Over in Europe, the VW ID.7 Pro S went 941km (roughly 584 miles) on a single charge. That's far more I get on a single tank with my CX-5. Just saying.
More info here: https://www.volkswagen-newsroom.com/en/press-releases/id7-pro-s-covers-941-km-on-one-battery-charge-during-efficiency-test-18888
I'm still impressed that an all-electric Cadillac Escalade IQ is advertised to go 460 miles. Not too shabby for a 7720-pound vehicle.
Damn, that's way more than my Toyobaru or AE92 (which have about equal range and exactly equal gas tank capacity oddly enough), although if I put 10 gallons of gas in cans in the trunk I might be able to match the ID.7 Pro's range.
There's a very significant difference between that Cadillac and the VW. The VW managed that distance by being very efficient - it has a battery that's about the same size as as Tesla Model 3. The Cadillac has one that's 2.5 times larger. It's twice as large as the one in the Ford Lightning. It's the brute force method of getting range, like putting an auxiliary gas tank in a pickup truck.
What this means in real life is that if you have to go further than the maximum range, you're going to spend a bunch more time charging the Cadillac. If you stop overnight at a hotel with a Level 2 charger and you have a nearly-depleted battery, you'll have to stay plugged in for over 17 hours to get a full charge. The only thing that's impressive about it is that it only weighs 7720 lbs (as much as my 4WD diesel pickup with a Cummins engine) with that much battery inside.
VW has managed to display remarkable efficiency with a production vehicle. That's impressive. The Cadillac is not.
FYI, I don't believe weight has as big an effect on EV range as it does on ICE. The difference is regeneration - if you can take advantage of it, you have more potential energy to recoup in a heavy vehicle. You've expended a bunch of energy to accelerate the heavier vehicle but you get more back when you decelerate. You still lose some of that energy, of course, but it's not 100% loss like it is in an ICE. This is one reason why EVs are a good option for delivery vehicles that are constantly stopping and starting.
The VW drove 440 miles with an 86kwh battery. That's 5.11 miles per kwh. It will be interesting to see what it's official range rating might be.
The Escalade IQ is EPA rated at 460 miles with a 204kwh battery. That's 2.25 miles per kwh.
The Lucid Gravity 7 passenger CUV is EPA rated at 450 miles with a 118kwh battery. That's 3.81 miles per kwh.
Does this mean we get to have cool new conspiracy theories about that guy who invented the 20 miles per kw/h motor controller/battery tech but was killed by big battery/big electricty?
It's been a while since conspiracy theories were fun. How many of us discussed the 100 mpg carburetor?
If this is true, I like it.
From the link: "And the test car did not undergo any form of technical modification for the test, but instead came from current production...."
I'm recalling a certain manufacturer claiming new lap records at the Nurburgring for a production vehicle in a certain class, and then it's later disclosed that they removed the back seat, carpeting, sound deadening, and whatever else to save weight. And cheater tires. So in other words, "a spec you won't be able to buy from a dealer."
Good on VW to move the bar in an apparently legitimate way.
I hadn't heard about the Escalade ev. It's barely more expensive than the top trim gas version. It's wider and longer than the gas version. Pretty neat. I'm not in the market for a $132k status symbol suv but man I like it.
STM317 said:The VW drove 440 miles with an 86kwh battery. That's 5.11 miles per kwh. It will be interesting to see what it's official range rating might be.
The Escalade IQ is EPA rated at 460 miles with a 204kwh battery. That's 2.25 miles per kwh.
The Lucid Gravity 7 passenger CUV is EPA rated at 450 miles with a 118kwh battery. That's 3.81 miles per kwh.
Official WLTP range for the VW is 709 km but the EPA rating will almost definitely be less. And it drove over 580 miles on that 86 kWh, with an efficiency of 6.75 miles/kwh according to the article.
**cough! ** Dieselgate! **cough! cough!**
STM317 said:The VW drove 440 miles with an 86kwh battery. That's 5.11 miles per kwh. It will be interesting to see what it's official range rating might be.
The Escalade IQ is EPA rated at 460 miles with a 204kwh battery. That's 2.25 miles per kwh.
The Lucid Gravity 7 passenger CUV is EPA rated at 450 miles with a 118kwh battery. That's 3.81 miles per kwh.
5.11 miles/kwh is impressive. Our 2023 Ioniq 6 is typically between 3.5 and 4.0 miles/kwh, depending on the mix of driving.
1988RedT2 said:**cough! ** Dieselgate! **cough! cough!**
I'm actually reminded of the Spec Miata article some years ago. Two back markers and a pro who was immediately 2 seconds faster with no modifications. Then he started looking at things such as the car being overweight.
I imagine the car was meticulously prepared, body gaps checked, trim alignment checked, wheel alignment checked. As always the devil is in the details.
I'm not dissing the ID7 or EVs, but this press announcement seems a little silly. No test conditions given (stop and go? Continuous, steady speed?) just ambient temperature range and average speed of 18mph on a test track. Anything will get huge range compared to its wltp at that speed.
Not really relevant to the real world, unless you need to drive 584 miles nonstop at 18mph, and if so my deepest condolences!
In reply to sevenracer :
I came to say the same thing. The results are impressive, but it's unclear how the results relate to the real world or standardized tests. From the article...
9.2 kWh/100 km. The test drive with the new ID.7 Pro S was completed in December by Volkswagen Driving Experience pro drivers on the Low Speed Ring in Nardò at ambient temperatures of 5 to 15 degrees Celsius. The 12.5-kilometre circuit enables a wide range of traffic scenarios and endurance tests to be simulated effectively. The average speed during the efficiency test was 29 km/h, which corresponds to typical rush hour speeds in large cities. According to the latest “Traffic Index” from navigation specialist TomTom, this figure ranges from 22 km/h (Hamburg) to 31 km/h (Amsterdam).
This doesn't give a clear picture of the test other than a low average speed in "rush hour" like traffic, which highly favors an EV. When I think of range, I think of how far I can drive at highway speeds.
The 12.5-kilometre circuit enables a wide range of traffic scenarios and endurance tests to be simulated effectively.
Doesn't sound like nonstop. But they do say they were looking for the best possible result.
And hey, it's a publicity stunt. If it gets people thinking about EV efficiency instead of just massive (expensive) battery packs, it's worthwhile.
Boost_Crazy said:In reply to sevenracer :
I came to say the same thing. The results are impressive, but it's unclear how the results relate to the real world or standardized tests. From the article...
9.2 kWh/100 km. The test drive with the new ID.7 Pro S was completed in December by Volkswagen Driving Experience pro drivers on the Low Speed Ring in Nardò at ambient temperatures of 5 to 15 degrees Celsius. The 12.5-kilometre circuit enables a wide range of traffic scenarios and endurance tests to be simulated effectively. The average speed during the efficiency test was 29 km/h, which corresponds to typical rush hour speeds in large cities. According to the latest “Traffic Index” from navigation specialist TomTom, this figure ranges from 22 km/h (Hamburg) to 31 km/h (Amsterdam).
This doesn't give a clear picture of the test other than a low average speed in "rush hour" like traffic, which highly favors an EV. When I think of range, I think of how far I can drive at highway speeds.
I wonder if that's an American viewpoint as opposed to a more urban European one. And I would say that stop and go "favors" an EV compared to an ICE thanks to regenerative braking. Simply pounding down the highway at 75 mph rarely sees any regen unless you're going down a big pass, and a constant 18 mph also doesn't allow for regeneration.
sevenracer said:I'm not dissing the ID7 or EVs, but this press announcement seems a little silly. No test conditions given (stop and go? Continuous, steady speed?) just ambient temperature range and average speed of 18mph on a test track. Anything will get huge range compared to its wltp at that speed.
Not really relevant to the real world, unless you need to drive 584 miles nonstop at 18mph, and if so my deepest condolences!
9.2 kWh/100 km. The test drive with the new ID.7 Pro S was completed in December by Volkswagen Driving Experience pro drivers on the Low Speed Ring in Nardò at ambient temperatures of 5 to 15 degrees Celsius. The 12.5-kilometre circuit enables a wide range of traffic scenarios and endurance tests to be simulated effectively. The average speed during the efficiency test was 29 km/h, which corresponds to typical rush hour speeds in large cities. According to the latest “Traffic Index” from navigation specialist TomTom, this figure ranges from 22 km/h (Hamburg) to 31 km/h (Amsterdam).
That kind of makes sense given that I've heard Audi engineers say that above 45 mph (72 kph) the effects of drag get really noticeable. You'd have to make the vehicle extremely slippery to get anywhere near that at highway or mixed speeds. If that were the goal the side view mirrors would probably be the first thing to go.
And Keith beat me to it.
sevenracer said:I'm not dissing the ID7 or EVs, but this press announcement seems a little silly. No test conditions given (stop and go? Continuous, steady speed?) just ambient temperature range and average speed of 18mph on a test track. Anything will get huge range compared to its wltp at that speed.
Not really relevant to the real world, unless you need to drive 584 miles nonstop at 18mph, and if so my deepest condolences!
Given that VW is DESPERATELY trying to stay afloat right now, due to Diesel Gate and a German government ev mandate that has not gone well at all for VW...
I'm suspicious...
In reply to Keith Tanner :
Why would an American have a European viewpoint?
Toyman! said:In reply to Keith Tanner :
Why would an American have a European viewpoint?
If the American is trying to understand something a European company has done in Europe with a European product, it might help.
...it's unclear how the results relate to the real world...
In reply to Keith Tanner :
I wonder if that's an American viewpoint as opposed to a more urban European one. And I would say that stop and go "favors" an EV compared to an ICE thanks to regenerative braking. Simply pounding down the highway at 75 mph rarely sees any regen unless you're going down a big pass, and a constant 18 mph also doesn't allow for regeneration.
I thought the same thing about the American viewpoint- the land of wide open spaces- but Europe isn't all major cities and gridlock either. I don't think they were doing a constant 18mph, it was an average of "rush hour simulated" stop and go. But since they didn't share the data, we can only guess. My point is that any car, EV or not, can return vastly different numbers depending how it is driven. Your Model 3 probably would have done much better than it's rating in the same test. Heck, my Chevy Malibu company car frequently gets much better than it's rated MPG's during my SF Bay Area commute. In typical slow and go traffic where speeds go from 35-60 I frequently see 40+ mpg indicated. I wouldn't claim a 640 mile range off of that, because those conditions aren't typical over 640 miles. But in controlled conditions on a track, the car could theoretically hit 600+ on a tank.
In reply to Boost_Crazy :
Of course your mileage will literally vary :) But if you want to show what's possible, you set up the test to show that. Trying to show what to expect as an average across all sorts of use is what the WLTP and EPA ratings are for.
VW has done efficiency runs/projects in the past, such as their "one litre" car. It's no coincidence that they mention this result is very similar to 1l/100 km.
In reply to Keith Tanner :
Yea, but c'mon. The headline was....
EV range continues to grow. VW ID.7 Pro S goes 584 miles on a charge.
That clearly implies a breakthrough on range, not what is possible. Not sure how much different the Pro S version is, but it looks to have the same battery size as the regular ID.7, which has a rated 300 mile range. The headline implies they almost doubled the efficiency, when they just changed the test parameters. You could do the same with pretty much any vehicle on the market. Take a look at this site. They published not only the rated MPG, but the real world tested, city, highway, and country numbers for various hybrid, gas, and diesel cars. You could double the range of most of those vehicles by reporting different driving environment numbers. That's why we have standardized tests.
Sure, use the standard tests when shopping. But max efficiency tests have been going on for a long, long time. This is basically an announcement of a hypermiling test. The GRM headline writer didn't get that, just like the inclusion of the Cadillac was a misunderstanding of the difference between sheer battery size and efficiency.
The standardized test still exists, this isn't replacing it. It's just an interesting feat with a clickbait headline.
So given those parameters, I can get 687.8 miles out of a tank of gas in my Camaro (50 mile best avg of 36.2 X 19 gallons).
The VW Lupo was the car that did 100km on 3 liters of diesel ( TDI) back in the 2000s
You'll need to log in to post.
