# Edmunds Battery Test - Tesla Fails in all Categories



## clerkp

https://insideevs.com/news/487329/tesla-fails-meet-epa-range-edmunds-tests/
Discuss. As an M3P owner, I'm not surprised and I assume most of this is tied to the 20 inch wheels. I can't comment on the reliability of the methodology but these test results interesting to say the least.


----------



## Needsdecaf

clerkp said:


> https://insideevs.com/news/487329/tesla-fails-meet-epa-range-edmunds-tests/
> Discuss. As an M3P owner, I'm not surprised and I assume most of this is tied to the 20 inch wheels. I can't comment on the reliability of the methodology but these test results interesting to say the least.


No, most of this is due to the fact that Teslas are terribly affected by aero drag. I had similar results in long highway drives with my 2018 LRAWD with 19" all seasons as my 2020 Performance with 20" Summer tires. Over a 160 mile, almost all highway drive, in similar weather, I've seen drives in both between 302 and 310 Wh / mile. I've repeated this enough to know that the data shows the cars are almost exactly the same.

What's really troubling is that the Edmunds test uses 60% city and 40% highway. If it was 45/55 like the EPA test, I believe the Tesla results would be worse.

The Taycan has a really conservative EPA rating that's very easily beaten, especially on the highway. I believe that mechanical losses are greater and aero doesn't count as much into the total.


----------



## clerkp

So at what point does Tesla’s promises on range cross into misleading territory? They appear to have cover by advertising EPA estimates but still getting pretty close to the line.


----------



## SoFlaModel3

In my purely non-scientific testing on road trips and assuming temperatures in the 75-90F range, I find for highway driving with an average speed of 75-80 MPH that I will get 80% of my rated range. Deduct accordingly if it is raining or really windy.

That means if my car has 310 miles of range, the best road trip distance I could achieve is 248 miles. Of course 3 years later now my range is ~295 miles so my next road trip max range would be 236 miles.

This has never impacted my ability to road trip because more important than range is access to high speed charging where and when you need them. Thank you super charger network!

I find any article talking about range to usually be flawed from the start. 99% of people 99% of the time aren't driving an extreme distance and range is somewhat irrelevant for them. Now on the oft chance that you drive distances regularly range becomes more important, but still its all about easy access to high speed charging that takes priority.


----------



## garsh

clerkp said:


> So at what point does Tesla's promises on range cross into misleading territory? They appear to have cover by advertising EPA estimates but still getting pretty close to the line.


The testing methods used to come up with these EPA estimates are _specified_ by the EPA! The EPA tells car companies to "do this exact set of steps" and "perform these calculations" to come up with a value. Now, after performing those tests and calculations, a company can ask the EPA to allow them to advertise a slightly different number, and the EPA may choose to allow it, but companies are still required to advertise something close to how the car actually performed in the tests. So there's no interest in misleading people here.

I'm not sure how Porsche is able to advertise an EPA range that appears to be so much lower than it should be. I'd be curious to hear about their testing methodology.

There's another factor that affects Teslas more than other EVs. The more efficient your vehicle is, the more your vehicle will be negatively affected by various external factors (wind, cold, rain, etc.). And Teslas are much more efficient than just about any other EV. It's more pronounced when you compare EVs to combustion vehicles, but it still applies when comparing EVs of different efficiencies.



garsh said:


> Remember, you don't tend to notice the effects of weather and tires on the performance of a combustion vehicle because 50-75% of the energy used is doing nothing more than creating a bunch of heat. So what shows up as a 10% decrease in efficiency to an electric car appears as a 10% difference on the_ remaining _25-50% for a combustion vehicle (which means a 2.5-5% decrease in mileage). The inefficiency of a combustion engine "hides" these differences from you.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_efficiency#Gasoline_(petrol)_engines


----------



## JasonF

It's also kind of the wild west as far as how the guess-o-meter works, and there's a bit of marketing in there in some cases. There is no industry standard. At some point there probably will be, and soon after the EPA will step in and say this is the exact computation you must use. The end result will probably be much lower and much more conservative range ratings for EV's, with owners being surprised at how they're always beating the estimates.


----------



## iChris93

garsh said:


> I'm not sure how Porsche is able to advertise an EPA range that appears to be so much lower than it should be.


Or why they would want to!


----------



## clerkp

garsh said:


> The testing methods used to come up with these EPA estimates are _specified_ by the EPA! The EPA tells car companies to "do this exact set of steps" and "perform these calculations" to come up with a value. Now, after performing those tests and calculations, a company can ask the EPA to allow them to advertise a slightly different number, and the EPA may choose to allow it, but companies are still required to advertise something close to how the car actually performed in the tests. So there's no interest in misleading people here.


Not arguing with you but if the Edmunds test is to be believed, they aren't actually getting all that close. And it wouldn't be the first time a giant company stretched the truth to get get more sales. Those of us in here are probably more knowledgeable than most (myself excluded) but thousands of buyers are buying these cars based on Tesla's range promises. Getting 85 percent of what was promised seems to skate pretty close to the line in my personal view. I do agree range is probably irrelevant to most of us whether it's 225, 250, 275 or 300 but if that's the case Tesla should probably just be more forthcoming on it. Can't believe this isn't the kind of thing that can lead to a class action. Perhaps the real problem is the EPA testing model is flawed.


----------



## Ed Woodrick

I'm with @Garth. I don't see what test criteria that Edmunds used, but the EPA standards are the EPA standards. They attempt tp give a somewhat rea world experience, but they are defined as one thing. How to measure one car to another. 
Can you get longer range than the EPA standards, absolutely, can you get shorter range? Absolutely.

In my mind, this is the classic FUD article written by a group that just has to come up with an article to publish.


----------



## Long Ranger

Just for reference, here's the actual Edmonds link:
https://www.edmunds.com/car-news/electric-car-range-and-consumption-epa-vs-edmunds.html
I have to say, I'm not impressed with the Edmonds methodology at all. They test on real streets in the Los Angeles area, and it's really hard to get consistent test results on real roads in real traffic. Ambient temp varied from 60 to 73 degrees depending upon the car tested (which also makes me think this was a one-time drive and not a series of tests). They also modify the route based upon the range of the vehicle being tested.

Edmonds talks about how they think their 60/40 city/highway test is more representative than the EPA 45/55 city/highway mix. They have the EPA numbers backwards! The EPA range is based upon 55% city and 45% highway (and the EPA highway test doesn't go above 60mph). My complaint with the EPA range number has always been the complete opposite, that it emphasizes city driving too much. I don't care about range when driving in the city, only on road trips. I'd like to see an EPA range number published for each car at a constant highway speed, say 70mph.



clerkp said:


> As an M3P owner, I'm not surprised and I assume most of this is tied to the 20 inch wheels.


For the 2018 M3P in their table, yes. The 310 mile EPA range number was with Aero 18" wheels. Tesla usually doesn't provide test results for each wheel type, but they did in 2020. In those EPA tests, the M3P with 18" Aeros achieved 332 mile range, the M3P with 19" was 304, and the M3P with 20" was 299 miles. So that was a 10% difference in the EPA numbers going from 18" Aeros to 20".



garsh said:


> I'm not sure how Porsche is able to advertise an EPA range that appears to be so much lower than it should be. I'd be curious to hear about their testing methodology.


I think one big factor for Porsche is that the EPA tests use the car in the default mode. I believe the Taycan defaults to low regen and sport mode and I think thats a big factor in why it performs so poorly in the EPA tests. Edmonds say they put those types of modes to max regen and max range. For the Taycan, I believe it has a "range mode" that disengages the rear motor, won't allow speed above something like 70mph, and puts A/C in an eco mode.


----------



## Long Ranger

Here are results of some range tests at a constant 70mph, which I think is a much more useful test. The Teslas don't really look like outliers here (plus the Model 3 picture shows it without Aero covers). We know the Porsche outperforms, but others like the Kona, Bolt, Leaf, e-tron underperform the EPA numbers similar to the Teslas. Totally different than those Edmonds tests.
https://insideevs.com/reviews/443791/ev-range-test-results/


----------



## JWardell

Have you ever known ANY car to EVER come close to its EPA ratings in real world conditions? 2.5% less is downright amazing in my book.

I've long been saying, any magazine or car reviewer should be using more practical methods to quantify a car's range performance. I would love to see a standardized 90% to 10% at 75mph range test which represents a real-life driving scenario. I think you will find many cars with vastly different ranges at constant highway speeds.

Yes, InsideEVs/Out of Spec has started attempting a highway loop at 70mph which is the closest to this of anyone...I wish some of the big names would do the same. But like so much of other old media, they only care about click bait.


----------



## Bigriver

I don’t understand why Edmunds would use a 2018 model 3 performance. As pointed out above, in 2018 Tesla did not differentiate the range estimate for RWD, AWD or Performance. The 310 miles was most appropriate for the AWD. Today, the Tesla model 3 performance is listed at 89% the range of the AWD. In addition, why use a 2+ year old car, which would have some level of battery degradation? Coming in at 17% under the EPA range is not surprising to me with this basis. But what gives that it came in within 4% of the Wh/mile EPA? For a given battery size, the Wh/mile is directly correlated to range.


----------



## garsh

clerkp said:


> And it wouldn't be the first time a giant company stretched the truth to get get more sales.
> ...thousands of buyers are buying these cars based on Tesla's range promises.


Again, Tesla's hands are tied. The EPA stipulates exactly how a manufacturer MUST test their vehicles, and they MUST display the EPA test result values.
The problem here is that the EPA's testing methodology doesn't translate very well to real-world usage.

It's a shame that this is viewed as Tesla breaking promises or stretching the truth. It's really the EPA's testing method that's to blame.


----------



## Needsdecaf

iChris93 said:


> Or why they would want to!


After Dieselgate, they cannot afford, literally, to be accused of more false advertising.

As a side note, the 4S range has been re-stated this year to 221 miles.


----------



## iChris93

JWardell said:


> Have you ever known ANY car to EVER come close to its EPA ratings in real world conditions?


I would always beat EPA ratings, but it was with a lot of highway driving.


----------



## iChris93

Needsdecaf said:


> After Dieselgate, they cannot afford, literally, to be accused of more false advertising.


They made money even after dieselgate.


----------



## clerkp

garsh said:


> Again, Tesla's hands are tied. The EPA stipulates exactly how a manufacturer MUST test their vehicles, and they MUST display the EPA test result values.
> The problem here is that the EPA's testing methodology doesn't translate very well to real-world usage.
> 
> It's a shame that this is viewed as Tesla breaking promises or stretching the truth. It's really the EPA's testing method that's to blame.


Not sure their hands are tied. They could report EPA testing and then they could disclose that real world results could vary in some circumstances significantly.

They appear to be benefitting from the methodology and the article seemed to suggest that there is some room for manipulation.

Fair point about the 2018 however.

I was mentioning the low advertised range on the new Etron to a friend who pointed out that they will sell every one they make even at 200 miles of stated range and 100 grand a pop. So big picture anything over 250 is probably more than enough for 99 percent of us.

Still a little more transparency from Tesla would be nice


----------



## Bigriver

garsh said:


> The EPA stipulates exactly how a manufacturer MUST test their vehicles, and they MUST display the EPA test result values.
> The problem here is that the EPA's testing methodology doesn't translate very well to real-world usage.


But in the Edmunds test, so many of the other manufacturer's cars did show greater "real world" range than the EPA range. As I have no EV experience other than Tesla, it does produce a seed of doubt for me in what is going on here. Clearly it wasn't a well controlled test and most of my doubt is with Edmunds, but some of it is also with wondering how equally I can use range quotes to compare cars across different manufacturers - which I thought was the fundamental purpose of the EPA figures.


clerkp said:


> Still a little more transparency from Tesla would be nice


As real world range was my single largest complaint the first 6 months of my EV experience, I think I feel some of your same underlying sentiment. But on a practical level, I am not sure what Tesla actually needs to do. I don't know exactly what Tesla, or any EV maker, needs to do to educate owners about variations in expected range. I do think it's a problem tho. I've read too many posts from prospective EV owners who think a car with a 210 mile range will be good for them because they have a 200 mile trip they do often. So those people are visiting online forums and we get them straightened out. I think most new EV buyers do not visit forums first.


----------



## JasonF

Bigriver said:


> I've read too many posts from prospective EV owners who think a car with a 210 mile range will be good for them because they have a 200 mile trip they do often. So those people are visiting online forums and we get them straightened out. I think most new EV buyers do not visit forums first.


I think the biggest problem EV's have is that _range_ became the standard for comparison. When you make one thing the standard for comparison, people expect that one thing out of the product to be delivered perfectly and consistently.

But in reality, there is no EV on the market that can advertise 300 miles of range on a full charge, and deliver exactly 300 miles each and every time without fail. There is also no EV that will deliver the exact range on its in-car mileage estimate.

I think eventually this will lead to either regulation on how the in-car mileage estimate must be computed, which will cause it to lean more conservatively and less optimistically...or there will be lawsuits against multiple EV makers, which will prompt their legal departments to push their developers to make the mileage estimates more conservative. Either way, the result will be that eventually you'll see estimated mileages drop.


----------



## clerkp

I guess we shall see how this goes but I think it's going to garner some attention. Stock down 5 percent today.

https://www.streetinsider.com/dr/news.php?id=17955480&gfv=1


----------



## iChris93

clerkp said:


> Stock down 5 percent today.


Wrong. $TSLA was up 0.55% today.


----------



## clerkp

iChris93 said:


> Wrong. $TSLA was up 0.55% today.


My bad. It was a couple of days ago. Kinda beside the point in any event.


----------



## jsmay311

garsh said:


> The testing methods used to come up with these EPA estimates are _specified_ by the EPA! The EPA tells car companies to "do this exact set of steps" and "perform these calculations" to come up with a value.


It's worth noting that the EPA gives automakers the _option_ to do a 2-cycle with a standard adjustment factor or a 5-cycle test to calculate a unique adjustment factor. Tesla is one of the few automakers to go to the trouble do the 5-cycle test, and that ends up giving their range ratings a modest boost (on average - it varies from vehicle to vehicle).

https://www.caranddriver.com/featur...-factor-tesla-uses-for-big-epa-range-numbers/


----------



## jsmay311

JWardell said:


> Have you ever known ANY car to EVER come close to its EPA ratings in real world conditions?


In every non-Tesla EV I've ever owned (all 1 of them  ), it was very easy to exceed the EPA ratings for range and efficiency.

In my Model 3, tho, it's basically the opposite. _Now_... that doesn't mean that Tesla has done anything wrong in following EPA test procedures. There's no evidence to suggest that Tesla's test results aren't legit. But simply pointing out that Teslas do comparatively poorly vs their EPA rated ranges compared to most other EVs shouldn't be dismissed as FUD either. It's true and it's a relevant thing for owners and prospective owners to discuss.


----------



## TomT

iChris93 said:


> Or why they would want to!


The old mantra of under promise but over deliver...


----------



## JasonF

Something to consider about this though is Tesla is not focused _primarily _on efficiency. If they were, their cars would have much less powerful motors and be designed all around to sip power carefully. They are actually giving priority to power and fun, and somehow managing to also be the most efficient EV overall. But not to beat the EPA estimates or even to give you the maximum time between charges - instead, it's to reduce cost by reducing the size of the battery. So it's as if you're trying to compare a Toyota Corolla to a Chevy Corvette to see which one comes closer to its EPA estimates.

But that said, like I mentioned above, there is no reliable estimate of mileage, especially when power consumption can vary wildly when there are few controls on it (the car lets you drive like a maniac, and turn up the heat or A/C as much as you want). So Tesla does fill that hole with a little bit of marketing, that theoretically you can go this far if you're careful and all of the stars align.

And then they make up for the shortfall by having lots of Superchargers, so suddenly getting the advertised mileage reliably really isn't critical anymore. That's going to work in their favor, because even if the EPA cracks down and forces EV makers to use much more conservative mileage estimates, Tesla might not be at the top with mileage anymore, but they do still have the capability to reliably extend the range through Supercharging.

You can bet though as other EV manufacturers heavily push efficiency and actually do restrict the driver in favor of it, they will be in favor of the EPA cracking down because they hope that future EV buyers will place rated range above all else and not buy a Tesla.


----------



## Diamond.g

The other part about the test that was interesting is their efficiency (kilowatts per 100 miles) was not nearly as low/off for Tesla as the range they indicated they would get. 

I still think that Tesla should switch to displaying the 5/15/30 mile range average as the range for the car display instead of using the EPA constant * BMS kWh that they currently use.


----------



## garsh

clerkp said:


> Not sure their hands are tied. They could report EPA testing and then they could disclose that real world results could vary in some circumstances significantly.


They do.
Right on the Monroney sticker itself. But nobody bothers to read it - they just look at the two big CITY/HIGHWAY numbers, and that's all.

_"Actual results will vary for many reasons, including driving conditions and how you drive and maintain your vehicle"_​
And Tesla has produced a "range tips" page that discusses how results will vary:
https://www.tesla.com/support/range?redirect=no
I'm not sure how much more you can expect them to do.


clerkp said:


> They appear to be benefitting from the methodology...


They are benefitting from the methodology because the method that they _must _follow *produces better results for more efficient vehicles*. If the methodology had instead dictated that you perform the test in more adverse conditions - such as cold weather, or in rain - then Tesla's range numbers wouldn't be quite as much more than everybody else's. Efficient vehicles are affected more by adverse conditions than other vehicles, so range will vary a lot more in such a vehicle.



clerkp said:


> ...the article seemed to suggest that there is some room for manipulation.


I think there are only two ways in which the EPA test provides "room for manipulation":

You can put the vehicle into a less-efficient state. You can turn off regenerative braking. You can turn on the heater. You can put wide wheels with a non-aerodynamic face on the vehicle. Most manufacturers set their vehicle to be in the most efficient configuration for these tests.
Once you've run the tests, calculated the results, and reported them to the EPA, you can ask the EPA for a variance to advertise a different value.
Tesla actually did #2 for the original Model 3. The following quote was from a thread where we were investigating the EPA results for the Model 3 when they first became available.


garsh said:


> So, given the certification report for the Long Range Model 3, I would expect to see:
> *City Range =* 495.04 * .7 = *347 miles
> Highway Range =* 454.64 * .7 = *318 miles*


Tesla could have advertised an average combined range of 332 miles for the original Long Range RWD Model 3. Instead, they asked the EPA to let them advertise 310 miles.
*They SPECIFICALLY asked the EPA to allow them to advertise a lower range than what the test results would have dictated.*


----------



## SP's Tesla

According to StatsApp, I was consistently getting over 100% efficiency in the Fall before the temperatures dropped. Exceptions were, of course, me taking friends and family for rides and jumping on the accelerator and getting stuck in a few stop/go driving situations. 

Sean


----------



## iChris93

SP's Tesla said:


> According to StatsApp, I was consistently getting over 100% efficiency in the Fall before the temperatures dropped. Exceptions were, of course, me taking friends and family for rides and jumping on the accelerator and getting stuck in a few stop/go driving situations.
> 
> Sean


I wonder how much of that is due to being at a higher altitude with less dense air. Just amazing how those things can impact our very efficient Teslas!


----------



## Bigriver

SP's Tesla said:


> According to StatsApp, I was consistently getting over 100% efficiency


Yes, the times of getting more range than expected don't get enough note. I was thrilled this past summer when I got 300 Wh/mile on my model X on a 400 mile trip, driving at highway speeds (between 70 and 75 mph). That was about 105% efficiency. And this is one of my favorite screen captures, also from my model X. Look at that average of 8 Wh/mile and 999 miles projected range! If only we could always drive downhill.


----------

