Hm. The smart was the Pure+ or Pro+ model (from the looks of the interior design and the fact that there was no HUD), which has a less efficient motor than the Premium model. I'm guessing range and efficiency would be even closer with the Premium model. Quite strange, however, that the EX30 claims to be more efficient, while losing more SOC percentage points - PLUS it has a larger capacity battery (66 kWh vs. 69 kWh). So one of the car's gauges is definitely not linear. (Or maybe they both aren't, but lie differently.) ;)
Both companies could have decided on different top- and bottom-buffers. In Björn Nylands tests with EVs driven until shutdown you can cleary see how different car makers treat the SoC in the instrument cluster. Some are dying right around 0%, others driving another 30km. On most EVs you only get the full "net" capacity by using the bottom buffer until shutdown ... this is misleading at best. As I drive an EX30 (RWD 50kWh LFP) myself I can say that it still has plenty power at 5% SoC indicated. So in the Volvo the bottom buffer must be huge. My Kona 64kWh really heavily dropped power below 10%, so in a Hyundai 0% should really be treated as 0%.
I thought that the Smart #3 shared the same platform more than the #1? That would be a better comparison and likely more efficient; it's certainly not as twitchy as the #1 at high speed.
The Volvo has less height (Smart: H 1.64m W 1.82m (2.98m²) ... Volvo: H 1.55m W 1.83m (2.83m²) ... around 5% difference in frontal area). Both aren't state-of-the-art when it comes to aerodynamics. Aerodynamic resistance is mainly fronal areas times coefficient of drag. Reducing one of the 2 by 5% leads to 5% less aerodynamic drag. And: weight is irrelevant for EV consumption ... especially at high speeds like the one driven in the video. A 1.9T Kona uses the same energy as a 1.3T Fiat 500e. A 2.5T EQS uses less energy on the autobahn then either of the 1.9T CUVs in the video.
@@abraxastulammo9940 based on VW MEB. They have started bringing the 79kwh version out for cars with higher power. I expect it will follow for all eventually.
The Smart #1 Premium has the SAME motor and inverter as de Volvo EX30. That's why this #1 Pro version consumed far more than the EX30
Hm. The smart was the Pure+ or Pro+ model (from the looks of the interior design and the fact that there was no HUD), which has a less efficient motor than the Premium model. I'm guessing range and efficiency would be even closer with the Premium model. Quite strange, however, that the EX30 claims to be more efficient, while losing more SOC percentage points - PLUS it has a larger capacity battery (66 kWh vs. 69 kWh). So one of the car's gauges is definitely not linear. (Or maybe they both aren't, but lie differently.) ;)
Both companies could have decided on different top- and bottom-buffers. In Björn Nylands tests with EVs driven until shutdown you can cleary see how different car makers treat the SoC in the instrument cluster. Some are dying right around 0%, others driving another 30km. On most EVs you only get the full "net" capacity by using the bottom buffer until shutdown ... this is misleading at best.
As I drive an EX30 (RWD 50kWh LFP) myself I can say that it still has plenty power at 5% SoC indicated. So in the Volvo the bottom buffer must be huge. My Kona 64kWh really heavily dropped power below 10%, so in a Hyundai 0% should really be treated as 0%.
Should try to get a zeekr x too since it shares the plattform too.
Danke 👍🏻☀️🙂
I thought that the Smart #3 shared the same platform more than the #1? That would be a better comparison and likely more efficient; it's certainly not as twitchy as the #1 at high speed.
Maybe they dont weigh the same ? maybe the volvo is more aerodynamic ? Could be a few things . They werent that far apart though.
The Volvo has less height (Smart: H 1.64m W 1.82m (2.98m²) ... Volvo: H 1.55m W 1.83m (2.83m²) ... around 5% difference in frontal area). Both aren't state-of-the-art when it comes to aerodynamics. Aerodynamic resistance is mainly fronal areas times coefficient of drag. Reducing one of the 2 by 5% leads to 5% less aerodynamic drag.
And: weight is irrelevant for EV consumption ... especially at high speeds like the one driven in the video. A 1.9T Kona uses the same energy as a 1.3T Fiat 500e. A 2.5T EQS uses less energy on the autobahn then either of the 1.9T CUVs in the video.
Not the same battery. The EX30 is 69kW gross Smart is 66kW gross.
I think Ford does the same: on the same platform there is 77 kWh for rwd and 79 kWh for awd.
@@abraxastulammo9940 based on VW MEB. They have started bringing the 79kwh version out for cars with higher power. I expect it will follow for all eventually.
Yet, it seemed like the Volvo used 1% more despite slightly lower consumption.
Is it a deliberate vocabulary mistake to make people post comments?