Regardless of the version the enyaq remains the best family EV for daily use. Very comfy, great turning circle, easy to load, easy to use plus great safety features. And not overly powerful. We love the Enyaq.
I wish the Enyaq 85 was the original Enyaq. The new SW 4 + HW is so much better, including manual pre-heating and new engine makes it finally a very usable car.
Yeah, I wish my Enyaq 80 had battery preheating (and better SW), but luckily we don't do much long distance driving in the winter (we live in Finland ;), so it's not really an issue. We have home charging too, so we don't use much DC fast charging either. It's been a very usable car for us for two years already 😊
I have driven over 3000 km with 80x SW 3.7 no issues what so ever. Haven't used DC charging though but i know it's far from top if temperature is freezing.
@@mr.wizeguy8995 "80x SW 3.7" Thank for the info. My 80X has still Sw 3.2. I get OTA updates but they do not appear to change anything visible and version stays the same.
@@mikashki I have a 80X 2023 with Sw ME 3.2 so I neither have battery preheat in the software. I can charge fast in winter (~150 kW), by monitor battery temp by OBD2 and CarScanner app. I yoyo drive until battery is 25 C then it charge at 150 kW. At 30 C it can charge at 174 kW.
@@Foersom_ yes, I'm aware of the yoyoing trick, but never needed to try it, so far. Like said we don't do much long distance driving in the winter, and when we do, and need to recharge along the way, we'll usually also stop for food or shopping, in which case slow charging is just as good. 😉 AC charging at home 99+% of the time. If we didn't have home charging, and would have to rely on public charging, I might be more annoyed... 😉
When your base for efficiency is as low as it was previously, every update / fix might bring a lot of real improvements. Previous version was incredibly bad when it comes to efficiency, this one is slightly better. Škoda EV was usually 20% less efficient compared to other vehicles in the same class, now it probably 20% worse (-5% out of that). IMHO, what matters much more is better heat management and software support that should be longer than previous 1-2 years of updates.
@@japkoslav I don't think it's bad as you're saying. Battery Life tested ID.7 with TM3 and ID.7 being bigger car, was slightly better. So I think VW achieved quite good efficiency now. Remember that the main reason big SUVs have worse consumption is their size and poor areodynamics. If you're saying Enyaq was 20% worse than other car, then probably that other car has much more bullet-like shape. But then, on the other hand, you loose in other aspects, like flexibility (because your bullet-shaped car is now more difficult to park in urban area). I still think 5% is really good improvement.
@@Lascarnn Aerodynamics of Enyaq are not to blame here, it does have quite impressive cd. Battery management and abysmal weight on the other hand were probably the main reasons Enyaq is so inefficient.
@@japkoslavremember that it is CdA, not Cd which affects consumption. While the Enyaq has good Cd, it also has a lot more frontal area (A) than a Model 3 or ID.7.
Sorry, but wasn't the 40% better claim (if that's what they claimed) referring to the motor ALONE, i.e. the efficiency of just the motor(/inverter), NOT the whole vehicle?
Yes. Enyaq 80: 150 kW, 310 Nm, range 533 km Enyaq 85: 210 kW, 545 Nm, range 547 km The new model has 40% more motor power, 76% more torque, 3% more WLTP range.
Especially the torque 545 Nm is impressive. 76% more torque than previous (310 Nm). Just the 85 RWD has more torque than the dual motor Tesla Y LR. The 85 RS model will have more torque than Tesla Y Performance.
I wish more people did these videos in the UK. I do enjoy them though, wherever they’re from. 😊 I’ve been told mine is being built on 18 April. Not so long now.
I would like to see you two doing the city/mixed drive with these standards. I bet the difference would be even bigger. Thanks. This was interesting and revealing.
The 40% is true!!! You get 40% more power for the same consumption! That is very hard to accomplish. Either way, these cars really need around 300 hp and torque as they are heavier than an ICE car. I have almost 500 hp on my Tesla and I can’t say that it’s too much (and I use it as a fast family car).
A Finnish youtuber, Harri Salo, did same kind of comparison with two ID.4:s. It was winter , snowy roads and they drove slower of course. 2024 car consumption was close 21 and the old one had 23.
The 80 is still a good car. I just regret the lack of updates by Skoda. I only had 1 or 2 minor updates and there are a lot of small things which could be enhanced on the SW 3.0. And I am quite happy with the charging curve of the 80. 135 kW is not the best but the power remains consistant all along the process, even over 60-70%.
That is what I can confirm with my Q4 etron. The charging curve 10-80 is very stable. Frequently charged at around 8 degree Celsius with a warm battery. The charging speed went up to 133 almost instantly. It stayed above 120 for over 75% and then dropped to around 100. very happy with that
+5% with bigger tyres and motorways speeds is OK. Especially when counting the miles to the next charger. Curious if dropping to 19C and turning on the heat seating makes any difference...
Feels like that's so low, was expecting more. Feels good having bought an Id4 with the old engine that the consumption and charging is comparable. The only thing I would like is battery preheating since the old car has the hardware needed for it, just doesnt have the software.
Pre-heating increases chargingtimes by 22% min optimal conditions which is extremely rare. I would expect a 10 to 15% difference in reality which in a 20 minute charge result in a 2 minute decrease. Not really a big deal if you ask me.
What you need to do is to compare same cars with different wheel sizes (19 vs 20, 18 vs 19?). Ideally do one test, switch wheels between cars and do second test. Then you could show that your tests are representative
Rear wheels are wider for drive traction since it’s RWD but the fronts can be narrower for aero/rolling resistance. 235 front 255 rear. I have the ID4 and it’s the same although I got another set of 18” wheels with 235 all seasons all round which seem great, especially in winter.
Have you seen all Skoda and VW EV's chewing through rear tires? That's because the torque is instintanious and you need the bigger tires, also helps with handling since regen is only on the rear wheels, i've driven about 60.000km with my car, both summer and winter tires are in great condition, basically only normal wear and tear on all tires, no need to rotate them, when it's time for a change I'll change all 4 anyways.
Nice test thanks, 300km with only you in it, add a wife and 2 kids + luggage, those 300km will melt like an iceberg in the desert in the middle of August ! Not good enough yet.
8 หลายเดือนก่อน +4
Load makes no significant difference at constant speeds. Maybe in the city. Air conditioning makes no big difference either. It is the heating in the winter that melts the range.
These cars have a lot of torque. On my Tesla MY LR dual motor, I barely notice the difference between just me or the car loaded, AC ON auto or off also barely makes any difference. What I notice is the consumption between 110 and 130 km/h which is much higher!
It’s a 2000kg car. Adding 200kg more is not a big difference at constant speed. 130km/h highway speed is dominated by air resistance (drag), not car weight.
@Chris_1024_ I don't care about the efficiency of the motor. My car engine probably is working at 30-40% efficiency but I can travel 1200 km+ on 1 charge and I can recharge for 5 min. You see the problem?
Not a very scientific test. You say he had way more battery degradation, how much more? the wheel size was different, The battery temp was warm, how warm. You need to up your testing game.
@@andrazlogar861 No it would be easy. BatteryLife could use an OBD2 and CarScanner like Speicher Eleksiert (Enyaq) and Bjørn Nyland do. This gives more detailed info of consumption, temperature etc.. BatteryLife says he has an OBD2 but we never see him use it.
@@Foersom_obd2 is not necessarily completely reliable. As said above, the measure of energy back in afterwards (on identical chargers) takes out this unknown.
STOP. STOP. STOP. Why not discuss battery degradation? This is a major factor - it is reported that some cars (BMW i3) is losing 50% of its capacity in 3 years. 80% in an older car is not 80% in newer cars with the same battery!
Maybe there is nothing to discuss? We aren't afraid of degradation if we take care of our cars by charging them to maximum 80% and preferably even lower, I charge up to 60 % and have no problems using the car normally.
Regardless of the version the enyaq remains the best family EV for daily use. Very comfy, great turning circle, easy to load, easy to use plus great safety features. And not overly powerful. We love the Enyaq.
I wish the Enyaq 85 was the original Enyaq. The new SW 4 + HW is so much better, including manual pre-heating and new engine makes it finally a very usable car.
Yeah, I wish my Enyaq 80 had battery preheating (and better SW), but luckily we don't do much long distance driving in the winter (we live in Finland ;), so it's not really an issue. We have home charging too, so we don't use much DC fast charging either. It's been a very usable car for us for two years already 😊
I have driven over 3000 km with 80x SW 3.7 no issues what so ever. Haven't used DC charging though but i know it's far from top if temperature is freezing.
@@mr.wizeguy8995 "80x SW 3.7" Thank for the info. My 80X has still Sw 3.2. I get OTA updates but they do not appear to change anything visible and version stays the same.
@@mikashki I have a 80X 2023 with Sw ME 3.2 so I neither have battery preheat in the software.
I can charge fast in winter (~150 kW), by monitor battery temp by OBD2 and CarScanner app. I yoyo drive until battery is 25 C then it charge at 150 kW. At 30 C it can charge at 174 kW.
@@Foersom_ yes, I'm aware of the yoyoing trick, but never needed to try it, so far. Like said we don't do much long distance driving in the winter, and when we do, and need to recharge along the way, we'll usually also stop for food or shopping, in which case slow charging is just as good. 😉 AC charging at home 99+% of the time. If we didn't have home charging, and would have to rely on public charging, I might be more annoyed... 😉
I think 5% improvement is awesome actually. It's difficult to squeeze more, given the car shape and size. Good work!
When your base for efficiency is as low as it was previously, every update / fix might bring a lot of real improvements.
Previous version was incredibly bad when it comes to efficiency, this one is slightly better. Škoda EV was usually 20% less efficient compared to other vehicles in the same class, now it probably 20% worse (-5% out of that).
IMHO, what matters much more is better heat management and software support that should be longer than previous 1-2 years of updates.
@@japkoslav I don't think it's bad as you're saying. Battery Life tested ID.7 with TM3 and ID.7 being bigger car, was slightly better. So I think VW achieved quite good efficiency now. Remember that the main reason big SUVs have worse consumption is their size and poor areodynamics. If you're saying Enyaq was 20% worse than other car, then probably that other car has much more bullet-like shape. But then, on the other hand, you loose in other aspects, like flexibility (because your bullet-shaped car is now more difficult to park in urban area).
I still think 5% is really good improvement.
@@Lascarnn Aerodynamics of Enyaq are not to blame here, it does have quite impressive cd.
Battery management and abysmal weight on the other hand were probably the main reasons Enyaq is so inefficient.
@@japkoslavremember that it is CdA, not Cd which affects consumption. While the Enyaq has good Cd, it also has a lot more frontal area (A) than a Model 3 or ID.7.
+4.7% with bigger wheels, probably closer to 6% with the same wheels.
Sorry, but wasn't the 40% better claim (if that's what they claimed) referring to the motor ALONE, i.e. the efficiency of just the motor(/inverter), NOT the whole vehicle?
Yes.
Enyaq 80: 150 kW, 310 Nm, range 533 km
Enyaq 85: 210 kW, 545 Nm, range 547 km
The new model has 40% more motor power, 76% more torque, 3% more WLTP range.
I think what VW wanted to transmit with that claim is that a 40% more powerful motor has the same or even a bit better consumption.
Impressive results, considering the new engine has 40% more power! Thank you for the test.
Especially the torque 545 Nm is impressive. 76% more torque than previous (310 Nm).
Just the 85 RWD has more torque than the dual motor Tesla Y LR.
The 85 RS model will have more torque than Tesla Y Performance.
+5%, exactly what WLTP suggests and what we expected to see 😅 how about the drag race?
Would also like to see that
How much difference do you think the different size wheels made? Great video especialy if you were changing the car to get more range.
I wish more people did these videos in the UK. I do enjoy them though, wherever they’re from. 😊 I’ve been told mine is being built on 18 April. Not so long now.
UK channels are so annoying, it is always in miles... feet...
I would like to see you two doing the city/mixed drive with these standards. I bet the difference would be even bigger. Thanks. This was interesting and revealing.
Great video! Thanks :)
The 40% is true!!! You get 40% more power for the same consumption! That is very hard to accomplish. Either way, these cars really need around 300 hp and torque as they are heavier than an ICE car. I have almost 500 hp on my Tesla and I can’t say that it’s too much (and I use it as a fast family car).
The new MEB AP550 motor is great, it has 545 Nm torque. The Enyaq 85 RWD has more torque than a Tesla Y LR with 2 motors.
A Finnish youtuber, Harri Salo, did same kind of comparison with two ID.4:s. It was winter , snowy roads and they drove slower of course. 2024 car consumption was close 21 and the old one had 23.
The 80 is still a good car. I just regret the lack of updates by Skoda. I only had 1 or 2 minor updates and there are a lot of small things which could be enhanced on the SW 3.0.
And I am quite happy with the charging curve of the 80. 135 kW is not the best but the power remains consistant all along the process, even over 60-70%.
That is what I can confirm with my Q4 etron. The charging curve 10-80 is very stable. Frequently charged at around 8 degree Celsius with a warm battery. The charging speed went up to 133 almost instantly. It stayed above 120 for over 75% and then dropped to around 100. very happy with that
+5% with bigger tyres and motorways speeds is OK. Especially when counting the miles to the next charger. Curious if dropping to 19C and turning on the heat seating makes any difference...
I think, 85 is more efficient, especially when you consider bigger, 20-inch wheels.
Danke ... this means i can buy the "old" buzz and save something like 15000 euro..😊😊
Yes! I'm waiting for a electric camper van with a toilet.
Feels like that's so low, was expecting more. Feels good having bought an Id4 with the old engine that the consumption and charging is comparable. The only thing I would like is battery preheating since the old car has the hardware needed for it, just doesnt have the software.
Pre-heating increases chargingtimes by 22% min optimal conditions which is extremely rare. I would expect a 10 to 15% difference in reality which in a 20 minute charge result in a 2 minute decrease. Not really a big deal if you ask me.
What you need to do is to compare same cars with different wheel sizes (19 vs 20, 18 vs 19?). Ideally do one test, switch wheels between cars and do second test. Then you could show that your tests are representative
The larger wheels add another 5% or so, so probably closer to 10%.
Look at the design of the wheels on the 80 version. Far from aerodynamic.
Why is say Charging when you drive
Prices for used EV's have crashed - expect to get 50% discount when an EV is 3 years old.
why would that car use a staggered set up? expensive and dumb....
Rear wheels are wider for drive traction since it’s RWD but the fronts can be narrower for aero/rolling resistance. 235 front 255 rear. I have the ID4 and it’s the same although I got another set of 18” wheels with 235 all seasons all round which seem great, especially in winter.
@@SuperlightR400it’s still a dumb set up. Model y RWD has front and rear 255/45R19.
@@l1devil 255 mm front is more rolling resistance, but it allows you to swap front and rear for more even wear.
Have you seen all Skoda and VW EV's chewing through rear tires? That's because the torque is instintanious and you need the bigger tires, also helps with handling since regen is only on the rear wheels, i've driven about 60.000km with my car, both summer and winter tires are in great condition, basically only normal wear and tear on all tires, no need to rotate them, when it's time for a change I'll change all 4 anyways.
EV’s should consume max 10kw/100km. A normal household only consumes about 15kw//24hrs. This is criminal
Nice test thanks, 300km with only you in it, add a wife and 2 kids + luggage, those 300km will melt like an iceberg in the desert in the middle of August ! Not good enough yet.
Load makes no significant difference at constant speeds. Maybe in the city. Air conditioning makes no big difference either. It is the heating in the winter that melts the range.
These cars have a lot of torque. On my Tesla MY LR dual motor, I barely notice the difference between just me or the car loaded, AC ON auto or off also barely makes any difference. What I notice is the consumption between 110 and 130 km/h which is much higher!
It’s a 2000kg car. Adding 200kg more is not a big difference at constant speed. 130km/h highway speed is dominated by air resistance (drag), not car weight.
5-10% less range when fully loaded is the opposite of "melt like an iceberg".
Highway range is well above 300km even if its fully loaded
Literally the motor doesn't matter. The power source ( battery ) is trash
All electric motors are basically the same
Electric motors are easy
@Chris_1024_ I don't care about the efficiency of the motor. My car engine probably is working at 30-40% efficiency but I can travel 1200 km+ on 1 charge and I can recharge for 5 min. You see the problem?
Not a very scientific test. You say he had way more battery degradation, how much more? the wheel size was different, The battery temp was warm, how warm. You need to up your testing game.
Correct, not very scientific but realistic. Check WLPT if u need "scientific" numbers.
Achieving higher scientific relevance would require significantly more investment of everything. 80/20 applies here as well.
Degradation doest matter, because you know what went into the battery afterwards...
@@andrazlogar861 No it would be easy. BatteryLife could use an OBD2 and CarScanner like Speicher Eleksiert (Enyaq) and Bjørn Nyland do. This gives more detailed info of consumption, temperature etc.. BatteryLife says he has an OBD2 but we never see him use it.
@@Foersom_obd2 is not necessarily completely reliable. As said above, the measure of energy back in afterwards (on identical chargers) takes out this unknown.
STOP. STOP. STOP. Why not discuss battery degradation? This is a major factor - it is reported that some cars (BMW i3) is losing 50% of its capacity in 3 years. 80% in an older car is not 80% in newer cars with the same battery!
Wut? Bmw i3 has some of the lowest degradation. I have 140.000km on mine and 9% degradation 2018
That's why you charge afterwards, so you can see what gets into the battery AFTER the test.
Maybe there is nothing to discuss? We aren't afraid of degradation if we take care of our cars by charging them to maximum 80% and preferably even lower, I charge up to 60 % and have no problems using the car normally.
50% degradation in 3 years is higly unlikely. Try 5% in 3 years.
Funny that you choose the i3 out of all cars...an early gen EV that is not even in production anymore...also I have doubts about your numbers :)
I left the video after his fake laugh at 0:11 sec
What are you still doing here then?