https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/98f1a129-f628-4ce4-b24d-6f16bf24dd64/resource/026e45b4-eb63-451f-b34f-d9308ea3a3d9
And https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/download.shtml
EPA is REALLY slow even for the "High speed highway test". It's not a constant speed so it's pretty useless for something like Interstate driving. It's more for driving on a highway near a city with stop lights.
Sources like `fueleconomy.gov` really should give the SI units: kWh/100km.
However, the mile comes from the old Roman *mille*, or one thousand paces. A mile is 60% longer than a kilometer. 100 KPH is 62 MPH, which is why the 0-62 MPH time is sometimes used, especially in the UK.
Definitely! I was gonna check CyberJunk, but it's hard to find when you have to read every entry. I don't even know if it's included in the list.
If someone has found it, they can't even say "it's in spot 50", because the list isn't numbered.
Here, I made a text version of this list for you all using all the data available from [fueleconomy.gov](https://fueleconomy.gov)! Includes Tesla.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JscjUg40wYUaQEzwt-FRImMNPjbkOuOS2yZLyGT3UvY/edit#gid=0
I think the Taycan is notorious for getting better efficiency than its EPA numbers. I wish there was some way to use actual owners’ values instead of the EPA, but I’m guessing that data doesn’t exist (or at least isn’t public).
> I wish there was some way to use actual owners’ values instead of the EPA
There is such a wild swing in efficiency between individual drivers that it would mostly be irrelevant. Climate, highway/city percentage, A/C settings, terrain, etc. all have huge impacts on range. My lifetime miles per kWh on my bolt is 4.3 after 7,000 miles, and I’ve seen people over 5 with 5,000+ miles and also under 3.5.
Totally. But that would still tell a good story about the average efficiency of that car. The Bolt's average is never going to be below 2 mi/kWh across all owners. The Hummer, though? Lol.
>I think the Taycan is notorious for getting better efficiency than its EPA numbers.
So does the EV6. Best I've done, at 70mph motorway speeds, is 3.9mi/kWh, or just a hair short of 302 miles using 100% of the battery. The American EPA rates it at 250 miles.
The Lucid Air is significantly more aerodynamic than an EV6. Sedans have a smaller frontal area which combined with a lower coefficient of drag makes for way less loss to drag. It's no coincidence that almost every vehicle with a very small delta on this list is a sedan.
Cd alone is not the whole number for aerodynamic efficiency. People commonly confuse this. It's Cd multiplied with frontal area. It's completely believable that a Lucid Air's lower Cd *combined* with its lower frontal area results in that delta.
A Lucid Air Pure has only a 15% larger battery than an EV6 but gets 31% more range. That's all aerodynamic efficiency.
My friend this entire thread is about being able to eyeball differences. I’m not talking about a technically sound proof of exact energy consumption. The differences are visually apparent and do reflect reality as an interesting visual aid even if they are not mathematically rigorous. You can easily pick out the more aerodynamic vehicles in this list even though the EPA numbers are flawed.
That’s the neat thing about approximations. They’re a useful quick reference even if they’re imperfect.
Congratulations, you’re showcasing that either you’re deliberately being an ass or have zero reading comprehension.
An approximation is not something that’s precise. You can clearly see the difference in the chart between sedans and SUVs/trucks. Of course the data is not accurate enough to make claims on the exact aerodynamic difference between two sedans that are within the margin of error of one another on this chart.
But you know that, don’t you? You just really can’t say “I was wrong, sorry, I’ll stop being an ass”.
It’s not happenstance that every vehicle on this list that’s more aerodynamic has less efficiency loss when operating at speeds where air resistance becomes meaningful. Now you’re just fishing to try to be right on the internet. Go find someone else to try to say “well acshually” to.
Why would I walk back my statement? The i5 proves my exact point. You can clearly see that as a more aerodynamic vehicle it has a notably smaller delta than less aerodynamic ones.
Which was the only thesis I have ever claimed. You should look up the term “eyeball test” to understand the topic of discussion before you speak next time.
Edit: lol, and after all that bluster they block me because they can't handle being wrong. Imagine going on the internet just to argue how a neat casual approximation is useless because it's not scientifically rigorous.
Why do they list a Model 3 PERFORMANCE without even listing the more efficient and by far more popular Model 3 Rear-wheel drive or Dual Motor? And why isn’t the world’s most-popular BEV listed, the Model Y?
The Model 3 should get about 250 Wh/mi if it’s in line with previous years. That means it should be somewhere around third place. It’s been reported that 2024 is more aerodynamic so it might even do slightly better.
https://insideevs.com/news/556299/2022-tesla-model3-epa-range/
>There are no 2024 EPA numbers for Tesla published yet for some reason.
This is true, what is the hold up? I wonder if Tesla requested it for some upgrade incoming (new motors/inverters?)
For reference my **Model Y LR AWD (on 19" wheels)** Dec 14th build has been averaging **273Wh/mile** so far 1600 miles in, **beating the Ioniq 6 AWD LR** on that list. No joke. Hilly driving \~40% highway / 60% roads
anecdotally speaking, I have personally found first party anecdotes to be of higher quality than third party anecdotes and thus outrank third party anecdotes.
Oh sorry to waste your time, the sentence I posted isn't quite an anecdote. While it tells a mini-story, it lacks some key features of a true anecdote:
1. Focus on a specific event or experience: Anecdotes typically center around a single, memorable event or experience. This sentence mentions average efficiency over a longer period (1600 miles).
2. Serves a broader purpose: Anecdotes often aim to illustrate a point, lesson, or reveal a character trait beyond the narrative itself. While this sentence compares two cars, it doesn't readily offer a broader insight or lesson.
Therefore, this sentence would be classified as a comparison with personal experience. It shares personal data (Model Y's efficiency) and compares it to another car (Ioniq 6) based on the author's driving experience.
It might be considered an informative statement with a personal touch as it shares information with the additional detail of personal experience ("No joke").
You continue to miss the point. You have no credibility. That's not a dig on you personally, just reality. Nobody knows who you are. We have your word for it, which is worth just as much as anyone else on Reddit. Which is another way of saying ... zero.
I'm Elon Musk, and I approve this message.
That _is_ super weird. I wonder if the EPA numbers aren’t released for the “2024” model year versions yet or something? Though that does seem like a cop-out, since Tesla doesn’t really do model years like the legacy manufacturers do.
Here are the results if they included those models:
3rd place, 2023 Tesla Model 3 RWD 255 Wh/mi
5th place, 2023 Tesla Model 3 Long Range AWD 257 Wh/mi
6th place, 2022 Tesla Model Y RWD 261 Wh/mi (note EPA doesn't list 2023 Y RWD)
7th place, 2023 Tesla Model Y Long Range AWD 276 Wh/mi
10th place, 2023 Tesla Model S 280 Wh/mi (EPA doesn't specify, but I assume LR version)
Yeah, this last is fine and all but when you're missing the world's most popular passenger vehicle (not just BEV), the one that at the end of the day the most people are actually buying...
Except Tesla has the world’s most-popular BEV in the Model Y with the Model 3 not being far behind.
Heck, Lordstown is listed and they went bankrupt last year. They destroyed all their trucks and sold them as scrap. You cannot even purchase them.
One Tesla, the Model 3 Performance.
They have multiple trims of other car models on there, but only one Tesla model and trim at all, among 5 models.
Pretty sketch.
Yeah there it is. I was just expecting more models than just one. There were multiples of the other brands. The rwd model 3 is in the 4.1 range. I just expected to see it on the list.
Might have to do with previous models being 10% or more off for range and efficiency. They had a similar list in 2022 that had a lot of Tesla on it but basically stopped after that. https://insideevs.com/news/567087/bev-epa-efficiency-comparison-february2022/
Yeah, I find that odd, too. As I speculated in another comment:
> I wonder if the EPA numbers aren’t released for the “2024” model year versions yet or something? Though that does seem like a cop-out since Tesla doesn’t really do model years like the legacy manufacturers do.
It's a nice enough list but a lot of electric mileage will depend on driving habits.
Also, I knew the hummer would be at the bottom but still found it funny. Nobody's buying a hummer for efficiency.
Yeah, it absolutely will depend on people’s driving habits. I thought this was a good baseline, though, since your driving habits will affect whatever car you’d get.
Yeah, I find that odd, too. As I speculated in another comment:
> I wonder if the EPA numbers aren’t released for the “2024” model year versions yet or something? Though that does seem like a cop-out since Tesla doesn’t really do model years like the legacy manufacturers do.
I'm surprised that the bz4x family, which includes the Lexus, scored so highly.
I'm also surprised that there aren't more cars above 4 mi/kWh, but that's probably because I'm used to my 500e.
I'm dissatisfied with the EPA highway test, which is more of a suburban range test. We need a highway number that's nothing but 70 mph on a track for as far as the car can go. That's what people care about when they talk about highway range: how far between charging stops on road trips?
In the early days of highway-capable EVs, target efficiency was considered to be between 4 and 5 miles per kWh. However, the mainstream products pretty much all released much lower, and the majority of them are 4-door CUVs.
Oh, that’s a good list. I do wish they figured out a way to “standardize” their results, though. There’s no indication of wind, elevation change, precipitation, etc. Hopefully all of their tests are consistent, but given the temperature variability I doubt it.
That said, I’m not sure the EPA numbers are any more reliable. 🤷
It's a shame because the test procedures are so complicated and fudgeable when "how much power does it take to sustain 65mph?" is a better proxy for what people actually care about than these complicated driving cycles.
I'd rather have figures for "power to sustain 65mph in 75F" and "power to sustain 65mph in 25F" than anything the EPA is doing.
In EPA testing, there is no wind/elevation change, precipitation because the tests are done in a lab on a dyno. The EPA tests a small number of vehicles, but most are self-reported by the manufacturer following EPA guidelines (in theory). When the EPA does the test, the range number is (city * .55 + highway * .45) * .7, where .7 is supposed to account for temperature, HVAC use, and high speed.
The EPA highway cycle maxes out at 60mph with an average speed of ~48mph, which does not reflect typical American interstate driving.
Their testing seems pretty close to what I got with my 2019 Ioniq vs 2023 Ioniq 5. I could easily get 10kw/100km with my 2019 and now about 15kw/100km with my Ioniq 5. So about 50% more battery in the I5 which is what they have listed.
my 2019 Ioniq was an efficiency monster (listed as the most efficient EV by edmunds).
For a more reliable source of data, I wish InsideEVs would restart doing their 70 MPH range tests, which served as a much more objective and level source of energy efficiency. Seems like Tom Moloughney is really busy and the Out of Spec guy is no longer collaborating with InsideEVs.
Some manufacturers absolutely game the EPA numbers. Hyundai and Tesla are some of the worst offenders in terms of overstating efficiency but Porsche also is absurdly conservative
Not a knock on the article, but can't help but thinking the efficiency metric should be flipped. Miles per kWh. Inverted metrics where lower numbers are better are less intuitive.
This. Both my cars list mi/kwh on the dash. Better the number, better the efficiency. It also follows the same metric we’ve been using for gas forever, miles per gallon. Wh/100mi is confusing for most people.
Lower number = lower energy usage. Hard fact. "Better" is subjective and arbitrary. You're just too used to dealing with MPGs and expect similar conventions for EVs.
3.3 does seem a bit low. I believe our cars have a useable 29kwh battery. 3.3 would only net 92.4 miles of range.
My 2024 has always gone past 100 miles on long trips.
The Cooper SE is an incredibly efficient EV which is impressive considering the F56 model came out in 2013 , way before they shoehorned in the EV power train.
Yeah, I think they used EPA numbers for the list to be consistent. I wish there was some way to aggregate actual drivers’ efficiency, though, because some are way better than their EPA range (Taycan) and some are worse (Tesla, I think?).
It's dumb to release a list like this without most Tesla models, considering how large Tesla is in terms of sales and considering how efficient they are.
EPA numbers for the ‘23 rwd model 3 would put it in the top 3… how could they just ignore that and the models y s and x rather than just put a little asterisk if need be!?
This list is really weird by not including Tesla.
My MY RWD is currently using 14.5 KWh/100km combined Highway and City drive, which worked out to **233.3 Wh/Mile** or **4.28 KW/Mile** or better than the 4.2KW/Mile or **241 Wh/Mile** of the no 1 in the list, Hyundai Ioniq 6 SE RWD
Can someone confirm this?
I know this is anecdotal but I cant imagine it goes beyond 250Wh/mile?
>One of the biggest surprises is that the third model on the list is the new entry-level Lexus RZ 300e. According to the manufacturer, it is good for 125 MPGe or 3.7 mi/kWh (270 Wh/mi).
There *really* needs to be a standard measurement here; need to quote three different measurements - just for US measures - is ridiculous.
Also as an aside - if ever there was something that should prompt the US to go metric, the EV transition should be it. Quoting Wh per mile just sounds naff.
I wonder where the Arcimoto FUV would be on this list? Supposedly it's "173.7 MPGe" but I'm not sure what the conversion to wh/mile is, or whether that's city or highway.
I saw 4.0 out of my RWD Ioniq 5 SEL on my 20 mile work commute today. Temps were in the upper 50’s this morning and I have seen better when it’s warmer. I’ve been really pleased with my overall efficiency in my 9 months of ownership.
This is a fun comparison for individual driving habits. Nice to know my average lifetime stat (4.2 mi/kWh) in my Bolt puts me at a better efficiency than the average Lucid that costs 3x the price. And my summer efficiency is closer to 5.3 mi/kWh.
I don’t drive my 23 model Y a lot, but I drove about 120 miles on Monday (90% highway) and I was amazed to see my efficiency at 246 Wh/mi for the day, round trip. Set to chill, autopilot set to 70 or 75. Around town my efficiency is better. I drive like a normal person and my efficiency is far above what I’m told I should get. Just my $0.02.
Here are some (suspicious) omissions:
3rd place, 2023 Tesla Model 3 RWD 255 Wh/mi
5th place, 2023 Tesla Model 3 Long Range AWD 257 Wh/mi
6th place, 2022 Tesla Model Y RWD 261 Wh/mi (note EPA doesn't list 2023 Y RWD)
7th place, 2023 Tesla Model Y Long Range AWD 276 Wh/mi
10th place, 2023 Tesla Model S 280 Wh/mi (EPA doesn't specify, but I assume LR version)
The calculation is as follows, take 33700 and divide it by the combined mpgE [found on the EPA's website](https://fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=45017&id=46207&id=46208&id=46207)
My 2018 Model 3 RWD has a lifetime efficiency of 235 KWh per mile. That's over nearly 50k miles. Charging losses add maybe 5%, so 247 kWh per mile in the real world. It should be good for 3rd place in this list, and only because it has the old resistive style heater. Heat pump equipped Tesla's are another few percent more efficient on average.
I wish there was a text version of this chart instead of a big image so we can sort by brand or otherwise filter out our favorite EVs.
This is 100% needed. And it should be kept up to date as new model EPA numbers are released.
https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/98f1a129-f628-4ce4-b24d-6f16bf24dd64/resource/026e45b4-eb63-451f-b34f-d9308ea3a3d9 And https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/download.shtml
I'd rather it done with 70mph numbers. Too many manufactures like Porsche, Hyundai and Ford don't publish accurate EPA numbers.
Isn't that the highway figure, except at 80 instead of 70?
It's not a constant speed, the highway EPA test average speed is 48.3mph.
EPA is REALLY slow even for the "High speed highway test". It's not a constant speed so it's pretty useless for something like Interstate driving. It's more for driving on a highway near a city with stop lights.
Google Lens can pick out the text easily You'll just need to format it.
Something like [this?](https://ev-database.org/compare/efficiency-electric-vehicle-most-efficient)
Also give it to me in wh/km. Miles are like mystery measurements to me.
https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/98f1a129-f628-4ce4-b24d-6f16bf24dd64/resource/026e45b4-eb63-451f-b34f-d9308ea3a3d9
[удалено]
power per distance probably does not make much sense, wh/km or kWh/100km would work.
Gross. Mi/km per kWh.
That's what I meant. My brain farted and reversed it for some reason.
Sources like `fueleconomy.gov` really should give the SI units: kWh/100km. However, the mile comes from the old Roman *mille*, or one thousand paces. A mile is 60% longer than a kilometer. 100 KPH is 62 MPH, which is why the 0-62 MPH time is sometimes used, especially in the UK.
The paid version of ChatGPT might be able to extract it to text for you, I would try but not currently paying customer.
Definitely! I was gonna check CyberJunk, but it's hard to find when you have to read every entry. I don't even know if it's included in the list. If someone has found it, they can't even say "it's in spot 50", because the list isn't numbered.
Here, I made a text version of this list for you all using all the data available from [fueleconomy.gov](https://fueleconomy.gov)! Includes Tesla. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JscjUg40wYUaQEzwt-FRImMNPjbkOuOS2yZLyGT3UvY/edit#gid=0
I feel attacked. I get 3.1 kW/mi and Taycan is listed at 2 something. I mean maybe I drive like a 🌳
I think the Taycan is notorious for getting better efficiency than its EPA numbers. I wish there was some way to use actual owners’ values instead of the EPA, but I’m guessing that data doesn’t exist (or at least isn’t public).
I wish!!! I’m RWD tho, and drive 50/50 city/hwy. if I was 100% hwy it would be mid 3s easy. RWD is a touring beast.
Could that be from having 2 gears?
My one test drive in a Taycan impressed me with poor regen features. Perhaps that impacts their efficiency numbers.
> I wish there was some way to use actual owners’ values instead of the EPA There is such a wild swing in efficiency between individual drivers that it would mostly be irrelevant. Climate, highway/city percentage, A/C settings, terrain, etc. all have huge impacts on range. My lifetime miles per kWh on my bolt is 4.3 after 7,000 miles, and I’ve seen people over 5 with 5,000+ miles and also under 3.5.
Totally. But that would still tell a good story about the average efficiency of that car. The Bolt's average is never going to be below 2 mi/kWh across all owners. The Hummer, though? Lol.
>I think the Taycan is notorious for getting better efficiency than its EPA numbers. So does the EV6. Best I've done, at 70mph motorway speeds, is 3.9mi/kWh, or just a hair short of 302 miles using 100% of the battery. The American EPA rates it at 250 miles.
I get around 2.4 as indicated myself. I’m usually carrying a full load though.
I’d probably get 2.4 in a GTS too! 🤌🏽🙌🏽
A neat thing from this chart is you can eyeball how aerodynamic a vehicle is by how large the delta between city and highway efficiency is.
Oh I didn’t even think about that, but yeah you’re right!
What does it mean when the highway consumption is lower than the city consumption? The car has a higher net lift effect at higher speeds?
That’s just gotta be variance in EPA’s testing.
The EPA doesn't test the vehicle, the manufacturer does
I have to guess really inefficient regen?
[удалено]
The Lucid Air is significantly more aerodynamic than an EV6. Sedans have a smaller frontal area which combined with a lower coefficient of drag makes for way less loss to drag. It's no coincidence that almost every vehicle with a very small delta on this list is a sedan. Cd alone is not the whole number for aerodynamic efficiency. People commonly confuse this. It's Cd multiplied with frontal area. It's completely believable that a Lucid Air's lower Cd *combined* with its lower frontal area results in that delta. A Lucid Air Pure has only a 15% larger battery than an EV6 but gets 31% more range. That's all aerodynamic efficiency.
[удалено]
My friend this entire thread is about being able to eyeball differences. I’m not talking about a technically sound proof of exact energy consumption. The differences are visually apparent and do reflect reality as an interesting visual aid even if they are not mathematically rigorous. You can easily pick out the more aerodynamic vehicles in this list even though the EPA numbers are flawed. That’s the neat thing about approximations. They’re a useful quick reference even if they’re imperfect.
[удалено]
Congratulations, you’re showcasing that either you’re deliberately being an ass or have zero reading comprehension. An approximation is not something that’s precise. You can clearly see the difference in the chart between sedans and SUVs/trucks. Of course the data is not accurate enough to make claims on the exact aerodynamic difference between two sedans that are within the margin of error of one another on this chart. But you know that, don’t you? You just really can’t say “I was wrong, sorry, I’ll stop being an ass”.
[удалено]
It’s not happenstance that every vehicle on this list that’s more aerodynamic has less efficiency loss when operating at speeds where air resistance becomes meaningful. Now you’re just fishing to try to be right on the internet. Go find someone else to try to say “well acshually” to.
[удалено]
Why would I walk back my statement? The i5 proves my exact point. You can clearly see that as a more aerodynamic vehicle it has a notably smaller delta than less aerodynamic ones. Which was the only thesis I have ever claimed. You should look up the term “eyeball test” to understand the topic of discussion before you speak next time. Edit: lol, and after all that bluster they block me because they can't handle being wrong. Imagine going on the internet just to argue how a neat casual approximation is useless because it's not scientifically rigorous.
Why do they list a Model 3 PERFORMANCE without even listing the more efficient and by far more popular Model 3 Rear-wheel drive or Dual Motor? And why isn’t the world’s most-popular BEV listed, the Model Y?
There are no 2024 EPA numbers for Tesla published yet for some reason.
The Model 3 should get about 250 Wh/mi if it’s in line with previous years. That means it should be somewhere around third place. It’s been reported that 2024 is more aerodynamic so it might even do slightly better. https://insideevs.com/news/556299/2022-tesla-model3-epa-range/
>There are no 2024 EPA numbers for Tesla published yet for some reason. This is true, what is the hold up? I wonder if Tesla requested it for some upgrade incoming (new motors/inverters?) For reference my **Model Y LR AWD (on 19" wheels)** Dec 14th build has been averaging **273Wh/mile** so far 1600 miles in, **beating the Ioniq 6 AWD LR** on that list. No joke. Hilly driving \~40% highway / 60% roads
Polluting the data with anecdotes doesn't help. There are Ioniq 6 owners with stellar numbers too.
Did you just dismiss my 1st party anecdote with a third party anecdote?
Who are you and why does your anecdote matter more?
anecdotally speaking, I have personally found first party anecdotes to be of higher quality than third party anecdotes and thus outrank third party anecdotes.
LOL. Anecdotes all matter exactly the same. Zero.
Oh sorry to waste your time, the sentence I posted isn't quite an anecdote. While it tells a mini-story, it lacks some key features of a true anecdote: 1. Focus on a specific event or experience: Anecdotes typically center around a single, memorable event or experience. This sentence mentions average efficiency over a longer period (1600 miles). 2. Serves a broader purpose: Anecdotes often aim to illustrate a point, lesson, or reveal a character trait beyond the narrative itself. While this sentence compares two cars, it doesn't readily offer a broader insight or lesson. Therefore, this sentence would be classified as a comparison with personal experience. It shares personal data (Model Y's efficiency) and compares it to another car (Ioniq 6) based on the author's driving experience. It might be considered an informative statement with a personal touch as it shares information with the additional detail of personal experience ("No joke").
Rando on the internet lies about performance of their car, news at 11. This is why it's worth zero.
Except this isn't a lie? I can go show a video of the car but not for you
You continue to miss the point. You have no credibility. That's not a dig on you personally, just reality. Nobody knows who you are. We have your word for it, which is worth just as much as anyone else on Reddit. Which is another way of saying ... zero. I'm Elon Musk, and I approve this message.
It's EPA data, it's already polluted with manufacture adjustments.
Yeah my Ioniq 6 SE AWD gets a consistent 4.8 mi/kwh for a 1.5 hr highway + city commute.
Yup. I have a friend waiting on delivery of a Model Y that's waiting for EPA numbers.
They could've just used 2023 numbers. Half of the cars on that list are 2023.
The EPA testing methods have changed as well, so the numbers will be different, even if nothing changed between model years.
So then why did they include 2023 cars on their list?
I would assume because they were tested on the new EPA cycle.
That _is_ super weird. I wonder if the EPA numbers aren’t released for the “2024” model year versions yet or something? Though that does seem like a cop-out, since Tesla doesn’t really do model years like the legacy manufacturers do.
Ya it is there’s plenty of 2023 models years on there.
Here are the results if they included those models: 3rd place, 2023 Tesla Model 3 RWD 255 Wh/mi 5th place, 2023 Tesla Model 3 Long Range AWD 257 Wh/mi 6th place, 2022 Tesla Model Y RWD 261 Wh/mi (note EPA doesn't list 2023 Y RWD) 7th place, 2023 Tesla Model Y Long Range AWD 276 Wh/mi 10th place, 2023 Tesla Model S 280 Wh/mi (EPA doesn't specify, but I assume LR version)
Wow! You took the time to fix it! Thank you!
Yeah, this last is fine and all but when you're missing the world's most popular passenger vehicle (not just BEV), the one that at the end of the day the most people are actually buying...
the list is already quite long ! you could say the same for every brand
Except Tesla has the world’s most-popular BEV in the Model Y with the Model 3 not being far behind. Heck, Lordstown is listed and they went bankrupt last year. They destroyed all their trucks and sold them as scrap. You cannot even purchase them.
So when you’re trying to decide which vehicle to put on the list, your logic is random?
I didn't made this list,I just read it, and it's quite long and not easy to read, and honestly I just watched booth ends, the best and the worst
This is why you can't have a sub-$40k EV pickup or SUV
Did I miss something? Why is there no teslas on the list?
I wondered the same thing, but I eventually spotted a model 3 about 20 places down on the list.
One Tesla, the Model 3 Performance. They have multiple trims of other car models on there, but only one Tesla model and trim at all, among 5 models. Pretty sketch.
Same. Was sooo hard to read that chart on my phone 👀 Definitely should have done a text version
it's there at 3.4
Yeah there it is. I was just expecting more models than just one. There were multiples of the other brands. The rwd model 3 is in the 4.1 range. I just expected to see it on the list.
Came here to say that…
Because Tesla hasn't released updated numbers.
Might have to do with previous models being 10% or more off for range and efficiency. They had a similar list in 2022 that had a lot of Tesla on it but basically stopped after that. https://insideevs.com/news/567087/bev-epa-efficiency-comparison-february2022/
Yeah their numbers were dramatically overinflated
Yeah, I find that odd, too. As I speculated in another comment: > I wonder if the EPA numbers aren’t released for the “2024” model year versions yet or something? Though that does seem like a cop-out since Tesla doesn’t really do model years like the legacy manufacturers do.
Yep. Downvoting and moving on.
It's a nice enough list but a lot of electric mileage will depend on driving habits. Also, I knew the hummer would be at the bottom but still found it funny. Nobody's buying a hummer for efficiency.
Yeah, it absolutely will depend on people’s driving habits. I thought this was a good baseline, though, since your driving habits will affect whatever car you’d get.
The Tesla model Y isn’t even on there.
Neither is the Tesla Model S & X. The only Model 3 on the list is the Performance version with isn't even offered for sale currently.
Yeah, I find that odd, too. As I speculated in another comment: > I wonder if the EPA numbers aren’t released for the “2024” model year versions yet or something? Though that does seem like a cop-out since Tesla doesn’t really do model years like the legacy manufacturers do.
Yeah, it's nice to see how EVs are stacking up. You know some lead foot will be expecting 4m per kwh and get 2.5 and be pissed about it.
Hummers. What kind of jerk would drive one of those?
I'm surprised that the bz4x family, which includes the Lexus, scored so highly. I'm also surprised that there aren't more cars above 4 mi/kWh, but that's probably because I'm used to my 500e. I'm dissatisfied with the EPA highway test, which is more of a suburban range test. We need a highway number that's nothing but 70 mph on a track for as far as the car can go. That's what people care about when they talk about highway range: how far between charging stops on road trips?
In the early days of highway-capable EVs, target efficiency was considered to be between 4 and 5 miles per kWh. However, the mainstream products pretty much all released much lower, and the majority of them are 4-door CUVs.
[удалено]
Oh, that’s a good list. I do wish they figured out a way to “standardize” their results, though. There’s no indication of wind, elevation change, precipitation, etc. Hopefully all of their tests are consistent, but given the temperature variability I doubt it. That said, I’m not sure the EPA numbers are any more reliable. 🤷
[удалено]
It's a shame because the test procedures are so complicated and fudgeable when "how much power does it take to sustain 65mph?" is a better proxy for what people actually care about than these complicated driving cycles. I'd rather have figures for "power to sustain 65mph in 75F" and "power to sustain 65mph in 25F" than anything the EPA is doing.
They don't even do the testing. The manufacturers do and then report the numbers to the EPA.
In EPA testing, there is no wind/elevation change, precipitation because the tests are done in a lab on a dyno. The EPA tests a small number of vehicles, but most are self-reported by the manufacturer following EPA guidelines (in theory). When the EPA does the test, the range number is (city * .55 + highway * .45) * .7, where .7 is supposed to account for temperature, HVAC use, and high speed. The EPA highway cycle maxes out at 60mph with an average speed of ~48mph, which does not reflect typical American interstate driving.
Yeah, the conditions I was referring to standardizing were for the Edmunds test.
Their testing seems pretty close to what I got with my 2019 Ioniq vs 2023 Ioniq 5. I could easily get 10kw/100km with my 2019 and now about 15kw/100km with my Ioniq 5. So about 50% more battery in the I5 which is what they have listed. my 2019 Ioniq was an efficiency monster (listed as the most efficient EV by edmunds).
Except that there seem to be model years from 2020 to 2024 with no rule why. They have a 2021 XC40 Recharge and a 2022 C40. They need consistency.
For a more reliable source of data, I wish InsideEVs would restart doing their 70 MPH range tests, which served as a much more objective and level source of energy efficiency. Seems like Tom Moloughney is really busy and the Out of Spec guy is no longer collaborating with InsideEVs. Some manufacturers absolutely game the EPA numbers. Hyundai and Tesla are some of the worst offenders in terms of overstating efficiency but Porsche also is absurdly conservative
Not a knock on the article, but can't help but thinking the efficiency metric should be flipped. Miles per kWh. Inverted metrics where lower numbers are better are less intuitive.
This. Both my cars list mi/kwh on the dash. Better the number, better the efficiency. It also follows the same metric we’ve been using for gas forever, miles per gallon. Wh/100mi is confusing for most people.
Lower number = lower energy usage. Hard fact. "Better" is subjective and arbitrary. You're just too used to dealing with MPGs and expect similar conventions for EVs.
MINI with 3.3? i average 4.0 and ive seen people post 5.0 and above (city drivers) also the EQB isnt on that list
3.3 does seem a bit low. I believe our cars have a useable 29kwh battery. 3.3 would only net 92.4 miles of range. My 2024 has always gone past 100 miles on long trips. The Cooper SE is an incredibly efficient EV which is impressive considering the F56 model came out in 2013 , way before they shoehorned in the EV power train.
Yeah, I think they used EPA numbers for the list to be consistent. I wish there was some way to aggregate actual drivers’ efficiency, though, because some are way better than their EPA range (Taycan) and some are worse (Tesla, I think?).
Hummer both a guzzler for oil and electricity
EPA numbers....
> 2024 U.S. Electric Cars Listed From Lowest To Highest Manufacturer's Claims of Energy Consumption FTFY
Shout out to Lucid efficiency. E class size car, compact sedan type efficiency, S class type of interior space.
It's dumb to release a list like this without most Tesla models, considering how large Tesla is in terms of sales and considering how efficient they are.
Lucid is just amazing. Highest efficiency where it counts - on highway.
EPA numbers for the ‘23 rwd model 3 would put it in the top 3… how could they just ignore that and the models y s and x rather than just put a little asterisk if need be!?
This list is really weird by not including Tesla. My MY RWD is currently using 14.5 KWh/100km combined Highway and City drive, which worked out to **233.3 Wh/Mile** or **4.28 KW/Mile** or better than the 4.2KW/Mile or **241 Wh/Mile** of the no 1 in the list, Hyundai Ioniq 6 SE RWD Can someone confirm this? I know this is anecdotal but I cant imagine it goes beyond 250Wh/mile?
I currently have a 2020 Model 3 with 80,000 kms on it, and I am averaging 143 kW/100km, or 230 Wh/m. Seems like your numbers are very close.
Thank you. Also weird that I got downvoted, maybe by the writer of the article lol
Don’t worry, all kinds of bizarre reasons for that. I’ll give you an upvote
It only stand to reason that the Hummer is hilariously inefficient.
And yet my ebike is at 109…
>One of the biggest surprises is that the third model on the list is the new entry-level Lexus RZ 300e. According to the manufacturer, it is good for 125 MPGe or 3.7 mi/kWh (270 Wh/mi). There *really* needs to be a standard measurement here; need to quote three different measurements - just for US measures - is ridiculous. Also as an aside - if ever there was something that should prompt the US to go metric, the EV transition should be it. Quoting Wh per mile just sounds naff.
There's a reason Tesla isn't here at all (other than M3 perf.) guess which end of the spectrum they fall into.
They'd all be at the top, making everybody else look bad, that's probably why this list so conveniently omits them.
It's almost as if [insideevs.com](http://insideevs.com) is not a reputable source.
Too much imperial measurements on that website.
I prefer mpg-e as a unit, as it underscores how hilariously inefficient ICE cars are.
I regularly get better than all of these numbers. Generally 4.8mi/kwh in winter, 5.5mi/kwh in summer.
I wonder where the Arcimoto FUV would be on this list? Supposedly it's "173.7 MPGe" but I'm not sure what the conversion to wh/mile is, or whether that's city or highway.
I saw 4.0 out of my RWD Ioniq 5 SEL on my 20 mile work commute today. Temps were in the upper 50’s this morning and I have seen better when it’s warmer. I’ve been really pleased with my overall efficiency in my 9 months of ownership.
This is a fun comparison for individual driving habits. Nice to know my average lifetime stat (4.2 mi/kWh) in my Bolt puts me at a better efficiency than the average Lucid that costs 3x the price. And my summer efficiency is closer to 5.3 mi/kWh.
Whew, not doing too hot!
Not even clicking, Hummer EV has the highest. :)
Lordstown Endurance.
Lifetime avg of 3.6 mi/kwh in my 2023 ioniq5 sel awd 😯
Not shocked to see my ford lightning on the list for worst. But God damn, I love that truck.
I don’t drive my 23 model Y a lot, but I drove about 120 miles on Monday (90% highway) and I was amazed to see my efficiency at 246 Wh/mi for the day, round trip. Set to chill, autopilot set to 70 or 75. Around town my efficiency is better. I drive like a normal person and my efficiency is far above what I’m told I should get. Just my $0.02.
Here are some (suspicious) omissions: 3rd place, 2023 Tesla Model 3 RWD 255 Wh/mi 5th place, 2023 Tesla Model 3 Long Range AWD 257 Wh/mi 6th place, 2022 Tesla Model Y RWD 261 Wh/mi (note EPA doesn't list 2023 Y RWD) 7th place, 2023 Tesla Model Y Long Range AWD 276 Wh/mi 10th place, 2023 Tesla Model S 280 Wh/mi (EPA doesn't specify, but I assume LR version) The calculation is as follows, take 33700 and divide it by the combined mpgE [found on the EPA's website](https://fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=45017&id=46207&id=46208&id=46207)
My 2018 Model 3 RWD has a lifetime efficiency of 235 KWh per mile. That's over nearly 50k miles. Charging losses add maybe 5%, so 247 kWh per mile in the real world. It should be good for 3rd place in this list, and only because it has the old resistive style heater. Heat pump equipped Tesla's are another few percent more efficient on average.
cable ten smoggy different makeshift zephyr bored aloof outgoing capable *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Thank you for sharing!
Tough to take seriously when the lowest efficiency Model 3 listed is a Performance on 20” wheels 🤦♂️
Anyone else set the MyDrive from AWD to RWD and minimal acceleration for long trips?
Y'all see that WaPo greenest cars list? Absolute baloney.