Great video. I agree, love my Model 3 and the Taycan is amazing. But a nice,y equipped 4S is more than double the price of my M3 Performance. I.....just can’t pull the trigger at that price. Oh, and I’m going to be that guy and say, it’s pronounced Por-sha. Not Poorsh.
Great test with wonderful reporting! Congratulations! I would be glad to know how the charging went, maybe you will add more info on RU-vid or your website?
Wheels / tires make a huge difference in range. Taycan's EPA range was measured with their least efficient wheel/tire package. Tesla uses the most efficient package they offer. If I remember correctly, Kyle tested with the most efficient package. That efficiency package is slightly wider cumulatively than what Tesla uses on the model S, and much wider than the model 3, but Tesla uses the same width on all 4 tires whereas the Taycan efficiency package uses a staggered setup with narrower fronts and much wider rears. With the tire package Tom's using and in the cold temperature, beating EPA range is pretty impressive. Another big reason Taycan beats their EPA figure is the 2-speed gear box and the way the EPA runs their highway test at an average speed below the point the Taycan changes into its more efficient gear. In real highway driving, the car would always be in the more efficient gear. It's also possible the air resistance curve Porsche submitted to the EPA wasn't in range mode. In range mode, the Taycan's multi stage wing doesn't deploy. In other modes, it deploys over a specific speed, increasing air resistance in a trade off for increased high speed traction. Also note that Tesla keeps very little battery capacity in reserve versus the Taycan, giving it a large and temporary boost to its range. Li-ion batteries have a period of high degradation within their first 10k-30k miles. That degradation typically exceeds Tesla's reserve, leading to a 5%+ loss of range over those miles. Bjorn tested his model 3, and after 50k miles he lost 8% of his max range. (With the caveats that he DC fast charges a lot which (degradation++), but drives 2-3x more miles than an average driver realizing less age degradation (degradation--)) Since Taycan keeps so much battery in reserve, much of that initial degradation is hidden behind the reserve and has little to no impact on the vehicle's max range. IMO, range tests should not be performed on brand new cars before the initial degradation. If the car's battery lasts 200k+ miles and the range degrades after 20k-30k miles... you'll experience lower range over 170k-180k miles, the majority of the car's life, and that degradation will continue, albeit at a slower rate over the life of the car. IMO, Tesla is gaming the EPA test... but the EPA is to blame for allowing itself to be played.
Any chance of testing a current gen model S in the cold? Preferably with 20k-30k miles on it to account for the range decrease from initial degradation that other brands don't experience?
Yes, I think the EPA needs to improve test cycles to better account for the lack of waste heat available from the BEV drivetrain in winter and high speed driving.
Tom, great 👍 content.. what about adding that extra 5 miles to the final results because of the pre-heating the battery? Still amazing how much range you get from the Taycan during dead of winter ... amazing.. why did the EPA rate it so low? .. Kyle 70mph test made about 270miles in the summer going 70mph and winter 213-218miles both well above EPA rating.. truly amazing ..
EPA gives automakers some leeway with these range numbers. The strict numbers are MPG and MPGe, but no one looks at those in an EV, so giving people leeway in the range numbers makes EPA testing comparatively horrible. Porsche derated their car like 20%
@@lespaulranger It was the EPA that derated the car, but only because Porsche didn't run the full test on purpose. The EPA actually tested 250 miles. Porsche then derated to make it 200 or so even. Also, Porsche unlocked more capacity RIGHT after the test.
Fairly easy to explain. Porsche did that on purpose. The EPA tested 250 miles, but since Porsche ran the "short" cycle, they used something called "30 cap" - you should start looking up original EPA documents to understand that. Then Porsche, voluntarily brought the range down to about 200 or so miles on the Turbo. And a couple of months later unlocked another 5-6 kWh or about 20 or so miles of range. I explain most of this here, it was actually featured on InsideEVs, but I guess "Tom" doesn't like reading official EPA documents or their website they work for. watch?v=IT1o1stkkqI&t=2602s
Thank’s Tom, I looking to buy the 4s mainly to travel for Montreal to Miami but i’m worry with the reliability of the Electrify America network after Kyle video. What do you think ?
Great video Tom thank you. Was wondering if you had added the battery temperature to the info screen so that you could keep track of it and see whether it got up to 89F at arrival to the fast charger which is what I need to get to and see 260 kW?
@@StateOfChargeWithTomMoloughney thanks, did you notice if the battery was warming in route? I see mine start warming about 20-30min out but I have only been dealing with 50F temps, nothing too cold 😁. Looking forward to your Charging session video Tom.
Well said ... My Tesla model 3 performance get only 201. miles when going 75-78mph on the freeway and yes I know going at 45-50mph I may be able to make 310 miles but who drive that slow on the freeway...point is I always get allot less then EPA rating when driving as I normally do ..
True! "This chart shows an electric vehicle's official EPA range and energy consumption compared to the range and consumption results from Edmunds' own testing, which is designed to be a real-world complement to the EPA's laboratory-based process" www.edmunds.com/car-news/electric-car-range-and-consumption-epa-vs-edmunds.html
People love to up play the tesla because its more of a “people’s” car but they never give a really fair comparison. Tesla literally gamed the EPA estimate by optimizing Tesla performance for those types of tests. If the range / battery was that much better i wouldn’t need tesla fanboys to prove it to me
@@ramanmonkey Well, my MS90D is junk, not a "people car"! Even the junk master admitted recently, that he is peddling junk: edition.cnn.com/2021/02/03/business/elon-musk-tesla-quality-problems/index.html
Watch this here, I explain everything in detail. The EPA actually tested 250 miles with the smaller capacity of 83kWh at that time, but Porsche A) didn't do the full test so the EPA got the 30 cap B) they unlocked 5kWh after the EPA test and never redid the test. watch?v=IT1o1stkkqI&t=2602s
I love your videos because you are so precise and complete. At 6:19 I noticed the consum. meter registering 39.4kw/100mi but at 6:41 I noticed you quote 2.53 mi/kw. Did the consumption go down that much or don't you just divide by 10? Also, in range mode I thought the 2 speed transmission was disengaged and you were just being pulled by the front motor, so the two speed gearbox shouldn't be a factor for our 70 MPH speeds, should it?
if you divide by 10, you'll get kWh/10mi. To get mi/kWh you divide the 100 miles by the number of kWh that you need to drive 100 miles (39.4) and get 2.53 mi/kWh. Most EVs in North America do not offer the consumption in the form of kWh/100 miles. That's more of a European thing (kWh per 100km). Porsche obviously just converted what they use in Europe for North America. Most EVs here use mi/kWh of wh/mi. The car will be driving in the highest gear on the highway, which is an advantage over a single-speed gearbox.
@@ChuckJ1944 The rear motor is disconnected. But the front motor is geared higher, similar to the second gear of the rear motor, and has a ratio of about 8:1.
Does this have the double paned glass? The range exactly hit the car's initial predicted range if you include the 5-8 miles taken off by the battery pre-heating on your way to charging. I'm a bit surprised the 2nd half of the trip is equal or less efficient than the first, being that you're not using a significant amount of energy to heat up the cold soaked battery and cabin, and the tires are warmed up. Looks like the sun wasn't as bright, so maybe it required extra cabin heating to maintain 68 degrees? Honestly, if a person is going for range in the winter but wants to stay somewhat comfortable temperature wise, I'd suggest turning the temp down to 65 and only using the seat and steering wheel heaters initially to warm them up. Once warm, cabin temp and body heat should keep them warm. The higher the temperature differential of the cabin with the outside air, the more energy loss there is, and the harder the system has to work to maintain the temperature. 65 is definitely a lot more comfortable than no HVAC, but maybe you'd need a light jacket instead of just a sweater. ;)
I agree, but when I do these tests I'm not *trying* to get more range. I do what I think the average driver would and let the chips fall where they do.
which battery did the EPA do their range test with? If they used the lower pack and you use the larger it's not really apples to apples. Really like the Porsche just too much $$$$ for me. Great video!!
The EPA tested the same battery as this one, but with less usable capacity. 83kWh vs 89kWh. Also the EPA tested 250 miles, but since Porsche didn't do the more expensive test, they were 30 capped. The EPA Test, with this battery would've been around 270 miles, but since Porsche voluntarily derated their range, there is nothing else they can do. Now the EPA gets the bad rap, because people don't understand how the tests work.
You are totally wrong, range mode is basically transforming the Taycan into a FWD EV. Taycan is using two clutches in the rear engine and range mode disengage the whole rear engine The 2-speed is improving launch mode and improves regular/sport mode.
@@asaftzadok6647 lol, you are right, we were discussing the gear ratios in the rear when the Range mode is FWD only :) Anyway, the front gear ratio is around 8:1 just like the 2nd gear at the rear.
The EPA is pretty good test, but Porsche didn't do a good job and botched the test so EPA used the so called 30 cap on them. The real test was 250 miles. Also, Porsche unlocked more capacity after the test to make the EPA look stupid.
@@StateOfChargeWithTomMoloughney Which give or take adds up to about 93kWh with the charger loss. Which in my test was about 5%-6% charger loss. Maybe even less. If we factor in the rounding error we end up with about 88-89kWh capacity usable, a little bit more than the EPA presented car with 83kWh, don't you think? (EPA tests the capacity they take out, until the car stops). Do you see now where the "extra" range comes from?!
The problem is there is no perfect range test, and what works well for one vehicle doesn't for other vehicles. The Taycan is the exception - not the rule. Most other EVs we test have ranges that are much closer to the EPA rating. Consumers are just going to have to learn that range is a moving target, and do some research before buying the vehicle.
@@StateOfChargeWithTomMoloughney Tom, I agree that today the EPA test cycles are mostly accurate, but since BEVs are becoming more popular, now is a good time for a rethink of the testing protocols. There are many ways to make the testing better so that people would be able to use the EPA label as an objective measure. Maybe we need to see a winter range and summer range, both with optional wheels and standard wheels. More data could also cause more confusion but there clearly needs to be a better quantitation of real world range.
@@StateOfChargeWithTomMoloughney No, there is no issue with the EPA test, the problem is you didn't do your home work. The EPA test is great and it actually achieved 250 miles on the 4s. You should look it up. They did the so called "30 cap", because Porsche didn't pay for the full test, so it ended up a little above 210 miles. What happened is A) Porsche decided to voluntarily cut it short of 200 miles B) They unlocked another 5kWh which at this consumption is another 15 or so miles. So effectively the EPA, if they run the test today, would achieve about 270 miles on the car. IF Porsche would do the proper test (which they kinda don't want to - I think they like the narrative where the EPA doesn't do the tests properly and Tesla is lying about their range - which you fall for every time yourself). All explained here: watch?v=IT1o1stkkqI
@@teslakiller6959 Ugh. Of course I know they deduct 30% after completing the test. Porsche, like most other OEMs doesn't want to complete the full 5-cycle test as Tesla does.
@@StateOfChargeWithTomMoloughney Did you also knew that Porsche further derated a couple of miles? It is in the EPA report. Did you also "knew" about that 5-6kWh Porsche added after the Test, which you actually pulled - I did the math for you? If you "knew" all of that, and that EPA pulled 250 miles in their test, and if you add the kWh up, you end up with the EPA Test of about 270-280 miles, so way claim that the Taycan is 36% more efficient than the EPA rated if it is actually -30% below EPA in real range? Why not explain where the difference comes from? You not interested in "educating" the audience and catering to click-bait?
I know it's fun to keep test driving Taycans. But after the 100th posting of ppl test driving it. I'm looking forward to some other BEVs. And in a year or two seeing Ioniq branded BEVs tested. Since Hyundai is the only cost competitive maker that seems to be able to beat Tesla in efficiency.
The question for me is, what exactly the EPA did to get a lower range estimate? I know Porsche tends to underpromise and over deliver but I remember them being PISSED about the 199 mile estimate for the base version.
I do not believe the EPA chose this range. From what I have read, Porsche chooses to use only 2 test cycles (not all 5 like Tesla does), it tested the Taycan with the largest wheel and stickiest tire package available, and then decided to voluntarily reduce the range obtained in testing.
The only ones who were PISSED, where ppl who did not understand how the EPA figures are calculated and by who.... Since Porsche did the testing and the calculations not the EPA.... And like it said before Porsche choice the lowest possible EPA they could give it... Unlike Tesla who does the opposite, when they test their cars.... So EPA figures for different brands are useless to do comparisons
@@barryw9473 That is correct. The base 2-test is city + highway * 0.7 the 5 test cicle is city + highway + Acceleration + A/C + Winter (°20f) with no "correction reduction". For some reason it's really hard to find this data in a car by car basis. In some cases the EPA re-tests "fishy" results, I got confused by that part because Porsche made their own test just to prove the EPA cicle was unfair.
www.edmunds.com/car-news/electric-car-range-and-consumption-epa-vs-edmunds.html Porsche Taycan 4S came in ahead, of the Tesla Model S Performance in the 'real world testing". End of story (ie that Tesla (Elon) always stretches the truth)....
@@devilfriend The EPA data is fully available. I can post the link, but it will probably get flagged. Just look it up. The EPA actually ran a 250 miles on that 4s, with 5 kWh less capacity (they tested 83kWh roughly). What happens is - Porsche didn't run the complicated test so they ended up being "30 cap"-ed is what EPA calls it. Then Porsche voluntarily decided to lower the range. And on top of that unlocked 5-6kWh more after the Test, without actually redoing the test. So if you add all this up you end up with about 270miles which is exactly what the range in summer is, 210 miles loss in winter is actually a pretty miserable result, because of the heater probably, which will also end up on the new EPA test, because EPA then factors in for colder climates. I explain most of it here: watch?v=IT1o1stkkqI&t=2602s
16:29 and there is a good reason for that. The EPA Test actually achieved 250miles, but since Porsche decided to run the short test, it ended up cutting it with the 30 cap. Rules of the EPA. Also, Porsche unlocked 5kWh more after the EPA, without redoing the test. I have explained all of this in my Model 3 vs Porsche Video, which you featured on your website. watch?v=IT1o1stkkqI&t=2602s Maybe you should read the articles posted on your website a bit more often, then you wouldn't have to look clueless when you do these tests...
This is an old test from 2 years ago, because they don't drive them down to 0% like the EPA. And if you don't then you miss about 5% more range. Also, there were no heat pumps back then, with the new cars if the battery is warm you get the EPA range in the winter.
"Range Mode" or "Eco Mode". In power-limited Range Mode, the Taycan uses only the front engine (FWD) and its top speed is limited by 70mph. In this power-limited mode, of course it exceeds its EPA range. What did you expect? It is the normal result. Less power - more range, hello? EPA does its testing in "default" driving mode which is determined by the carmaker itself. Please drive Taycan in default driving mode and see what mileage you will get for the same test. There you go. There is your answer.
@@StateOfChargeWithTomMoloughney The car you are driving in "range mode" is not the same car that EPA tested. It is like that you have a 4 cylinder engine and you are achieving good fuel economy by disabling 2 of the cylinders. In range mode it is a FWD car; rear engine is not working and top speed is limited to 70mph. What did you expect, really? It is the usual result. Less power means more range, it is just physics. Do the range test in standard drive setting like EPA did and see what you get. EPA is not to blame here. BTW; all wheel drive and quick acceleration are also safety features.
@@teknikbil Nobody is "blaming the EPA". You do know that in range mode you set the maximum speed, right? We set it to 70-mph because we were doing a 70-mph range test and didn't want to go faster than that. Also, do you know if you depress the accelerator hard in Range Mode, the rear motor kicks in and you're driving in all-wheel drive? This is how we test the cars - all cars, in our 70-mph range tests. No other EV, can beat the listed EPA range in freezing temperatures while being driven at 70-mph, regardless of what driving mode it's put in - ECO, ECO Plus, Chill Mode - whatever, and all those EVs were tested in regular mode by the EPA. The owners don't care about testing protocol, they just want to know how far the vehicle can go at 70-mph, that's why we do the tests.
@@StateOfChargeWithTomMoloughney This is not a discussion you can win. Tesla has a "limp" mode when battery level reaches below 10%. In that mode, the car limits power and top speed is also limited. What you are doing is "limp" mode all the way. That is it. It is "hypermiling" or "cheating" so to speak. There is nothing special about it man. It is just physics. Limited power brings more range. Hello?
@@teknikbil Whatever, man. You clearly don't understand a lot about the Taycan and the InsideEVs highway range tests. You're welcome to conduct your own range tests and if they are well orchestrated we'll even post them for the IEV community to see.
No, they didn't refute the EPA range number. Porsche provided the EPA with the range test that confirmed the range it's rated at. What they refute is whether the EPA range test is fair. They agree with the EPA range rating under the conditions that the EPA sets for range tests. They also provided a range test that was done under different conditions than the EPA range test to show that in more realistic driving conditions, the Taycan can drive much farther than the EPA range.
@@StateOfChargeWithTomMoloughney The only reason Porsche consulted with AMCI for an independent test was to refute EPA's claims. AMCI's ratings have been shown to be more accurate than EPA, but, Porsche originally said this car was going to be "at least" 265 miles EPA rated. I remember Porsche press saying in an article (after the EPA results and the independent testing) that although their car is capable of more, they had no other option but accept EPA's ruling.
@@KyleHubb I agree with that. The point I was trying to make is that Porsche does not refute the EPA range rating. They actually provided those numbers to the EPA, as all manufacturers do. The EPA then conducted their own test which matched what Porsche provided. The rub here is that Porsche doesn't believe that the EPA range rating is a fair rating. that's why they hired the third party to conduct what they consider a more reasonable range test. However, the EPA range test is what everybody uses here, so it's what the vehicles are going to be compared with - even though it's not entirely accurate.
@@StateOfChargeWithTomMoloughney I think given all the presented evidence on hand - running the short test, instead of the long one (and getting close to 250 miles) , derating another 5 miles from the EPA test and adding 5kWh available AFTER the test, we can safely conclude that Porsche did all of this on purpose...
Yes, EPA tested 250 miles on their test, but they had to cut it, because Porsche didn't pay for the long 5 way test. Also, Porsche added more capacity afterwards. So you are right.
Is it? This chart shows an electric vehicle's official EPA range and energy consumption compared to the range and consumption results from Edmunds' own testing, which is designed to be a real-world complement to the EPA's laboratory-based process www.edmunds.com/car-news/electric-car-range-and-consumption-epa-vs-edmunds.html
CS: Check the temp differences when the vehicles were tested... Also no else is getting getting a 323 miles for the 2020 Porsche Taycan 4S at any temp... Are just 2 of many factors that make the figures suspect.... While they are much closer, than the EPA figures indicate, everyone else who tested them.... Show that the Tesla is more efficient, when comparing them fairly... But there is always Hyundai and its BEVs if you need greater efficiency....
Tom, this time I have to say that the test is misleading and practically useless. The EPA test starts with a cold battery. The charge it to full 100% and let it cool all night. Your test starts with a super hot after a DC fast charging. Range mode makes that Taycan a FWD car, which is not what people paid for. Please redo this test when battery is being charged a night before, let it cool all night and drive it in Normal mode - not Range or Sport.
The battery was stone cold when I started - why would you think it was super hot? The car sat out in 8F temperatures for 14-16 hours at 100% SOC. I then drove about 15 miles and topped it off back to 100% before starting out. It wouldn't even accept more than 30kW because it was such a high state of charge and the battery was so cold. That didn't even begin to warm the pack - it was still cold-soaked from sitting outside. As for range mode - anybody with half a brain would put the car in range mode if they are trying to go a long distance on the highway with the cruise control on a set speed. You're looking for a different kind of range test - which is fine, you can do range tests 100 different ways. This is just one way.
@@StateOfChargeWithTomMoloughney You mentioned that you drove to the NJ Turnpike and you used fast charging. Pre-heat before and you can't fast charge before the temperature of the battery is high enough.
@@StateOfChargeWithTomMoloughney EPA does its testing with the default driving mode. So, it is not EPAs fault if the car cannot get good mileage with its default driving mode. As for range mode, FWD and power limited. What did you expect, of course you will get more range.
@@StateOfChargeWithTomMoloughney Drive the car in standard driving mode and see what you get. EPA test is done in default driving mode. Power limited range mode is kind of cheating. Tesla does not have FWD only and top speed, power, ac limited range mode. Compare apples to apples to draw conclusions.
