WLTP decreased
1 - 20 of 29 Posts
G
Guest
·Final production figures.
I'm sure someone will moan about 6 miles difference, but in reality it's nothing as EPA mater more, and that's around 220.
I'm sure someone will moan about 6 miles difference, but in reality it's nothing as EPA mater more, and that's around 220.
Ev range is so much depending of your driving style (like ice but nobody cares because can refuel fast and everywhere), that i prefer to wait i drive one to do my own opinion.
To many differents results on the web.
Anyway eange is important but not the only criteria for me to chose the i pace.
To many differents results on the web.
Anyway eange is important but not the only criteria for me to chose the i pace.
WLTP gives at least a good (better) indication of range to be expected. And of course, a higher (average) speed than during WLTP test (like continuous driving on highway) has a bigger impact on the actual range of vehicles like the i-Pace than on the range of a model S or Kona that are more aerodynamic. On the contrary, driving only at the most efficient speed should result in better figures than WLTP and unfortunately nobody could reproduce that yet in real life tests. So I hope these "final" figures are for real and can be reproduced and I hope that Jaguar didn't find a trick to optimize for WLTP test only (like 100% battery drain during the test which would normally cause serious damage to the battery and can't be done in real life situations...).
Joined
·
337 Posts
Fully agree.
Till now, nobody has show that the I-pace is able to drive the WLTP 480 (or 470) km, even when driving as economic as possible. There is such a thing as "real world" range, and if they claim a WLTP of 470, it should be possible (real world), one way or the other. Else, I guess, JRL can expect a lot of cancellations...
Till now, nobody has show that the I-pace is able to drive the WLTP 480 (or 470) km, even when driving as economic as possible. There is such a thing as "real world" range, and if they claim a WLTP of 470, it should be possible (real world), one way or the other. Else, I guess, JRL can expect a lot of cancellations...
G
Guest
·Top Gear Magazine HAS proven 470km (292 Miles) with a few battery %'s to spare.Bart said:
TopGears test was an extreme hypermiling experiment. WLTP isn' t about hypermiling. With other cars WLTP is easy achievable during summer (15-25°c) with AC on country roads. Not motorway 110+ of course. An e-Golf fx has 219 km WLTP. Driving an e-Golf 250 km in the summer is easy.Gdank said:
G
Guest
·Ok so what you are saying is that no reviewer has driven sensibly, in 15-20deg heat, for 290 miles on a mix of roads with regen on max.FENorway said:
Then I'd agree with that - hopefully as cars get delivered to customers, more figures will be released.
However Top Gear had to use Hypermilling as they mostly did all motorway, so got little regen back that you would get on average conditions.
Finally as I don't know the answer .. do ALL EV's do meet their WLTP range under the conditions you state? Because I know most ICE cars that's don't get near their WLTP MPG range, so wounder if there is a difference between EV's and ICE cars.
the WLTP test has all gadgets / Air con etc turned off for fair comparison.
http://www.caremissionstestingfacts.eu/nedc-how-do-lab-tests-work/
to drive as Top Gear did is just careful driving and not necessarily 'extreme hyper-mileing' - they still achieved the claimed range.
http://www.caremissionstestingfacts.eu/nedc-how-do-lab-tests-work/
to drive as Top Gear did is just careful driving and not necessarily 'extreme hyper-mileing' - they still achieved the claimed range.
G
Guest
·Also I'm willing to be the WLTP was done on the 18" wheels. If a car on 22" wheels is 17% less efficient than when on 18"'s then that's 290 down to 240 miles!*
The Top Gear car was on 20's for reference.
*no data on how less efficient 20 or 22's are, just using 17% as an example.
The Top Gear car was on 20's for reference.
*no data on how less efficient 20 or 22's are, just using 17% as an example.
Joined
·
337 Posts
To summarize the test: (how real is WLTP?):
Notes:
- 10 EVs, two identical routes on separate days. Airco on 19-23 degrees
- run-out the batteries completely.
- Teslas, Ampera, I-pace drove 96 km extra motorway to compensate for their larger battery capacity.
- BMW i3, Engine 125kW, Batt: 33kWh, WLTP 225. TEST: 225 and 237 => 103% WLTP (14.8 kWh/100 km)
- Hyundai ioniq Engine 88kW, Batt: 28kWh, WLTP 204. TEST 199 and 224 => 104% WLTP (12.2 kWh/100 km)
- I-pace on 20" Engine 295kW, Batt 90kWh, WLTP 480 (or 470?) TEST: 307 and 319 => 65 % WLTP (27.5 kWh/100 km)
- KIA soul Engine 81kW, Batt: 30kWh, WLTP 185 TEST 214 and 222 => 118% WLTP (13.6 kWh/100 km)
- nissan leaf (2nd) Engine 110kW, Batt 40kWh, WLTP 285 TEST 235 and 220 => 80 % WLTP (16.3 kWh/100 km)
- opel amperaE Engine 150kW, Batt 60kWh, WLTP 380 TEST: 379 and 375 => 99 % WLTP (16.1 kWh/100 km)
- Renault zoe Engine 80kW, Batt 41kWh, WLTP 300 TEST: 273 and 295 => 95 % WLTP (14.6 kWh/100 km)
- tesla S (100D = AWD) Engine 319kW, Batt 100kWh, WLTP 460 TEST: 411 and 433 => 91% WLTP (20.6 kWh/100 km)
- tesla X 100D, Engine 319kW, Batt: 100kWh, WLTP 430 TEST 404 and 395 => 93 % WLTP (23.4 kWh/100 km)
- VW eGolf Engine 100kW, Batt 35,8kWh, WLTP 219 TEST 218 and 244 => 106% WLTP (12.4 kWh/100 km)
I-pace (65%), teslas (X: 91% and S: 93%), opel ampera (99%), renault zoe (95%) and Nissan (80%) were the only ones with real world consumption below WLTP, probably because of the "96 km extra motorway". Nissan and Renault did not have the extra 96 km motorway, so are also "unexplained" outliners.
Looking forward to the software update..
Joined
·
337 Posts
Kind of.. The only possible explanation is that the software limits the usable battery capacity. (90=>10% for example). Other factors (AWD, airco, tire-size, weight etc) can not be an explanation because bad performance compared with the Tesla X.
Perhaps we will see a weekly decrease in WLTP... Even the I-pace brochure is removed form the Dutch and UK website!
In the US-Brochure range is decreased to 240 miles! (no WLTP)
The capacity of battery has no link with everage consumption except if u calculate it. Its like fuel consumption, not determined by the tank caoacity.
No i think maybe they have to optimise the 2 motors usage. Maybe at constant mid or low speed they can cut one. 2 motors use more energy than 1. But has they claim to be 97% efficient should not makes a big difference.
No i think maybe they have to optimise the 2 motors usage. Maybe at constant mid or low speed they can cut one. 2 motors use more energy than 1. But has they claim to be 97% efficient should not makes a big difference.
Joined
·
337 Posts
The Tesla's also have double engines. While driving at constant speed, one only has to overcome the rolling-resistance and the air-resistance. With an efficiency of 97 on the engines it does not matter if that energy is delivered by one or by two engines.
?? so there is a link / an association ??
G
Guest
·I feel like banging my head against the wall. The 28-30kw consumption is based on prototypes. The production models that have been tested all state around 21-22kw
Therefore the real range is 220-240miles assuming normal sensible driving on a mixture of road types.
I honestly can't wait for Bjorn to test the I-Pace, as I believe that's the only way people stop debating this. No mater the results, and If after his test your not happy cancel your order, if you are happy then enjoy the Jag it should be a great car!
Therefore the real range is 220-240miles assuming normal sensible driving on a mixture of road types.
I honestly can't wait for Bjorn to test the I-Pace, as I believe that's the only way people stop debating this. No mater the results, and If after his test your not happy cancel your order, if you are happy then enjoy the Jag it should be a great car!
1 - 20 of 29 Posts
Join the discussion
