Bjørn’s Efficiency Test: Tesla Model X Vs I-Pace Brings Mixed Results


Tesla Model X  and Jaguar I-Pace seemingly more evenly matched than Bjørn expected

A lot of focus has been placed on the Jaguar I-Pace and it’s rather poor efficiency compared to other modern electric vehicles. Certainly it pales in comparison to other EVs like the Model 3 or Hyundai Ioniq. But in practical real world driving situations, how well does it perform? YouTuber Bjørn Nyland decided to compare the I-Pace with his personal Tesla Model X for comparison.

Bjørn performed 2 tests on the cars. One test at 90 km/h (~55.9 mph) and one “hypermiling” test at 42 km/h (~26 mph). His expectations going into the test were that the Model X would outperform the I-Pace under both scenarios but that ended up not being the case.

At the 55 mph test, the I-Pace managed 226 Wh/km (~363 Wh/mile). His Model X achieved 221 Wh/km (~355 Wh/mile). The Tesla certainly performs better than the Jaguar, although not by as much as one might have expected. As speeds increase however, the Model X would likely pull further ahead.

For the slower speed 26 mph test, the Model X performed worse than the I-Pace. This surprised him based on his previous driving experience with the Jaguar and the reports of others on the I-Pace energy consumption.

For this test, the I-Pace energy consumption stood at 145 Wh/km (~233 Wh/mile) against the Model X’s 157 Wh/km (252 Wh/mile). Both cars had their HVAC turned off. The I-Pace was set into ‘Low Power Mode’ and the Model X had ‘Range Mode’ activated. Both cars were sporting similar winter tires. So at least under these conditions at slower city speeds, the I-Pace comes out on top.

I-Pace vs Model X

So why did the Tesla not perform as well as expected?

Bjørn has a few theories. Because his Model X is the P90D model, it weighs more than a base level Model X or an I-Pace. Due to the topography of the test featuring lots of up and down hilly driving, the extra weight of the Tesla will have a larger impact on efficiency. The better aerodynamics of the Model X do not play as much of an impact at such low speeds.

Temperatures for the test were also somewhat cold at about 4°C (~39°F). Had the heater been used, the spread would likely have been even larger. Because the I-Pace features a heat pump, it can warm up the cabin more efficiently than the resistant heater featured in the Model X.

However, as the temperature drops even lower over the course of the winter, the heat pump will become less effective and Model X might pull ahead again. Hopefully we get a follow up test from him once winter weather hits Norway in full force.

Check out the video above for all of the details!

Categories: Jaguar, Tesla

Tags: , , ,

Leave a Reply

49 Comments on "Bjørn’s Efficiency Test: Tesla Model X Vs I-Pace Brings Mixed Results"

newest oldest most voted

Id say that at 226 vs 221 there’s no justification to say that “the X *certainly* performs better”. That’s surely within experimental error and should be rated a tie since even minor differences in driving or wind over the two drives could easily lead to this small margin.youd probabiy get as much or more variation on several drives with the same car.

Both are not very efficient. They are more or less big SUVs.
At high speed the better aerodynamics of the Tesla offer it some advantage, but in my opinion the cost is that the X is kinda ugly (subjective).
I-Pace is becoming great again :), after being “smashed” by Tesla fans all over the web.

A small “cheap” Kona blow them away – EVs sometimes have things like this, the cheaper car will get you there faster in long journeys.

The Kona is smaller, way lighter and less powerful with only one motor. Of course it performs better from a consumption point of view. It is not particularly an EV thing as we see the same thing with ICE.

Same as in the ICE world. Kona ICE will smash any Jaguar in the efficiency test badly. But in the ICE world no one in their right mind would consider comparing Kona ICE to Jag F-Pace, or any Hyundai to any Jag, I’d say. Still waiting for this logic to arrive to the EV universe. Maybe some day, when range is no more an obsession, I don’t know.

Yes I know, but range is basically irrelevant with ICE cars. A big powerful car is faster than a cheap smaller car in almost every single case with ICEs, not so much with EVs.

I think it is more about charging availability and speed. Something like a Cadillac Escalade, or other mongo SUV, only gets about 14 mpg. That 20 gallon tank limits the range to under 300 miles, but you don’t hear anyone griping about that. The ICE advantage is that you can stop about anywhere and for 60-100$ (country dependent) and 5 minutes of your time you can be back on the road. If you don’t own a Tesla, charging is very often an issue

I’d say the Diesel car victories at Le Mans from 2006 to 2014 showed us that this is not always the case …

“…range is basically irrelevant with ICE cars.”

True, but MPG is very relevant. And that is every bit as much a function of energy efficiency as range is.

Jean-Baptiste Labelle

The X is big. Enormous even.
The i-Pace is 38cm smaller, 10cm less in height.. It cannot really compare.
The fact that the X, with the big wheels and the P version (thay consume more) matches Jaguar consumption is crazy. How come Jaguar did such an inefficient car?
It means that at 130km/h, the Jaguar will consume 15% more than the XP100D and 45% more than a S.

Right. This isn’t an apple-to-apples comparison, and this article rather ignores that fact.

What’s notable, perhaps even remarkable, is not that the Model X isn’t that much more energy efficient than the I-Pace; what’s remarkable is that the larger, heavier 7-seat* Model X is more energy efficient than the smaller, lighter 5-seat I-Pace, which Jaguar really wants us to think is a Model X competitor… but isn’t.

If the comparison here was a Rolls-Royce to a Volkswagen Beetle, then everyone would instantly recognize it’s an entirely inappropriate and even ridiculous comparison. There isn’t that much disparity here, but the disparity is significant.

*In its standard configuration

The comparison between I-pace and the x is entirely appropriate. Any person looking for a luxury electric SUV will compare the two.

As well, the huge size of the x carries zero utility for most. I see a lot of them on the road and there is typically one or two people riding them. The two annual trips to IKEA also are not cutting it. If you can afford an x, you can afford having those furniture delivered to you. For some aspects, the x reminds me of all the F150 on the road that are used as commuters. Just like the F150, 1% of all owners ever make use of the utility of the size. The x may have falcon wings but the car parked beside it does not. When you park beside the x at the grocery store, you can barely get out, similar to F-150.

You should watch my next upcoming video where I hypermile a Model X 60D. You will be amazed by the results.

Thanks so much for doing these Tests Bjorn. Now – what is the ’24 hour’ efficiency? Is the vampire loss of the X much more than the JAG? I know you’ve tested this somewhat at 40-45 degrees F, but what is the performance of the ‘vampire drain’ overnight at 20 F for both cars?

“But in practical real world driving situations, how well does it perform?”

Say what? Since when is driving a substantial distance at an average of 26 MPH a “real world” driving situation?

“So why did the Tesla not perform as well as expected [at low speed]?”

Well, it should have been expected. Tesla has “tuned” their cars to maximize highway range, where it’s needed most. 200+ mile BEVs rarely if ever run out of range when all the driving is low speed, urban stop-and-go driving. Where BEVs really need range is in driving long distances on the highway, so that’s where Tesla has engineered their cars to go the distance.

For example, the 2016 Tesla Model X 90D’s EPA range ratings were: 252.4 city, 262.7 highway, 257 combined. (see source below)

Not much difference between the two, is there?

What’s surprising here is that Bjørn would be surprised. It has been well-established that Tesla’s cars, unlike BEVs from other auto makers, don’t have much better range in city driving than in highway driving. Now, is Bjørn really unaware of this, despite his many widely varied tests of Tesla’s cars? Or is he just creating a fictional “drama” to make his video more interesting?


Resistant heater is never more efficient than modern heat pump. Never.


When it get too cold for the iPace to use its heat pump, it will also have to use its resistive heater.

The Model X (and S) use waste heat from the motor and inverter to take some of the load off their resistive heaters. I do not know if the iPace can also do this or not.


There are plenty points where the heat pump is not more efficient, and adds cost/complexity to the vehicle too. However, I would generally take a heat pump to improve mildly cool temp efficiency (a lot of the year is around 30 F where the heat pump will do well).

All you big experts are stuck in your ancient history. Upcoming heat pumps, currently being used in homes for years (the Mitsubishi HyperHeat models for instance), make twice as much heat and remain at 73% of capacity at -17F. They run at listed capacity at 5 degrees F, while making 3 times as much heat as being used from the power source. Obviously in somewhat more normal weather (15-20 degrees F) they do much better still.

I have learned more about EVs from Bjørn than from anyone else online. He is a great and seemingly infinitely renewable resource. This particular revelation will not set the heather on fire (is that just a Scottish expression?), but shows at least that the Jaguar is not wildly inefficient as some have been alleging, comparing pretty decently against Tesla’s least efficient car.

I still think that if I could not have a Model 3, (or any Tesla), I would have an e-Nero or Kona rather than an i-Pace, the price difference is just too great, but I am heartened by Jaguars trajectory, and hope they do go all electric as teased. Sadly, with Brexit, I cannot see much of their production being in the UK, but at least there is a chance for them. With diesel, the future is black, and I don’t just mean the exhaust fumes.

It turns out that the I-Pace is in fact very inefficient. Check out my new video (soon) about Model X 60D hypermiling.

Tests Should Be Based On Real World Driving Speeds. Hypermiling ?? Is it really Useful ?..Perhaps If you’re Really Low On Charge & You Don’t want to get Stranded , Go Real Slow In Order to Get to your Destination..

Ron Swanson's Mustache

The real world utility of hypermiling is, perhaps, pretty dubious. However, as a technical exercise it’s pretty interesting.

I agree, but this article shouldn’t have claimed this comparison has anything to do with “practical real world driving situations”, because it doesn’t.

Hypermiling not so much, but highway efficiency is great and here is where Tesla really excels in their segments.

“…shows at least that the Jaguar is not wildly inefficient as some have been alleging…”

That’s the problem; what is claimed here is very misleading at best, and at worst simply isn’t true. See my comments above.

Pretty sure that Optimus Prime is a P90D, not a 100. In which case it’s essentially the same size pack as the I-Pace. But even so, the X is still a good couple of hundred kilos heavier than the I-Pace.

This is just more evidence that the I-Pace’s real problem is aerodynamics. I’d be interested to see what some good aero-mods could do for it… I’ve only ever seen huge, open rims on the cars so far; some skinnier wheels with more rubber and more aerodynamic rims could raise the highway range by 5-10%, from what I’ve heard and read.

Jean-Baptiste Labelle

That is not true. Physic calculation shows that the i-Pace shoud consume 16% more at 130kmh, than the S75D.
But real test are showing 35-40% more. So it id clearly NOT just a problem of aero. Especially as the X has more drag but pull over at higher speed (which is counter intuitive).
One reason could be the lack of sleep torque for the PM motors but it cannot explain such a massive difference.

Bjørn’s tests measure the energy extracted from the battery, using the vehicle’s built in sensors and display.

EPA measures the energy input into the vehicle, since this determines how much the customer is billed by their utility. There are losses in the on-vehicle charger (about 5-10%) and the battery also loses about 2-4%.

I expect the battery round trip losses to be very similar between the two cars, but charger losses vary more from one EV to another. Perhaps the Jaguar’s on-vehicle charger has poor efficiency?


“Physic calculation shows that the i-Pace shoud consume 16% more at 130kmh, than the S75D.”

Really? What “physic calculation” [sic] is gonna show what a car’s coefficient of drag is? A physics calculation may be useful in figuring frontal area, but if you want to know what the Cd is, then you need wind tunnel tests, or a least a really good computer simulation using a very accurate representation of the car’s shape.

The I-Pace is significantly smaller (in frontal area) and lighter than the Model X. All else being equal, it should have a significantly better energy efficiency. The fact that it’s actually worse, is a testament to Tesla’s significantly superior BEV engineering. Superior both in terms of powertrain efficiency and in terms of designing for low Cd.

I think my e-bike has a better evicenty than all EV.

However I will not make a video about that since I value my time as well as yours…

Please if you compare 2 VE chose at least 2 VE with the same electric range and number of places. And even in this case confort, security, versatility, power, etc. will not be the same. The ratio range/price seems to me a quite better subject of discussion.

IMHO, what a lot of the people prevaricating about this subject seem to forget is that both cars are a lot more environmentally friendly on the road that petrol/diesel powered cars or SUV’s. There was AFAIK, none of this debate on ‘gassers’ or was there? I don’t know and for my next purchase, the efficiency won’t really be an issue for me. The cost to go from A to B will be around half that of a Petrol Engined car and as I use 100% renewable electricity at home then as far as I’m concerned, I’m good to go. At the moment, I’m happy with my Outlander but as new EV’s come onto the market there will come a time for a change. What matters more is the ability of the car to meet my use case. Can I put everything I need for a week camping on a Scottish Island in the back plus a Bird Hide and all my camera gear. Is it comfortable to drive for 800 miles over 2 days? Things like that are more important to me than the watts per km etc. Just my POV and naturally YMMV applies. I do like Bjorn’s reviews.… Read more »

Good points. Efficiency will not matter much at all for day to day driving. The biggest drawback of low efficiency will be the longer charging times required for your 800 mile trips.


Model X has less efficient MOTORS. At high speeds drag will dominate and Model X performs better.

The iPace has permanent magnet motors. Given the inefficiency of the vehicle, this caught me off-guard.

This X2. I pace has more efficient motors, but worse drag.

“Model X has less efficient MOTORS.”

Even if it’s true that the I-Pace’s motor is slightly more energy efficient than the Model X’s — and somebody’s assertion that it is, isn’t proof — that is surely more than made up by Tesla’s more efficient inverters, and the other ways in which Tesla’s BEV powertrains are significantly more energy-efficient than their competitors’ BEV powertrains.

Splitting hairs here. Why do we keep comparing EVs to each other, as if we are trying to “kill” the competition? How does the I-Pace compare to the Jaguar F-Pace?

Ron Swanson's Mustache

People want to know how similar vehicles perform when compared against one another. If you’re looking to buy a pure EV, you’re going to want the weigh the pros and cons of similar EVs. From that standpoint, only comparing an EV against ICE vehicles is not instructive.

Thank you! It is disheartening to see all these arguments about which plug-in EV is “better” than the other, as if the EV market is a zero-sum game.

The real winner here… is BEVs! The true zero-sum game is competition between plug-in EVs and gasmobiles, not between two different BEVs.

Up the EV revolution!

Another Euro point of view

If we could end this day without a large scale Tesla fans meltdown because of the words “mixed results” it would be great. It already started badly with PuPu reaction.

Gosh, how sad that a serial Tesla basher like you doesn’t like me pointing out some Truths to counter the very misleading claims in this article.

BTW — How is your TSLA “short” investment doing lately? Shouldn’t you be on the phone with your broker, trying to exit your position as fast as you can?
😆 😆 😆

Not to mention his “Clean Diesel” Audi he drives.

Pushi ain’t legally allowed to drive ANY car. And he hurts the ‘ev revolution’ since he’ll never purchase one, not even for a relative, and just insults those of us who have purchased several EV’s.

And of course, he discourages ICE drivers from taking a tiptoe into ev’s since he gives the whole community a bad name by whining and complaining about trifles he knows almost nothing about.

To me, Bjorn’s testing is highly educational – in this case showing the Jag Is competitive with the “X”, and that ‘poor efficiency’ claims for the Jag are overblown.

Tesla used to have absolutely horrid vampire losses, even with the early ‘3’s, but that is seldom mentioned. But it all goes to increase the fueling cost of a Tesla.

That is also why fact-based continual testing is important, such as what Bjorn is doing here.

Let’s Keep in Mind that the X Batteries Are Used , A Yr or 2 Old ?..+ – .. . So There is Battery Degradation & The X Is a Much a Heavier* Vehicle Too…The Jaguar is Newer , Lighter & Batteries Are Brand New*…I’d Say The X Won* This One !…The JAG Is Very Inefficient for it’s Size & Age….. The Same Size Niro or Kona Would Blow it Away On “Efficiency & Price”…JAGUAR., Still a Good Vehicle , Living Off Their Laurels . Jaguar , You’re Buying Name/Status …

“Let’s Keep in Mind that the X Batteries Are Used , A Yr or 2 Old ?..+ – .. . So There is Battery Degradation…”

Shouldn’t matter much. Two years of driving isn’t going to degrade a Model X pack much, unless it’s driven hard every day and Supercharged every day like one of the Tesloop rental cars.

The X Is a Heavier Vehicle, That Does Matter ..However, You are Correct we Don’t Know How it was Driven . But Bjorn Put The X Through Some Vigorous Tests , Judging By a few Of his Off Road X Videos Where The X Even Sustained some Body Damage, As a Result ..

“However, as the temperature drops even lower over the course of the winter, the heat pump will become less effective and Model X might pull ahead again.”


The heat pump will always be greater than 1 in efficiency. It may be as high as 1.4 when it is mild but it will always be greater than 1.

Resistive heater efficiency is very close to 1 and can never be greater than 1.

The heat pump will become less effective than at higher temperature, and the resistive heater will be used in both cars.