I did a similar test in my Mach-E standard range only slower... At 70mph I got 2.7 mi/kWh & 188mi At 55mph I got 4.1 mi/kWh and 281mi ... what a difference!
Physics works. According to NASA, the equation for drag is D = Cd * A * .5 * r * V^2. So the drag increases as the square of the speed (velocity). Thats why during the 1973 Opec oil embargo, the highway speed limit was set to 55mph to save fuel. I still remember waiting in gas lines then, so I always smile now when I pass a gas station in my EV.
I always smile when I passed that charging station in my gas vehicle. But really, the video goes to show that speed of vehicle using any machine decreases efficiency. Gas Electric or otherwise
@@CalvinHikesdisagree. Although aerodynamic drag is a big factor, a lack of transmission in a BEV also affects range. ICE cars also have trannies to reduce engine speed. This dramatically affects range.
electric vehicles do not have different aerodynamic rules then ice cars..Go faster you use more juice. Go faster you use more gas. The whole idea that this is a specific battery electric vehicle problem is ridiculous. Also own a 2008 Cadillac had a crappy tiny gas tank and bad gas mileage. It had a range of 250 miles. Meanwhile, my Tesla has a range close to 300 miles and cost seven dollars 11:31 to fully charge.
@@stevenichols4639it's not an EV specific thing but it does seem to be a much bigger issue for EVs. In these tests there was a 27% drop in range at 80mph compared to 70mph. You definitely don't have that much of a drop on a gas car.
I did a similar test with my Chevy Bolt last year, my speeds were 65mph vs 75mph. In my test I found I could travel about 50 miles farther at 65mph than I could at 75mph. So as you state every EV will see similar results. Aerodynamics of course will affect the amount of reduction. Love your range tests, keep up the good work.
@@RichmondBaker yes it does but EV’s usually suffer more range loss than ICE. With the already limited range and less refueling locations compared to ICE vehicles the loss is more critical too.
@@PresleyTV I started at 80% charge both times because I did not want to hold up the DC fast charger that long, at 65mph if I recall it was about 190 miles and at 75mph it was about 140 miles. From 100% I estimate you can add about 40 miles to each. Now to compare around town where the speed limit generally is 30-45 mph with stop and go traffic I am getting an average of 306 miles charging to hill top reserve at home which is 87-88% charge. Mine is a 2017 Bolt EV with a new Battery.
looks like the air drag ratio is pretty accurate. the ration in this case is (70*70)/(80*80) or about 75%, within 5 miles of your results. And yes the Taycan would have a similar 25% range drop. It is just physics. Whatever the drag coefficient is, the ratios I show still apply. People do not notice as much in gas cars with the crude fuel gauge, but same thing happens.
Hi Mark, Looks like you enjoy a technical discussion, so here you go: Typically at 65mph or so, rolling resistance and wind resistance are equal. Might be less rolling resistance in this car, since the tire pressure is so high. Lets say its 60% wind resistance and 40% rolling resistance at 70mph. Rolling resistance per mile is a constant regardless of speed. So, if the increase in wind resistance were all that mattered, the change in range should be roughly : Energy consumed from wind resistance = total energy consumed * 0.60. Wind resistance energy then is 80^2/70^2 * .6 = .78 * original total energy. Wind Energy at 80mpg + rolling resistance is then (.78 + .4) * (original total energy) = 1.18 (original total energy). New Range = 85% of original. So why in the real world did range drop to 75% rather than 85%? That is another characteristic of electric cars. Energy loss in the windings of the electrical motor and in the battery are given by: Loss = (Battery Resistance + Motor Resistance) * (Current)^2. Current is roughly proportional to the torque produced by the motor. Assuming no change in gearing, torque to the motor increased by a factor of 1.18 Or power from the motor is 1.35 times power from the motor at 70 mph. Notice that the power increases faster than the forward resistance because we are pushing through the resistance at a faster rate. So losses in the motor/battery due to current flow is (1.18) ^ 2 = 1.4 times what it is at 70 mph, which is what decreases the range so much. This current squared loss is the reason why electric trucks are so bad at towing. The Ford F-150 lightning has a range of 320 miles unloaded but 85(!) miles pulling a camper trailer. ICE engines don't suffer from this problem (to a point). Why that is, is a longer discussion.
I suspect you're right about Taycan, but I'm not so sure about gas cars, since they waste so much energy as heat in the engine that aero drag doesn't necessarily dominate so thoroughly in the overall energy usage of the vehicle. The more efficient a vehicle is, the closer I'd expect it to follow the velocity squared curve.
Interesting, so by that math, would you also get (60*60)/(70*70) = 0.74. So if the Lyriq went 330 at 70mph, 1/0.74 would mean 445 miles at 60 mph. That's a huge distance!
re: "the Taycan would have a similar 25% range drop. It is just physics." yeah, who'da thunk a high riding "brick on wheels" wouldn't be very aerodynamic at 80 mph (or any other mph for that matter).
ICE cars have more of an efficiency parabola due to the gearing of their transmission and many other factors. The engine also outputs different power at different rpm, and with the 7 or so gears an auto car has, their efficiency ends up not so linear. Most mid-sized cars get their best mileage around 55mph or so. Going slower means less drag, but it also means less engine cooling and possibly a lower gear.
That truly is a big difference, so "getting there faster" actually means slowing down a little and avoiding having to pit stop for 30min. to recharge(provided your destination is within range). I own a Polestar 2 and have 200mile trip coming up next week, I'll drive it at 70mph to compare it with a previous trip where I averaged 80mph
On the condition you find a fast charger and you charge at the optimum speed / SOC level, driving faster will result in faster arrival … Experienced myself and you can calculate it in ABRP … But you need a free charger at the highway that delivers … Also an advantage is you get a break …
Yes If you watch Bjorn's videos he sees how fast you can drive 1000km in a good EV it takes around 10-11 hours and a normal gas card takes about 1 hour more. Basically stop and charge at the max rate and leave after 10-15 minutes just enough time to Go potty or buy some food and keep driving
Tom, I appreciate you doing this test, especially having to stay up so late! I did a 1,000-mile trip in our Rivian, we averaged 78-80 mph, 90-degree weather and got 2.37 miles/kWh which comes out a bit over 300 miles. I've got a 300-mile trip today...I'm going to see if I can stick to 70 mph and see what I get. I'm just so impressed with how well our Rivian does at real traffic flow speeds.
I also have an R1T, I’ve been pushing my single charge range lately as well, and really appreciate the accuracy of the nav estimate and remaining distance showing! Good luck!
Tom, I'm a big fan of your work and videos. Please do this with your Bolt. We need someone like you to extol the importance of low-cost and highly efficient EVs. Thanks, Tom, and great work as always!
The comment above this one did exactly that. Besides, the speed limit is 65 in NJ. Asking Tom to do this again and again for everyone's car is risking a speeding violation.
18:55 exponentially, yes. it's quite literally exponential, the force of the atmosphere against a vehicle/airframe with increase of speed. double your speed, quadruple your force. Quarter speed increase, double your force. same goes for a gas car but they are so inefficient that most people dont do the math. if you are in the top gear and you do 70 mph vs 80 mph, you will get less MPG at 80 than at 70. Incredibly crucial that both are recorded in the top gear. For example, my motorhome gets around ~8 mpg going 55-60 but it gets around 9 mpg going 65-70, this is because it cant do 55-60 in its top (6th) gear. Couldnt believe it at first but those extra 500 revs lower make a big difference. (5.9 cummins ISB300)
For all those crying ev’s need a transmission when the added loss and weight don’t make sense for most vehicles, the RV example above perfectly highlights how narrow of an efficient band most ice configurations have. It starts to highlight why so many trucks get a lot more gears now to attempt some efficiency. Ev’s for most use cases don’t need that.
@@FuncleChuck Yeah, we were all taught that during the Nixon administration. It's not news, and no one was saying gas cars don't need a 55 mph limit. But you know what is surprising? That the people who are making a living talking about EVs (Kyle Conner for example, and maybe to a lesser degree Tom) not only don't seem to want to change their habits to actually make a difference with EVs. They're also not willing to describe that the range that they constantly talk about and create a false sense of dread about because it's the number one factor that they talk about over and over again is a symptom of wasting energy. Sure, they show the efficiency, but they act like it's the car's job to be efficient. It's embarrassing to go on and on about which EV will out range which other EV, but no one talks about which EV when driven carefully is addressing Climate Crisis. That would actually be the MINI Cooper SE, which Tom really liked, even when he had to drive it a very long distance. So where is the praise for the efficient cars and the efficient driving? It's absent. Instead the bubble of EV content on RUclips and the internet is hyperfocused on increasing range, and GM's Ultium range is doing it with lousy efficiency and oversized batteries making them much worse of a sustainable transportation than the Bolt was.
@@karlInSanDiegowhat is also underreported is that their range is way higher at city speeds. The EPA required information is what causes videos like this.
Really good and pertinent video. Being someone about your age and someone never in a hurry, I make it a game to maximize my range. I also avoid interstates as much as possible to keep at moderate speed.
I love your 100% to 0% range tests at highway speeds. They are always very informative and this 80mph is really good to know. I also love charging tests from 0% to 100% showing the time and charging curve. I agree with you that the display should show the numeric percent and kW state of charge. The Lyriq's drag coefficient I think is not very good and has a lot to do with the much lower range at 80mph. It seems boxy in the front and not very aerodynamic.
Wow, I'm surprised by how high the difference is. Thanks Tom for taking care to make everything the same for your comparison, it makes people confident in the conclusion.
I would have love to have heard what you said to the the NJ Highway Patrol when you were pulled over 😂 “Honest officer, I’m doing a range test for my RUclips channel.”
The "road trip" comparison is so interesting! To drive 1000 miles at 80mph, you'd have to make 3 pit stops at EA stations, instead of 2 pit stops if you go 70mph, because of the reduced range. The time spent at that extra charger might cancel out the time savings of driving 10mph faster! *this assumes charging 0-100% at each stop, which is unrealistic. If someone can give more realistic numbers that would be cool, I'm too lazy, I think the point still stands
Hard to say as there are a LOT of realworld factors that would happen. If we assume charges are WHERE-EVER we want them to be, and we have a driver that stops at 20% always and charges to 80% always. 70mph guy stops at 264 miles for first charge, then 198 miles there after, so at: 452, 650, 848, and could make it to 1046. So 4 full 20-80% stops. The DRIVING portion takes 857 minutes. 80mph guy stops at 196 miles for first charge, then 147 miles there after, so at: 343, 490, 637, 784, 931 and could make it to 1078. So 6 full 20-80% stops. The DRIVING portion takes 750 minutes. So 80mph guy is 107 minutes ahead, but has 2 more charges. If 20-80% is less than 53.5 minutes, then he still is there faster. I believe there is a SoC Video that shows its just over 40 minutes. So 80 arrives a handful of minutes before 70. Reality.. 2 more charging stops adds a significant chance of issues... and doesnt account for a lot of CCS stations being... well.. a bit far from ideal location eating that time back away.
That's pretty much what I was thinking. A great idea for a video would be to get 2 of the same EV's. Charge both up to 100%. Drive one going 70 and one going 80. Drive both 1000 miles and see who wins.
@@todkapuzGreat analysis. My takeaway is to drive around the posted speed limit (as long as that is close enough to the "flow of traffic" to feel safe).
Someone check my math. 330 miles @70mph = 4hr 42 mins 330 miles @80mph = 4hr 06 mins Based on Tom’s charge test, it would take about 18 mins of charging on the 80mph drive to go 330 miles. Even with 10 minutes of overhead it saves time to drive 80mph.
Thank you for doing this comparison. Your numbers are within 1-5 minutes of what I calculated. Making the decision on stopping (80) vs. not stopping (70) is a complex one, but I think it is very valuable to calculate these things as you did. Some of the factors to consider in stopping (80) vs. not stopping (70) (A) taking a break (B) need to shop (C) do you know the charger will work (D) do you know the charger will work at a decently fast rate (E) charging infrastructure at your destination (and many other factors).
Your math is correct. Tom's point is that at 80 mph, the range of the car is 245 miles, not 330. The range of the car is reduced by 85 miles at 80 mph. You would have to find a charger within 245 mile at 80 mph. At 70 mph you would not need to charge until you get close to 330 miles. And if you drive at 80 mph, you would need to charge more often (make more charging stops), which adds to the amount of time spent charging. Assuming you could find a charger that is conveniently located and a spot is available.
Thanks for the info. Most of my trips are 450 miles to visit family. What would the time math/energy cost be versus a hybrid camry at 50mpg with one 10 minute fill up/bathroom break (50 cent per KW)?
@ who cares? It’s a Camry so obviously you hate yourself and the life you now live. Enjoy the soulless misery that greets you every time you get behind the wheel. Hahahahah
Well done! So we have the Lyriq RWD at 330 miles for 70mph and 245 miles at 80 mph. Car and Driver adds a data point at 75 mph for 270 miles. Hopefully, you can get a Lyriq AWD soon and run the same tests.
Tom, I’m glad you did this. Although 70 is a decent clip, it’s no longer de rigueur. I’d say 80 on the open road is more normal on most suburban highways. I95 really moves outside the cities. The turnpike is too congested to do a constant 80 mph. Aerodynamic drag is a thing, but the bigger thing here is a lack of transmission. If the electric motors could run “ slower” they’d use less power at speed.
Aero is the huge hit. Electric motors have a massive efficient power rang vs ice. If you can save the inefficiencies of a transmission and that weight you are way better off for most vehicles.
Very helpful to know. Hardcore commitment driving in the dead of night to show us quantitively in a real world drive how speed affects efficiency. Thank you Tom! This is a big impact cost-wise for impatience. The challenge would be roads where 70mph is too slow for the prevailing traffic.
Tom thanks for doing this test! It will be really helpful. Perhaps not surprising that driving a huge object with the aerodynamics of a large garden shed at 80mph is costly. Also like the fact that in the land of 65 mph limits he is in the slow lane getting passed :) .
I have now over 47k miles and 3 years on my Taycan (lots of local commuting and road trips) and I can definitely attest to the range drop over 70 mph is real there too. Maybe not as bad as the Lyriq, but it is quite noticeable. During my daily commutes or running around town, i likely wont get the opportunity to get over 70 mph and get better range. Only long trips when I can get over 70 mph (i def have a lead foot), i usually cruise 80-85 mph and notice i get much less range when i do that, vs staying closer to 70 mph or under, on those trips. Great video Tom and thanks for illustrating it so well.
drive Phoenix to San Diego round trip once or twice a month . Traffic cruises 85mph in AZ and 80mph in CA. Tesla model Y needs to charge about every time I need to pee. So the increased charging does not make me stop more often. And the time I lose charging more often is less than the time I gain by driving faster. The cost saving by driving slower is not worth the time lost.
Great test Tom. If you where able to get the drag coefficent and the frontal area for the lyriq you could calculate the theoretical difference on 70 and 80mph and see how it matches your tests.
Thank tom it’s just physics and aerodynamics. I’m on a road trip from Montana to Fairfax VA. The sweet spot in my Kia EV six is 65 to 70 sometimes I can drive 75 of the wind is behind me. Your video is perfect. I think people should also think about the fact that if there was a tire blowout or an accident at 80 miles an hour of the physics lesson learned would be horrible. Thanks for your time and where can I get one of your T-shirts?
thanks so much.. i figure it but thanks for verifyiing.. i did my first road trip from dc to nc and had to stop in richmond virginia at 12% charge left.. so clearily i was drving way to fast and blasting my music.. i think i only got bout bout 190 miles... from 100 to 12% charge on my awd 2024 Lyriq
@@rocktheworld2k6 Yes. When I first got it in FL I was zipping along at 85-90 and wondering why I wasn’t getting the EPA rated amount. It should be made more clear to buyers how much highway speed reduces range. It isn’t like ICE as it doesn’t have the gearing to overcome drag loss.
I have the twin Lyric to your test Lyric. I have received an online update twice (GM N23-241208) which noted some change to charging system; did you notice any change in charging between the 70 MPH and the 80 MPH test and final charging....thumbs up always !!
As others have implied, this isn’t unique to EVs. ICEVs will also see a similar reduction in range at higher speeds, but people don’t seem to notice it as much. The difference, however, is that ICEVs also loose range at low speeds as well because of engine inefficiency, but that’s not true with EVs.
Well for ICE it depends on speed range and kind of engine. Like if you have sedan with a 3L 6 cylinder and measure difference from 60 to 70 it will probably not be big. But if you take a hatchback with 1.5L engine and measure difference from 70 to 80 pretty sure the difference will be similar to the EV tested here.
ICE engines have a parabola-like speed/efficiency curve due to their transmissions and gearing, while an EV should have a more linear curve. I did a test with my Civic going 67mph and 77mph and I got about a 10% mpg boost going slower.
@@b9eda9ad Whether it’s a sedan or hatchback, the vehicle is still subject to fluid friction, which as others have said is proportional to the square of the velocity. As a result, both will see a significant decrease in range at higher speeds. Every car is slightly different, but typically ICEVs have peek fuel efficiency (thus range) at about 80km/h (50 mph) and their fuel efficiency drops rapidly above 100 km/h (60 mph). Google “Speed Kills MPG” if you want to see for yourself.
@@jacobvriesema6633 At high speeds it’s less about the engine/motor efficiency, but more about the friction from trying to displace the air around the car as you drive down the highway.
@@roger1818 yes, that’s why it’s parabolic for ICE cars. Lower speeds are more based on engine gearing and torque while higher speeds are more based on air resistance.
Thanks for the comparison. Just for laughs, my 2017 Audi e-tron hybrid PHEV can make an 835 mile road trip for about $100, using 18 kWh and 18.5 gallons. My road trip speed limit is 75, 70, & 65. That is 46.3 mpg and 3.9 miles per kWh
Now, please test the much more powerful AWD version. If it could come anywhere near what this one did at 70, I'll probably buy one this fall when they should be available in my area. Thanks for these tests!
Your a real trooper Tom! 3am certainly not bankers hours. Not too surprised at the result. Towing with an EV the difference between 60 and 65 is significant! In an EV every 5 mph over 55 becomes exponentially worse for efficiency.
I love your channel now I know why my EQB losing charge so fast! LOL my heavy foot! Also, do you think the weather has anything to with the charge? I live in Florida where it is extremely hot and charging i'm not getting a full charging range at least 10-15 mile less.
Tom, if your trip is long enough that it would add more stops to charge @ 80 than @ 70, you may actually get to destination later on the higher speed 🤓😂
Driving 330 miles @ 70 MPH takes 4.7 hours. Most of us need a break much sooner. No one is going to 100% charge any car on the road due to the extended time to reach 100%. Therefore "The Kyle Conner OoS method" drive as fast as possible and work the most efficient charge range of the battery is the way to road trip an EV.
real-world depends on a lot of factors.... idealized 20-80% driver... its basically the same... charges would have to be longer then 54 minutes to break even for slower driving car (faster car has 2 more charging stops but is 107 minutes ahead). At least for 1000 miles. Of course do 10-50% and yeah... faster and 10-50% would pretty much always win (pending no real-world factors) see my math in another comment.
@@StateOfChargeWithTomMoloughney I see a challenge between you and @OutofSpecReviews. Who will win on the road trip, "Rabbit" Kyle ripping it, or "Turtle mode" Tom?
Great follow-up video Tom, and inline with what I see with my 20" RWD also at similar speed and conditions. Curious, were you able to get another DC fast charge after the run? If so, did you still see that horrible dip 15 minutes (or so) into charging? I know Kyle didn't see that with his, but he didn't start charging at a low SOC either - which it seems related to. Charging at high 180+kW power, then to the basement before some recovery.
Thanks for the practical demonstration and quantification! In my experience with two decades of driving my Suburbans, the difference is trivialized because I stop for a gas fill up an exit or 2 earlier than I would otherwise. Was the excessive speed material to me? No, because time is money and ending the “road-trip part” was higher value to the family than the dollars I wasted. In my aging years, I’ll offset some with my R1T and slowing down!
I've always been curious on a long road trip (1000 miles+) is what speed will get you from point a-b the fastest when you factor in how much more often you need to stop at fast speeds vs. how much father you can make it going faster (hopefully that makes sense). Going slower to get somewhere faster doesn't make sense, but it can be the case.
If the car charges at 500mph, it’s gotta be faster to drive fast. Unless you go far off-course to get to the chargers. So, if the chargers are close to the freeway, I’d say driving faster should result in less total time.
I commented to Kyle Conner (no response from anyone) on his race to Vegas with a couple of his buddies, that I would've liked to see someone with an identical Lucid Air to what Kyle drove, drive 10-20 mph slower to maximize it's huge battery and range. I think the race would be very interesting to see what the outcome would be. Would that have meant less charging stops and more driving time? It would be interesting to explore this.
I agree that would be very interesting. It would be cool to get 3 Lucid Air and have a race. One drives 60 mph, one drives 70 and one drives 80 mph over 1,000 miles and see who wins
i remember reading something a long time ago that 56 mph is the sweet spot before aero starts to affect range (ICE included) but that was before the SUV aero-bricks were a thing
That was a fantastic comparison. Thanks. Here is another interesting stat. 245 @ 80mph is 3 hrs while 245@70 is 3:30 min. To get back to 80% would take less time because your battery has more charge. So did you gain anything going fast?
My wife has a 1.2litre SEAT Ibiza and used to drive 3 miles to work on a road that was jammed. Over one month of driving her car delivered 26 miles per gallon (that’s less than 6 miles per litre). On a longer drive on A roads where we averaged 56mph, the same car delivered 52 miles per gallon (nearly 12 miles per litre. So speed has always been a determining factor if the driver cared. You guys in the US love huge heavy brick shaped cars and trucks and relied on cheap fuel to compensate for the huge engines. Getting efficient was always going to take time. Thank goodness for Tesla
If you are wondering about time to drive 1000 miles. The difference in speed means you take 1000/70-1000/80, 1.7 hrs more to drive at 70. The difference in efficiency means you spend 1000/2.3 - 1000/3.1, 112 kWh extra. That would be two 30 min stops if you charge 10-60%. So the true difference is you get there 45 min faster driving at 80 mph and spend more. Cruise at 70 and relax. Much safer too.
My Lyriq range gage said 90mi and Google maps said 100mi to get home. I slowed from 80 to 70 but it didnt seem like enough so I set adapt cruise behind a 65mph truck but my wife said "Go around him you're going too slow." When an 80mph truck passed us I followed him and still had 3mi range when I got home.
We cruise around 80 mph on most highways driving on vacations in 90F weather. At that speed average 30 mpg in Mazda CX5 (top of the line bought for 34k). 1000 miles = 33 gal at average between NC and FL $3.3/gal = around $109. Very comfy car with adaptive cruise and beautiful interior. 5 years ownership cost (26k miles) = 5 checkups average $90 (oil change, rotation, etc.)= $450. Average 27 mpg over 26k = fuel cost at average 5 year price around $1600. Total $1600 + $450 = $2050 over 5 years. I have been checking all EVs for few years now and it is an absolute deal breaker especially now when companies owning chargers can raise the prices as high as they want. Spending almost 2x more for a car that will cost more in electricity than fuel plus extra insurance and taxes doesn't make any sense to me and I am sorry for people who got tricked by the industry into believing in all the hype. You can get 2 excellent ICE's or hybrids instead. We actually own 2 CX5 with similar milage so it is 2 per price of one upgraded Tesla. And I don't need to drive in a right slow lane to save on fuel and wait at slow expensive chargers vs 5 min at the pump.
Thanks Tom, great work. Can you add a line to your graph featuring time to travel? How long to travel 1000 miles at both speeds with charging time included. Im trying to do that with my Lightening. Thanks
There's a bit of math and science in this post. But there's a TL;DR at the end. I’m typing this with the video paused at 4:42 in, where Tom is about to give his distance driven after 25% power used. Let’s remember that a (near) constant 70mph = 330 miles range. I’m going to calculate roughly what the 80mph range should be. Almost everything else in both tests is a constant. Weight of vehicle, tire pressure / surface area on contact with the road, mechanical efficiency of the vehicle, gradient of the road used, cabin settings inside the car, friction and heat loss (energy loss through tire contact with the road) per mile driven, and the front cross-section of the vehicle that has to push air out of the way to go forwards. For variables not under driver control (wind speed and direction, outside temperature affecting the battery), Tom chose to drive in similar conditions for both tests to eliminate that as a factor, but he did the 70mph test in the daytime so it’s slightly cooler for the 80mph nighttime test which will adversely affect the range. The only variable controllable is the speed driven, and how much energy needs to be used by the EV’s DC battery pack to push that air out of the way of the front cross-section of the car. I’ll estimate the 80mph distance, using Inverse Square Law to calculate the relative force needed to get that air out of the way of the EV’s front with the speeds (70² = 4900 and 80² = 6400), like this: ** new estimated range at a new speed = [old speed, squared] divided by [new speed, squared], then multiplied by [the known range at the old speed] ** at 80mph, the estimated distance is (4900 / 6400) x 330 miles 4900 / 6400 ≈ 0.7656, also written as 76.56% ∴ 80mph ≈ 76.56% of 330 miles ∴ 80mph ≈ 252⅔ miles. This means that he should go approximately 63 miles each 25% at 80mph, instead of the 82+ miles he achieved at 70mph. I’m expecting the miles driven at each percentage to be around 63 / 126 / 189 / 252 miles, but with the cooler weather we can knock off a few percent from those numbers. . - The actual miles were 61 / 120 / 178 / 245 miles. I was less than 3% off, which the outside temperature difference would explain. TL;DR - If you already know your range at one constant speed, and you want to know how a different speed will affect your range, use the Inverse Square Law for a pretty good approximation. If you've posted your own distances, do the Inverse Law calculation to see how close it was.
I'm very surprised that your wrap-up conclusion was about total distance and cost rather than time (including driving and charging time). To me, that seems the most obvious type of number-crunching this test demands. If this were part of a longer roadtrip, does that extra 10 mph of speed "save" you enough time to make up for the extra charing it'll make you do. Given we're talking about 25% range penalty for a 14% increase in speed, it seems like that you'd complete a ~500-600 mile roadtrip FASTER at 70 mph than 80 mph when accounting for charging. Would have loved to see you delve into those numbers a bit more since that seems the most practical application. Love your channel. And pulling this off took some serious commitment. Glad the cops didn't bust you on the turnpike at 2AM to spoil the whole thing. Haha.
We have driven our Tesla Model Y for 40,408 miles. It has used 10,650 kWh of electricity for an average of 264 Wh/mile. Our energy rate is 9 cents peak and 5 cents off peak. We average 10.1 cents INCLUDING taxes and usage fees. So, we have spent $1,075 to drive 40,408 miles. We have only used a Supercharger one time. The rest has been home charging. I test drove a 2024 Lyriq today. It is beautiful inside and out. Tesla Model Y is no comparison luxury wise even to the Lyriq base model. The price on the base model (the only one they had) was $65,000. There was only one thing I absolutely hated and that is a whirring sound it makes when you are driving below 25 MPH. It is supposed to be a warning to people because otherwise the car is silent and if you are pulling up around a pedestrian they might not know you are there. It sounds like something is wrong with the car but the sound is built in. The dealer said you cannot take it off.
Thanks for the road test. I can only hope that GM will update our 2016 Bolt EV and show SOC% and miles remaining under 10 miles left. Thanks for communicating these issues with the GM people.
Maybe GM's point is you shouldn't be driving it with under 10 miles left - find a charger. They do the same thing with the ICE vehicle fuel gauge. It will just show low, not miles remaining because it is variable depending on speed and terrain.
HMI? I haven't heard that acronym for awhile and I am a software engineer. That's a 90's term. I agree with you with the numeric SOC. I own a Bolt EUV and ID4. Hate the lack of numeric SOC.
There is a similar drop for ICE/diesel vehicles, as well. I haven’t tried it before but it’s obvious from the physics equation someone has presented. The only reason people are talking about such, is the fact of the limited amount of charging stations especially in rural areas. Would have been interesting to know how battery temps vary especially when there is not a system for regulating battery temp. If I ever buy an EV, it must have a battery temp regulation system.
That's not a reasonable request. Driving conditions are always different. And he just showed the impact of speed on your range. He has done two range videos so far. You can do the math.
Jersey is the only place I can go 90 and still have to get over to the right lane to let faster traffic pass- the traffic is there no matter how fast you go in certain areas
I grew up up in the age of the 55 mph national limit…it still blows me away that people feel safe driving 80…not so much because of the cars…but because of the tires.
In my IONIQ 5, 80mph is about 2.5 m/kWh and 70 gets me about 3.1. I can go about 192 miles from full charge at 80, 238 at 70. Assuming you are going to the same charge station 190 miles away either way, you would get to the charger around 20 minutes quicker going 80mph. My IONIQ can make it from 4% to 80% in 20 minutes or less, so doing 80mph I can make up the speed efficiency difference by charging more efficiently getting to my destination quicker for a bit more money. This obviously won’t work with a bolt and probably not with an id4 but anything that can hold over 200kw all the way to 50% can easily do it.
Tom, it would be an interesting calculation, if you have the data to figure it out, what is the OPTIMUM cross country SPEED to minimize trip TIME, when you figure in traveling faster, but therefore spend more time charging, to do your 1000 mile trip. It might take less TIME to drive 70 mph for 1000 miles, than to drive it at 80 mph but charge more.
My Model 3 AWD at 90kph gets around 135-140Wh/km vs on the highway at 120kph I get around 165Wh-170Wh/km in the summer. So over say 100km @ $0.15 kWh that's $2.03 vs $2.48 (22.2% more expensive).
I appreciate you taking your time to perform and explain these test. The information you provide is priceless in my opinion. However, for me these are more reason not to invest in an EV at this time. Too many limitations. I'll continue to pay the high gasoline prices and be on my merry way. Thanks Tom.
On my first EV road trip, I had a leg where I dropped the speed 5 mph to get the estimated arrival charge to stop dropping. I think I was also going a bit uphill. Brought it back to my normal speed as the arrival SoC started rising again. On the UI, I am not so sure. It has been my experience that the OEMs keep removing information from their displays. Enthusiasts will use ODB-II readers to get that information back, but the UIs get sparser with less configuribility over time. That is not to say I don't want you to be right, but that I have observed otherwise.
In my Ioniq 5 I sometimes drive a highway in British Columbia called the Coquihalla. It’s a steep mountain road that has a 120 kph (75 mph) speed limit…but of course everyone drives at 85 mph. It’s pretty unbelievable how the high speeds and steep roads degrade my range. Really quite scary. Oh…it’s also open in the winter, so there’s thermal issues as well.
As a former F-150 Lightning Lariat EV owner (and owner of 33 other vehicles in the past including 2 Prius', 1 Camry Hybrid, 1 Avalon Hybrid Limited w/Tech Pkg and an Accord Hybrid Touring)... a person really needs to figure all the calculations and be honest about the limitations of an EV. For example, how my wife's Ridgeline gets 26.3 mpg (calculated at the pump) where it actually cost LESS over a 1,200 mile trip (even when I figured gas at $5 per/gal.) than the F-150 Lightning EV for both total cost and speed/time (which what is a person's time worth, which I did not even calculate in). The Ridgeline was over $20 Less to go on a 1,200 miles trip (and this was back when DC Charging Prices were consistent instead of much higher now). Plus, that does not include the hotel because of how long the Lightning took for charging, too (the Ridgeline could easy make the trip in one day). So with this Lyriq... if I compare its costs to the RAV4 Prime... the Prime comes out on top again. But I can keep driving for over 600 miles at much higher speeds, too. And again I did the math using gas at $5.00 per/gal for both the Ridgeline and RAV4 Prime. So I'm not trying to be dork... I've personally owned those 5 previous hybrids and 1 F-150 Lighting EV... and again for me, I don't want to drive in the slow lane for me personally. Anyway, hope that might help others out there! 😇
Some of my past road trips have been cutting through WV from DC to TN over 400 miles in the middle of January, snow/ice freezing temps, avg 75-80 mph, and steep inclines. Had to gas up once.. if in an EV, how many stops?
![Megan Thee Stallion - Roc Steady (feat. Flo Milli) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/HozPPyqW0dY/mqdefault.jpg)
I did a similar test in my Mach-E standard range only slower...
At 70mph I got 2.7 mi/kWh & 188mi
At 55mph I got 4.1 mi/kWh and 281mi ... what a difference!
Nice
It's only a little off from the math of 4.1x.061 gives 2.53
Drag increases with the square of the speed. It's a big deal.
Physics works. According to NASA, the equation for drag is D = Cd * A * .5 * r * V^2. So the drag increases as the square of the speed (velocity). Thats why during the 1973 Opec oil embargo, the highway speed limit was set to 55mph to save fuel. I still remember waiting in gas lines then, so I always smile now when I pass a gas station in my EV.
I always smile when I passed that charging station in my gas vehicle.
But really, the video goes to show that speed of vehicle using any machine decreases efficiency. Gas Electric or otherwise
That's just the force of drag. The power needed to overcome the force of drag is proportional to velocity CUBED.
@@CalvinHikesdisagree. Although aerodynamic drag is a big factor, a lack of transmission in a BEV also affects range. ICE cars also have trannies to reduce engine speed. This dramatically affects range.
electric vehicles do not have different aerodynamic rules then ice cars..Go faster you use more juice. Go faster you use more gas. The whole idea that this is a specific battery electric vehicle problem is ridiculous. Also own a 2008 Cadillac had a crappy tiny gas tank and bad gas mileage. It had a range of 250 miles. Meanwhile, my Tesla has a range close to 300 miles and cost seven dollars 11:31 to fully charge.
@@stevenichols4639it's not an EV specific thing but it does seem to be a much bigger issue for EVs. In these tests there was a 27% drop in range at 80mph compared to 70mph. You definitely don't have that much of a drop on a gas car.
I did a similar test with my Chevy Bolt last year, my speeds were 65mph vs 75mph. In my test I found I could travel about 50 miles farther at 65mph than I could at 75mph. So as you state every EV will see similar results. Aerodynamics of course will affect the amount of reduction.
Love your range tests, keep up the good work.
This affects every vehicle not just EV's😊
@@RichmondBaker yes it does but EV’s usually suffer more range loss than ICE. With the already limited range and less refueling locations compared to ICE vehicles the loss is more critical too.
What ranges did you get in your test? We have a 2022 Bolt EUV and would be great to know real-world results. Thank you.
@@PresleyTV I started at 80% charge both times because I did not want to hold up the DC fast charger that long, at 65mph if I recall it was about 190 miles and at 75mph it was about 140 miles. From 100% I estimate you can add about 40 miles to each. Now to compare around town where the speed limit generally is 30-45 mph with stop and go traffic I am getting an average of 306 miles charging to hill top reserve at home which is 87-88% charge. Mine is a 2017 Bolt EV with a new Battery.
Thanks!
looks like the air drag ratio is pretty accurate. the ration in this case is (70*70)/(80*80) or about 75%, within 5 miles of your results. And yes the Taycan would have a similar 25% range drop. It is just physics. Whatever the drag coefficient is, the ratios I show still apply. People do not notice as much in gas cars with the crude fuel gauge, but same thing happens.
Hi Mark,
Looks like you enjoy a technical discussion, so here you go:
Typically at 65mph or so, rolling resistance and wind resistance are equal. Might be less rolling resistance in this car, since the tire pressure is so high. Lets say its 60% wind resistance and 40% rolling resistance at 70mph.
Rolling resistance per mile is a constant regardless of speed. So, if the increase in wind resistance were all that mattered, the change in range should be roughly :
Energy consumed from wind resistance = total energy consumed * 0.60.
Wind resistance energy then is 80^2/70^2 * .6 = .78 * original total energy.
Wind Energy at 80mpg + rolling resistance is then (.78 + .4) * (original total energy) = 1.18 (original total energy). New Range = 85% of original.
So why in the real world did range drop to 75% rather than 85%? That is another characteristic of electric cars.
Energy loss in the windings of the electrical motor and in the battery are given by:
Loss = (Battery Resistance + Motor Resistance) * (Current)^2.
Current is roughly proportional to the torque produced by the motor. Assuming no change in gearing, torque to the motor increased by a factor of 1.18
Or power from the motor is 1.35 times power from the motor at 70 mph.
Notice that the power increases faster than the forward resistance because we are pushing through the resistance at a faster rate.
So losses in the motor/battery due to current flow is (1.18) ^ 2 = 1.4 times what it is at 70 mph, which is what decreases the range so much.
This current squared loss is the reason why electric trucks are so bad at towing. The Ford F-150 lightning has a range of 320 miles unloaded but 85(!) miles pulling a camper trailer. ICE engines don't suffer from this problem (to a point). Why that is, is a longer discussion.
I suspect you're right about Taycan, but I'm not so sure about gas cars, since they waste so much energy as heat in the engine that aero drag doesn't necessarily dominate so thoroughly in the overall energy usage of the vehicle. The more efficient a vehicle is, the closer I'd expect it to follow the velocity squared curve.
Interesting, so by that math, would you also get (60*60)/(70*70) = 0.74. So if the Lyriq went 330 at 70mph, 1/0.74 would mean 445 miles at 60 mph. That's a huge distance!
re: "the Taycan would have a similar 25% range drop. It is just physics." yeah, who'da thunk a high riding "brick on wheels" wouldn't be very aerodynamic at 80 mph (or any other mph for that matter).
ICE cars have more of an efficiency parabola due to the gearing of their transmission and many other factors. The engine also outputs different power at different rpm, and with the 7 or so gears an auto car has, their efficiency ends up not so linear. Most mid-sized cars get their best mileage around 55mph or so. Going slower means less drag, but it also means less engine cooling and possibly a lower gear.
When you have to drive in the middle of the night, the occasional rant is good for keeping you from falling asleep!
That truly is a big difference, so "getting there faster" actually means slowing down a little and avoiding having to pit stop for 30min. to recharge(provided your destination is within range). I own a Polestar 2 and have 200mile trip coming up next week, I'll drive it at 70mph to compare it with a previous trip where I averaged 80mph
On the condition you find a fast charger and you charge at the optimum speed / SOC level, driving faster will result in faster arrival … Experienced myself and you can calculate it in ABRP … But you need a free charger at the highway that delivers … Also an advantage is you get a break …
Yes
If you watch Bjorn's videos he sees how fast you can drive 1000km in a good EV it takes around 10-11 hours and a normal gas card takes about 1 hour more.
Basically stop and charge at the max rate and leave after 10-15 minutes just enough time to Go potty or buy some food and keep driving
Tom, I appreciate you doing this test, especially having to stay up so late! I did a 1,000-mile trip in our Rivian, we averaged 78-80 mph, 90-degree weather and got 2.37 miles/kWh which comes out a bit over 300 miles. I've got a 300-mile trip today...I'm going to see if I can stick to 70 mph and see what I get. I'm just so impressed with how well our Rivian does at real traffic flow speeds.
I also have an R1T, I’ve been pushing my single charge range lately as well, and really appreciate the accuracy of the nav estimate and remaining distance showing! Good luck!
This is a lot of work to make a video. Well appreciated.
Tom, I'm a big fan of your work and videos. Please do this with your Bolt. We need someone like you to extol the importance of low-cost and highly efficient EVs. Thanks, Tom, and great work as always!
The comment above this one did exactly that. Besides, the speed limit is 65 in NJ. Asking Tom to do this again and again for everyone's car is risking a speeding violation.
@@blownb310yes also there's a lot of bolt owners it's not a new car. Plus you can calculate it. The difference between 70 and 80 is about 30%
18:55 exponentially, yes. it's quite literally exponential, the force of the atmosphere against a vehicle/airframe with increase of speed. double your speed, quadruple your force. Quarter speed increase, double your force. same goes for a gas car but they are so inefficient that most people dont do the math. if you are in the top gear and you do 70 mph vs 80 mph, you will get less MPG at 80 than at 70. Incredibly crucial that both are recorded in the top gear. For example, my motorhome gets around ~8 mpg going 55-60 but it gets around 9 mpg going 65-70, this is because it cant do 55-60 in its top (6th) gear. Couldnt believe it at first but those extra 500 revs lower make a big difference. (5.9 cummins ISB300)
For all those crying ev’s need a transmission when the added loss and weight don’t make sense for most vehicles, the RV example above perfectly highlights how narrow of an efficient band most ice configurations have. It starts to highlight why so many trucks get a lot more gears now to attempt some efficiency. Ev’s for most use cases don’t need that.
Fascinating result! Especially liked the $/distance calculation at the end.
Thanks for these real world range test. Cant wait till you get your hands on a Fisker Ocean and Chevy Blazer EV RS.
There is a huge difference between 70 mph and 80 mph. This is incredible
Not incredible. Massively underreported by the EV community that power needed to drive at highway speeds is proportional to velocity cubed.
@@karlInSanDiegoit’s equally true for gas cars. High speed is low efficiency
@@FuncleChuck Yeah, we were all taught that during the Nixon administration. It's not news, and no one was saying gas cars don't need a 55 mph limit. But you know what is surprising? That the people who are making a living talking about EVs (Kyle Conner for example, and maybe to a lesser degree Tom) not only don't seem to want to change their habits to actually make a difference with EVs. They're also not willing to describe that the range that they constantly talk about and create a false sense of dread about because it's the number one factor that they talk about over and over again is a symptom of wasting energy. Sure, they show the efficiency, but they act like it's the car's job to be efficient. It's embarrassing to go on and on about which EV will out range which other EV, but no one talks about which EV when driven carefully is addressing Climate Crisis. That would actually be the MINI Cooper SE, which Tom really liked, even when he had to drive it a very long distance. So where is the praise for the efficient cars and the efficient driving? It's absent. Instead the bubble of EV content on RUclips and the internet is hyperfocused on increasing range, and GM's Ultium range is doing it with lousy efficiency and oversized batteries making them much worse of a sustainable transportation than the Bolt was.
Same should be true for ice-cars
@@karlInSanDiegowhat is also underreported is that their range is way higher at city speeds. The EPA required information is what causes videos like this.
Your show is addictive. 😊. Your local news needs a show segment. A fan from Delaware!✌🏻👍🏻
Really interesting data at the end, I appreciate you including that.
Great test Tom, thanks!
Really good and pertinent video. Being someone about your age and someone never in a hurry, I make it a game to maximize my range. I also avoid interstates as much as possible to keep at moderate speed.
I love your 100% to 0% range tests at highway speeds. They are always very informative and this 80mph is really good to know. I also love charging tests from 0% to 100% showing the time and charging curve. I agree with you that the display should show the numeric percent and kW state of charge. The Lyriq's drag coefficient I think is not very good and has a lot to do with the much lower range at 80mph. It seems boxy in the front and not very aerodynamic.
Wow, I'm surprised by how high the difference is. Thanks Tom for taking care to make everything the same for your comparison, it makes people confident in the conclusion.
I would have love to have heard what you said to the the NJ Highway Patrol when you were pulled over 😂
“Honest officer, I’m doing a range test for my RUclips channel.”
I'm doing this for science, officer!
I was on the lookout all night
Smile your on camera
@@StateOfChargeWithTomMoloughney NJ troopers use to cherry pick anyone 11 miles over the zone. Don't know what speed they are looking for now.
Great job Tom
Great job Tom! I have sat in the Lyriq and it seemed very comfortable!
Tom, you are an EV god
Excellent information, much appreciated.
The "road trip" comparison is so interesting! To drive 1000 miles at 80mph, you'd have to make 3 pit stops at EA stations, instead of 2 pit stops if you go 70mph, because of the reduced range. The time spent at that extra charger might cancel out the time savings of driving 10mph faster!
*this assumes charging 0-100% at each stop, which is unrealistic. If someone can give more realistic numbers that would be cool, I'm too lazy, I think the point still stands
Hard to say as there are a LOT of realworld factors that would happen.
If we assume charges are WHERE-EVER we want them to be, and we have a driver that stops at 20% always and charges to 80% always.
70mph guy stops at 264 miles for first charge, then 198 miles there after, so at: 452, 650, 848, and could make it to 1046. So 4 full 20-80% stops. The DRIVING portion takes 857 minutes.
80mph guy stops at 196 miles for first charge, then 147 miles there after, so at: 343, 490, 637, 784, 931 and could make it to 1078. So 6 full 20-80% stops. The DRIVING portion takes 750 minutes.
So 80mph guy is 107 minutes ahead, but has 2 more charges. If 20-80% is less than 53.5 minutes, then he still is there faster. I believe there is a SoC Video that shows its just over 40 minutes. So 80 arrives a handful of minutes before 70.
Reality.. 2 more charging stops adds a significant chance of issues... and doesnt account for a lot of CCS stations being... well.. a bit far from ideal location eating that time back away.
That's pretty much what I was thinking. A great idea for a video would be to get 2 of the same EV's. Charge both up to 100%. Drive one going 70 and one going 80. Drive both 1000 miles and see who wins.
@@todkapuz Wow, you did the math! Thanks!
My philosophy is that modern cars can DC fast charge we’ll over 500mph so that charge speed has to make up for the difference.
@@todkapuzGreat analysis. My takeaway is to drive around the posted speed limit (as long as that is close enough to the "flow of traffic" to feel safe).
Wow it's so awesome that you did another test !
THANK YOU for acknowledging the wind. Huge factor. The head or tailwind component is effectively added or removed to/from what you see on the dial.
This is really good stuff Tom!
You're def taking this to the next level brother. ⚡⚡
Someone check my math.
330 miles @70mph = 4hr 42 mins
330 miles @80mph = 4hr 06 mins
Based on Tom’s charge test, it would take about 18 mins of charging on the 80mph drive to go 330 miles. Even with 10 minutes of overhead it saves time to drive 80mph.
Thank you for doing this comparison. Your numbers are within 1-5 minutes of what I calculated. Making the decision on stopping (80) vs. not stopping (70) is a complex one, but I think it is very valuable to calculate these things as you did. Some of the factors to consider in stopping (80) vs. not stopping (70) (A) taking a break (B) need to shop (C) do you know the charger will work (D) do you know the charger will work at a decently fast rate (E) charging infrastructure at your destination (and many other factors).
Your math is correct. Tom's point is that at 80 mph, the range of the car is 245 miles, not 330. The range of the car is reduced by 85 miles at 80 mph. You would have to find a charger within 245 mile at 80 mph. At 70 mph you would not need to charge until you get close to 330 miles. And if you drive at 80 mph, you would need to charge more often (make more charging stops), which adds to the amount of time spent charging. Assuming you could find a charger that is conveniently located and a spot is available.
Thanks for the info. Most of my trips are 450 miles to visit family. What would the time math/energy cost be versus a hybrid camry at 50mpg with one 10 minute fill up/bathroom break (50 cent per KW)?
@ who cares? It’s a Camry so obviously you hate yourself and the life you now live. Enjoy the soulless misery that greets you every time you get behind the wheel. Hahahahah
Well done! So we have the Lyriq RWD at 330 miles for 70mph and 245 miles at 80 mph. Car and Driver adds a data point at 75 mph for 270 miles. Hopefully, you can get a Lyriq AWD soon and run the same tests.
Tom, I’m glad you did this. Although 70 is a decent clip, it’s no longer de rigueur. I’d say 80 on the open road is more normal on most suburban highways. I95 really moves outside the cities. The turnpike is too congested to do a constant 80 mph.
Aerodynamic drag is a thing, but the bigger thing here is a lack of transmission. If the electric motors could run “ slower” they’d use less power at speed.
Aero is the huge hit. Electric motors have a massive efficient power rang vs ice. If you can save the inefficiencies of a transmission and that weight you are way better off for most vehicles.
Very helpful to know. Hardcore commitment driving in the dead of night to show us quantitively in a real world drive how speed affects efficiency. Thank you Tom!
This is a big impact cost-wise for impatience. The challenge would be roads where 70mph is too slow for the prevailing traffic.
Tom thanks for doing this test! It will be really helpful.
Perhaps not surprising that driving a huge object with the aerodynamics of a large garden shed at 80mph is costly.
Also like the fact that in the land of 65 mph limits he is in the slow lane getting passed :) .
I have now over 47k miles and 3 years on my Taycan (lots of local commuting and road trips) and I can definitely attest to the range drop over 70 mph is real there too. Maybe not as bad as the Lyriq, but it is quite noticeable. During my daily commutes or running around town, i likely wont get the opportunity to get over 70 mph and get better range. Only long trips when I can get over 70 mph (i def have a lead foot), i usually cruise 80-85 mph and notice i get much less range when i do that, vs staying closer to 70 mph or under, on those trips. Great video Tom and thanks for illustrating it so well.
Thanks, Tom. I hope soon, you can test on the AWD version
I love the Tommy Mo GM rants. 😁
drive Phoenix to San Diego round trip once or twice a month . Traffic cruises 85mph in AZ and 80mph in CA. Tesla model Y needs to charge about every time I need to pee. So the increased charging does not make me stop more often. And the time I lose charging more often is less than the time I gain by driving faster. The cost saving by driving slower is not worth the time lost.
Great test Tom. If you where able to get the drag coefficent and the frontal area for the lyriq you could calculate the theoretical difference on 70 and 80mph and see how it matches your tests.
Great point about frontal area, many overlook that and only focus on drag coefficient
Thank tom it’s just physics and aerodynamics. I’m on a road trip from Montana to Fairfax VA. The sweet spot in my Kia EV six is 65 to 70 sometimes I can drive 75 of the wind is behind me. Your video is perfect.
I think people should also think about the fact that if there was a tire blowout or an accident at 80 miles an hour of the physics lesson learned would be horrible. Thanks for your time and where can I get one of your T-shirts?
thanks so much.. i figure it but thanks for verifyiing.. i did my first road trip from dc to nc and had to stop in richmond virginia at 12% charge left.. so clearily i was drving way to fast and blasting my music.. i think i only got bout bout 190 miles... from 100 to 12% charge on my awd 2024 Lyriq
I discovered this in my Tesla. 70-80 is a huge difference.
@@rocktheworld2k6 Yes. When I first got it in FL I was zipping along at 85-90 and wondering why I wasn’t getting the EPA rated amount. It should be made more clear to buyers how much highway speed reduces range. It isn’t like ICE as it doesn’t have the gearing to overcome drag loss.
I have the twin Lyric to your test Lyric. I have received an online update twice (GM N23-241208) which noted some change to charging system; did you notice any change in charging between the 70 MPH and the 80 MPH test and final charging....thumbs up always !!
As others have implied, this isn’t unique to EVs. ICEVs will also see a similar reduction in range at higher speeds, but people don’t seem to notice it as much. The difference, however, is that ICEVs also loose range at low speeds as well because of engine inefficiency, but that’s not true with EVs.
Well for ICE it depends on speed range and kind of engine. Like if you have sedan with a 3L 6 cylinder and measure difference from 60 to 70 it will probably not be big. But if you take a hatchback with 1.5L engine and measure difference from 70 to 80 pretty sure the difference will be similar to the EV tested here.
ICE engines have a parabola-like speed/efficiency curve due to their transmissions and gearing, while an EV should have a more linear curve. I did a test with my Civic going 67mph and 77mph and I got about a 10% mpg boost going slower.
@@b9eda9ad Whether it’s a sedan or hatchback, the vehicle is still subject to fluid friction, which as others have said is proportional to the square of the velocity. As a result, both will see a significant decrease in range at higher speeds. Every car is slightly different, but typically ICEVs have peek fuel efficiency (thus range) at about 80km/h (50 mph) and their fuel efficiency drops rapidly above 100 km/h (60 mph). Google “Speed Kills MPG” if you want to see for yourself.
@@jacobvriesema6633 At high speeds it’s less about the engine/motor efficiency, but more about the friction from trying to displace the air around the car as you drive down the highway.
@@roger1818 yes, that’s why it’s parabolic for ICE cars. Lower speeds are more based on engine gearing and torque while higher speeds are more based on air resistance.
Tom: "really can't maintain 80 mph in New Jersey for very long"
Me: Challenge accepted
Yeah I was surprised by his comment. I think it's more like 10 MPH in traffic or easily cruising at 85-90 on the NJ Turnpike.
Thanks for the comparison. Just for laughs, my 2017 Audi e-tron hybrid PHEV can make an 835 mile road trip for about $100, using 18 kWh and 18.5 gallons. My road trip speed limit is 75, 70, & 65. That is 46.3 mpg and 3.9 miles per kWh
Now, please test the much more powerful AWD version. If it could come anywhere near what this one did at 70, I'll probably buy one this fall when they should be available in my area. Thanks for these tests!
Your a real trooper Tom! 3am certainly not bankers hours. Not too surprised at the result. Towing with an EV the difference between 60 and 65 is significant! In an EV every 5 mph over 55 becomes exponentially worse for efficiency.
Now I'm super interested in seeing a 60mph test 😅
Very informative test; thank you!
5:30 * with ALL vehicles. The air molecules and vehicle body don’t know what type of energy source is powering it.
Hi Tom, thanks for doing this! That's quite a range hit.
Any chance we could measure how much energy the headlights used?
vehiclechef site says 55W per headlight for 110W. So 330 miles at 70MPH would be 4.7 hours. multiply that by 110W and you get 0.5Kwh. or a mile or so.
I love your channel now I know why my EQB losing charge so fast! LOL my heavy foot! Also, do you think the weather has anything to with the charge?
I live in Florida where it is extremely hot and charging i'm not getting a full charging range at least 10-15 mile less.
Tom, if your trip is long enough that it would add more stops to charge @ 80 than @ 70, you may actually get to destination later on the higher speed 🤓😂
You definitely would
Driving 330 miles @ 70 MPH takes 4.7 hours. Most of us need a break much sooner. No one is going to 100% charge any car on the road due to the extended time to reach 100%. Therefore "The Kyle Conner OoS method" drive as fast as possible and work the most efficient charge range of the battery is the way to road trip an EV.
real-world depends on a lot of factors.... idealized 20-80% driver... its basically the same... charges would have to be longer then 54 minutes to break even for slower driving car (faster car has 2 more charging stops but is 107 minutes ahead). At least for 1000 miles. Of course do 10-50% and yeah... faster and 10-50% would pretty much always win (pending no real-world factors) see my math in another comment.
@@StateOfChargeWithTomMoloughney I see a challenge between you and @OutofSpecReviews. Who will win on the road trip, "Rabbit" Kyle ripping it, or "Turtle mode" Tom?
Great follow-up video Tom, and inline with what I see with my 20" RWD also at similar speed and conditions. Curious, were you able to get another DC fast charge after the run? If so, did you still see that horrible dip 15 minutes (or so) into charging? I know Kyle didn't see that with his, but he didn't start charging at a low SOC either - which it seems related to. Charging at high 180+kW power, then to the basement before some recovery.
Thanks for the practical demonstration and quantification! In my experience with two decades of driving my Suburbans, the difference is trivialized because I stop for a gas fill up an exit or 2 earlier than I would otherwise. Was the excessive speed material to me? No, because time is money and ending the “road-trip part” was higher value to the family than the dollars I wasted. In my aging years, I’ll offset some with my R1T and slowing down!
I’d love to see you do this for your lightning as well. I have the same Lariat/ER like you and would love to see the 70/80 MPH difference.
I've always been curious on a long road trip (1000 miles+) is what speed will get you from point a-b the fastest when you factor in how much more often you need to stop at fast speeds vs. how much father you can make it going faster (hopefully that makes sense). Going slower to get somewhere faster doesn't make sense, but it can be the case.
If the car charges at 500mph, it’s gotta be faster to drive fast. Unless you go far off-course to get to the chargers. So, if the chargers are close to the freeway, I’d say driving faster should result in less total time.
The A Better Route Planner app and website do that calculation.
basically ppl are idiots and do not understand exponential nature of energy consumption.....ty tom, your work is always great.
Even if they understood, they would not care. They just want cheap gas for their pickups.
I commented to Kyle Conner (no response from anyone) on his race to Vegas with a couple of his buddies, that I would've liked to see someone with an identical Lucid Air to what Kyle drove, drive 10-20 mph slower to maximize it's huge battery and range. I think the race would be very interesting to see what the outcome would be. Would that have meant less charging stops and more driving time? It would be interesting to explore this.
I agree that would be very interesting. It would be cool to get 3 Lucid Air and have a race. One drives 60 mph, one drives 70 and one drives 80 mph over 1,000 miles and see who wins
i remember reading something a long time ago that 56 mph is the sweet spot before aero starts to affect range (ICE included) but that was before the SUV aero-bricks were a thing
That was a fantastic comparison. Thanks. Here is another interesting stat. 245 @ 80mph is 3 hrs while 245@70 is 3:30 min. To get back to 80% would take less time because your battery has more charge. So did you gain anything going fast?
@outofspecreviews and @StateofCharge - challenge issued. Who would win between ripping rabbit Kyle and turtle mode Tom?
My wife has a 1.2litre SEAT Ibiza and used to drive 3 miles to work on a road that was jammed. Over one month of driving her car delivered 26 miles per gallon (that’s less than 6 miles per litre). On a longer drive on A roads where we averaged 56mph, the same car delivered 52 miles per gallon (nearly 12 miles per litre. So speed has always been a determining factor if the driver cared. You guys in the US love huge heavy brick shaped cars and trucks and relied on cheap fuel to compensate for the huge engines. Getting efficient was always going to take time. Thank goodness for Tesla
ABSOLUTELY!!! and more people need to understand this before they purchase an EV and i think they're great vehicles
If you are wondering about time to drive 1000 miles. The difference in speed means you take 1000/70-1000/80, 1.7 hrs more to drive at 70. The difference in efficiency means you spend 1000/2.3 - 1000/3.1, 112 kWh extra. That would be two 30 min stops if you charge 10-60%. So the true difference is you get there 45 min faster driving at 80 mph and spend more. Cruise at 70 and relax. Much safer too.
great video and comparison
I have a Lyriq AWD Luxury 3.
I try to Supercruise at 55 mph to save range.
My Lyriq range gage said 90mi and Google maps said 100mi to get home. I slowed from 80 to 70 but it didnt seem like enough so I set adapt cruise behind a 65mph truck but my wife said "Go around him you're going too slow." When an 80mph truck passed us I followed him and still had 3mi range when I got home.
I would love to see this comparison with other EV makes and models as well
Great comparison at the end! Would be amazing to have this same test done with a lightning!
Thank you
We cruise around 80 mph on most highways driving on vacations in 90F weather. At that speed average 30 mpg in Mazda CX5 (top of the line bought for 34k). 1000 miles = 33 gal at average between NC and FL $3.3/gal = around $109. Very comfy car with adaptive cruise and beautiful interior. 5 years ownership cost (26k miles) = 5 checkups average $90 (oil change, rotation, etc.)= $450.
Average 27 mpg over 26k = fuel cost at average 5 year price around $1600. Total $1600 + $450 = $2050 over 5 years.
I have been checking all EVs for few years now and it is an absolute deal breaker especially now when companies owning chargers can raise the prices as high as they want. Spending almost 2x more for a car that will cost more in electricity than fuel plus extra insurance and taxes doesn't make any sense to me and I am sorry for people who got tricked by the industry into believing in all the hype. You can get 2 excellent ICE's or hybrids instead. We actually own 2 CX5 with similar milage so it is 2 per price of one upgraded Tesla.
And I don't need to drive in a right slow lane to save on fuel and wait at slow expensive chargers vs 5 min at the pump.
I drove 1000 miles in my Lyriq AWD averaging 1.9 kWh/mile
Thanks Tom, great work. Can you add a line to your graph featuring time to travel? How long to travel 1000 miles at both speeds with charging time included. Im trying to do that with my Lightening. Thanks
There's a bit of math and science in this post. But there's a TL;DR at the end.
I’m typing this with the video paused at 4:42 in, where Tom is about to give his distance driven after 25% power used. Let’s remember that a (near) constant 70mph = 330 miles range. I’m going to calculate roughly what the 80mph range should be.
Almost everything else in both tests is a constant. Weight of vehicle, tire pressure / surface area on contact with the road, mechanical efficiency of the vehicle, gradient of the road used, cabin settings inside the car, friction and heat loss (energy loss through tire contact with the road) per mile driven, and the front cross-section of the vehicle that has to push air out of the way to go forwards. For variables not under driver control (wind speed and direction, outside temperature affecting the battery), Tom chose to drive in similar conditions for both tests to eliminate that as a factor, but he did the 70mph test in the daytime so it’s slightly cooler for the 80mph nighttime test which will adversely affect the range. The only variable controllable is the speed driven, and how much energy needs to be used by the EV’s DC battery pack to push that air out of the way of the front cross-section of the car.
I’ll estimate the 80mph distance, using Inverse Square Law to calculate the relative force needed to get that air out of the way of the EV’s front with the speeds (70² = 4900 and 80² = 6400), like this:
** new estimated range at a new speed = [old speed, squared] divided by [new speed, squared], then multiplied by [the known range at the old speed] **
at 80mph, the estimated distance is (4900 / 6400) x 330 miles
4900 / 6400 ≈ 0.7656, also written as 76.56%
∴ 80mph ≈ 76.56% of 330 miles
∴ 80mph ≈ 252⅔ miles.
This means that he should go approximately 63 miles each 25% at 80mph, instead of the 82+ miles he achieved at 70mph. I’m expecting the miles driven at each percentage to be around 63 / 126 / 189 / 252 miles, but with the cooler weather we can knock off a few percent from those numbers. .
-
The actual miles were 61 / 120 / 178 / 245 miles. I was less than 3% off, which the outside temperature difference would explain.
TL;DR - If you already know your range at one constant speed, and you want to know how a different speed will affect your range, use the Inverse Square Law for a pretty good approximation. If you've posted your own distances, do the Inverse Law calculation to see how close it was.
I'm very surprised that your wrap-up conclusion was about total distance and cost rather than time (including driving and charging time). To me, that seems the most obvious type of number-crunching this test demands. If this were part of a longer roadtrip, does that extra 10 mph of speed "save" you enough time to make up for the extra charing it'll make you do. Given we're talking about 25% range penalty for a 14% increase in speed, it seems like that you'd complete a ~500-600 mile roadtrip FASTER at 70 mph than 80 mph when accounting for charging. Would have loved to see you delve into those numbers a bit more since that seems the most practical application.
Love your channel. And pulling this off took some serious commitment. Glad the cops didn't bust you on the turnpike at 2AM to spoil the whole thing. Haha.
love your dedication to getting these videos to us. Random question, have you enjoyed driving the lyriq? Things you like / don't like?
In my Bolt it seems to be when you get out of the motor RPM efficiency range it starts to eat energy.
We have driven our Tesla Model Y for 40,408 miles. It has used 10,650 kWh of electricity for an average of 264 Wh/mile. Our energy rate is 9 cents peak and 5 cents off peak. We average 10.1 cents INCLUDING taxes and usage fees. So, we have spent $1,075 to drive 40,408 miles. We have only used a Supercharger one time. The rest has been home charging. I test drove a 2024 Lyriq today. It is beautiful inside and out. Tesla Model Y is no comparison luxury wise even to the Lyriq base model. The price on the base model (the only one they had) was $65,000. There was only one thing I absolutely hated and that is a whirring sound it makes when you are driving below 25 MPH. It is supposed to be a warning to people because otherwise the car is silent and if you are pulling up around a pedestrian they might not know you are there. It sounds like something is wrong with the car but the sound is built in. The dealer said you cannot take it off.
Thanks for the road test. I can only hope that GM will update our 2016 Bolt EV and show SOC% and miles remaining under 10 miles left. Thanks for communicating these issues with the GM people.
Maybe GM's point is you shouldn't be driving it with under 10 miles left - find a charger. They do the same thing with the ICE vehicle fuel gauge. It will just show low, not miles remaining because it is variable depending on speed and terrain.
HMI? I haven't heard that acronym for awhile and I am a software engineer. That's a 90's term. I agree with you with the numeric SOC. I own a Bolt EUV and ID4. Hate the lack of numeric SOC.
There is a similar drop for ICE/diesel vehicles, as well. I haven’t tried it before but it’s obvious from the physics equation someone has presented. The only reason people are talking about such, is the fact of the limited amount of charging stations especially in rural areas. Would have been interesting to know how battery temps vary especially when there is not a system for regulating battery temp. If I ever buy an EV, it must have a battery temp regulation system.
wow great test. i,m sure someone did this with tesla model 3 LR as well... wish i can find the video
Yep. Rolling resistance increases linearly with speed but drag coefficient (Cd) increases almost exponentially above 65 mph.
Increasing speed impacts the range of ICE vehicles as well. Wind resistance is a drag.
i would request to do 60mph, as its around 100km/h in canada our usual speed limit
Can you do a total time to go 1000 miles comparison? I'm curious how much time you save by going faster when you include the extra charging.
That's not a reasonable request. Driving conditions are always different. And he just showed the impact of speed on your range. He has done two range videos so far. You can do the math.
Jersey is the only place I can go 90 and still have to get over to the right lane to let faster traffic pass- the traffic is there no matter how fast you go in certain areas
I grew up up in the age of the 55 mph national limit…it still blows me away that people feel safe driving 80…not so much because of the cars…but because of the tires.
In my IONIQ 5, 80mph is about 2.5 m/kWh and 70 gets me about 3.1. I can go about 192 miles from full charge at 80, 238 at 70. Assuming you are going to the same charge station 190 miles away either way, you would get to the charger around 20 minutes quicker going 80mph. My IONIQ can make it from 4% to 80% in 20 minutes or less, so doing 80mph I can make up the speed efficiency difference by charging more efficiently getting to my destination quicker for a bit more money. This obviously won’t work with a bolt and probably not with an id4 but anything that can hold over 200kw all the way to 50% can easily do it.
Tom, it would be an interesting calculation, if you have the data to figure it out, what is the OPTIMUM cross country SPEED to minimize trip TIME, when you figure in traveling faster, but therefore spend more time charging, to do your 1000 mile trip. It might take less TIME to drive 70 mph for 1000 miles, than to drive it at 80 mph but charge more.
My Model 3 AWD at 90kph gets around 135-140Wh/km vs on the highway at 120kph I get around 165Wh-170Wh/km in the summer.
So over say 100km @ $0.15 kWh that's $2.03 vs $2.48 (22.2% more expensive).
How much power is used running headlights for several hours?, I don't expect it's a huge amount but every bit helps.
I am at 65 to 75 mph here in CT off route 84. I find myself wanting to distance myself more from others. people drive way to fast in traffic.
great as usual, in addition to state of charge all EVs should show battery temp. sort of like the coolant temp shown on ICE cars
I agree 100%
I appreciate you taking your time to perform and explain these test. The information you provide is priceless in my opinion. However, for me these are more reason not to invest in an EV at this time. Too many limitations. I'll continue to pay the high gasoline prices and be on my merry way. Thanks Tom.
On my first EV road trip, I had a leg where I dropped the speed 5 mph to get the estimated arrival charge to stop dropping. I think I was also going a bit uphill. Brought it back to my normal speed as the arrival SoC started rising again.
On the UI, I am not so sure. It has been my experience that the OEMs keep removing information from their displays. Enthusiasts will use ODB-II readers to get that information back, but the UIs get sparser with less configuribility over time. That is not to say I don't want you to be right, but that I have observed otherwise.
Remember, fast or far applies to ICEs as well.
In my Ioniq 5 I sometimes drive a highway in British Columbia called the Coquihalla. It’s a steep mountain road that has a 120 kph (75 mph) speed limit…but of course everyone drives at 85 mph. It’s pretty unbelievable how the high speeds and steep roads degrade my range. Really quite scary. Oh…it’s also open in the winter, so there’s thermal issues as well.
Elms, say hi to Ogopogo next time.
Oh I had to do that drive a number of years ago to go to a wedding somewhere in BC. That was a pretty harrowing drive for the speed limit listed.
As a former F-150 Lightning Lariat EV owner (and owner of 33 other vehicles in the past including 2 Prius', 1 Camry Hybrid, 1 Avalon Hybrid Limited w/Tech Pkg and an Accord Hybrid Touring)... a person really needs to figure all the calculations and be honest about the limitations of an EV. For example, how my wife's Ridgeline gets 26.3 mpg (calculated at the pump) where it actually cost LESS over a 1,200 mile trip (even when I figured gas at $5 per/gal.) than the F-150 Lightning EV for both total cost and speed/time (which what is a person's time worth, which I did not even calculate in). The Ridgeline was over $20 Less to go on a 1,200 miles trip (and this was back when DC Charging Prices were consistent instead of much higher now). Plus, that does not include the hotel because of how long the Lightning took for charging, too (the Ridgeline could easy make the trip in one day).
So with this Lyriq... if I compare its costs to the RAV4 Prime... the Prime comes out on top again. But I can keep driving for over 600 miles at much higher speeds, too. And again I did the math using gas at $5.00 per/gal for both the Ridgeline and RAV4 Prime. So I'm not trying to be dork... I've personally owned those 5 previous hybrids and 1 F-150 Lighting EV... and again for me, I don't want to drive in the slow lane for me personally. Anyway, hope that might help others out there! 😇
Some of my past road trips have been cutting through WV from DC to TN over 400 miles in the middle of January, snow/ice freezing temps, avg 75-80 mph, and steep inclines. Had to gas up once.. if in an EV, how many stops?