Brand new owner - Charging faster than 7.2kw?

Yeah, that's about right. When I charge to 80% it extrapolates to 509 kms (315 miles) which at 90% would be 283 miles. And with mostly city driving, I have noticed that range used is consistently less than kms driven. We use the ECO mode almost all the time. I think the EPA estimate is very conservative.

However be aware that hwy driving and climate control (in hot weather) will reduce your range.

 

Thats good stuff.
Whats your temps there?

 

TheLight75, don't rely too much on the GoM to be accurate but the SoC (charge) is. Make a note of the odometer, state of charge and the GoM and the start and end of a few trips and you will get a feel for the numbers, about 32% to 38% per 100 miles, and how close the GoM predicts that range.

 

Its pretty wild, how much ambient temperature has on range. Mine is topping out 450km now.

 

If it's anything like our last summer don't be surprised to see a lot more than 450 ... 525 km at least.

 

As for the OBC DC charge rate, despite the nameplate 7.2 kW DC, noting the wide range of AC inputs possible your result is dependant on your line voltage and the EVSE being set up for 30 or higher amps. 7.1 to 7.6 kW have been reported as a dash reading and anything in that range is considered the full rate.

 

What engineer is going to sign off a product that can’t operate reliably at every corner of its nameplate rating?

 

Here is a video of Nigel (EVPuzzle) about the different ways of estimating your range and the best option seems to be to take the mi/kwh reported by the car and multiply by 64kw. However in the end all measurements seem to end up pretty similar. No matter what you use, always leave a buffer. (Honestly, just like you would in an ICE car)

It's a pretty long video, the important part is in the last half/third of it.

 

Nigel's presentation of the data seems overly complicated in my opinion, but I totally understand that's it not easy to get your head around, especially when he's trying to compare two different GoM firmware versions. He definitely loves the GoM and he's trying hard to validate and trust it, and he has a fair chance of that living in a flat region of the UK. I dislike the GoM because it's a moving target and consumers are not privy to the formula, plus our roads are more variable.

The only readings I really trust are the odometer and the SoC. The latter still needs to be tested for having the linearity we expect with energy used, or, since we don't know that, the proxy of distance driven will have to suffice. The graph (which I've posted before) is a 300 km round trip over several hours to test this. It's a mostly-hilly drive with an average speed of less than 80 km/h.

The first graph is distance driven (in 100 km blocks) graphed against loss of SoC (because that's what happens.) The first data point at the lower-left is at home and the data point at the upper-right is also at home, without any charging stops. The slight "S"-shape in the data points is due to the hills and higher altitude of the destination, which is at the midpoint. The reason for collecting data at numerous waypoints is to validate the linearity of the SoC, which it has, down to 32% SoC. The slope of the curve (24% SoC per 100 km) is the summary of the round trip. The dithering either side of a straight line is remarkably minor considering the variations in speed and hills up to 760 m.

The second graph is loss of GoM v.s. distance driven, both in kms, characterising the GoM for that day only. The summary of the trip is that the GoM returns 72% of what it estimated, pretty far off but it wouldn't have had a chance to estimate my range because I didn't do the same drive every day the week before. Again, the dithering is very slight considering the same variations in driving.