Why EV drivers SHOULD have range anxiety: Half of electric cars fall short on their official range by as much as 50 miles - here are the vehicles with the best and worst

Daily Mail ^ | 12/15/23 | Neirin Gray Desai

[Libloather]

Bad news for EV owners with range anxiety - a half of electric cars go don't even go as far as makers claim.

A real-world test of 22 of the most popular electric cars has found that 10 fell short of their advertised range.

The biggest difference between quoted and actual ranges was observed in a 2022 Ford F-150 Lightning Lariat Extended Range, which starts at around $70,000.

It ran out of juice after covering 270 highway miles, 50 miles less than the EPA 320-mile estimate, according to a test by Consumer Reports.

When a manufacturer sells an electric car in the US, the range it advertises is overseen by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and applies to a combination of city and highway driving.

Second worst at delivering on estimated range was the 2023 Lucid Air Touring, which costs close to $100,000. It traveled 40 miles less than the estimated 384-mile estimate.

Close behind it was a 2021 Tesla Model S. It traveled 39 miles less than its claimed 405 EPA range.

Range anxiety is when EV owners worry they won't get to their destination before needing to charge. Going on long trips in an electric car can cause rows among partners - as Daisy Goodwin found out in Italy.

Generally, the best performing vehicles in terms of range were from German manufacturers Mercedes and BMW, which between them made all in the top five.

A 2023 Mercedes-Benz EQE 350 traveled 72 miles further than the EPA estimate.

Audi, Genesis, Hyundai, Kia, Lexus, Nissan, Subaru, and Volkswagen cars were all within around 20 miles of their advertised ranges.

'Real-world comparative tests are critical to understand if an EV is right for you,' said Jake Fisher, senior director of Consumer Report's auto test center.

[Libloather]

Although the EVs fell short of their touted range, gas-powered vehicles tend to meet or exceed their EPA fuel-economy values.

Not mentioned - outdoor temperatures.

[technically right]

Yep. Sounds like a situation ripe for a class action lawsuit for false and misleading advertising. Let’s see Mary Barra and Farley bullshit their investors out of that one.

[fhayek]

I have no problem with new ideas, new technologies. What I have a problem with is having these technologies forced upon me. I live in Buffalo, New York. I am going to let everyone in on a little secret. It gets cold here, and we have snow. Sometimes a lot of cold and a lot of snow. If I am driving an internal combustion engine, the heat from that engine is transferred into the cabin of the vehicle, and I do not freeze to death. In an electric vehicle, the energy that would have been used to provide motion for the vehicle has to be diverted to provide heat. It will cut down on the range. In the middle of a raging snowstorm, when I am desperately trying to get home, I really don't want to have to choose between trying to make it to my destination, or keeping myself warm. This trade off might actually prevent both.

Maybe the technology will improve. Maybe they can find a way to charge an electric vehicle in less than a minute. (I can refuel my ICE in that amount of time). Maybe electric vehicles will have the power and persistence I need to get through a snowy Western New York winter. Maybe it will also be economical. When this happens, we can talk.

[Reverend Wright]

Lithium ion batteries lose ~25 percent of charge capacity after approx 200 discharge cycles.

So range starts small, and after a couple of years shrinks even more.

[Southside_Chicago_Republican]

That says it all.

[Gay State Conservative]

I love my diesel sedan.Comfortable,well equipped and I can do (and have done) 810 (highway) miles on a tankful in it.And then it took me 4 minutes to refill it at a station down the street from my house.

EVs? No thanks! Not in this lifetime.And not in the next.

[HighSierra5]

Don’t forget going over the Grapevine towing a trailer!

[Svartalfiar]

The biggest difference between quoted and actual ranges was observed in a 2022 Ford F-150 Lightning Lariat Extended Range, which starts at around $70,000.

It ran out of juice after covering 270 highway miles, 50 miles less than the EPA 320-mile estimate, according to a test by Consumer Reports.

The "Extended Range" model can supposedly go 320 miles? The average pickup has a single-tank range of 400+ miles. How is 75% considered "extended"?! Shouldn;t that be the "Short-Range" model?

[allendale]

Virtue signaling elites drive Teslas in California and on the East coast. Only a fool would buy or lease a GM or Ford EV.

[smokingfrog]

There are a lot of variables with an EV that ICE vehicles just don’t have & that limit their potential as a long distance vehicle. Maybe they should come with solar panels on the roof and a diesel generator in the trunk.

[Chode]

iirc that guy wi the ford had a hard time just making it 50mi...

[wjcsux]

My favorite story was about the guy who abandoned his F-150 Lightning on a road trip this past summer. Couldn’t get anywhere with it.

[jonrick46]

I say the answer is hydrogen fuel cells that create the electricity to run the car. Hydrogen gas is produced by renewable electric generation. For instance, a solar farm will create electricity that, through electrolysis, produces hydrogen. This is using hydrogen like you would a battery. Whenever there is enough light (or wind in a wind farm) it creates hydrogen and stores it. It would work great for tidal electric generation-to-hydrogen production and storage. That hydrogen gets pumped into vehicle storage tanks which run it into fuel cells that create the electricity to run the electric drive motors that run the vehicle. The electricity is also stored in an on-board battery that runs the electronics, windshield wipers and a cabin heating/air conditioning system. Simple. Yes?

[from occupied ga]

EVs are right for ….. nobody

[wjcsux]

Try driving one of those high priced pieces of crap between El Paso and Dallas TX.

[Seruzawa]

I have no sympathy. EV companies give misleading ranges as a normal course of business. They hide it in fine print. That big range requires traveling at 35mph, etc. Only idiots dont know this.

[DallasBiff]

How much does it cost to “fill up” an EV?

[Nervous Tick]

>> What I have a problem with is having these technologies forced upon me.

That, and I also have a problem with government subsidies for EVs and other alternative energy. If alternative energy can compete in the marketplace, go for it. If not...

[from occupied ga]

I find your hydrogen story to be somewhat lacking in reality due to a couple of points.

1. Hydrogen releases a lot of energy when burned. This is the good side, but because of the second law of thermodynamics hydrogen requires even more energy to hydrolyze from water. And the two so-called renewables wind and solar just don’t produce nearly enough energy to supply the transportation sector.
2. Hydrogen has to be stored in compressed or liquid form. Liquid H is stored by NASA, but is dangerous and because it boils at a much lower temperature than even liquid N you A need a lot of energy to cook it and B it boils away fairly quickly. Which brings us to C hydrogen has to be compressed to extremely high pressures to get a reasonable amount of it in a tank which is smaller than the Hindenberg. This requires a great deal of energy and depending on the pressure it can be as much or more than energy needed to hydrolyze it in the first place. And let’s not forget D hydrogen is very good at escaping pressurized systems. Leading to the conclusion that
3. Hydrogen is only marginally better than batteries in that it does not require tons of raw materials to make the storage systems and theoretically filling a hydrogen tank should be faster than charging a battery, but when you consider how totally dumb most people are, trusting them to handle a flammable gas connection at a couple of thousand bars is probably not a good idea

if you look at what gasoline is it is a mixture of H and C anyway so if it weren’t for the massive lie of the climate doom crazies about CO2 being a pollutant it’s better to just burn hydrocarbons.

[Nervous Tick]

>> Simple. Yes?

If you say so.

But YOU pay for it! Start to finish, including the infrastructure it needs. I don’t want to pay for your feelgood toys. NO GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES FOR THIS CRAP!