Is my math correct?

Yes, but with a caveat. Just with town/errand driving 160 miles isn’t hard. But, speed, temp, and driving style can cause variations. We’ve gotten 130 miles easy with mixed driving, but I would recommend using two to three full charging cycles to see what the true range is for you and your mini. The range estimates on the screen aren’t that accurate.


Sent from my iPhone using Inside EVs

 

Mathematically possible, but statistically you would be applying a linear regression to indirectly determine your efficiency.

It's probably better to calculate the efficiency directly as 28 miles divided by kWh used (28.9 * 0.21 of the usable kWh).

This is like saying in the World Cup, USA was up 1-0 in the first half against Wales. So extrapolating the data would be 2-0 USA for the entire match, and on average USA is 1 goal per half, when in reality the Welsh drew and the game ended in a 1-1 tie (0.5 goals per half on average). Probably not so great with a sample size of 1, but oh well.

 

You are correct in terms of range.
However to allow for slightly non linear battery percentage reporting you should do the same calculation over a much greater battery range.
That said, your range seems very plausible, I don’t know the conditions but in green mode I get 130 on the highway and 170 around town…

You calculate efficiency the same way I do but the I only problem is that we don’t know if 100% to 0% means consuming the usable 28.9kWh as there is a buffet below 0 which may or may not come out of that meaning you use less than 28.9 to get down to 0. That said… this would simply mean our calculated efficiency figures are worst case, the real number may be better.

Mini are really sandbagging the range and efficiency numbers of this car, and while it’s great to under promise and over deliver, the sticker range figure does put a lot of people off who day “I just wish it had a little more”, when I know it does!

 

While we can't control the weather, driving style and tire/wheel choices can certainly impact the range/efficiency. I'm just thankful that I don't have a 3.15kWh (~3% on 105kWh) daily vampire drain on the MINI as that would be almost 11% loss (per day)!

 

I have found that Mini has a few percent capacity hidden at both the top and the bottom. For example, I drive 3 miles and the car still reports 100% SOC. After another 3 miles, it reports 97% and proceeds to lose about 1% per mile (give or take).

On the low end, there was a video on YouTube where they drove the Mini for something like 20 miles on “0%” remaining.

Because of this, I too recommend using a wider range of charge to estimate. This will reduce the skew due to those hidden kWhs.

At the same time, would those people really bite of the advertised range was 130 miles with caveats that it will be less under less ideal conditions? I think they made the right choice. Fewer customers maybe (maybe not) but far more satisfied and likely to return!




Sent from my iPhone using Inside EVs

 

That should be a carwow test in the UK. The extra range after 0% SoC is a mixed bag of BMS cell/module rebalancing and slow city driving.

I think Tyler Potter was able to get another 3 miles in limp mode (made it home!) after the MINI stopped the first time from highway driving.

 

Toyotaru seems to have taken this approach. There have been Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian reports that the BZ4x is getting around half of the mileage that Toyota said that it would get. Granted, it is winter there now, but ...

 

I need more info on this, care to share some links? My best friend placed an order for a Busyforks before the wheels fell off, but after the reports of slow fast charging. He’s still not dissuaded, regardless of how unremarkable — and now problematic — it seems.

 

I think he's referring to elbil24's review. One thing to point out that the busyforks only has a Guess O' Meter and no battery SoC % display. That is disturbing...

 

correct. here's another link:

Toyota bZ4X: Cold Weather Tests Show a Much Shorter Range than Advertised - Motor Illustrated

 

EPA rating says 367km for dual motor and WLTP is 461km so when Danish FDM real world tested 215km that is very reasonable with all the nice cabin comforts and the "new front-seat radiant foot-and-leg heater". Now if they tried at -22F and lower, that's a different story.

elbil24 tested at 46.4F or 8C and FDM at 39.2F or 4C

 

I could be wrong, but I think the American solterra lacks the front-seat radiant foot-and-leg heater. Perhaps Subaru pulled it for this very reason.

 

I thought using BYD Blade LFP batteries was the hottest thing on the market...except LFP hates cold weather (needs active battery heating...). Nobody complains about the Tesla Model 3 SR using LFP, so why give Toyota such a hard time?

Reasonable is in light of the lithium anode choices, extra radiant heating, AND lack of SoC % display!

I will get 67 miles of full range probably at 14F with highway driving and probably 49 miles of full range at -30F in the SE.

 

Absolutely! I get 140+ miles in the summer in the SE and if I could get 45+ miles in -40F weather I'd be happy.

 

We seem to be at an impasse if 133.5 miles at 39.2F on a bz4x is very reasonable with all the nice cabin comforts and the "new front-seat radiant foot-and-leg heater" (w/ active battery heating/cooling) and a hypothetical 67 miles at 39F on a SE is unacceptable.

If you read the FDM article:

BZ4X har ikke den sædvanlige måler, der viser den resterende strømmængde i procent.

De ni procent (mindre eller lidt mere afhængig af en række forhold) i reserve kommer oven i, at batteriets brugbare kapacitet er langt fra de 71,4 kWh, der står i brochuren. Det er brutto.

Desuden har Motor konstateret, at den angivne rækkevidde er markant lavere, når varmeapparatet/klimaanlægget er slået til.​

 

More of a disconnect than an impasse. I don’t disagree with the poster above, getting 50% of the WLTP range at 4°C above zero is ludicrous, even with all the creature comforts activated. Why is Toyota being so cagey about the facts?