- cross-posted to:
- technews@radiation.party
- cross-posted to:
- technews@radiation.party
DOJ probing Tesla’s EV range after reports of exaggerated numbers | Tesla has allegedly been canceling service appointments from customers who are discovering their vehicles are not getting as much…::Tesla disclosed that the Department of Justice is seeking information about the company’s vehicle range after reports alleged that the company was exaggerating its figures.
Tesla isn’t the odd one out necessarily. Real world EV ranges are all over the place and are inconsistent based on who’s testing.
Compare these two for example:
https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a44676201/ev-range-epa-vs-real-world-tested/
https://www.edmunds.com/car-news/electric-car-range-and-consumption-epa-vs-edmunds.html
The EPA test for EVs is absolutely terrible to gauge performance at normal highway speeds (70mph+).
As much as I like car and driver, that article is absolute dog shit. The edmunds article is interesting though.
I bet your gripe isn’t with the EPA, but with SAE. I may be wrong, but if I recall correctly SAE uses EPA tests to define J1634 and allows manufacturers to either run an SCT or an MCT. EPA then adopts that into legislation. I believe EU/WLTP also uses J1634 but substitutes the EPA test cycles with the appropriate WLTC cycle (usually 3b for vehicles you would find in the US).
Thank you for explaining how this standard more-or-less came to be! I wasn’t aware that the SAE was involved in helping develop it.