Is my math correct?
- Thread starter sacharama
- Start date
- Replies 36
- Views 3K
teslarati97
Well-Known Member
I think they are reducing the battery pack size for cost savings. Also Toyota might be adding LTO anode chemistry with Toshiba..so there could be variances with BYD blade LFP.
SameGuy
Well-Known Member
OK that’s all fine and dandy, but they are still claiming substantially more range than real-world, without having disclosed that they’ve reduced the battery pack size or its net capacity, whether for cost savings or other reasons. As one of the articles points out, it smells of Dieselgate. The WLTP test allows manufacturers to tweak all sorts of things in order to optimize the results, but have they downgraded the battery pack or tightened up the BMS since the test?
teslarati97
Well-Known Member
WLTP tests at 25C ambient temperature so the LFP battery does not have to be preheated to 25C-45C like they do at 4C cold soaking. LFP does not like cold weather at all and you need to add extra kWh to precondition the battery.
You can simultaneously DC fast charge rapidgate and coldgate if the battery heating/cooling is insufficient (or unbalanced).
Edit: I have VERY low expectations for Toyota and their target utilitarian demographic.
Last edited:
sacharama
Active Member
The issue is not about how many miles it can run at 39F, it's about how many % reduction in range.
And yes I did read the article and I quote:
"Given that this model is advertised in Europe as having up to 461 kilometres of range, this represents a 53% decrease in driveable distance."
53% decrease in range is not reasonable at all.
Hence I used the SE as an example to support my point, that is, it's unreasonable for the SE to have only 67 miles range at 39F.
So there you have it.
SameGuy
Well-Known Member
I just hopped in my car to try to figure out why the my BMW Alex skill is not working, it’s 3°C outside, and my GOM says it thinks I can do 147 km with 91% remaining. Having driven in these temperatures for a few weeks now, I can be fairly confident that even if I drive with a bit of verve in sport mode I can easily get 147 km with 91% left.
teslarati97
Well-Known Member
So if you have a 40% reduction in efficiency from 4.6mi/kWh to 2.76mi/kWh...is that acceptable?
sacharama
Active Member
Is it reasonable to get 2.76 mi/kWh at 39F?
The answer is no, it is not.
I have been getting 3.7 mi/kWh at around 35F in sport mode with climate control set at auto at 68F with the factory cross bars.
Last edited:
SameGuy
Well-Known Member
The difference is we know the MINI’s GOM is unreliable, but assuming I drive normally in 3°C weather using climate control, and I achieve 147 km with 91% remaining, that’s only 11% below the car’s EPA rating; the fact that I’ll get real-world range better than 147 km makes the Nordic test results all the more painful to see, and brings Toyota’s puzzling behavior and responses into a particularly unfavorable light after the remarkably bad press they had already been getting for the DCFC issue and the production halt.
teslarati97
Well-Known Member
Well can I interest you in the RAV4 Prime XSE 1.7mi/kWh real world efficiency (NH in the 30's)?
If elbil24's bz4x test results were 19.1kWh/100km or 3.25mi/kWh then the WLTP should have been clearly 6.91mi/kWh, making it the most efficient EV on the market!
Last edited:
SameGuy
Well-Known Member
I just got an email saying the Solterra is officially for sale in Canada, so I went to the subaru dot see eh site and the specs show an NRC/EPA range of 360 km and an efficiency of 20.3 KWh/100 km, equaling their specified net capacity of 72.8 KWh (both versions of the Busyforks in Canada have a 71.4 KWh battery specified and an NRC range of 406 km). So there’s definitely a problem somewhere.
Last edited:
teslarati97
Well-Known Member
72.8kWh net? Wow that's a big battery pack if using BYD Blade LFP. The Koreans should be using 77.4kWh usable for E-GMP platform with SK Innovation NCM 9-0.5.-0.5. Doesn't quite sound right?
Well 3.06mi/kWh and the EPA 222 miles does suggest 72.54kWh so they may have upped the capacity.
Last edited:
SameGuy
Well-Known Member
As discussed above, and mentioned in the article, we don’t know what the net capacity is. That is just the specified capacity on the subaru.ca website.
SameGuy
Well-Known Member
Agree. But whereas I appear to have gotten an equivalent range of 169 km (122 km on 72%) — or 92% of the SE’s EPA rating — on a very similar test under very similar conditions to the Danes, they could only get the single-motor Busyforks to eke out 67% of its EPA rating (246 km vs 367). Aaaand I just realized I posted these last couple to the wrong thread lol. If I switch my math to energy used, I added 4.1 kWh at a free J-1972 at Market32, followed by a 14.8 kWh fill at the EA 150 at Sam’s Club next door, which rounds to 17.1 kWh/100 km, pretty close to the car’s calculated 16.8 kWh/100. The Danes managed 24.5 with the Toyota. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
teslarati97
Well-Known Member
Elbil24 test (~19.1-19.5kWh/100km) is a little more mixed at 25% highway, 70% country roads, 5% city from 100% to 0% SoC.
FDM is pure 110km/h highway diving on winter tires
WLTP is a 23-25C indoor treadmill at roughly 4 speeds (35mph, 47mph, 60mph, 81 mph) with climate controls OFF
Both Elbil24 and FDM say the usable battery pack is around 60kWh and not the 71.4kWh after AC and DC charging 0-100% so that's either a huge battery buffer or a smaller battery pack!
teslarati97
Well-Known Member
On the 70mph highway test:
Hummer EV is 38.75kWh/100km
RAV4 prime is 35.6kWh/100km
F-150 Lightning is 29.5kWh/100km
Not quite Ford F-150 Lightning territory yet at 24.5kWh/100km! Getting close!