Here’s How Far The Jaguar I-Pace Can Go On Single Charge


The real driving range is marginally higher than the stated factory numbers

Even as the EV adoption rates are climbing and numerous legacy car makers either pushing to production or planning fully electric models, the range anxiety still seems to be the biggest deciding factor for new adopters. The upcoming Jaguar I-Pace is one of the most interesting EV models to hit the road this year. It features a rather impeccable exterior design, lavish interior, and impressive performance. But, how does it stake up with the range requirements? The crew at Top Gear Magazine decided to answer that question.

The test drive at hand is performed by Paul Horrell. This long-time automotive journalist has been at the helm of some of the world’s most interesting cars throughout the years. Let’s just say that putting new cars through their paces is what Paul is good at. Hence, when he was tasked with the range part of the I-Pace test drive, he had something interesting in mind. London to Land’s End on a charge – putting the I-Pace’s figures within the WLTP (Worldwide harmonized Light-vehicle Test Procedure) to the test.

The Jaguar I-Pace has an official WLTP range of 298 miles. The trip Top Gear was about to take is 291 miles. It features city driving, some back roads, motorways and a few stops necessitated by a real-world need for the driver to take a break. The trip is finished with some precarious accelerator pedal usage, braking as the last resort, slow in and slow out of every possible road scenario. The I-Pace manages to reach the southern tip of the British Isles with a single charge. However, there are some caveats to the whole situation.

The Jaguar I-Pace had to be charged once to ensure the vehicle wouldn’t be left stranded on the road. They’ve popped by a charger to add 10% to the battery, but the vehicle actually reached the finish line with 11% of its battery power remaining. That means 99 percent actually used. The crew attained the rated WLTP range. But only crawling along, denied heating, A/C, stereo, HUD, lane-assist, wipers, headlights. The actual driving range for any sane person not dwelling about the aforementioned driving modes will certainly be less.

Not bad for a large, chunky vehicle who’s range calculating software is still in beta. The new driving range test is more realistic than the old and we reckon it’s gonna raise a lot of dust in the EV industry in the forthcoming months. Largely because it still seems less accurate than EPA figures.

Source: Top Gear

Categories: Jaguar

Tags: , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

98 Comments on "Here’s How Far The Jaguar I-Pace Can Go On Single Charge"

newest oldest most voted

Yikes, 298 miles with a 90kw battery pack? Why so inefficient?

Do we know which tires it has? That could easily cause a hit of 10%.

It’s a heavy, AWD vehicle with a performance tilt to its design.

That’s the key. Most of makers are near to launch new EV’s and most of them are unefficient SUVs, so they must to carry lot of expensive batteries to balance the bad aerodinamyc, weight and huge tyres.

The Model X 90D does 257 miles……

Model X is a far bigger, far heavier vehicle. It is designed as a 3 row CUV/SUV, not a 2 row CUV. The I-Pace on the inside is about the same passenger space as a Model 3. In comparison to the Model 3, the I-Pace is about 40% less efficient. But note that in a Model 3, it is very easy to hit EPA range since it is downrated.

Also, the Model X 90 kWh pack has 82 kWh usable, the I-Pace has 85 kWh usable, so the I-Pace has less range with a bigger usable capacity. The I-Pace is about 6-9% less efficient than the 90 kWh Model X.

6-9% is about the same. Do we know which tires were tested on the IPace? It offers up to 22″, which are probably really inefficient.

Looks like it is the 20″ wheel option. So the same size wheels as the Model X.

It’s heavier and more suv then sports seden

My Model X is a 5 seater not a 3 row kiddy hauler. And yes it bigger, and heavier which is most likely why the smaller I-Pace can go up to 41 miles further on a 90 kWh pack. Also consider the fact that the I-Pace uses pouch cells, which are safer then Tesla’s cells, but the trade off for safety is they’re also a bit less energy dense.

Is that 257 miles using the same painful method?
Easy to throw any number if you don’t cite the test procedure.

257 is EPA range. If go by the Leaf’s ratings (151 EPA, 177 WLTP), then the Model X 90D probably gets around 293 miles WLTP.

And it’s a much bigger car than the iPace. 5 inches taller, 14 inches longer, third row of seats…

This does more

It’s worse that that, read the full article: 200 mile real world range.

“We have attained the rated range. But only by crawling along, denied heating, A/C, stereo, HUD, lane-assist, wipers, headlights. Real-driving range is below 200 miles, I reckon. This gap is not the fault of the I-Pace. It’s the fault of a new test that may be more realistic than the old, but still isn’t realistic enough. “

Sorry, but “I reckon” based on a single trip doesn’t seem like scientific results.

Doesn’t have to scientific. It’s obvious that real-world range in normal driving will be significantly lower. Other tests confirm this.

Poor aerodynamics, mostly.

(They *claim* it was necessary for good driving dynamics… Though I’m sure a good part simply comes down to making it look more like a “typical” SUV. For some reason people seem to like that look… Which personally I can’t really understand — but then again, a surprising number of people seem to like bulldogs; so I guess it follows that many people would like cars that look like a bulldog…)

Exciting times for EV cars!

Too bad it can’t use the Supercharging network. Without that, I wouldn’t drop Tesla cash for a city-only car..

Depends on the country you live in, I guess. It’s certainly true here in the US.

Not true. If I want to travel long distance and have Jaguar and Porches type money then I’m flying

I own a used Tesla, but can’t afford to fly everywhere. And I like driving, as do many other folks. In fact, low-stress long distance driving trips are some of the most enjoyable times in my car. Why would I want to buy a vehicle that didn’t have that option?

Well obviously the vehicle is not for you. But for someone buying a new I Pace in the UK, where you can drive halfway across the country on a single charge, it may well be a good option.

I agree though. The lack of charging options and lack of range means I wouldn’t buy an I Pace either. But then the current crop of Teslas are no better as the supercharger network is not practical for the long distance driving I do. Different strokes for different folks, but I can still see why people would buy an I Pace (and why a Tesla would be better for some people).

On the most direct route, Plugshare has 230 chargers between London and Land’s End. Even assuming the majority of those are in London itself, I don’t think there would be any issue with charging along the route.

How many of those can charge > 100 kW?

In the time it takes the driver to walk to the service station, have a number two and walk back. A 50kw would add enough range. The driver most likely stopped twice.
The I-pace can take 100kw which is being deployed……. And unlike superchargers can be used by and car made to take it.

Why would it matter how many chargers can do >100 kW, when the car can’t even do 100?…

Tech, any charger/BEV combo that can reach 75 kW charge rate means that you can get approximately 85 miles of additional AER in 20 minutes, 130 miles in 30.
Going further? Charge a little longer. Will 75 kW work for everyone? No. But it doesn’t have to. People don’t roadtrip that often and a 30 minute break after 3 hours of driving isn’t a problem, it is an opportunity to stretch.
Will 150 kW charge rates be better than 75 kW chargers when the faster ones show up? Yes, but they aren’t really needed in the first couple of years of BEV adoption.
Ubiquitous, reliable 75 kW chargers are better than rare as hens teeth 150 kW chargers.

Over here, Fastned is already installing 175 kW CCS chargers which the I-Pace can use.

I think the I-Pace only accepts 50kW for now though, with a promise to upgrade to 100kW in the future according to their webpage, but maybe I’m missing something.

That sounds like a rather large city.


Not the size of the city, it’s the area that it can be used. If you can’t realistically road-trip it, what area is left to drive it?

That is the range of the iPace and the green dots are chargers 50kW and faster.

Nice map! And as a rebuttal it worked pretty well too. 😉
But can we get one with London as the center?

That would work if I lived in Europe, but I live in the United States. Here’s our CCS options:

Click on the Supercharger button and then remove the Superchargers and you will see the huge difference in travel-ability between CCS and Superchargers in the United States. I’d also like to add that Teslas can use BOTH the Supercharging network and DC network, but the reverse isn’t true. So the options for Teslas is actually way beyond their own network. Plus all the level 2’s are open to Teslas, although now there are J1772 to Tesla adapters for the reverse.

Cool map, thanks for sharing! Have a great day.

No. Teslas can’t use the chargers on the map I posted. Those are CCS chargers.

Tesla can only use Chademo, not CCS. At the EA locations, There are up to 10 CCS chargers, at 150kW, 175kW and 350kW. Each site has a single 50kW Chademo, for Teslas to share with Leafs.

Thats strange, people have managed to use the Bolt EV to drive all the way up and down the west coast of the United States…
Bolt EV has some of the worst tapering of any EV on the market today, with power level dropping at 65% SoC. Also, most of the CCS chargers along the route are 24kW CCS-only units.
If a Bolt EV can make good time charging on only CCS units, I am sure a Jaguar I-Pace, Hyundai Kona EV, KIA Niro EV, or any of the other CCS EV’s coming onto the market should easily handle the job. And don’t forget the Electrify America network as well…

The Bolt EV does not make good time traveling with repeated DC charging. It’s over an hour for charging to 80%. That’s not good.

The Bolt does better stopping a bit more frequently, charging to just 70% eliminates a lot of the slow charging due to the aggressive tapering. If you charge from 10-70%, it still gets 150 miles of additional AER or 2 hours of highway speed driving in a relatively short period of time. Waiting for the pack to charge from 70 to 80% is penny wise and pound foolish.

I think he meant waiting for 9 free charging Maven Bolts, Leafs, i3 at 2 handle CCS site before even being able to plug in. Sure, one can get lucky few times and not wait so much, but you will wait with repeated DC charging. Maybe I have bad luck, but whenever I stop at DCFC (charge or to observe if I’d wait), there’s ALWAYS waiting at least one.

The Kona is way, way more efficient than the I-Pace…

(The I-Pace should be much easier to buy, though.)

Correlation is NOT Causation.

“[WLTP] still seems less accurate than EPA figures.”
When you are LESS accurate than the EPA test cycle, it’s time to revamp your test procedures.

They did! WLTP is a revamped NEDC. Still too optimistic it seems…

From London to Lands end it is all the way up hill.

hmm… it does end up near the same elevation at the end.

If true, this is a more astute observation. Ending up at the same elevation means there were enough downhill stints to equalize the result.

London is just above sea level. Lands End is also just above sea level, as both are on the coast (one east, one west). The highest point will be around 300-400 meters in Devon, depending on which route you take!

The driver set the maximum speed to 47 mph and they still barely hit WLTP rated range? I used to think they might have been sandbagging the EPA range at originally 220 miles and now 240 miles, but I think not. At 240 miles, that’s 354 Wh/mile versus 319 Wh/mile in a Model X 75D. And just think… the Audi E-tron is shaping up to be even worse.

The model X at highway speeds will be above 350 Wh/mile. The EPA numbers are roughly accurate for 65mph but if you drive faster than that, you’ll need to factor a pretty sharp drop off.

Also, the two cars likely have different usable kWh %. So, even if they have the same battery sizes, the Jaguar might be more conservative in its buffers. So, it is not a matter of efficiency.

The actuals may also differ. The BMW i3 is notorious in having more kWh than advertised. The 33kWh is supposed to have a 114mile range with 27kwh usable but most people get 125 miles out of it. Upon closer inspection, it was shown to have 30 kWh available, which is more than the EPA disclosure. The cultures of many of these companies differ. Some give the most optimistic numbers, while others hold back.

Of course a different driving profile will have different results. The EPA testing regimen is known.

The Model X 90 kWh has 82 kWh available. The I-Pace has 85 kWh available. So the I-Pace has less range with a bigger usable capacity. And it is substantially smaller and lighter than the Model X.

The most important scenario for range is highway cruising. So 70-80 mph, how far can the BEV travel? Given the results at low speeds, that doesn’t foreshadow a good result for higher speeds.

I’m not sure what you’re asking. The EPA numbers for ALL vehicles is pretty accurate at 65mph and about 75 degrees outside. If you’re going faster or if the weather is bad, the numbers for both vehicles will go down quite rapidly. Here are some charts for the Bolt and if you scroll down, for the Tesla model S. The Model S 60 is EPA rated at 208miles, which is pretty accurate at the speed limit. If you drive at 80, same car will give you 125miles.

I’m not sure what you’re asking. The EPA numbers for ALL vehicles is pretty accurate at 65mph and about 75 degrees outside. If you’re going faster or if the weather is bad, the numbers for both vehicles will go down quite rapidly. Here are some charts for the Bolt and if you scroll down, for the Tesla model S. The Model S 60 is EPA rated at 208miles, which is pretty accurate at the speed limit. If you drive at 80, same car will give you 125miles.

In france, they have made a test on highway at 75mph, range 160miles

That is bad!

1. “But only crawling along, denied heating, A/C, stereo, HUD, lane-assist, wipers, headlights.” Not quite hypermiling, but close. Hmm. But of those things, speed and heating are the worst offenders. No EV ever conked out by running the wipers.

2. When will this car ever get to the US?

Yes. Those people have no idea of anything.

Officially, it is supposed to come to the US later this year as a 2019 model year. At least, that’s what I have heard/read.

Not quite hypermiling? In what way? They even asked the Jaguar representative what the most efficient speed is…

Seems like pretty good results. I would ignore all the drama. Top Gear is known to story-board ahead of time their intended level of drama needed to keep their audience happy.

The reality is that they just proved that if you are not stupid and actually charge like a rational person before getting to a point of fabricating drama where no drama is needed, this is a fine vehicle for long range travel

“this is a fine vehicle for long range travel”
Eventually, yes. but right now the i-Pace has no fast charging infrastructure and under 300 mile range. Currently this little piggy is not ready to go to market.
LAST YEAR I traveled 30,000 miles and never took more than an hour to charge on a trip. I also never waited for a charge; always had something else to do close to the charger. Most hotels, many wineries, some theaters and all national parks have destination chargers – all TESLA. Not to mention Superchargers are every 150 miles along all major US highways.

The average American drives 12000 a year and that is way more than the global average. You’re clearly DOA putting in 30,000, but the car should be fine for most people.

DOA — Yes, I-PAce buyers will be much in the same situation as the original Tesla Model S buyers when it first came out, while Tesla was still building out their Supercharger network. It will take a while for them to catch up. The car itself is fine though.

Unlike Superchargers, Tesla destination chargers can be used by others vehicles through an adapter.

There’s a lot more of chargers plus with that price point and like porche drivers they will be flying on long distances

I am always baffled by Tesla owners who criticize the lack of chargers. Even though it was the same argument the anti-EV people were using against Tesla just a few years ago.

@VANJA KLJAIC: A whole article to show us that WLTP range is not realistic, really ?
As I have read it many times here, this is a well known fact.

I have personally started to use EPA range only since I started reading EV news on US sites.
WLTP is a little improvement over NEDC, so I am ignoring it too.

It is a shame there is no international and realistic standard.

They just have different profiles! If you do a lot of city driving then WLTP is “better”. Gas cars suck at city driving so I guess WLTP will be harder for them.

According to the article, city driving was actually worse than hyper-miling on the highway, and the WLTP range thus unattainable…

EPA is not “more accurate”. EPA and WLTP just have emphasis on slightly different profiles. WLTP will be harder for gas cars.

Maybe not more accurate but the EPA is definitely more useful.

These types of range tests make me yawn. So many factors can sway the results. Plus, hypermiling is never going to give anywhere near real world results. Who shuts off all HVAC and other commonly always on features and crawls along at 10 mph to maximize range? Only those obsessed in creating a number that creates some sort of sensation. Something to write about, for instance. Range shootouts can be interesting. So many variables need to be honed to acquire any kind of significant results to compare. Standard tires offered by the manufacturer at recommended psi, Identical driving habits which would require swapping out drivers for a return run, etc..So few EVs exist on the market to compare, and with all the differences in charging formats and locations, only starting out with each participant having a full or equal charge makes sense. When I see these articles that some team set out to drive a Model S 795 miles, I just skip the read.. Big deal, if someone pumps up the tires and drives all night in optimum temperatures with no hills at 10 mph to get there! Controls? Hardly. I-Pace is a compact crossover by dimension and interior capacities.… Read more »

No this review was an eye opener.

“We have attained the rated range. But only by crawling along, denied heating, A/C, stereo, HUD, lane-assist, wipers, headlights. Real-driving range is below 200 miles, I reckon.”

Being the the market and comparing a Model 3 vs an i-Pace, it’s great to know the real world range. With a 90kw battery pack of the i-pace I would have expected similar range. The face the TM3 has 50% more real world range is good to know.

They are wildly different vehicles so differences can be noted, but they really aren’t competitors despite being similar in size. For starters, in classic Jaguar fashion, the I-Pace is a porker. It tips the scales at ~1,000lbs heavier than the Model 3. Combine that with AWD and a lot more power (394-hp versus 271) and you have a recipe for a very inefficient vehicle. People are going to buy the Jaguar because it is a style statement with an opulent interior. People are going to buy the Model 3 because it is affordable and practical.

“People are going to buy the Model 3 because it is affordable and practical.”

Lol. We’re talking about the $50k vehicle that doesn’t have a hatch, right?

While the car essentially has 298 miles (if I reading the story right), that doesn’t sound too bad for an 85 kwh (the real figure I guess) battery, and more like 230 if driven normally, I would think some of the loss is due to the all wheel drive system. Tesla gets away with it with careful choice of gear ratios front and back.

Some of their concerns are a bit silly, such as USB usage, or car stereo. It would be interesting to see another car take the identical route, to see how indeed uphill it is.

This range anxiety thing seems kinda silly now. No one is going to drop ~$50K on a Model 3, or even ~$30K on a Chevy Bolt who has only ONE family car. These aren’t cheap and I’m guessing that most households who can afford the BEVs currently on the market in the U.S. will still have an ICE in their driveway for long trips. Of course, most of them will rack up most of their mileage in their cheap-to-operate EVs, but the ICE will still be there to ease their “anxiety”.

Many field reports suggest that the $50,000 Model 3 is *perfectly fine* for long trips, and thus for an only family car.

(Then again, I guess not many families in the US actually only have one car?…)

We are a two car family. A volt and GMC Arcadia

So what does that make our family with 3.5 years on my S70D and 5.5 years on my Leaf? No one?
I dropped $80k on the S70D. It has 60k miles on it – so I drive significantly more than average.

A model 3LR with 340 mile range? I wouldn’t even need to supercharge. Since I am 3.5 years all electric, I have a pretty good idea of my road tripping range need. Most trips in NC are 250 miles or less one way. A Model 3 would eat that up and just rely on destination charging. And since skiing is not great, most trips are summer time – easy to hit rated range. My wife has done over EPA with just a 5 min talk on hypermiling.

I would suspect the average family around me exceeds the Model 3’s range less than 1 time per year. Then they can make the call to rent vs supercharge once or twice.

For those flabbergasted at the minimal range from a 90kWh battery pack, just look at the weight. That will answer all your questions.

Jaguar I-Pace AWD (90kWh): 4715lbs – 240 miles range
Tesla Model X 90D (90kWh): 5267lbs – 257 miles range
Tesla Model 3 Long-Range Dual Motor (75kWh): 3900lbs – 308 miles range

The I-Pace is suuuuuper heavy for a vehicle of its size. Combine that with monstrous wheel sizes and a powertrain clearly setup for performance (0-60 in 4.5 seconds) and the poor range seems pretty understandable. It is obvious that Jaguar was aiming for driving feel and style much more so than efficiency or practicality. In the end, that may not be to everyone’s tastes, but it is nice to start seeing some diversity in the EV space.

The Model X 90D has a smaller amount of usable capacity… 82 kWh. And it goes further. The I-Pace in this test had 20″ wheels, the same wheel size as the Model X 90D by default.

Yes, buyers might not care about the low efficiency.

True, but the Model X 90D was also a roughly 5.5-second 0-60mph car (with 417-hp). The I-Pace is a full second quicker with nearly the same horsepower, which reflects how Jaguar is using its powertrain. Basically, nothing about the I-Pace seems setup for efficiency. I’m not trying to give it a free pass, but performance cars have always been less efficient than their non-performance brethren. Responsiveness always has a penalty. Just look at the difference in range between a 100D and a P100D Tesla.

But the X90D is a Tesla, it is not a fair comparison. Wait till the Taycan or E-Tron comes out and then it might have something to compare favorably with.

Wow Jaguar I-PACE has gone on sale. Hope to see the # in August dashboard. But the dealers have not yet opened the sale.
Jaguar USA puts the range at 240 miles.

Blah, blah, blah, once you own an EV, you’ll realize that total range isn’t terribly important. 95% of all trips are 5-10 miles or commute. Not too many people commute 300 miles roundt trip. I own a BMW i3 And live very comfortably with my 130 mile range plus 80 mile range extender. I just went to see my kids and make a 500 mile round trip, stopping each way for 30 minutes. i charged my car, ate lunch and came back to a charged car ready to roll.

Please speak for yourself: I make plenty of 300 mile round trips in my Bolt ev and if it had a slightly bigger battery I wouldn’t have to worry about finding an interim public docking station. But the size is good enough so that it is not horribly inconvenient to stop, since even at a 4-6 kw charging rate, I don’t have to wait too long to get a few extra miles which is all I need.

You just assume that the way you drive is exactly the same way as anyone else drives. Which is the way many feel, but it is not everyone.

The subtitle makes no sense. If they got 291 miles with 99%, that’s a tick *less* than the stated 298 miles WLTP range.

More importantly, the test makes it clear that it’s not “real range” in any meaningful way. It’s a hyper-miling exercise. Real range is *significantly* lower.

They still have to develop the software. As we have already seen, software updates can bring important improvement in an EV’s performance or even safety.

If it can do 200 miles with no restrictions (A/C, stereo, HUD, lane-assist, wipers, headlights…) that’s ok for me, i never drive more than 200 miles without stopping.
I have a BMW 420d CG and i would only buy a Jaguar I-Pace if it cost the same, but unfourtunalty here in Portugal i can buy a 420d GC and a BMW 1 series for the price of one Jaguar I-Pace!
And the 7,1s 0-60 of my BMW 420d GC are more than enought!

The destination (Land’s End) is not the southmost point in the British Isles (that’s the Scilly Isles), or even on the British mainland (that’s The Lizard). Not that it matters. As you were.

You are right Rob. I think Lands End got its “westernmost” tag when people started to go to the beach in the summer time way back in the day. It was the westernmost part of mainland England, obviously Scotland (?) and Northern Ireland have parts that are further west but for just England… It was a way for that part of England to differentiate itself from all the other destinations. And it was one “end” of England for all those England end to end from Lands End to John o’Groats.

They at least gained three feet of range by turning off radio!!

“The real driving range is somewhat beyond the stated factory numbers”
“The Jaguar I-Pace has an official WLTP range of 298 miles. The trip Top Gear was about to take is 291 miles”
“That means 99 percent actually used”
This makes no sense to me, a real driving range somewhat beyond the factory numbers for me would be >300mi. To me it looks like the number is about spot on, I was expecting to see something a lot higher than 291mi.
And it also sounds like it was babied along. Sometimes these articles just feel like click bait and the actual content is quite contrary as you read the whole article.
On a positive note, i-Pace sounds like a solid performer. With Kona EV coming there are some really exciting opportunities for all budgets.

The official WLTP number is 480km (or 297.6 miles). Top Gear got 291miles on 99%, and so a 100% run is 294 miles.
Stated factory numbers are 234 miles for the EPA estimate, and 220-240 real world miles. I suspect that these are the numbers that Top Gear mean that got comfortably beyond.
Until we start getting the WLTP numbers for each of the four cycles individually, the WLTP figure is pretty useless. The WLTP “Extra High” cycle on its own is almost perfectly what we want – cruising at 70 to 73mph.

“WTLP still seems less accurate than EPA figures”.
Actually is just the opposite as the only real world comparison test shows.

Today is the 17 of September 2018 in Sydney Australia , ! am a 96 years professional engineer driving an electric car No 3 looking for a No 4. I am looking seriously to the specifications of the Jaguar I-PACE S .
All wheel drive with 2 electric motors and a range close to 500 km. with 90 KW battery . Why not extending the range in setting a switch eco drive , between the all wheel drive to give 2 wheels drive and 4 wheel drive , even the choice between front or rear wheel drive. I would not surprised if the car could achieve 700+ km range depending of topography .