In a previous article, I addressed some of the reasons why Tesla vehicles did not do so well in Edmunds‘test compared to EPA cycles. After getting some suggestions from Tesla himself, Edmunds decided to repeat the tests, with better results.
The first round of testing
Before we get into the details of the new test, let’s quickly review what happened last time so that we can keep things in perspective.
Edmunds performs its own range test on electric vehicles because the EPA test can be quite unrealistic for many drivers. In the past, most gasoline and diesel powered vehicles did not have MPG on the Monroney sticker, sometimes falling a little short, and sometimes falling far short. In some cases, this has led to lawsuits, and the EPA has revised its tests several times to try to make them a little more realistic.
Most of the unrealistic nature of EPA testing comes from a mix of higher speeds on real-world highways and inefficient driving. The test cycles of the EPA road reach a maximum of about 60 MPH, while the actual average speed of the highway in the USA is 65 MPH. In addition, many drivers take off hard at intersections and brake hard at the last second when they approach the next traffic light. All of this leads to wasted fuel in ICE vehicles and less autonomy in EVs. Test drivers who take an EPA test know how to do a better job of driving efficiently, which makes the EPA test unattainable for the average idiot in many cases.
Edmunds decided to see what EVs achieve by driving like normal people, instead of following the EPA test cycles. While it is rumored that the company has only charged 90% of Tesla vehicles, this is not really the case. They charge each vehicle as much as the vehicle allows, but make a note of the data when a manufacturer does not recommend a full charge. Once loaded, they take a vehicle and drive it on real highways at real speeds until the meter reads zero kilometers.
As Edmunds’ the tests compared to the EPA results may vary, and therefore quite. As you would expect, many vehicles do not perform as well in Edmunds tests as they do in EPA cycles (which, as I explained, use lower speeds and often careful drivers). Some did win, however. For example, the Porsche Taycan fared much better at high speeds than the EPA tests. This may be due to the second gear the vehicle can use on the highway (which would not have helped much in EPA tests).
Porsche Taycan. Kyle Field’s photo, CleanTechnica.
The second round of testing
Tesla engineers did not like the results, because having none of the vehicles in the EPA lane on the highway while the competition did better is not looking good for the company. As I’ll go into more detail below, it shouldn’t really matter, but the public trusts EPA more than it probably should. Tesla engineers gave Edmunds tested a series of tips, with the biggest problem being the “reserve” range that vehicles still have when the range indicator says zero miles are missing. If Tesla vehicles received any credit for those 10-15 miles of extra range, the engineers argued, they would be able to reach EPA numbers in Edmunds’ testing.
When they tested again, they did it on a track so they could see how far a vehicle is going before it comes to a complete stop. Obviously, this is not something you can do on a real highway without taking too many risks. As soon as they got that number, they took the cars through the city streets to see how far they went beyond zero and got mixed results. This is because the amount of buffer remaining does not always give the same number of miles, because conditions are different.
The end result? Two of Tesla’s vehicles have reached their EPA numbers, one can reach the EPA range and the others have definitely fallen short. Here is their video showing how they got the results and what results they got.
Conclusion: EPA numbers don’t matter
Instead of doing what many Tesla fans are doing on Twitter and Facebook (criticizing Edmunds), I will agree with what they said at the end of the video: we can’t really trust the government numbers.
Aside from my normal distrust of government officials (hey, even this law school professor says you should never speak to law enforcement officers), there are important reasons why we shouldn’t trust the EPA extension and MPG numbers. Above all, they are unrealistic to drive in the real world, unless you are hyperactive. If you like to set cruise control at the speed limit plus five MPH (or more) and like to have a little fun while driving, forget the EPA number. It just won’t happen unless you really want to and are willing to sacrifice the fun, your time and even the security to get there in most cases.
It is not really a failure for Tesla vehicles when they do not reach the EPA number. It is a failure of the government. If EPA were serious about giving customers realistic numbers, it would require manufacturers to register tracks at different speeds at various temperatures, rather than having a complicated test cycle that no one will ever drive. If the Monroney sticker had this data on a table, people would know what to expect realistically on the highway. Going to 55 on some horrible urban highway in a coastal state will give you much more reach than you would legally reach by going to 80 or 85 on a Texas country road or toll road.
Let’s be real. Nobody wants to send their children to a school that teaches for the test. We want our children in schools that teach to perform in the real world at work or in further studies. What we really need to worry about is what you can do with an EV in the real world, not how good an EV is to play a government test. As many owners and industry followers know, Tesla vehicles perform excellently in the real world, the best US recharge network by covered area and decent durability.
Reaching the EPA numbers is like winning a popularity contest at a state hospital. You won? Yes! But you are not necessarily going anywhere yet.
New Podcast: EV Sales Forecast and Battery and Metal EV Prices – Interview with BloombergNEF Head of Clean Energy Research