WLTP range and efficiency of electric cars

Worldwide Harmonised Light Vehicle Test Procedure (WLTP) roadmap

Now that automakers provide WLTP ratings for multiple electric cars, it’s time to organize a comparisonย 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 carRangeEfficiency
Lightyear One451 miles
725 km
13,4 kWh/100 miles
8,3 kWh/100km
Tesla Model 3 Standard Range Plus254 miles
409 km
23 kWh/100 miles
14,3 kWh/100 km
Tesla Model 3 Long Range AWD348 miles
560 km
25,7 kWh/100 miles
16 kWh/100 km
Tesla Model 3 Performance AWD329 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 EV163 miles
263 km
29,9 kWh/100 miles
18,6 kWh/100 km
Nissan Leaf (40 kWh battery and 16โ€œ wheels)177 miles
285 km
31,2 kWh/100 miles
19,4 kWh/100 km
Nissan Leaf (40 kWh battery and 17โ€œ 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 15โ€œ wheels)245 miles
395 km
27,7 kWh/100 miles
17,2 kWh/100 km
Renault Zoe R135 (52 kWh battery and 16โ€œ wheels)240 miles
386 km
28,5 kWh/100 miles
17,7 kWh/100 km
PEUGEOT e-208211 miles
340 km
27,2 kWh/100 miles
16,9 kWh/100 km
Opel Corsa-e205 miles
330 km
27,4 kWh/100 miles
17 kWh/100 km
BMW i3 (120 Ah battery and 19โ€œ wheels)191 miles
308 km
24,6 kWh/100 miles
15,3 kWh/100 km
BMW i3 (120 Ah battery and 20โ€œ wheels)177 miles
285 km
26,2 kWh/100 miles
16,3 kWh/100 km
Volkswagen e-Golf144 miles
231 km
25,4 kWh/100 miles
15,8 kWh/100 km
Audi e-tron (19โ€œ wheels)255 miles
411 km
36,9 kWh/100 miles
22,9 kWh/100 km
Audi e-tron (20โ€œ wheels)221 miles
355 km
42,5 kWh/100 miles
26,4 kWh/100 km
Jaguar I-PACE (18โ€œ 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.


Worldwide Harmonised Light Vehicle Test Procedure (WLTP)


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:



Pedro Lima

My interest in electric transportation is mostly political. Iโ€™m tired of coups and wars for oil. My expectation is that the adoption of electric transportation will be a factor for peace and democracy all over the world.

37 Responses

  1. Rodri says:

    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?

  2. Carlos says:

    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.

    • Pedro Lima says:

      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.


      • Carlos says:

        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.

    • Marcel says:

      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.

  3. Rodri says:

    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).

  4. Rodri says:

    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.

    • Mattc says:

      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)

  5. Mattc says:

    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!

    • Melcu says:

      No way leaf is so inefficient… ๐Ÿ˜…. 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

  6. Emanuele Aliberti says:

    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


  7. Henrik C says:

    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.

    • Arne Johan Larsen says:

      @Henrik C; you really need to ask Nissan on how they come to this result becuase this is their official data.

      • Freddy says:

        The Nissan leaf values mentioned are really really strange that is for sure….

  8. rabatjoie says:

    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.

  9. Manuel says:

    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.

    • Wayne M Hobbs says:

      Exactly, last count it was 189 countries using SI metric measurements and 4 countries living in medi-imperial times.

  10. Tom says:

    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….

  11. Ateeq says:

    where is the Tesla model S or X on this?

  12. Tom Houlden says:

    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.

    • Wayne M Hobbs says:

      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.

  13. Tom Houlden says:

    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

  14. Tom Houlden says:

    According to dashboard readouts, her T3 “Std Plus” averages around 28kWh/100mi & the eGolf only took about 21, similar to my Fiat 500e.

    • Carlos says:

      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.

  15. Ateeq says:

    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!!

  16. Ateeq says:

    … 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…………………………… โ‰ˆ 14 kWh/100 km
    Range(WLTP)…………………………………………………………………………255 km


  17. Tom Houlden says:

    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!

    • Lars says:

      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.

      • KM says:

        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.

  18. Tom Houlden says:

    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!

    • Lars says:

      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.

  19. Jonas Jovial says:

    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!

  20. Bens says:

    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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *