Now that automakers provide WLTP ratings for multiple electric cars, it’s time to organize a comparison table with range and efficiency WLTP figures.
At the moment not all figures provided by automakers make sense, for example the lighter Nissan LEAF (40 kWh) has a worse WLTP efficiency rating than the heavier Nissan LEAF e+ with the 62 kWh battery. However, if we look at the range rating and compare it to the battery capacity, we do see that the lighter variant does get more range per kWh.
Anyway, let’s see some official WLTP ratings that are already available.
Electric car range and efficiency (WLTP)
| Electric car | Range | Efficiency |
|---|---|---|
| Lightyear One | 451 miles 725 km | 13,4 kWh/100 miles 8,3 kWh/100km |
| Tesla Model 3 Standard Range Plus | 254 miles 409 km | 23 kWh/100 miles 14,3 kWh/100 km |
| Tesla Model 3 Long Range AWD | 348 miles 560 km | 25,7 kWh/100 miles 16 kWh/100 km |
| Tesla Model 3 Performance AWD | 329 miles 530 km | 26,7 kWh/100 miles 16,6 kWh/100 km |
| Hyundai IONIQ Electric (38,3 kWh) | 193 miles 311 km | 22,2 kWh/100 miles 13,8 kWh/100 km |
| Hyundai Kona Electric (64 kWh) | 279 miles 449 km | 24,8 kWh/100 miles 15,4 kWh/100 km |
| Kia e-Soul (39,2 kWh) | 171 miles 276 km | 25,1 kWh/100 miles 15,6 kWh/100 km |
| Kia e-Soul (64 kWh) | 281 miles 452 km | 25,3 kWh/100 miles 15,7 kWh/100 km |
| Kia e-Niro (64 kWh) | 283 miles 455 km | 24 kWh/100 miles 14,9 kWh/100 km |
| MG ZS EV | 163 miles 263 km | 29,9 kWh/100 miles 18,6 kWh/100 km |
| Nissan Leaf (40 kWh battery and 16“ wheels) | 177 miles 285 km | 31,2 kWh/100 miles 19,4 kWh/100 km |
| Nissan Leaf (40 kWh battery and 17“ wheels) | 168 miles 270 km | 33,2 kWh/100 miles 20,6 kWh/100 km |
| Nissan Leaf e+ (62 kWh battery) | 239 miles 385 km | 29,8 kWh/100 miles 18,5 kWh/100 km |
| Renault Zoe R110 (52 kWh battery and 15“ wheels) | 245 miles 395 km | 27,7 kWh/100 miles 17,2 kWh/100 km |
| Renault Zoe R135 (52 kWh battery and 16“ wheels) | 240 miles 386 km | 28,5 kWh/100 miles 17,7 kWh/100 km |
| PEUGEOT e-208 | 211 miles 340 km | 27,2 kWh/100 miles 16,9 kWh/100 km |
| Opel Corsa-e | 205 miles 330 km | 27,4 kWh/100 miles 17 kWh/100 km |
| BMW i3 (120 Ah battery and 19“ wheels) | 191 miles 308 km | 24,6 kWh/100 miles 15,3 kWh/100 km |
| BMW i3 (120 Ah battery and 20“ wheels) | 177 miles 285 km | 26,2 kWh/100 miles 16,3 kWh/100 km |
| Volkswagen e-Golf | 144 miles 231 km | 25,4 kWh/100 miles 15,8 kWh/100 km |
| Audi e-tron (19“ wheels) | 255 miles 411 km | 36,9 kWh/100 miles 22,9 kWh/100 km |
| Audi e-tron (20“ wheels) | 221 miles 355 km | 42,5 kWh/100 miles 26,4 kWh/100 km |
| Jaguar I-PACE (18“ wheels) | 292 miles 470 km | 35,4 kWh/100 miles 22 kWh/100 km |
Remember that like EPA, WLTP figures also measure plug-to-wheels consumption, this means that the on-board charger efficiency matters.
It’s not a surprise to see that the Audi e-tron and Jaguar I-PACE are extremely inefficient, we already knew that from the EPA range and efficiency ratings. Premium legacy automakers never had to worry about efficiency, but now they have to, if they want to make a successful transition from ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) to electric cars.
It’s also not a surprise that the Korean legacy automakers Hyundai and Kia have very efficient electric cars, but it’s Tesla Model 3 the most impressive with great range and efficiency, only surpassed by a real self-charging car the Lightyear One.
More info:
https://pushevs.com/electric-car-range-and-efficiency-wltp/
Is the efficiency for the Zoe 50 correct? With similar battery to the e-208 but more range should be more efficient. Or does it means the on-board charger in the Zoe has huge energy loses?
Not similar if we compare usable capacities. The ZOE’s battery usable capacity is 52 kWh, while for the PSA’s electric cars is only 46,3 kWh.
–
https://www.goingelectric.de/forum/viewtopic.php?f=156&t=50965
No way a newly designed Peugeot 208 / Opel Corsa are less efficient than the e-Golf. In other words: if the e-Corsa indeed consumes an average of 17 kWh/100 km, then some engineers at Peugeot / Opel need to be severely punished and then fired to spend the rest of their lives in repentance. We’re talking ~25% less efficient than an Ioniq. That is outrageous for a car in a lower segment.
The Volkswagen e-Golf and the Hyundai Kona Electric are very similar regarding efficiency in the EPA ratings, so it’s not surprising to see the same for WLTP.
–
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=42089&id=40769
Yes, but that doesn’t explain why the Peugeot 208 / Opel Corsa are so inefficient. I sincerely cannot believe that a B-segment car would do so much worse than a mini SUV like the Kona or even a mid-sized SUV as the Niro. So either the engineers did a terrible job, or the WLTP measurements are way off.
The Ioniq is much lower than an e-Niro, so it has a smaller frontal area, and has a more aerodynamic shape, so it will definitely be a lot more efficient. Aerodynamics are much more important to EVs than they are for ICEs. Designing an SUV to be aerodynamic enough to be in the same league as the Ioniq would make it look like the Model Y, and I don’t think it can be done without extending the tail of the car. Then all of them would go from compact to midsize vehicles, which is probably against their design constraints.
ZOE: 52 kWh / 395 km = 13,1 kWh/100 -> 24% energy loss
e-208: 46,3 kWh / 340 km = 13,6 kWh/100 -> 20% energy loss
Then ZOE also should win. Looks like the e-208 motor, inverter and charger are a little more efficient than ZOE’s (not huge difference though).
Forgot aerodynamics and weight as a factor… Anyways surprised by the high efficiency of Hyundai’s SUVs. It is not what you expect at this category.
Hyundai ioniq and Kia Soul 39kWh have the same battery, yet Ioniq has 22 miles more range. Aerodynamics coefficient of ioniq is 0.24, of Soul it is 0.35. Some SUV have decent aerodynamics (e-Niro is 0.29)
These numbers confirm that aerodynamics/cx is very important (the Hyundai Ioniq efficiency is amazing) and yet automakers are not really interested in making saloons/estates but want to make SUVs. Partly because SUVs are more profitable, but while profitability is greater for ICEs (bad fuel efficiency is the customers’ problem) with EVs it is the manufaturers’ problem (need to put big batteries in to achieve decent range, and that costs money). Not only that, but the efficiency difference between good and bad CX cars would be even greater where it matters (at 70mph). After all no one really cares that their car has a range of say 300 miles at 30mph, we are concerned about motorway range!
No way leaf is so inefficient… 😅. On board 6.6 charger for Leaf is one the most efficient ones.
On the other hand Zoe connected to a 16amp supply is one of the worst, even on 32amp Zoes are pretty much worthless
If possible, in a next revision of the table, add a UoM selector
– imperial (miles)
– metric (kilometres)
and an efficiency presentation selector
– kWh / 100 UoM
– Wh / UoM
Thanks.
The Nissan Leaf figures must be wrong. 270 km at 206 Wh/km gives just over 55 kWh. The battery has a capacicity of 40 kWh, with no more than 38 kWh available. That would mean 1/3 of energy is lost between wall socket and battery. Can’t be true.
@Henrik C; you really need to ask Nissan on how they come to this result becuase this is their official data.
The Nissan leaf values mentioned are really really strange that is for sure….
It would be interesting to add the Porsche Taycan to the list. The Porsche website states an efficiency of 26,0 – 26,9kWh/100km (WLTP), depending on the model. Given the very aerodynamic shape of the car I find it pretty amazing that it manages to get an efficiency rating even worse than the e-tron. Obviously Porsche engineers were optimizing the car for performance and not efficiency, but still.
I dont see the need to present data in imperial units, since almost all countries use metric. If one needs to convert from km to miles or vice-versa it’s as simple as multiply/divide by 1.6 roughly. Even NASA learned their lesson after losing a Mars probe at the north pole because they fucked up using imperial units.
Exactly, last count it was 189 countries using SI metric measurements and 4 countries living in medi-imperial times.
If the power consumption is measured at the plug, you should mention at which current it is measured. The efficiency of the Zoe seems to be underestimated in your table. If you measure at 10 amps/2.3 kW, you will have worst results than at 22 kW….
I really tried to find that information to include in the article, but couldn’t find it anywhere.
where is the Tesla model S or X on this?
That information isn’t available on Tesla’s website. At least I couldn’t find it.
My best friend was driving a white sGolf for a while, & now gets MUCH less efficiency in her white Tesla 3 “std+”. 33% less, accorrding to the dashboard readouts. The specs above show her T3 as more efficient than an eGolf.
Dashboard readouts are subject to inaccuracy. The only accurate way is to measure current in and current out with the equivalent of a shunt on major negative on battey for current out and a calibrated guage at power point.
Yes, I know T3 charger may be more efficient, but eGolf’s must not be THAT bad, since it’s much cooler to the touch than my Fiat 500e’s
According to dashboard readouts, her T3 “Std Plus” averages around 28kWh/100mi & the eGolf only took about 21, similar to my Fiat 500e.
She’ll drive it differently. No way is the Golf more efficient than the M3 using similar driving styles. Here’s a thought: with the T3 you know you have plenty of battery and on long trips there’s the supercharger network that quickly gets you going. With the eGolf you’ll drive more conservatively since you know the battery is smaller, charges slower and chargers are not available in great numbers. It’s called compensation. I am 100% sure that the M3 is not 33% less efficient than the Golf.
The Lightyear one 451 mi range is too simplified, must have so much “fine print”. I mean, regarding the “solar yeild” part of it. winter vs summer, cloudy days, night time driving, bird Sh*t on car… etc you cant guarantee a range.
Dont get me wrong, lightyear one and Sion (not on list?) have potential to be great cars, but the “range” can not be summerised into one number! They should be honest and write the range assuming NO SOLAR, and then an potential extra SOLAR BOOST.
eg. if you drive slow enough (through the night) maybe it can have infinate range!!
… all the informatoin you need to add the sonomotors, Sion (Solar) is on this PDF from their website. Although it is low’ish range, it is more that the VW e-golf on your list.
Electricity consumption…………………………… ≈ 14 kWh/100 km
Range(WLTP)…………………………………………………………………………255 km
https://sonomotors.com/site/assets/files/1621/information_sheet_sion_en.pdf
Sion also isn’t an unaffordable luxury like Lightyear, & seems closer to actual production.
Sion’s 14kWh/100km WLTP, is nearly as efficient as ioniq, but in reality the solar cells would actually beat it unless you keep it shaded all day.
Maybe if you drive a Sion or Lightyear slow enough during daylight, & stop to sleep at night, you could go an infinite distance per plugin charge. Under those conditions you could probably drive faster if you removed the battery!
If I remember correctly the Sion should be able to charge enough for about 35 km per day using the solar panels and that is probably under ideal conditions. I don’t know where you live, but here in northern Europe (Denmark) it would probably be less. So if you live in a place with constant sunshine and never drive more than 25 to 30 km a day you might be able to drive infinite, but for most people that would probably not be enough.
It would still be amazing if living in a block of flats one could cope with their daily commute relying on solar panels on the car, with no access to own charger, off street parking etc. They would only need chargers for longer journeys. Hopefully this will happen at some point. There were reports of Toyota working with Sharp on using very efficient panels for this purpose. Hopefully one day the costs will fall.
Me (& probably Ateeq) were really only half-serious about infinite range, although I did check that here in the southern US the sun is stronger in the middle of winter than it is in the middle of summer where Sion said they measured it (in Germany), so my own personal driving would actually all be easily covered without ever plugging in. I could probably even power my small A/C-less apartment with the left-overs!
You should not forget that solar panels require the sun and in many cities building and trees create shadows that keep the solar panels from working. Often people try to keep their cars in the shade in order to keep them cool. So the best weather would be cool and sunny weather.
Something is wrong with this table, since it shows the Kia Niro to be more efficient than the Hyundai Kona, when the opposite is the true!
Does anyone know the impact of equipment on the range/efficiency of Peugeot e-208? (wheels especially) The advertised 340 km are probably not valid for all versions.