OFFICIAL: Jaguar I-Pace Range Just 234 Miles, MPGe Figures Disappoint

2019 Jaguar I-Pace


Despite packing a big battery, this electric Jag doesn’t offer ample electric range.

***UPDATE: It’s not officially official. Just 234 miles of range for the I-Pace.

The numbers are not officially official just yet, but Jaguar has provided EPA-estimated figures now.

According to the automaker, the 90-kWh battery in the Jaguar I-Pace offers up just 234 miles of electric range. That’s less than the base Tesla Model X. Lower than the Hyundai Kona Electric and even below the range rating of the Chevy Bolt. All three of those vehicles have smaller capacity battery packs.

See our Compare EVs page for more battery pack size and range ratings

Why the low result from such a big battery? It all boils down to efficiency and that’s where the I-Pace falters.

The MPGe numbers for the I-Pace are as follows:

  • 80 MPGe City
  • 72 MPGe Highway
  • 76 MPGe Combined

Those figures are downright awful for a modern-day electric car. Compared to the Tesla Model X 75D with a 75-kWh battery pack, which gets 91 MPGe city, 95 MPGe highway and 93 MPGe combined, the I-Pace clearly suffers inefficiency issues. But hey, we laid this all out back in August, so truly we aren’t surprised.

A less efficient electric car means more money out of your wallet to charge, so decide for yourself if it’s worth it or not.

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

Categories: Jaguar

Tags: , , , ,

Leave a Reply

204 Comments on "OFFICIAL: Jaguar I-Pace Range Just 234 Miles, MPGe Figures Disappoint"

newest oldest most voted

The design is probably not really that much aero dynamical?

It is not aerodynamics. The city rating is low too.

It’s got to be a very inefficient motor that’s really power hungry

Motor or motor controller? I’d guess more the motor controller.

It has a PM motor; they’re all pretty efficient. It just has terrible drag, both rolling and aero. Embarrassingly bad, given that a (far larger) Model X beats it easily in efficiency (interior space in the I-Pace is similar to a Model 3, while the exterior dimensions are more or less comparable to the Model S)

Also, efficiency isn’t so much about what it costs to charge (electricity is cheap). Not even really about range. It’s about charge speeds. The more watt hours you burn per unit distance, the longer you have to spend charging per unit distance. This is compounded by the fact that most CCS chargers are only 50kW, and the highest I-Pace can charge (at present) is 80kW.

Basically: if you buy an I-Pace, expect to “hurry up and wait”.

Model S length 4,980 mm x Model 3 length 4,690 mm x I-Pace length 4,682 mm.

Over 440 units sold in Norway last month, only 5 units sold in the USA.

Just as a point of order, electricity is not “cheap” everywhere. From the German distance test results on the youtube, it would have cost in California $10 to drive less than 60 miles. That is the cost from my plug, not public chargers. I can fuel a good hybrid for less money than my Leaf. The I-Pace cost is appalling.

Really 16 cents a mile? CA pays at most an average of 20 cents per kWh, so that would be 1.25miles per kWh. The iPace is inefficient, but not that bad.

While I think Proppo is off by a decimal point the avg 20 cents / kwh may not apply to electric cars since if it pushes you into the next tier the MARGINAL COST of the electric car becomes very expensive..
Thankfully, time-of-day rates are not mandatory in my state as of yet, as our marginal costs (mainly in westchester county) are way over a $1 a kwh. The car might cost 14 cents/kwh to charge at 3 am, but you can’t live in the house during the waking hours. But then my electric cost in Western NY is around 1/3 rd of downstate.

Correct. My PHEV puts me over baseline at which point I’m paying @.278 per kWh. So my average is ~25 cents since some of my charging is below baseline. I don’t have TOU, but peak prices are so high it won’t offset my charging.

You must seriously be considering Solar then.

Here in Berkeley, CA on the standard, that is default, E1 electrical price schedule, but NOT including the 7% city utility tax, the first 255kWh per month is is $0.215/kWh; the next 760kWh is $0.285/kWh and anything above that is about $0.441/kWh. You will always be in at least the middle tier if you charge an EV at home. The new Leaf is rated 112 MPGe which translates to 0.33 kWh/mile. That is $0.095/mile for electricity at the middle tier and $0.147/mile in the top tier. A new Prius at close to 50 mpg is about $0.075/mile for gasoline at high the CA price of $3.75/gal. Contrary to the accepted “wisdom” on this web site an EV is NOT always cheaper to run than a gasoline car. This is commonly true with electricity purchased at public charging stations where figuring out the cost per kWh is complex because you are charged by the time you are connected, not by the kWh. There is a limited (max 60k EV owning customers in PG@E’s service area) time of use service which provides a cheap off peak rate in exchange for high peak and part peak charges, I don’t know if they are… Read more »

In Southern California, EV Time of Use rates for super off peak are 0.12/kWh. Couple that with solar and you shouldn’t pay anything. I have two electric cars and a 5kWh solar system and have not paid anything for electricity in 5 years. The 5kWh system cost me $6700 which has already paid for the cost of electricity for my house alone.

“Basically: if you buy an I-Pace, expect to “hurry up and wait”.”

You have no idea how true that is. 50kW DCFC power is one thing, but far more likely is waiting for other free charging Leaf, i3, Maven Bolts. Just yesterday, I went to one site with 2 chargers and 4 cars (2 waiting), so I went to another and there were 2 chargers for 6 cars (4 waiting)! Might as well bite the bullet and wait (and wait and wait).

Granted, Tesla waits will increase soon due to them giving out free charging to just about everyone (use referral code, get free charging with any Tesla 3). But at least they have chargers located such that one can travel much further.

Free charging for referrals is only for 6 months. Most people with 300 miles of range won’t need SC unless they are traveling. The bigger issue is if there is a prevalence of short range Model 3’s which would mean a large population which would need to use the Supercharger frequently on a routine basis.

I’m riggald at a well known email service run by gmail. I’d be very interested to hear of the specifics of location and network operator.

Hence the Genius of the BMW i3 REX, along with the superb ride, is in a REX you don’t need to worry about a charger that’s: offline, damaged, ice’d, or full. You just drive on gas till the next high speed charger typically 20 miles or more away.

Karen I agree , I said this in the very Beginning & Got a Bunch Of Down Votes From all the JAG Nuts. That un-needed Grill in itself is a Parachute ..So Dumb…..

According to Tesla-Bjorn recent tests, it seems i-Pace is efficient at lower speeds (less than 90kph) but not so at higher speeds compared to Model X. This could likely be aerodynamically inefficient at higher speeds. And possible the way twin motors operate while cruising. Not sure how I=Pace does it but Model X dual motor will only engage one motor while cruising thus more efficient. Also, Tesla’s HVAC might be more efficiently designed than I-Pace traditional HVAC system.

I think it’s just a poorly designed propulsion unit.

The motor itself is more efficient than a Tesla S or X’s.

Very strange the I-pace is.

Tesla Bjørn tested the rolling resistens from the tires “low-speed” driving at like 25 mph. Here the I-pace beat his Model X in consumption. How it get such low efficiency is really a mystery. Who can solve the riddle?


All the little things add up. What looks like a small loss in a single item which can be ignored turns into a large loss when a dozen items are added together. Some items would be: charger efficiency, inverter efficiency, motor efficiency, aerodynamic drag, battery module wiring and connectors, tire rolling resistance, tire recommended inflation pressure, and on and on.

For your specific question about tire rolling resistance, you must remember that Tesla Bjørn did not test the Tesla OEM tires against the Jaguar. He has over 190k kilometers on Optimus Prime and has worn out the OEM tires. I don’t know what tires he tested. However, merely running at 25mph doesn’t test just the tire rolling resistance, it also tests the battery to motor system in the automobile. So, a better test needs to be conducted.

I wonder if brakes aren’t a big contributor. If they’re dragging disc pads on the rotors 100% of the time, that would be adding a lot of drag. Some mfr’s are lifting the pads to reduce drag.

Sticky tires.

The problem was with Bjorn Nyland’s worn out X-P90D (157Wh per km) , when Bjorn was testing with a newer X-60, the Tesla-X was consuming much less than the I-Pace on this same test.
Jaguar I-Pace (2300 kg): 145 Wh/km Model X 60D (2500 kg): 111 Wh/km

No mystery. It’s the usual Elon/Tesla over optimistic estimates. Lareg part of EPA tests are performed by manufactures themselves. See Bolt vs, Model X range tests by CR. See how mfgs pay back money to consumers when they come up with high mpg EPA numbers. No one is getting 310 miles in Model 3.
So I don’t really see any mystery here. Jaguar is under promising and over delivering, so its customers will be back,

Having personally talked to three I-Pace drivers that drove from LA to Monterrey with a Model X and all hauling gear I think the inefficiency is real. Aside from the slow charging they had to stop more often putting them hours behind the X.

Lmaon It is no mystery that serial anti-Tesla fudster TeslaPiss is once again lamely floating conspiracy theories.
Give it up dude, you lost and the rest of the world benefits.

Aerodynamics solves the riddle. That grill is a problem.
This should be a WARNING for upcoming EV’s.

This grill is closed with active aéro system

That could be poor regen in the city instead of good aero on the highway.

The Model S also has city MPGe almost equal to highway, whereas all EVs with PM motors (including the RWD Model 3) have 20-30% better city MPGe than highway MPGe.

It is both aerodynamics and other factors.

Above 50 mph it’s Totally Aerodynamic losses.

I bet had they ditched the fake grill they could have improved Aero a lot and their efficiency rating wouldn’t be so atrocious.

The I-Pace’s grille is NOT fake.

It provides air flow for cooling the battery and has a secondary purpose too.

“The intake grille is actually segmented in half behind the cat badge and mesh, with the lower half directing air to cool the batteries, and the top half directing air through the front of the car, up and over the windscreen and down the back through a hole in the hood.”

Jaguar could of grabbed air much more efficiently from below the front lip but chose to grab it from the Weber instead. Fake adjacent.

Why they don’t make EVs with grills with mini turbines to collect more energy

I’d like to sell you my perpetual motion machine.

Because the only time a windmill makes sense on an EV is when the car is stopped. When moving the windmill will slow the car down. NOW if you spend 95% of your commute stranded in stop and go traffic during a hurricane, I guess a micro turbine makes sense.

For the rest of us, we’ll pass.

This may sound crazy, but if the wind is blowing, a wind turbine on a car isn’t completely crazy. There have been vehicles built powered by a wind turbine that can travel directly upwind:

That said, I don’t think wind turbines are going to save the I-Pace.

There was a more recent version that could go UPwind only powered by the wind. Can’t find the article right now. It was limited to 25ish MPH. Your conclusion is still valid tho.

Technically, in an electric car it would be useful
to use such turbines for both regeneration and
thrust. But of course, practically, it’s both simpler
and more efficient to drive the vehicle’s wheels.

Yep. The most aerodynamically-optimal place to take in air is below the air dam.

“could have”

From the preliminary information that has come out this poor efficiency seems to apply to the other Euro luxury makes as well. Disappointing and mysterious.

Range looks like the bigger disappointment. Most won’t have trouble with a couple hundred dollars per year extra, in support of a lower (soon to be super clean) MPGe. So, I think there’s less to buy into as far as marginal pollution. It’s mapping out those trips, factoring cold and charging, that will test whether EPA’s 232 is workable.

I wouldn’t give up the Jag, if finished with the homework.

It’s not the cost, it’s the utility

Right, as you say it’s the utility. You are paying for a 90kWh pack but not getting the range out of it. On longer trips it means more time spent charging per mile and also possibly more frequent stops and close calls.

The energy use and cost matter too (I suppose the cost not so much for people buying an expensive vehicle like this). EV energy use has environmental costs as does making the bigger battery and heavier car. Efficiency and material use still matters when driving electric.

Drag coefficient for TX = 0.25 and for the I-Pace = 0.29 – with larger front area of the TX than the I-Pace, the wind drag should be very similar for both.
So it’s coming from the motor & controller, Bjorn Nyland tested the slight downhill rolling at 90 kph and the I-Pace has a higher resistance and is not ‘freely cruising along’.

Don’t read too much into manufacturer Cds. When you look at independent wind tunnel tests, most manufacturers’ Cds are a couple hundredths higher than their nominal Cds (but Teslas usually are pretty close to their nominal Cds).

Yes, really annoying.. this needs 3rd party certification enforced by the regulators. Esepcially for BEVs this sort of lying is unacceptable. How are consumers supposed to make an informed decision based on these fake numbers..
And they should switch to Cd*A as that is the real value that leads to the wind resistance.

MPGe or kWh/100km is the bottom line for efficiency, and that reported figure is indeed regulated.

Cd*A is a means to efficiency, but not meaningful to 99% of EV buyers.

So the Jaguar i-Pace has a range of 375km and about 27kWh/100km

EPA numbers are good, European measurements are fake.

Can’t trust European CD or testing process. They tape the windows and use narrow disc wheels during testing then their number was are way off. Big surprise.

Actually Cd * A for i-Pace is about 8% higher than for Model X. At highway speeds this is significant but does not explain all of the difference in MPGe

In Europe you don’t have to test with factory wheels, tread on the tires or mirrors and you can tape the windows and panel gaps all you want. The tests, cd, efficiency, etc are all bogus. This attitude created dieselgate.

It’s unlikely to be aero – we know the Cd is 0.29, and we know the frontal area is smaller than a Tesla Model X’s.

I think they’re still optimistic, but Tesla X rating seems also optimistic.

I can usually match my rated miles on Model X highway trips. 100D in chill mode with range mode on also. Set the AutoPilot and let it handle it. Usually works fine.

This is sucky situation, but I hope the car sells enough for Jag to continue investment into EVs. This is a great option for Jaguar customers looking to upgrade their car with a new jaguar.

Basically the whole production for the next 12 month is already sold.

Wow! Although certainly not as aerodynamic as a Model X, the iPace must have fairly decent aerodynamics for a hatchback whose roofline doesn’t slope as steeply in the rear as a Model X. The large grill certainly doesn’t help. Because the city efficiency is low, poor aerodynamics aren’t the main reason for its poor efficiency.

Maybe an iPace’s tires have really high rolling resistance. However, my sense is that Model X tires aren’t designed for very low rolling resistance.

That leaves the electronics including the drive motors. Maybe the grill has to be that large to eliminate the waste heat from very inefficient electronics. These days, EV manufacturers seem to have figured out how to make EV electronics pretty efficient, so how could Jaguar have installed inefficient electronics?

Hopefully, some experts will figure out why the iPace is so inefficient. Hopefully, there are fixed that Jaguar could implement without too much expense.

Tesla Bjørn tested rolling resistance:

I-pace better than Model X at 25 mph. The inefficient electronics could be the reason?

I think it’s batteries.
Battery capacity is measured at a specific power/temperature/…, it’s not always the same. I think i-pace batteries capacity decreases faster when ideal conditions are not met.
(My theory)

You are on to something here!. I-pace uses pouch battery cells rather than 18650 or 2170 cylindrincal cells with metal jacket that Tesla uses. This means heating and cooling will need more energy to effect, also more complex colling systems for pouch batteries which had a plastic bag holding them rather than a metal jacket that conducts heats easier. Base in laptops I used over the years, those using 18650 cells lasts longer than pouch batteries!.

If I remember correctly, the motors are the same as used in their formula e car (except the iPace has 2 motors instead of 1). Those motors are designed to be very efficient. Perhaps it’s an inefficient inverter paired with low rolling resistance tires?

Anyone with a good idea to explain this? Shouldn’t be that much worse than a Model X given it’s size and weight.

Aerodynamics is obviously a factor, but I bet the tires and wheel design are also not helping. There is a reason most BEVs come with covered wheels. I wish somebody could test the car with different wheels. Lastly, I guess Jaguar is not confident yet to let the battery drain to very low levels, so they are more conservative in letting the battery fully drain. I don’t think the motors or drive train is the main culprit.

I don’t think it’s to do with not fully draining the battery. The MPGe ratings don’t reflect the state of discharge of the battery.

It is not clear to me how the MPGe values are calculated. If it is based on what is reported by the car computer, it can still be conservative. You can’t report 15 kw left but range is zero. They have to be consistent with reported range and remaining battery capacity.

MPGe is calculated using energy measured from the wall outlet.

Björn tested the I-Pace’s usable capacity and came up with about 82 kWh, IIRC, as opposed to 90 kWh nominal. Even taking that into account, the I-Pace is still pretty inefficient.

They are using a multi-phase AC linear induction motor and their #1 goal was likely to knock the chip off the shoulder of the Tesla Model X, which they did on price. Therefore, they probably are using really soft tires and a gearing ratio focused on performance, not efficiency. In other words, they were all-in for certain numbers, not all numbers. If anyone doubted Tesla is king of the hill on straight-up EV powertrain engineering, this should settle the matter. Unlike with ICE manufacturing where it is a level playing field with merely gimmicky techno-babble feature sets, Tesla has a technological advantage over the competitors. Kia has a close second, however, they make really efficient EVs. I firmly believe you can buy a Jaguar iPace and get slightly better numbers with different tires. The problem of it being another *Pace vehicle is that it wasn’t designed for a .24 drag coefficient, and the problem with the large, heavy battery is that it is a large, heavy battery. kg/kWh is a unit of gravimetric charge density not to be overlooked or undersold. Imagine a Tesla Model S with half the mass and the same energy storage. The lightest Model S ever… Read more »

‘LINEAR INDUCTION’ implies a mag lev train. This is nothing of the sort – the motor in this thing is rotary.

MULTI-PHASE for the past 140 years or so has commonly been called POLYPHASE.

To me, the thing will go about as far as a Bolt ev, and its a luxurious JAG.

Their ICE products probably have larger gas tanks than Chevy Sonics and Sparks. I’M NOT sure this will bother many that they need somewhat more juice to run the thing.

Also I thought the Jag was using a permanent magnet synchronous motor, not AC-Induction…

My bad. AC Induction Motor as @Davek said is what I meant to say. He is also right, further, I was wrong, it is a Synchronous Permanent Magnet motor:

Which blunders my supposition because those are lower performance as I understand them, but better efficiency, which is not the case of the Jaguar iPace.

My feeling is that the worst factor in owning a Jag will be the spotty, mostly busy, slowish fast DC charger network. Love my Model X retirement cruiser.

The more juice becomes a real issue when you have to recharge longer for bad efficiency AND EVEN LONGER for not real fast fastcharging.
Jaguars are not bought for travelling slower than cars the cost 50%.

Haven’t heard anyone suggest the brakes. Tesla has the mechanical brake pad lift off the rotor to reduce the drag typically seen on disk brakes. If I-Pace is still dragging the pad, that could be a factor.

I’d like to know how much of the battery is actually usable. It has been suspected that of the 90kWh only 80 or so are actually available.

That’s a good point. The size of the buffer.

Nope it’s the efficiency, look at the numbers.

But it would still be interesting how big the usable battery actually is.

It is not clear to me how the MPGe values are calculated. If it is based on what is reported by the car computer, it can still be conservative. You can’t report 15 kw left but range is zero. They have to be consistent with reported range and remaining battery capacity.

There’s proof of that in a charging video, which shows 71kWh to DC charge from 10% to 100%.

Even if charging efficiency is 95% (which is outstanding for 70kW), that points to only 75 kWh usable energy, or 3.1 miles per kWh used by the drivetrain.

I see only two possibilities:
1. The AC charger is very inefficient, like 80% (how else could 3 miles/kWh result in 76 MPGe?)
2. The last 10% of the battery has way more than 7.5kWh (so the drivetrain uses more than 75 kWh for 234 miles)
3. The DC charger gave incorrect information

The buffer size or the level of charge still in the battery doesn’t affect efficiency.

It just a simple count of what have been drain out of it for what distance.

You could calculated the efficiency with just 10% or less of battery charge, but you would have to check at different level to get accurate variation of efficiency with varying internal resistance.
It should be very little difference.

You basically count what you put in to fill it up after a run done with a fully charged battery.


Does it use performance tires?

Low MPGe also means lower MPH when it comes to charging.

Well at least it’s pretty.

So much for legacy automakers just needing to show up and demonstrate their prowess. This thing is an energy pig despite being quite a bit smaller and lighter than the Model X.

The worst pat is that they cannot even make it in volume yet.

Yeah. I have been hammering at that pedestal of short-seller bull for years.
Wait till XYZ motors comes out with its ev.
Every time Blob Blutz said that, which was often and imperative, I just wanted to scream, and often did.
Still it’s a Jag. You’re not getting great “gas” mileage on their ICE mobiles either.
It’s probably as Vexar says, they went for performance, not efficiency.

Tesla went for performance and its cars are still pretty efficient. Performance doesn’t need to effect efficiency with BEVs like it does with ICEVs.

Tesla has two kinds of motors: the AC Induction in the X, S, and the permanent magnet motor in all the Model III (except performance which has one of each kind). The permanent magnet motor is lower performance in Tesla motors. Somehow, Jaguar managed to (and I had this wrong earlier) pull off more performance with the permanent magnet motors and has less efficiency somehow. This is surprisingly “Jaguar” of them as you say, ffbj. Most EVs are permanent magnet motors. My “I’m not in the profession” guess is that they said to the team “we want an efficient motor so we can maximize range, so go with a permanent magnet motor.” Then, they got Bolt/Leaf-grade performance numbers (fine, but not impressive) and said “more torque, more HP!” So, rather than switching motor types, they put many more windings on the motor, which kills the efficiency but gets them the performance they are after. I spend way too much time in my armchair. In reflecting on my posts here, I feel like I care more about EVs and their construction than I do my current profession. I was at the Tesla service center yesterday (getting new tires) and was helping… Read more »

And that’s why Tesla hired the great motor design team and funds the R&D center in Greece—there are some strong research faculty.

Notice the words “cost optimization function”. What this means to me is that Tesla has a high quality and accurate engineering/economics simulator that permits them to test many designs and optimize multiple aspects simultaneously from cost to various aspects of performance (efficiency, power, heat generation, etc).

“JB Straubel, Tesla’s Chief Technology Officer, himself an expert in energy conversion, has previously stated that he sees power electronics as one of Tesla’s main advantages in the industry.”

Evidence seems to show that JB is right about this—that there’s some significant tricks in the electronics, which have to be designed intimately with the physics of the motor.

As they might say in England, “Can you Adam and Eve it”? ‘I can’t even believe it’ !!

Does that mean is it fertile? Will it fly, or will it sin causing humanity to suffer an embedded curse, original sin.
Or is it more like if “you can run it up the flagpole, but will anyone salute it.”

And they want to sell this thing for $70k+?

starting price… fully loaded will be north of 140k

It’s a Jag. People will buy it. Good performance, good driving dynamics, Luxury interior, great AWD capabilities. Looks great.

Personally, no car is worth $70k to me, but I would totally get this over a Tesla X. The X is a bloated looking weirdmobile in comparison.

Really nice city car.

Amazing. A non-favorable post about a non-Tesla car. Clearly the only reason why people a $80,000 or $120,000 car is to save some money on electricity.

Yes, there is something off about this article.

It comes off as a Tesla shill attempt disguised as an article about the Jaguar I-Pace.

I don’t get that feeling at all. This is one of the worst MPGes on electricity for a plug-in that I’ve seen.

I think that’s remarkable, don’t you?

It’s a couple of things.

This sentence after comparing it with some of Tesla’s models MPGe, “A less efficient electric car means more money out of your wallet to charge, so decide for yourself if it’s worth it or not.”

That is just a short hop away from saying “don’t buy this car”, yet they are talking about a car that cost $70k minimum, so it doesn’t seem like electricity savings is the number one priority of prospective I-Pace buyers.

Then there is part of the article’s headline which is “…this electric Jag doesn’t offer ample electric range.”

Yet is ample for a city car or for families or individuals that have a second car (ICE or hybrid). In fact it is more range than the Model 3 SR that will be released next year.

Even Fred Lambert, who is a die-hard Tesla fan, is more objective than this.

Most people don’t want to spend $70k for a city car.

Right. At some point, when you spend that much, you want to use it for everything. But most people have 2 cars and right sizing even for well healed folks would be one LR car and one SR car. But even 234 miles is a bit much for most areas as a city car.

We live with a Leaf and an S. I drove the Leaf yesterday because my wife needed to go out of town with the car. I suspect it will be awhile this market matures and people will have a 100 mile car and a 300 mile car in the household. But, to me, that would be right sizing. Doesn’t mean the 100 mile car has to be a basic econobox. But at the same time, we are unlikely to pay $70k for the short range car….

Every use case is different but as charging currently stands, this car wouldn’t work for us as our LR car even though my 2015 70D does. The reliable, multihead, fast charging still does not exist near us except for Tesla. That is worth a lot!

Good thing it isn’t a city car.

TM3 doesn’t have a 95kwh battery

…and it’s half the money…

Yep, it’s only 4 MPGe higher than the BYD e6 (the least efficient EV on the EPA site) and that’s a minivan. It does make you wonder what is the cause.

EV fans are worried that IPace drivers will be stuck at chargers too long, not driving enough, giving EVs a bad name and slowing down transition from ICE. Not everything is about Tesla or Elon.

The Model X gets 3 miles per kWh.

you’re rounding down to 3 🙂

Once again Jaguar owners will be disappointed. They should be used to this by now so perhaps they may bite.

I am not surprised by this. Vehicles that are off-road capable have always had lower fuel efficiency than those made just for pavement.

If the ipace can go through the off road patch Bjorn damaged his X with without damaging the ipace and get through it then then efficiency argument would be moot.

Title of article, “Despite packing a big battery, this electric Jag doesn’t offer ample electric range.”

It is certainly ample for a city car and is more than the Model 3 SR that will be released next year.

so the iPace is a car not SUV. TM3 is its real competitor… not the TMX

An $70K+ city car with only slightly more range than a Tesla at half that price? How is that helping Jaguar?

How much will the SR, + Premium pack, + AWD cost?


Has anyone pointed out that the I-Pace has a 50% larger battery compared to the Bolt (60kwh vs 90kwh), yet it has less range than the Bolt?! That is kind of crazy when you consider the Bolt has pretty terrible aerodynamics. Guess Chevy continues to surprise me with their engineering. The Bolt is a really great piece of tech regardless of it’s looks and cheap interior.

Taking nothing away from the Bolt in the efficiency department, but the Jag is not a city runabout, cracker-box like the Bolt. The Jaguar outweighs it by about 2k lbs. It’s a highway cruiser.
And if you want to give credit for the guts of the Bolt give them to LG Chem, they are ones that build the internals, battery and drive train. The parts that Chevy touched, the interior, it’s ho-hum, the seats, had to be improved.
The rear suspension is cheap, and it’s a lot slower than the iPace.
It’s just not in the same class.

Yup it isn’t in the same class, but both the rated MPGe and real-world experience suggest the Jag has some serious efficiency problem. In contrast, most people get better than the rated efficiency for the Bolt. I average 6.2 m/kWh for the first 1600 miles and even with cold weather I am at 5.3.

I am about the last person to defend GM, but they have made huge efficiency and performance improvements since the gen 1 Volt. The GM/LG partnership makes for a good power train. GM’s execution for the rest of the car was run by the accounting department.

Well, ok, I haven’t decided to purchase the JAG as of yet as I’m satisfied with my BOLT ev for the time being, but the car is bigger and more luxurious – so it doesn’t particularly bug me that the car goes about as far as the REAL 60 kwh battery in the BOLT ev…. Bjorn says the I-Pace seems to be about 82 kwh, so its not like its half again as big.

Magna built this car for JLR, and I’m not certain as to the division of engineering – but I would personally like a more efficient, less ‘capable’ vehicle from them in the future, since I’ve never cared about nor demanded lightning fast acceleration. Although 2 seconds slower than the JAG, my Bolt is plenty fast enough for me.
Reliability in an EV is for me the most important characteristic. Range is #2 in my wants.

Charging speed and acceleration are way down on my list of ‘wants’. I look forward, if not to the I-pace, to JLR’s/Magna’s next BEV/PHEV product.

That is some amazing effiency. Last winter I averaged 3.1m/kwh over 5000 miles in winter and 4.2 during the summer. That was the cars numbers, not including charging losses. I don’t think I have ever hit over 5 on a daily trip.

GM colaborated with LG sure, but GM did do more development than you give them credit for. They spec’d the requirements, and validated the systems, they did the pack, motor, and control integration.

““GM was responsible for the design of the electric motor, the battery-control system, the integration of the powertrain into the vehicle body, and validation of all systems”

What this says is that experience counts. GM built the EV1, the Spark, two generations of Volt and the Bolt. You can see what they learned in each generation. The Gen2 Volt is 106MPGe, the Bolt is 119 even though it’s the same weight and much less aerodynamic the Volt. Jag has never built an EV before and this shows that they have a lot to learn

Is the Bolt AWD? Can you take it off road? Does it have the luxury amenities of the I-Pace that uses all of that electricity? Can it do 0 to 60 in 4.5s? No? Oh well… Geebus, listen to yourselves people.

The I-pace is an impressive product, regardless of the tomatoes thrown at it here. But I would wish, they would come out with a 2wd ‘eco’ model that was a bit better efficiency, and/or one with a larger (than 82 kwh) battery so that it could go further.

“76 MPGe Combined”
That is worse than what i was expecting…i i was not expecting much to begin with!

“The numbers are not officially official just yet”

When will they be officially official?

Wow, what an energy hog.

Twice the batter of a Bolt with less range…

That’s funny math. The Bolt has a 60kwh pack the I-Pace is 90kwh. Double would be 120kwh. The I-Pace is heavier, more luxurious, faster and quicker, and AWD.

The Bolt is a great EV, and good car. So is the I-Pace. Just different classes and segment of vehicles.

well at least the ipace can charge from 0 to 100% in 20 seconds.

It’s 0 to 110% in 20 seconds. Get your facts straight!

that would be 22 secs to 110%

Whoa little doggies…settle down nowh. It’s Jaguar’s first entry into the bev space n some one is saying 234 miles of range is not enough? Gimme a break! Give jag a couple years to learn n get those mpge numbers up near 100 n range closer to 300.
Nearly all shopping for this jag bev won’t care if it’s 10 or 20% worse on efficiency or range compared to its competitors. The damn think looks sweet, gorgeous interior and I’m sure rides smooth n quick.

Get over your damn selves….different strokes for different folks. And, the bev jag will get better early next decade.

but but but this supposed to be the Tesla Model X 75D killer

I suppose it’s all aboot emphasis “TeslaKiller” all run together as one word, but what the subconscious really means, which is misinterpreted by certain individuals, is “Tesla…Killer”.

Range matters when it comes to selling EVs so efficiency matters. Combined with reported poor quick charge capabilities this is shaping up to be a very expensive city car that’s unlikely to appeal to many.

So maybe just wait until next decade, I’m sure Jaguar will figure it out at some point.

It’s a Jaguar. When, in the seventy years of its existence, has Jaguar made a car for the masses, that “appealed to many”? If you want to drive an econobox, buy a Hyundai.

Well, what you said would have been true in the 1980’s, but today Hyundai manufactures all kinds of cars, and on the US market they have a selection of very nice SUV’s and sedans, up to the upscale Genesis line – priced in the same bracket as Jaguar.

At the same Tata is working on getting its Jaguar-branded cars to the middle-class buyers, pricing them at below $40K.

Other than its overall range, what’s the big deal? If my EV was 10% less efficient I would still only be paying an extra $40 per year. A drop in the bucket considering the $3,000 I’m saving on gas. Seriously, this is a non-issue for someone switching from a $70K SUV to a $70K EV.

you’re paying 15k more for a battery that is less efficient

Pay the big bucks you expect the big performance not a car that between the poor range and its poor quick charge capabilities is for practical purposes constraint to city/regional use.

This is what Jag/Mercedes-Benz/Audi will discover in time.

Every percentage drop in efficiency is a % drop in charging speed (holding other things equal).
The amazing thing about the Model 3 LR is the charging speed – as measure in MPH which is the only thing that matters.
Now if you don’t road trip, it doesn’t matter.

Can’t road trip very well. Planning short hops between working chargers is going to freakout a typical Jaguar buyer.

Compute the time going from LA to San Francisco. Your buddy just bought a Tesla model X 100D and you bought a top of the line Jaguar. How many hours behind him will you be?
This is an issue compounded by the lack of a fast charging network.

Wow, that’s super low. Especially looking at how incredibly efficient the Model 3 is now. Teslas were electron guzzlers until the 3, bit even they did better than this.

The interior look so sad!!!! same as 10 years ago!!!

Not everyone wants the minimalistic Tesla design. We are all different people and like different things. Isn’t it good to have a choice in things. You don’t have to buy the Jag like you don’t have to buy the Tesla. Vive la Difference!

I’ll take the Jag interior and everything else TM3 and pay $5000 more just for it.

Pretty inefficient but on par with some chinese competitors, compared to ICE it is day and night still. Hopefully they channel those inefficiencies into the cabin in colder climates, then it becomes usable energy.

It’s a bulky suv design. No aero what so ever

This is very low range. But even in UK, I-Pace is much lower than Model-X.

Still why would a vehicle that’s 10 % lighter than Model-X have such a low range.
Is it because of the architecture of the vehicle. Jag has to stop all research on diesel and focus more on electric.

I don’t think Jaguar ever did a lot of research on diesel. They had diesel from PSA and now from Ford.

This is a big disappointment from a brand such as Jaguar… Even an original Model S (launched in 2012, 6 years ago) is more efficient and has more range than this thing. Even the base Model X, which is heavier and has a smaller battery, is more efficient and has about the same range!!

This Jaguar is not a “Tesla-killer”… is more “Tesla-killed”!!!

Yawn, it’s the first one. Should we judge Tesla on the first Model 3s down the line?

Maybe Jaguar should start cooperating with Hyundai for EVs. Hyundai seems to know what it’s doing when it comes to efficiency.

Nothing new, the i-Pace is a crappy car for everything more than a short highway trip.

Does it matter? No, I think it doesn’t. You can drive 200miles, which isn’t super short. You have no problems at all in the city.
AND almost every i-Pace that is going to be produced within the next 12 month is alread sold.

So yes, one can criticize Jaguar, but I am still impressed that they offer a pretty nice EV SUV before Audi, Daimler….

Wait a second. 232 mile range does not mean the average person is going to drive 200 miles on the highway. That is cutting it way too close. Sure – an experienced EV driver could do it but not the average person. And you have to have perfectly available, reliable charging at the end of that trip. You have to check for headwinds and you have to check the forecast. I have a vacation house with a charger and I still worry the power might be out and would not like to arrive with say 20 miles and have no way out. And our household has 120k EV miles.
Now I will come home with 15 miles in a pinch but that is because multiple alternate chargers are available close to primary house.

I’d criticize Jaguar. Strongly. They took orders and money on the basis of a 298 mile range. 234 miles, and realistically 200 miles, is a deceit. Surely, post dieselgate, you’d think they under-exaggerated to the surprise side.

Doesn’t auger well for Jaguar, nor for the upcoming 90 Kwh e-tron. If that is as low – circa 230 miles – I won’t be buying one. The Kona makes more economic sense.

Yes the Hyandia BEVs offer great value. But no one buys a Jaguar or Audi (or Tesla) because of ecomonic sense.

I own a Model X 75 D. 200 miles is perfect for a city car. Nice to have the convenience of home charging . Charges around town were designed for the 80 mile Leaf’s. The Jag is a great vehicle.

My Model X 75 D does fine as a city car even when my daily charge is only 80%. Still plenty of charge left at the end of the day

One thing to keep in mind is that between the tested and declared range numbers, manufacturers are obliged by regs to apply a declared to real world correction factor.

That correction factor can either come from having ample fleet data to show the correlation between declared and real world range, or using a generic factor specified by the regs.

As it happens, because Tesla have fleet data at their disposal, they use a 0.8 multiplier (if you test the car on the dyno and get 300 miles, you declare 240 miles), whereas the Jag not having any fleet data, is forced to use 0.68 or 0.7 (300 miles tested, 210 declared)

So the Jag straight away loses 30miles. InsideEVs, more research is needed in your reporting!
I’m happy to write articles around EVs for you guys, hit me up.

I’m just rethinking about the video of the competition between I-pace and Model X they posted in the first day. They’re all competing for the past, we shouldn’t expect much.

I guess it’s up to the consumer if they want to trade in range and efficiency for a big ol’ fake grill. People are strange.

I know this won’t make much sense to most of us, but Jags have never been cheap cars to own and run… I should think Jaguar care very little about the ongoing costs of ownership. Their owners are used to burning their wallets/purses everytime they jump behind the wheel.

Yup. No one is buying these who can’t already afford the regular running costs on any new Jag.

Jaguar iPace S…
– 220 mile range
-base MSRP: $69500

Tesla Model X 75D
– 237 mile range
– base price: $83000 “cash price”

So you are paying $1000 for every extra mile of range?

Add in the extras to make the cars equal.
Maybe not add the gull wing doors, but the rest of a “luxury” vehicle like cruise control that will not hit the guy in front of you.

(⌐■_■) Trollnonymous

Yeah, but I still like the car…….lol

What? what???

Just 234. It is not bad actually. I ws expecting lower.

They F-ed up. You gotta be efficient to make a good EV. Aerodynamics, drivetrain, rolling resistance, weight, etc. If you are not efficient then your EV will either be ridiculously expensive, have a crappy range, or a combo of the two (which seems to be this case).

Jaguar can get away with it because it’s viewed as a high-end car….but it will remain a small niche market brand.

If you want to take on Tesla, companies need to do a lot better than this.

234 miles is plenty.

Not for that price.

Agreed, Tesla’s delivery team told me to leave my Model X’s state of charge around 80% giving me 233 miles of range, and it was more then enough

Possible that some of the inefficiency is the cost of performance, They set this up with it’s own race series, and the specs are very different for that than the one trick pony Ludicrous mode. The Jag will run full power on the track until the pack is exhausted. Not so much for the Model X (the 3 has an option for this, but not being compared to the i Pace). I still have visions of the Model S packed in ice before an attempt at Pikes Peak to delay the power loss from overheating.

Must be a slow news week with this recycled article – but editorially they are MUCH MUCH too hard on this Jaguar – it is a much larger car than my BOLT ev and I would expect it is not quite as economical, the same way although fine for what it is, my ELR is not in the exact same efficiency class as my BOLT ev. It would be nice if they offered the car with a ‘smaller’ (eg: 2wd, less powerful motors, etc) drivetrain, – and use that to compare different versions of the car with itself. Jaguar also seems to be competing a bit too hard with Tesla, in that they don’t have to do everything exactly the same way. As a for instance, I (and many purchases of prior ev’s I suspect) already have all I need in the way of home recharging. I don’t need another 1.3/7.4 kw charging cord to be included with the car, and if they’d knock $800 off the sale price as a deduct option – so be it. Audi does the same thing by providing a 1.3/9.6 kw charging cord with the car – and many buyers probably have their garages… Read more »

IIRC for iPace cw = 0.29
That is the same my 1994 Volvo 850 had.

Saw the iPace yesterday at dealer in (Austria). It looks big in real ife. The 22“ wheels are a joke. And there is too much going on designwise.
And all the European designers seem to be afraid to have a no grille design like Tesla and Porsche.
It is a shame.

Making a good electric car isn’t as simple and straightforward as it seems. Maybe someday, the Tesla haters will appreciate what Elon Musk and Tesla have wrought.

Geee, American engineering, American innovation and American get-it-done attitude….In a car built by Americans in America. Back in the twenties, thirties and forties – this was the way good reliable cars came into the hands of hard-working middle-class Americans.

Next up = the Germans. The South Koreans make a darn fine compliance car sold in boutique numbers to a tiny few. The Germans have shown big, boring station wagons with fake grills and electric motors and parts plopped in the place of a gas engine lump – just so they can be built in boutique numbers on the same factory lines as the gas versions. Innovative? Hardly? Compliance? Surely.

So how do Tesla haters go on hating? I have to say Tesla haters are ELECTRIC CAR HATERS. You either support Tesla or you support shenanigans in lieu of big companies truly making affordable EVs the public at large can buy.

Oh look, another “Tesla killer” is out of juice … 🙂

ICE heads doing BEV again?

Model X is not much better, they are big and heavy.