Long-Range 310-Mile Tesla Model 3 Appears To Return 126 MPGe

3 months ago by Eric Loveday 152

Tesla Model 3 (wallpaper 2,560x)

The Tesla Model 3 is the second most efficient pure electric vehicle on sale in the U.S.

That is, if one lone image of the window sticker shows what we think it does.

Tesla Model 3 Data Via EPA – Click To Enlarge

A fella by the name of Andrew Rhodes recently uploaded an image of a Model 3’s frunk with what appears to be its EPA window sticker within. The image is a bit fuzzy, so it’s impossible to make out all the details, but what immediately stands out is 126. as in 126 MPGe.

If true, the Model 3, presumably in longer range (310-mile) form, is now the second most efficient electric vehicle in the U.S. behind the Hyundai IONIQ Electric at 136 MPGe.

Previously released figures from Tesla indicate the following for Model 3 efficiency:

  • Tesla Model 3: 23.7 kWh/100 miles

Last but not least, it’s assumed the shorter range Model 3 will be even more efficient given its reduced weight. Add in dual-motor and efficiency should increase even more. It seems quite likely that some version of the Model 3 will eventually become the most efficient electric vehicle ever sold in the U.S. That’s an achievement that Tesla sure would be proud of, don’t you think?

Window sticker image here

With 258 HP on tap, an ~80 kWh battery to tote around and a curb weight of some 3,837 pounds, were actually surprised by the 126 MPGe rating. Are you?

Tags: , , ,

152 responses to "Long-Range 310-Mile Tesla Model 3 Appears To Return 126 MPGe"

  1. L'amata says:

    I think Tesla is on the right track , Becoming versatile and not concentrating on speed alone . Building power efficient cars is a good move, most people do not want or need all that speed and power , in lieu of efficiency..I 4 1 …

  2. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

    Efficiency gains probably due to the Permanent Magnet Motor along with some PWM and power electronics efficiency gains coupled with the low drag coefficient.

    I bet 77% of M3 buyers never even care to look at this figure…….lol

    1. SparkEV says:

      I think the switch to permanent magnet motor is the biggest reason. At moderate power levels, induced current losses are negligible vs always present on induction motor, and driving at “normal speeds” would only use about 10% of full power.

      1. Vexar says:

        I’m not convinced they switched motor technologies.

        1. Boris says:

          They did, it has been written about already. Look it up.

          1. DJ says:

            Really, I thought they were against it because it was bad for the planet and they couldn’t scale up to size using them?

            1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

              There have been advancements in using less rare elements in making the powerful magnets used in permanent magnet EV motors. Perhaps Tesla has been persuaded that’s a better way to go.

              I’m not entirely convinced, but the leaked EPA data in a recent InsideEVs article did specify a permanent magnet motor for the TM3. So either that is a hoax — and I think that’s possible, as there were several things there I found odd — or else Tesla has indeed switched to permanent magnet motors for the TM3.

              However, I’m not at all convinced the improved energy efficiency of the TM3 has much to do with switching to permanent magnet motors. I think a few of the Usual Suspects here have an exaggerated idea of how much difference there is in energy efficiency between the two types. I doubt the difference averages more than 2%, and likely is less.

              1. Bill Howland says:

                Its when delving into specifics that many show they do not understand why the rotor of a motor turns in the first place.

                You are the last person to critique TESLA on their changeout of a Tesla/Westinghouse motor style to a synchronous machine.

                Its obvious they are getting too much competition from others and since the occassional Tesla engineer chimes in here about “Tesla will always be the range leader” – that the easiest thing for Tesla to do was to put a modern motor design in the ‘3’, not one basically 130 years old.

                I expected a lot of kicking and screaming from Tesla fans – about how its not a Tesla anymore with a non-tesla motor, but those thankfully haven’t come to pass. It is rather when APPLE dropped Motorola (now FreeScale) as the central processor manufacturere, and went with INTEL, that change causing more of an uproar.

              2. Bill Howland says:

                Its when delving into specifics that many show they do not understand why the rotor of a motor turns in the first place.

                You are the last person to critique TESLA on their changeout of a Tesla/Westinghouse motor style to a synchronous machine.

                Its obvious they are getting too much competition from others and since the occassional Tesla engineer chimes in here about “Tesla will always be the range leader” – that the easiest thing for Tesla to do was to put a modern motor design in the ‘3’, not one basically 130 years old.

                I expected a lot of kicking and screaming from Tesla fans – about how its not a Tesla anymore with a non-tesla motor, but those thankfully haven’t come to pass. It is rather when APPLE dropped Motorola (now FreeScale) as the central processor manufacturer, and went with INTEL, that change causing more of an uproar.

              3. Mint says:

                The efficiency difference as a motor probably isn’t too big, but as a generator it’s probably larger.

                Not that the Model S has 1-14% lower efficiency with the EPA city cycle, while all other EVs are much more efficient in the city, often 20%+.

                The Model 3 now joins the pattern of the other PM EVs, so to me there’s too much evidence now against it being induction.

              4. Bill Howland says:

                An EPA statement is a HOAX?

                You and Spark EV don’t understand why alternating current motors turn in the first place so what evidence do you have for that.

                Talk about Tin-Foil-Hats…..

                Why should anyone care what you think anyway? You’ll never buy one.

                This is the problem by thinking you know everything just because you can read things in Wikipedia stating Tesla/Westinghouse style induction motors traditionally were the most popular.

                That statement is very true, but it does not apply to the choice of motor types in electric cars for one very compelling reason:

                The Price of Electricity to drive an EV is extremely high. Beyond the electric cost itself is the cost, and weight of batteries, plus the electronics to make it all work.

                A small increase in efficiency of the motor (and the efficiency increases in a modern motor are not small – unless you haven’t learned to count – and most haven’t) causes great decrease in cost/weight elsewhere for a car that will drive a given distance.

                And, anyone who says anything about ‘induced losses’ in a synchronous motor, is batty, and has no idea why the thing spins in the first place. This shows they ALSO are clueless as to why the Tesla-style motor spins, or what its characteristics are.

                To all the big-experts: Why does a Tesla style motor approach, but never acheive Synchronous speed, other than by accident?

                1. SparkEV says:

                  Permanent magnets in PM motor rotor experience change in magnetic field, and they are able to conduct current. Unless Faraday’s law of induction has been broken, they will experience induction current losses in the rotor magnets corresponding to the amount of field change: more change (more power) means more losses.

                  You should review basic Physics before criticizing others.

                2. SparkEV says:

                  In case you bring up corner case of a synchronous PM motor with constant load not having any (or anything significant) field change, that’s not what we’re talking about here.

                  1. Bill Howland says:

                    The criticizer should learn the basics first.

                    There are no magnetic lines of force crossed.

                    You simply do not have the vaguest idea of what you are talking about.

                    Answer my question down below about induction motors.

                  2. Bill Howland says:

                    I didn’t talk one word about constant loads.

                    I give up. Have someone explain to you how motors work.

                    Here’s your homework assignment:

                    Explain to me what happens when an induction motor approaches synchronous speed, and if you guess correctly, tell me WHY it happens.

                    This is key to understanding what happens (and what losses there are) in PM motors.

                    You are sounding like NIX in that I mention one regulation which most are compelled to comply with, and then you go paragraph after paragraph as to why you think I’m wrong but offer no comment on my proofs. Then when I show what the law is, and how it has continually remained the law, he changes the subject.

                    Now what you are saying about permanent magnet motors is something the SuperDope would say. There are not any electric circuits in a PM rotor, but there are electric circuits in an induction motor.

                    To reiterate what I’ve said 5 times: A PM motor will not have ohmic losses since there are no ohmic currents – there is no wiring in the rotor for there to be ANY ELECTRICITY to begin with.

                    Anyway, Tesla Motor Corporation has finally joined the 20th century by using a relatively modern motor that is more efficient than the 19th century design they were using.

                    If you are so smart, argue the decision with them. I think its a good one.

                    1. Bill Howland says:

                      I was always wondering in the back of my head “SparkEv is usually smarter than this – why is he hung up on all this dopey stuff?”

                      You must be talking about stray current SHAFT EDDY CURRENT LOSSES.

                      Those start to become a minor irritant at around 20,000-40,000 rpm.

                      The motors in my EV’s don’t spin that fast.

                      Talk about “Straining out the Gnat but Gulping Down the Camel!”.

                      In plain old EV motors, there are more important losses to worry about.

                      If you are designing a 50,000 rpm dentist drill or something, then yes, it is a loss that must be factored in.

                      But in my EV’s, driving to the corner store, the loss is so small its unmeasurable.

    2. speculawyer says:

      “I bet 77% of M3 buyers never even care to look at this figure…….lol”

      Actually, 100% of them care about it!…just indirectly. The buyers all want the longest range they can get at the lowest price. And the efficiency gains are what make those things possible.

      1. Mark.ca says:

        I care very much about these numbers! I average 4.5miles/kWh now and there’s no way i’m going for a car that can’t give me at least 4. The bigger this number is the faster i recoup my solar costs.

    3. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      I bet 77% of M3 buyers never even care to look at this figure…….lol

      EV buyers certainly should ignore the meaningless and almost useless MPGe metric, in favor of the meaningful and useful miles/kWh or kWh/mile.

      Not only does the very term “MPGe” act to prop up the wrong-headed concept that EVs are just gasmobiles that use a special type of fuel, the term also acts as a crutch for those who are too lazy to learn what the terms kilowatt and kilowatt-hours mean.

      The miles/kWh metric seems to have a pretty good relationship with real-world range, as well as the EPA’s own EV range ratings.

      Neither is true for the near-useless MPGe metric.

  3. Alan says:

    My Outlander PHEV weighs about 4000lb and does 2 miles per kWh in EV mode in the real world, so 50kWh’s per 100 miles

    The TM3 Uses 23.7kWh per 100 miles which is less than half for roughly the same weight.

    It’s not comparing apples with apples but still not too shabby !

    1. Bul_gar says:

      There is mistake it’s 26.7kwh per 100 miles for 126mpge. Tesla Model 3 with range 210 miles will have battery pack with 53kwh usable energy.

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        We don’t even know what the actual kWh capacity of the TM3 battery packs are, let alone the usable capacity.

        You must have pulled that number out from some place where “the sun don’t shine”, or else whoever you copied it from did.

  4. Ocean Railroader says:

    Here is a story about how Mazda said they are going to make a killing with a 30% more powerful gas powered engine http://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/news/mazda-announces-breakthrough-in-long-coveted-engine-technology/ar-AApIOMK?li=BBnbfcL

    Meanwhile Tesla

    1. mx says:

      Yes, but this: “Mazda’s share price closed down 1.3 percent.”
      From the same article, so no one’s buying it.

      Also, good to see MSN is still a thing!

      1. Vexar says:

        Hasn’t Mazda been touting their Wanker rotary engine technology for a long time, though?

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          Exactly what I was thinking. Didn’t Mazda tout the Wankel engine as being about 30-33% more fuel efficient, back in the day?

          In reality, not so much.

    2. Stimpy says:

      Mazda is going to risk going out of business if they don’t get on board with electric drive soon! They don’t even have a basic non-hybrid plug-in in the US. It isn’t 1999 anymore…

      1. Tom says:

        Mazda is not large enough to commit the kind of resources necessary to go it alone which is why they recently partnered with Toyota to use Toyota’s technology. In return Toyota gets access to Mazda’s gas and diesel engines which are widely considered to be superior on several fronts including efficiency. And for all those who in past threads scream ‘why waste money on gas engines!!!!’ I offer that they aren’t going away next year so perhaps in the interim, Toyota is doing a good thing by getting access to the very most efficient engines in existence. So Toyota can back off a bit on ICE research and design and focus on electric while Mazda can handle the flip side of that equation.

  5. Bul_gar says:

    Tesla Model 3 26.6kwh per 100 miles! I expected much better. That is 16.6kwh per 100 km.

    1. Mikael says:

      Why? That is pretty good considering the size and weight of the car.

      It is even better than the Ioniq, if it would have the same battery capacity.

      1. Bul_gar says:

        Because at 55mph Model S 75D use average 17kwh per 100km or 62 miles.

        1. Mark.ca says:

          That translates to 3.65m/kwh for the 75D…and 3.76 for M3…not that bad.
          We should all use this measure when talking about efficiency.

          1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            310 miles/75 kWh = 4.133 miles/kWh.

            Even if you believe the rather questionable claim for 80 kWh, that’s still 3.875 miles/kWh.

            For the smaller pack, 220 miles / 55 kWh = 4 kWh, and if it’s 60 kWh, that would be 3.667 miles/kWh.

            So I don’t know where you’re getting the 3.76 miles/kWh figure from. The actual figure is likely better than that.

            1. Bul_gar says:

              Don’t forget your pills!
              You expect Model 3 long range to have better efficiency than base version with less weight?

    2. pjwood1 says:

      Besting 4 miles per KWh is breakthrough territory. BMW was on it, with CFRP construction. What were you thinking the Model 3 would offer, that would have been “Much better”?

      Maybe because I was so taken aback by the low weight of Model 3, I don’t find the efficiency number that surprising. Tesla are close to owning both ends of the BEV MPGe spectrum. Model S was never a “sipper”.

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        “Besting 4 miles per KWh is breakthrough territory.”

        Indeed it is!

        Kudos to Tesla for an impressive engineering achievement. Altho we don’t yet know what the exact battery capacity for the TM3 is, it looks like Tesla has done even better than the lightweight i3, and with a considerably heavier vehicle. This dramatic improvement can’t possibly be all due to lower drag and slightly lower weight.

        To all those who said that EV drivetrains are a dime a dozen, with nothing to choose between them; to all the Tesla bashers who claimed Tesla has no tech advantage there, I give a huge raspberry!

        😛 😛 😛

      2. SparkEV says:

        SparkEV was on it even without using CFRP, or much of Aluminum, either. Bolt with 2X the battery and some Al has better efficiency (MPGe) than the new i3 with CFRP.

        Also depends on when you break the 4 mi/kWh. Even Tesla S breaks 6.8 mi/kWh at constant 25 MPH.

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          But nobody is driving long distances at a constant 25 MPH, except as a stunt.

          From what I’ve read, I think the EPA range ratings for EVs are pretty close to what real drivers get in real-world driving without hypermiling. Certainly they are far closer to real world driving than the inflated ratings from the European or Japanese test cycles, and also closer to reality than the EPA’s own MPG ratings for gasmobiles.

          But I do wish the EPA would rate cars not by just a couple of numbers (city/highway), but rather using a chart that shows energy (or fuel) consumption at a range of speeds: 35 MPH, 45 MPH, 55 MPH, 65 MPH, 75 MPH, and maybe even 85 MPH.

          I think that would be far more useful, as well as driving home the point that you can drive farther on a charge if you drive slower.

          1. Bill Howland says:

            “Driving more than 4 miles per kwh… certainly is”.. or “…“Besting 4 miles per KWh is breakthrough territory.”

            Indeed it is!…”.. HA!

            Bolt ev’s never get credit for anything.

            Then Pushi GIVE ME THE GOLD STAR….

            I drove on public roads at or over published speed limits (more than double your constant 25 mph most of the time), this last saturday
            from Buffalo, Ny with a ham radio friend (over 300 lbs himself, along with 200 pounds of his gear, besides myself of course),
            from a northern suburb of Buffalo, Ny to Trumansburg, NY (next to Ithaca), and then back to Niagara Falls, NY for lunch (while charging at the IBEW across the street).

            That is 279 miles, or assuming 60kwh useable capacity in its 65 kwh battery, 4.65 miles per kilowatt-hour, which if your calculator agrees is more than that GOLD STAR FOUR number you are so impressed with.

            Big Deal….. STRIKE UP THE BAND!!!! A Tesla gets 4 mi/kwh and its newsworthy (I suppose it IS but not in the way the sychophants mean it),- meanwhile my lowly Bolt does 4.65 mi/kwh (over 16% better) and it is just everyday driving – no news whatsoever.

    3. Nix says:

      I think you might have the M3 220 in mind. These are the numbers for the M3 310, which is the heavier, higher performance, long range version.

      The slightly lower performance, lighter M3 220 AWD will likely be the range king of the Tesla Model 3 group of vehicles.

  6. Koenigsegg says:

    So it gets 126 miles per gallon electric….. what the f**k does that mean?

    Absolutely nothing. Now let’s not mention MPGe ever again.

    1. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

      +100

    2. Devin Serpa says:

      Miles per dollar would be better.

      1. Mark.ca says:

        miles per kWh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        1. Nix says:

          miles per kWh including charging loss, or without charging loss?

          Most cars display a somewhat misleading metric of miles per kWh without including charging loss. Since it is impossible to charge a battery without charging losses, MPGe is very useful because by definition, it ALWAYS includes charging losses.

          Miles per kWh is ambiguous. As a unit of measure, it simply doesn’t include the information required to know if the number includes charging losses or excludes charging losses.

          Miles per kWh will forever be a source of confusion because of this. Examples of this can be found right here on this page, on an EV enthusiast website. I don’t believe that the general public will have any better luck divining whether somebody is talking MPkWh before losses or after losses is accounted for.

          Miles per kWh is a fundamentally flawed unit of measure, because the units do not include all of the information needed. So comparing two different measurements of Miles per kWh may be off by around 10%, throwing off any comparison.

          1. Mikael says:

            Always without charging loss. It is the consumption of the car when driving.

            If you want a metric for charging then it will be in a percentage not in a kWh/km because the car has not moved an inch.

            Easy peasy…

            1. ModernMarvelFan says:

              Cars only display miles/kWh in driving efficiency only.

              But EPA MPGe number or kWh/100 miles consumption numbers include both the charging loss or “battery conditioning” loss. It is the total amount of electricity feed into the car thus including all the loss at the charger, battery conditioning and as well as other parasitic loss.

            2. Nix says:

              Mikael — please just go ahead and show me the SI units that specify that. Otherwise it is purely your assumption and remains ambiguous to the rest of the world outside your head.

              Also, that would fail utterly to meet the requirements of what the EPA needs for their window stickers. Whether you prefer it or not.

              The charger is part of the vehicle, and including the onboard charger inefficiency is part of measuring the overall efficiency of the vehicle as a whole. Leaving it out is like completely leaving out the adjustments they make for wind resistance, and just publishing straight dyno mileage numbers as if aerodynamics could be ignored.

              The EPA can’t just waive off charging losses as if they didn’t exist, and as if each car was exactly the same.

              1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                “The charger is part of the vehicle, and including the onboard charger inefficiency is part of measuring the overall efficiency of the vehicle as a whole.”

                Yeah, that would be as silly as the real MPG metric not including losses from driving your car to and from the gas station to fill up, and ignoring the energy cost of running the filling station.

                Oh, wait…

                * * * * *

                The MPG metric measures the efficiency of an ICEV using fuel stored onboard the car to power the engine. Likewise, the miles/kWh metric measurement measures the efficiency of an EV using electrical energy stored onboard the car to power the motor.

                The fake metric “MPGe” isn’t at all equivalent. It includes a type of loss which the MPG metric ignores, so isn’t at all “equivalent”.

                If it really was equivalent, y’all wouldn’t be arguing over what losses it does or does not include.

                1. Nix says:

                  The distance any individual has to drive to the gas station has nothing to do with measuring the DEVICE (the consumption of the car itself).

                  It is all energy consumed from the fuel flap to the wheels. That way you are comparing one device to another, not the relative distance from fueling stations.

              2. CCIE says:

                Last I checked, mpg in a gas car doesn’t include any gas I spill on the ground, or the gas left in the hose. Or the gas that evaporates out of the tank.

                Mi/KWh makes so much more sense than a nebulous figure like MPGe.

          2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            “Most cars display a somewhat misleading metric of miles per kWh without including charging loss. Since it is impossible to charge a battery without charging losses, MPGe is very useful because by definition, it ALWAYS includes charging losses.”

            On this point, Nix, we firmly disagree.

            If I was driving a plug-in EV, I’d certainly want to know what the driving range was, and would want both the car’s instrument panel and the EPA sticker to reflect that.

            Including the loss due to charging efficiency might help with calculating how owning the EV will affect your monthly bill for electricity, but it doesn’t do diddly-squat for knowing how far you can drive the car before it runs low on juice.

            It’s the MPGe rating that I regard as misleading, not the miles/kWh rating which concerns only energy stored onboard the car.

            Charging losses have absolutely nothing to do with what the car’s EV range is. And for extending the range by using en-route charging, using a DCFC bypasses the car’s onboard charger, so that’s another situation where the MPGe metric is misleading.

            1. Nix says:

              MPG and MPGe are both measures of energy efficiency.

              That is what the EPA is charged with informing users about. Not how a driver can out-guestimate the GOM. The EPA doesn’t concern themselves with that. Is simply doesn’t enter into their considerations.

              They specify the actual amount of energy a driver should expect to consume when operating the vehicle. That makes a number that INCLUDES the charging losses the single and only way to communicate efficiency. Especially since the car itself impacts how efficient the car is when charging.

              A measure of consumption without charging losses would simply fail to meet the requirements for the data that the EPA needs for the window sticker. End of story.

              1. ModernMarvelFan says:

                Absolutely correct!

                + 33.7! =)

                1. Phr≡d says:

                  yep (and hope he means “move [FAR AWAY] on)

              2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                I don’t feel any need to add to the numerous things I’ve already posted on this subject.

                I think it’s time for me to declare victory in this debate, and move on.

          3. Bill Howland says:

            My 279 mile trip last saturday, assuming the battery was completely dead when I pulled into the public docking station, would take 67.77 kwh. But the battery wasn’t completely dead (although admittedly, it was probably within a few miles of being dead).

            So that is 4.12 miles/kwh paid for on a billing meter. (Except the real figure is better since it wouldn’t take that much juice to recharge it).

            Again, even when talking about battery charging inefficiency, the BOLT ev is still noteworthy. 2.914 cents / mile operating cost, assuming 12 cents/kwh is pretty cheap.

            So the BOlt ev is a good deal (except in places with Confiscatory electricity pricing). $8.13 is not bad for a full tank of juice going 279 miles. An equivalent Honda Fit would probably take nearly $17 to make the same trip.

      2. Mikael says:

        Haha…that would have been absolutely useless. Good joke. 🙂

    3. Lou Grinzo says:

      It’s miles per gallon of gasoline equivalent, not “miles per gallon electric”.

      1. Nix says:

        That link talks about the actual definition of MPGe, and then 2 other fabricated alternate uses of the same 4 letters to create the author’s own 2 other metrics that have nothing to do with the actual definition of MPGe.

        That’s like saying there are 3 definitions of Kilometer, because you also want to include a made up definition of how many beers you can drink before you pass out walking a kilometer.

    4. speculawyer says:

      WRONG!

      Let me explain why MPGe is good. It is an honest comparison to the energy content of a gallon of gasoline. So the really MPGe SHOWS HOW EFFICIENT EVs REALLY ARE. Most people STILL don’t understand this and the MPGe number helps get it through their thick skulls.

      The sticker also gives the KWH/100-miles number. So stop complaining.

      1. speculawyer says:

        *really BIG MPGe

      2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        “Let me explain why MPGe is good. It is an honest comparison to the energy content of a gallon of gasoline.”

        Let me explain why MPGe is bad. Aside from perpetuating the fallacy that EVs are just a kind of gasmobile that uses a special fuel, as well as the fact that the numbers are erratic and don’t reflect real-world EV range, the fake “MPGe” metric also ignores the very real differences from gasmobiles in energy efficiency. For example, gasmobiles are terrible at energy efficiency in stop-and-go-traffic, and much better on the highway. With EVs, it’s usually the reverse.

        1. ModernMarvelFan says:

          What you described has NOTHING TO DO with the MPGe figure or definition.

          MPGe or MPG-equivalent is direct conversion from miles/kWh to MPGe.

          1 gallon of gasoline holds about 33.7kWh worth of energy according to EPA. So a car that does 4 miles/kWh gets 134.8 MPGe (33.7*4).

          The 126MPGe is the efficiency of “energy put into the car” which includes the on board charging loss. So, the two energy comparison (gas into the car) is equalized. The buyer would clearly see that despite how “efficient” Non-plugin hybrid is (similar to EV that they do better with regen in the city as you have pointed out), they are still less than 1/2 as efficient as the EVs with 100+ MPGe.

          Since they are often including charging loss (which also affect the cost as electricity lost in the charger onboard are still paid by the owners), one can estimate how many miles each kWh gets.

          For example, 126MPGe includes charging loss, if we assume 10% charging loss, then the actual efficiency 138.6 MPGe is 4.11 miles/kWh. By reversing the 310 miles range, we can figure out that usable battery is actually 75.37kWh.

          1. SparkEV says:

            It’s not that simple. SparkEV is rated 109 MPGe, 3.23 mi/kWh using 33.7 kWh/gal conversion. Assuming 90% efficient charging, it’d be 3.6 mi/kWh battery to wheels. Using the entire 18.4 kWh battery would give only 66 miles range.

            109 MPGe giving 82 miles using 18.4 kWh (100% use) only occur if the charging is 72% efficient. Assuming only 18 kWh is used (0.4 kWh reserve), charging would have to be only 71% efficient.

            We all know charging is not that inefficient. There’s something very fishy about efficiency and range figures that you cannot relate.

            1. ModernMarvelFan says:

              You would be right if we would trust your spin on the MPGe number. 109MPGe is the highway number for Spark EV which shows why it is terrible due to inefficiency at hwy speed.

              The combined number for Spark EV is 119MPGe or 128MPGe city.

              Now, let us redo the math with those real numbers, 119MPGe with 10% charging loss would have been 130.9MPGe or 3.88 miles/kWh. @15% loss it would have been 136.9 MPGe or 4.06 miles/kWh. @ 18% loss it would have been 4.17 miles/kWh which would have put it inside the 19kWh battery range.

              On the Volt calculation, they used 15-18% figure. That “charging loss” also includes the power used to “condition” the battery.

              The EPA range estimate is combined cycle.

              The fact that you “cherry picked” the Hwy efficiency number to illustrate a false point for someone who clearly understands the EVs better than average seems to suggest that you have some kind of ulterior motives here.

              1. ModernMarvelFan says:

                In addition, the 119 MPGe number was on the original Spark EV which had larger battery and “arguably” less efficient gearing ratio.

                When GM switched to the LG cells of 19.4kWh battery pack, the car efficiency was rumored to increased due to changing in gearing ratio but GM never bothered to “improve/upgrade” its efficiency number to keep at 82miles because it is a compliance car. That is NO different from the 2015 Volt which had larger pack but GM didn’t do anything with its range number.

                1. SparkEV says:

                  “but GM never bothered to “improve/upgrade” its efficiency number to keep at 82miles”

                  And you don’t see that as being fishy? If they can do it for SparkEV, what’s to say it’s accurate for others?

                  As for range and efficiency, you are correct that it’s 119 combined for SparkEV. But do the math using that number. Only way to get 82 miles range with 18 kWh usable is if charging efficiency is 77% as follows.

                  119/33.7*18/.77

                  If you think charging loss is 23%, things are peachy. But the real world loss is much less, about 15%.

                  But math and facts probably don’t matter to you. You will blindly trust MPGe to range relation despite the discrepancies they show with SparkEV.

                  1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

                    SparkEV:
                    There are other factors to explain such discrepancies. You don’t need to jump straight to nutty conspiracy theories and accusations.

                    E.g. you don’t always know for sure what battery capacity kWh was used. I don’t know much about Spark EV, but e.g. earlier Leafs had different state of charge settings and EPA used either default or some average (don’t remember details), and it was less than 100%. Or in other words, usable capacity wasn’t actually as high as declared by automaker as you were not supposed to use it by default.

                    Also losses to condition battery may or may not included. I.e. vampire losses. Fueleconomy.gov doesn’t go into such details.
                    http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=38187&id=33640&id=35120&id=36996

        2. speculawyer says:

          “perpetuating the fallacy that EVs are just a kind of gasmobile that uses a special fuel”

          What does that even mean? A gasmobile would use gas. And an electric car really is just like a gas car except that it uses a battery, controller, & electric motor instead of gasoline & ICE.

          “the fake “MPGe” metric also ignores the very real differences from gasmobiles in energy efficiency.”

          WRONG! This is EXACTLY what it highlights! On pure physics basis, it shows that EVs travel far further per unit of energy than gasoline cars do! The best gas cars (Prius hybrids) only get ~50 MPG whereas this much nicer Tesla gets 126 MPGe! More than twice as efficient! THAT’S THE POINT!

          You want KWH/100-miles…it is on sticker too…but the MPGe shows people that EVs are more than twice as efficient! Often 3X or 4X as efficient!

          1. ModernMarvelFan says:

            Exactly! MPGe number is designed to show how “inefficient” ICE is on something that “average joe” can understand. Most people are purely ignorant on anything beside MPG (which is a bad number kM/100L is better). So in order to convert ignorant buyers, it is FAR EASIER to use the same easily understood scale of MPGe to show how much “energy” is wasted by ICE.

          2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            speculawyer said:

            “…an electric car really is just like a gas car except that it uses a battery, controller, & electric motor instead of gasoline & ICE.”

            Seriously?

            C’mon, Speculawyer, you know better.

            You can’t plug a gasmobile into the wall at night and have it be filled up the next morning.

            Gasmobiles don’t have the instant response to pressing the accelerator which an EV does.

            EVs don’t emit poisonous, carcinogen-laced fumes from the rear when you drive them.

            EVs don’t need oil changes, nor mufflers, nor fan belts, head gaskets, oil pumps, fuel pumps, timing chains, or many of the other things which fill up the engine compartment of an ICEV, and which all too often have to be replaced or fixed.

            And it’s completely misleading to use the term “MPGe”, which suggests that EVs get better energy efficiency in highway driving than stop-and-go, in-city driving… as gasmobiles do.

            Far better to use the term miles/kWh, or else kWh/mile, and send a clear message to the owner and driver that they need to learn and use a different way of thinking when considering the energy efficiency of driving an EV.

            1. ModernMarvelFan says:

              “And it’s completely misleading to use the term “MPGe”, which suggests that EVs get better energy efficiency in highway driving than stop-and-go, in-city driving… as gasmobiles do.”

              Completely Stupid BS.

              Nothing to mislead. It shows that EVs are 3x to 4x MORE EFFICIENT in handling the “EQUAL” Amount of energy putting in the vehicle. That is it!!!

              All other stuff that you list are correct but completely useless to most buyers. If they had cared, we wouldn’t be arguing over this right now. The entire POINT of using MPGe is to show much more efficient an EV is at using energy putting into a vehicle and they do it in the “simplest” term that traditional gas buyers can understand.

            2. Nix says:

              Pushy — MPGe is an equivalent measure of MPG in ICE cars.

              MPG does not measure throttle response in ICE cars. That is 0-60.

              MPG does not measure poisonous, carcinogen-laced fume emissions in ICE cars. That is measured in bin/tier.

              MPG does not measure oil changes, nor mufflers, maintenance cost in ICE cars either. That is in Total Cost to Own.

              Neither MPGe nor miles/kWh account for any of these either. So all of those are completely pointless non-sequitur arguments when discussing what units of measure to use for vehicle efficiency.

              1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                “Pushy — MPGe is an equivalent measure of MPG in ICE cars.”

                I’ve explained several times, in several different ways, the important differences.

                No need to repeat myself yet again.

        3. speculawyer says:

          “For example, gasmobiles are terrible at energy efficiency in stop-and-go-traffic, and much better on the highway.”

          Uh…Yeah….and that is reflected on the Monroney sticker in the city & highway MPGe figures.

          1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            I see what you did there…

            But since you didn’t note that this sticker is for the Tesla Model S60, you failed to make your point that the Model S, being engineered to maximize highway range, is an exception to that rule.

            It’s still the rule. Citing an exception to the rule doesn’t change that.

            1. ModernMarvelFan says:

              Doesn’t matter what it is…In this case, a Tesla is about 3x more efficient than its best size comparison of any gasoline/diesel car at 32mpg.

              That 3x is the point!!!!

              1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                On that, we do agree!

                Actually, I’m finding it rather amusing that there seem to be two camps so sharply divided and, apparently, so passionate over what is after all a rather unimportant topic regarding EVs.

                As you say, it’s far more important to note that no matter how you measure the energy use, EVs are far, far more energy-efficient than gasmobiles!

                1. ModernMarvelFan says:

                  That is the whole POINT.

                  MPGe allows one to compare EVs to Gasoline cars in terms that people can ‘traditionally’ understand!!!!

                  Most public doesn’t have a freaking idea what a kWh is. But most of them can understand what a gallon of gas mean, especially in a gasoline vehicle.

                  That is the whole point. EPA is trying to come up with a rating that most GAS buyers can easily compare and understand!!!

                  It shows clear superiority with a simple comparison as most public can easily tell that 100MPGe is WAY FREAKING better than 30 MPG.

    5. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Hear, hear!

      Let’s stop pretending that EVs are just a special kind of gasmobile. They are much better than that!

      1. ModernMarvelFan says:

        That is why they are better by using 126MPGe against 30MPG. That is more than 4x better!!!!

        1. speculawyer says:

          EXACTLY! It shows that the EV is 4X as efficient! What more could an EV advocate ask for?

          1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            We could ask for a metric which:

            1. Does not pretend plug-in EVs are just gasmobiles using a special kind of gasoline

            2. Is actually useful when comparing the energy efficiency using energy stored in the battery pack

            1. ModernMarvelFan says:

              It is directly comparing to amount of energy stored/filled into the vehicle.

              There is nothing to pretend. The entire point is that since majority of the cars are gas powered. This allows those people (gas burners) understand it easily. Yes, it is lowering the “science” to their level so they can understand. But that is the whole point. Instead of playing with more correct kWh or Wh/100kM or miles/kWh number, we give them a direct conversion to use to compare against their existing vehicles.

              There is NO pretending of anything. It is “talking efficiency” in the terms of that “gas car buyers” can easily understand. No need for ‘elitist’ view in this case.

              1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                Then you should be arguing equally as hard for the introduction of a “bales of hay per day equivalent” for those still riding horses, to gently introduce them to motorcars, so they don’t have to learn hard concepts like “miles” and “gallons”.

                That makes just as much sense. In fact, it makes more sense, since both horses and motorcars use the process of oxidation to generate the energy they need to run! EVs… not so much.

                1. ModernMarvelFan says:

                  If EPA is in charged to have a sticker for horses, then I am sure they will have a MPGe rating for horses too.

                  That would be converting the amount of feed content energy and amount of distance that horse produces.

                  The amount of crap that doesn’t get absorbed would be waste.

                  If we want to compare the efficiency between horse and cars, then we would certainly use MPGe if the intended audience is mostly gas car buyers.

    6. Nix says:

      It means that if you put 33.7 kilowatt-hours worth of potential energy in the form of electricity into a Model 3, you can drive 126 miles before you’ve consumed that energy.

      Just like when you put the same liquid equivalent of 33.7 kilowatt-hours of potential energy into a gas car and you drive 30 miles before you’ve consumed that energy (1 gallon of gas).

      ______________________________________

      I really don’t understand why EV enthusiasts aren’t willing to put any effort into understanding this, and instead seem self-righteously outraged at the very though of learning something new.

      It reminds me of the folks in the EPA study groups when asked if they were familiar with what kW’s and kWh’s are, said no. And then on follow up said they DID NOT WANT TO LEARN what a kWh was.

      We mock those people, and yet refuse to understand a much easier concept of driving your car 126 miles, and then when you plug it in afterwards it takes 33.7 kWh’s of electricity to refill the battery.

      1. Mikael says:

        It is not about learning something new, it is about getting rid of something absolutely useless that continues the ignorant US habit of making up their own lousy non-standard crappy units.

        SI-units and SI-derived units only please.

        1. Nix says:

          Just let me know the SI-units for showing that the consumption numbers either include or exclude charging losses. Nothing made up, just SI-units or SI derived units only please.

          MPGe automatically includes charging losses by definition. We need new terms because they have new standardized meanings.

      2. SparkEV says:

        “you can drive 126 miles before you’ve consumed that energy”

        It’s not that simple. With EV, that can approach double. For example, SparkEV is rated 109 MPGe using 18 kWh, which should be 58 miles. But it is rated 82 miles EPA. Most people get far more. I get bit over 100 miles even after 2 years of battery degradation.

        Single MPGe number is meaningless as absolute metric. It may have some merit as relative comparison, but seeing how SparkEV driven in the real world gets better efficiency than the better MPGe rated Bolt, even comparative is suspect.

        1. ModernMarvelFan says:

          “SparkEV is rated 109 MPGe using 18 kWh, ”

          Stop your spin!!!!!!!!!!!!

          SparkEV is rated 119MPGE COMBINED! 109 MPGe is highway ONLY.

          You should change your login name from SparkEV to SparkEV lies spinning troll!!!!!

          1. SparkEV says:

            Ok, Ok. SparkEV is 119 MPGe combined. Calm down already. Geez, you sound like a member of SparkEV cult. Not that I mind. 🙂

            So use 119 MPGe and do the math. What miles do you get for range with 18 kWh usable? I can assure you, it’s way less than 82 miles unless you assume unrealistic charger loss. For absolute calculations, MPGe is meaningless.

            In addition, 2014 SparkEV with 1.5 kWh more than 2015 has the same range and MPGe figure. Even with almost identical car with ~8% bigger battery, MPGe is meaningless.

            Bolt is rated higher MPGe than SparkEV, yet everyone reports they got better mi/kWh from SparkEV than Bolt. Even for comparing different EV, MPGe is meaningless.

            But even with all that, I suspect you will always trust MPGe.

            1. SparkEV says:

              Before you jump on me again, I meant 2014 has about 1.5 kWh more usable capacity. Of course, we all know 2014 has 2.1 kWh bigger battery than 2015+.

      3. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        Nix said:

        “Just like when you put the same liquid equivalent of 33.7 kilowatt-hours of potential energy into a gas car and you drive 30 miles before you’ve consumed that energy (1 gallon of gas).”

        Nope. Burning gasoline to generate heat for a heat engine is not even remotely like using electricity to power an electric motor.

        “I really don’t understand why EV enthusiasts aren’t willing to put any effort into understanding this, and instead seem self-righteously outraged at the very though of learning something new.”

        I’m outraged at the thought that the EPA is trying to force everyone to use a meaningless metric like “miles per gallon equivalent”, pretending there is an equivalence between burning gasoline and using electricity in an electric motor, as a crutch so gasmobile drivers won’t have to learn what a kilowatt and a kilowatt-hour are.

        Back during the motorcar revolution, nobody came up with a ridiculous metric like “bales of hay per mile” so motorcar drivers wouldn’t have to learn what “miles per gallon” meant. Why should it be any different in this tech revolution?

        There is nothing “equivalent” to burning fuel inside a heat engine about how EVs are powered!

        “It reminds me of the folks in the EPA study groups when asked if they were familiar with what kW’s and kWh’s are, said no. And then on follow up said they DID NOT WANT TO LEARN what a kWh was.”

        Accusing us of an equivalent laziness, or invincible ignorance, isn’t a winning argument, Nix. It’s merely annoying, because we recognize your analogy for the B.S. it is.

        “We mock those people, and yet refuse to understand a much easier concept of driving your car 126 miles, and then when you plug it in afterwards it takes 33.7 kWh’s of electricity to refill the battery.”

        Yeah? If it’s that straightforward, then why can we look back up this thread a bit and see an argument over what the “MPGe” metric does or does not include, perhaps including “ancillary losses”? Do you even know what it’s really measuring? I know one thing for certain: I do not! I don’t, and not because I’m lazy, but because it’s not at all straightforward the way MPG and miles/kWh are straightforward.

        The MPG metric measures the usage of fuel that is stored inside the car, and only that usage. It does not include usage of fuel to transport the fuel to the gas station, nor the energy in dispensing that fuel.

        Yet you’re arguing that somehow it’s “equivalent” to measure electricity that includes losses for the process of storing that energy onboard the car. Even worse, according to MMF, it might also include an average of ancillary losses such as battery conditioning!

        In other words, it’s not a true objective measurement, it’s a somewhat subjective estimate of energy usage which may or may not occur in practice.

        And you’re still defending this! Remarkable, Nix. You nearly always have your head screwed on straight, but here you’ve got your head… stuck somewhere else.

        1. ModernMarvelFan says:

          MPG is “distance per unit of energy consumed”.

          MPGe is “distance per unit of energy consumed”

          miles/kWh is “distance per unit of energy consumed”

          The only way to equate them is to use the 33.7kWh per gallon conversion to equal the “energy” part. Sure, they are different “form” of energy, but they are the SAME amount of energy nonetheless.

          Yes, battery conditioning and charger loss should be part of the equation since MPG is calculated as “energy fed into the vehicle”.

          kWh fed into the vehicle includes charging less as well as energy used to condition the car.

          Each gallon of gas fed into the car also includes the majority of the gasoline used for motion, heat generation while idling as well as the small amount of gas vapor evaporated through the emission canister.

          All of those are designed to put two different form of energy on the SAME ENERGY SCALE THAT COMMON PEOPLE CAN ASSOCIATE WITH AND UNDERSTAND.

        2. Nix says:

          Pushy — “Nope. Burning gasoline to generate heat for a heat engine is not even remotely like using electricity to power an electric motor.”

          Both electric motors and gas motors produce waste heat. Comparing MPGe to MPG does a very good job of showing how much less waste heat (and other losses) electric motors produce compared with ICE motors. There is no such thing as an automobile drivetrain that does not suffer heat losses, so it is completely valid to use a metric that includes heat loss for both.

          “The MPG metric measures the usage of fuel that is stored inside the car, and only that usage. It does not include usage of fuel to transport the fuel to the gas station, nor the energy in dispensing that fuel.”

          MPGe numbers also do not include the losses to get the electricity to your EV. All losses up until the VEHICLE are not included in either. But onboard chargers are PART OF THE VEHICLE, and therefore absolutely must be included in the VEHICLE efficiency. Which is exactly what the EPA does when they test them. All EV’s are charged through their own onboard charger, so that the efficiency of the vehicle itself is included in the MPGe numbers.

          Which is exactly what you need to know in order to compare the relative efficiency of one EV against another. Because charger efficiency of the vehicle’s chargers is definitely part of what you are buying.

          We covered all this years ago. I see you’ve put zero effort into the issue since then.

          1. ModernMarvelFan says:

            “We covered all this years ago. I see you’ve put zero effort into the issue since then”

            He doesn’t do his homework at all… LOL.

            He still hasn’t figured out how many clutches and how many planetary gearset are in a typical 6/7/8 speed automatic transmission yet..

            1. Nix says:

              The only two-pedal ICE cars that are worth driving have only 2 clutches in the transmission, and no planetary gears….

              *grin*

              three pedals FTW!

          2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            “Both electric motors and gas motors produce waste heat. Comparing MPGe to MPG does a very good job of showing how much less waste heat (and other losses) electric motors produce compared with ICE motors. There is no such thing as an automobile drivetrain that does not suffer heat losses, so it is completely valid to use a metric that includes heat loss for both.”

            With respect, Nix, that’s absolutely incorrect. Heat engines are limited by Carnot efficiency, and electric motors are not.

            Claiming that there is an equivalency because both lose some energy to heat is a false equivalency. Heat engines by their very nature have to lose most of the energy to heat, whereas an electric powertrain in theory can limit losses to nothing but mechanical friction losses.

            Of course in practice that cannot happen; the Second Law of Thermodynamics holds in EV powertrains, in charging and discharging batteries, in wires conducting the electricity, in the inverter… there are many places in an EV powertrain where, in practice, energy is lost to waste heat.

            But an EV powertrain can be made far more energy efficient than an ICEV powertrain can ever be, even an ICEV powertrain operating at theoretical maximum Carnot efficiency.

            And in fact, in modern EVs, that has already been achieved.

            1. ModernMarvelFan says:

              “nothing but mechanical friction losses.”

              Which turns into heat…

              it doesn’t matter which one loses more heat. That is why MPGe is created so buyers can do a simple “direct” comparison IN TERMS OF ENERGY Efficiency, Not heat efficiency, not emission efficiency, but ENERGY efficiency at the input port to the vehicle.

            2. Bill Howland says:

              “By their very NATURE engines have to lose most of their energy to heat”.

              Please explain why central station General Electric ICE engines run at 63% efficiency.

              Also, some Toyotas get 51%.

              What an Idiot.

              What is really idiotic is to compare the efficiencies of electric motors and ICE’s to begin with. They are apples and oranges.

              An ICE can run on raw fuel.

              An EV cannot, and must have considerable energy processing (with losses that are not included in these dopey comparisons) done elsewhere.

              1. Bill Howland says:

                Correction:

                Toyota got 38% efficiency.. Still pretty good for a small, portable, wide speed range engine.

              2. Bill Howland says:

                Correction: The 63% was the practical Carnot cycle efficiency limitation.

                And one GE ICE got 51%.

                Point being it is silly to say the theoretical limitation is 50% since there is no reason to pick such an arbitrary number.

                And for combined cycle (internal and external combustion) one EDF plant in France just reached over 62.5% efficiency.

                Of course this assumes you don’t make use of any of the ‘waste’ heat. Which in cold climates DECREASES the effective efficiency of electric cars while making the gas cars look better.

                The first thing that impressed me about the VOLT was how LITTLE gasoline it used in February to propel the car yet keep the cabin toasty warm and the windows clear. The effective gasoline utilization must have been very high (70-80%). But then, the engine would cycle on and off, which was just about right to extract ALL the heat from the jacket and send it to the passenger cabin, and then have the engine run a bit more and have the intermittent operation cycle repeat.

  7. Devin Serpa says:

    3.75miles/kWh is great.

    1. speculawyer says:

      I agree. There is still a little room for improvement but they did great for a car that can fit 5 adults comfortably and travel 310 miles on a charge.

    2. ModernMarvelFan says:

      It is better than that. It is about 4.1miles/kWh.

      The 3.78 figure includes charging less. It matters in cost since charging loss are part of electricity used and owners pay for it. But it doesn’t predicate range.

  8. speculawyer says:

    Anyone besides me a bit skeptical of the Hyundai IONIQ Electric claim of 136 MPGe?

    Hyundai got caught cheating on MPG recently. And the Ionic doesn’t look all that aerodynamic.

    I guess it is lighter since it has such a small battery in it.

    1. Devin Serpa says:

      Hell yea. And the range? With only a 28kWh pack?

    2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      “Anyone besides me a bit skeptical of the Hyundai IONIQ Electric claim of 136 MPGe?”

      I don’t pay any attention to the fake MPGe metric, but I certainly do find the miles/kWh rating of the Ioniq Electric to be rather questionable. I’d love to see some real-world range reports from actual drivers, or better yet, I’d love to see Edmunds.com put the car thru their range test procedures.

      1. Mark.ca says:

        “but I certainly do find the miles/kWh rating of the Ioniq Electric to be rather questionable”
        What is the number anyway? i found 4m/kwh…

      2. speculawyer says:

        “I don’t pay any attention to the fake MPGe metric, but I certainly do find the miles/kWh rating”

        You realize that those two numbers represent the exact same thing, right? They are just using different units.

        1. ModernMarvelFan says:

          Once Pu-Pu makes up his mind on something, he won’t easily change despite that numerous attempt showing how wrong he is at it…

          I clearly can trace this back to the first/longest argument between he and I on his false impression on how complex Voltec is comparing to a typical automatic transmission in terms of number of planetary gear sets/clutches…

          1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            ROTFL!!
            😀 😀 😀

            Wow, MMF! You accusing me of refusing to admit it when I’ve been shown to be wrong isn’t merely the pot calling the kettle black, it’s the mountain accusing the molehill of being too tall!

            I was looking back at the comments to an article from something like 2-3 years ago, when I was still posting as “Lensman”, and I found a hammer-and-tongs argument between you and me on that subject.

            Well, I’m sorry that I let you get under my skin and get me that upset. These days, I find it merely amusing that you continue the ridiculous assertion that the Voltec 1.0 drivetrain, which includes two electric motors, multiple clutches, an ICEngine, and even at times the generator clutched into the drivetrain, as well as the ability to deliver power in an infinitely variable ratio, is somehow “simpler” than an ordinary ICEV drivetrain which has only one clutch, only one engine/motor, and has a very limited number of speed/power ratios, limited by the number of gears, each of which operates in the very same rather simple fashion.

            Perhaps more to the point, I can figure out how an ICEV powertrain works just by examining it and tracing the way the power is transmitted thru the system. Contrariwise, Voltec 1.0 is so complex that even after watching a video showing its various operating modes, I’m still rather fuzzy about how everything works, and there is no way in hell that I could ever figure that all out just by examining the parts.

            But you go right ahead, MMF, and continue your stubborn refusal to admit that you are wrong on that point. Not just a bit wrong, but blatantly, obviously, and embarrassingly wrong!

            So if you want to keep embarrassing yourself on that subject… you go right ahead. I’ll just make some popcorn and watch. 😀

            1. ModernMarvelFan says:

              ” as well as the ability to deliver power in an infinitely variable ratio, is somehow “simpler” than an ordinary ICEV drivetrain which has only one clutch, only one engine/motor, and has a very limited number of speed/power ratios, limited by the number of gears, each of which operates in the very same rather simple fashion.”

              LOLOLOL

              That showed that you are completely clueless on how a complex automatic transmission work. To you, who lacks any technical training or understanding, a high geared transmission is far more complex than Voltec just shows that you have ZERO understanding on how advanced transmission works. A typical 6/7/8 speed transmission have 3-4 sets of Planetary gearset with 2 clutches EACH SET. That is 3-4 Planetary gearset and up to 8 clutches.

              Voltec is basically a transmission or power split device with 3 clutches and 1 Planetary gearset (gen2 has 2 set).

              3-4 is more than 1.

              8 is more than 3. It shows that you don’t get basic math.

              Yes. There are two additional electric motor. But so are typical ICE which has generator/alternator and starter. They are different greatly in size and performance but basically 2 for 2.

              So, the entire powertrain in design IS FAR SIMPLER due FAR LESS part in the Voltec in comparison with the complex high speed transmission which YOU IGNORED due to your lack of knowledge on the subject.

              That is very typical of you. When you don’t understand something, you easily ignore it or argue over it with your lack of technical understanding… LOL. Thanks for revisiting this simple topic to show what you are.

              I guess I have to periodically bring it up to shows that old LENSMAN isn’t getting smarter but just a change of login name… LOL.

              1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                ROTFL!

                😀 :D: 😀

                And you are STILL trying to convince everyone that I changed my screen name from “Lensman” because I was embarrassed over all the arguments that you pretend that I lost!

                Thanks for the belly laugh, MMF. Honestly, I’m getting a lot of amusement out of your posts today… at your expense.

                1. ModernMarvelFan says:

                  “because I was embarrassed over all the arguments that you pretend that I lost!”

                  You should be embarrassed, not because you win or lose an argument which nobody cares. It is about spreading false information, insisting on something which you have no technical understanding of…

                  It is certainly “fun” for me to lecture you from time to time.

              2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                “To you, who lacks any technical training or understanding, a high geared transmission is far more complex than Voltec just shows that you have ZERO understanding on how advanced transmission works.”

                Ummm… dude… you’ve gotten so emotionally involved in refusing to admit you’ve been shown to be wrong that you’ve forgotten who claimed what.

                It’s YOU who claimed that a multi-gear ICEV transmission is more complex than Voltec 1.0. I claimed the opposite; I claimed that Voltec is more complex. Much more complex.

                And still do.

                1. ModernMarvelFan says:

                  “And still do.”

                  Because you REFUSE TO ADMIT that YOU DON’T HAVE A CLUE ON HOW A MULTI-SPEED TRANSMISSION WORKS.

                  Due to your ignorance on that topic, it explains why you hold the wrong opinion that you do. I have asked you multiple times to list the number of clutches and planetary gearsets inside a typical 6/7/8 speed transmission and you have failed to do so. That lack of understanding is what drives you to come up with that wrong conclusion. That is exactly my point here. You insist on your wrong conclusion due to your lack of technical understanding. I have asked you to do the research which you refuse to do. On top of it all, I have listed the technical details in terms of number of clutches and planetary gearsets that you couldn’t refute, yet you still hold on to your wrong opinion. That is what drives this long exchange…

            2. ModernMarvelFan says:

              “I can figure out how an ICEV powertrain works just by examining it and tracing the way the power is transmitted thru the system. Contrariwise, Voltec 1.0 is so complex that even after watching a video showing its various operating modes, I’m still rather fuzzy about how everything works, and there is no way in hell that I could ever figure that all out just by examining the parts.”

              LOL. That only shows your intelligence level.

              First of all, I seriously doubt you have EVER traced the power path inside an automatic transmission which is basically what Voltec is replacing.

              Voltec is naturally a power split input device. Of course you don’t understand. This explains EVERYTHING NOW!!!!!

              You didn’t do the homework that I have asked you to do. Go and find an automatic transmission with 6 or more gears and traces its power path and I seriously doubt you will figure it out… LOL.

              Since you don’t understand planetary gearset at that, that is why you are finding Voltec to be confusing. But in the ICE cars, you just ignored it by considering a HIGHLY COMPLEX automatic transmission as a single block or a set of gears as you said.. LOL.

              Go and do the homework and you will understand the complexity. In fact, go to your local transmission shop and see how complex a “rebuild” process is and you will understand why it would cost $2,000 to $3,000 just to rebuild an automatic transmission!!!!

              1. Tom says:

                When discussing engineering, people will take you more seriously if you quit using LOL like a 15 year old.

                1. ModernMarvelFan says:

                  There is NO discussion of engineering with Pu-Pu. 15 years old mentality is what “fits” his mental capacity…

                  I would have treated him as an adult if he could actually demonstrate that he can understand basic technical concepts. After 4 years of trying, it appears that isn’t possible.

        2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          speculawyer said:

          “You realize that those two numbers represent the exact same thing, right? They are just using different units.”

          No, wrong. See argument elsewhere in this discussion thread about charging losses and possibly even “ancillary losses” that the fake MPGe metric includes.

          I don’t know exactly what MPGe means… and neither do you.

          1. ModernMarvelFan says:

            Charging loss are energy lost in the vehicle after it is put into the vehicle.

            MPG includes gasoline lost due to evaporate as well as idling case for heat generation.

            At the end of the day, it is about Energy input into the vehicle.

            But I think we already waste more time than necessary with you since you have repeatly shown that you have very little capability of understanding anything that is more technical. Go and count some transmission gearing and learn how it work before you talk again. It has been more than 3 years. You failed at your simple assignment… LOL.

            1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

              ModernMarvelFan continued grasping at straws to pretend he hasn’t lost the argument:

              “Charging loss are energy lost in the vehicle after it is put into the vehicle.”

              Wrong again. It’s energy lost as it’s being put into the vehicle.

              “MPG includes gasoline lost due to evaporate as well as idling case for heat generation.”

              I’m fairly certain the EPA does not include idling to warm up the cabin in its MPG tests. You may or may not have a point on evaporative losses from the gas tank; can you point to any authoritative data on that?

              “At the end of the day, it is about Energy input into the vehicle.”

              No, at the end of the day it’s about how efficient the vehicle is at using energy stored onboard in propelling the vehicle down the road. That’s what MPG measures. If you want to include ancillary losses, then for proper comparison, come up with some metric which measures gasoline usage in a gasmobile, but includes ancillary losses.

              “But I think we already waste more time than necessary…”

              That’s certainly true. I need to learn to simply ignore your habit of continuing to pointlessly argue after everyone can see you’ve lost the argument.

              1. ModernMarvelFan says:

                “ModernMarvelFan continued grasping at straws to pretend he hasn’t lost the argument:”

                LOL. A moron doesn’t even know his own stupidity…

                I wrote: “Charging loss are energy lost in the vehicle after it is put into the vehicle.”

                Idiot wrote: “Wrong again. It’s energy lost as it’s being put into the vehicle.”

                Freaking idiot!!! The energy is measured at wall socket. It doesn’t mean if it is being putting into the charger or battery. Once it left the wall plug or EVSE on the wall, it is considered as Energy FED into the Vehicle by EPA. Of course, “YOUR Version of Understanding” is somehow more correct than others because you are living in your own stupid world…

                “MPG includes gasoline lost due to evaporate as well as idling case for heat generation.”

                I’m fairly certain the EPA does not include idling to warm up the cabin in its MPG tests. You may or may not have a point on evaporative losses from the gas tank; can you point to any authoritative data on that?”

                It is ENTIRE gallon puts into the car during testing which includes idling which cars don’t move as well as during different temperature. Once the gas tank is filled, some vapor will try to escape. The emission regulation requires it to escape through emission canister. But the amount of gas is measured at how much it is put in, not how much it flows to the injector!!

                “At the end of the day, it is about Energy input into the vehicle.”

                No, at the end of the day it’s about how efficient the vehicle is at using energy stored onboard in propelling the vehicle down the road. That’s what MPG measures. If you want to include ancillary losses, then for proper comparison, come up with some metric which measures gasoline usage in a gasmobile, but includes ancillary losses.”

                Again, your stupid understanding doesn’t equal to EPA requirement. EPA doesn’t care if it is aux energy used. It is energy used by the vehicle whether it is moving, standing, coasting or any form of HVAC. It is amount of energy a vehicle uses in total!!!

                you can disagree with it, but that is your own version of alternative reality which has NO BEARING on whether EPA definition is correct or not. Granted, your opinion only shows your lack of understanding in basic physic

                “That’s certainly true. I need to learn to simply ignore your habit of continuing to pointlessly argue after everyone can see you’ve lost the argument.”

                LOL. Nobody writes MORE stupid freaking BS than you do here on insidev. Most of them are fundamentally stupid and lack of any technical understanding. But I have been ignoring mostly but you managed to continue your stupid rant about how freaking stupid you are so I have to set it straight. But keep it up and you might have to change your login name again after you ruin this one… LOL.

                1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                  The nice thing about having won an argument is that I don’t need to keep arguing.

                  But you go right ahead.

                  1. ModernMarvelFan says:

                    You should stop so we don’t need more wrong information spread here.

                    You have spread enough crap on inside EV comment section each and every day…

          2. ModernMarvelFan says:

            “I don’t know exactly what MPGe means… and neither do you.”

            You are right about the first part. Since you are often ignorant on any technical subject.

            I do understand it because they are easily stated in EPA website and anyone with basic technical understanding of how cars work would be able to understand that. That is certainly NOT you thus you don’t get it but you managed to continue argue on something you don’t have a freaking clue on. Good job at showing how stupid you are…

            1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

              It’s too bad that you can’t admit it when you’ve been shown to be wrong, MMF.

              But getting angry and lashing out merely makes you look childish; it certainly doesn’t convince anyone you’re right.

              1. ModernMarvelFan says:

                If you had actually done your HOMEWORK as Nix and I have asked you to do, you would have admitted that you are wrong and we would have moved on….

                Go to EPA website and read the FAQ.

                “In estimating electric vehicle fuel economy, is electricity use measured from the battery or from the charge source?

                Electricity use is measured from the charge source. This is useful to consumers because (1) a small amount of energy is lost in charging the vehicle, and (2) this estimate represents the energy that is paid for by the consumer. As with other fuel types, upstream energy use and losses are not included in these estimates. For more information, see EPA Test Procedures for Electric Vehicles and Plug-in Hybrids”

                https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/info.shtml#ev-mpg

                1. Bill Howland says:

                  MMF seems to have won this discussion over Pushi, simply because of the very high reliability of the Generation ONE VOltec drive train. It seems to easily go 300,000 miles, whereas the typical GM automatic transmission, even if having its oil changed every 36,000 miles, will typically crap out somewhere over 100,000 miles.

                  That’s 3 times the longevity for the VOLT.

                  Pushi doesn’t understand, that, unlike an automatic transmission, the 3 clutches in a gen 1 voltec are not stressed, and therefore will have little wear over time.

                  But then its obvious that PUSHI doesn’t understand what goes on in the admittedly complicated automatic transmission.

                  Now, if he wants to make his argument, he might substitute a claim that a 1,000,000 mile decades old Honda Civic with a manual transmission is SIMPLER than a GEN 1 Volt.

                  Now THAT argument might have some merit, as we really don’t know when a GEN 1 VOLT will crap out yet.

                  1. ModernMarvelFan says:

                    It isn’t about reliability. It is about fundamental design.

                    Both Prius Synergy drive and Volt’s Voltec 1.0 are extremely “simple” in the sense of gears/clutches/size. That is why they can fit with the additional two electric motors.

                    The 6/7/8/9/10 speed transmission today are extremely complex with multiple planetary gearsets as well as multiple clutches to engage and disengage each and every set of those gears. They are more complex in both number of parts and movement complexity.

                    Pu-Pu decides that is complex to him because he has very little technical understanding of how planetary gearset works while ignoring the entire automatic transmission as a “single gearing” block. That is the entire problem with his analysis which he fails to understand despite my repeat attempt at pointing that out.

                    Also, Voltec 1.0 is extremely easy to understand since majority of the time, it is just a single gearing ratio between main traction motor and the wheel. Even when the 2nd motor is on, it is still powering the same ring gear on the same gearset.

                    The engine is only clutched to the generator/2nd motor as needed.

                    Maybe he was talking about “complexity” in terms of SW control which he appears to have little understanding also.

  9. Terawatt says:

    It’s about as expected, maybe even slightly above.

    There seems to be little reason to question if the product is good enough. The two big questions are: Can Tesla ramp up according to plan and with good quality? And can they make a profit doing so?

    Of course many other questions remain unanswered, but mostly we have clear expectations for those. For example, we don’t know any specific crash test results or safety ratings, but we expect all of them to be very good and anything else will be a surprise.

  10. CCIE says:

    If they want to include that MPGe figure, that’s fine. But it would be nice if they listed average Mi/KWh too for those of us that want a usable efficiency comparison.

    1. ModernMarvelFan says:

      To get miles/kWh, just take the MPGe and divide it by 33.7 according to EPA.

      Keep in mind that MPGe number include “total energy” fed into the charging port of the vehicle. So, that includes the energy lost after charging port in the form of battery conditioning during charging as well as energy lost at the charger on board of the vehicle and battery and lastly the energy filled into the battery.

      It isn’t a good predication of range by using MPGe number since those aux loss doesn’t impact loss but does impact efficiency and cost at operating the vehicle.

      1. CCIE says:

        I understand that the MPGe number is so buyers who have gas cars can relate to something.

        The issue I have is that the EPA MPGe rating of the Spark EV is 119MPGe combined. Is anyone seriously claiming that the Model 3 is more efficient (higher MPGe) than a Spark EV?

        There is some flaw with the MPGe calculation.

        1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

          Spark EV is older design, technology changed since then. There are more efficient cars now, e.g. the same Ioniq. Also Model 3 has better aerodynamics. Passenger volume isn’t disclosed yet, and this 126 mpge is not final number yet, confirmation by EPA own tests is still pending.

          1. ModernMarvelFan says:

            “confirmation by EPA own tests is still pending.”

            EPA doesn’t test all cars. They occasionally sample few cars with their labs or independent labs. But most of the testing are done by automakers and results are “certified” by EPA.

        2. ModernMarvelFan says:

          It could be due to couple things.

          1. Aerodynamic. The combined MPGe number uses 55% highway and 45% city. Spark Ev is only 109 MPGe on the hwy which drags down the entire rating.

          2. Charging loss and battery conditioning. Volt (which uses similar charging units as the Spark EV) appeared to have up to 20% total loss in certain case of charging and conditioning. An improvement in battery chemistry, battery TMS design as well as charger can improve the efficiency.

          3. Drive train efficiency. Spark EV uses planetary gears for single speed reduction. Planetary gears design is very compact which is good but it is less efficient or has higher friction loss than offset gearing design which lower loss.

          All of those factors combined can mean that Model 3 would have higher efficiency despite more performance orientated tires as well as higher weight.

    2. Tom says:

      Just divide the EPA published range by usable battery size. The EPA is correct in reporting both the range (easily converted to miles/kwh) and the MPGe. MPGe puts the total operational efficiency into a scale a anyone can judge against. It’s easy to see that 120mpge is 3 times better mileage per unit energy as a 40 mpg car.

      1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

        mpg and mpge is apples and oranges if you talk about gasoline and electricity. Mpg and mpge comparison makes more sense for other alternative fuels like CNG, LNG, LPG, ethanol, etc.

        As for the electricity, e.g. natural gas is $3/mmbtu or below $0.01/kWh at Henry Hub. Yet it is 13 times more at $0.13/kWh after all the conversions when delivered to your household outlet.

        You just see what you want to see.

        1. Bill Howland says:

          Agreed zzzzzzzzz. It is such a simple concept that I don’t understand why apparently only you can grasp it.

          The energy that goes into an ev charging port on the side of the car has been extensively processed already, with significant losses to get it there.

          An ICE vehicle may run on raw fuel. I saw this myself at a “GREEN” car club meeting where someone took raw McDonald’s french fry oil and used it to run a 30 year old Mercedes Wagon DIRECTLY.

          (This was different than the typical bio-diesel stuff that must be processed in a “STILL” – the guy couldn’t see the extra expense in doing this, so he rigged up an arrangement which STARTED the car on Diesel, then switched the car to raw french fry oil, and then when shutting the engine down, first purged the lines so that it would restart on ‘pure’ diesel fuel so as to not have a bunch of gummed up, clogged fuel lines and injectors).

          So to say an EV is 90% efficient or what have you is quite silly, since you are only myopically looking at a tiny part of the process and saying that THAT particular step is very efficient, when the electricity going to the motor shaft as turning force is merely the last step of a long process.

          I could do that with ICE vehicles too… I could say that the electric fuel pump pressurizing the throttle-body fuel injector only intermittently draws 84 watts, but the power level delivered by the gasoline is 8400 watts (11 1/4 horsepower), so therefore the gas tank pump is 99% efficient – so while true, its a meaningless figure.

  11. Don Zenga says:

    125 MPGe is very impressive for a big car like Model 3 which is longer and wider than Ioniq EV. And Prius Prime has only 25 mile electric range and after that the gas engine kicks in and efficiency drops to 54 MPG.

  12. Another Euro point of view says:

    The funny part of this is the complete change of motor technology to achieve this. Will they soon do something similar with battery technology ?

    1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

      NMH is advancing faster than NCA. NCA cell energy density almost stalled if you check Model S evolution over years.
      So yes, when/if NMH density will start exceeding NCA (it is very close now), you may expect them to switch to it just like everybody else (assuming Model 3 still uses NCA).

      It is just like it was with permanent magnet motors, although just months ago every Tesla fanboy was hysterically screaming that permanent magnets are horrible blasphemy and Tesla never ever forever will use this invention of the Devil, despite signing contract with Chinese permanent magnet supplier 😉

      1. SparkEV says:

        What’s NMH? Nickel Metal Hydride? That’s approaching NCA? Doesn’t make sense.

        Or is that something with hydrogen? That still doesn’t make sense.

        1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

          Oops, sorry it should have been NMC.. Nickel Manganese Cobalt

  13. Boltdriver says:

    One more in favor of getting rid of the mpge. It is useless since we don’t buy electricity in gallon equivalents or rate batteries in gallon equivalents. It doesn’t allow a consumer to know the real range of the car or the cost to charge it. If we use kWh it all makes sense. Your range is battery size X the usage per mile, charging cost is kWh X electric cost.
    If we are going to talk in equivalent to gallons of gas, then let’s rate batteries in gallons of gas equivalent. That will scare the general consumer. They would suddenly realize the new tm3 only holds 2 ish gallons of gas for equivalent energy.

    1. ModernMarvelFan says:

      “then let’s rate batteries in gallons of gas equivalent. ”

      That is what 33.7kWh = 1 gallon of gas in energy content is for.

      That is also how MPGe are calculated according to EPA.

  14. Bill Howland says:

    If it is agreed that MPGe figures INCLUDE charging losses, then that brings another complication to mind:

    (I see the ‘beauty’ of the MPGe construct for the consumer – it is merely telling you how much ‘FUEL’ you will need at the entrance of the ‘fuel’ port and its up to the consumer to figure out how much that fuel is costing him to get to that point).

    Taking the GEN 1 volt as an example, I assume its MPGe figure is at its most efficient charging rate, namely L2.

    I’m not sure how I derived the numbers now but, for the same amount of electricity, you can get these relative distances while charging the VOLT and running it on its battery in good weather:

    8 amps L1 (Reduced Rate): 135
    12amps L1 (Normal Rate) : 150
    ‘220’ L2 : 160

    The numbers are unit-less since you can put any distance on it you want – just a relative efficiency comparison between the 2, in moderate weather.

    So, a practical result would be, if a customer doesn’t have a wallbox, he should invest in a good receptacle to allow 12 amp (Normal) charging since it is almost as good as L2.

Leave a Reply