Real consumption / range / efficiency thread … post your Macan EV performance 📊

[tmrqs]

People keep saying there is no way to know the capacity of the battery or how much energy is stored in it.

I have been using CarScanner with an OBD2 reader for months and I get that information in real time. Am I missing something?

Sponsored

 

[Petzi]

People keep saying there is no way to know the capacity of the battery or how much energy is stored in it.

I have been using CarScanner with an OBD2 reader for months and I get that information in real time. Am I missing something?

no.

 

[Yves]

People keep saying there is no way to know the capacity of the battery or how much energy is stored in it.

I have been using CarScanner with an OBD2 reader for months and I get that information in real time. Am I missing something?

Well I used it to and the data is kind of confusing and it’s not because you see a value close to what seems correct that it is correct … by selecting a profile that seems to work is not really the way you can be sure …

 

[Yves]

To give an example if I calculate percentage current SOC -1% to be sure and I devide that with actual energy content is according to carscanner I have a maximum 88kwh content, if I do not take an error margin it’s more like 86kwh max energy content (granted not always that lineair so you need to check at different levels and I would like to see someone reporting their findings)
While if I calculate battery capacity with a long trip I do find a result that is more credible and closer to what one would expect from a new car … aka 93.5kwh … so what do you think is closer to reality …

 

[Throb]

very nice & neat. but is it not obvious that the “indicated” consumption is near always the same (or within statistical error) as the “actual” when the distance is bigger than 50 miles?

Not really. There are times when it is exactly correct, and times when it is out by a large amount.

i do not see any proof that your calculations are more accurate than the ones the car computer is doing. there are a lot of variables that are not accounted for like is the odometer correct ?

If the odometer was incorrect, then the same error would be repeated, but it isn't. Sometimes the trip computer is optimistic. Sometimes it's pessimistic.

is the charger correct?

Charging doesn't come into it. The figures are calculated thus:

Energy consumed/distance travelled

I get the energy consumed by calculating how much of the net capacity of the battery has been used.

where is the data in the “battery level” column coming from? most significant why is a computer supposedly sometimes right und other times wrong and you are always right?

The battery level column is the battery SoC at the start of that leg and the end. So, in the first line, I started with a full battery of 100% and ended with a SoC of 18%. I used 82% of a 95 kWh battery, which means I consumed 77.9 kWh of energy over 258.7 km. That gives a consumption of 30.1 kWh/100km, which as it happens is exactly what the "since charging" section of the trip computer gave me.

However, I also calculate consumption of the car taking charging into account, which I will post at some point.

And what am I supposed to be "right" about? All data is provided by the car entirely. I'm just crunching the numbers.

my experience with computers is that you can trust that they repeat the same calculations always in the same way.

ICE trip computers can be accurate but also inaccurate. The only way to measure accurately the consumption of ICE cars is to fill the tank, drive, and then fill the tank again. BEVs are no different.

I have a lot of interesting data for lots of cars over the last 15 years. I will post when I get the chance.

 

[Petzi]

Not really. There are times when it is exactly correct, and times when it is out by a large amount.

ok, it all sounds logical and it's probably my fault that i didn't understand it properly. i just think that the computer has obviously calculated correctly several times, it's also given that a computer always calculates with the same formula. it can't be "optimistic" once, "pessimistic" once and then correct again. that's mathematically impossible.

 

[ColdCase]

I think the prime purpose of this thread is to document what members are seeing to have a baseline to determine if a specific car seems out of line.

ICE mpg displays are based on the miles the computer thinks the car's been driven and how much fuel it told the injection system to deliver. The actual distance could be off by tire size variation, what actually gets delivered can be different due to injector variations. Even filing the tank and measuring the fill precisely is not going to be that precise, better than the computer's guess perhaps.

You would thing the EV compute would have less variables influencing it, but sensors have tollerances.

So you need to drive a long enough measured course (GPS, odometers, speedometers not accurate enough) and accurately measuring the the amount of fuel (gas or electric) to determine fuel per distance for those weather conditions. Everything else is a compromise. Not very practical.

But I think you could compare one Macan EV to another close enough to identify outliers, if you use the same method. It sure is an interesting discussion.

 

[Throb]

ok, it all sounds logical and it's probably my fault that i didn't understand it properly. i just think that the computer has obviously calculated correctly several times, it's also given that a computer always calculates with the same formula. it can't be "optimistic" once, "pessimistic" once and then correct again. that's mathematically impossible.

Using the terms "optimistic" and "pessimistic" is just a way of saying it has over-estimated or under-estimated consumption. It's not meant to be a description of the car's emotional capacity to judge numbers.


When I post my full data which takes into account actual energy fed into the car, the numbers will speak for themselves.

 

[Petzi]

Using the terms "optimistic" and "pessimistic" is just a way of saying it has over-estimated or under-estimated consumption. It's not meant to be a description of the car's emotional capacity to judge numbers.


When I post my full data which takes into account actual energy fed into the car, the numbers will speak for themselves.

possibly a misunderstanding. i understand your chart to be not a comparison of estimated and actual consumption, but that the consumption actually calculated by the car afterwards is compared with the consumption calculated by you.

That's why I wondered how the car can calculate the actual consumption correctly one time and then calculate it incorrectly the next time you drive. i think that's impossible.

If your table is a comparison of estimated and actual consumption, I don't see a problem. the estimates would be unexpectedly accurate.

 

[MatC21]

Best and worst with my 4S on 21 inch summers lately
Best is a short city drive and worst was a longer drive on German Autobahn with longer stretches of going 160/170 kmh.
Speeding isn‘t really worth it, another screenshot from 2 days earlier just slightly slower but also Autobahn but never going above 120kmh => 20.6 kwh/100. But going fast is a lot more fun and the car charges so incredibly well

 

[Yves]

@MatC21 The average speed between the 2 highway runs is not that different so there must been some traffic as 92 average is still “slow” I had a run with my iX in summer at an average speed of 131km/h and a consumption of 23.9kwh/100km over 300km stretch, advantage of constant speed (with the occasional slow down when a caravan was overtaking another caravan) and also slip streaming after an BMW X5 …

 

[MatC21]

There was. Also some city driving to get to the autobahn destroyed the average.
It is very hard to have a constant 130 on German Autobahn due to all the traffic.

 

[USMA81]

I’ve been thinking, which my wife says is always dangerous. Seems to me that there are several categories which can influence the degree to which the actual driving range can differ from the formulaic or calculated driving range.

(1) The formula will take some variables and calculate the estimated range (variables like state of charge, trip course, gps-derived elevation changes, etc.). That formula could be inherently inaccurate. It doesn’t perfectly calculate the range based on the included variables. It doesn’t perfectly model the physics. Also, some of the database data used by the formula could be inaccurate.

The next two categories are variables that the range formula likely doesn’t, or can’t, use to estimate range.

(2) The formula might not include, and so not account for, differences in the vehicle configuration or state (wheel sizes, number and weight of options, type/brand of tire, owner-installed mods, battery age/condition etc.).

(3) Situational factors affect each individual trip, factors the formula doesn’t / can’t account for (number of passengers, tire pressures, road surface, how much over/under the speed is compared to what the formula used, maybe temperature if the formula isn’t using that directly, etc).

The total error in the calculated range is a summation of errors from these three categories. I think the formula error is small in comparison to the vehicle configuration error, and the configuration error is small in comparison to the situational error.

The first type of error, in the formula itself, we can’t affect at all. Maybe in future software updates the formula will change a bit or database data might change, but it’s likely pretty accurate now.

For the most part, we can affect the second type of error mostly at the time of vehicle configuration (base vs turbo, option selection), and infrequently thereafter (time of tire replacement, etc,).

Finally, we can affect the third type more easily and frequently (speeds we drive, number of passengers, etc.).

If on a trip the estimated range proves to be “pessimistic,“ or “optimistic,” it likely is due to changes in the last category, such as differences in under/over speed between different trips.

My experience in my 4 is that the estimate is conservative. As an example, if it says I will get there with 10% SOC, then I will get there with something above that, like 15% (this was true in my Audi Etron too).

Overall, I’m very pleased with the Macan range estimates. I have heard horror stories of range estimates being highly inaccurate in other brands (but I don’t have first-hand experience, except the Audi).

Sponsored