Efficiency Matters And That’s Where The Jaguar I-Pace Falters

AUG 31 2018 BY DOMENICK YONEY 235

Still won’t deter most buyers

We love the 2019 Jaguar I-Pace. It’s electric (of course). It’s attractive. It’s quick on its feet. It has a premium feel inside. The list of rave reviews is long and enthusiastic. But, it also has some faults. One of these has gone mostly unmentioned, but considering the environmental concerns of at least some consumers considering the Big Cat, it is worth noting. The problem, in a word, is efficiency. Or the lack thereof.

Wired recently got its hands on a copy of the British crossover. Their concern wasn’t so much about its exaggerated energy usage so much as it was about range, though of course this is directly correlated. The author got 41.6 kWh per 100 miles on a route that saw the Tesla Model 3 return a reading of 26 kWh per 100 miles, which is its precise EPA efficiency rating. Now, we don’t know why, exactly, efficiency is rated as kWh per 100 miles instead of the obviously-more-sensible miles per kWh, but that is what the government has proclaimed to be the proper metric, so pipe down. We digress…

Of course, being smaller, sleeker, and lighter, the Tesla Model 3 is bound to be more efficient, so perhaps we should compare it to something bigger, like the Model S 100D. That car is actually more than 200 pounds heavier than the I-Pace yet uses up only 33 kWh to travel 100 miles (according to the EPA). That’s 5 kWh every 100 miles, or 5,000 kWh over 100,000 miles. Sure, the Model S likely slips through the air more easily, as it sits 4 inches lower and has a lower drag coefficient  — .24 to the Jag’s .29 — but it’s still a significant difference.

So, how does it stack up against something a little closer to its SUV-like shape? Well, until we see what the Audi e-tron returns, the Tesla Model X 100 may be its closest competitor. Although it sits a full five inches higher and weighs as much as 800 lbs more, the SUV from Tesla is still about 2.6 kWh per 100 miles more efficient. That’s kind of amazing.

While it may be a while until we can figure out where the losses are coming from, Jaguar customers can at least be assured that any extra heat generated from the drivetrain’s inefficiency is managed quite well and won’t impact the car’s performance. And who knows? Perhaps the British automaker can take a page from its competitor’s book and make improvements to that figure in an over-the-air update. We shall see.

JAGUAR I-PACE

Jaguar I-Pace
46 photos
Jaguar I-Pace Jaguar I-Pace Jaguar I-Pace Jaguar I-Pace Jaguar I-Pace Jaguar I-Pace Jaguar I-Pace Jaguar I-Pace Jaguar I-Pace Jaguar I-Pace Jaguar I-Pace Jaguar I-Pace Jaguar I-Pace Jaguar I-Pace Jaguar I-Pace Jaguar I-Pace Jaguar I-Pace Jaguar I-Pace Jaguar I-Pace Jaguar I-Pace Jaguar I-Pace Jaguar I-Pace Jaguar I-Pace Jaguar I-Pace Jaguar I-Pace Jaguar I-Pace Jaguar I-Pace Jaguar I-Pace Jaguar I-Pace Jaguar I-Pace Jaguar I-Pace Jaguar I-Pace Jaguar I-Pace Jaguar I-Pace Jaguar I-Pace Jaguar I-Pace Jaguar I-Pace Jaguar I-Pace Jaguar I-Pace Jaguar I-Pace Jaguar I-Pace Jaguar I-Pace Jaguar I-Pace

Source: Wired

Categories: Jaguar

Tags: , ,

Leave a Reply

235 Comments on "Efficiency Matters And That’s Where The Jaguar I-Pace Falters"

newest oldest most voted

It’s a reasonable point but the way people will drive them will probably have a greater impact on efficiency.
Like maniacs, at least much of the time.
Still I will give Jaguar a pass on efficiency, as they did not put that high on the list of things they wanted to see in the I-Pace.
Why didn’t they just switch the name to E-Pace. I know they already had one but it’s an ice.

I think people are underestimating the importance of efficiency per kWh in an EV. It’s far more important than fuel efficiency in a ICE, which is nearly only about how much $$ to spend to drive. In an EV, worse energy efficiency means (*) Lower range for the same battery pack, or (*) larger, heavier and more expensive battery pack for required range, whose mass in turn means worse performance and handling. Given that EV charging stations are a fixed power output, it also means (*) longer time to recharge for a given distance. That’s how recharging calculations will go in an EV—spend enough time at a fast charger to get home or to a destination where the EV can sit for a while. And non-Tesla fast chargers are not that economically inexpensive either so it will cost more money here as well. Distance per kWh is the central aggregate metric of overall EV engineering effectiveness. It touches upon aerodynamics, mass, regeneration, battery internal resistance, electronics efficiency, motor and motor control efficiency and even efficiency of secondary HVAC loads which are much more influential in an EV vs ICE. Customers will recognize the importance of efficiency when looking for their… Read more »

You have some good points, but the EPA range rating should give a fair estimate of the real-world range with mixed (city/highway) driving. So while it’s true that a lower energy efficiency means the battery pack runs down faster, the customer should already have some idea of what range he’s going to get with the car.

And I don’t think the cost of electricity per kWh is all that important for EVs. Sure, it’s important if you charge at a DC fast charge station, but most EV drivers aren’t going to be doing that very often. (If you need to use a DC fast charger on a daily basis, then likely you bought the wrong car.) The overwhelming majority of EV charging will be slow charging at home or at work, where prices should be considerably lower per mile than paying for gasoline.

Prices being lower doesn’t mean differences in consumption don’t matter…

BTW, the EPA combined rating being 60% city driving is fairly unhelpful IMHO. Range matters most on longer trips, which are predominantly highway. The Kona for example almost matches the Model 3 in city driving, but its highway score is 14% poorer…

California (in particular San Diego) electricity prices aren’t so low. Yes it’s cheaper than gas of course but it can still matter. And it even matters if I am at a free or cheap L2 for a little while while shopping how much range I can get in the time available. It’s not primarily about the $ for electricity, but it influences the $$$ for the battery pack and other convenience parameters.

Well, if you are in San Diego you should be putting solar PV on your roof if you have an EV so you generate your own cheap electricity.

Sure…you can stuff more batteries into the car to get the desired range that greatly increases the PRICE of the car.

Note that the EPA figures also account for charging efficiency. (Probably a good part of the reason why the EV1 dis so poor…)

EXACTLY. Efficiency is EXTREMELY important in EVs and all the traditional ICE car companies still don’t “get it”. The efficiency is critically not important for “being green” (although that is good)…it is critically important for COST AND RANGE.

I’m kinda shocked that we are hitting 2nd and 3rd generation EVs and they still don’t adequately optimize on those things (mostly aerodynamics).

So weird to see I-Pace for the EV SUV and E-Pace for the ICE SUV.

It’s Volt and Bolt all over again.

My take is that it is indicative of a higher level of confusion on where to go with BEVs and plug ins at the executive level of major car companies.

E-pace lines up in the SUV range nicely alongside F-pace. i-pace suggests intelligence and innovation. Makes perfect sense to me. When the Road Rover comes out it will bring J-pace with it, at which point the EV range will meld into the regular range, E and F pace will become PHEV and ultimately EV and i-pace will likely disappear.

It’s the I-Pace because Jag’s electric sports car is called the I-Type. The E-Pace is called as such it’s because the SUV is equivalent of the XE, and why the F-Pace is the SUV equivalent of the XF, and the coming J-Pace will be the SUV equivalent of the XJ. Makes sense?

XE saloon, E-Pace CUV. XF saloon, F-Pace SUV
Then the iPhone of the Jag range, i-Pace.
I’m assuming that’s what they were thinking.

Aerodynamics maybe

Definitely a big part of it.

Does Jaguar plan on having OTA updates for the i-Pace? This is the first I’ve heard of anything of the sort…

Yes. It will offer OTA.

Domenick,

Sorry to squeeze this in a somewhat unrelated comment but I thought it is rather appropriate to the discussion of the effect of Cd on kwh/mile.

I was a bit skeptical that a change in Cd from .23 to .29 (26%) would be enough to explain a increase in kwh/ 100mi from 26-42 ( a whopping factor of 1.6).

I ran our model with a Cd change from .23 to .29 and I only got a 16% increase in kwh/mi.

So the change in Cd doesn’t explain why the article you are quoting got 42 kwh/100 mi…..

…and I’ll bet money the final EPA rating isn’t nearly that bad.

Agreed.

That was my point… How about we wait for the EPA data before throwing Jaguar under the bus, and then beating them with a stick?

BTW, I have an I-Pace for the day tomorrow, and will be driving it over the mountain to our cabin, to see if it can make the round trip 196 miles over a mountain. Luckily I have 3 – L2 chargers at the cabin, if I need to add a bit before the trip back.

Not trying to throw the Jag under the bus. We can’t just report on the good parts, though. If something like this comes to light, it’s worth discussing.

I think they’ll be able to improve the energy usage to some extent. It’s their first all-electric, so we can’t expect it to be perfect. It’s a pretty damn good vehicle, from all reports.

Yeah, must be annoying when people keep harping on downsides of a product you decided to like. What kind of person what do that?

Oh, wait…

David, could you drop me an email please?

Overall drag is the multiplication of frontal 2d area times the dimensionless coefficient Cd. So both frontal area and Cd influence aerodynamic efficiency. There’s also tires, battery, electronics, motor and HVAC.

Tesla 3 is very efficient, unusually so (for now) for its level of power and performance.

Its also low sedan, that has skinny little tires pumped to rock solid pressure and a design optimized for aero, not my style… I-Pace looks good, and brings a lot more capability.

Meanwhile, back in the real world…

The BMW has “skinny little tires… design optimized for aero”. The Tesla Model 3 has perfectly normal tires: Michelin Primacy MXM4, 235/45-18, 98W

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/81Vm4H90-DL._SX425_.jpg

A little toy tire compared to I-Pace

So why does the Model X, with relatively inefficient AC induction motors beat the iPace? It’s bigger, heavier, with large tires.

We do not know if it does yet, This Model X 90D in a real world test has 190 miles range

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5MHeBsOPno&t=25s

Jean-Baptiste Labelle

Are big tyres supposed to be an advantage in your book?
Big tyres are usually necessary to have adequate traction and turn grip, none of those lacking by Tesla so far, don’t you think? My S75D has 245mm tyres which are amont the tiniest for cars of 400HP+.
It has no problem with traction (as we know already) and it gives much superior traction and grip on the wet or snow as my previous Audi with larger tyres.
If anything, Jaguar took all the bad decisions but I guess they maybe could not get the handling with smaller tyres…

How can you model it, if we do not know how much other factors contribute?

Jean-Baptiste Labelle
Simple, you take the friction of the Model S as an hypothesis (anyway, it does not matter much as friction force is pretty much flat and almost independant from speed) and you just compared the difference of drag force at different temperature. If we consider 20°C, you have Drag force=1/2*1.2041 (density of air)*speed² (m/s)*S (frontal surface)*Cx). The energie necessary is Drag Force*speed. So here is the total energy necessary = Energie of friction (I considered the Tesla for both) + Energie of drag: At 90km/h: – S75D= 7.9+5.4 = 13.3kW (friction energie is preponderant) – i-Pace= 7.9+7 = 14.9kW. The i-Pace already show the aerodynamic disadvantage but this is only a 12% increase. At 130km/h: – S75D= 11.7+16.3 = 28kW – i-Pace= 11.7+20.9 = 32.6kW. It is a 16% increase. Incidentally, this is exactly what George Bower wrote and just simple physics. No opinion. So the i-Pace should have 16% more consumption than the Model S but all the tests so far ar showing 45% higher consumption which, as stated by everyone here, is just CRAZY. Something must really REALLY be wrong here. I don’t know how Jaguar could have screwed up that much except that there are mile away… Read more »

Most of future EV’s will be SUV, bigger, less aerodinamic, heavier cars, over huge wheels…. rolling temples of energy wasting.

But they will sell and use about 1/3 the energy of gas models.

Worth noting: 1/3 of the energy in the car, but not 1/3 of the energy overall. The overall energy use depends on the efficiency of the power plant.

So? It’s the same with oil too. Should we count all the sunken tankers in the mix too? Tell me about a form of energy that is 100% transferable and usable.

What do you mean “So”? What is the point of this whole exercise if not to reduce GHGs? Earth doesn’t care if the GHG was emitted by the car or the power plant.

Yes, you should take into account everything that is measurable, especially if it is a major source of pollution. Power plants are the biggest source of GHG emissions in electric cars and you think it’s perfectly reasonable to ignore it. Fueleconomy.gov already gives you a way to take this into account, so there is no reason to ignore it. Other smart people have already done the math. Use it!

But don’t worry! You can still love electric cars because they’re generally more efficient even than hybrids, basically everywhere in the country. But in coal-heavy regions… not by much.

Prsnep:
“You can still love electric cars because they’re generally more efficient even than hybrids, basically everywhere in the country. ”

Not so much when you account for manufacturing emissions and upstream electric plant emissions & methane leaks. Not at all to be more precise.

E.g. take 50 mpg Kia Niro FE. Not an SUV, but has the same fashionable SUV shape and so is less efficient than best hybrid sedans.
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=39617&id=39836&#tab2
177 g/mile tailpipe + 36 g/mile upstream emissions, 213 g/mile total.
Take Model 3 for comparison, 150 g/mile on US average electric grid. Take away hydro electricity that already has use and no new dams will be added for new electricity demand, and you already on par. Add upstream electric plant emissions (like methane leaks and electricity losses), and Niro takes lead. Now slap on 15 tonnes of GHG needed to produce 75 kWh battery, and 3 can’t catch up if you care about GHG only.
Moving tailpipe emissions out of the cities is still important though, and people may care about it more. GHG reduction though is not a strong point, you need cherry pick low tech gas guzzler to pretend it works.

Who said anything about methane and EV’s?
Solar & Storage are cheaper than everything on the market now, except for Wind & Storage.

EV’s are powered by fossil fuels mainly.

Storage is cheap? In your world maybe

Why ‘take away hydro electricity’? In fact the EPA notes that “Due to data collection and processing time, the electricity generation data can sometimes be several years old. GHG emissions associated with the electricity grid today are likely to be lower than indicated in many regions.” The EPA also already accounts for electricity distribution losses and for other greenhouse gas emissions associated with mining or extraction of power plant fuel. https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/label/calculations-information.shtml

Why compare the sport-luxury Model 3 to the economy Niro?

In most parts of the country, using grid electricity, comparing similar cars, you will do better much better on life-cycle GHG emissions with an EV than with an ICE or hybrid. No cherry-picking required. You are the one doing the cherry-picking by throwing out hydro electricity, assuming the EPA isn’t accounting for factors that they do account for and comparing the Model 3 to a different class car.

The oil pipeline is so inefficient that there’s clearly a 80% inprovement in GHG emissions acquisition of electricity from Wind & Storage, or Solar and Storage vs. Fracking and Oil extraction.

The oil Refinery’s alone use so much energy you could convert all cars to EV and run off Refinery electricity displacement. Oil Refineries use a LOT of Electricity.
And then there’s:
-Pipelines, made of steel, and dug and buried with gas tractors.
-Huge storage tank farms, made of steel.
-Shipping tankers: steel.
-Port facilities to store shipped oil content and port export and port import.
-Gas station storage tanks and facilities.
-Transport tankers to fill gas stations.
And the US 5th Fleet in the Med, protecting shipping lanes, made of steel, with a required supply of oil tankers and uranium.

Are you kidding?
Solar & Storage could easily be 100 Times more efficient than the current oil infrastructure.

While renewables are more efficient, 100 times?

Only if you ignore the fact that wind turbines are even larger steel pipes transported sometimes thousands of miles on ships and transport lorries, require large electricity cables to be trenched in (using gas tractors). Same with solar. Hydro is awful, especially when you consider all the methane released from rotting material covered by the new lake.

It’s a very complex equation, which is why there are 100 different answers, but none are realistically anywhere near 100x, more like an order or two of magnitude less than that.

Hydro isn’t awful. It’s not zero-emission, but close. Much, much better than any fossil generator. Not 100x, but several dozens IIRC.

Similar for other renewables.

@REXisKing – “The oil Refinery’s alone use so much energy you could convert all cars to EV and run off Refinery electricity displacement.”

Please don’t repeat this laughably stupid myth.

That is why there is a tiny bit of solar in the world and no storage.

“You can still love electric cars because they’re generally more efficient even than hybrids, basically everywhere in the country. But in coal-heavy regions… not by much.”

This simply is not true. It’s just a weaker form of the EV-hater “long tailpipe” myth.

Even in States with a large percent of coal power in grid electricity, the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is still considerable for BEVs vs. gasmobiles.

From the Union of Concerned Scientists: “Cleaner Cars from Cradle to Grave (2015)”

“Over their lifetime, battery electric vehicles produce far less global warming pollution than their gasoline counterparts—and they’re getting cleaner.”

https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/electric-vehicles/life-cycle-ev-emissions

Stop calling me an “EV hater”. You don’t get to define what I am and am not. I am first and foremost an environmentalist who, among other things, wishes to see humans reduce their emission of GHGs. I also believe in picking the lowest hanging fruits first and investing in technologies if they show promise even if they are not yet competitive. The article you posted shows that in coal-heavy Middle America, an electric cars’ GHG emissions are equivalent to a car that achieves 35 mpg. (I’m surprised it’s that low, actually.) A good hybrid achieves much greater than 35 mpg. Thank you for making my point. Electric vehicles should be compared to hybrids, not non-hybrid ICE cars, because they share regenerative breaking technology and are more similar in cost. Not in performance, granted. That is an advantage that electric cars have over ICE cars in that performance can be improved without significantly impacting fuel economy. FYI, I live in a region with near-zero fossil-fuel-sourced electricity. My next vehicle will very likely be a plug-in hybrid. And if I end up requiring 2 vehicles in the household, I’d love for one of them to be electric. I’d suggest you stop… Read more »

“What is the point of this whole exercise if not to reduce GHGs? ”
From my perspective… NO!
Here are my top 3 reasons why I drive ev IN ORDER OF IMPORTANCE:
1. Lower operating and overall cost. Fuel is free on pv.
2. Much better experience than driving ICE.
3. No air pollution (not talking about co2 here).

Do you even drive ev?

You get your pv arrays for free? Lucky you – most folk have to pay for them.

One nuclear plant is worth six times all Teslas ever made, for GHG’s.

Yes but not all nuclear plants cost are the same. Japan and Ukraine have a couple that costed alot more than usual.

Why does everyone think we get power from coal? Do all these Yankees still live in the 1800’s?!?
Gas has to be found, extracted, refined and shipped.
Rain falls, the dam tops up the lake, a turbine spins, my car runs……

But they are still unefficient vehicles if we compare with electric sedans.

While I do see your point, but if we’re going to nitpick on this subject, then everyone on earth really should be walking or biking for their daily needs!

IMHO, I’d rather see Jack and Jill and their family in an ev -SUV / van vs. an ICE one, it’s the lesser of two evils.

And even if you need a car, don’t buy a Tesla. Get a small two seater vehicle like a G-Wiz. It’ll be fine for the needs of most people most of the time.

The debate sedan drivers constantly bring up about SUV’s and their inefficiencies leads down a long corridor… We choose vehicles both from a “need” point of view and a “want” point of view. Just because your needs and wants are different to the SUV owner, doesn’t mean they are more correct.

“Get a small two seater vehicle like a G-Wiz.”

Let’s see… the Mahindra e2o, successor to the G-Wiz (no longer being made) has a 0-50 time (that’s right, not 0-60) of 17 seconds.

Ummm… I think that if I was in the market for a new car, I’d want one which I could drive on the freeway.

But thanks.

But you are not driving anymore, so not the target market for any of these cars…

<>

Judging by the way people structure their arguments and accent their priorities, I would conclude that a fair proportion of posters on insideevs do not drive themselves. This doesn’t make their opinions less legitimate, of course 🙂

“rolling temples of energy waste..”

Compared to current ICE inefficiency monsters, the future worst EV’s will still laugh at the inefficiency of today’s ICE offerings.

This is garbage. 30-35% is peak efficiency. Not counting sub-optimal circumstances, idling.
Efficiency of nuclear has little relevance, only the price matters. Of course you not count the huge amounts of waste that mining refining and transporting oil entails.

Why is it that our latest new username Dam is not only an anti-Tesla troll, but also an anti-EV one too?

Here we go again. If you’re going to start factoring in the source of the electricity, then you have to factor in the source of the gasoline. That includes the drilling, the shipping, the refining, the shipping again… and it takes 6Kw of electricity just to refine a gallon of gasoline; 6Kw that could have gone straight into a nice EV battery.

And renewables are on the rise big time, while the fuel extraction process will never change.

If you’re going to start factoring in the source of the electricity, then you have to factor in the source of the gasoline. => Yes. You have to factor in everything. That’s the only way to have a true comparison. As it stands, people are patting themselves on the back for driving electric vehicles even if their electricity is sourced from coal. Coal plants on average are not significantly more efficient overall compared to gasoline vehicles and produce MORE CO2 per unit of energy burned. We need to make the push for cleaner transportation AND cleaner electricity generation at the same time or our efforts will largely have been in vein. Having said this, coal appears to be losing out to natural gas and renewables based on economics alone. Natural gas, despite being a fossil fuel, produces less CO2 compared to coal per unit of energy burned AND can operate at higher thermal efficiency. So this transition should be applauded as a transitory step in the right direction. The best tool I’ve come across so far for comparing CO2 emission at source AND upstream from vehicles is fueleconomy.gov. After finding your vehicle, you’re interested in, click on “Environment and Safety”,… Read more »

You are absolutely right about fueleconomy.gov and it shows that coal is still less polluting than gas cars. And don’t you fret, more efficiency will happen because it is cheaper. Period.

BTW, nobody EVER includes the costs of oil supply security around the world.

Plus, many of the production countries want to hurt us physically.

I speak about SUVs. This type of vehicle is a mess to be efficient. Obviously an ICE SUV is worst that an electric SUV, but an electric sedan would be even better. If we are concerned about efficiency, weight, battery costs, why not to use a car that can do more with less?. Why makers choose a SUV, and then they must to put in them more kg of expensive and heavy batteries for compensate the suv’s inherent penalties?

Because they sell.

Yes, that’s the main reason, but probably eco buyers, could be more receptives to buy more efficient cars, even if they aren’t SUVs.

Why choose a sedan then? Get a small hatchback or two seater. Something like the Model S is way bigger than most owners will ever “need”.

As the article discusses, weight is important too, a small two seater hatchback will be lighter and likely to be more efficient.

Ironically, the Model 3 has better efficiency than the Smart ED 🙂

The point is that a SUV is not more practic than an equivalent sedan. Some people don’t need mor than 2 seats, but most of buyers are people with family, pets, hobbys…. So need a realistic car, and a sedan give you four/five doors, space for 5 passengers, reasonable boot capacity… but is always more cheap and efficient than a SUV. Will everybody take advantage of the better off road habilities?. I think, that most of people, don’t. So is ridiculous tu buy a SUV instead a sedan for lot of people. But SUV are more profitable for makers, so they bet for them… and people as a flock following the shepherd, spend more money buying cars that they really doesn’t need, and they doesn’t even suit them.

“SUV are more profitable for makers”

Because people willingly pay more for them.

Soon we will have a one-world government and, as newly-appointed global vehicle czar, you will be able to dictate which car type each family can buy. Until then, we need companies to make EVs people WANT to buy.

it’s ok, it’s the “market”, I understand and accept that. But I’m not going to buy any SUV, ICE or BEV. So, if makers don’t give me alternatives, because they want take my money for an expensive car that I don’t need, I’ll buy an ICE again and wait until the market offers me something that interests me.

“Why makers choose a SUV, and then they must to put in them more kg of expensive and heavy batteries…”

If Joe Average is in the market for a pickup, or Jill Average is in the market for an SUV, then offering them a hundred or a thousand different models of subcompact or micro-car EVs probably won’t change their buying decision.

But if you offered an EV pickup or SUV or CUV… then maybe you’d attract a lot of them.

If the goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) as much as possible, then moving just one driver from a gasmobile SUV or pickup to an EV gasmobile or pickup will save several times as much GHGs as moving from an EV SUV to an EV subcompact. (If you doubt that, then do the math for yourself.)

Those who argue that EV makers shouldn’t offer light truck EVs are being counterproductive. Don’t let the perfect drive out the good, and don’t let “green” idealism trump practical ways to reduced GHGs.

Peak efficiency in a car is only sometimes, at certain speeds under certain conditions in perfectly maintained vehicles. Not even close to a power plant, the less-efficient being older and phased out as we speak. The most efficient gas plants are 65% efficient.

Enjoy your “clean” diesel, I’ll enjoy my dirty electric. By the way, ‘idling in traffic’ metric is never brought up in the great debate between ICE and electric footprint. Diesel emissions are highly cancerous, that is a proven fact. Where does that fall on your importance scale?

(And thanks for giving me my laugh for the day)

efficiency is more important on electric car it affect greatly the range (or lack of).
until electric car can go 600 miles plus, efficiency will be very important

By the time EVs can go near that distances there will be probably be restrictions on how much electricity EVs are allowed to consume. (Same as with CO2 emissions)

But 600 miles is silly. No-one will gun for that sort of range. Reaching ~400 (or maybe before), manufacturers will most likely stop increasing range and will instead absorb battery developments to decrease weight/size, cost and sale price for their cars.

If EV’s displace gas, and they have to, the energy needed would be suppled by the surplus of electricity on the market that won’t go into an oil refinery, which uses huge amounts of electric energy to crack crude into a usable product.

Doesn’t most energy used to crack hydrocarbons come from gas and hydrocarbons themselves. I’m pretty sure they don’t use electric heaters to do so, it would be extremely inefficient – for the same reason most people have gas heaters/boilers/furnaces.

But that just gets into a form of opportunity cost, which is complex because the chemistry of refinery products is complex. You can’t say clearly how much those hydrocarbon fractions produced in the refinery are recycled into other operations, or what would have happened to them if the need for the particular operation of creating gasoline weren’t so great, because the refineries themselves are very flexible. But without that knowledge, you could argue that those fractions might as well have been used to make electricity for the local grid. You’re still producing CO2.

Yes, most of the energy to power the refining process comes from burning natural gas and fractional petroleum distillates which are waste products.

EV bashers aren’t the only ones with widespread myths. Unfortunately, EV advocates have them too.

Refineries do use a lot of electricity, but most of the energy for refining the average gallon of gas is heat energy, and it doesn’t come from electricity. On the other hand, burning that much fuel to refine a gallon of gasoline or diesel certainly does emit a lot of greenhouse gases! Emissions not counted by those counting only a gasmobile’s tailpipe emissions.

True – but about an extra gallon is burnt for every 6 or 7 gallons of petrol/gasoline/diesel you use in an ICEV. (Most of that is at the refinery, but some is used in exploration, extraction and transport).
Refineries do have large generating stations – the Grangemouth refinery complex in Scotland currently has a 130MW generating station (natural gas-fired).

Current isn’t used for that refinery current is pumps and fans.

Agreed (Partially).

Most ICE vehicles don’t do much more than 400 miles on a single tank (if they even do that). Smaller, lighter batteries will make more sense for most people once that range is hit.

On the other hand some manufacturers will still increase range over that though, just as some vehicles already have larger tanks to allow for extended ranges (pickups, SUV’s, Vans etc.). They’ll probably max out at around 600-700 miles before size/weight becomes more important.

sorry, I really meant 600 KM

480km seems close enough for jazz.

The EPA range is calculated at 65 mph AFAIK. When going much faster on a highway, and accounting for other factors (weather, reserve, charging station availability, not charging to 100% to save time), in practice you probably need 600 miles EPA range to be able to do ~250 mile stretches between stops in all circumstances. So I do think ranges in high-end EVs will keep going up for quite some time still.

EPA highway range is calculated at an average of 48mph, with a peak at 53mph.

WLTP “Extra High” cycle is about 12 minutes of cruising at 70 – 75 mph, from a standing start, with a major slow-down mid-cycle, before returning to 70-75.

Wow. LOL. So now we’re up to 600 miles, just two years ago the moving goal-post was 200 miles. And then Tesla built a national charging infrastructure, where they can stop and get an 80% battery charge in 30 minutes.

The Goal has been achieved.
600 miles is a non-issue in a Tesla.

Well, it still depends on where you are driving to and from. Some places in the USA are still 450 miles from the nearest Supercharger. There are still only 5 coast-to-coast routes.
It’s still an issue, but for most people, most of the time, it’s not an issue.
At the moment, ICEV range is never an issue in the lower 48.

600 miles is stupid. It costs a lot on space, mass, efficiency, pollution and of course on the car price and even insurance.

I would easily settle for a car with a lot less range but that charge 200 highway miles in 10 minutes (actually maybe even less miles). Who absolutely needs more ?

They can go 600 miles right now. Just like my ICEV with a 290-mile tank can.

Will they? I suspect not. They will be too expensive since you’ll need a big battery for a decent range. I suspect SUVs will be PHEVs.

The Model X was able to create a kinda SUV with great aerodynamics.

Some SUVs already are PHEVs. Range Rover Sport, for example.

The big air-grabbing grill looks like it’s a massive wind-catcher. The recessed edge looks like it’s likely the culprit of the inefficiency. Strange that Jaguar didn’t appear to run the car through the wind-tunnel in order to get the abysmal efficiency number lowered.

Jaguar places very high priority on style of the vehicle, so did not pursue lower Cd as aggressively.

BMW and MB make the same mistake, of putting a “branding” exercise in their grill shape, causing a huge loss of efficiency across the whole brand.

Only Porsche stays true to performance and efficiency with real aerodynamic design. But, than again your cheapest Porsche leases for $1100 a month. A Cayman with a modest amount of options to match a BMW i3 is in the $79,000 range.

They seem to have blown it. The EQC concept front was smooth curved and looked efficient. Production has a xxxxing grill on a rock slab front.

The front grill has a duct that comes out the bonnet and effectively acts as an S-duct. It’s not as bad as it looks but it’s still far from ideal when it comes to frontal surface area.

At what speed is this duct “tuned” for?
I’d think at a speed higher than the “tuned” speed it’s just extra drag.

I think this sort of duct came out of auto racing, where LeMans-type closed racers use them to produce extra drag on purpose to help hold down the front end of the car.

I-Pace was in the wind tunnel… As for the bit air grabbing grill… Watch this video at 7:00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQHpqjee2Io

Yes, very cool. We were provided plenty of information about the I-Pace’s wind tunnel testing, aerodynamics, drag coefficient, triple cooling system, and duct/grille system.

Steven I think you just nailed it… Triple cooling, the main reason I-Pace does not overheat on tracks, but running all that air through the heat exchangers adds drag without question. Jaguar also keeps the battery and other components in a tighter temperature range then other OEM’s, this also increases energy consumption, but benefits the battery long term.

It’s really all about what you’re looking for and what you can afford. Most people can’t afford a Tesla or an I-Pace. For those who can, they need to look at their priorities and make a decision that best fits their lifestyle. The I-Pace is surely capable, but won’t likely be as efficient. Still, it has a very viable range. Depending on where you live and how soon you plan to buy an EV, the Supercharger network will surely help those that plan to buy a Tesla and use it for road trips. Electrify America is coming along and will help those that buy an I-Pace or even a Taycan down the road. Again, there are many EV owners that charge primarily at home and don’t use the vehicles for frequent road-tripping. There’s also the issue of how much passenger space you require. Large families that drive a minivan and need the extra seats will need to go with a Model X. Cargo space needs to be considered as well. There are just so many decisions that are specific to the individual. In the end, we now have another compelling (up-market) EV that will soon become available, albeit in smaller… Read more »

Agree with you.., 100%, as I have said multiple times… Does not mean I agree with the data in this article… I will tell you tomorrow if I find any anomaly in range with the I-Pace, I am planning to stretch its legs in the real world.

Jean-Baptiste Labelle

This is not a matter of agreement. The journalist posted his finding on road consumption. Those are matched by all videos on the subject showing similar consumption at those speeds.
Do you think it is just a big global consipracy against the i-Pace?

David, trying to contact you on various message boards. Could you drop me an email, please?
evia dot gordonl at a well-known mail service from Google.

I couldn’t agree with you more, Steven. Jaguar seem to have put more emphasis on air for cooling, and on controlling lift than on outright slipperiness. They’ve also produced an SUV, so it has more ‘sail area’ than other designs. They’ve spent more time and attention on removing wind noise than others (and the official government dB ratings confirm it’s quieter). This again could be at the expense of outright elimination of drag.

These are legitimate design choices, and manufacturers exercising different design choices is what gives genuine choice to the market, which in turn will help grow the market.
People don’t want to buy one brand of battery EV any more than people want to buy one brand of diesel ICEV.

More diversity of brands, and models, and design thinking should be a good thing for the move from fossil-fuelled cars to ultra-low emission vehicles.

It’s key that we recognise that the enemy is fossil-fuel emissions, not other EVs!

Drag coefficient of 0.29 on an SUV isn’t all that bad. I don’t think that grill is responsible for a significant amount of drag. That’s an easy candidate for modification if that were the case.

Finally a reasonable post…. 0.29 is the same drag as a base model Corvette, Z06, and ZR1 are much worse due to wide tires, and massive heat exchangers

Cd doesn’t tell you enough. You need frontal area. Things like the Jag’s grill, and ordinarily large SUV front footprint are range losers.

The grill doesn’t affect the frontal area.

drag coefficient for I- Pace is 0.29. Model s and x are about 0.24 and slightly lower again for model 3

model 3 is 0.23

Doesn’t really matter as without cross-sectional area CD doesn’t mean much.

Frontal area will clearly be worse for a vehicle like an i-Pace or Model X. This is the inherent aerodynamic drawback of SUVs and CUVs. A car that’s over 60 inches tall is going to have over 33% more frontal area than a car that’s 45 inches tall.

Exactly!

41.6 kWh/100 miles =

kilometer per kilowatt hour 3.87 km/kWh
kilowatt hour per 100 kilometers 25.85 kWh/100km
kilowatt hour per 100 miles 41.6 kWh/100mi
kilowatt hour per kilometer 0.26 kWh/km
kilowatt hour per mile 0.42 kWh/mi
mile per kilowatt hour 2.4 mi/kWh
miles per gallon gasoline equivalent 81.02 MPGe

https://www.aqua-calc.com/one-to-all/electric-car-energy-economy

Yep, pretty damn bad….but then again, Jag was never known for efficiency anyway and its demographics could not care less about saving money on fuel.

Only in that the efficiency defines maximum range, is this important to a Jag buyer.

Who buys a Jag for efficiency anyway? It certainly isn’t a bad car and the more EV choices we have the merrier.

Okay, who buys an EV for efficiency anyway? It should be a basic obligation of EVs to be as efficient as possible. Sure a Model X is less efficient that a Model S, but at least it is efficient for its class.

Merely building an EV doesn’t mean an automaker gets a pass on making it as efficient as possible.

It should be a basic obligation of all gas cars to be as efficient as possible since they are mobile gas pollutant generators and pollution distributors. But they are not. They are built to just meet the regulations and customer demand. Regulations need to continue to get tighter instead of being rolled back.

The Hybrid concept has been proven for 20 Years.
Yes, All cars, at a minimum should be now Hybrid or not allowed to be sold.
Capitalism doesn’t work for externalities.
The market doesn’t work for the benefit of the nation, the environment or the economy without smart government regulation.

So you’re saying Bollinger shouldn’t exist?

Thank you!

Energy efficiency is important, but it’s not everything; it may not even be the most important thing, depending on the intended purpose of the vehicle. The Bollinger B1 is a perfect example of why energy efficiency might be a secondary consideration.

Bollinger are using carbon fibre parts specifically to address efficiency concerns. Aerodynamics isn’t the only place to improve efficiency. Weight, power train, charging, all play a role.

We should outlaw all vehicles other than bikes, the most efficient vehicle known to man. Decreed and done!

That is for folks buying an EV because they are on a mission… I am buying I-Pace because it is a nice car and very capable… Is that illegal?

BTW, unplugged, Model X is no award winner in real world range tests… Bjorn gives the X90D 190 miles real world range, and it does not offer the performance of the I-Pace…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5MHeBsOPno&t=25s

Your ability to work an insult against Tesla into every moment of your waking existence is why people suspect that you are not merely interested in the truth and automatically downvote you. It’s like someone talking about crime issues who keeps saying all he cares about is truth, but then only repeats and cherry-picks data about those criminals who happen to be Black, and never about, say, police killings of unarmed Black people or killings by White terrorists. Obviously such people are not really interested in either crime, or truth.

Nailed it, +1000

I am ok if you automatically downvote me… I feel secure in myself, do not come here looking for approval, obviously…

You come here looking for negative attention. That’s just another form of neediness.

Jean-Baptiste Labelle

You don’t. Or you would not bring in every discussion the Model X which is MUUUUUUCH bigger car than the i-Pace.
What about the Model III instead?

The X is a pig. The 3 is amazingly efficient for its level of performance. X90D is even older and less efficient than current production X which is no star in that department.

I leased the i3 with efficiency in mind. With a 3 year lease, 6 of my lease payments will be paid for with fuel savings. Now, you just can’t do than in an X3 or X2.

Exactly… I do not care if it is the most efficient car on the road, I am buying I-Pace because it is a heck of a nice car, and very capable… If it is a bit more thirsty then Ideal, that is fine… Just hoping it can make a 200 mile trip.

It 9s quite obvious you care nothing about efficiency and by extension range and recharge times.

Jean-Baptiste Labelle

It can’t. At 130km/h, range is 280-300km, at normal temperature. So if you want to arrive with 10%, it means 250-270km. Add winter time, luggage, rain, wind and you are below that.
So now, does not count on the 200 miles except in perfect conditions.

I like that there is more EV choices but I think it’s seriously disappointing. An more efficient EV needs less kWh for the same range meaning more space, less mass and better driving performances and pleasure. I think Jaguar buyers may be interested in these.

No jaguar vehicle is best in class for efficiency… I think Jaguars customers could care less.

I have an old Volt. I’ve gone 45 miles on 10.3 kWh – with 12.5 kWh added prior to trip which shows EV charging losses. That’s about 24 kWh used per 100 miles.

To be fair, that is your individual driving cycle and you are comparing it to someone else’s driving cycle on a different car. Considering you are posting on an EV news site and drive a PHEV – we can probably deduce you drive more efficiently than the standard North American driver…

The 2014 Volt is rated for 38 miles with 16.5 kwh battery – so roughly 43 kwh for 100 miles for everyday drivers…if we assume this Ipace reviewer drives like the “standard North American driver” at 41.6 kwh per 100 miles according to the same standard – the Ipace is actually quite the improvement to the Volt….

I say improvement, because even though the volt edges out by 1.4kw for the same distance – it weighs roughly 1000lbs less than the ipace, and has a smaller frontal drag area of .622m^2 vs the .696m^2 on the ipace…. with those two differences factored in, the ipace is a significant improvement in efficiency compared to the 2014 volt….

Your math is correct, but the Volt doesn’t use the entire battery. Only between 10.5 to 11 kwh. At the high end of usage it is roughly 29 kwh for 100 miles.

Thank you for being an early adaptor, or, those late to the party wouldn’t have anything to buy. Thank you for your Patriotism.
True Energy Independence with Local Power equals: MAGA.

Comparing EPA to non-EPA numbers on a pre-production car? OK…

Hmm, you guys have resorted to writing hit pieces that do not have any valid supporting data? You are comparing a Wired writers results on trip where he says in the article that he was not gentle with the throttle, and had the “A/C blasting”, to the EPA results for a Model S? Now it does seem like the I-Pace has more consumption then the Tesla Model S, but it is still running Beta software, this might be why most manufactures keep journalists away from their cars that are under development, as they are afraid of headlines like this one that are made without having background data and like comparisons. I think you should have waited for final software, and EPA test number to write this article, as using Model X EPA data vs a Wired writers data is not only apples vs oranges, its apples vs bananas. And for the record, when I drove a friends Model 3 from my house to our cabin which is 98 miles away, and back, we did not make it and had to stop to charge, which puts Model 3’s real world range under 200 miles (the trip was at 75-85MPH and over… Read more »

We haven’t resorted to anything. We would have done the exact same thing if it was an article about Tesla. Then, we would have taken all sorts of punishment all day long for claiming that there is an issue with a Tesla vehicle. We have reported raving reviews about the I-Pace. I personally have talked repeatedly about my love for the car. In doing that, many people have attacked me since it’s not a Tesla. Of course, we will share some stories about the I-Pace that might not be super positive. Each reviewer is different.

We have been aware for some time that the I-Pace isn’t as efficient as we expected it to be. There’s no doubt that we will be writing an article when the EPA numbers come out, just like we do with every other car. We also run stories about every other car when reviews discover things ahead of the EPA. It’s all a process. I will tell you that I-Pace articles are sadly not hit pieces. They don’t get many eyeballs, good or bad.

My issue with this article has nothing to do with I-Pace consumption, it has to do with a completely unrelated comparison of data points. When you publish an article that has wide varied data points, but tries to make them seem related, its just not valid data that will lead to conclusions that may or may not be valid. As I said, if you want to make EPA comparisons, wait for the EPA data on the I-Pace, If you want to compare real world comparisons lets compare my Model 3 experience to the I-Pace story in Wired, as they are similar in many ways (C & D also did a model 3 range test that came out well below the EPA rating). Moral of the story is that you should make every effort to get comparable data points when trying to form a conclusion, otherwise the conclusion has no merit. I think range is really the most important factor in an EV, and it actually seems the I-Pace is pretty close to the Tesla Model X P 90D, also Tested by Bjorn Nyland. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5MHeBsOPno&t

Bjorn made the point in his review that the first Tesla Model P80D had very poor efficiency at first and it was solved by an Ota update. Wit these new EVs, what is initially an issue can be solved with software fix, like Tesla did with Model 3 braking issue.

Wtch the above video where Bjorn says the X 90D has 190 Mile real world range… Sounds about like I-Pace…

The 7 seat X 90D weighs about 600 lbs. more than the smaller 5 seat iPace. Having the same range and consumption per mile is not a good thing.

True, but the I-Pace will beat that Tesla in a drag race, or on the track, or off roading… The I-Pace has higher capabilities performance wise, hence the higher consumption.

“…the I-Pace will beat that Tesla… on the track…”

And my dad can beat up your dad.

<>

Could be true, but is likely unfair – your Dad is a lot younger than his 🙂

I-pace has a tiny back seat. Can we trust Bjorn on that, or should we wait for EPA’s video? I’d be worried about fitting my teenagers in there.

“Bjorn says the X 90D has 190 Mile real world range… Sounds about like I-Pace…”

A real-world highway range ~190 miles, perhaps. Certainly not a mere 190 miles in mixed city/highway driving.

But if you are arguing that the smaller, lighter 5-seater I-Pace has not much worse energy efficiency than the larger, heavier 7-seat Model X… okay. You’re just confirming that the I-Pace’s energy efficiency is appreciably inferior to Tesla’s.

But overall, I think the I-Pace is an exceptional BEV.

I think the I-Pace is a good enough car to stand on its own. Perhaps not quite as good overall as a Tesla, but still a superior EV.

Too bad that you, Mr. “Green”, feel a compulsion to twist facts and offer half-truths and complete untruths in comparisons between the I-Pace and Tesla cars. If your objective is to promote the I-Pace, then your approach is sabotaging your efforts, to say the least!

Did you watch the video, Bjorn did a mix of driving, and very little at true freeway speed, because of all the detours, and traffic

A few weeks ago you were complaining about not enough Jag articles on here. Now that the car turns out not to be perfect (shocking since it’s their first ev) you are all up in arms and desperately trying to divert discussion to Tesla again. What a tool!

Ridiculous statement, “hit pieces” by InsideEVs which is the leading EV website in the world?

What is obvious is the agenda of certain posters here in denigrating Tesla in every way possible and sometimes likewise trying to boost all possible EV competition of Tesla as a tactic.

In fact Tesla and all compelling EVs (which the I-Pace certainly is despite its lower efficiency) real competition is the LICE vehicles.

Hit piece is my way of saying inaccurate data comparison, which I explained in my post…

Sorry David… Your words imply a ‘bad motivation’. Sadly we live in a moments where journalistic reporting standards do not apply to all media types (blogs, YouTube sites).

It does raise a fair set of questions for the blog site:

1) Does InsideEVs have an obligation to review stories they reference / repost for accuracy?
2) When does reposting / referencing an article that is inaccurate damage the reputation of InsideEVs?
3) Can you mention the reference article and add disclaimers for portions of the content you disavow (to provide additional clarity)?

InsideEV, has great knowledge about these EV’s and EV range or consumption in general… This story could be published by mainstream media, and I would have no problem with it. With InsideEV’s I expect a bit more integrity, and when you paint the Jaguar out to be so bad, your point of measurement data needs to be a bit more realistic, then having a reporter from Wired who says clearly it was a very hot day, and he pushed the car hard, to take that data and compare it to EPA test data from another car is just silly, and Domenick knows it…

The reason you’re complaining, Mr. “Green”, isn’t because of any editorial slant by InsideEVs. You just don’t like the facts they are reporting, because they don’t fit your propaganda agenda.

Hit piece implies that InsideEVs wishes to harm Jaguar. You’re the only guy around here who wants to harm a company that makes EVs. Your entire output seems to be more of a hit piece. Question is, what team are you really hitting for?

I took a trip in my friend’s iPace over a mountain pass the other day and we actually gained range! We started the trip out with 250 miles of range and when we arrived we had 300! The iPace is amazing!

Not too happy with the descriptive ‘hit pieces’. That implies there is a bad motive behind InsideEVs efforts and I don’t think that can be demonstrated.

Words matter.

Admittedly, I might have used the wrong words to describe this story. My understanding of what a Hit Piece is may be wrong. When I hear “hit piece” I feel its a piece that uses bad assumptions to create a false conclusion, intentionally. It has nothing to do with reader clicks…. I am sorry for using those words, now that I understand the real meaning. That being said I am disappointed in this story from a data standpoint and would be super interested to hear Domenick reply to my complaint…

Use your comments as an example of a hit piece.
Little substance, much conjecture, and incorrect conclusions.

Precisely.

While the I Pace numbers are not EPA, the comparison seems reasonably valid. If they drove the I Pace the same way they drove the M3 – which achieved EPA number – then it’s not unreasonable to assume the I Pace would have a similar EPA efficiency to the efficiency seen in that particular vehicle.

Not idea, but a useful indicator.

Data is only as accurate as the collection…. Garbage in-Garbage out. Saying a person drove 2 cars on the same route months apart, and using that for a data point is inaccurate . Anyone with even a tiny bit of EV experience knows this. Your data on a specific trip can change from day to day, based on many conditions. I-Pace is certainly not going to be as efficient as a Model 3, as it is heavier, wider, taller and less aerodynamic, but the question remains is the difference reasonable, or explainable?

“Hmm, you guys have resorted to writing hit pieces that do not have any valid supporting data?”

You’re describing almost every single one of your own posts, and definitely not this article.

It’s funny to watch you squirm, as *your* object of irrational admiration gets negative press for a change 😛

“”And for the record, when I drove a friends Model 3 from my house to our cabin which is 98 miles away, and back, we did not make it and had to stop to charge, which puts Model 3’s real world range under 200 miles (the trip was at 75-85MPH and over a mountain pass, but who is keeping track of the details?)”” Now we KNOW you are TROLLING. I just completed an 11,500 mile road trip in my Model 3 across the US. from East coast to the West coast. Drove to 20 National parks ( IE mountains) and from East Coast to West Coast, majority of my trip being Highway miles doing 80-85mph. I got 254Wh/mile for total energy consumption for the entire trip. Model 3 only needs 242Wh/mi to get the EPA rated 310 mile range, so I got barely less than that…. Driving way over the speed limit, not using the ugly ass aerocap covers on my wheels, using A/C the entire time seeing as I drove through mountains, the desert, and mid west during summer… I could literally drive 100mph on the highway and still get more than 200 miles of range in my Model… Read more »
Jean-Baptiste Labelle

Now, this is simply straight lies. Stop the trolling. 200 miles on the Model 3 is a consumption of 0,23kWh/km. No way you would consume that much on a Model 3.

efficiency is important for multiple reasons. For the most part, just driving electric is enough to get environmental kudos. But the biggest issue for most new electric car buyers is range and charging rate. And inefficiency directly negatively impacts these. This is the number one reason we should all be caring about the efficiency of every electric car.

Bjorn Neyland made the point in his review that the first Tesla’s had lower efficiency and it was fixed by an OTA update. It is to be seen whether Jaguar will be as aggressive fixing issues using software updates as Tesla has, but they certainly have the capability to do it.

Any details on the OTA update that helped?

I think it had to do with optimizing torque front to back.

AIUI, the reason Tesla was able to significantly improve efficiency of dual-motor models through software optimisation, goes back mostly to the fact that the induction motors have a fairly narrow window of optimal efficiency, and thus optimal power distribution between the two motors (with different gearing) is crucial. The I-Pace with permanent magnet motors probably has less room for such software optimisation…

Other than the inherent efficiency gain from going to electric vs ice, why would we expect a SUV shape to get better effiency? We are talking about a smallish SUV which would get 30 mph vs a aero sedan than would get 40 ish. The physics don’t change because it’s an ev. Wait until we get pickup trucks and they get even worse. Oh, that’s why they are not out yet, they need too big a battery to work at today’s costs.
This is why the tmX looks like a bloated sedan and not a Tahoe or suburban. IMHO cost limited the battery size and they had to make the aero drag low enough to get the range with a small battery.

That’s entirely correct — and it’s why articles like this one, reminding us of these realities, are important IMHO.

So why is “I” the nonclementure for Electric? Yesterday I was hearing something about the E-Pace and had to think twice about what it was. What’s up with this? Why is this a European thing?

Jags car, Jags naming. Does not need to make sense to anyone else.

The BMW i3 and the i8, and the Mitsu i-MiEV, have nothing to do with Jaguar nomenclature.

I think REXisKing has the right answer. It’s following the trend set by Apple, with the iPod, IPhone, etc.

Goes back to Apple and the iPhone.
i = Future.

It’s the I-Pace because Jag’s electric sports car is called the I-Type. The E-Pace is called as such it’s because the SUV is equivalent of the XE, and why the F-Pace is the SUV equivalent of the XF, and the coming J-Pace will be the SUV equivalent of the XJ. Makes sense?

“i” is for ilectricity…

The issue isn’t so much the aero, but the drivetrain. Running two large electric motors full time is not an efficient way to do things. The ideal arrangement is one large motor at the rear and one small one at the front. The larger motor is more efficient under load and during acceleration and then you switch over to the smaller motor which is more efficient at maintaining velocity. Jaguar seem’s to have foregone this option in order to achieve better 0-60 times. It’s not Jaguar’s fault though, they’ve only done this because it’s what the premium EV market seems to want, 1 dimensional cars for 1 dimensional people.

Judgemental much?

Or just turn off one motor till you need it

I don’t think it’s true that a larger electric motor is inherently less efficient. And it’s certainly not true that two identical-sized motors are optimal for 0-60 times.

It is obvious to anyone with half a brain that Jaguar chose not to let the wind tunnel dictate their design completely. They probably decided to maintain a number of Jaguar styling cues so that the I-Pace actually looks like a Jaguar. Yes, the aerodynamics are not the best, but the car has great driving performance and looks fantastic. We just need to wait for a much larger number of use cases to see what its efficiency actually is.

Actually, it has a drag coefficient (CD) of 0.29, making it the slipperiest Jaguar SUV ever built.

There hasn’t really been a 4-door that looks like a Jaguar since 2009.

Design cues from the C-X75!

There are only 2 items Jaguar can change with OTA updates. They are battery management and infotainment changes. As good as the car is, IMO that is the biggest and most notable weakness compared to Telsa’s ability to update almost every facet of performance, road handling, braking, auto pilot, navigation etc., as well as adding new options to their vehicles.

Who told you that?

The guy in the video bellow did a 276 km (170 miles) long highway trip with ACC set to 110 km/h (68 mi/h), finished with an average speed of 94 km/h (58 mi/h) and an average consumption of 218 wh/km (349 wh/mi)

https://youtu.be/wNw4pujdD78

Wow, that’s high. Under those conditions my RWD Model 3 would do about 220, maybe 230 wh/mi. Not an SUV though…

Compared to the M3 sure it’s a lot. But compared to for example Bjorn Nyland’s I-Pace consumption test: 275 wh/km (440 wh/mi) @ 90 km/h (56 mi/h) or his MX90D test (linked a few times in this comment section) it seems ok.

In this social media climate where blog / YouTube sites repost / reference articles from other establishments and then add supporting commentary, we need general guidelines as to how to do it effectively and maintain an appearance of quasi-journalistic standards.

YouTube Video – ‘An Apology & Corrections | Fully Charged’ – A special post was created to apologize because the original video was so full of errors, false statements, and bad commentary. Host acknowledged learning a hard lesson.

InsideEVs: Is there a way to publish stories from other sources with the necessary caveats / disclaimers to prevent being caught cosigning opinions being represented as facts (from the source article)?

Thanks again for the work that you do.

Im so glad that DC Fast Chargers are being put on I80 in Pennsavanlyia. Theres two location on my way to see family from Ohio

Thanks EA, now looking at a used Bolt EV for $31k. Wiggle it too $29k I hope. Yes the seat are uncomfortable on the test drive but I can deal with it

“Now, we don’t know why, exactly, efficiency is rated as kWh per 100 miles instead of the obviously-more-sensible miles per kWh”

Likely because they just multiplied from the kWh per 100 km, which is the SI common unit in every country in the world except you know where.

If only th jaguar was half the price , it would sell like hot cakes .

You could say that about most models of cars, I think. (I’m sure we can all think of certain exceptions.)

To be fair, the I-Pace is still quite energy efficient when compared to a gasmobile.

It’s true that Jaguar’s EV tech isn’t even as good as Tesla’s 2012 EV tech; the Model X uses the same powertrain as the Model S, which dates to 2012. But this is Jaguar’s first plug-in EV, so let’s cut them some slack. Tesla’s EV tech is appreciably superior to any other auto maker’s, so comparing Jaguar’s tech to Tesla’s is perhaps a bit unfair to Jaguar.

(On the other hand, since Jaguar does use a head-to-head comparison to the Model X in their advertising and publicity events… maybe the direct comparison is fair.)

Jaguar wins on the track… track performance might add to consumption… http://www.thedrive.com/news/23121/jaguar-i-pace-sets-a-laguna-seca-electric-car-lap-record

The Model X uses an all-wheel drive powertrain that dates to late 2014.

Bummer, this is right, efficiency is what matter if we want to get out of the rabbit hole of the growing overheating, poluting out of control mess that we are all diving blindly in.

But even here, in the so called well informed crowd calling EV the ultimate choice to make in order to avoid catastrophic armagedon, many ask for their gigantic SUV that can pull everything they can pile in there lifetime.

I say, they don’t get it. So yes efficiency matter, but many don’t care, and that’s a big problem.

But to your remark about metric, come on, the right metric is Kilometer/kWh or reverse it if you care to kWh/ kilometer.
Miles, miles, what’s that? An american relic, that’s it.

And what does that mean” That car is actually more than 200 pounds heavier than the I-Pace yet uses up only 33 kWh to travel 100 miles (according to the EPA). That’s 5 kWh every 100 miles, or 5,000 kWh over 100,000 miles.you refering to when you say only 5 kWh more per 100 miles”

What is 5 kWh every 100 miles for? Against?, more?, less? of wich other?

Gee…miles is so outdated.

That extra 5000 kwh is only $300. The real truth is most people don’t care about the extra cost. They don’t drive enough for it to matter. Even if we look at an average of 12000 miles per year, a higher effiency ev is 4 miles/kwh, that’s 3000 kWh a year, at the $.06 a kWh I pay that’s only $180 a year in fuel. If it doubles to $360 a year like it would for a big SUV, its effectively immaterial.

If ultimate effiency is the goal, then cars will have to get smaller, lighter, and lower to the ground. All of which go against what people are buying.

Thermal management.

Test was done in 100 deg heat. I know from personal experience with my Bolt here in Phoenix that temps over 100 really increase energy usage what will ac running full blast and battery conditioning. In the winter here I average over 4 miles per kWh and in summer 3 or less per kwh. So I would say you need to compare similar thermal conditions/load etc

Hmmm, that’s interesting. I have driven a couple of times @ 100F, with high humidity and I don’t recall battery conditioning drain being higher than 3%. HVAC also never went above 11%; so the overall “penalty” would be less than half o f what you observed. That said, my cooling setting is usually on 76F.

Mainly it’s the shape SUV sitting high! Wind drag coefficient. Just that simple! SUVs are going to get 50% penalty, pure and simple! Just like ICE cars! It’s physics!

Who cares if its 41.6 kWh per 100 km, because it’s also 1.0 breakdown per 1000 km, after all, it’s a jaguar, isn’t it?

“Now, we don’t know why, exactly, efficiency is rated as kWh per 100 miles instead of the obviously-more-sensible miles per kWh”

There is nothing “obviously more sensible” about it. Efficiency is traditionally given in miles per gallon in the US, and litres per 100 km in Europe. The former is easier for calculating range; the latter is easier for calculating costs. Neither is clearly superior.

Why do you not compare the I Pace EPA with Tesla EPAs, even in the first example the Model 3 did that test route on another day, when no doubt the temperatures wind direction were more favourable. You either have to test the cars alongside each other or use a lab test like EPA.

I-Pace EPA has yet to be released. We’re waiting on that data.

Summer/winter range is way more important than city/hwy or energy efficiency. Cold weather range loss is the most common criticism of EVs that I read in both newspaper articles and the accompanying comments section. People are reasonably afraid of winter range loss and there is no official range estimates to rely on.

Tesla continues to be the only company to fully “get” how to design good EVs.

What’s with that big grille on the i-Pace? Is that really necessary? Seems crazy to me.

You haven’t seen it upclose have you? 1. Branding 2. Provide cooling for batteries 3. The grill directs air toward the hood scoop over the roof and under the rear wing.

it’s all about aero when it comes to EVs as in fossil cars

“Still won’t deter most buyers” that’s what I was going to say. there may never have been a Jaguar owner to whom efficiency mattered — at least when it came to their vehicle.

Let’s start by throwing what the government measures and decrees for a car as they are either stupid or useless.
The distance and efficiency never align with reality and we need to set the standard we use.
I have now put over 4000 km on my new to me 2013 leaf. I have averaged 8.6km/kw for this distance.
So to compare to the hilariously expense Jaguar. 41.6kw/100miles. Multiply by 1.6 to get 41.6kw/160km then divide the 160/41.6 for 3.85km/kw…
That is really terrible!

Just wanted to note that while everyone is rating the Jaguar I-Pace for its’ general appeal, (and I would love to own one), they are at the same time, and quite rightly so, denigrating it for the 33% lack of range when compared to competitors, such as the Hyundai Kona and Chevrolet Bolt. 90kW Vs. 60kW for around 240 miles of range ! The main question is why the discrepancy ? And I have your answer ! I live in the U.K. and a colleague of mine actually worked as a design engineer on the I-Pace ! He noted that while the invertor drive electronics could obtain a respectable 97% efficiency, that the new axial motors designed by Jaguar fell far short of electrical power to torque conversion. While competitor motors could obtain a certain level of Torque for around 400Amps, the I-Pace motors required in excess of 500Amps ! Why ? Well in part it is due to cost and the reduction in use of rare earth magnets, plus the reluctance of the team involved in development to acknowledge that the economy could be vastly improved. I guess it was all down to targets in both motor cost and… Read more »