The EPA has increased the range for the 2022 SE to, wait for it, 114 miles. Didn't they learn from the first effort? This is still over 30% low - well at least in my hands. Seriously, why is it that every person testing the range (properly) gets between 130 and 160 miles yet the EPA still stoically rests on its 110-114 miles? They must test at -10C, doing 90mph uphill with a headwind.
New EPA range is (way) out
- Thread starter vader
- Start date
- Replies 4
- Views 1K
GetOffYourGas
Well-Known Member
The EPA doesn't do the tests, Mini does. The EPA simply defines the protocol. So the numbers are low because Mini is being conservative, I guess.
I thought that MINI provided the parameters, and the EPA dialed in the rolling road. I read the report and the real problem is the fudge factor the EPA use. The results from certificate number LBMXV00.0F5B-027 (2020 SE) are:
city cycle miles till exhausted: 166.97
highway cycle miles till exhausted: 145.62
Average: 60% city, 40% highway: 158.43
"fudge factor": 0.7
EPA range = 158.43 * 0.7 = 110.9 miles.
So, the actual range they got was 158 miles (40% highway, 60% city). You only get the 110 figure by multiplying by the one figure fits all 0.7 . Ironically, the 158 miles fits almost perfectly with the best reported by several testers (including myself). I get 155 miles (250km), Edmunds got 150, Car wow got 154. All these are in good, maybe excellent conditions. The real issue is the dodgy correction factor. The factor is used when manufacturers only do the 2 tests (city/highway) rather than all 5 (like Tesla does). That is the main reason that Tesla is close or a little under EPA, and most European manufacturers who only do a 2 test version are significantly better (eg. Porsche Taycan, MINI etc).
I agree, it is MINI's fault for not doing all 5 tests and getting a more realistic figure. You probably find they don't care as they won't sell any more cars in the US due to the current demand outstripping supply, and Europe/UK uses the WLTP value which is far more realistic.
PS. you can get the test reports from the EPA site - I probably can't share it due to copyright etc. Search for the certificate number above. I do believe that the EPA "real" results really are best case scenario, so they really are an upper limit. To get better, you would have to hypermile, which the tests do not do.
city cycle miles till exhausted: 166.97
highway cycle miles till exhausted: 145.62
Average: 60% city, 40% highway: 158.43
"fudge factor": 0.7
EPA range = 158.43 * 0.7 = 110.9 miles.
So, the actual range they got was 158 miles (40% highway, 60% city). You only get the 110 figure by multiplying by the one figure fits all 0.7 . Ironically, the 158 miles fits almost perfectly with the best reported by several testers (including myself). I get 155 miles (250km), Edmunds got 150, Car wow got 154. All these are in good, maybe excellent conditions. The real issue is the dodgy correction factor. The factor is used when manufacturers only do the 2 tests (city/highway) rather than all 5 (like Tesla does). That is the main reason that Tesla is close or a little under EPA, and most European manufacturers who only do a 2 test version are significantly better (eg. Porsche Taycan, MINI etc).
I agree, it is MINI's fault for not doing all 5 tests and getting a more realistic figure. You probably find they don't care as they won't sell any more cars in the US due to the current demand outstripping supply, and Europe/UK uses the WLTP value which is far more realistic.
PS. you can get the test reports from the EPA site - I probably can't share it due to copyright etc. Search for the certificate number above. I do believe that the EPA "real" results really are best case scenario, so they really are an upper limit. To get better, you would have to hypermile, which the tests do not do.
Puppethead
Well-Known Member
Sounds like MINI gets punished for creating a more-efficient EV (better than 0.7). But yeah, MINI should do the tests to avoid the fudge factor.