Hacker News Reader

Comment by hpoe | Hacker News Reader

So I didn't see any actual numbers or precentages about how far the Tesla fell short, did it fall short by like 2% of 25% because that would be a very big difference which the article seems to go to great lengths to avoid. In fact there is only one vehicle that we get what the EPA estimates were for it and it's not a Tesla.

This seems to me like someone is going to great lengths to avoid putting in actual numbers and is instead just using this as a hit piece on Teslas.

View on HN

> So I didn't see any actual numbers or precentages about how far the Tesla fell short

> This seems to me like someone is going to great lengths to avoid putting in actual numbers

The first sentence of the article includes a link to one of the tests, with graphs and comparisons to other vehicles: https://www.edmunds.com/car-news/electric-car-range-and-cons...

The rest of the article has a lot of specific numbers:

> For the other Teslas tested, however, things didn't go as "well." The 2018 Model 3 Performance was off by 54 miles—this might not look that notable on a couple-year-old model—but when the testing is performed in such friendly conditions that the 2020 Mini Cooper SE, with an EPA range of 110 miles, is exceeding that by 40 miles, then it just doesn't paint a pretty picture for the Tesla cars.

The edmunds article is probably the best source, but this is the article that I saw yesterday with some of the numbers. Some are quite noticeable in their drops like the 2018 S Performance went from 310 mi to 256 mi. All the non-Teslas got higher than their EPA rating. With the Porsche Taycan 203 mi to 323 mi.

https://insideevs.com/news/496740/tesla-disputed-edmunds-tes...

That's an article too early. (Though they seem to address later objections in their edit.) It turns out that Teslas display more of their capacity under "zero range," giving more of a warning/buffer to drivers at low battery. The Teslas turned out to drive farther than the other cars when displaying "zero range."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wa_wf4EzLgY

The "zero range" tends to be a safety buffer for gas engines and electric motors alike and should not be included in the official range statements, imo.

The way I use my Model 3, I intend to almost never go below 20% and almost never go above 80%. I'm just fine with including the buffer in the stated range. Given how batteries actually work, I can understand Tesla's approach to the buffer, and in the long run, that's what's actually better for vehicle longevity, fleet-wide.

Looks like the numbers are here:

https://www.edmunds.com/car-news/electric-car-range-and-cons...

They range from -2% for the S to -17% for the 2018 Model 3.

The data is linked on the page: https://www.edmunds.com/car-news/electric-car-range-and-cons...

It seems like it falls just short, not anything worth writing about imo

Model 3 Long Range: 353 claimed, 345 actual for an example

Before people called them out on it, Edmunds only measured to when the Teslas displayed "zero range." Later, it turned out that the Teslas went further that the other EVs while reading "zero range."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com