> Tesla’s trying to change the vocabulary we’re using to describe it, from “kilowatt-hours” to “range.”
I understand why they did it -- Tesla's cars tend to be the most efficient EVs around, often by significant margins compared to competitors. But for someone who was hoping battery size competition would be the new megapixel race, this is quite disappointing to hear.
I suppose "range" could be used in the same way, but range is less "hard factual", as they can twist it however they want, unless they actually use the EPA and WLTP cycles.
The only thing worse than the Teslas are the Mercedes B250E and BYD e6.
This should be no surprise. Teslas are big, heavy, spacious cars, whereas other EVs tend to be small. Efficiency isn't a priority, and there's no reason to expect a 4,500lb Model S to be as efficient as a 3,300lb LEAF.
Tesla doesn't fudge range. They list EPA range in the US (and NEDC range in European countries). I think they may be required to.
> Tesla's cars tend to be the most efficient EVs around, often by significant margins compared to competitors.
Well, yes and no. Teslas have very low Cd, so are aerodynamically efficient for their size, but they use AC induction motors which are less efficient then the PM DC motors in most other EVs. Compared to the Bolt or the Hyundai Ioniq the Teslas are less efficient at lower speeds.
I understand why they did it -- Tesla's cars tend to be the most efficient EVs around, often by significant margins compared to competitors. But for someone who was hoping battery size competition would be the new megapixel race, this is quite disappointing to hear.
I suppose "range" could be used in the same way, but range is less "hard factual", as they can twist it however they want, unless they actually use the EPA and WLTP cycles.