Tesla Model Y vs. Porsche Taycan: Real-World Range Test - Edmunds

[Reg]

I'm so tired of arguing (on different forums) with Tesla fanboys

It really is not worth the effort. I gave up that long ago and am happier for it!
Besides, I would be really surprised if a main criteria in cross shopping an S with a Taycan is range. It is like saying that a Camry gets better gas mileage than a 911.

The interesting thing about your chart is that only one company underperforms the EPA range for the 56mph test and they do so for 3 different models. LOL.

Advertisement

 

[Gwaihir]

Best range estimate I have seen on the Taycan 4S.
323 miles.


Tesla Model Y vs. Porsche Taycan: Real-World Range Test
Edmunds
https://www.edmunds.com/car-news/tesla-model-y-vs-porsche-taycan-real-world-range-test.html

I’m not sure I believe this. From the text: “Edmunds observed 323 miles and saw a better energy consumption of 32.3 kilowatt-hours of electricity used every 100 miles of driving”. That would mean the Taycan would need 100kW/h available capacity and we all know it’s a lot less than that! I love my 4S and would really like to have a range like is stated, but I think it’s just fiction. . . .

 

[martinday]

I’m not sure I believe this. From the text: “Edmunds observed 323 miles and saw a better energy consumption of 32.3 kilowatt-hours of electricity used every 100 miles of driving”. That would mean the Taycan would need 100kW/h available capacity and we all know it’s a lot less than that! I love my 4S and would really like to have a range like is stated, but I think it’s just fiction. . . .

Yes, it looks like there's something badly wrong with Edmunds' numbers. If the 32.3kWh/100 miles is correct that would give the Taycan 4S a range of about 260 miles, not 323. My Turbo gives me about 250 miles on long, fairly easy going drives (mostly cruising to average 50mph over 150 miles) so 260 sounds about right.

 

[Tay Tay]

I’m not sure I believe this. From the text: “Edmunds observed 323 miles and saw a better energy consumption of 32.3 kilowatt-hours of electricity used every 100 miles of driving”. That would mean the Taycan would need 100kW/h available capacity and we all know it’s a lot less than that! I love my 4S and would really like to have a range like is stated, but I think it’s just fiction. . . .

While I agree that article is screwed up, this could be possible if it’s gross energy used, not including savings from regen.

 

[ron_b]

I’m not sure I believe this. From the text: “Edmunds observed 323 miles and saw a better energy consumption of 32.3 kilowatt-hours of electricity used every 100 miles of driving”. That would mean the Taycan would need 100kW/h available capacity and we all know it’s a lot less than that! I love my 4S and would really like to have a range like is stated, but I think it’s just fiction. . . .

With the correct speed and good conditions you can get 360mi with 19” wheels.

https://www.taycanforum.com/forum/t...real-world-range-test-edmunds.3020/post-41508

I got 250+ easy in range mode traveling 70mph avg with traffic and going over some small mountains. I will be doing more testing in range mode this weekend.

 

[Tay Tay]

With the correct speed and good conditions you can get 360mi with 19” wheels.

https://www.taycanforum.com/forum/t...real-world-range-test-edmunds.3020/post-41508

I got 250+ easy in range mode traveling 70mph avg with traffic and going over some small mountains. I will be doing more testing in range mode this weekend.

His point though was that Edmunds’ math doesn’t work out. 323 miles * 32.3 kWh / 100 miles = 104 kWh required, larger than the Taycan’s battery. Maybe they gave gross not net energy usage although given 323 & 32.3 they may have fat fingered something.

 

[ron_b]

His point though was that Edmunds’ math doesn’t work out. 323 miles * 32.3 kWh / 100 miles = 104 kWh required, larger than the Taycan’s battery. Maybe they gave gross not net energy usage although given 323 & 32.3 they may have fat fingered something.

Yes, sorry I should have also addressed that. Yes I agree the consumption numbers do not make sense relative to the distance unless they are from different tests for some reason. The Tesla figures that they provide do make sense though.

 

[martinday]

I found this tweet from the article author from when he made the run last May covering 313.3 miles before he got down to 10 remaining. He says it took 9.5 hours so, even if some of that is rest stops, he was still only averaging 35 to 40mph when moving and if he had range mode active as the article suggests then that would explain how he covered that distance. It's not exactly the style that most of us will drive our cars and I wouldn't want EPA tests done this way so it seems pointless to compare this to the EPA value. I guess the 32.3kWh/100 miles is a mistake somehow transcribed from the 323 miles range and it should have been about 26kWh/100 miles. I never get anywhere near that in my car.

 

[ron_b]

I found this tweet from the article author from when he made the run last May covering 313.3 miles before he got down to 10 remaining. He says it took 9.5 hours so, even if some of that is rest stops, he was still only averaging 35 to 40mph when moving and if he had range mode active as the article suggests then that would explain how he covered that distance. It's not exactly the style that most of us will drive our cars and I wouldn't want EPA tests done this way so it seems pointless to compare this to the EPA value. I guess the 32.3kWh/100 miles is a mistake somehow transcribed from the 323 miles range and it should have been about 26kWh/100 miles. I never get anywhere near that in my car.

Very nice research Martin!