Range and efficiency test of 10 electric cars
The staff of coches.net and AUTOBEST tested the range and efficiency of 10 different electric cars. On the first day the cars were tested by the staff of the coches.net (test 1) and on the second day the cars were tested by the AUTOBEST’s staff (test 2). All electric cars were driven until stop from empty battery.
The tests were conducted around Barcelona in highway and city traffic. All electric cars were set to normal mode (no eco or sport modes) and with AC on (set to 19-23º C). The outside temperature varied between 26 and 33º C, perfect to get high mileage.
Furthermore, to safely test how much range these electric cars have left when empty battery warnings show up, the last kilometers were made at the Circuit de Barcelona-Catalunya, which is a motorsport race track in Montmeló, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain.
Let’s see the results, from worst to best average range figures.
Hyundai IONIQ Electric (28 kWh)
- Range test 1: 199 km
- Range test 2: 224 km
- Range average: 212 km
- Reserve: 5-8 km
- Efficiency: 12,2 kWh/100 km
Kia Soul EV (30 kWh)
- Range test 1: 214 km
- Range test 2: 222 km
- Range average: 218 km
- Reserve: 7 km
- Efficiency: 13,6 kWh/100 km
Nissan Leaf (40 kWh)
- Range test 1: 235 km
- Range test 2: 220 km
- Range average: 228 km
- Reserve: 14 km
- Efficiency: 16,3 kWh/100 km
BMW i3 (33,3 kWh)
- Range test 1: 225 km
- Range test 2: 237 km
- Range average: 231 km
- Reserve: 30 km
- Efficiency: 14,8 kWh/100 km
Volkswagen e-Golf (35,8 kWh)
- Range test 1: 218 km
- Range test 2: 244 km
- Range average: 231 km
- Reserve: 5 km
- Efficiency: 12,4 kWh/100 km
Renault Zoe (41 kWh)
- Range test 1: 273 km
- Range test 2: 295 km
- Range average: 284 km
- Reserve: 15 km
- Efficiency: 14,6 kWh/100 km
Jaguar I-PACE (90 kWh)
- Range test 1: 307 km
- Range test 2: 319 km
- Range average: 313 km
- Reserve: 10 km
- Efficiency: 27,5 kWh/100 km
The Jaguar I-PACE tested belongs to a pre-production series, this could explain the lousy range and efficiency. However, don’t expect miracles from software tweaks, this is a heavy and un-aerodynamic electric car.
Opel Ampera-e – Chevrolet Bolt EV (60 kWh)
- Range test 1: 379 km
- Range test 2: 375 km
- Range average: 377 km
- Reserve: 30 km
- Efficiency: 16,1 kWh/100 km
Tesla Model X 100D (100 kWh)
- Range test 1: 404 km
- Range test 2: 395 km
- Range average: 400 km
- Reserve: 10 km
- Efficiency: 23,4 kWh/100 km
Tesla Model S 100D (100 kWh)
- Range test 1: 411 km
- Range test 2: 433 km
- Range average: 422 km
- Reserve: 10 km
- Efficiency: 20,6 kWh/100 km
Having 10 different electric cars tested is great, nonetheless, there are two important electric cars missing. The Tesla Model 3 and the Hyundai Kona Electric would definitely win the range challenge with great efficiency figures.
Anyway, it’s important to notice that these particular tests were made with EV-range friendly temperatures in Spain. In colder climates the same electric cars would get worse results, especially the ones that don’t have heat pumps. Moreover, there are some strange things in the test results, such as the efficiency figures for the Volkswagen e-Golf and the Kia Soul EV having more range than the Hyundai IONIQ Electric.
More info:
http://autobest.org/first-european-independent-ev-real-range-test-press-release/
https://www.coches.net/videos/vehiculos-electricos-autonomia-real
Great efficiency from the e-golf. I had no idea it was as good as the ioniq.
If The Ioniq will get the 40 KWH Battery roumered, it should do 350 km easy.
This list isn’t worse to best.
Therefore is a mistake with the effiziency result of the e-golf. It should be 13,4 not 12,4 kWh.
The list is sorted by average range.
Hyundai Ioniq gets beaten by Kia Soul? This is impossible, it should be the other way around.
And the consumption of e-Golf is 15,4 kWh/100 km (and not 12,4) – this is a typo.
I am a bit surprised by a fairly good result by Renault Zoe and a bit better result by the Bolt / Ampera-E.
Jaguar iPace – this is the second test I know of that confirms its high consumption. I agree that consumers should not expect a significantly higher range.
The rest looks pretty plausible.
Unfortunately the test was done on a race circuit where results can be significantly driver-specific. Stronger acceleration + regeneration can consume more energy than a “smoother” driving style while having almost identical lap times.
Hyundai Kona 64 kWh and Tesla Model 3 LR 75 kWh are heavily missing because those two would be probably on top of the list, I would expect (under these conditions) the Kona to be around 440 km and the Model 3 around 480 km.
Richard, both the Kona and the Model 3 aren’t yet available in Europe, so let’s not talk about them since they aren’t on sale and available yet.
Also, it’s stated in the article that the tests were conducted around Barcelona, and just the last few kilometers were on the track.
The test was done in city and on the highway, when the battery was nearly empty they went on the race track in order to empty the battery without safety issues
The numbers don’t add up !
Renault Zoe’s kwh/100km should be less compared to the values given here, can anyone tell how they are calculating KWH/100km consumption. Is the efficiency= battery capacity*100/(average range + reserve range) or some other formula. Can anyone please explain?
Hyundai Kona 64 kWh did 510 km in Norway (https://youtu.be/kq3OoZoUZBA). I’m very disappointed in the I-Pace range.
BMW i3 numbers don’t make sense. At 14.8 kWh/100 km, or rather 6.76 km/kWh, it should have had a 34.2 kWh battery pack. In real life the 94Ah model has a 27.3 kWh usable battery pack, it’s real efficiency when driving 231 km through to battery depletion should be 8.46 km/kWh or 11.82 kWh/100 km.
Now, I’ve been averaging 8.6 km/kWh in my BMW i3 2015 BEV, so this 8.46 looks pretty feasible for the latest model. But adding up the “30 km reserve” to the driven mileage of 231 km (total of 261 km) brings the efficiency number to ridiculous 9.56 km/kWh (10.46 kWh/100 km).
As I understand it, the total range includes the reserve. I’m not sure how they calculated the efficiency, maybe they did like EPA, NEDC or WLTP, from plug-to-wheels, meaning that the on-board charger efficiency also matters.
You mean, they used up 34.2 kWh to charge up the pack to 27.3 kWh, and then depleted the pack in 231 km? This doesn’t look realistic either, what do you think?
My guess is that BMW i3 has 27,2 kWh of usable battery for normal range, but includes an additional 3-4 kWh that can be used in reserve, that’s why it manages do run for 30 km in reserve. Nevertheless, this is just a theory.
Adding to the above, they seem to have exceeded BMW i3’s EPA range by whopping 26% for the average of two tests (test 2 – by 29%). No, I don’t buy this.
The i3 is designed to be a city car and is significantly lighter than the other cars. At city speeds, its weight advantage shines. The EPA numbers are accurate at 65mph. At those speeds, the aerodynamic advantages of cars like the ioniq are more important. So, any cycle that has a larger share of city roads will result in a huge improvement for the i3.
As far as I can see both coches.net and Autobest refers to energy consumption as kWh/h and not kWh/100km as we normally expect.
Also numbers for TMS 100 vs TMX 100 doesn’t add up: difference in range should reflect the same difference in energy consumption.
A lot of other examples in this test shows that journalists and testers are still “analphabets” when it comes to testing of battery electric vehicles😉
Can you please post the correct numbers? None of the efficiency figures match with the range vs. capacity of the battery, Or at least explain how they are calculated?
I’ve just been through the whole list with samples. None of the efficiency calculations add up.
Example:
BMW i3 (33kWh): Range test 1: 225 km; Range test 2: 237 km; Range average: 231 km, Reserve: 30 km, Efficiency: 14,8 kWh/100 km
(note: For transforming into /100km, I divide attained ranges by 100, so 225 = 2.25, to save the later conversion *100; all results rounded to two past comma decimals)
33/2.25=14.67; 33/2.37=13,92; 33/2.31=14.29; 33/2.25+0.30=12.94; 33/2.37+0.30=12.36; 33/2.31+0.30=12.64;
None of these values result in 14.8. I am not sure how these testers arrived at their concluding calculations, but it does not make their findings very trustworthy if you cannot follow their logic. Now, the assumption above was that the journalists used the usable battery capacity, not the quoted one. While that may be the case, how about they state this information then, adding also the details of the usable battery size to the overview… Like this, it’s all confusing.
They really need to say how they came to those efficiency numbers. The capacity figure quoted by the manufacturer is useless for this as they have buffers that are never used, the usable capacity of the BMW i3 is about 27.2kWh (so 11.8kWh/100km) but the numbers are meaningless unless they actually measured the electricity consumed. But then there are charging losses so that number is wrong as well.
The only way to get useful numbers here would be to measure the wall socket consumption: run the test from a fully charged battery, then plug it back in and see how much electricity it actually takes to get back to 100%.
My fluence ZE is always 11 or 11.1kwh/100 board indication.
11kwh degraded battery (50% capacity) now and more than 100km/charge.
Sadly Renault dont want to replace battery. It doesn’t mind if the battery is hired to Overlease and 75% capacity granted….
Brandon, sorry, but Kona is available in Europe. People are driving them, in Norway and probably in other countries too!
Have not seen the video but my guess is that the range numbers are affected/offset by regenerative braking, since there was a large bit of city driving good regen and a capable driver would give better ranges than track/highway driving only?