Outside temperature and range

evanevery

Well-Known Member
First Name
Ed
Joined
Sep 10, 2019
Threads
38
Messages
997
Reaction score
1,131
Location
Wisconsin
Vehicles
2020 Taycan Turbo S, 2019 BMW i8, 2023 BMW iXM60
Country flag
Good question. I've not been quite so convinced by the accuracy of my car's range o'meter (think others have found it pretty accurate), but I've found that the "colder" estimate is definitely closer to reality than the estimate in the garage.
The car's prediction has been pretty accurate for me (TurboS). Especially on Road Trips...

However, I've not used it much lately (in the cold) other than for drifting around, and around, and around my office building in new unplowed snow. (The local constabulary actually checked me once when I was doing this, but its my building, my parking lot, and my car, so.... The cop was laughing anyway so I'm guessing it wouldn't have been a big issue in any case...)
 
OP
OP
Kingske

Kingske

Well-Known Member
First Name
Frank
Joined
Jun 6, 2020
Threads
79
Messages
1,431
Reaction score
1,641
Location
New Jersey and Colorado, USA
Vehicles
2020 Porsche Taycan 4S, 2024 BMW X3, 2014 BMW 3 GT
Country flag
I am back from my trip. At the request of @wemct and @REIL please find a consumption summary below. The interesting thing is that I get rather different numbers when I calculate consumption from the %SoC consumed per 100 miles - using the assumed usable 83.7 kWh capacity of the battery as 100% - and when I track it on the Trip summary display under Car Settings.

First the circumstances: 4S with 19" Aero wheels and Performance Plus Battery. Outside temperature of 39F (4C) for the first leg and 41F (5C) for the second leg. Airco set in ECO at 69F (20.5C). My wife in the passenger's seat also used seat heating for about 1/3 of the trip. The first leg was 56.3 miles (90.6 km) from Princeton to Spring Lake, half of it via highway at 75 mph (121 km/h, five police cars in 20 minutes) in Range mode and the remainder via secondary roads in Normal mode. We went for a 2-hour walk on the deserted beach there and then did our second leg which was 53.9 miles (86.7 km) from Spring Lake cruising North on Ocean Avenue at 35 mph (56 km/h) to Long Branch and from there via secondary roads (typical average speeds of 50-60 mph (80-97 km/h)) back to Princeton, all in Normal mode. The total trip therefore was 110.2 miles (177.3 km). SoC was 100% at the start, 80% after the first leg, and 61% upon return after the second leg.

Using the SoC% and the assumed 100% usable capacity of 83.7 kWh, this translates into:
- first leg: 29.9 kWh/100 miles (18.6 kWh/100 km)
- second leg: 29.5 kWh/100 miles (18.3 kWh/100 km)
- total trip: 29.6 kWh/100 miles (18.4 kWh/100 km)

However, looking at the Trip summary screen under Car settings, different consumption data were displayed:
- first leg: 34.2 kWh/100 miles (21.3 kWh/100 km)
- second leg: 32.8 kWh/100 miles (20.4 kWh/100 km)
- total trip: 33.6 kWh/100 miles (20.9 kWh/100 km)

If anyone on the forum spots a calculation error on my part, please let us know. It is not entirely clear to me why there is an 11-14% difference between both consumption measurement methods. One could guess that Porsche is already using a higher fraction of the total battery capacity, but there was less than 14% buffer to begin with. Also, I do not know which of the measurement methods is the most reliable. According to the SoC% method, I should have consumed 32.6 kWh and will therefore need to add 20.0 kWh to charge it back up to 85%. According to the Trip method, I should have consumed 37.0 kWh and will therefore need to add 24.4 kWh to charge it back up to 85%. I will start charging now and will let you know how many kWh were needed to reach 85%.
 

REIL

Well-Known Member
First Name
Rick
Joined
Dec 8, 2020
Threads
13
Messages
341
Reaction score
304
Location
West US
Vehicles
Taycan 4S+ / MY20
Country flag
@Kingske
Thank you for the great report. It is much appreciated.
Great numbers.
I am certain you had a wonderful day.
 

struther

Well-Known Member
First Name
Brad
Joined
Jan 16, 2020
Threads
8
Messages
408
Reaction score
460
Location
Toronto
Vehicles
Nissan GTR, Nissan 350z
Country flag
I am back from my trip. At the request of @wemct and @REIL please find a consumption summary below. The interesting thing is that I get rather different numbers when I calculate consumption from the %SoC consumed per 100 miles - using the assumed usable 83.7 kWh capacity of the battery as 100% - and when I track it on the Trip summary display under Car Settings.

First the circumstances: 4S with 19" Aero wheels and Performance Plus Battery. Outside temperature of 39F (4C) for the first leg and 41F (5C) for the second leg. Airco set in ECO at 69F (20.5C). My wife in the passenger's seat also used seat heating for about 1/3 of the trip. The first leg was 56.3 miles (90.6 km) from Princeton to Spring Lake, half of it via highway at 75 mph (121 km/h, five police cars in 20 minutes) in Range mode and the remainder via secondary roads in Normal mode. We went for a 2-hour walk on the deserted beach there and then did our second leg which was 53.9 miles (86.7 km) from Spring Lake cruising North on Ocean Avenue at 35 mph (56 km/h) to Long Branch and from there via secondary roads (typical average speeds of 50-60 mph (80-97 km/h)) back to Princeton, all in Normal mode. The total trip therefore was 110.2 miles (177.3 km). SoC was 100% at the start, 80% after the first leg, and 61% upon return after the second leg.

Using the SoC% and the assumed 100% usable capacity of 83.7 kWh, this translates into:
- first leg: 29.9 kWh/100 miles (18.6 kWh/100 km)
- second leg: 29.5 kWh/100 miles (18.3 kWh/100 km)
- total trip: 29.6 kWh/100 miles (18.4 kWh/100 km)

However, looking at the Trip summary screen under Car settings, different consumption data were displayed:
- first leg: 34.2 kWh/100 miles (21.3 kWh/100 km)
- second leg: 32.8 kWh/100 miles (20.4 kWh/100 km)
- total trip: 33.6 kWh/100 miles (20.9 kWh/100 km)

If anyone on the forum spots a calculation error on my part, please let us know. It is not entirely clear to me why there is an 11-14% difference between both consumption measurement methods. One could guess that Porsche is already using a higher fraction of the total battery capacity, but there was less than 14% buffer to begin with. Also, I do not know which of the measurement methods is the most reliable. According to the SoC% method, I should have consumed 32.6 kWh and will therefore need to add 20.0 kWh to charge it back up to 85%. According to the Trip method, I should have consumed 37.0 kWh and will therefore need to add 24.4 kWh to charge it back up to 85%. I will start charging now and will let you know how many kWh were needed to reach 85%.
Is it possible that the difference can be explained by regeneration? This first calculation would factor in the benefit of regeneration since it is a before and after SoC. The second, which looks at how much energy was consumed, would count regeneration battery gains as subsequent consumption. Just a thought - I could be completely misguided.
 


Doc B

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2020
Threads
1
Messages
250
Reaction score
210
Location
UK
Vehicles
Taycan Turbo
Country flag
I am back from my trip. At the request of @wemct and @REIL please find a consumption summary below. The interesting thing is that I get rather different numbers when I calculate consumption from the %SoC consumed per 100 miles - using the assumed usable 83.7 kWh capacity of the battery as 100% - and when I track it on the Trip summary display under Car Settings.

First the circumstances: 4S with 19" Aero wheels and Performance Plus Battery. Outside temperature of 39F (4C) for the first leg and 41F (5C) for the second leg. Airco set in ECO at 69F (20.5C). My wife in the passenger's seat also used seat heating for about 1/3 of the trip. The first leg was 56.3 miles (90.6 km) from Princeton to Spring Lake, half of it via highway at 75 mph (121 km/h, five police cars in 20 minutes) in Range mode and the remainder via secondary roads in Normal mode. We went for a 2-hour walk on the deserted beach there and then did our second leg which was 53.9 miles (86.7 km) from Spring Lake cruising North on Ocean Avenue at 35 mph (56 km/h) to Long Branch and from there via secondary roads (typical average speeds of 50-60 mph (80-97 km/h)) back to Princeton, all in Normal mode. The total trip therefore was 110.2 miles (177.3 km). SoC was 100% at the start, 80% after the first leg, and 61% upon return after the second leg.

Using the SoC% and the assumed 100% usable capacity of 83.7 kWh, this translates into:
- first leg: 29.9 kWh/100 miles (18.6 kWh/100 km)
- second leg: 29.5 kWh/100 miles (18.3 kWh/100 km)
- total trip: 29.6 kWh/100 miles (18.4 kWh/100 km)

However, looking at the Trip summary screen under Car settings, different consumption data were displayed:
- first leg: 34.2 kWh/100 miles (21.3 kWh/100 km)
- second leg: 32.8 kWh/100 miles (20.4 kWh/100 km)
- total trip: 33.6 kWh/100 miles (20.9 kWh/100 km)

If anyone on the forum spots a calculation error on my part, please let us know. It is not entirely clear to me why there is an 11-14% difference between both consumption measurement methods. One could guess that Porsche is already using a higher fraction of the total battery capacity, but there was less than 14% buffer to begin with. Also, I do not know which of the measurement methods is the most reliable. According to the SoC% method, I should have consumed 32.6 kWh and will therefore need to add 20.0 kWh to charge it back up to 85%. According to the Trip method, I should have consumed 37.0 kWh and will therefore need to add 24.4 kWh to charge it back up to 85%. I will start charging now and will let you know how many kWh were needed to reach 85%.
Your maths look just about right to me. Thanks for posting.

That would be good to know when you’ve recharged. I posted consumption figures a while back on another thread, and I also got (for some legs of the trip) completely different total range estimates when using SoC as compared to consumption data (former seemed to suggest better range than the latter).
 

RCorsa

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2020
Threads
11
Messages
374
Reaction score
597
Location
Mercer Island, WA
Vehicles
Taycan TTS, F8, Urus S , Raptor R, X5, Tesla M3P
Country flag
This is amazing to see such range. My car is only a week old and has 104 miles on it. Currently at 85% charge it shows 185mile range. However it must be learning as today my drive to work which is 22 miles I only used 5 miles of range. I assume this will Go up. That said, high 200s is impressive
 
OP
OP
Kingske

Kingske

Well-Known Member
First Name
Frank
Joined
Jun 6, 2020
Threads
79
Messages
1,431
Reaction score
1,641
Location
New Jersey and Colorado, USA
Vehicles
2020 Porsche Taycan 4S, 2024 BMW X3, 2014 BMW 3 GT
Country flag
Is it possible that the difference can be explained by regeneration? This first calculation would factor in the benefit of regeneration since it is a before and after SoC. The second, which looks at how much energy was consumed, would count regeneration battery gains as subsequent consumption. Just a thought - I could be completely misguided.
Interesting. Maybe regeneration is being taken into account in one method and not in the other...
 


OP
OP
Kingske

Kingske

Well-Known Member
First Name
Frank
Joined
Jun 6, 2020
Threads
79
Messages
1,431
Reaction score
1,641
Location
New Jersey and Colorado, USA
Vehicles
2020 Porsche Taycan 4S, 2024 BMW X3, 2014 BMW 3 GT
Country flag
This is amazing to see such range. My car is only a week old and has 104 miles on it. Currently at 85% charge it shows 185mile range. However it must be learning as today my drive to work which is 22 miles I only used 5 miles of range. I assume this will Go up. That said, high 200s is impressive
Hang in there. When I received my car in October and charged it for the first time, it showed a 183 mile range at 85%. It got better quickly, particular because the weather was still warmer then. I am optimistic that in the summer a 100% range of 300 miles or more is achievable.
 
OP
OP
Kingske

Kingske

Well-Known Member
First Name
Frank
Joined
Jun 6, 2020
Threads
79
Messages
1,431
Reaction score
1,641
Location
New Jersey and Colorado, USA
Vehicles
2020 Porsche Taycan 4S, 2024 BMW X3, 2014 BMW 3 GT
Country flag
I'ld be more curious why it stayed at 100% rather than why your range dropped... Its pretty well established that an EV's range drops somewhat significantly in colder ambients (cabin heating, etc). Once your car figured out it was driving in 38f (and seeing the electrical load which was being required) it was simply adjusting its estimate.

As you don't use 100% often, maybe the car is still trying to figure out exactly "where that is"...

(You're not one of us eco-criminals who heat our garages, are you?)
I am absolutely not heating my garage. @ndw8790 might send an intercontinental ballistic missile my way.
 
OP
OP
Kingske

Kingske

Well-Known Member
First Name
Frank
Joined
Jun 6, 2020
Threads
79
Messages
1,431
Reaction score
1,641
Location
New Jersey and Colorado, USA
Vehicles
2020 Porsche Taycan 4S, 2024 BMW X3, 2014 BMW 3 GT
Country flag
I bet you are correct. I didn't do the math... :-(

So, what then is it that you find surprising?

I don't know whether the car looks at the "surprise" outside temp and makes a pro-active adjustment to the estimated range based on some internal tables - or if it simply watches the actual increased electrical consumption and bases the adjustment solely on that. (I think it fair to say that we DO know it watches actual electrical consumption as it does make adjustments based on driving style).

It would be a curious test to take your car from the relatively warm garage and simply roll it outside (don't go anywhere) and see if the range gets adjusted purely based on the outside temp.
@evanevery , good idea. I did the opposite when I returned earlier this afternoon and took note of the predicted range (272 miles) in the 40F (4.5C) outside temperature in front of my garage before I drove in. After 90 minutes inside the 53F (11.5C) garage, I checked again and the predicted range had grown to 280 miles.
 

evanevery

Well-Known Member
First Name
Ed
Joined
Sep 10, 2019
Threads
38
Messages
997
Reaction score
1,131
Location
Wisconsin
Vehicles
2020 Taycan Turbo S, 2019 BMW i8, 2023 BMW iXM60
Country flag
I am absolutely not heating my garage. @ndw8790 might send an intercontinental ballistic missile my way.
Relax... I'm sure any ballistic missle he has is frozen up solid in some barn out back. I expect, you'll be safe at least until the Spring thaw...
 

wemct

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2019
Threads
20
Messages
732
Reaction score
1,258
Location
Georgia, USA
Vehicles
'23 Cayenne S Coupe; '22 AMG SL55; Taycan 4S(sold)
Country flag
Outside temperature of 39F (4C) for the first leg and 41F (5C) for the second leg.

The total trip therefore was 110.2 miles (177.3 km). SoC was 100% at the start, 80% after the first leg, and 61% upon return after the second leg.
Thank you for the report. It looks like you still got decent range for chilly temperatures.
 

Doc B

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2020
Threads
1
Messages
250
Reaction score
210
Location
UK
Vehicles
Taycan Turbo
Country flag
I’m still perplexed how the range figures are so good compared to my car (Turbo with 20inch wheels). Re-reading, except for range, those are almost exactly the same stats on my last long-ish trip - 54 miles out and same back in, with half the trip for each leg at 74mph on cruise control in range mode. Eco plus at 20C (68F). Consumption averaged 45KwH/100miles on the way out, and, after getting back, the average consumption for the whole trip was just over 40KwH/100miles (so I assume 35KwH/100miles give or take on the way back with a warmer battery). 4C (39F) outside. Humidity was way up at 98% so I can only guess that’s the reason for the difference. Maybe.
Sponsored

 
 




Top