Jaguar I-Pace Range Test Yields Disappointing Results


And, about that WLTP range figure…

How you drive a battery-powered car affects the range you can achieve. This truism has once again been put to the test by Autocar, who got ahold of a pair of Jaguar I-Pace crossovers with which to experiment. The setup? Drive the two identically-prepared vehicles between identical points A and B — from Feltham, Middlesex to Hinkley Point, the site of existing and future nuclear generating stations, as it happens — but with one being driven in Eco Mode and the other in Normal Mode, with the occasional meander into Dynamic Mode. With the distance to be covered well within the 292-mile WLTP-rated range, it should have been a piece of cake. Turns out, it wasn’t.

To make a long story short, both vehicles managed to finish the 139-mile trip. The “Eco” I-Pace arrived with just 26 percent of a full charge left, with its display indicating it could cover an additional 56 miles. If that reading is accurate, it seems the all-electric crossover would have only managed 195 miles on a full charge, which is a long way from the obviously over-enthusiastic 292-mile WLTP rating and still significantly less the 240 miles the marque’s U.S. website says it will achieve. This is not necessarily a knock against the automaker’s estimate.

Typically, range calculations are made using a mix of different driving conditions at different speeds. In this situation, however , there was a lot of highway driving at speeds of up to 70 mph. Yes, it was in Eco mode, which would help by putting more energy back into the battery using the braking regeneration system, but since it was a mostly-highway type of drive, brakes weren’t used very much.

The “Normal/Dynamic” I-Pace arrived with only 29 miles worth of range left being indicted by the display. This shows that the difference over the significant distance was relatively minimal —  only 27 miles — but given the state of the charging network in the UK at the moment, it makes sense to use Eco mode if long distances are being covered. “What about the charging network,” you may be wondering?

Well, having made the trip and in need of a recharge for the return journey, the Autocar team had something of an adventure finding chargers that worked. And even when they did manage to find one, which they then had to share, the output was only 50 kW, or about half of the Jaguar’s supposed top charging speed (we say “supposed” because it may not live up to that 100 kW billing just yet.)

Overall, though, it was an interesting test and if you’re interested in the Jaguar I-Pace, it may be worth your time to read the entire tale, peppered as it is, with other observations of the car and the potential challenges of EV ownership in the UK. The I-Pace, with its handsome looks and high-performance capabilities, (not to mention off-road bona fides) remains a great EV choice. Like any vehicle, you just need to operate it within its limitations.

Source: Autocar

Categories: Jaguar

Tags: , , ,

Leave a Reply

93 Comments on "Jaguar I-Pace Range Test Yields Disappointing Results"

newest oldest most voted

EPA is likewise useless these days. It may have been important in those 80 mile Leaf days but not anymore. I wish they would just say how much energy it uses at 120 kmh and be done with it. I don’t need to know a Bolt is capable of 3458 miles in everyday driving. What I really want to know is this and only this. Trips, long, nice, to the coast trips. That’s it. Efficiency is another matter. Yes, I want to know what I can expect of a Niro during everyday driving. Autonomy? Just no. I’m not going to be using the full battery driving at EPA speeds. Forget it. Not in Europe at least.


Fair. Range remains a reasonable deal breaker, but the other gains of EV ownership often offset it’s compromises.

Most first-time EV shoppers invest too much in the hypothetical give-up of relatively few long trips


What we need is the WLTP “Extra High” cycle details. For EVs, we want to know how it is running at 70-75mph on the highway. (For City driving, we’ll plug in overnight again before we run out, in all probability) It’s in long-distance high-speed cruising that total range matters.


Check Jag’s site, I think they changed the estimate from 240 to 220 EPA. 195 is pretty bad, similar to ETron and EQC by looks of it. What would I get driving 75-80 mph speeds typical of US freeways? 150 miles?

Steven Loveday

One site says 220 and the other still says 240. Yes, it seems they changed it to 220, but didn’t update one of the sites.

jim stack

I bet I could get 290 miles driving the I-Pace. Even at 70 mph.


closely trailing bus?


Yeah, and they’ll have to donate you one so you can prove it 😉


yes you can… at -8% grade for 289 miles with 70 mph tail wind


The New Zealand Jaguar website says:
One full charge provides a range of up to 470km on the WLTP cycle*.


Estimate range from Jaguar USA is 234 miles with this disclaimer: “Figures shown are EPA driving range estimates. Actual mileage may vary.”


Here they say about 220.
It looks like this page says “up to” 234 mile range:
guess we wait until EPA releases the figure.


220 is from the “I-Pace CONCEPT car” page. It’s right there on the website. That 220 has been there since forever.


They need to update their pages as a web search comes up with 220 first.

If it is getting real world range of less than 200 miles might be a bit rough. I am curious what freeway speed range is still.


They were driving the car at 70 mph, which is ~15 mph (+27%) faster than the the average speed during the EPA highway test cycle (~55mph). This is +60% more energy use due to aerodynamic drag. At 80 mph that would be +110%. Other losses and acceleration during the test will make the differences appear smaller but in the end expect 70~80% of EPA range at 70 mph, 50~60% at 80 mph and about 25-30% at 125 mph.


Jag EPA is 234. On it changed 240 -> 220 -> 240 -> 234


I-pace is a (almost) good car, but efficiency just sucks big time. With a less than exciting charging speed it’s just too expensive for a car with limited use.

I was wrong about I pace, reviews were very positive but I was believing that specified range was as true as it is for Tesla, BMW, VW, …

It’s a bit silly how Jaguar claims are so far from the reality.
Efficiency might not be easy to improve but Jaguar should really change the battery pack to support very fast charging, at least by the time charging infrastructure allows it.


2x the cost of the Niro, half as efficient. So if you get the Niro, you are getting 4x the range per dollar. I am wondering who actually will by this car.


No need to worry: the limited interest in the I-Pace would be perfectly aligned with Magna’s inability to reproduce this engineering error in large quantities 🙂


There are people on the I-Pace forums in the UK that have had their delivery date pushed back for months now because of production issues. I though experienced car companies did not have problems like this.


People not interested in efficiency, but performance instead.

However, with EV you are forced to care about efficiency to some extent as range and charge rate depend on it.

Robert Weekley

Unsuspecting Jaguar Supporters, looking to go green?


Google is on the hook for 20000 of these electric porkers.


Those “electric porkers” are way cool!
It looks like Google has hooked into a lot more than the usual “Three Little Porkers”!

A little range, but that is “Some Pig”!


Google/Waymo doesn’t care about range on long trips.


People who want AWD and a pair of motors that give 394 HP.


Get a Model 3. It will do all of that, go farther, have someplace to charge, and cost less.


And where do you suggest I get a Model3? They are production constrained too, (but making more progress!). I am a week1 reservation holder in Australia, looking at possible 2020 delivery…


As a week 1 reservation holder, I think you still have a pretty good chance of getting it in (late) 2019…


Can the Model 3 go off-road without voiding the warranty or breaking stuff?

Look, i get what you are saying but comparing the Jag with the Kia is down right comical. It’s all about how much money you have, how you wanna spend it and how much you wanna show off.


It’s not money just to show off. There is a great amount of comfort, performance, AWD and quality that you get in a iPace vs Niro. If it’s all the same to you then by all means be happy with your choice. At 40 years old, I now expect to drive a car far better in quality and comfort than one that I could only afford when I was in my twenties. A Niro feels like the econobox that it is. I’m not about to drive one just to prove some point that no one cares about to be smug about frugality.


Comparing it with the Niro is not right. Jaguar is probably much better in everything else. The Jaguar is probably better in the majority of things when compared with a model X.
Like others said range and charging speed is very important in current EVs, Jaguar should have done better.


Yes, we have to get over this BS about randomly comparing vehicles with each other, based solely on the fact that they are EVs. There will always be buyers at the premium end, and the other end(s). Niro will be good, but not for me, I suspect. My used i3 is perfect, for me (apart from it’s crap range.)


Couldn’t you also say the same buying the Niro over a Model X or S?


That Parachute Grill Doesn’t Help the aerodynamics .


At first please get informed where most of the drag is created for every car.
Then please explain, why the drag from a surface rises, when you paint it black, as it seems this is your opinion. EVs grills are nearly completely closed, some are structured but create a golfball-like effect. Engineers arent stupid…


Electric motors are about 90% efficient. It’s one of the selling points of electric cars. It’s hard to make electric motors with 70% efficiency. So makes you wonder where all this energy is being lost. My money would be on friction and (perhaps) inefficient AC system. On the Model 3, for example, the aero wheel covers alone add 10% to the range. Jaguar may want to find some efficient wheels and tires. It’s the easiest thing to upgrade now that the vehicle is already in production.


The question of actual aero advantage on the Model 3 wheel covers is disputed. Some say 3%, others say 10%.


I saw a video where it was around 5%.


It would save a lot of Hassle if Tesla Just Used a properly Finned alloy Wheel..& Be Done With It ! The Covers Are Hideous !


Most EVs use plastic covers (alloy wheels in that shape would probably be much heavier?); and many have a pretty similar shape — they just generally have better colour schemes to make them look prettier than the one Tesla went with…


The i-Pace grill is not closed. The air flows through a duct of sorts then over the back part of the hood and the windshield. It’s better than flowing into an engine compartment, but far from ideal.


“EV Grills are *Nearly* Completely Closed” ,,,yea …The Inner Edge of that Grill Grabs & Traps A lot of Air & Creates The “Parachute Effect”…..Just Cup Your hand & stick it Out The Window While Moving & “Observe” …These Engineers are Not Stupid., But they’re Not On Top of Their Game.


I think in this case, design department won out over the engineer department. Form over function.


That’s One Of The Reasons I Like Tesla , They all Work Together to turn out the Best Possible Product ., Instead of the Different Departments Competing against Each Other In An Attempt to Sell Their Ideas To The different Managements For Brownie Points & To Get It Utilized ,Weather it’s Worthy or Not!


Not sure the cars traveled 139 miles. Some paragraphs of the article said they traveled 198 miles to the nearest working CCS charger at Sedgemoor. However, the conclusion from Autocar is this:

“That driven modestly, the red I-Pace has covered 239 miles on a charge. The briskly driven blue I-Pace needed an electron infusion at 208 miles, which is not vastly less given that it was driven a lot harder. The distance covered by the red car is obviously short of the manufacturer’s claimed 292-mile figure, but it’s not bad and makes this EV a lot more usable than many examples of the breed, a point underlined by the distance covered by the blue I-Pace.”


How you drive any car impacts the range, it’s just that until we can get 400 miles out of an EV that range remains front and center.
I have a Bolt at home and one at work, home one does more highymiles yet gets 5 miles per kWh, the work one gets just over 4. How you drive makes a big difference.
ThoughI am still a bit disappointed with the Ipace efficiency numbers.


The Bolt has a well-engineered drivetrain, but it’s boxy, so it’s economy sweet spot in somewhere the 45-65 mph range. We just recently went on a road trip and clocked 4.8 mi/kWh over 360 miles, which included country roads, cities, and 65-70 mph interstate.

Now, the I-Pace is supposed to be a lot more slippery than the Bolt, so less range loss at interstate speeds. If the much larger Model X 100D can do almost 300 miles, the dismal 220-240 mi range of I-Pace is called “bad engineering”.

Murrysville EV

A lower drag coefficient does not mean less drag. The other factor is surface area, and the I-Pace is clearly larger than the Bolt.
It also is very heavy, with much larger tires, so its frictional losses will be substantially higher than the Bolt.
All that said, I still can’t understand how the I-Pace has so much less range than the Model X.


In line with you said, size/weight-wise the I-Pace is somewhere between the Bolt (4 mi/kWh EPA) and the Model X (3 mi/kWh), so once could reasonably expect it to deliver somewhere between 3 and 4, certainly not the 2.5 mi/kWh it’s achieving.

As to how or why … I am guessing Tata’s selling pitch is the Jaguar badge and the newness, not the practicality.


The charging tests show it will only accept 71kWh from 10% to 100%, so after subtracting losses, total usable charge is probably only 75kWh.

Maybe they’ll open up more capacity over time or during the winter, but that’s the primary reason for shorter than expected range.

It’s probably only 10% less efficient than the X (but given its size, I agree it should be the other way around if engineered better).


Does the 71 kWh number come from the charging station, rather than the vehicle’s display? Otherwise, your numbers don’t quite add up… If the I-Pace has ~78 kWh usable, and the Model X 75 has 72.6 kWh usable, that would already be close to 10% difference — yet the Model X seems to have quite a bit more range.


Just curious, how long did it take you to drive those 360 miles including charging time ?


We timed only the A to B and X back to A, which was cumulatively 3-ish hours over about 180 miles. Between B and X there was a mini-vacation with at least 10-12 stops, which we didn’t time. We didn’t stop to charge on purpose, but instead charged where and when we stopped, as vacationing folks would.

if you are asking “how long it would take the Bolt to do 360 miles with 4.8 mi/kWh in a nice weather in the rolling hills of VA, WV, MD and PA”, I would say 8 hours, to include one intentional charging stop. That is if you find a charger halfway into the trip 🙂

Frank Louwers

Did you actually read the article and the conclusion of the original article?

“So, what have we learned? That driven modestly, the red I-Pace has covered 239 miles on a charge. The briskly driven blue I-Pace needed an electron infusion at 208 miles, which is not vastly less given that it was driven a lot harder.”


Bummer. I thought the I-Pace was the most appealing of the Tesla alternatives. Seeing the sub-par efficiency of all the Euro luxury cars, not to mention the still crappy efficiency of the latest 40 kWh Leaf, makes me wonder if this is a good indication of just how far Tesla and GM are ahead of their competitors. Now if GM would put their GM/LG drivetrain in some more appealing body styles and actually try selling them.


GM wouldn’t dare offer “more appealing body styles”, as that would create some curiosity and peak interest in EVs, on a much broader and widespread scale than Tesla already does.

GM will continue to lead the attempt to stifle true EV awareness, that keeps the unveiling of the EVery day Joe, all around EV idea, as ho-hum and “mediocre at best”.

GM builds decent and adequate EVs, that are a welcome improvement over Nissan, but Chevy unfortunately has size constraints, and seat/styling complaints.

Leave it to GM to try and bury the competitive direct sales business model of Tesla, in an ongoing battle in a number of states.

If you are thinking of the Bolt then yes but the Volt has all the style a car needs and then some more.


Absolutely True on Gen 2 Volt Style, but the exhaust pipe in the back, can lead some EV “a-fish-a-nut-os” who “like beer”, to pessimistically, and judgingly suggest, that the PHEV/EREV is like a “Keg half Empty”!


I’ll enjoy driving my Volt while others are panicking because their range limited expensive toy is parked somewhere in an out of the way and probably faulty public charge station.


Hyundai and Toyota have the two most efficient electric/PHEV cars in the market. Model 3 is a very close 3rd.


That’s sort of like saying that the BMW 520d is the most efficient gas/diesel/PHEV/EV. Try to keep the categories separate. There are EVs and then there are hybrids.

And in any case, “efficiency” can mean any number of things, as shown by the BMW. The Model 3 has one of the best coefficients of drag of any vehicle. Does that make it the most efficient?


Hyundai and Toyota have efficient vehicles, but they aren’t the most performance oriented vehicles.


I’m only deputing that Tesla and GM are so far ahead in the game.


I wonder how much these road tests are affected by weather conditions. I know that when I ride my bicycle wind makes a huge difference, sometimes slowing me to a crawl if the wind is really strong.

Let say it was really windy on EV testing day, with the vehicle driving against 30 mph winds most of the way. That would create an increase in drag equivalent to driving at 30 mph faster than what the speedometer says. How much of an effect would that have on the range of a vehicle like the iPace?


you do realize that 30mph wind is basically storm? but yes wind can influence heavily range


Speed has a lot to do with things. The original Tesla Model S efficiency figures showed 300 Wh/mile for an EPA rating, and then 254 Wh / mile for driving 55 mph. I have managed to hit 220 Wh / mile in perfect conditions over a fair distance, at 55-60 mph.

Let’s hope Jaguar provides official EPA figures at some point soon, or they will have a class action lawsuit on their hands, lest we forget the Ford Explorer/Firestone scandal from 2000, where improperly inflated tires were used to attain EPA ratings or improve ride comfort, a move which occasionally blew up the tires through tread separation and killed 62 people. I doubt range /efficiency will kill people unless they are stranded in extreme weather conditions, but vigilance is the surest measure of vitality.

Brett Gutoskie
Interesting that no one noted that the drivers taking the vehicle up to 70mph basically means its not even comparable with EPA testing standards. The EPA Highway Fuel Economy test doesn’t exceed 60mph, and in fact over the 10.26 mile testing track the average testing speed is 48.3 miles per hour. Average fuel economy drops by about 17% if you increase average speed by 15mph, so assuming the testers drove most of the way at average speed of 64mph, the estimated 240 EPA range would fall to….199 miles….pretty much what the Eco Mode I-Pace indicated. Given that Autocar doesn’t seem to provide the amount of time they used to cover the various lengths of the journey its not possible to calculate their average speed…but if I were a betting man, I’m guessing it was a bit above the speeds they use to test for the EPA or WLTP. I guess one could consider that disappointing, but I don’t take long highway trips at 48mph, I spend more money on gas to reduce the time it takes to get from A to B, I trade fuel eocnomy for speed. The real disappointment in the Autocar article appears to be the dismal… Read more »

Oh, we noticed. It’s just that no one seems to care.


EPA testing note includes additional profiles, including one with higher speeds. I think carmakers can still select the old profiles, but am not sure.

William L

To be honest, no one buys a Jag because it’s efficient, reliable, safe, cheap or good resale value. So what the problem here… 🙂


Screw ndec and wltp, epa is the boss


Watching ppl quibble over 220 miles epa range, is sickening. My 2013 leaf barely does 60 miles. Would love having only 200 real miles.


You could buy 10 used 2013 Nissan Leafs, with a terrific estimated combined range, of approximately 600 miles, for the price of just one 200 mile range I-Pace Jaguar.

You just have to make sure that you keep them charged up, and strategically space them along your preferred driving routes.

So going the 10 used 2013 Nissan Leaf route, offers considerably much more range, for the essentially the same Jaguar I-Pace money. Now, that is talking true Nissan efficiency, and real “innovation that excites”!😉



I agree. My 2015 i3 does about 120-130 km (70 miles), on 15 degree days. I manage, but I’d love if it was doubled. I live in rural Australia with a national 100km speed limit. I have to cruise at 90, as that gives me about 10 extra miles.


It’s funny how the media used to say range is everything, charge infrastructure is important etc. when only Tesla had long range cars. But now it’s like meh, it doesn’t matter… funny the change the of tune.

John Doe

Still a very good looking car, and range is good enough for me (not that I’m going to buy one in the near future).
They will sell all they can manufacture anyway.

Peter Thorsen

The route is directly east-west and in England that may very well mean that the test was carried out with a substantial headwind, which can really affect the range of any car

Another Euro point of view

Boxy SUV body forms, low energy density batteries and good performance seem to combine badly. I wonder how SUV fashion will clash with car electrification. I am reluctant to buy a SUV with a super frugal TDI engine due to poor MPG perf. above 80 mph so such an EV SUV ? no chances in a million years. it will do well as a statement for well to do londoners I suppose however.


Jaguar is a good maker, but not a top high tech maker. They are small and dependent of a non top chinese industrial group. This is its firs attemp and isn’t so bad, but they have to progress quickly in some aspects.

Another Euro point of view

Chinese industrial group (?!?)


Indian, sorry. 😉


Tata is huge conglomerate.


Tata’s only inputs have been investment money, and back-office IT


While more range would certainly be better I think many people who buy $70K+ cars are in multi-car households so the range would be fine for in-town use. They could always take the Tesla model S/3 on road trips and use the I-pace for in town use 🙂 For most 2+ car households (and that is a very large market in the US) I think 1 medium range BEV and a long range BEV (for people who can afford Teslas) or PHEV would be fine. Once the multi-car market is saturated with BEVs then we can worry about every BEV being road trip capable. Right now in North America at least Tesla is the only one with a charging network that supports easy long distance travel anyway.

Richard Williams

I had a 2016 Tesla model S 70D . I could manage a comfortable 220 miles without having to compromise at all on driving and given that its battery is 20KWH less than the Jag. I think the Tesla technology is way better than the jag and the superchargers clinch the deal. I am not running an EV at present but would not buy the Jag until there is a reliable rapid charging network around the UK. Likewise the Audi etron is lacking in range as well. The Tesla was a far from perfect car – build quality was awful in places for a £70K car but the technology was superb and the superchargers flawlessly reliable when I used them.


As Jaguar did its I-Pace press-launch, it was the first long-range CCS vehicle on the UK market, and pretty much the first on the EU market (The European Chevrolet Bolt – the Opel Ampera-e – is on restricted sale only in Norway, Netherlands, Switzerland and Germany).
CCS is a standard for many charger manufacturers and many vehicle manufacturers – so there are potential interoperability issues to track down. The initial issues chased out by the I-Pace have now been addressed – by Jag, the charger makers, and the charging network operators.

Douglas Hamner

There is a known issue with the estimated range indicator on these cars if driven hard on previous charge cycles. To fix, press the ignition button without pressing brake pedal. Wait for blue off indicator in cluster. Press both accelerator and brake pedals at same time. Hold pedals for 20 seconds. Range will change in cluster to certified range. Estimated range is based on previous driving habits and may not reflect actual range for particular drive. This procedure will recalibrate the indicator.


I get 200 miles in my 2013 Model S with 60KW battery if driving efficiently 55-60 mph. Jag is a joke.

Patrick McSwain
Production test of i-Pace FE on 20″ rims with 1000 miles and software 14.2. Starting altitude 700′, 48°F, Eco mode, Low Power setting disabled (car has full functionality in Eco, including acceleration). With adaptive set at 65 mph, and autosteering enabled, we headed to test the new High Power (350kW advertised) charger in Baker, California at 900′. First part of trip climbed to 4,300 ft altitude, mild headwind. It arrived 145 miles later at Baker with 39% of charge remaining. This calculates out to 238 miles of total range. There was one burst of passing speed to 107mph only. Since the battery was not near empty, the peak charging rate was only 72 kW, and added only 43 kWh in 45 minutes or about 119 miles. So it’s safe to say the production cars can hit 234 EPA miles in mixed driving since the highway number is lower than the city number. In fact, it normally gets 253 miles in mixed driving at 68°-72° during roundtrips involving 2000′ of altitude variation. However, I’ve been driving EVs for 6 years so I probably squeeze more range at the same average speeds than a new EV owner. No data yet at hypermiling… Read more »