Hacker News Reader

Comment by lelag | Hacker News Reader

Well, Tesla also has a buffer after 0% and still some energy after it stop moving. This might be what explain the "bad" figure here. A model 3 at 130km/h on the flat in good weather conditions should not exceed 200wh/km normally. (Based on experience with my own car).

My point was that the posted article is non-sense, and likely really just an advertisement piece for the german cars.

Claiming the EQS is best because it has a decent range with a 107kwh battery is infuriating. We should be moving to smaller battery on light efficient vehicles and not make monster 3 tons EV like this.

View on HN

> Tesla also has a buffer after 0% and still some energy after it stop moving.

The Model 3 performance is 80 kWh total capacity (82 kWh on the newer ones).

> We should be moving to smaller battery on light efficient vehicles

No. People will buy the cars they want. If they want the luxury of an Mercedes EQS then that's what they'll buy. If they want the excess of a Hummer EV then they'll buy that too.

There need to be better batteries with greater energy density for a smaller pack weight once decent range is achieved.

Amen. Limiting oursleves will never be the answer.

It's time for tree huggers to provide the same quality of life of oil.

If they can't then it's on them not on the consumer. Time to put up or shut up.

The new Cadillac Lyriq is a step in the right direction.

But I also must say that the 59,995$ MSRP Gasoline Corvette C8 is a step in the right direction as well.

When people dream that's the sort of cars they dream about: attainable luxury of a Lyriq or the attainable C8 which is essentially an affordable Ferrari made in Detroit.

People don't want to own a Tesla which is plain on the outside and frankly speaking very empty and low quality once you step inside

Depends on the model they actually used. If you assume the Tesla had a 80 kwh battery, the whole test does not make any sense in regards to the ID4 results for example.

The facts are the following:

- Tesla is known for its electrical system efficiency

- The model 3 as a drag coeff of 0.23 vs 0.28 for the ID4.

- The model 3 perf weight 1844 kg vs 2045 kg for the ID4.

Regardless of how badly this test was conducted, especially at highway speed, there is no way in hell the model 3 does not beat the ID4 in this test unless it was conducted in bad faith (which I think is likely).

So either the Tesla they used did not have a 80kwh battery, or they didnt conduct a fair test. It's impossible for an ID4 to beat a model 3 in efficiency in the same conditions on the highway.

Edmunds comes to the same conclusions independently [1]. Maybe Tesla's efficiency is overstated? No idea.

ID.4 seems to outperform their WLTP/EPA range numbers whereas most Model 3s seem to under-perform in the real world. Maybe VW has learnt from the Diesel scandal.

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

> If you assume the Tesla had a 80 kwh battery, the whole test does not make any sense

It does have an 80 kWh battery. Again, you're confusing usable capacity and total capacity. Your table is wrong. You're comparing a Model 3 Performance's usable capacity with the MEB cars' total capacity.

> there is no way in hell the model 3 does not beat the ID4 in this test unless it was conducted in bad faith

Maybe this will help you. Here's a range test of a Model 3 Performance with the 82 kWh battery. Note that he measures the usable capacity at 76 kWh:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sj3vUh5RqMc

A similar test in an ID.4 GTX. Measured at 75 kWh usable:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFz2mz5GOL0

The actual kWh you get out of the battery depends on a variety of factors like driving speed, temperature, battery condition and age, etc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com