ron_b

Well-Known Member
First Name
Ron
Joined
Dec 30, 2019
Messages
372
Reaction score
366
Location
SF Bay Area, USA
Vehicles
Bolt EV, Taycan 4S (Sched Sept)
Country flag
I loved the Heart Rate shown near the end. He is such a funny guy.
Just reading English translated subtitles is a painful process. As sadly my German is similar to the Taycan battery as he pulls into the Ionity Charger, 0%. :rolleyes:

Here is a nice summary chart from 21:55:
1582519681465.png
 

Reg

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2019
Messages
363
Reaction score
389
Location
California
Vehicles
MB
Country flag
Note that the Taycan battery is now listed as 87 kwh usable, up from 83.7.

edit: by listed, I meant in the video.
 
Last edited:

pEAkfrEAk

New Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2020
Messages
2
Reaction score
2
Location
Germany
Vehicles
Tesla Model S75D
Country flag
Note that the Taycan battery is now listed as 87 kwh usable, up from 83.7.
Where is it listed as 87kWh usable? The german Porsche website still shows 83.7kWh usable capacity for the performance plus battery.
 

Scandinavian

Well-Known Member
First Name
Peter
Joined
Nov 3, 2019
Messages
149
Reaction score
91
Location
France
Vehicles
Tesla M3P, Porsche 996 C4 Cab
Country flag
It is staten in the video but he also says that it is the calculated draw down from the battery. He used the cars estimated consumption per 100 km multiplied by the actual achieved range. And he explains that there probably is a small error in the Taycan estimated consumption. Perhaps too high he says!

So there is no new spec on the available battery capacity from Porsche.
 

BayAreaKen

Well-Known Member
First Name
Ken
Joined
Sep 1, 2019
Messages
63
Reaction score
93
Location
SF Bay Area, California
Vehicles
BMW 650i Convertible
Country flag
I loved the Heart Rate shown near the end. He is such a funny guy.
Just reading English translated subtitles is a painful process. As sadly my German is similar to the Taycan battery as he pulls into the Ionity Charger, 0%. :rolleyes:

Here is a nice summary chart from 21:55:
1582519681465.png
Ron, for a non-engineer like me, can you analyze and interpret this chart? From my layman's perpsective, it looks like the Tesla, as expected, kicked the Taycan's butt. However, it didn't do as well as the EPA said it would and the Taycan did better than the EPA rating (consistent with many reports on TacyanForum). I don't know what WLTP means.

Anyway, your thoughts and expertise is appreciated.
 

jkjjpc

Member
First Name
John
Joined
Jan 17, 2020
Messages
15
Reaction score
16
Location
Washington DC
Vehicles
2020 BMW X5 40i, 2017 BMW 540i
Country flag
Note that the analysis in the graphic reports the EPA range as 323 km or 201 miles. That is the EPA estimate for the Turbo, we do not have an EPA rating for the 4S. So, they are calculating how much the 4S exceeds the EPA rating, but they are not using the appropriate reference. Hopefully the EPA rating for the 4S will be 10-20% higher than the Turbo, but only time will tell.

They noted that the Tesla S Raven Performance was about 10% more efficient on the reported kWh/100km (per the cars computers, they did not actually measure these independently):

Taycan: 23.6kWh/100km = 380Wh/mi
Model S: 21.4kWh/100km = 345Wh/mi

They also noted that the Tesla battery has about 10% more available energy.

They then tried to reconcile why the Tesla's range was only 13% greater than the 4S despite the 10% greater efficiency and 10% greater energy available. They made estimates of the actual energy delivered from the battery, but again, this was not measured and relied on the car computer.

My conclusion from this and other range reports is that the Taycan at high speeds (150 km/hr in a prior NextMove video for the Turbo, 120 km/hr in this video for the 4S, 75 mph in the Car and Driver test, etc.) delivers close to the EPA range estimate and the Teslas (Model 3 Long Range/Model S Raven Performance) deliver less than their EPA stated range, and that the range difference between the Taycan and Teslas is much less than suggested from the EPA numbers. NextMove and Car and Driver also found that the Taycan charges the fastest when using the maximum charging station for each brand (350 Kw for Taycan and version 3 of the Tesla supercharger). So, other than the better built out Teslas charging infrastructure, any range anxiety for long distance travel should be about equal for the two cars.
 

KensingtonPark

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2019
Messages
81
Reaction score
51
Location
New York, NY
Vehicles
2017 Audi S7, 2017 Volvo XC90 T8
Country flag
Ron, for a non-engineer like me, can you analyze and interpret this chart? From my layman's perpsective, it looks like the Tesla, as expected, kicked the Taycan's butt. However, it didn't do as well as the EPA said it would and the Taycan did better than the EPA rating (consistent with many reports on TacyanForum). I don't know what WLTP means.
I will take a shot:

First, there are, broadly speaking, two international test standards for estimating energy consumption of cars:

  • Worldwide Harmonised Light Vehicle Test Procedure ("WLTP"). This is a European test metric.
  • Environmental Protection Agency Rating ("EPA"). This is the US test metric.

Both tests attempt to simulate the driving experience and are different from one another. Even within each test procedure, there are opportunities for variation based on the battery of tests performed. So the chart is showing the expected efficiency of each car under each of the two rating regimes (EPA vs. WLTP) with the top two bars for each car. As you can see, under both regimes, the expected efficiency of the Tesla is greater than the Taycan. What many have anguished about is the significant gap between the EPA and WLTP numbers for the Taycan compared to that of the Tesla. You can see that in the two bars as well.

Second, the video essentially is yet ANOTHER version of a standardized test that attempts to be more "real world" than that performed under either the WLTP or EPA. At a minimum, this is a more relatable test, since you actually get to watch some portion of the test. The result is shown in the bottom (or third) bar for each car.

Finally, the result, which is somewhat surprising, is that the Tesla could not achieve the range predicted by either the EPA or the WLTP ratings, but the Taycan actually beat its EPA predicted range quite handily in the same run.

All of this proves not much of anything, other than:

  • For those of us prospective Taycan owners, perhaps our range experience will be much closer to the Tesla than we expected.
  • The Taycan did not get its "butt kicked" in quite the way that you may have expected. This is more like a two touchdown underdog (-14 points) losing by a mere field goal (-3 points).

Well, that was my attempt.
 

BayAreaKen

Well-Known Member
First Name
Ken
Joined
Sep 1, 2019
Messages
63
Reaction score
93
Location
SF Bay Area, California
Vehicles
BMW 650i Convertible
Country flag
All of this proves not much of anything, other than:

  • For those of us prospective Taycan owners, perhaps our range experience will be much closer to the Tesla than we expected.
  • The Taycan did not get its "butt kicked" in quite the way that you may have expected. This is more like a two touchdown underdog (-14 points) losing by a mere field goal (-3 points).

Well, that was my attempt.
This is actually quite helpful. Thanks!!!
 

Dee

Well-Known Member
First Name
Dee
Joined
Dec 14, 2018
Messages
680
Reaction score
593
Location
The Netherlands
Vehicles
Yes.
Country flag
I think the number the EPA stated backfired at them cuz more and more it shows it's not that far away from Tesla.
After all it's an American methode but it's becoming quite a joke.
All in favourite of Porsche which does make excellent cars.
Still and will.
 

ron_b

Well-Known Member
First Name
Ron
Joined
Dec 30, 2019
Messages
372
Reaction score
366
Location
SF Bay Area, USA
Vehicles
Bolt EV, Taycan 4S (Sched Sept)
Country flag
Ron, for a non-engineer like me, can you analyze and interpret this chart? From my layman's perpsective, it looks like the Tesla, as expected, kicked the Taycan's butt. However, it didn't do as well as the EPA said it would and the Taycan did better than the EPA rating (consistent with many reports on TacyanForum). I don't know what WLTP means.

Anyway, your thoughts and expertise is appreciated.
Sorry for the delay in my analysis @BayAreaKen. Lots of other good feedback too. But here is my take.

1582587119261.png


Here you can see what I think is the point of the story. That the Taycan WLTP figures are much closer to reality and also that the Taycan EPA figures seem busted as it betters EPA by 16% on this test and by range figures on other reviews like: Motor Trend, Dan Edmunds at Autoblog, Next Move and Tom Moloughney at insideEVs. All showing Taycan fires more like 250 mile range, nothing incredible but nothing despicable either. It is a performance car, not a lean machine for distance.

From the Nextmove test you can say either
  • the Tesla Model S Raven L+ had 13% more range than the Taycan
  • or the Taycan had 11% less range than the Tesla Model S Raven L+
    (depending on your choice of denominator)
I would not label that as Tesla kicking any butt. ;) Just state that Tesla does exhibit measurably more range in these conditions.

You can also say that the Nextmove higher speed test showed the Taycan was only 11% off of WLTP where as the Tesla was 28% off???

EPA figures Reference: https://www.edmunds.com/fuel-economy/heres-why-real-world-mpg-doesnt-match-epa-ratings.html
WLTP Range Figures from: https://www.porsche.com/uk/models/taycan/taycan-models/
 
Last edited:

KensingtonPark

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2019
Messages
81
Reaction score
51
Location
New York, NY
Vehicles
2017 Audi S7, 2017 Volvo XC90 T8
Country flag
I think the number the EPA stated backfired at them cuz more and more it shows it's not that far away from Tesla.
Perhaps it was by design by Porsche. The way the EPA tests work, there is a laboratory test protocol that the EPA specifies. It specifies the use of a dynamometer, speeds, etc. The automakers conduct the testing themselves, and submit their results to the EPA according to the test protocol. The automakers certify that they have followed the protocol and make very detailed reports on their tests. There is some degree of play in the protocol, and my suspicion is that Porsche, unlike most manufacturers, ran the test quite conservatively. This is a company that just paid the largest fine in EPA history for misrepresenting their diesel emissions test results to them, so it makes some sense.
 

Dee

Well-Known Member
First Name
Dee
Joined
Dec 14, 2018
Messages
680
Reaction score
593
Location
The Netherlands
Vehicles
Yes.
Country flag
Perhaps it was by design by Porsche. The way the EPA tests work, there is a laboratory test protocol that the EPA specifies. It specifies the use of a dynamometer, speeds, etc. The automakers conduct the testing themselves, and submit their results to the EPA according to the test protocol. The automakers certify that they have followed the protocol and make very detailed reports on their tests. There is some degree of play in the protocol, and my suspicion is that Porsche, unlike most manufacturers, ran the test quite conservatively. This is a company that just paid the largest fine in EPA history for misrepresenting their diesel emissions test results to them, so it makes some sense.
I've heard there are three methodes of the EPA.
1. Data provided by the manufacturer.
2. Extended cycle test (high speed/ambient temperatures etc.)
3. Short cycle test *0,7 (no actual high speed/temp, they only use the 0,7 factor).
Something like that.

Tesla is #1.
Porsche is #3.
 

HK111

Well-Known Member
First Name
Henrik
Joined
Oct 25, 2019
Messages
123
Reaction score
204
Location
Germany
Vehicles
Taycan 4S, Corvette C7 Stingray, Mercedes GL 320, Mercedes V 4Matic
Country flag
1. Data provided by the manufacturer.
Tesla is #1.
Curious... is that a liability issue? What if Tesla significantly overstates range?
 

Top