Winter Test Of 5 Electric SUV/Crossovers Reveals Real Range

FEB 23 2019 BY MARK KANE 166

Five hot SUV/Crossovers tested in cold weather

Winter is an important part of Norway, which is often associated with the cold. A year ago, the Norsk elbilforening Association conducted an interesting test of five all-electric compact/subcompact cars. This year, the edition is focused on SUV/crossovers.

Five long-range BEVs were tested over nearly 900 km. The tests included fast-charging capabilities, overall driving experience, practicality and, of course, energy consumption and range.

Here we will focus on the range aspect, which reveals that the Tesla Model X 100D remains the king of range. It averaged 450 km (280 miles), which is 90 km (56 miles) more than the Audi e-tron. However, the biggest winner seems to be the Kia e-Niro and Hyundai Kona Electric, which reached 400 and 415 km, respectively.

The e-Niro offers great practicality and it doesn’t cost as much as premium models. As a result, it would make for a perfect recommendation provided you don’t need all-wheel-drive. The Jaguar I-PACE and Audi e-tron disappoint a little bit in terms of range. However, both excel in driving dynamics.

More detailed insights are available at Norsk elbilforening.

Range results and estimated battery capacity (netto/brutto):

Estimated range in winter (average from 834 km)



Categories: Audi, Hyundai, Jaguar, Kia, Tesla

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

166 Comments on "Winter Test Of 5 Electric SUV/Crossovers Reveals Real Range"

newest oldest most voted

Not having AWD and their low ground clearance disqualifies the Kona and Niro from the “SUV/Crossover” category.

Seemingly. Either one would be fine with me, but no awd, that sours the milk.

Dunno what sort of “Sport” or “Utility” you’d think the Kona or Niro can’t do. Can’t imagine any of these five SUVs running the Rubicon Trail in Tahoe. Even if they could, I’d doubt their owners will be inclined to.

Seriously, the bigger knock is really not having a dependable charging network. I’m thinking of the typical weekend trip most people take in their SUVs here in NorCal, be it ski, camping, boating, etc.

Other than the Tesla, where would these CCS vehicles plug in while on their road trip? Most DCFC stations have 2 lousy bays that are constantly camped by free Leafs and Uber Bolts. Even Tesla isn’t looking so good with the flood of Model 3’s. Just the other day, my local SuperCharger was 11/12 full at 9pm!!!

Regarding NorCal weekend trips to Tahoe and CCS charging, please stop spreading misinformation. I have now taken 4 such trips from the Bay Area to Tahoe in my I-Pace. There are over twenty 50kW chargers along the way and I have visited most every one with no issues charging.

And almost all those locations are 1-2 chargers. Miraculously you have never run into out of order CCS chargers nor fully occupied chargers in one of the busiest EV routes in the country.

Yup @ Homebrew is the one spreading misinformation. Many stations with no issue?

I had to frequently check the CCS locations that I wanted to use to determine peak occupancy and plan my trip around that. Even then the Berkeley, Vacaville stations are always full all times.

I consider using a 50KW charger a “charging issue”.
How many hours did the trip from Bay Area to Tahoe take? I am curious as son and I often take that trip in his Model X 100D. We start at 80% charge, have lunch while charging in Folsom or Rocklin and destination charge in Tahoe.

I call an 11/12 full Supercharger looking just about perfect.

Just another example of why All DC Fast Charging should be backed up by matching numbers of L2 Chargers, at the same site, within 100 Yards/Meters. In your case, 12 L2 Charging Spots!

First, in case DC Fails; second, to charge while you wait, and if you are in no rush; and third, to top off that last 20% while vacating the DC stall, for the next guy.

Like carrying a Spare Tire, Car Insurance, AND having a Motor Club Service (AAA, Canadian Tire, CAA, etc!) At your convenience!

Not to mention when its very cold some level 2 charging can warm the pack enough so that the level 3 can begin at a higher rate.

They should be more compared to the Bolt and Leaf e-plus.

Exactly, Niro is functionally similar size to Leaf (they are very close) and Kona to Bolt EV. All are FWD and very similar cargo space.

The Niro is the same Size like Kona, just bigger boot which means just bit longer. The terms of size Leaf is same class as Volkswagen Golf, Hyundai Ionic. Kona and Nero are the SUV equivalent of a smaller class like the Zoe or Clio, like the CAPTUR. For comparison the Kona and Nero are smaller then BMW X1, even the X2 which is smaller than the X1. The X1 is the SUV equivalent of the BMW 1, the same size class as the VW Golf.

Kona has virtually identical measures as Bolt.

Niro is a bit bigger, but that’s not just boot space. It actually has a longer wheelbase, translating to more legroom in the rear seats.

Don’t know whether that makes it comparable to Leaf, though…


The definition of the SUV has been rather muddied recently (purists insist that if it isn’t riding on a truck chassis, it’s not a SUV), but the abbreviation CUV stands for “crossover utility vehicle” – there is no word “sport” in it, and off-road capabilities are not implied.

CUV is a broad category of general purpose vehicles that are built on passenger car platforms, but are visibly taller than traditional hatchbacks and sedans and incorporate certain design features of SUV’s and (mini)vans. I don’t think a higher ground clearance or AWD are a requirement.

IF a CUV doesn’t offer higher ground clearance then what makes it a CUV vs a hatchback or station wagon?

Needlessly elevated hood…

Frankly, I can’t think of any functional difference. Bolt and Kona have virtually identical proportions — they just look different.

Basically, it sounds like a simple marketing term. Crossover, sure! Vehicle, OK! Utility, exactly what, or how?

If it drags the ground like a Sedan, how much utility is it, on the average bad pothole filled roads we are seeing so many of, let alone that steep road up to a great lake fishing or camping spot!

If it can’t Tow a basic “Utility Trailer”, how does it get a “Utility” in its name?

It’s obvious you would not bring home a Stove or a Fridge, or a Freezer in most of these little “CUV’s”, so, there is that.

Sure, some bags of Sand, or Mulch, Compost, etc., Should be no problem, but a Sedan can do that, too.

So, mostly just a marketing moniker.

I brought a dishwasher home in my 2016 Golf

My brother brought a 68 inch rear projection TV home in a Miata. Sounds like you need To up your game. 😉

My Kia Soul would not fit the box for a 55″ LED TV, never mind a 68″ Rear projection TV! I had to use my then owned Prius, to carry it!

AWD should be an option, really just a big hatchback then

As Mr. Weekley implied, it is indeed just a big hatchback, but the term “hatchback” is poison to American marketers so a clean sheet had to be concocted and publicized. Maybe “hatchback” was too associated with econoboxes (another derogatory term) for Americans. And that was in turn associated with “wimp” and “unmanly”. Thus the fetish for the mighty Utility Vehicle, because of wars and big-rig drivers and other real-man stuff. I guess once the streets and highways (not back trails) were thus full of scary “sport” utility vehicles, the people who still wanted to get more than 19 mpg felt they had to have something that would protect them, thus the “crossover.”

Exactly, I have a 2016 VW Golf and my wife has a 2018 Honda CRV which they call a CUV but I call it a big hatchback. But you are correct Americans do not like the term hatchback I think it’s poison because it was originally associated with cars like the pinto or the Vega whereas modern crossoverseven though they aren’t body-on-frame have the sport utility connotation and sport utilities were originally just closed in pickup trucks.

I agree it should be an option, but if they want to call it a CUV, what is stopping them.

Well said. If a high ground clearance is necessary to qualify for “CUV” status, then why does the Model X qualify? And don’t try to tell me it’s an SUV; the “X” stands for “crossover”.

These days, the terms “CUV” and “SUV” mean whatever an auto marketing department points at when they say the words. I honestly think that it won’t be long before every car on the market that’s not a pickup or sports car or van, or some other specialized shape, will be called an “SUV” by the auto maker. In other words, “SUV” will become synonymous with the word “car”.

The model X is an all wheel drive minivan that is 11 months pregnant…

The Model X is certainly an oddball, but it’s a SUV by official US classification. Which is defined by the government (don’t remember which department), not marketers.

(Also, the Model X has adjustable ground clearance — in the highest setting, it can probably compete with many other “utility vehicles”?…)

Disqualified from being an SUV maybe. Not true for CUV. The only reasonable definition of crossover is “a car that has SUV styling without the actual features.” Specifically, isn’t built on a truck chassis, doesn’t by default have AWD (most CUVs don’t have it even as on option), or high clearance, and are inferior in usability and interior space to station wagons & hatchbacks.

I was under the impression that a “CUV” was a car designed like an SUV but built on a car frame/ unibody body instead of a light truck frame/ unibody.

And that’s what it would still mean if it wasn’t for automobile marketing departments trying to paste the label “SUV” or “CUV” on every hatchback and station wagon.

Do you want to appear on a tv show panel gruop?
If so, plez contact me.

A truck chassis is not a requirement for being classified as a SUV. Certain unibodies count as well, if other criteria are fulfilled.

(I saw a mention of the major criteria somewhere recently — but haven’t memorised them…)

Kona and Niro have 6.3 inches of ground clearance. Good snow tires and my old Prius was snowmobile. The higher ground clearance of the Kona will make it a superior snow mobile Great range. Lots of cool stuff like heads up display, heated wheel.

It’s my understanding that the Hyundai Kona EV US version does not have a heat pump. If that’s true, what effect would this have on the winter range numbers presented?

It all depends on how cold it gets, and how much you use the resistance heater. Maybe 10% better mileage in colder climates, on average, would be my guess.
It’s a mistake imo, too. If you live in the northern tier of states you would rather have the Nordic version. Cutting costs to the detriment of the consumer.

EVs for very cold/long winter locations should have propane or alcohol or the like heaters. EV enthusiasts may tolerate being less than warm in the interest of maintaining range, regular people not so much!

The Mitsubishi heat pump in my house works down to -15 degrees.

In a lot of Canada the winter temperatures are too cold for air source heat pumps to gain any efficiency. Remember we are talking about -20 to -35 C (-9 to -31F) for much of January and February where the battery needs all the help it can get.

A well designed heat pump system utilies the heat from the engine and battery and not from the oustside

…which makes the battery (and engine???) even colder. Heat pumps don’t create heat – they just move it.

Which can be good, as you don’t want the battery to overheat.

Heat pumps are best at mild temperatures (20-40 F), but will be slightly more efficient in the 0 – 20 F range. A heat pump can be around 400% efficient due to extracting energy from warmer air and electric resistance heating is about 100% efficient. This means is if your resistance heater needed 4 kW of power, your heat pump might use 1 kW of power (best case).

How much is 1 kW of power? for a 30 minute commute you would use 0.5 kWh of battery, or about 1.5 to 2 miles range. Resistance heat might use 6-8 miles range in the same 30 minute commute. At 0 F you might require resistance heat using 6 kW and use more like 3 kWh of battery, or 9-12 miles range. My 2015 i3 REx has about 18 kWh usable, and the heater draws about 6 kW. The car could “idle” the heater at full power for 3 hours before the battery was dead. this is why my range is like 30 or 35 miles when it is -20 F and 100 miles when it is 80 F and no AC.

My Mitsubishi heat pump works down to-15 f.

The Prius Prime has a low-temp heat pump, though nowhere near -15F which is hella cold.

Thanks to its specifically designed Cyclone Separator integrated valve, the Gas Injection Heat Pump System improves the performance of the conventional heat pump, enabling it to continue to supply cabin heat down to -10 degrees Celsius [14 degrees F]. This allows the Prius Prime to supply cabin heat with less reliance on its gasoline engine as a heat source.

But it does more than that, too: In the Toyota Prius Prime, this system uses 63 percent less energy than a traditional heating system, and helps extend the Prius Prime’s electric vehicle range by up to 21 percent in cold temperatures.

Model X with 100 kwh battery vs cars with 90 kwh battery is not a fair comparative in terms of range. And Model X P100 costs almost 20.000 € more than e-Tron and i-Pace. I prefer compare the comsumption per 100 km.

Model x: 21,8 kw/100 km
Kona: 15,4
e-Niro: 16
i-Pace: 22,8
e-Tron: 23,6

Not so bad for i-Pace and e-Tron vs Model X, is not a huge difference with the milestone of the segment. Very good job for the corean cars, making more with less. For me this is the right path.

Lots of different ways to carve it up: efficiency, price, passenger volume, performance, charging speed and network capacity, driver assists, etc.

The X is the most expensive of the vehicles tested, by a long shot. It also is the only 3 row vehicle, has the most range, and charges significantly more quickly than all vehicles but the etron.

However a particular consumer weights those factors, more choice is good.

Also depends a lot on speed. At slower norway highway speeds efficiency of Model X / eTron / iPace is not wildly different. At higher speeds the Model X is far more efficient as demonstrated by the nextmove test.

I think it’s not fair to compare such a big high-performance luxury car with dual motors and all the bells and whistles, like the modelX, with econobox’s from Korea.

When you have very few options, you include all the ones that come close. And the Korean econo-boxes did pretty well for themselves on their skinny little 17″ wheels.

The base (still a fancy car) i pace comes with 18″ aero wheels which would certainly add to it’s range. Given the price difference between the European pair and the Tesla I think they (the Euros) don’t look too shabby. The third row seat is on the Tesla is a $3000 option. Especially the Audi is a real luxury car inside.

The point is that the Model X is significantly larger — whether a third row is installed or not.

The Model X and the Kona aren’t close. That’s ridiculous. Nobody in their right mind would even think of cross-shopping these two.

Ya it’s not like many cross shop across that price range.

It’s not just price range… The Model X is like three size classes bigger than the Kona. Even with no consideration for price, cross-shopping these makes no sense whatsoever.

It’s educational in the sense that so far energy consumption between brands has hardly been proportionate to weight or horsepower.

“I prefer compare the consumption per 100 km.”

In which case, the winner is the Ioniq Electric… but only because its powertrain is seriously weak and underpowered compared to just about any other highway-capable BEV sold in first-world countries.

Comparing only one single characteristic of cars isn’t very meaningful. We need to look at the whole package.

who would have thought just a few years ago that there would 5 to compare today?! Kudos to Tesla for accelerating this transition.

It’s interesting that every one of the vehicles tested this year had longer range than the longest range vehicle tested last year (Chevy Bolt/Ampera-e)

That’s part of the planned obsolescense plan. None of last year’s battery packs are plug-n-play into your older EV and never will be. EVs are disposable as soon as the pack fails. It’s all kept proprietary like an Apple computer so no other 3rd party, like Autozone or NAPA, will have cheaper replacement battery packs than the overpriced stealers. Notice how few parts for any new car you can get at any auto parts store for any 2019 vehicle. Apple sues the hell out of any 3rd party repair shops over their overpriced crap. It’s the new industry standards.

Good thing the EV is likely to last longer than an ICE. It is funny as the Bolt EV is GMs most reliable vehicle according to Consumer Reports. I love the maintenance plan. Other than inspections and maybe cabin air filters there is no service until 150,000 miles. Coolant change (inspections required for checking brakes and such, but they will likely last that long given regen).

Heck yeah. I’m seriously psyched that the Bolt is turning out to be a reliable vehicle. I wasn’t sure … LG and Chevy neither one exactly known for bullet proof reliability on average for their products.

Good engineering, good execution. Kudos to GM and LG for pulling off the Bolt. I’m looking forward to buying a used one in a couple years. 😀

The Right to Repair movement are already all over this issue. I think you’ll find a lot of governments will get very upset when their citizens start having cars fail, and legislate to force manufacturers to resolve the issue.

I don’t know man. If my battery fails at say 150k miles (Tesla warrants it to 120k) and my choices are to spend $10k for a new pack or $50k for a new car, I would seriously consider the new pack option provided everything else in the car is still in decent shape. Maybe by then Tesla will offer refurbed packs for a bit less, similar to Apple’s refurbished products that sell for 15% or so below the new price and include a like new warranty.

Battery packs are already available from the salvage market. If they are re-branded as “100% recycled” and cost less than new, they will be a big hit.

And as technology advances in five or more years I will not be surprised to see replacement batteries for the more popular cars that add more range than the original battery pack.

Like, maybe, the upgrade pack for the older Tesla Roadster? That brought range up from 245 Miles, to 340+ Miles!

I don’t think this will actually happen much. It makes more sense to sell the car with the old battery to someone who is fine with the lower range, and buy a new(er) car instead. You don’t want to throw away a perfectly fine battery just because newer ones have slightly higher range…

(Note that in the future we will see only small incremental capacity increases, since most EVs introduced now use more or less state of the art battery technology — unlike early entrants using low density cells, having made later capacity upgrades easy…)

Why would you want to pay a high price to put a new battery pack into an old car? Far better to use a salvaged/ refurbished battery pack. Buying a battery pack that will last longer than the rest of the car is a waste of money.

“No one mends an old garment with a new piece of cloth, or else the new piece that filled it up tears away from the old, and the rent is made worse.”
— Mark 2:21 (Jubilee Bible 2000)

Please contact me:
Google me:
St. Louis Missouri

I’m very glad that different BEVs have different battery packs, instead of generic ones. That means the market is competitive, as it certainly needs to be in these early years of the EV revolution. We need different auto makers to try out different engineering approaches.

EV motors are pretty much all the same (aside from Tesla’s revolutionary new motor in the Model 3), so EV makers can’t really compete on the motors. The battery packs and power electronics (such as the inverter) are where they can compete, and it’s good that they’re doing so.

I suggest, Melvin, that you consider a BEV’s battery pack the competitive equivalent of a gasmobile’s engine. Most auto makers make their own gas engines, and few models share the same engine. That’s how different makes and models remain competitive instead of just being peas in a pod.

I generally agree but often many different models use the same engine.

Often very similar engines, but not exactly the same. A company like BMW or AUDI might make multiple engines with 2.0 or 3.0 liter displacement, which share a large number of components, but tweaked with small differences that make large differences in output.

Often those changes are just in the software.

Yes, it’s wonderful to see the average BEV range (and battery pack capacity) increasing every year! That’s exactly what we need to see, to make BEVs fully competitive with gasmobiles.

Up the EV revolution!

Those range figures seem much higher than I have ever been able to achieve at highway speeds in cold weather (10f). In those conditions I am well below 200 miles with my Bolt, probably closer to 150.

Norway highway speeds. So like 55MPH

Yeah me too, My Bolt gets the same in cold weather with heater on at typical 65-70mph freeway speeds.

Left out is the fact that the MX is substantially larger than the others.

I think the etron is really the only true comparison.

All the other vehicles are much smaller.

I have test driven all those vehicles (except the etron), and for the life of me i dont understand why people compare them to the Model X. If they weren’t EV’s.. no one would compare the kona/ e-niro, and the i-pace with the much larger Model X.

Honestly, the comparisons are lack of availability of other models, and Tesla drives clicks.

Even the E-tron is far smaller than the Model X inside. It has a physically large footprint, but a lot of that is due to its inexplicably oversized front end.

Well, it’s not exactly inexplicable. It’s based on a combustion car platform, slightly modified to take an electric power train instead — rather than designed around an electric power train.

It’s just a placeholder until the MEB/PPE based models are ready…

Were all the cabins maintained at 23C or did these fanboiz drive around in the freezing cold with everything shut off to see how far they could get it to go? InsideEVs ISN’T Consumer’s Reports. Their tests would never show anything bad about an EV they constantly promote. Let Consumer’s Report test the cars/SUVs in comfortable interior condition in Minnesota at -40F for a real test.

My other question is about charging. LG’s data sheet on their 18650 high discharge Li-ion cells states the battery must NEVER be charged below +32F (0C). Do these cars use kilowatts from the chargers to bring the Li-ion battery packs up to +23C (room temperature) before charging starts or ignore these manufacturer instructions no matter how much damage is done to recharging freezing cells in the $15,000 battery packs? I live in the US South so can’t watch the chargers in the freezing cold.

Read the story: 20 deg cabin.

Let’s be realistic.
How many days a year is the temp -40?
Do you actually go to work if it was that cold?

The record low in January in Minneapolis is -41 (F or C, basically). The average low is 7 ˚F (–14 ˚C). It gets colder in International Falls, but that’s often the coldest place in the lower 48 states – not a lot different than Fairbanks, AK.

Melvin is a troll and pops in here periodically to snivel and whine against EVs which he certainly doesn’t own or drive.

In upper midwest there are anywhere from 1 to 4 weeks per year where sub 0 F highs are common. I live in relatively balmy Iowa. 3 months of the year will average highs below 32 F / 0 C, more in Minnesota. So a couple weeks of dealing with range less than half of EPA, having to rely on resistance heating, reduced power from my i3 if I forget to preheat, etc.

I went to work several days with -24 F temps this winter. Highs around -16 F. Oh, and 20 mile and hour winds for windchills sub -50 F. We have about 2 feet of snow on the ground right now, all white. Just started raining today though?!? I suppose this gets crazier with global warming (warmer winters and more disturbances of stratospheric polar vortex for colder storms).

I’m in the Philly burbs and it’s been a strange winter. Below zero one day and mid 50’s the next

We get -20 C a lot here in Toronto, but let the temperature drop to -40 F/C and we get travel alerts, schools often will not bus students and any business that can be ran from home is often done.

Most EVs heat the battery before charging, or charge very slowly until the battery heats enough naturally.

For example, if the battery in my Clarity PHEV gets too cold, the car will start the engine and use the engine for power while the engine coolant warms the battery. Canadian models have an auxiliary electric heater that can heat the battery without starting the engine. For charging, the Clarity limits power until it naturally warms, it will start low around 1.4 kW, and step up to 3 or 4 kW then up to 7.2 kW as it warms enough.

All EVs designed to run in cold climates will have a mechanism for heating the battery. Most use an electric heater that can run while plugged in or from battery power to keep the temperature above a minimal level that hurts performance and could shorten battery life.

That’s a good summary. I had forgotten that frozen li-ion battery packs can be charged safely… if it’s done very slowly. Fortunately, the very act of charging a frozen battery pack heats it up.

Who needs 23 degrees Celcius. 20 is more than enough inside.

“InsideEVs ISN’T Consumer’s Reports. Their tests would never show anything bad about an EV they constantly promote.”

Not only are you an EV-hating troll, you apparently can’t even read. InsideEVs is a news site, not an EV testing organization.

“…the battery must NEVER be charged below +32F (0C). Do these cars use kilowatts from the chargers to bring the Li-ion battery packs up to +23C (room temperature) before charging starts…”

If you weren’t so busy writing EV hater comments, perhaps you’d have time to actually learn about the EVs you hate so much.

All production EVs heat up the battery to operating temperature before starting the charging process. Operating temperature is a comfortable margin above freezing temperature, but there is no need to heat up the battery to room temperature before charging. That would be a waste of energy, in the way that reading your comments is a waste of time.

Tesla still has the most efficient motor and power electronics. All cars will require similar amount of energy to heat the cabin and battery which makes winter energy consumption closer. Huyndai and Kia are much ligher and less powerful car too.

That is exactly right

The i-Pace is 4-5″ lower than the TMX and 14-15″ shorter, yet is has poorer energy efficiency? Back to the drawing board, Tata Motors!

The I-Pace is actually doing better than I expected 2.28KW/ mile than the Model X 2.15/KW mile, with is bigger, heavier but also more aerodynamic, but the Kona and Niro, somebody got to look at that construction, these are impressive numbers.

That’s rather slow Norway speeds at 90-100kph (55-60mph). Drive the iPace and eTron at 120-130kph(75-80mph) and both of them consume much more energy that they should (up to 30kwh per km instead of 25kWh per km for the larger Tesla).

Random, so…you are saying they will get 4-4 Kms Max Range? “(up to 30kwh per km instead of 25kWh per km for the larger Tesla).”

Please restate, after checking your math!

Maybe you meant “Per 100 Kms?”

From the size, the Kona and the Nero are comparable with Volkswagen Polo TCross or Audi Q2, that means this are small compact SUVs, that said like an SUV Version of the Zoe would be.
It’s like comparing an Audi Q2 with a Q7, or Audi A1 with Audi A8, there 3 model sizss between them A3 (Q3), A4 (Q5, e-tron), A6 (e-tron).
The Model X even has more Space than the Q7.
Model Y will probably habe the room of an i-Pace and e-tron, but comsumption like or just slightly more than the Kona. Just like Model 3 (Audi A4/BMW4 size) matches the Hyundai Ionic (Audi A3 hatchback size, VW Golf)

The Zoe is sub-compact AFAIK?… Not sure about the others, but I would assume the same.

Model Y will certainly have more room than I-Pace. Might be about par with e-tron I’d guess?…

Yes, even the earliest reports on the I-Pace dinged it badly for poor energy efficiency.

Well, it’s Jaguar’s first BEV. No doubt they’ll do better next time.

The surprising thing is that — unlike Audi and Daimler — they seem to have actually designed it from scratch… And it’s still just as inefficient 🙁

Because most EV drivers live in Norway…

It is fair to say that a lot of Norwegians are EV drivers.

Because Norway has cold wet snowy driving conditions that give a great range test of EV’s.

A disproportionately large number of EV drivers are in Norway.

And if you didn’t know that, then you must be pretty new to the subject of the EV market.

They should wait until they’re four and five years old and do this test new batteries always last longer but the practicality is how is the vehicle going to be for the long-term

Well they’ll have to wait four or five years to do that. I’d like to have the best information I can now on their performance in cold snowy weather.

It is very possible that on some of these car owners will be able and “upgrade” the batteries after 4 or 5 years with ones that have a higher capacity to size and weight ratio. I have heard some Audi people mention this. This is inevitable with the advances in batteries – the question is only one of money. Instead of changing engines in an ICE car you will change batteries.

I suspect that will be a niche market. Usually makes more sense to sell the entire car and buy a new one with a larger battery.

2016 BMW i3, I barely got to 45 miles before range extender kicked on. BUT it was all highway and 5 degrees. Still not a long drive

The big problem for the Europeans is the lousy efficiency and range.
Obviously, the glaring issue is they don’t make batteries. The Koreans are all over batteries like a rash and Tesla has Panasonic at the GF.
I’m not sure why the Europeans have been so late to the party on batteries but it is going to cost them big time.

Batteries are not chiefly responsible for low efficiency. While heavier batteries do affect it somewhat, it by no means explains the huge gap.

It’s more about poor design.

Also should be noted that they actually use the very same Korean battery cell makers as the Korean models…

The Kona managed to get its EPA rated range in a winter test? And the Kia Niro exceeded it’s EPA rated range in this test. That’s impressive.

They are actually *all* very close to their EPA ranges. Just shows that this was a pretty slow driving test…

Vehicle MSRP range $/mile range
Kona $36,450.00 258 $141.28
Bolt $37,500.00 238 $157.56
iPace $69,500.00 234 $297.01
etron $74,800.00 248 $301.61
Model X $88,000.00 270 $325.93

The most relevant numbers!

The real numbers would be room (size), technology, availability, sales volume…compared to price.

Depends on the buyer. Some are going to want to know how many passengers the car can comfortably carry and/or how much usable cargo space it has.

And some are going to want such features as AWD, not available on the cheaper cars.

One size does not fit all, and Your Mileage May Vary.

No it’s not.
A VW polo Diesel can go over 500 miles with one tank and cost around $20k.
That’s $40/mile, or 3.5 times better than the Kona.
Even if you added $10k for the cost of the fuel, the small VW would be in a world apart.

Do you really think that’s the most relevant number?!

The reality is that all numbers count and for some, ones are more important than others.

And it’s not just the numbers, cars are a lot more than numbers, when someone tries to say some car is better than the other because of the numbers alone we are obviously dealing with someone that doesn’t know much about cars.

For inside EVs the most important number is how fast cars are on the drag strip… at least based on the numbers of articles saying “car A smashed car B on the drag strip”.

What’s more, a typical $20,000 car probably goes further on a gas tank than a >$1,000,000 supercar…

To be fair, range is far more relevant for EVs because of slower charging. (And for now, poorer infrastructure in most places.)

Still, I agree that comparing battery sizes — which make up only a fraction of the car’s price — versus the price of the complete car is rather questionable.

I do not understand why this is that relevant. It is like judging an ICE car on fuel tank size*mileage. Depending on your use of an electric car (say no long trips – or plenty of fast charging stations) once you exceed a certain range (say 300km), the range might be almost irrelevant. Range is important but for many people far less important than safety features, entertainment, seat comfort, trunk size etc.

If availability, and usefulness were all Equal!

248 EPA Range for the e-tron is not true. That was the estmated the european WLTP Range, which is now officially 259 Miles (417 km). The WLTP Test Cycle is less realistic than the EPA Test.
For comparison, the Model 3 LR has 310 Miles EPA (US) and 348 Miles WLTP (EU). So I expect the e-tron EPA Range will be at around 230 Miles

My six passenger, $23,000, Dodge Journey has a range of 428 miles, no matter how cold it gets.

Temperature makes a difference for gas too, just not as much. Do you use the 428 mile range every day? How often? Questions like that lead to whether an EV is practical.

Even at -24 F and my i3 is getting 1.5 mi/kwh, it is still using the same energy as a gas car getting 50 mpg. At its worst it is comparable to a Prius in energy use. It is charged every day when I leave work. Been 3 months since I took it to a gas station, and it has a 2 gallon tank. It only has a 70 mile EPA range.

Point is, often don’t need the 400 mile range. When I do I use gas, but a quick charging Model 3 could cover those times too. It would work for me, maybe not everyone.

Who cares. It probably also gets less than 20mpg.

My five passenger, $53k Tesla Model 3 has a range of 310 miles. Sure it’s a bit less in the winter, but superchargers are aplenty. I pay roughly $0.03 per mile for electricity to charge my car, so over 150k miles that will cost me $4500. Dodge Journey gets 20 mpg average EPA when brand new. Even at $2.25 gas (which won’t last long) that’s a cost per mile of $0.1125 which means 150k miles will cost you almost $17k. In reality fuel will probably cost you $20k to $25k as gas returns to normal prices and your ICE becomes less and less efficient over time. So while your Journey still costs less than my Model 3, it’s far less than you believe. Finally, my Model 3 is made in America and runs on all American energy produced at American power plants that employ American workers who pay American taxes. Your Journey (origin unknown to me) runs on fuel that we must import a significant portion of (sorry for the bad grammar). So every time you fill up, you must do so with the knowledge that a percentage of your money is going to nations that support terrorists who hate… Read more »

And the new production of oil that does come from the US coincided with a huge increase in the number of earthquakes in fracking states. Hell, those earthquakes might end up doing more damage to America than all the current terrorists you mentioned. But the Oklahomans and Kansans won’t complain because “it’s good for America.”

Don’t pre-heat it in the garage.

BZZZZZZZZZZ! Wrong, but thanks for playing!

The range drop in a gasmobile due to very cold weather isn’t as noticeable in a gasmobile as in a BEV, but it’s there. The average is about 15% loss, as I recall.

The dense cold air means more drag. It used to mean more oxygen getting to your engine, but modern fuel injection systems make that irrelevant. So now there’s only downside.

P-P, just finally caught up with my last Summer till now Gas Receipts, and while on my Road Trips to and from Florida, from Toronto, Ontario, my 2010 ICE Kia Soul gets 30-35 Mpg, depending on Terrain (No Regen of Gasoline, down hill, unfortunately!), in the cold of winter, it runs to about 25 Mpg, except when Snowed or Iced In, when starting it to thaw out, plus short commutes, takes it below 17 Mpg, to as low as 15 Mpg! So, no, ICE Vehicles can be as Bad in Extremes of Cold, as BEV’s, in various situations!

I drive Toronto Miami all the time, anyone who thinks the cold does not increase the gas consumption is fooling themselves. When I drove my mom she would get scared if the fuel dial went below one half, so I had to do a lot of stops to fill up. And as we went south and the air got warm we could see the difference in how far we could go before we had to stop and get topped up again.

Between driving in Canada during winter and arriving in Miami without air conditioning (it was winter) I saw about a 10% decrease as the air got warmer. And don’t talk about driving in the snow if the roads have not been cleared, then gas consumption goes thru the roof.

“gas consumption goes thru the roof.” … Or, “Down The Drain!”

William, Not if it’s covered in Ice, from Freezing Rain, and you start it up to warm and melt the Ice off, before driving, to work, and to Home!

You might get as bad as half normal range!

Oh bummer, you lose a little efficiency but gain a better overall driving experience and unparalleled luxury with the Audi

The recent speculation that the Model X has a huge drive train efficiency advantage seems not to be holding up. At 120 km/h there is a big difference between Model X and e-tron/ I-Pace, but at lower speeds that goes down to under 5%.

Tesla’s adherence to the aerodynamically optimal teardrop shape and a long body makes it more energy efficient at higher speeds.

Audi is following the (pretty boring) popular Q7 shape, while Jaguar is keeping the brand’s aggressive front grille even though that can’t be optimal for aero.

Importantly those are design decisions, not inherent technological advantages.

That being said Audi’s two async motors design isn’t great and Jaguar’s two identical synchronous motors design means they can’t switch off either motor to conserve batteries.

The Model 3’s drive train is already much better, so Tesla has got a real lead.. but it’s not as big as nextmove claim and certainly nowhere near 23%.

The Model X is a significantly larger and heavier car than the I-Pace, yet still manages to be significantly more energy efficient.

You can quibble over whether or not the advantage of the MX’s higher energy efficiency is “huge” or not, but it’s certainly significant.

Any comparison that pits a Model X against a Kona is nonsensical. The X’s *frunk* is over half the size of the Kona’s entire trunk. X comes in up to 7 seat configs, while Kona’s rear seats are only suitable for amputees. Rear-seat-down space in Kona is *less than half* of that in the Model X.

Can people stop this nonsense of pretending that all vehicles with a relatively upright orientation are in the same class?

All of them are EV SUV’s which is what people are interested in knowing about. Kona/Niro have a wiper on the back window and Model X does not along with heads up display, heated wheel. Hyundai and Kia are shipping them worldwide, one drove past me in PDX the other day. Hopefully they can get production up to meet demand.

“All of them are EV SUV’s…”

The smaller cars are hatchbacks, and are only called “SUVs” because the auto maker’s marketing department labels them that way in the hope they’ll sell better.

Any comparison between the Model X vs. the e-Niro and the Kona Electric should make the large discrepancy in size clear. Arguing over whether the e-Niro and the Kona Electric are “really” SUVs is a semantic argument over the definition of “SUV”, and therefore largely a waste of time. But the real differences in size are certainly far more than mere semantics!

Precisely. See my related statement.

PDX? Portland International Airport? What were you doing Driving on the Runway?
/S 😁😂

Two questions:
1. How on earth does the Tesla weigh less than the Audi?
2. What does “Toppfart” mean and why did I laugh uncontrollably when I read it? 😁

The Audi is a modified combustion car. That makes the entire construction far less efficient than an EV designed from scratch…

“Toppfart” seems to be top speed?

I’m disappointed that InsideEVs cannot take the trouble to translate a specification table into English. Really?

Få deg et liv

Meh. Their stories come from too many different languages around the world to ever be “disappointed” that they can’t translate everything that shows up on the web.

But if you ask nicely here in the comments, there is a good chance that one of the very knowledgeable readers we get here might be able to translate for us.

Anyone want to take a stab at it?

EV range loss is caused by *optional* heating of the battery and cabin. There would be negligible range loss if those options were either omitted or fulfilled with an alternate source of energy, such as a “parking heater”.

Anyone who cannot tolerate range loss in the interests of comfort can have such a heater installed to maintain range, but few will judge the extra cost as worthwhile, when there are adequate fast charging options available. In arctic conditions, that calculus may change.

Trying to persuade Joe and Jill Average that they should wear a parka, mittens, and electrically heated socks when driving in bitterly cold weather, rather than use the car’s cabin heater, isn’t going to convince them to buy a BEV. It’s going to convince them that BEVs are Not Ready For Prime Time.

Ditto for telling them to buy a third-party, fuel-burning parking heater to install in the car. There’s a good reason most auto makers have quit offering those: They present a danger of carbon monoxide poisoning.

Range loss due to running the heater in very cold weather is one of several reasons why BEVs need to have larger capacity battery packs. Fortunately, the average battery pack capacity is getting bigger every year, so that’s a problem which is already being mitigated.

Range loss is not just from heating. I have a range drop of 25% or more in winter, when looking at how much energy is used for heat it’s only 10-12%. That means heat only accounts for half the range reduction. I think I also have a reduced battery capacity in winter which makes the range worse. I am waiting to see if the capacity picks up in warmer temperatures or if it’s a permanent capacity loss.

Can’t we just compare SUV to SUV? Cross-over’s storage space is like half of an SUV.

Unfortunately, today crossover and SUV have become synonymous terms. Either term is used by automakers to define a vehicle that offers more utility than a car, but is (in nearly all cases, although there is a dwindling handful of exceptions that are still on the market) built on a car’s unibody frame. There is no way for us to make an official determination about what qualifies as an SUV and what is just a crossover (that actually may really be a raised wagon or a hatchback), because no determination exists. There is nothing that says a crossover has X amount of cargo space as compared to an SUV which has X amount, etc. Not is there some official measurement, size, seating capacity, etc. I honestly wish it was different, but that’s not the current reality.

These terms are used interchangeably by automakers for marketing purposes, and then by automotive reviewing and ranking websites since we don’t really have another standard.

The definition that “CUV has more utility” is questionable… I don’t see in what way a vehicle like the Kona has more utility than a more “traditional” hatchback. Nowadays it seems to be all about styling.

As for SUV, in the US at least there is an official government definition AIUI. Car makers might not always stick to it in promotional material — but it does matter in some legal regards I believe?

“Winter is an important part of Norway, which is often associated with the cold.”

Wow! This is how a typical third grade report might start. Why would anyone read the rest of the article? 🤔

For the information it contains?

A typical third grade report is probably more worthwhile reading than this sort of comment…

Just to prove your not Judgemental?
Or, that you too, are short of “Perfect!”

Having driven the iPace in the winter, I can assure you that the only way that it gets 370 kms is driven 40 kms an hour, downhill…and with a stiff tailwind! Beautiful car, but not practical at all due to its limited range. I got 270 km on a mild 5 degrees dry day, averaging 70 km/hr with high regen.

Not what was advertised so canceled my order.

I tried to read the original article. What I gleaned from it, is all the cars have adequate winter range for their region. The FWD cars can get stuck, but not bad. The Audi was the quietest riding, the Jaguar was the most entertaining in the snow – everybody wanted to play with it, the Tesla went the furthest per charge. Recharge immediately when arriving when cold. Note that the Jaguar normally has a timed ‘pre-condition’ event you set. They did not use this, and if I understand it right, they didn’t use any ECO features. They set the heaters to 20°C (68°F). Interesting point they did not mention is the ‘heated seats’ in the Jaguar are from hot air created by the heat pump. The Jaguar most likely has the greatest ground clearance and off-road ability/features, but the Audi is the great unknown. But looking at it’s approach and departure angles, I’ll guess the Jaguar will do better.

Where’s the Nissan Leaf 2019 E+?