I calculated about 80km for I-Pace and 100km for Optimus with 200Km/h on Autobahn. ruclips.net/video/jZzNKtnjc4o/видео.html ruclips.net/video/ojUFPKgs6iI/видео.html
@bjornNyland please can you try acceleration tests on the Ipace to compare to the tesla? the marketing videos from Jaguar all seem a bit odd and wondering if they hold up this part of the bargain.
Here's what GM is doing: Bolt, 60 kW/h-battery, 230mi range (advertised). As a Volt owner I know for sure that GM understates the range and it will be most likely way north of 400km. Regularly.
Here is a possible explanation from reddit: ''I-Pace uses PM motors, which are more efficient than the induction motors used in the S/X. However, they have different loss characteristics. Which is important when you want to optimize range with two motors. My understanding is, that in a Model S/X, at a given speed, only one motor will operate and the other will rotate along without any load. In a (rotating) induction motor at no load, you have some mechanical losses and that's it. There's no currents and no magnetic fields. In a PM motor however, the rotor always has a magnetic field, and if you rotate that against the stator, there will be additional losses from induced (Eddy/Focault) currents.''
I think that, on the I-pace both motors need to rotate anyway or you get the regenerative brake effect(they are coaxial motors- no transmission). So the second (idle) motor needs to have some power applied to offset windage(spinning)losses. These windage losses should be minimal, I think.
Yes. If you short the motor(generator) output there will be a lot of current and a lot of drag. If you leave the output open, the voltage will go sky high and may cause problems with the electronics unless the voltage is limited and some current is drawn- causing some braking effect.
James Rosenberger I think thats exactly what the test proved. At 40 km/h the drag coefficient hardly matters. at 90 however that horrible ICE grill on the Jaguar starts to hurt range. @Björn Nyland: You should repeat the test at 120 or 130 km/h. Then the Tesla will be much better than the iPace. That’s actually what they did in Germany in the summer. The drove mostly at around 120.
Frontal area has less effect on drag than rear, which is slick in Tesla compared to iPace. Also reason why practically all of the EV's are hatchback design, Tesla included.
Not at all bored with hearing comparisons. The Jag was designed to be aerodynamic, but they have failed in this regard. As a pilot and student of aerodynamics I would lay the blame on the Ipace grill intake and scoop to flow over the windscreen and roof. I imagine this was done to try to retain the boundary layer over the car so as to avoid flow separation/turbulence (causing noise and "increasing drag"). In practice redirecting a ram air effect and redirecting the flow is incredibly difficult to do without incurring drag. If you get the I-pace again it would be a great test to block off the front grill intake and outlet below screen with a vinyl wrap type material and see if efficiency improves at high speeds. (I realise the cooling of some HV components might be an issue so maybe only after battery is charged/needing cooling) I think this attempt at flow control and the designers being told to keep the "Jag grill" stance have cost the Jag probably a 10% loss in efficiency at least.
What you are saying is true. Other car manufacturers than Tesla find it important to distinguish their cars. They use their traditional grill, so thats the point they base the sketch on. Whereas Tesla designs their models with the focus on a low air resistance coefficient. Isn't it weird they stil use grills even though they have no cooling function most of the time and reduce efficiency..
I just test drove the I pace and the front grill is fake. No holes in it. It's just there for design and to look like a Jag. Air doesn't actually go inside
Thanks Björn for your dedication. I just placed an order for an I-Pace. In the winter time I live in Utsjoki (Between Karasjok and Tana Bru). So I can do some testing in some crazy low temps. Like -40c. Having said that they predict Feburary or March Delivery. Which probably means April lol.
Bjorn as aerodynamics come into play more at 90 than at 40, there is your difference. The Tesla is obviously more slippery than the IPace, therefore the latter suffers at the higher speed.
7:58 This has been discussed in detail over at TMC. Tesla DOES NOT scavenge heat from the drivetrain in order to heat the cabin. There is no glycol loop in the cabin, and no air-to-air transfer. A glycol to refrigerant transfer would require the use of a heat pump (which doesn't exist either). Tesla does, however, use waste heat off of the drivetrain to heat the battery, charger(s), and DC-DC. The ONLY way to heat the cabin is with the PTC. Reference: teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/posts/1955995/
You seem to be overlooking a very important difference between both cars; mainly the motors. I-Pace uses permanent magnet, synchronous motors, which have a theoretical advantage when it comes to efficiency with regards to what Tesla vehicles (at least the current Model S and X) use. The fact that your Model X Performance, by far the least efficient car you can buy from Tesla, is basically a match for the I-Pace when it comes to consumption in spite of the weight difference tells quite something about Tesla's technical prowess...
With your data, actual rolling resistance is probably less on tesla Model X than I-Pace, Model X is 13% heavier 2600/2300kg Rolling power at 40kmh should be around 13% higher but it's 8 % higher. (based on weight) if course I neglected the air resistance. Anyways, those are power hungry vehicules and it take longer to charge for a given distance.
Great. I am so looking forward to the Winter test between the iPace, Model S and X. Jaguar made some very bold claims about there iPace in the Winter, so this would be. A great test. Thanks Bjorn. Much appreciated
Good stuff TB - liking the thought process and investigative nature of these, I quite like the i-Pace from what you are saying, indeed, I have booked a TD in one at the end of the month. I won’t changiing from my MX - but I liket o see what else is out there and keep an open mind.
Thank you Bjorn. I think the I-pace may need a software update that would make the drivetrain more efficient. With two motors maybe they can leave the front motor idling more often and just use it when needed for traction issues or increased power (acceleration). The first dual motor model S Teslas were not very good either...
Just do the math. The i-Pace is lighter, so the rolling resistance has to be lower. BUT die CD of the i-Pace is horrible. What you find from Jaguar is the official CD value without side mirrors and with taped gaps. As soon as you increase the speed, air resistance rises like hell. There had been an Autobahn comparison in Germany where the i-Pace lost that much, that they had to reduce speed to reach the destination. Autobahn range @110km/h is not far from 200km. The Model X went just thru with 130km/h and used less than the i-Pace.
I will mess up your math: I-Pace 2300 kg: 230 Wh/km at 90 km/h and 145 Wh/km at 40 km/h Model X 60D 2500 kg: 172 Wh/km at 90 km/h and 111 Wh/km at 40 km/h Bigger and heavier car consumes less than the smaller I-Pace. How do you explain that? facebook.com/Teslabjorn/photos/a.287592218100580/930786413781154 facebook.com/Teslabjorn/photos/a.287592218100580/929336197259509
the I-Pace is similar with the model 3 as dimensions The Model X (2,509 kg) Length: 198.3 in (5,036 mm) Height: 66.3 in (1,684 mm) Width: 78.7 in (1,999 mm) I-Pace (2,133 kg) Length 184.3 in (4,682 mm) Height 61.6 in (1,565 mm) Width 79.2 in (2,011 mm) Model 3 (1,847 kg) Length 184.8 in (4,690 mm) Height 56.8 in (1,440 mm) Width 76.1 in (1,930 mm)
As i understand there is no heat scavenging on the Tesla(only familiar with Tesla so dont know about jag). The stator, motor and battery does not make enough heat to make much difference in heating up the cabin so they dont have it. Only PTC heater
Explanation: You said it was cold outside. The inefficiency does not stem from rolling resistance in the tires, but inefficiencies in the motors. When there is heat needed to heat the battery anyway, the most efficient motor won`t do you good, since you have to burn some extra juice to keep the battery on temp. I think that differences in Headlights/AP power consumption are negligible, even tho the i-pace has no such thing. (Speculation - Could be wrong)
Vidar Langberget For E.Vs Range and Fast Charging Network ist most importnant... I don‘t need to tell you, who gots the best offer here. But when the Charging Network is better in the future, range doesn‘t matter that much, ur right
Horrible weight on both cars. A bently GT is lighter. The weight should go down on these cars and use more efficiënt new generation li-ion batteries. Great video, always facts👌🏻
Nice video i have seen all you videos and it hard to wait for the next 😀. Could you do a separat video how to calculate the real capasity of a battery i saw a very short and fast clip in one of you videos but would be nice if you cutt i out in paper for easierly understanding 😀greetings from DK
I'm actually really interested in what's the consumption in city traffic of any EV, where most people in Europe drive daily. Jaguar's and Kia Soul's bad aerodynamics will have less effect on the range and you can also test their regeneration capabilities. Race the I-Pace and the Soul in the city? :)
All Jaguars are so heavy cars. They say everywhere they use aluminium a lot. On I-Pace is 94 % body structure of this material but the I-Pace is still like 200 kilos overweight. Sadly, car manufactures can´t use 100 % carbon body panels. It´s also hard and expensive to fix.
Hey Bjorn, what's going on? Thats 17 videos in less than 2 weeks. You're really pumping them out. Is something going on or is the coffee getting stronger?
If the tires are the same, rims are the same, car weight +/- the same, than check pressure. You can do the same for test time. Not always manufacter knows your specifics and for every driver the pressure can be optimised. For example on my cars I use 3.5 bar. Manufacture write on lable - 2.8 bar. But with my load, 2.8 is too soft. So I adjust It for my needs. Remeber - manufacture is NOT GOD :) they also dont know all ;)
I-Pace vs Model S isn't fair. yes they weigh about the same and have the same interior volume but the drag coefficients are very different and the I-Pace is higher up.
How was batterytemp/regen on both? Better aerodynamics on X must account for much of the difference? Nokian R2/R3 would have made quite an improvement for both I think ;)
Bjorn would it be possible to have miles per kwh as well as the kmh figures for us that use mph please. I get an average of 4.3m/pkwh with my 2018 leaf under taxi loads (ie not just me) Cheers
The Tesla battery will also outlast the I-Pace battery over the life of the car. When you factor in the limited production of the I-Pace, the inferior battery, worse wind drag, and the lack of repair shops, I can not understand why people are happy about the I-Pace. It seems lacking to me. Maybe in a few years they will build something equal to or even greater than Tesla.
Nice video! I think the strong difference with velocity shows that the i-Pace drags more. Can you include in your future tests 120 km/h? I would guess most people do highway around that, is difficult to compare the energy consumption with lower speeds like 90 km/h. Also, can you look into the ratio of electric energy used to charge versus electric energy consumed by the car on road, particularly how that changes between summer and winter?
Thanks for the link. I have used the data in that video to calculate the average power for each of your tests. Here you can see your data for Model X (blue dots) and i-Pace (red dots) and two curves calculated from a constant term and one proportional to the cube of the velocity (blue for Model X and red for i-Pace). The constant term in both curves is 10.5 kW due to the electrical consumption independent of the car velocity and it seems that's the same for both cars. The term proportional to the cube of the velocity is the power dissipated due to the drag. Is larger for the i-Pace but when I divide the i-Pace factor by 0.29 (which is its drag coefficient) and the Model X factor by its drag coefficient 0.24 then I get that the sectional area of both vehicles is very similar, with the i-Pace area being 98.5% of the Model X area. www.dropbox.com/s/eqyud4gminkmsl9/Model_X_vs_iPace.png?dl=0
In real world driving the I pace seems to have similar consumption to the X. That means that an S would beat the iPace and the 3 would kill it. And seriously the jag is not that good looking and it is pretty small inside. Tesla wins.
-15 to -20 We use them to heat houses (Air to Air) and our winters are normally around -15, if it drops below that we have heating assist with heating elements. if Jaguars heat pump is also scavenging heat from electrics it could be closer to -20
19" /21" wheels not tires, The tyres are a different ratio but will have very similar diameter, more important in comparison between the two cars would be the width of the tyres ie 255 vrs 245
Interesting, but what is at the top of my list is luxury and reliability. Tesla loses out on both (been there), and Jaguar as a brand fails the reliability part (been there, too).
Watch this video for more I-Pace vs Model X efficiency at high speed driving on Autobahn:
ruclips.net/video/GAbg5BYEWF4/видео.html
I calculated about 80km for I-Pace and 100km for Optimus with 200Km/h on Autobahn.
ruclips.net/video/jZzNKtnjc4o/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/ojUFPKgs6iI/видео.html
@bjornNyland please can you try acceleration tests on the Ipace to compare to the tesla? the marketing videos from Jaguar all seem a bit odd and wondering if they hold up this part of the bargain.
its strange to compare it to X, as the iPace is smaller than the S.
We never get tired. Keep going. We need to understand what these traditional manufacturers are and are not doing.
Here's what GM is doing:
Bolt, 60 kW/h-battery, 230mi range (advertised). As a Volt owner I know for sure that GM understates the range and it will be most likely way north of 400km. Regularly.
Here is a possible explanation from reddit: ''I-Pace uses PM motors, which are more efficient than the induction motors used in the S/X. However, they have different loss characteristics. Which is important when you want to optimize range with two motors. My understanding is, that in a Model S/X, at a given speed, only one motor will operate and the other will rotate along without any load. In a (rotating) induction motor at no load, you have some mechanical losses and that's it. There's no currents and no magnetic fields. In a PM motor however, the rotor always has a magnetic field, and if you rotate that against the stator, there will be additional losses from induced (Eddy/Focault) currents.''
I think that, on the I-pace both motors need to rotate anyway or you get the regenerative brake effect(they are coaxial motors- no transmission). So the second (idle) motor needs to have some power applied to offset windage(spinning)losses. These windage losses should be minimal, I think.
Yes. If you short the motor(generator) output there will be a lot of current and a lot of drag. If you leave the output open, the voltage will go sky high and may cause problems with the electronics unless the voltage is limited and some current is drawn- causing some braking effect.
On one of the i-pace forums they should data in Comfort mode with light throttle and below 60 kph the rear motor had 100%.
Drag coefficient of I-Pace is higher .29 vs. Model X .24 so at higher speeds Model X will be more efficient due to air resistance... Just my guess.
James Rosenberger I think thats exactly what the test proved. At 40 km/h the drag coefficient hardly matters. at 90 however that horrible ICE grill on the Jaguar starts to hurt range.
@Björn Nyland: You should repeat the test at 120 or 130 km/h. Then the Tesla will be much better than the iPace. That’s actually what they did in Germany in the summer. The drove mostly at around 120.
Yes, but frontal area of Model X is also larger, I think.
Valters Vasilis yes it is. but apparently that’s overcompensated by the better drag coefficient
@@valtersvasilis the dragcoefficient should allready account for the frontal area.
Frontal area has less effect on drag than rear, which is slick in Tesla compared to iPace. Also reason why practically all of the EV's are hatchback design, Tesla included.
Yes to winter tests! Yup, Canadian here. Keep the analysis and results coming!
No, not bored, just keep them coming.
Not at all bored with hearing comparisons. The Jag was designed to be aerodynamic, but they have failed in this regard. As a pilot and student of aerodynamics I would lay the blame on the Ipace grill intake and scoop to flow over the windscreen and roof. I imagine this was done to try to retain the boundary layer over the car so as to avoid flow separation/turbulence (causing noise and "increasing drag"). In practice redirecting a ram air effect and redirecting the flow is incredibly difficult to do without incurring drag. If you get the I-pace again it would be a great test to block off the front grill intake and outlet below screen with a vinyl wrap type material and see if efficiency improves at high speeds. (I realise the cooling of some HV components might be an issue so maybe only after battery is charged/needing cooling) I think this attempt at flow control and the designers being told to keep the "Jag grill" stance have cost the Jag probably a 10% loss in efficiency at least.
What you are saying is true. Other car manufacturers than Tesla find it important to distinguish their cars. They use their traditional grill, so thats the point they base the sketch on. Whereas Tesla designs their models with the focus on a low air resistance coefficient. Isn't it weird they stil use grills even though they have no cooling function most of the time and reduce efficiency..
Very interesting point you made. Thanks Mark.
I just test drove the I pace and the front grill is fake. No holes in it. It's just there for design and to look like a Jag. Air doesn't actually go inside
Thanks Björn for your dedication. I just placed an order for an I-Pace. In the winter time I live in Utsjoki (Between Karasjok and Tana Bru). So I can do some testing in some crazy low temps. Like -40c. Having said that they predict Feburary or March Delivery. Which probably means April lol.
Bjorn as aerodynamics come into play more at 90 than at 40, there is your difference. The Tesla is obviously more slippery than the IPace, therefore the latter suffers at the higher speed.
An EV will be efficient at 40, even it's a block. I got as low as
I had that idea from day one of testing i-Pace.... True test is between Model S/X and Jagg but in all conditions... Great video
Once again a great video! You are the only one doing extensive i pace range tests! Great!
7:58
This has been discussed in detail over at TMC. Tesla DOES NOT scavenge heat from the drivetrain in order to heat the cabin. There is no glycol loop in the cabin, and no air-to-air transfer. A glycol to refrigerant transfer would require the use of a heat pump (which doesn't exist either).
Tesla does, however, use waste heat off of the drivetrain to heat the battery, charger(s), and DC-DC.
The ONLY way to heat the cabin is with the PTC.
Reference: teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/posts/1955995/
Thanks for the info!
You seem to be overlooking a very important difference between both cars; mainly the motors. I-Pace uses permanent magnet, synchronous motors, which have a theoretical advantage when it comes to efficiency with regards to what Tesla vehicles (at least the current Model S and X) use.
The fact that your Model X Performance, by far the least efficient car you can buy from Tesla, is basically a match for the I-Pace when it comes to consumption in spite of the weight difference tells quite something about Tesla's technical prowess...
With your data, actual rolling resistance is probably less on tesla Model X than I-Pace,
Model X is 13% heavier 2600/2300kg
Rolling power at 40kmh should be around 13% higher but it's 8 % higher. (based on weight)
if course I neglected the air resistance.
Anyways, those are power hungry vehicules and it take longer to charge for a given distance.
Tyre pressure and side wall height can make a difference too
Very very good video. Great comparison between iPace and model X. Thanks.
Great. I am so looking forward to the Winter test between the iPace, Model S and X. Jaguar made some very bold claims about there iPace in the Winter, so this would be. A great test. Thanks Bjorn. Much appreciated
Good stuff TB - liking the thought process and investigative nature of these, I quite like the i-Pace from what you are saying, indeed, I have booked a TD in one at the end of the month. I won’t changiing from my MX - but I liket o see what else is out there and keep an open mind.
You really have to dislike Tesla to chose this over a new 75D Model S.
We need a race! iPace vs Model X and X is charging only on chademo :)
Thank you Bjorn. I think the I-pace may need a software update that would make the drivetrain more efficient. With two motors maybe they can leave the front motor idling more often and just use it when needed for traction issues or increased power (acceleration). The first dual motor model S Teslas were not very good either...
not very likely that this happens. :)
I don't think that'd be helpful, since they used permanent magnet motors in both front and back.
Just do the math. The i-Pace is lighter, so the rolling resistance has to be lower. BUT die CD of the i-Pace is horrible. What you find from Jaguar is the official CD value without side mirrors and with taped gaps. As soon as you increase the speed, air resistance rises like hell. There had been an Autobahn comparison in Germany where the i-Pace lost that much, that they had to reduce speed to reach the destination. Autobahn range @110km/h is not far from 200km. The Model X went just thru with 130km/h and used less than the i-Pace.
I will mess up your math:
I-Pace 2300 kg: 230 Wh/km at 90 km/h and 145 Wh/km at 40 km/h
Model X 60D 2500 kg: 172 Wh/km at 90 km/h and 111 Wh/km at 40 km/h
Bigger and heavier car consumes less than the smaller I-Pace. How do you explain that?
facebook.com/Teslabjorn/photos/a.287592218100580/930786413781154
facebook.com/Teslabjorn/photos/a.287592218100580/929336197259509
the I-Pace is similar with the model 3 as dimensions
The Model X (2,509 kg)
Length: 198.3 in (5,036 mm)
Height: 66.3 in (1,684 mm)
Width: 78.7 in (1,999 mm)
I-Pace (2,133 kg)
Length 184.3 in (4,682 mm)
Height 61.6 in (1,565 mm)
Width 79.2 in (2,011 mm)
Model 3 (1,847 kg)
Length 184.8 in (4,690 mm)
Height 56.8 in (1,440 mm)
Width 76.1 in (1,930 mm)
Aerodynamics - higher speed favors the Model X
With higher speeds the difference will grow. Speeding with 110 km/hr. or even 130 km/hr. will give a bigger difference
Induction motor on model X is less efficient than pm synchronous on the I pace, more so the Model X is P version. But permanent magnet is eeexpensive
As i understand there is no heat scavenging on the Tesla(only familiar with Tesla so dont know about jag). The stator, motor and battery does not make enough heat to make much difference in heating up the cabin so they dont have it. Only PTC heater
at 0:59 you mean you took a monster truck :-) looks nice!
Explanation: You said it was cold outside. The inefficiency does not stem from rolling resistance in the tires, but inefficiencies in the motors. When there is heat needed to heat the battery anyway, the most efficient motor won`t do you good, since you have to burn some extra juice to keep the battery on temp. I think that differences in Headlights/AP power consumption are negligible, even tho the i-pace has no such thing. (Speculation - Could be wrong)
The media calls this Tesla Killer and it‘s not even as good as a 2016 Tesla...
seppo nurmi except my peugeot ion 😭😆
Range isn't everything..
Vidar Langberget For E.Vs Range and Fast Charging Network ist most importnant... I don‘t need to tell you, who gots the best offer here. But when the Charging Network is better in the future, range doesn‘t matter that much, ur right
There is no such thing as a Tesla killer. Both the Tesla and iPace are ICE killers.
Ugo Sugo The Jag is a much smaller car and costs virtually same.
Horrible weight on both cars. A bently GT is lighter. The weight should go down on these cars and use more efficiënt new generation li-ion batteries. Great video, always facts👌🏻
Nice video i have seen all you videos and it hard to wait for the next 😀. Could you do a separat video how to calculate the real capasity of a battery i saw a very short and fast clip in one of you videos but would be nice if you cutt i out in paper for easierly understanding 😀greetings from DK
Charge to 100 % until it stops. Drive down to almost 0 %. Look at kWh consumed.
Does the power level between the motors matter also; like ICE cars?
I'm actually really interested in what's the consumption in city traffic of any EV, where most people in Europe drive daily. Jaguar's and Kia Soul's bad aerodynamics will have less effect on the range and you can also test their regeneration capabilities. Race the I-Pace and the Soul in the city? :)
The performance version of the Model X will have more consumption than the non-performance version. A 90D should perform better than the I-Pace.
Would a 2018 tesla be more efficient with rolling resistance
All Jaguars are so heavy cars. They say everywhere they use aluminium a lot. On I-Pace is 94 % body structure of this material but the I-Pace is still like 200 kilos overweight. Sadly, car manufactures can´t use 100 % carbon body panels. It´s also hard and expensive to fix.
Odacan but the point is that the iPace weighs LESS than the Tesla Model X but it is also LESS efficient. Maybe jag will improve over time.
Hey Bjorn, what's going on? Thats 17 videos in less than 2 weeks. You're really pumping them out. Is something going on or is the coffee getting stronger?
I think Bjorn avoids coffee... Never ends well ;-)
Tire pressure was the same?
Tire pressure as specification.
If the tires are the same, rims are the same, car weight +/- the same, than check pressure. You can do the same for test time. Not always manufacter knows your specifics and for every driver the pressure can be optimised. For example on my cars I use 3.5 bar. Manufacture write on lable - 2.8 bar. But with my load, 2.8 is too soft. So I adjust It for my needs. Remeber - manufacture is NOT GOD :) they also dont know all ;)
I-Pace vs Model S isn't fair. yes they weigh about the same and have the same interior volume but the drag coefficients are very different and the I-Pace is higher up.
at 5:01 you seem to have left the heated seats on..
It's off.
How was batterytemp/regen on both? Better aerodynamics on X must account for much of the difference? Nokian R2/R3 would have made quite an improvement for both I think ;)
Both cars were warmed up at least 1 hour before. Both cabin-wise and also battery/motor.
Great video
It’s basically a wash. The Tesla has slightly lower air drag, which is more significant at higher speeds.
It depends where you live and how fast you drive.
Jaguar er best Bjørn!
In your own opinion, which of those cars have the better drivers-comfort and driveability? Is it very noticeable?
I prefer Model X.
Bjorn would it be possible to have miles per kwh as well as the kmh figures for us that use mph please. I get an average of 4.3m/pkwh with my 2018 leaf under taxi loads (ie not just me) Cheers
No, almost no one uses that unit. Not even in US.
@@bjornnyland no worries, didn't know in the US they used kmh now. Cheers anyway for replying
The Tesla battery will also outlast the I-Pace battery over the life of the car. When you factor in the limited production of the I-Pace, the inferior battery, worse wind drag, and the lack of repair shops, I can not understand why people are happy about the I-Pace. It seems lacking to me. Maybe in a few years they will build something equal to or even greater than Tesla.
Nice video! I think the strong difference with velocity shows that the i-Pace drags more. Can you include in your future tests 120 km/h? I would guess most people do highway around that, is difficult to compare the energy consumption with lower speeds like 90 km/h. Also, can you look into the ratio of electric energy used to charge versus electric energy consumed by the car on road, particularly how that changes between summer and winter?
ruclips.net/video/GAbg5BYEWF4/видео.html
Thanks for the link. I have used the data in that video to calculate the average power for each of your tests. Here you can see your data for Model X (blue dots) and i-Pace (red dots) and two curves calculated from a constant term and one proportional to the cube of the velocity (blue for Model X and red for i-Pace). The constant term in both curves is 10.5 kW due to the electrical consumption independent of the car velocity and it seems that's the same for both cars. The term proportional to the cube of the velocity is the power dissipated due to the drag. Is larger for the i-Pace but when I divide the i-Pace factor by 0.29 (which is its drag coefficient) and the Model X factor by its drag coefficient 0.24 then I get that the sectional area of both vehicles is very similar, with the i-Pace area being 98.5% of the Model X area.
www.dropbox.com/s/eqyud4gminkmsl9/Model_X_vs_iPace.png?dl=0
Bliv ved med at nørde!! :)
In real world driving the I pace seems to have similar consumption to the X. That means that an S would beat the iPace and the 3 would kill it. And seriously the jag is not that good looking and it is pretty small inside. Tesla wins.
Roger Starkey, the “aero” on the I-PACE is focused on handling, and has more induced drag than the model X.
Roger Starkey I agree. The model S doesn’t drop like a rock at 80mph with regards to consumption.
Roger Starkey, what has smaller tires? The model X?
I-Pace beats the Tesla all day long for styling ( inside & out)...........that X thing looks terrible
Having now read all the comments, I see several others are of the same opinion.
wow so... seems like ipace and tesla are way more similar than I thought considering all the people flapping on about it
Witch car (ev) is the most efficient? I3 golf niro?
ioniq, I think
Ioniq
Heat pumps are efficient down to +7C.
-15 to -20 We use them to heat houses (Air to Air) and our winters are normally around -15, if it drops below that we have heating assist with heating elements. if Jaguars heat pump is also scavenging heat from electrics it could be closer to -20
Out-Pace would be rather the appropriate name.
Maybe at high speed you get better aerodynamics on the Model X?
Yes, watch this video: ruclips.net/video/GAbg5BYEWF4/видео.html
I think friction goes down not up.
Good old Jag, can't even copy freely available tech properly
If it's Tesla's tech, it's not freely-available. You can use it if you pool all your own tech with Tesla. It's a tech swap, not a tech free gift.
iPace with 19" tires, Model X with 21" tires...effectively your Tesla is 'geared' taller. The motor doesn't spin as fast.
That's all I can think of...
+Bill Cichoke Model X had 20".
@@bjornnyland Oops...I misheard...my bad.
19" /21" wheels not tires, The tyres are a different ratio but will have very similar diameter, more important in comparison between the two cars would be the width of the tyres ie 255 vrs 245
Interesting, but what is at the top of my list is luxury and reliability. Tesla loses out on both (been there), and Jaguar as a brand fails the reliability part (been there, too).
it weighs 2.4 tonnes
Nope. I-Pace 2300 kg and Model X (Performance fully loaded): 2600 kg
These Tesla killer all have worse performance than a 2014 Model S or early spec Model X smh
Sheeeiiiiiiiiite.....
I-junk yo
First