Good video. 12% difference in mileage according to the consumption data you displayed on the dash. 2.7mi/kw at 75 vs 3.15 mi/kw at 65. (I wouldn't use battery percentage as an indicator-way too much error in the rounding is possible). That's a big difference. Also, the car isn't very efficient overall
Charging to 80% for the start and after each subsequent loop is both a practical way to not drag out the test and a teaching tool for viewers of these videos to help educate them that you’re rarely going to want to charge past 80% SOC. And yes this is a debatable SOC, it could easily be done with 70% or even 60% SOC and do the same loop and that might be even more realistic for the way most of us who road trip EVs would charge if we have enough DCFC along a route to have the option to make shorter legs and only need to charge to 60-70% SOC.
In this case absolutely worth driving the speed limit - the time saved on the trip was easily more than the extra minute or so it might have taken to charge. Over a longer loop or with higher speed difference maybe that changes, also depends on how aerodynamic your car is! The C40 Recharge is pretty average in that regard. -Max
@@TFLEV Yes, Bjorn did a test a few years ago with a Tesla, I think a Model S, and with that car going 130 or even 150 km/hr saves you time, even considering the extra charging time. But going faster does not save you money, or CO2, of course ;-) Other cars (with higher cx value) may have other optimum speeds, indeed.
Good question, and one factor in the answer is how many charging station options do you have on your route: When I drive more remote highways in my Tesla, there are just enough chargers to get the job done, but I don’t really have the option to skip any. So if I try to drive more efficiently (slower) I still will have to make the same stops. In that case I might as well drive the speed everyone else is comfortable with. At a rate of 250kw, the extra charge time will be negligible. However, if your route has lots of chargers, driving more efficiently may allow you to bypass some charging stations and arrive at the next charger with a lower battery percentage, resulting in a higher charge rate (thus saving time in two ways). It’s a lot to consider but you have many miles to think about it!
@@TFLEV What are you going to do with a minute? The faster you go in any type of car will result in more power used. The trick is to find you cars happy speed the one where your not pushing to much air or creating to much drag. Speed limit are just that speed restrictions not. mandates. I drove an 800 mile round trip last year 400 each way, I made 3 stops to charge going out and 2 stops to charge coming back and saved 2 hours because I dropped my speed to where the car worked the best.
it did not lose 2% efficiency; the math is incorrect. Instead it used 80-33 = 47% of battery vs 80-35% = 45%. 47/45 = 1.044 meaning that it is 4.4% or 10 miles of range. However, I believe that you should really have gone with 36 kWh/100mi versus 31.7 kWh/100mi, and that is 13.564% or 30.5 miles difference of range.
It not really an efficient EV. It has a 78 Kwh battery and only get an estimated range of 223 which is 2.9 miles per KW or an empg of 89 miles per gal on very good for an EV. For example my car which is a bit lighter and more aero will get 145 miles per gal.
@@chrishansel9324 What's your car? a Tesla? they have good drag coefficient, but it sacrifices the looks in my opinion. EV6 is sleek and good looking, and efficient.
@@bluceree7312 It's a first gen Hyundai ioiniq, they have a drag coefficient of .24. a model 3 has a drag coefficient of 0.23. the new Hyundai ionic 6 will have a drag coefficient of .21
@@bluceree7312 Hyundai stopped making the first gen ionic when they built the ionic 5. It was a compliance car so not many are seen in non-compliant States
I would suggest recording temperature and wind for these highway test. In a gas car 10 degrees can be 1-2% mpg in my experience. Obviously wind is harder to control for and monitor but an anecdotal note may give additional insight to viewers.
I agree with you outside factors play a big roll in how much power is needed, but a car with better aero and less weight would have had a better result.
Great video. Now we need a similar video towing a travel trailer (ie trailer with large front face) with an EV (and gas truck) and see how big of a difference it is at 55mph (California speed limit when towing), 65mph (speed people actually travel when towing) and 75mph (max out most trailer speed). Thank you for putting this together!
I would expect the same test with Lightning will yield a larger difference due to difference in drag coefficient and also larger difference between 75 mph and 85 mph.
Interesting result. Ultimately range only matters in terms of how far apart you are from fast charging stations. I think the 10mph difference might save drive time, but you spend a little of the time saved at the next charging stop. I have seen ABRP tell me to drive 55 on stretches where I’m maxing out the range of my car.
30 -33 kWh per 100 miles? My 2019 Hyundai Ioniq EV gets 24 -28 kwh per 100 miles (the higher number on the highway at 70-75 mph). The variability in this efficiency from EV to EV is real.
Fact: - Early morning has very little wind - mid morning the wind typically picks up. To make an accurate comparison you should stop to take wind speed measurements at least 3 times up, and 3 times back. For both trips. Average the wind speeds taken and add to or subtract from actual speed. As a professional long haul trucker I can tell you that a 10 mph breeze against you can make a serious difference in fuel efficiency. And the wind changes direction especially in the morning. The best time to do a test would be mid afternoon 1-5 for consistent wind speeds(in most areas). As long as no new weather system is moving in. I say all of this because it's VERY HARD for me to believe that you had that small of a difference over that large of a test. If the wind speed was negligible then I would say that the *coefficient of drag (aerodynamic) decreases with speed. Thus the small increase in consumption. Shapes can do that. When some super sonic jets approache the speed of sound it takes more power to maintain that speed than after it crosses the threshold. Of course this is an extreme example and not exactly applicable but--- the wizards at *Volvo may have actually made it more aerodynamic at 75 than at 65. Krazy, but very possible. I would like to see the drag curve vs speed in a controlled wind tunnel. That said, great job and keep up the good work! . * = Edited
It would be cool to do this same test (maybe farther with more stops) in identical cars. That way you get charging times and driving times to compare which is the best road trip method
Nice! Here in the northeast freeways and interstates have 55-65 mph limits. Speed of traffic often gets up to 85-95 because any second it could turn into bumper to bumper traffic (20 mile commute has an avg speed of 16mph). I wonder how that efficiency would work out with all of the regen. That said, we'd love it if we could realistically go 75 the whole time.
It would be much more accurate if you just hit reset on the trip odometer while driving at 65 for 20 minutes and read the m/kWh from the cluster. Then do the same at 75 (or any speed) and you have your answer.
This depends on trip and distance. But for most everyday driving using the freeway for regular business and local leisure activity not an issue. But that changes on distance trips and if you get more technical say 8 mph or more of head wind causes drag and would make a difference. Love to see these EV's sensors monitor head winds. More so for larger vehicles like EV pickups & SUV's etc. We have both a Tesla Y & Gas powered Pickup here at home. And we find a slight head wind in our Pickup makes difference in MPG's immediate. What I should be getting in mpg's @ 70 mph in comparison to having head winds @ 70mph could be 2 to 4 mpg's less. That's a big difference.
Having watched a lot of bjorn nyland and kyle (out of spec) to me the best way to roadtrip is to just ride the charge curve and get enough juice to make it to the next charger (with a small buffer) and don't waste your time charging. Only time i could see driving slow (conserving) is if the chargers are very far apart and you need that range.
Even watching Out of Spec, with towing, it was faster to go slower as was shown in the race home video towing with the Rivian vs. Lightning. They got home 15 minutes earlier and they said they charged far too much. They used a different speed charger for one of the stops. No, going slower has advantages even if the chargers are near as it can eliminate a charging stop, which saves time.
I wouldn't expect speed within a reasonable range to affect efficiency much. Now if you're drastically increasing the mass you're moving and/or drastically increasing wind resistance, I'd think that would have have a more dramatic effect. All down to actual work being done by the motor(s).
It'd be more interesting to add a 3rd data point. I'd prefer 85mph but I understand you probably have no nearby roads legal at that speed. 55mph would be okay. See if there is a linear or exponential (as expected) decrease.
interesting there is so much more difference in my combustion engine chevy van. It makes sense because RPM in a combustion enging and a old fashioned transmission has a lot more resistance increase with speed, whereas electric motors which usually are without any gear changes or complications do not loose as much efficiency at higher rpm. Therefore the increased wind resistance at higher speeds is probably the main factor in reducing the efficiency
I find that this is interesting, as the EV charging station was about $12 for about 100 miles waiting for a top-off at about 30 minutes. I get about 40mpg with my car, it would use approximately 2.5 gallons for the same distance at $3.50 per gallon, for a cost of $8.75 to top off. Until the EV industry gets better, I'm going to continue using what I have, also my gas vehicle only cost $26,000.
Charging from home overnight with no waiting (if one is fortunate enough to have that capability) would substantially lower the price per mile vs. public charging stations. That Volvo's range easily covers the 110-mile roundtrip Max performed, so could return home day after day unless a long distance road trip was in the offing. Plus, the Volvo is a luxury small SUV with 400 hp, and that's what some people just want, period. My 2000 VW Jetta TDI got 50-51 mpg highway but there's probably 0 drivers with an eye set on owning a Volvo who would give two toots about that.
Please repeat with the 2-speed axle cars--One of the Hyundai groups 2 motor models ( seems the Kia is selling the most) and if possible the Taycan or its Audi variants.
Generally in an EV, the bigger and less efficient the EV the more impact speed has on range. Speed makes a much bigger impact on a vehicle like the HummerEV, which will easily beat GM's range rating at 55 mph or less, but at speeds over 70, gets very thirsty.
I don't understand the range anxiety. You can charge at home and at work and no need to even go to the charging stations. Only for long travels it might be inconvenient. In the past 7 years, I only traveled more than 400 miles trips, 5 times. So really, no need to be anxious.
I have to imagine the real difference starts at higher speeds because the drag is exponential at that point. Bet there’s a huge difference once you hit 85MPH or higher.
I suspect you’re right, also the drag profile of the car would have a big role in where those differences start to really add up. More testing to come! -Max
Percentage used isn’t a good metric to use. 1% of a battery will vary depending on the battery size in the vehicle. Obviously 1% of a 50kwh battery is twice that of 1% of a 100kwh battery. Miles per kWh or kWh per 100 miles are a far better method of calculating battery usage.
Both of those speeds are excessive. We had a 55mph national speed limit to conserve fuel in the late 70s, not because ICE engines don't work well at 75mph. The reason 55mph was chosen was because power to overcome wind drag is proportional to velocity CUBED. I'm glad you're trying to test this, but I'm afraid your testing and assessment wasn't focused enough on that speed differential, and your avg speed showed that. The thing to watch, is stay focused on the Wh/mile and calculate to percentage difference.
Seems like a nice car. Please add some driving impressions and your thoughts on the car and how it compares to the competition. As it is, you have about one minute of interesting information in an 11 minute video.
It's harder to put a vehicle in movement than keep it in movement so the result doesn't surprise me. Probably the difference in energy consumption was for the most part, more wind resistance. Worth to notice that the test was done with the car empty. Probably would make more difference with a loaded vehicle, but once again, I don't think it will be a huge difference.
Most of our tests have shown that wind resistance is a much bigger difference-maker than payload, unless of course you were towing thousands of additional pounds in an external trailer with its own aero drag effect. I don’t suspect an extra couple of passengers would make a big difference, but maybe we’ll test that one day! -Max
one would expect that the difference is smaller, the more aerodynamic the vehicle is. I bet the difference would be greater for a Hummer or even an F150
This test is flawed. You really need to keep the AVERAGE speeds at 75 mph and 65 mph. You basically ignored actual speed and just guesstimated what speeds you were doing. Try this test instead. Just measure the efficiency while at speed on the highway. Start and stop the trip computer on the highway and make sure you have a GPS measured 75 mph average and 65 mph average for the slower test. You will see the true difference then and I guarantee that the true 75 mph average speed will yield MUCH worse efficiency than the true 65 mph average speed test will have.
The speed delta according to the car’s trip computer was pretty darn close to 10 mph given the distance of the loop (110 mph) I think the data is significant. Because of traffic and variable construction zones making this a highway-only test wasn’t feasible on the day of filming. Independent GPS and more precise instrumentation might help, but this was just a quick real-world loop. -Max
@@TFLEV the issue is that you gave a conclusion based on this data. As much as you want to downplay it people will run with that conclusion and say that speed doesn’t matter. It ABSOLUTELY matters and your flawed test will skew people’s opinion. You said that it is almost 10 mph difference in average speed so the conclusion should still hold. The problem is that while there is about 10 mph difference between the tests both tests were about 10 mph BELOW the stated speeds. Below 65 mph the difference in speed has less and less of an affect. Try the test again but make sure you do it properly. Maintain exactly 75 and 65 mph average speed as measured with a GPS device and you will see that the efficiency is MUCH different than this test appeared to show.
The 80% thing is one of the biggest issues with EV's. I don't go around filling my gas tank to 80% each time I fill up. I want maximum range with having to wait 2 hrs.
I am good with charging to 80 or 90% on a regular basis. I would only ever charge to 100% if I was going on a road trip and needed the full battery to get to the next charger with a 10% buffer. Your comment about having to wait 2 hrs would be a waste of time if you had to charge at public chargers. I am able to charge with a level 2 at home and I don’t have to wait for a charge. It happens when I am home either enjoying being home or sleeping.
You need to test ev against a fuel efficient gas car how much cost for electricity vs gas , i know my vw gets 40mpg so 2.75 gallons for 100 miles is less then your electricity price
most people charge a home at night when they are sleeping and some people are lucky enough to be able to charge a work. This was not a road trip video. The point of this video was to show that driving sensible has a effect on range. A more effecent car would have better results, and I suspect that the volvo"s sweat spot is 60 mph not 65.
@@chrishansel9324 I agree that most people will almost never use public chargers. I only make two very long road trips per year (4 x 1430 miles), but then overall time really counts. I’m sure the car would have done better at 60 mph, but that would have been impossible on I-25 to Cheyenne. I’m still driving a hybrid, but these videos are very helpful to decide what would be a good electric solution.
34 kwh per 100 miles is about 2.9 miles per kw and 36 miles per 100 miles is about 2.7 miles per kw not a really good stating ground because a good miles per kw average is 3.5. First of all I wish all car manufactures would decide on one way to measure efficiency. Second I hate the fact that people have to be reminded that EVs are still cars and that the same thing happens in an ice car. The fact is that speed and aero effects a cars performance because of outside forces like gravity. Yes TFL proved the point that less speed means less resistance equals less power usage. You would have seen a better result if they had used a more efficient car
We know through math it takes a certain amount of energy to move a certain weight a certain distance in a certain time. Adding speed adds wind resistance. This test should be repeated with other vehicles and performed at off peak traffic hours. Try 6am ? Just a suggestion.
I should have specified better in video, I did not hog the left lane. If people wanted to pass and I could comfortably do 75 mph in the right lane I did. I grew up around the DC beltway so I know fast drivers 😊 -Max
@@kylepeterson lol you still think most power is generated by burning coal? You need to do more research. In my state, 33% of the grid power is provided by wind.
There is something seriously off with this test you are apparently breaking the laws of physics. The car is telling you 31.7 kwh/100mi vs 36 which is not going to equate to a couple of miles difference and physics tells us the wind resistance nominally increases with the square of the velocity. I suggest you may need to alter your test methodology by starting with a full charge and doing the speed loops till 0 charge (with a support vehicle like the Lightning to get you back to charger) to get a more accurate result.
Your Math doesn’t add up. 31.7 KW/100 at 65 MPH vs 36 KW/100 at 75 MPH is a diff of 13.6 %. That is HUGE. You need to remove this video, re vid this, edit and do a proper conclusion. I own a Tesla and anyone that road trips an EV knows your conclusion here is a joke
Watched TFL for a long time. Subscriber for all. Always trusted the content, now, not so much. Do I have to keep my calculator handy from now on? Seriously. This guy needs to go. I would say move him to the background for editing or something, but if he can’t do this, do I want him editing? From now on, leave the reviews to Tommy, Andre………..
![Gunna - HIM ALL ALONG [Official Visualizer]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/HiCxoDeo0hc/mqdefault.jpg)
Good video. 12% difference in mileage according to the consumption data you displayed on the dash. 2.7mi/kw at 75 vs 3.15 mi/kw at 65. (I wouldn't use battery percentage as an indicator-way too much error in the rounding is possible). That's a big difference. Also, the car isn't very efficient overall
That's EXACTLY what I thought after watching!
I totally aggree! The conclusion drawn in this video is basically a rounding error, I have to conclude!
Charging to 80% for the start and after each subsequent loop is both a practical way to not drag out the test and a teaching tool for viewers of these videos to help educate them that you’re rarely going to want to charge past 80% SOC. And yes this is a debatable SOC, it could easily be done with 70% or even 60% SOC and do the same loop and that might be even more realistic for the way most of us who road trip EVs would charge if we have enough DCFC along a route to have the option to make shorter legs and only need to charge to 60-70% SOC.
@@larrysmith6797 just all the other things that can fail on an ice vehicle
Another metric is: is the time gained by driving faster greater than the extra time needed for recharging?
In this case absolutely worth driving the speed limit - the time saved on the trip was easily more than the extra minute or so it might have taken to charge. Over a longer loop or with higher speed difference maybe that changes, also depends on how aerodynamic your car is! The C40 Recharge is pretty average in that regard. -Max
@@TFLEV Yes, Bjorn did a test a few years ago with a Tesla, I think a Model S, and with that car going 130 or even 150 km/hr saves you time, even considering the extra charging time.
But going faster does not save you money, or CO2, of course ;-)
Other cars (with higher cx value) may have other optimum speeds, indeed.
@@henq 8:56 It happened after the test, but, in real-world America, you never know how long your charging will take. This will improve over time.
Good question, and one factor in the answer is how many charging station options do you have on your route: When I drive more remote highways in my Tesla, there are just enough chargers to get the job done, but I don’t really have the option to skip any. So if I try to drive more efficiently (slower) I still will have to make the same stops. In that case I might as well drive the speed everyone else is comfortable with. At a rate of 250kw, the extra charge time will be negligible. However, if your route has lots of chargers, driving more efficiently may allow you to bypass some charging stations and arrive at the next charger with a lower battery percentage, resulting in a higher charge rate (thus saving time in two ways). It’s a lot to consider but you have many miles to think about it!
@@TFLEV What are you going to do with a minute? The faster you go in any type of car will result in more power used. The trick is to find you cars happy speed the one where your not pushing to much air or creating to much drag. Speed limit are just that speed restrictions not. mandates. I drove an 800 mile round trip last year 400 each way, I made 3 stops to charge going out and 2 stops to charge coming back and saved 2 hours because I dropped my speed to where the car worked the best.
I'm new to the channel and wanted to say thanks for the high quality review and editing. Looking forward to seeing more from you guys!
Great job. It's going to take a lot to educate the public on how to charge evs for the most efficient use of time and battery management.
Interesting results. I expected more variance but with that Volvo it was minor. Good job Max
I’ve been waiting for this video for a while. Excited to see the results
Ya except the test and conclusions are flawed
Love your reviews man! Glad you joined the clan
it did not lose 2% efficiency; the math is incorrect.
Instead it used 80-33 = 47% of battery vs 80-35% = 45%. 47/45 = 1.044 meaning that it is 4.4% or 10 miles of range.
However, I believe that you should really have gone with 36 kWh/100mi versus 31.7 kWh/100mi, and that is 13.564% or 30.5 miles difference of range.
Its a testament to the aerodynamic design of the Volvo (even though it does not look it).
It not really an efficient EV. It has a 78 Kwh battery and only get an estimated range of 223 which is 2.9 miles per KW or an empg of 89 miles per gal on very good for an EV. For example my car which is a bit lighter and more aero will get 145 miles per gal.
@@chrishansel9324 What's your car? a Tesla? they have good drag coefficient, but it sacrifices the looks in my opinion. EV6 is sleek and good looking, and efficient.
@@bluceree7312 It's a first gen Hyundai ioiniq, they have a drag coefficient of .24. a model 3 has a drag coefficient of 0.23. the new Hyundai ionic 6 will have a drag coefficient of .21
@@bluceree7312 Hyundai stopped making the first gen ionic when they built the ionic 5. It was a compliance car so not many are seen in non-compliant States
I would suggest recording temperature and wind for these highway test. In a gas car 10 degrees can be 1-2% mpg in my experience. Obviously wind is harder to control for and monitor but an anecdotal note may give additional insight to viewers.
I agree with you outside factors play a big roll in how much power is needed, but a car with better aero and less weight would have had a better result.
Love your deep dives on specific issues like speed difference and how it affects mile per kwh consumption. Good job tfl!
Great video. Now we need a similar video towing a travel trailer (ie trailer with large front face) with an EV (and gas truck) and see how big of a difference it is at 55mph (California speed limit when towing), 65mph (speed people actually travel when towing) and 75mph (max out most trailer speed). Thank you for putting this together!
The only difference would be looking at the math rather than a naive look at battery consumption percentages.
I would expect the same test with Lightning will yield a larger difference due to difference in drag coefficient and also larger difference between 75 mph and 85 mph.
Interesting result. Ultimately range only matters in terms of how far apart you are from fast charging stations. I think the 10mph difference might save drive time, but you spend a little of the time saved at the next charging stop. I have seen ABRP tell me to drive 55 on stretches where I’m maxing out the range of my car.
30 -33 kWh per 100 miles? My 2019 Hyundai Ioniq EV gets 24 -28 kwh per 100 miles (the higher number on the highway at 70-75 mph). The variability in this efficiency from EV to EV is real.
It's probably more that the aerodynamic profile is the same.
Fact:
- Early morning has very little wind
- mid morning the wind typically picks up.
To make an accurate comparison you should stop to take wind speed measurements at least 3 times up, and 3 times back. For both trips. Average the wind speeds taken and add to or subtract from actual speed.
As a professional long haul trucker I can tell you that a 10 mph breeze against you can make a serious difference in fuel efficiency. And the wind changes direction especially in the morning. The best time to do a test would be mid afternoon 1-5 for consistent wind speeds(in most areas). As long as no new weather system is moving in.
I say all of this because it's VERY HARD for me to believe that you had that small of a difference over that large of a test. If the wind speed was negligible then I would say that the *coefficient of drag (aerodynamic) decreases with speed. Thus the small increase in consumption. Shapes can do that. When some super sonic jets approache the speed of sound it takes more power to maintain that speed than after it crosses the threshold. Of course this is an extreme example and not exactly applicable but--- the wizards at *Volvo may have actually made it more aerodynamic at 75 than at 65. Krazy, but very possible. I would like to see the drag curve vs speed in a controlled wind tunnel.
That said, great job and keep up the good work!
.
* = Edited
Very interesting mate. Keep up the good work.
It would be cool to do this same test (maybe farther with more stops) in identical cars. That way you get charging times and driving times to compare which is the best road trip method
Interesting - thanks for this! Next test: same loop at normal tire PSI vs. +5 PSI. Does that make a difference?
It should..... Slightly.
Nice! Here in the northeast freeways and interstates have 55-65 mph limits. Speed of traffic often gets up to 85-95 because any second it could turn into bumper to bumper traffic (20 mile commute has an avg speed of 16mph). I wonder how that efficiency would work out with all of the regen. That said, we'd love it if we could realistically go 75 the whole time.
It would be much more accurate if you just hit reset on the trip odometer while driving at 65 for 20 minutes and read the m/kWh from the cluster. Then do the same at 75 (or any speed) and you have your answer.
This depends on trip and distance. But for most everyday driving using the freeway for regular business and local leisure activity not an issue. But that changes on distance trips and if you get more technical say 8 mph or more of head wind causes drag and would make a difference. Love to see these EV's sensors monitor head winds. More so for larger vehicles like EV pickups & SUV's etc. We have both a Tesla Y & Gas powered Pickup here at home. And we find a slight head wind in our Pickup makes difference in MPG's immediate. What I should be getting in mpg's @ 70 mph in comparison to having head winds @ 70mph could be 2 to 4 mpg's less. That's a big difference.
Having watched a lot of bjorn nyland and kyle (out of spec) to me the best way to roadtrip is to just ride the charge curve and get enough juice to make it to the next charger (with a small buffer) and don't waste your time charging. Only time i could see driving slow (conserving) is if the chargers are very far apart and you need that range.
Even watching Out of Spec, with towing, it was faster to go slower as was shown in the race home video towing with the Rivian vs. Lightning. They got home 15 minutes earlier and they said they charged far too much. They used a different speed charger for one of the stops. No, going slower has advantages even if the chargers are near as it can eliminate a charging stop, which saves time.
@@larrysmith6797 Yeah, you can spend more money to do that.
When that fifth wheel goes cruising by, lol! 3:20
I wouldn't expect speed within a reasonable range to affect efficiency much. Now if you're drastically increasing the mass you're moving and/or drastically increasing wind resistance, I'd think that would have have a more dramatic effect. All down to actual work being done by the motor(s).
I'm def surprised!
Great video!
It'd be more interesting to add a 3rd data point. I'd prefer 85mph but I understand you probably have no nearby roads legal at that speed. 55mph would be okay. See if there is a linear or exponential (as expected) decrease.
interesting there is so much more difference in my combustion engine chevy van. It makes sense because RPM in a combustion enging and a old fashioned transmission has a lot more resistance increase with speed, whereas electric motors which usually are without any gear changes or complications do not loose as much efficiency at higher rpm. Therefore the increased wind resistance at higher speeds is probably the main factor in reducing the efficiency
It looks like there's almost always a bad reflection on the main display. Maybe they should have angled it differently.
I find that this is interesting, as the EV charging station was about $12 for about 100 miles waiting for a top-off at about 30 minutes. I get about 40mpg with my car, it would use approximately 2.5 gallons for the same distance at $3.50 per gallon, for a cost of $8.75 to top off. Until the EV industry gets better, I'm going to continue using what I have, also my gas vehicle only cost $26,000.
Charging from home overnight with no waiting (if one is fortunate enough to have that capability) would substantially lower the price per mile vs. public charging stations. That Volvo's range easily covers the 110-mile roundtrip Max performed, so could return home day after day unless a long distance road trip was in the offing. Plus, the Volvo is a luxury small SUV with 400 hp, and that's what some people just want, period. My 2000 VW Jetta TDI got 50-51 mpg highway but there's probably 0 drivers with an eye set on owning a Volvo who would give two toots about that.
Wrong vehicle to compare cost to go 100 miles!
Yeah it only costs About two dollars to go 100 miles when you were charging from home
Max was a good reviewer. It's a shame that TFL didn't keep him around.
I would be curious what other manufacturers variances are give they all have different BMS
Lol in my ICE half ton truck 65mph vs 75mph is approx 5mpg worse, or a close to 20%. Bricks don't like speed
Great job Max!
The thin air in Colorado is going to reduce the effects of going faster. It would be good to see the figures at sea level.
Please repeat with the 2-speed axle cars--One of the Hyundai groups 2 motor models ( seems the Kia is selling the most) and if possible the Taycan or its Audi variants.
Generally in an EV, the bigger and less efficient the EV the more impact speed has on range. Speed makes a much bigger impact on a vehicle like the HummerEV, which will easily beat GM's range rating at 55 mph or less, but at speeds over 70, gets very thirsty.
I don't understand the range anxiety. You can charge at home and at work and no need to even go to the charging stations. Only for long travels it might be inconvenient. In the past 7 years, I only traveled more than 400 miles trips, 5 times. So really, no need to be anxious.
Be curious if you used a 350kw charger aswell. I have found 350kw i get much closer to my cars peak of 150kw with same SOC.
I have to imagine the real difference starts at higher speeds because the drag is exponential at that point. Bet there’s a huge difference once you hit 85MPH or higher.
I suspect you’re right, also the drag profile of the car would have a big role in where those differences start to really add up. More testing to come! -Max
@@TFLEV you should do this test with something more slippery like that mini ev tfl has. I bet the difference in the results will be greater
@@TFLEV LOTS of long stretches of freeways adjacent to Colorado where they have an 80 MPH speed limit…😉
Can you do this with at least one ICE car too? My car (2012 Sonic) gets about 42MPG at 65 and about 35 MPG at 75.
Wow. Inefficient.
I could get that carrying bikes and a box w my Y or 3
There is about 50 % more wind resistance (power required) at 75 than at 65 mph. P=kv^3
Percentage used isn’t a good metric to use. 1% of a battery will vary depending on the battery size in the vehicle. Obviously 1% of a 50kwh battery is twice that of 1% of a 100kwh battery. Miles per kWh or kWh per 100 miles are a far better method of calculating battery usage.
Both of those speeds are excessive. We had a 55mph national speed limit to conserve fuel in the late 70s, not because ICE engines don't work well at 75mph. The reason 55mph was chosen was because power to overcome wind drag is proportional to velocity CUBED. I'm glad you're trying to test this, but I'm afraid your testing and assessment wasn't focused enough on that speed differential, and your avg speed showed that. The thing to watch, is stay focused on the Wh/mile and calculate to percentage difference.
Seems like a nice car. Please add some driving impressions and your thoughts on the car and how it compares to the competition. As it is, you have about one minute of interesting information in an 11 minute video.
We have a full review from a couple of weeks ago up on the channel! -Max
It's harder to put a vehicle in movement than keep it in movement so the result doesn't surprise me. Probably the difference in energy consumption was for the most part, more wind resistance. Worth to notice that the test was done with the car empty. Probably would make more difference with a loaded vehicle, but once again, I don't think it will be a huge difference.
Most of our tests have shown that wind resistance is a much bigger difference-maker than payload, unless of course you were towing thousands of additional pounds in an external trailer with its own aero drag effect. I don’t suspect an extra couple of passengers would make a big difference, but maybe we’ll test that one day! -Max
one would expect that the difference is smaller, the more aerodynamic the vehicle is. I bet the difference would be greater for a Hummer or even an F150
This test is flawed. You really need to keep the AVERAGE speeds at 75 mph and 65 mph. You basically ignored actual speed and just guesstimated what speeds you were doing.
Try this test instead. Just measure the efficiency while at speed on the highway. Start and stop the trip computer on the highway and make sure you have a GPS measured 75 mph average and 65 mph average for the slower test. You will see the true difference then and I guarantee that the true 75 mph average speed will yield MUCH worse efficiency than the true 65 mph average speed test will have.
The speed delta according to the car’s trip computer was pretty darn close to 10 mph given the distance of the loop (110 mph) I think the data is significant. Because of traffic and variable construction zones making this a highway-only test wasn’t feasible on the day of filming. Independent GPS and more precise instrumentation might help, but this was just a quick real-world loop. -Max
@@TFLEV the issue is that you gave a conclusion based on this data. As much as you want to downplay it people will run with that conclusion and say that speed doesn’t matter. It ABSOLUTELY matters and your flawed test will skew people’s opinion.
You said that it is almost 10 mph difference in average speed so the conclusion should still hold. The problem is that while there is about 10 mph difference between the tests both tests were about 10 mph BELOW the stated speeds.
Below 65 mph the difference in speed has less and less of an affect. Try the test again but make sure you do it properly. Maintain exactly 75 and 65 mph average speed as measured with a GPS device and you will see that the efficiency is MUCH different than this test appeared to show.
Max has become my favorite TFL host.
12.50 to go 100 miles?
Wow.
You'd be better off driving a Hyundai.
That's a cheap price to pay to get there much sooner. Worth it to me
The 80% thing is one of the biggest issues with EV's. I don't go around filling my gas tank to 80% each time I fill up. I want maximum range with having to wait 2 hrs.
I am good with charging to 80 or 90% on a regular basis. I would only ever charge to 100% if I was going on a road trip and needed the full battery to get to the next charger with a 10% buffer. Your comment about having to wait 2 hrs would be a waste of time if you had to charge at public chargers. I am able to charge with a level 2 at home and I don’t have to wait for a charge. It happens when I am home either enjoying being home or sleeping.
I don't know if I didn't have to pay for the extra 20% maybe I would not. Say if you had a 10 gallon tank that 2 gals or about 10 bucks. Tuff one.
Eventually, one of these EV companies is going to make 80% be full and then the extra 20% be reserve.
You need to test ev against a fuel efficient gas car how much cost for electricity vs gas , i know my vw gets 40mpg so 2.75 gallons for 100 miles is less then your electricity price
I get at least 15 percent more range at 65 vs 75mph. I’d rather go a little slower and go further any day of the week.
Target in Loveland? 😜
5:30- ROADSTER SPOTTED 👀
8:56 Yet another problem trying to charge at a (VW Dieselgate) Electrify America charger!
most people charge a home at night when they are sleeping and some people are lucky enough to be able to charge a work. This was not a road trip video. The point of this video was to show that driving sensible has a effect on range. A more effecent car would have better results, and I suspect that the volvo"s sweat spot is 60 mph not 65.
@@chrishansel9324 I agree that most people will almost never use public chargers. I only make two very long road trips per year (4 x 1430 miles), but then overall time really counts. I’m sure the car would have done better at 60 mph, but that would have been impossible on I-25 to Cheyenne. I’m still driving a hybrid, but these videos are very helpful to decide what would be a good electric solution.
34 kwh per 100 miles is about 2.9 miles per kw and 36 miles per 100 miles is about 2.7 miles per kw not a really good stating ground because a good miles per kw average is 3.5. First of all I wish all car manufactures would decide on one way to measure efficiency. Second I hate the fact that people have to be reminded that EVs are still cars and that the same thing happens in an ice car. The fact is that speed and aero effects a cars performance because of outside forces like gravity. Yes TFL proved the point that less speed means less resistance equals less power usage. You would have seen a better result if they had used a more efficient car
you guys are stuck on beta (electric) ... VHS is the way to go (hydrogen) 15 minute fill up travel 5 or 600 miles and haul a load
The killer feature of EVs is home charging. No chance of that with hydrogen.
I am surprised how much that Volvo looks like the mustang E
We know through math it takes a certain amount of energy to move a certain weight a certain distance in a certain time. Adding speed adds wind resistance. This test should be repeated with other vehicles and performed at off peak traffic hours. Try 6am ? Just a suggestion.
75 in the left lane sounds like someone impeding the flow of traffic. Not my words, that’s the CHP Cali highway patrol
I should have specified better in video, I did not hog the left lane. If people wanted to pass and I could comfortably do 75 mph in the right lane I did. I grew up around the DC beltway so I know fast drivers 😊 -Max
@@TFLEV mad max lol
I wonder when more people go to the EVs if the charging cost will go up once they figure they have you by the wallet. By the way, good review.
Just don't tell them I charge my car for free ok?
ya think!? yes, of course coal rates will be higher when everyone is using coal instead of gas. is pretty simple economics
@@kylepeterson lol you still think most power is generated by burning coal? You need to do more research. In my state, 33% of the grid power is provided by wind.
@@mowcowbell Yeah, in YOUR state. Your state isn't the rest of the US, nor is it the rest of the world.
Interesting results on a less efficient vehicle.
Now do it with tire pressure
So driving 65 instead 75 you can send the money you save everyday to St.Judes children hospital. Well that and one of 2 less lattes a week.
The math on this is super flawed. The actual difference is more like 13.5% or 30 miles when consuming the full battery.
Prioritize use of CCS only charger when can, CHADeMO people would need the one that you were on.
There is something seriously off with this test you are apparently breaking the laws of physics.
The car is telling you 31.7 kwh/100mi vs 36 which is not going to equate to a couple of miles difference and physics tells us the wind resistance nominally increases with the square of the velocity.
I suggest you may need to alter your test methodology by starting with a full charge and doing the speed loops till 0 charge (with a support vehicle like the Lightning to get you back to charger) to get a more accurate result.
So basically everyone should go by the speed limit. Very good video thank you, awesome job
HVAC set to 64ºF.🥶
Right? lol
Your Math doesn’t add up. 31.7 KW/100 at 65 MPH vs 36 KW/100 at 75 MPH is a diff of 13.6 %. That is HUGE. You need to remove this video, re vid this, edit and do a proper conclusion. I own a Tesla and anyone that road trips an EV knows your conclusion here is a joke
Watched TFL for a long time. Subscriber for all. Always trusted the content, now, not so much. Do I have to keep my calculator handy from now on? Seriously. This guy needs to go. I would say move him to the background for editing or something, but if he can’t do this, do I want him editing? From now on, leave the reviews to Tommy, Andre………..
1ST 😋
I’ve been waiting for this video for a while. Excited to see the results