Watch Jaguar I-Pace Get Driven 232 Miles On A Charge


Maybe the best range test yet.

A lot has been made of the range of the Jaguar I-Pace, or more appropriately, the lack thereof. We feel a lot of the negativity has to do with early expectations — original figures given offered what turns out to be an unrealistic 292 miles under the WLTP cycle. Now, Jaguar websites cite both 220 miles or 234 miles on different pages (previously, it had also cited 240 miles). However, a recent test by Autocar seemed to indicate the all-electric crossover might only get about 195 miles on a charge. Luckily, electric vehicle YouTuber Bjorn Nyland has conducted his own test and come up with a more comforting (and, hopefully, more realistic) range figure of 232 miles.

Nyland conducted his test in Norway, carefully filling up the battery for an extended period. Apparently, if you want an absolutely full-to-the-brim battery, it takes such a considerable amount of time we recommend only attempting that overnight at home rather than at a charging station. Here, Nyland waited about an hour and a half after it indicated it was a 100 percent full, and still only seemed to begin with 81.5 kWh, a little less than the 84.7 kWh Jaguar claims it will take.

Nyland also does us the courtesy of weighing his test vehicle, and we find it tips the scales at 2,320 kg (5,110 pounds). As he starts out, the temperature is about 15 degrees Celcius (59 F), though as the sun goes down, it drops down to about 8 C (46.4 F). He only turns on the heated steering wheel and seats to combat the chill and keep energy losses to a minimum.

Unlike the Autocar test, Nyland runs the I-Pace battery down until there’s just a couple percent left of its full capacity. Perhaps this helped achieve a more accurate result. In any case, the range distance he calculates at the end of the trip, during which he traveled at an average speed of about 90 kph (56 MPH), is 373 km (232 miles), with an efficiency of 214 Wh/km (344.4 Wh/mile).

If you can spare 21 minutes, we recommend watching the entire video, as Nyland gives interesting insights all the way through. We especially enjoyed the segment that shows how the trick climate control knobs work and how you can choose to heat either the back of the individual front seats, their bottoms, or both. Enjoy!

Video description:

Expected range at 90 km/h, 56 mph: 350 km, 217 mi with HVAC on Estimated available energy from 100-0 %: 81.5 kWh


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: YouTube

Categories: Jaguar, Videos

Tags: , , ,

Leave a Reply

49 Comments on "Watch Jaguar I-Pace Get Driven 232 Miles On A Charge"

newest oldest most voted

Well, this is a pretty terrible performance.
Both the TM3 and Bolt would rip this result apart.

I guess one buys the I-Pace for the appearance and performance, not the efficiency.

I would buy one for the ability to heat just the seat BACKS as claimed by the author – I don’t really care for a warm butt but would love a warm back 🙂
I do wish my Model 3 had this feature, and also a heated steering wheel – it’s cold up north 🙂

Also a luxurious capable and fast 4wheeler

Is that where all he electricity goes on the I-Pace, to the seat back heaters so that a massive 90kwh pack only takes it 232 miles?

Very nice looking crossover but pretty inefficient. Hopefully Jaguar improves this metric.

One is a sedan an the other a small hatchback while the i-Pace is a luxury CUV. You’re basically comparing a Toyota Corolla to a RAV4, who would expect the RAV4 to do better Than the Corolla when it comes to fuel efficiency?

1. The “luxuriousness” of the I-Pace should have no bearing on its range.
2. Since you probably haven’t seen a Bolt, let me help you visualize its size: it’s very similar to HRV, Trax or Soul. I describe it as microvan (short and tall). It’s 5-6″ taller than the usual hatchbacks like the Golf, Mazda3 or Accent, and it weighs 20% more as well
3. Also, the Bolt has a 60 kWh battery; the I-Pace battery’s declared capacity is 50% more.
4. To sum up: since the I-Pace is between the Bolt and the X 100D size-wise, its energy efficiency should also be somewhere between the two … let’s say 3.5 mi/kWh, which should result in 300-ish miles or range at 56 mph and in benign weather conditions w/o HVAC on. Since 232 miles is a lot (20%) less than 300, we conclude that …

… The I-Pace’s drive train is inefficient, QED, which means its claim to the “Tesla killer” status is ungrounded – just not good enough.

(take it from a non-Tesla person, who doesn’t even like their current lineup).

Jaguar I-Pace buyers don’t cross-shop Chevy Bolt. That’s like comparing buying an F-Pace or a Chevy Equinox.

90 kph is 56 mph, not 45. Still pretty slow for a long trip.

(⌐■_■) Trollnonymous

In most freeways here in CA it’s 30mph to a crawl.
But when opened up like I5, it’s 75mph+

Good catch, thanks for that. That makes a huge difference.

90 km/h is too slow… what’s the point of this test? You usually need range on long distance, not daily driving…

My brother lives in a remote place from big cities. There are several hundreds of kms where the speed limit is 90km/h. So it is a useful measure.

If you want to see the range at other speeds you can check Bjorn’s other videos, especially the one on “optimal driving speed for the i-pace”. You’ll see the consumption at 110km/h all the way to 190 I believe. Then calculate the range based on battery size.

At 110km/h he got 249wh/km in the i-Pace. So roughly 320km of range. At that speed my S75D can do around 390-400kms.

Well that’s not the case where I live. I mostly drive at 125 km/h or 135 km/h depending on legislation so that test is pointless to me.

Apparently 90 km/h is a reasonable average in Norway? Though not in most other parts of Europe, or North America…

“average” in America is slower Than that. There’re traffic jams where you live?

People going on longer trips will generally try to avoid traffic jams.

People not going on longer trips don’t really care about range beyond some 150 miles or so.

Exactly, it seems some people think everyone has traffic jams… sucks to be them.

Indeed, I think several people posting here are confusing average speed with maximum speed. If you can average 55.9 MPH (90 kph) on a long trip — including stops — then you’re doing pretty good.

Stops are irrelevant for range. Bjorn tries to average *driving* at 90 km/h in his range tests.

Reasonable average in Norway is around 80 km/h.

99% percent of the time is daily driving. I rent cheap ICE cars when traveling if I’m not flying and renting at destination. I don’t belive in having something for the other 1% of your needs. And who knows, since I’d like to have ten i-Pace for some 4 years, I might be able to use it. For long distance trips in 2 years, if not it won’t hurt me at all

Long driving usually includes non-freeway driving. Like in Norway.

Makes me wonder what the real freeway range is, something 75mph.

Speed limit on most roads in Norway. But in commuting travel you won’t achieve much more in Germany on a 120 kph limited road either.

Scandinavians 🙂

And that’s. A shame considering how good their freeways are

You obviously have not driven “THE 405.”

“original figures given offered what turns out to be an unrealistic 292 miles under the WLTP cycle”
Shocking! This has never happened before!

This is a catastrophic result in my opinion. Especially considering the scarcity of 100kw chargers.

In my S75D I could easily do 470km at that speed.

You drive a Sedan

A sedan with more room inside than the I-Pace.

That sedan is not only longer and wider but also more expensive.

I really see no need for guessing what might have affected the result: *clearly* by far the most important difference is that 90 km/h is *way* slower than what Autocar did. And not very realistic for most people outside Norway I guess…

It makes it more comparable to Bjorn’s other results, such as the 310 miles for the Niro — though I suspect that at higher speeds, the difference would get even larger…

Sounds like 180 real world miles, still,that is plenty far for most people ,especially if they have lots of fast charging stations.

I think closer to 200 rwm, but that still is not so good.

3 days for me, more Than enogh

There aren’t many/any CCS stations in midwest, plenty of Superchargers. I would buy the Tesla no doubt. Maybe in 2 years that will change. Still, 180 mile high speed range is going to charge too slow for me to do frequently and wouldn’t even get me to Chicago. It would work fine for my around town car, but so does an i3.

Hey….The American car built by American hands in America is better. I know that means nothing to the international readers here, but to Americans it’s a big deal for our economy. Once a maker nation, the U.S. is largely a taker nation now, with most consumer goods coming from China and other countries with cheaper labor. To international readers the I-Pace is made in Austria by a Canadian contractor for an Indian corporation (Tata Motors) who owns the U.K. subsidiary, Jaguar. The highest portion of revenue going to India. That spreads money around the globe but perhaps not much at all to your specific country of origin. To be precise, every car made in the world is an amalgam of parts sourced from many nations. Americans, always the “super consumers” that we are, tend to throw our money at whatever product tickles our fancy, not giving much thought to from whence it came. It’s also hard to determine how American a Chevrolet, Ford or Tesla is as Bolt and Volt batteries are made in USA by a S. Korean company and Tesla batteries made in Nevada by a Japanese company. Still, Americans did build those parts. Ford F-150 trucks, their… Read more »

As with any new car only time will tell.

5 years ago we would have killed to have a selection of 200+ mile range cars that included a CUV like this.

I think the range is fine. Especially for Europe.

The 220-240 range per se would be just fine for most drivers in Europe and likewise in the US, including myself, but I wonder what it would feel like to have paid extra $10K for extra 500 lbs worth of battery, just because Tata didn’t do a very good job on powertrain efficiency?

You just have to throw Tata in there, didn’t you?

It’s really an individual thing. It will work wonderfully for some, it won’t work at all for others, and it will mostly work for everyone in between. Hopefully it will replace a number of gas-powered alternatives.

This is not a range test. It is hypermiling to get a good result. Like the guys that did 600 miles on a charge in a Model 3. How much value has that number in real life?

Well, for proper, all-out hypermiling in Europe you’d probably pick the Netherlands for superb quality roads and very even terrain, and you’d stick to 40-45 mph (65-75 km/h) … whereas driving for hours w/o heating @ 10C ambient is not what a typical owner would do, so Bjorn’s figure for efficiency is better than it would be in natural driving conditions.

Based on previous Bjorn’s video where h tested it on a German highway, I Pace consumed:

Speed 110km/h – 68mph: 249Wh/km – 401Wh/mi
Speed 130km/h – 81mph: 287Wh/km – 462Wh/mi
Speed 150km/h – 93mph: 348Wh/km – 560Wh/mi
Speed 170km/h – 106mph: 420Wh/km – 676Wh/mi
Speed 190km/h – 118mph: 510Wh/km – 821Wh/mi

So, if you drive I Pace at around 80mph on highway you can expect to deplete full battery after +-180 miles

I imagine the range of any car will decrease by similar amounts at those speeds.

I would have expected a larger increase in power consumption at higher speed… This suggests that the poor range is not chiefly caused by poor aerodynamics, but rather by large weight and inefficient power train.