Macan 4 and others: bad range for the Macan when it’s cold

[daveo4EV]

https://www.macanevowners.com/forum...hit-in-cold-weather…new-owner-overview.18231/

 

[krissrock]

the WLTP range is misleading on it's on... Its not accurate. that's exactly why these youtube videos are using it as opposed to the EPA range, which is accurate...

 

[Awaz]

@krissrock
As he is consistently comparing WLTP range on all cars, then that's a relevant test. All are on the same boat.

 

[krissrock]

@krissrock
As he is consistently comparing WLTP range on all cars, then that's a relevant test. All are on the same boat.

sure, but my point is that the basis of the data, the starting point is not accurate. then any conclusion you make from that data is not accurate either....

junk in junk out...
it's just interesting to me that these videos are always using the WLTP data, instead of the EPA, no matter the region..the data is available.
and i think it's because the WLTP numbers are huge. So the likelihood of greater deviation is more easily achieved ...

 

[dwgillette]

I drove my Macan 4 EV yesterday on the same route in AM and PM to and from work, which was mostly highway at 60mph for about 75 minutes. (Upper midwest USA)

In the morning, 27% of charge was used on the route when temp was 15+ Farenheit. On return trip, used only 18% of charge when temp was 44 Farenheit. Obviously, more energy was used for climate control in the cold, so it is not all difference in range with temp, but the difference was striking.

 

[krissrock]

big time this is noted in many videos. heating the cabin, steering wheel, seats etc...take a lot of energy. That's literally why they get hot. you push a lot of energy through somethign that is resisting the energy.
i noted this as I'll see a drop in charge between rides. For example, I can park the car at 70%, and then when i go to drive it a couple days later, i'll start my ride at 66%... well damn... but me preconditioning the car for 5 minutes before i set off, used a lot decent amount of energy.

that's why franks points are valid. if condition like the heat temperature aren't standardized in the "test" ... it's just BS

 

[Diego]

Since now I have MY car and can check MY range I find this kind of test silly and useless… with low temperature on the same round trip I went from 18,8 to 20,1 kWh/100 km. That’s it.

 

[Awaz]

@krissrock
It's a relative test whichever yardstick to use, whether its EPA, WLTP, or the Chinese CLTC for that matter.
The percentage drop from WLTP to EPA should be the same. Let's say, for argument sake, EPA is usually 22% less than WLTP. Then EPA range of all those cars tested would be 22% less. Then the real world percentage drop in those winter conditions for those cars tested would give the same answer.

 

[tmrqs]

@PanameraFrank ’s excellent post on the previous page clearly explains why this “test” is bogus: if there is no defined test protocol and everyone gets to to drive the car differently and under different conditions, results cannot be compared nor trusted.

Bickering about WLTP or EPA is completely irrelevant, the “test” itself is a sham.

Next!

 

[srekrek]

I like the approach of this website, where they make a differentiation between summer / winter / city / highway / combined range of all kinds of ev's.

 

[CandianPorsche83]

I like the approach of this website, where they make a differentiation between summer / winter / city / highway / combined range of all kinds of ev's.

This is very good! Thanks for the link

 

[dgkhn]

I like the approach of this website, where they make a differentiation between summer / winter / city / highway / combined range of all kinds of ev's.

Very good! It's not clear how they do their calculations (they can't have tested all these cars, can they?!) but I would say the values for the Macan 4 are at least consistent with my experience, so it's credible to me. Interesting that the values for 4S are almost identical to 4. It's fun to use their compare tool.

BTW, the gear icon lets you choose metric or imperial.

Sponsored