EV EPA Calculated Numbers

Joined
Oct 7, 2012
Messages
4,528
Location
Northern Ontario, Canada
More news to hurt consumer confidence in BEVs.
Car manufacturers use an EPA sanctioned arbitrary number to calculate the EV benefit to their total fleet EPA fuel efficiency number. In the end, another buried incentive to go EV, born by the consumer again.
Let's not kid ourselves. Car prices have risen dramatically recently , in (large?) part to fund the money losing BEV side of the business.

 
More news to hurt consumer confidence in BEVs.
Car manufacturers use an EPA sanctioned arbitrary number to calculate the EV benefit to their total fleet EPA fuel efficiency number. In the end, another buried incentive to go EV, born by the consumer again.
Let's not kid ourselves. Car prices have risen dramatically recently , in (large?) part to fund the money losing BEV side of the business.

LOL. I don't think you understand what this actually means because you plucked it from the Opinion section. The multiplier counts towards their CAFE number, so do tell what is it again that the consumer is paying?. The irony of your post is that the credits subsidize heavy ICE trucks/SUVs and because of that subsidy every administration since 2002 has opted to continue using the multiplier.

My post in 10/23 - https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/the-economics-of-cafe-credits-on-the-ev-market.375061/
 
Last edited:
More news to hurt consumer confidence in BEVs.
Car manufacturers use an EPA sanctioned arbitrary number to calculate the EV benefit to their total fleet EPA fuel efficiency number. In the end, another buried incentive to go EV, born by the consumer again.
Let's not kid ourselves. Car prices have risen dramatically recently , in (large?) part to fund the money losing BEV side of the business.

Well GM admitted they're losing between $4,000 and $9,000 on the bolt. I believe which number depends on if you count the billion dollar battery recall against the bolt.
Supposedly Nissan was making money off the leaf most of the time.
Any time I inform true believers that an auto maker (other than Tesla) sells electric vehicles it's just a scam to allow them to sell more gas guzzlers. That makes electric car believers big mad.
I usually hear something like "no they're the future", "you never driven an electric car" (I can only imagine the person looking exactly like a crying soyjack meme), followed by personal attacks.
I have a Nissan leaf that I put 84,000 miles on and counting.
 
Yes, the numbers are really only attainable in low speed stop and go traffic in moderate temperatures. High speed freeway travel, i.e., 80ish mph, is at least a third less than what is stated.

Surprised the article wasn't behind a paywall.
 
Bottom line do your own homework.
These are words to live by, for sure, but how in Holy Heaven do you ascertain actual fuel consumption numbers for a bunch of different vehicles?

You sure can't ask Joe Average American Car Owner. ....he's uninvolved on a good day and can't grasp "Distance divided by gallons".
....and have you ever read here the apparent incapacity of some to comprehend, "Total out after a fill-up". It's amazing.
Seriously, where and how could you get fuel consumption numbers?
I'm not defending any manufacturer's or gov't numbers.

A lot of times, if you believe something you hear or read, you're being a gullible, naive clown. Those too are words to live by.
 
Some people buy into those fake numbers, and try to convince others to believe the numbers too. Bottom line do your own homework.
This. I have had ICE cars fail miserably to meet EPA rating, but it was rare. My "average" is that an ICE car will get its EPA highway rating on my daily commute. The only two to fail were my Acura RDX (which met its EPA mixed rating in my daily commute) and my 2015 CX5, which just way under performed the sticker. The cars that exceeded sticker markedly were my 2010 Jeep Grand Cherokee, which would average 18.5-19mpg highway at 75mph, and my C6 Z06, which would average 26mpg doing same.

Of my EV's, my C40 I think came in right on the money, and my EV6 GT was done very dirty by the EPA, as I beat EPA range in my daily commute by about 50 miles, or 25%.

My advice is to either rent one (whatever it is), or hang out on the forums for a while to get a "feel" for what others are experiencing.

My GT is rated at 206mi range, and even in the 0*f cold on CC2's, I managed to drive 85 miles and have a guestimated remaining range totalling 150mi. It began saying 163mi, but I also stopped 4 times, for 30-45 minutes each, which then requires re-heating the cabin, etc. and likely shaved those 10-13mi, so the guess-o-meter is pretty accurate. 25% loss off of EPA rating in 0F weather is gas car territory. That said, the reality was more like 35-40% loss, as real world it hits 255mi on a perfect day, but with PSAS4 tires. CC2's cost me 7.5%.
 
Yes, the numbers are really only attainable in low speed stop and go traffic in moderate temperatures. High speed freeway travel, i.e., 80ish mph, is at least a third less than what is stated.

Surprised the article wasn't behind a paywall.
Literally nothing gets EPA range when doing 80mph, even my most optimistic cars. 80 is way harsher than 70 or even 75. *however*, I did test my EV6 GT on GPS verified flat ground, at speed, over 1 mile, and take down the mi/kw. At 75mnph it averaged 2.7mi/kwh. That comes out to 2.7x74=199mi. 7 shy of rated. Car and Driver managed 190mi/100%, which is very VERY close to mine, at 75mph, and may be explained by my PSAS4's having a bit more wear and being more efficient by a hair than their Goodyear OEM fitment. With my CC2's, I would expect 185mi or so. Mind you, this is in GT mode, locked in AWD. In ECO mode, you'll see better.
 
These are words to live by, for sure, but how in Holy Heaven do you ascertain actual fuel consumption numbers for a bunch of different vehicles?

One either has to -

1. Not care.

2. Wait for a 3rd party they trust to do a range test at a fixed speed close enough to your own.
 
Any time I inform true believers that an auto maker (other than Tesla) sells electric vehicles it's just a scam to allow them to sell more gas guzzlers.
This is purely your opinion that it is a "scam", that's why people get mad. Nobody likes a know it all who represents their opinion as fact.

There are a variety of factors why traditional automakers have not achieved the manufacturing efficiency that Tesla has. The efficiency of scale in production not being there, is one. The traditional automakers have very low production rates compared to gas vehicle production, and they will never make money producing anything at low scale production rates.

Traditional automakers are also really bad at producing batteries, at least so far. Tesla has put a lot of R&D into battery manufacturing as well as the accompanying vehicle software. How much are traditional manufacturers losing on that front? How is that Ultium battery production ramp-up going? Not very well, I hear.

There was also always going to be a lot of investment cost for traditional manufacturers in starting up EV manufacturing in the first place. How many years did Tesla lose money before they went profitable? Without searching the web I'd guess at least 7-9 years.

One might argue that since Tesla has gone away from the Toyota manufacturing methodology that most of the rest of the industry uses, that they are producing a lesser quality product at a lower cost. I don't care to read accouting reports to put an actual dollar figure on that, but I'm sure there is one.

Speaking of accounting, there is another question. Do the traditional manufacturers assign the cost of developing EV manufacturing, battery development, software develpment, and so forth, on per-unit basis (which it seems like) or a sunk R&D cost... It makes a difference.

You should read about the history of Boeing vs McDonald Douglas, Boeing did not amortize development costs on a per-unit basis but McD did, thereby despite manufacturing over 2000 DC-9 variants including the MD-80s, their accounting records say they never made any money on it.

I don't have much interest in reading the accounting reports of GM, Ford, et.al., but at the end of the day when they say they're losing xyz per unit, my response is always going to be that this statement requires futher qualification.

Is selling flex fuel vehicles that run on E85 also a "scam" because it allows manufacturers to receive credits towards their CAFE average? What about hybrids? I believe those also receive CAFE credits.

But anyway...say whatever you want, I'm sure people absolutely love it. Whatever fits your chosen narrative. Every publicly held traditional manufacturer has quarterly earnings Q&As with investors and so forth, you ought to see if you can get on there and ask the likes of Marry Barra and Jim Farley the really TOUGH questions. I'm sure they'd love it.
 
I wonder why the other thread about this article got deleted?
People want to come in here and post stuff and rant about EVs and people who are advocates for EVS or own EVs aren't having it and it degrades pretty much every time and gets locked or deleted.

It's framed this time as "News to hurt consumer confidence in BEVs", but is it really that?

People should take the time to learn about EVs and have realistic expectations going in. I 100% support that. As I posted above, range at freeway speeds will not be anywher near the EPA stated range. I have firsthand experience with this and have realistic expectations going in.

Does it really hurt consumer confidence though, or is it more fodder for certain viewpoints and the oil lobby? I would argue the latter, but others would probably argue differently.
 
Literally nothing gets EPA range when doing 80mph, even my most optimistic cars. 80 is way harsher than 70 or even 75. *however*, I did test my EV6 GT on GPS verified flat ground, at speed, over 1 mile, and take down the mi/kw. At 75mnph it averaged 2.7mi/kwh. That comes out to 2.7x74=199mi. 7 shy of rated. Car and Driver managed 190mi/100%, which is very VERY close to mine, at 75mph, and may be explained by my PSAS4's having a bit more wear and being more efficient by a hair than their Goodyear OEM fitment. With my CC2's, I would expect 185mi or so. Mind you, this is in GT mode, locked in AWD. In ECO mode, you'll see better.
I'm reading this as your EPA range is 206 miles and you're able to achieve 199 at 75mph? If so, that is much better than my parents ID.4. Or am I reading this wrong?
 
This is purely your opinion that it is a "scam", that's why people get mad. Nobody likes a know it all who represents their opinion as fact.

There are a variety of factors why traditional automakers have not achieved the manufacturing efficiency that Tesla has. The efficiency of scale in production not being there, is one. The traditional automakers have very low production rates compared to gas vehicle production, and they will never make money producing anything at low scale production rates.

Traditional automakers are also really bad at producing batteries, at least so far. Tesla has put a lot of R&D into battery manufacturing as well as the accompanying vehicle software. How much are traditional manufacturers losing on that front? How is that Ultium battery production ramp-up going? Not very well, I hear.

There was also always going to be a lot of investment cost for traditional manufacturers in starting up EV manufacturing in the first place. How many years did Tesla lose money before they went profitable? Without searching the web I'd guess at least 7-9 years.

One might argue that since Tesla has gone away from the Toyota manufacturing methodology that most of the rest of the industry uses, that they are producing a lesser quality product at a lower cost. I don't care to read accouting reports to put an actual dollar figure on that, but I'm sure there is one.

Speaking of accounting, there is another question. Do the traditional manufacturers assign the cost of developing EV manufacturing, battery development, software develpment, and so forth, on per-unit basis (which it seems like) or a sunk R&D cost... It makes a difference.

You should read about the history of Boeing vs McDonald Douglas, Boeing did not amortize development costs on a per-unit basis but McD did, thereby despite manufacturing over 2000 DC-9 variants including the MD-80s, their accounting records say they never made any money on it.

I don't have much interest in reading the accounting reports of GM, Ford, et.al., but at the end of the day when they say they're losing xyz per unit, my response is always going to be that this statement requires futher qualification.

Is selling flex fuel vehicles that run on E85 also a "scam" because it allows manufacturers to receive credits towards their CAFE average? What about hybrids? I believe those also receive CAFE credits.

But anyway...say whatever you want, I'm sure people absolutely love it. Whatever fits your chosen narrative. Every publicly held traditional manufacturer has quarterly earnings Q&As with investors and so forth, you ought to see if you can get on there and ask the likes of Marry Barra and Jim Farley the really TOUGH questions. I'm sure they'd love it.
CAFE is nothing more than scam to justify selling more gas guzzlers.
Ethanol in gasoline is probably the biggest scam of all time.
Nothing you say and no amount of mental gymnastics is going to change that fact.
 
CAFE is nothing more than scam to justify selling more gas guzzlers.
Ethanol in gasoline is probably the biggest scam of all time.
Nothing you say and no amount of mental gymnastics is going to change that fact.
CAFE drove technology improvements like computer control and EFI to be adopted faster than they otherwise would have been. With all the loopholes you might say it's outlived it's usefulness, and I might not disagree.

Calling it a "scam" is your opinion and no amount of mental gymnastics will overcome that. A government policy that you don't agree with does not make it a "scam", all mental gymnastics aside.

Now that I'm on the subject. For those of you who don't seem have a firm hold on it, here's some help:

scam /skăm/

noun​

  1. A fraudulent business scheme; a swindle.
  2. Fraudulent deal.
  3. A fraudulent business scheme.

transitive verb​

  1. To defraud; swindle.

verb​

  1. To defraud or embezzle.
  2. Deprive of by deceit.
    "She defrauded the customers who trusted her"
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition • More at Wordnik
 
Some people buy into those fake numbers, and try to convince others to believe the numbers too. Bottom line do your own homework.
Humanity has consistently run a scam on itself, that's nothing new. Personally, I hope the EV fad either dies, or manufacturers start building vehicles that actually make sense.
 
Back
Top