4 ms·

What unit is "Efficiency" in? Wh/km? It's interesting that VW seems to use a standardized 82kWh battery back in their MEB platform and achieves basically the s

by kken 4y ago

What unit is "Efficiency" in? Wh/km? It's interesting that VW seems to use a standardized 82kWh battery back in their MEB platform and achieves basically the same range as the Tesla 3 with 75kWh. Appears this is engineered to the point. Why is Teslas Efficiency 10% better? My understanding is that they use SiC transistors in their inverter while the MEB uses Silicon IGBTs. A trade-off between reliability (Si), cost (Si), performance (SiC). How much of the difference is caused by this?

lelag 4y ago
Yes, wh/km. I don't know why they get better efficiency but I suppose that they still have some significant technological advantages compared to the others.
- Delphiza 4y ago
  Same as for ICE? Better weight to power ratio. Less drag (aerodynamics, wheels). Plus better EV tech? More efficient power curves. More efficient regenerative braking.
bjelkeman-again 4y ago
Efficiency seem to be Wh/km. During the summer, with mixed driving I get about 168 Wh/km, and year round 185 Wh/km in a Tesla Model 3 AWD. Not everyone needs to drive autobahn speed. ;)
clouddrover 4y ago
> It's interesting that VW seems to use a standardized 82kWh battery back in their MEB platform and achieves basically the same range as the Tesla 3 with 75kWh The table is mixing net (usable capacity) and gross (total capacity) battery sizes. The battery in the ID.4 is 82 kWh gross but 77 kWh usable. The ID.4 is also an SUV model whereas the Model 3 is a sedan.
- lelag 4y ago
  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.
  - clouddrover 4y ago
    > 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.
    - Bubble_Pop_22 4y ago
      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
    - lelag 4y ago
      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.

by kken 4y ago

lelag 4y ago

Yes, wh/km. I don't know why they get better efficiency but I suppose that they still have some significant technological advantages compared to the others.

Delphiza 4y ago
Same as for ICE? Better weight to power ratio. Less drag (aerodynamics, wheels). Plus better EV tech? More efficient power curves. More efficient regenerative braking.

bjelkeman-again 4y ago

Efficiency seem to be Wh/km. During the summer, with mixed driving I get about 168 Wh/km, and year round 185 Wh/km in a Tesla Model 3 AWD. Not everyone needs to drive autobahn speed. ;)

clouddrover 4y ago

> It's interesting that VW seems to use a standardized 82kWh battery back in their MEB platform and achieves basically the same range as the Tesla 3 with 75kWh The table is mixing net (usable capacity) and gross (total capacity) battery sizes. The battery in the ID.4 is 82 kWh gross but 77 kWh usable. The ID.4 is also an SUV model whereas the Model 3 is a sedan.

lelag 4y ago
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.
- clouddrover 4y ago
  > 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.
  - Bubble_Pop_22 4y ago
    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
  - lelag 4y ago
    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.