumption. Not one! Cause, most probably don't know, and/or feign ignorance/mindfully avoiding it to not support the Range test results.

Honestly, I don't see, why select Tesla fans are so upset to begin with. Just accept the results, and move onto the next one, when it appears. They'll be another, trust.

PS: You can't 100% compares MT's results (if, when they get a Model S) unless they were tested same day, regimen, etc (hopefully, that's coming)... This is why your frequent problems with Car and Driver just tells us, that you're unhappy with the result more than anything else. Because, most fair minded observers, would be happy that they tested both cars range in a controlled setting, and provided their actual/real world consumption data as a comparison to boot.

CarMaven

Not sure if this happened with CR or Motor Trend (vs EPA) test?

But you keep hearing. Tesla optimizes the cars for these range test (one of the reasons they differ so much in the Real World they say). You hear about the tires being inflated to 46 PSI; certain default modes available for EPA rating, then the more performance ones being OTA'd later, etc. You been hearing, aware of this Acoste?

Obviously, the cold weather performance (particularly with the Model 3), is another beef as well (in comparison to EPA).

acoste

Main thing I believe is that the Tesla's motors (and maybe the inverters as well) are tuned for high efficiency at low power (around 10 hp) //this is why daveo wants to see a 60mph comparison test//. Taycan seems to be tuned for high efficiency at high torque (well it is efficient at 30hp already).
Additionally Tesla adjusts torque balance between front and rear based on efficiency of the AC and PMSRM motors instead of preferring performance or stability. One clear example of this is that the AWD Model 3 starts drifting in snow easily because it uses the more efficient rear motor only regardless of road conditions (proven by Tesla Bjorn). Audi/Taycan are permanent 4wd for performance and safety (this drops efficiency quite a bit because one motor needs to deliver half the torque only and the efficiency drops steeply in the low torque area).
One more thing is the higher content. More electronics mean more consumption, which is more dominant at low speeds in the consumption figures.
These, plus the strong default regen setting pushes any low speed range (including the EPA rated range) high for the Tesla. Add the 41-45psi and eco tires (model dependent) which again matters more at low speeds rather than high speeds.

This is all clear up until here. And can be proven/tested in real life. Tesla Bjorn did reach 348mi in a constant 55mph test recently with a new Model 3 LR AWD.
/// the bottom buffer is also used in EPA test, so if Bjorn would drive the car until it stops dead that would be 78/74*348 = 367mi

Now the EPA highway test is done at around 55mph. There is some acceleration and deceleration in there but not much. The average speed for the test is 48mph. The Model 3 reaches 442mi on the dyno according to EPA Tesla.

My big question is why no one can reach 442mi with the Model 3 in real life at these speeds?
// excluding bottom buffer: 74/78*442 = 419mi


this 442mi gets multiplied by ~0.7 so the EPA range would be 310mi for that range (simplified). The reason for the 0.7 multiplier is not for compensating the dyno vs road difference! it compensates for high consumer accessories and adverse weather. So in nice weather with the AC barely running people should see 400+mi with the Model 3 according to the EPA test.

Taycan delivers 280mi on the dyno, in EPA test and on the road, no discrepancy there.

Here is the EPA HW cycle:

NA011

Don’t worry about it. This is good enough for 99% of your drives. This coming from a 4 year owner of a Tesla driver.
You need longer? Buy a Panamera or fly.

Bob Roberts

People with an agenda will only be happy when the results are bad.

That is what paid social marketing people do.

kayjh

This whole thread is a laugh. Once we have a few hundred cars on the road and people are driving them and reporting what their typical daily city driving range is, then we'll know. There are no experts on this forum with anything to add.

At this point all EVs will require stops of varying durations to recharge and keep going. If you normally drive your EV around town and don't drive more than 150 miles/day on your commute (I feel sorry for you if you have to drive that far), what does it matter what the range is? You'll just charge at home every night. If you take regular "road trips" and need to charge en route an dare in a hurry - you can use a fast charger system - but until Porsche or users tell us what the battery penalty (degradation) is for doing that, who wants to subject their $200,000 EV to a fast charger?