Jaguar I-Pace Forum banner

I-PACE Range Official Statement

68K views 74 replies 30 participants last post by  Delta5 
#1 ·
Due to the volume of queries we as a manufacturer have received in regards to the range of I-PACE, it has become apparent that this is a developing topic among the users of this thread, I-PACE owners and prospective owners alike.

We have recognised the importance of the feedback we have received, and would like to take the opportunity to post the following statement in response to the questions you, as passionate members of the forum have asked so far.

Jaguar would like to assure you that we are as transparent as possible with the information we publish. The official range of I-PACE is 292 miles using the standardised WLTP test and this result is the figure we are legally required to quote. The WLTP test was designed to give a more real-world range than the outgoing NEDC test but it still can't reflect all the different factors that affect range, such as: the weather, temperature, driving style. As such, the actual range people obtain will depend a great deal on those factors.

Should you require any information regarding I-PACE, and the vehicles range, please do not hesitate to contact CRC@Jaguar direct and we will endeavor to assist you to the best of our ability.

Many Thanks

Jaguar Customer Relations Centre
 
See less See more
#2 ·
I'm sorry but this is laughable and sums up why so many people on this forum are disappointed with JLR's contribution. Over 1,000 replies on the I-Pace Range post and this is the best JLR can do in response. Pathetic.
 
#3 ·
I am sure we all appreciate CRC taking the time to acknowledge and issue this official statement, but it is not really telling us anything we didn't already know, and it hardly seems to be worthy of an "official statement".

As the people who are currently driving the car know, the WLTP range of 292 miles is anything up to 40-50+% above what we are achieving on a daily basis, so requoting the wholly inaccurate WLTP published figure is pretty much worthless as it has no bearing in the real world.

I did my research and worked out whether the I-Pace was appropriate for my specific driving profile before I got my car, so the range of 180-200 miles works OK for me, but if it degrades too much, too quickly it might not continue to do so, so I think the questions that I and other owners on the forum are really wanting answering with regards to range are more like;
are there any software (or even hardware) updates planned that will improve range in the future? e.g. more aggressive eco mode, motor control etc
When will we have more control over charging levels so that we can protect the battery (and hence the range)?
When will we have reliable 100kw charging?
At what level of battery pack degradation will JLR take action under warranty? How can we measure battery pack volume and temperature to keep an eye on use and degradation?
When will OTA update work properly?

These and no doubt a dozen other questions are more pertinent to our range queries.
We have already bought the car and bought into the ideal it represents, and we are/should be your best ambassadors to the so far unconverted, but we are by definition a different breed of customer than you are used to, we are far more engaged with the product than your conventional car buyer, and JLR would profit by heeding the lessons that could be learned by listening to the questions we are asking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GregSmith
#4 ·
Well said and a much more comprehensive comment than mine. Coincidentally my I-Pace is with JLR at the moment to look at a few issues. I will be raising the issue of their involvement with this forum when I collect the car. Doubt it will make any difference but worth a try.
 
#5 ·
Shortened translation for those in a hurry: " legally we have to quote a WLTP range which we have defined as 292 miles. We know this is unachievable but we have to say something. However if you drive with passengers, luggage, 'in the winter, in a slight breeze, over 39mph, on bigger than 18" rims, on upward gradients or are slightly overweight your actual range may be reduced"
"And to quote the great FG, 'that's all I've got to say about that"
 
#6 ·
In Jaguars defence here, I think their hands are tied. I believe they are legally obliged to quote the official test results. Unfortunately those tests don't seem to be great for EVs. But then again, most petrol cars don't achieve anything like the official fuel consumption figures. Unfortunately the test is flawed and I don't think there's much Jag can do other than continue to quite the official test figures. I think we'll all get much closer to them when the summer comes but the EPA test figure of 234 seeems more realistic. Clearly for whatever reason that test gives better results.
 
#7 ·
Come on guys, test figures are designed to allow comparisons of efficiency between different models, not to give a realistic indication of actual real-life consumption. What do you expect- a massive spreadsheet listing all possible combinations of driver, road and weather conditions, and age of car (and how it's been used)?

And if you want to beat people up about test figures, maybe a certain German company would be a better target. ;)
 
#8 ·
Moving forward...
It looks like Jaguar isn't willing to reply to questions on this "sub-forum" anymore and ask that questions be directed directly to their email. I would ask that anyone who sends a question to JCR, post the question and reply on this forum to help others.

It's the VCA who do the WLTP test and nothing to do with Jaguar or any other manufacturer. Jaguar has to publish those results which should be consistent with all other manufacturers even if they are unrealistic. To be fair to Jaguar, my dealer told me in May to expect around 220-240 mile range in real driving. I believe that should be achievable with the right wheels, and conditions.

I'm pretty sure Jaguar will be only interested in fault fixing and enabling quoted features at this stage. This statement is just telling us that the range "it is what it is" and you will probably have a realistic range in the right conditions compared to other comparable car WLTP figures.

It may be a good idea for someone who is enthusiastic to create a 2-week "poll" thread of a few faults that should be operating properly and send the most voted fault to JCR. I think JCR would react and respond better to that than being bombarded with random faults.
 
#9 ·
I don't think the situation has been helped by the fact that first deliveries have happened in winter.

This will be our third EV, and with our current and previous, I estimate we lose around 25-30% of range when it's cold.
 
#10 ·
scm said:
Come on guys, test figures are designed to allow comparisons of efficiency between different models, not to give a realistic indication of actual real-life consumption. What do you expect- a massive spreadsheet listing all possible combinations of driver, road and weather conditions, and age of car (and how it's been used)?

And if you want to beat people up about test figures, maybe a certain German company would be a better target. ;)
But why does the Jaguar perform so badly - ignore WLTP - why is the real world efficiency per kWh worse than pretty much all other BEV cars.
Obviously their battery and engine(software) technology is just not good with result that efficiency is real life is far worse.

The Hyundai Kona gets further on a 64kW battery than the I-pace on a 90kW battery - driving the exact same route, speed, day etc. The model S for sure and X approx get further on 75kW than I-pace on 90kW despite the X being bigger & heavier.

Fastned the major DC charging provider in NL sent out mailing indicating charging speeds at 175kW charger. "Hyundai KONA (77 kW) en Ioniq (70 kW), Kia e-Niro (77 kW), Jaguar I-PACE (85 kW), Mercedes-Benz EQC (110 kW) en Audi e-tron Quattro (150 kW)." All cars delivery or over delivery on their promise except the Jaguar I-pace they max get to 85kW and already drops down at 55% SoC. The E-tron runs at 150kW till 80% SoC, with result that the E-tron will get twice as fast to 90% SoC from 5% than the Jaguar will despite having a slightly bigger battery.

Jaguar advertised and promised a lot but delivered very little!!!!
 
#12 ·
My point was not that the figure they are quoting is wrong or unachievable, or anything like that. It was not about range per se, more about what prompted them to issue an official statement at all if all they could do was trot out the same thing as we already knew.
I am saying to CRC more like "answer some of the questions we are actually asking" and "if you let us, then as a group of highly motivated, fully-engaged, techno-aware customers we will let you know the key things that will turn a really good car into a great one, and help to remove the issues that may give future potential customers cause for doubt".
 
#13 ·
Pacesetter said:
My point was not that the figure they are quoting is wrong or unachievable, or anything like that. It was not about range per se, more about what prompted them to issue an official statement at all if all they could do was trot out the same thing as we already knew.
I am saying to CRC more like "answer some of the questions we are actually asking" and "if you let us, then as a group of highly motivated, fully-engaged, techno-aware customers we will let you know the key things that will turn a really good car into a great one, and help to remove the issues that may give future potential customers cause for doubt".
Absolutely agree. My dealer told me around 240 miles range would be realistic - they must have got that figure from somewhere?
 
#14 ·
I'm sorry but I just don't understand why people get bent out of shape over any of this. Yes that CRC statement is silly but does anyone really think that the official range estimates are accurate in real world driving? And why do we compare the iPace to the Kona? Do we ever compare the fuel economy of a Macan to that of a Prius? :rolleyes:
 
#15 ·
Jelle v/d Meer said:
scm said:
Come on guys, test figures are designed to allow comparisons of efficiency between different models, not to give a realistic indication of actual real-life consumption. What do you expect- a massive spreadsheet listing all possible combinations of driver, road and weather conditions, and age of car (and how it's been used)?

And if you want to beat people up about test figures, maybe a certain German company would be a better target. ;)
But why does the Jaguar perform so badly - ignore WLTP - why is the real world efficiency per kWh worse than pretty much all other BEV cars.
Obviously their battery and engine(software) technology is just not good with result that efficiency is real life is far worse.

The Hyundai Kona gets further on a 64kW battery than the I-pace on a 90kW battery - driving the exact same route, speed, day etc. The model S for sure and X approx get further on 75kW than I-pace on 90kW despite the X being bigger & heavier.

Fastned the major DC charging provider in NL sent out mailing indicating charging speeds at 175kW charger. "Hyundai KONA (77 kW) en Ioniq (70 kW), Kia e-Niro (77 kW), Jaguar I-PACE (85 kW), Mercedes-Benz EQC (110 kW) en Audi e-tron Quattro (150 kW)." All cars delivery or over delivery on their promise except the Jaguar I-pace they max get to 85kW and already drops down at 55% SoC. The E-tron runs at 150kW till 80% SoC, with result that the E-tron will get twice as fast to 90% SoC from 5% than the Jaguar will despite having a slightly bigger battery.

Jaguar advertised and promised a lot but delivered very little!!!!
Absolutely in real world driving the 75kWh Tesla X does not offer better range than the I-Pace.

The Kona is a tiny little car made of tin with a tiny single motor and plastic interior. You may as well compare an E-Pace with a Citroen C1 and complain that the E-Pace doesn't go as far on a gallon of petrol.

My daughter has a C1 and it is supposed to get 68mpg. It has a 7.5 gallon tank so should have a range of 510 miles. In reality, she gets around 400 miles if she drives carefully. Don't see many complaints about the C1 not achieving a 500 mile range on the internet.

I didn't buy an I-Pace to sit on a Rapid Charger. Most people will rarely use one. On a 50kW charger you put in about 150 miles in an hour, on a 100kW charger that will be around 220 miles in an hour. Don't see the issue myself.

The car drives a dream and is clearly a class above anything Tesla chuck out - the only reason for comparison would be they both have electric drivetrains, other than that I can see no other comparison.

Jaguar is a small niche car manufacturer and has delivered a CAR with an electric drivetrain that has been voted the best £60,000 and above electric car on the market.
 
#16 ·
Pacesetter said:
I am sure we all appreciate CRC taking the time to acknowledge and issue this official statement, but it is not really telling us anything we didn't already know, and it hardly seems to be worthy of an "official statement".

As the people who are currently driving the car know, the WLTP range of 292 miles is anything up to 40-50+% above what we are achieving on a daily basis, so requoting the wholly inaccurate WLTP published figure is pretty much worthless as it has no bearing in the real world.

I did my research and worked out whether the I-Pace was appropriate for my specific driving profile before I got my car, so the range of 180-200 miles works OK for me, but if it degrades too much, too quickly it might not continue to do so, so I think the questions that I and other owners on the forum are really wanting answering with regards to range are more like;
are there any software (or even hardware) updates planned that will improve range in the future? e.g. more aggressive eco mode, motor control etc
When will we have more control over charging levels so that we can protect the battery (and hence the range)?
When will we have reliable 100kw charging?
At what level of battery pack degradation will JLR take action under warranty? How can we measure battery pack volume and temperature to keep an eye on use and degradation?
When will OTA update work properly?

These and no doubt a dozen other questions are more pertinent to our range queries.
We have already bought the car and bought into the ideal it represents, and we are/should be your best ambassadors to the so far unconverted, but we are by definition a different breed of customer than you are used to, we are far more engaged with the product than your conventional car buyer, and JLR would profit by heeding the lessons that could be learned by listening to the questions we are asking.
Very interested in information on upcoming software updates also.
 
#17 ·
Chewy said:
I didn't buy an I-Pace to sit on a Rapid Charger. Most people will rarely use one. On a 50kW charger you put in about 150 miles in an hour, on a 100kW charger that will be around 220 miles in an hour. Don't see the issue myself.

The car drives a dream and is clearly a class above anything Tesla chuck out - the only reason for comparison would be they both have electric drivetrains, other than that I can see no other comparison.

Jaguar is a small niche car manufacturer and has delivered a CAR with an electric drivetrain that has been voted the best £60,000 and above electric car on the market.
Well said! I thought people buy Jaguars for the driving experience, moaning about range makes you sound like those sad diesel drivers who boast about how far they can go on a gallon of the devil's brew, because that's the only "good" thing about their cars.

That said, the faff of charging is what puts me off downgrading to an i-Pace, I can fully charge my F-Type in 5 minutes! ;)
 
#18 ·
scm said:
Chewy said:
I didn't buy an I-Pace to sit on a Rapid Charger. Most people will rarely use one. On a 50kW charger you put in about 150 miles in an hour, on a 100kW charger that will be around 220 miles in an hour. Don't see the issue myself.

The car drives a dream and is clearly a class above anything Tesla chuck out - the only reason for comparison would be they both have electric drivetrains, other than that I can see no other comparison.

Jaguar is a small niche car manufacturer and has delivered a CAR with an electric drivetrain that has been voted the best £60,000 and above electric car on the market.
Well said! I thought people buy Jaguars for the driving experience, moaning about range makes you sound like those sad diesel drivers who boast about how far they can go on a gallon of the devil's brew, because that's the only "good" thing about their cars.

That said, the faff of charging is what puts me off downgrading to an i-Pace, I can fully charge my F-Type in 5 minutes! ;)
An electric F-Type, now that would be a car Jaguar could sells lots of.
 
#19 ·
Chewy said:
An electric F-Type, now that would be a car Jaguar could sells lots of.
I'm not convinced, hardcore sports car fans like the roar out the back! :D
But I think that's the way Jaguar is going, to be all electirc in the years to come.
I'd prefer a decent hybrid that used an ICE to generate electricity that drives the motors on each axle.
 
#22 ·
The worst 100% full estimate I have had has been 140 miles range. It is currently around 170 miles which is over 40% down on WLTP and 30% down on the dealer's estimate of 240 miles for 'real world' driving. I have not actively measured how far I can go yet, but I know that the range estimates can drop by 20 miles after 5 miles driving, so I am not hopeful. Most of my journeys are 6 - 100 miles, but I have made 2 longish journeys, both of which had problems with motorway chargers not working or being in use - leading to some serious range anxiety. Sitting in a health club car park at 9pm on a Saturday feeling relieved that at least I'd got to a rapid and working charger (15 miles left in battery), was somewhat offset by the regular arrival and departure of assorted hot hatches who seemed to be buying something from some other cars on the other side of the car park. None of the rapid chargers I have used have got near their supposed speeds - 35KW from 50KW chargers means it takes a lot longer to get the miles back into the battery. I don't want a petrol car with an engineered exhaust response, I want a BEV with a meaningful range and achievable charging rates.
 
#23 ·
Sadly the Jaguar CRC response is as useless as all their CRC responses. Personally I don't think they can say very much about official range figures and the discussion on WLTP is already done to death.

IMO, what Jaguar Cars should be doing is improving the range-o-meter.
This is NOT a range measurement regulated externally, but is a bit of code implemented in the delivered car as part of the product. The product is substandard, it does not adapt well to actual drivers behaviour and does not adapt well to external factors such as ambient temperature, actual battery pack temperature etc.

If Jaguar developed & delivered a better piece of range-o-meter software, then drivers confidence would be greatly improved and we could actually use it whilst driving.

Some websites seem to be better able to do this than Jaguar themselves........
 
#24 ·
Billy Bunter said:
Sadly the Jaguar CRC response is as useless as all their CRC responses. Personally I don't think they can say very much about official range figures and the discussion on WLTP is already done to death.

IMO, what Jaguar Cars should be doing is improving the range-o-meter.
This is NOT a range measurement regulated externally, but is a bit of code implemented in the delivered car as part of the product. The product is substandard, it does not adapt well to actual drivers behaviour and does not adapt well to external factors such as ambient temperature, actual battery pack temperature etc.

If Jaguar developed & delivered a better piece of range-o-meter software, then drivers confidence would be greatly improved and we could actually use it whilst driving.

Some websites seem to be better able to do this than Jaguar themselves........
Will have to disagree with you on that one.

I find that the GOM in my car very accurately reflects the previous driving style I use. If I fly around everywhere then it correctly shows a low range when I charge back to 100%. If I drive carefully, then this is reflected in the GOM when I next fully charge with a greater range.

When you use the built in SatNav it does appear to look at topography and driving style and will decide if charging is needed on the route. The bit that annoys me is that you cannot set the min charge level below 20% for the destination, even if you are arriving at home or know that there is a charger at your destination. This can result in the SatNav system diverting you a long way off your desired choice to force you to charge your car. The SatNav will display your current charge level at your current location, but does not display charge level at the destination nor at waypoints, even though it must be aware of these.

For info, Tesla GOM just shows a typical range value when charged to 100% and does not take into account previous driving style. But, like the Jaguar, the SatNav does look at the route programmed and will decide if you need to divert to a charger, this being based on topography. With Tesla mapping you cannot add your own waypoints, it only does A to B.

I cannot for certain say if Jaguar or Tesla take into account the ambient temperature or whether the battery has been preconditioned. Perhaps this is a question for Jaguar CRC to answer for I-Pace owners.
 
#25 ·
Agree with what Chewy is saying there.

The larger point is that the GOM is a predictor. It works with limited data (the most recent miles driven and kWh consumed) and it absolutely cannot read your mind, such as "I'm going to turn on the AC now" and "I'm going to be driving a bit more testily today because my day sucked" and it doesn't know whether it will be snowing in the next couple of hours. I could go on.

Predictors cannot possibly be perfect because of limited data and confounders. Otherwise we'd all be betting millionaires. So get over it and get used to the fact that your GOM mileage will vary.
 
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