Jaguar I-Pace Forum banner

I-Pace Video Gallery

90K views 225 replies 52 participants last post by  Raeth 
#1 ·
Hi All,

Thought I'd get the video gallery ball rolling!

Here's Mat Watson from Carwow - his reviews are always worth a watch. I doubt we'll be looking at any dealer discounts for a while yet though!

 
#78 ·
Tophe74 said:
So average of those numbers is 250 mi.
But how did they get them ?
No idea how they got them - they already posted these numbers shortly after the I-pace reveal in March so before any none Jaguar staff had a test drive.
 
#79 ·
Hi,

The point re: the ev database numbers is that range will vary widely according to both external conditions and driving (m/ways, booting it etc.) etc.

Comparing ICE with Bevs it's apparent that whilst Bevs are great for local driving (especially with home charging etc.) which is the environmnt in which ICE cars are least fuel efficient the opposite is true for long(er) distance (M/way) driving i.e. ICE fuel economy significantly improves whereas Bev economy falls (@ constant 70 mph) etc. So for some people current Bevs will be great and for others they will be less so....at least not for a few years until/when solid state higher density quicker charging batteries/supercapacitors come on line etc.

Whilst a lot of my driving is local I do drive to Scotland (600 miles) several times a year so currently I'm sticking with my diesel Cayenne both because the one car meets all of my driving needs plus has flexibility to carry family plus large dog with ease.

However I'm not knocking the iPace as I do think that it is a great car but not for me...yet!.....with a discount!

Cheers,
 
#83 ·
John32 said:
It doesn't help that Tesla hasn't published their WLTP numbers yet. It seems they are one of the few large carmakers that haven't published them...
Well they did publish EPA numbers and the model S 75D has a 237 mile EPA rating. Jaguar I-pace earlier had an estimated EPA rating of 240 miles but now Jaguar shows 220 miles on their website. So Tesla has nearly 10% more range yet I-pace has 20% more battery :?
 
G
#84 ·
Jelle v/d Meer said:
Well they did publish EPA numbers and the model S 75D has a 237 mile EPA rating. Jaguar I-pace earlier had an estimated EPA rating of 240 miles but now Jaguar shows 220 miles on their website. So Tesla has nearly 10% more range yet I-pace has 20% more battery :?
The Jaq is on 22" wheels, has a higher drag co-efficiency, and weighs more. But yeah let's just focus on battery size and range only with no other factors.
 
#86 ·
Gdank said:
The Jaq is on 22" wheels, has a higher drag co-efficiency, and weighs more. But yeah let's just focus on battery size and range only with no other factors.
Well my I-pace is on 18" wheels - do not know what EPA uses for testing. Tesla model S is on 19" or 21" wheels.

But my comment was to give results of same test, in Europe Tesla so far only advised NEDC and Jaguar only WLTP, was 480 now 470. End of september latest will we know Tesla WLTP numbers as by then all car companies most report WLTP for current models they are selling.

I am disappointed so far with I-pace range certainly the seemingly large gap between WLTP and reality - Jaguar made various claims in their marketing how efficient the engine and design was but have yet to deliver - so far all they did was reduce earlier claimed WLTP and EPA range.

Somehow Tesla designed the model S better for the EPA test as on the old NEDC it has 490km versus I-pace 470 on WLTP (= +/- 520 on NEDC) yet as said on EPA Model S is 237 and I-pace 220 (estimate).
 
#87 ·
https://www.topgear.com/videos/top-gear-drag-races/top-gear-drag-races-tesla-model-s-75d-vs-jaguar-i-pace

Drag race between Model S 75D and I-pace HSE, Tesla is quicker off the line (maybe due to bad driver in I-pace) but ends up winning so keeps more torque usable as speed goes up. The top speed of 75D is higher with 225km/h because I-pace is electronically limited to 200km/h.

The I-pace is 25kg heavier but has 32bhp more and has more torque, seeing the 2 next to eachother also shows the model S to be lower and more aerodynamical as the crossover I-pace.
 
#88 ·
Gdank said:
Shhh don't mention a good range on these forums .... too many already convinced that it only has a range of 180miles.
I don't know about 180 miles, but my Go I-Pace app is consistently reporting around 200 miles (actually saying 198 miles right now) with 729 miles tracked thus far. I haven't been doing many long journeys recently so this is a mixture of shorter and medium distance (30-80 mile) trips, but probably not untypical of many owners' day to day driving. Do we really think that JLR have written (commissioned I guess) the app to underestimate range?

Range is a bit of a concern for me - I'm not too bothered if we're debating eg 240 vs 260 vs 280. But there is a 150-160 mile trip that I will be doing on a fairly regular basis and with any significant detour tagged on range would start to become marginal. So if range were to regularly fall to 200 or below then second thoughts are starting to creep in. Charging at 7kW out on the road isn't very practical except in extremis and the number of fast chargers in my neck of the woods is vanishingly small at present.
 
#89 ·
johnd said:
I don't know about 180 miles, but my Go I-Pace app is consistently reporting around 200 miles (actually saying 198 miles right now) with 729 miles tracked thus far. I haven't been doing many long journeys recently so this is a mixture of shorter and medium distance (30-80 mile) trips, but probably not untypical of many owners' day to day driving. Do we really think that JLR have written (commissioned I guess) the app to underestimate range?
Maybe the Go I-Pace app hasn't had the 1 hour production software upgrade yet! …… sorry I couldn't resist that.

johnd said:
Range is a bit of a concern for me - I'm not too bothered if we're debating eg 240 vs 260 vs 280. But there is a 150-160 mile trip that I will be doing on a fairly regular basis and with any significant detour tagged on range would start to become marginal. So if range were to regularly fall to 200 or below then second thoughts are starting to creep in. Charging at 7kW out on the road isn't very practical except in extremis and the number of fast chargers in my neck of the woods is vanishingly small at present.
I'm in a similar boat, that's why I've ask to have my demo car long enough to do my regular relatively long round trip, to see if I can do it with no issues. I really don't want to be roadside recharging on a 160 mile round trip - and at this stage there's no way I can see a charger being installed at my mid-point.
The way things are panning out I will be doing my demo run when the weather has starting to cool so will get a more realistic view of what the range is.

Here's hoping.
 
#90 ·
I share the concern about range. I am sure everyone interested in the car would be very happy to hear of real-world range being well over 200 miles; but no real world production car testing is showing initially claimed 300 miles, or the later claimed 240. Jaguar USA is still showing estimated range at 240, but that could simply be a website management feature . . . Perhaps we're starting to see why the little light Chevy Bolt is so little and light.
 
#91 ·
Some might have read my post/seen my vid already, but for those who haven't: I came to the conclusion 200+ miles is possible after a full day of test driving on the highway, exceeding the speed limit.
Link to vid:
 
#92 ·
Megter said:
I came to the conclusion 200+ miles is possible after a full day of test driving on the highway, exceeding the speed limit.
Don't really want to labour the point particularly, but I thought the conclusion was that consumption (of the pre-production model certainly) was around 30kW/100km giving a range of 300km or 188 miles (assuming you go from 100% ==> 0%, which most users won't want to do). Maybe the speed limit was exceeded in places but not by too much it seems.

Again, this was a pre-production car I believe, but for my personal circumstances I'm not going to be comfortable with a routine range less than say 220-240 miles. But we're still waiting for good analytical range-tests of a full production example. So all to play for still (but there's a voice at the back of my head wondering if the 2020 or 2021 MY might not be able to squeeze an extra 5-10% of range (maybe with slightly denser battery packing and further optimised software?) and so maybe I should buy something else in the interim).
 
#93 ·
30kW was including longer parts of 150+km/h.
I got to 156 miles with 74% by going just over speed limit all the times which is 200+ on full battery.

But you're right, this was pre-production. Let's wait until the real ones get there.
 
#94 ·
Megter said:
30kW was including longer parts of 150+km/h.
I got to 156 miles with 74% by going just over speed limit all the times which is 200+ on full battery.
OK, that's useful info. But it does mean that say 93% battery is going to give around 195 miles. [93% on the basis that the initial charge might only be say 98% - doesn't that last 3-4% of charge take a relatively long time? And I suspect that most users won't be comfortable using the last 4-5% of range routinely (and isn't it supposed to be bad for the battery to almost discharge it completely?).]

TBH everything I'm seeing and reading at present is suggesting a usable real-world range of somewhere around the 200 mile mark. This is fine for day-to-day use I'm sure but is a significant limitation for longer trips unless there's a fast charger somewhere along the route.
 
#95 ·
Don t forget the battery in 90kw but 84 useable. So at 0% its not empty. I do it every working ddays with my E-trin since more than 3 years now. 100% to 0% 10% then charging back to 100%. And range still the same as 1st day.
Am confident that Jaguar know what they do.
 
#96 ·
Tophe74 said:
...100% to 0% 10% then charging back to 100%...
Sorry can you clarify that sentence - not sure what you mean.

Unfortunately, this thread had diverted on to a range discussion rather than video announcements....but since we're here:

I do sort of understand what you mean about the 0-100% probably mapping to eg 4-96% of the actual 90kW battery capacity, but in practice isn't it true that:

1. Few owners will want to allow indicated range to fall literally to zero (even if there are still a few miles 'left in the tank' at zero).

2. Isn't it also the case that charging from eg 97-100% takes substantially longer than from eg 47-50%? So unless you leave the charging for many hours, you'll typically max out at eg 98% range?
 
#97 ·
100% = 84kw so still 6kw of battery that u can't use but the battery itself is not 0% to preserv cells.
My A3 e-tron does the same with 8kw but only 7.4 available. And i mean i use it full every working days from 100% to often 0% and it still ok from 3 years now.
Its not like phones that use all the battery because its easy to change so no need. Manufactures prefer that u change it or even better that u get a new phone.
 
#98 ·
Yes, certainly, what we're talking about is the range of 0-100% available battery capacity, whether that's 84kW, 90kW or whatever. The bit in your previous post that I'm not understanding is:

Tophe74 said:
...100% to 0% 10% then charging back to 100%...
I'm guessing there's a hyphen missing? Maybe you mean 0% to 10% (0%-10%), or maybe typically not wishing to drop below say 5% available capacity, except in event of emergency or miscalculation? In which case, yes I agree completely. So, to rewind my point:

Whatever range 0-100% of available battery capacity equates to, then you might typically only have eg 94-95% of that maximum range as routinely usable range, because (i) a limited charging period might have reached say only 98% rather than 100% AND you might prefer not to drop below 4-5% indicated range when you reach home or your recharging destination.

So, based on the figures currently available, routine range looks like 190-195 miles or thereabouts or say 300-320km in round numbers.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top