On the time vs speed and efficiency, if you live somewhere with many very high powered chargers (350kW/800v), the car charges so fast you're best to drive as fast as you can between chargers (keeping it somewhat legal), topping up to maybe 60% then driving it down to ~10% and charging again. This is way faster than driving slowly and stretching it out between charging.
The big difference makes sense, as at highway speeds the consumption is mostly the result of drag, which increases as a function of speed. It applies to any car, so if you still drive ICE and worry about the costs of gas: just drive at 55 instead of 75 mph and save 41%
This meshes with what I've seen in my EV6. Took a trip with 75mph being the vast majority of the freeway speed and landed right around 225 miles before needing to charge. Whereas a different trip averaged around 65mph. On that one I made it 235 and still had 18% battery left IIRC. Thanks for the great video.
@@WillWillTellStories If the temperature is around freezing, you can expect a 10% to 15% penalty on the range because of the energy needed for heating the cabin. Extreme high temperatures will also see a similar reduction of the range.
I purchased a 2023 Ioniq 6 SE RWD in late July and now have over 7000 miles on it. As of this writing, my average efficiency is 4.7 mi/kWh. Obviously most of those miles are highway miles and are largely between 65 and 70 MPH. My worst efficiency for a charge was a mere 4.3 mi/kWh with the best at a mind-blowing 5.6 mi/kWh. Just last week, running at a steady 63-65 mph between St Roch des Aulnaies QC and Plattsburgh NY, I managed 5.2 mi/kWh and that was with the heat and AC running. The temperature was in the low 50’s and even with the heat running the difference in efficiency was indiscernible.
With the EV6 being such a fast charger, if the chargers are not far from the road, it would be quicker to drive faster and charge more often than to drive slower assuming you are going on a long trip.
This is true IF conditions are right on the trip. That means there are chargers where you need them. The chargers need to be fast chargers. The chargers need to actually work. They need to be open and available when you get there and not sitting in a queue. LOL If those conditions are met then absolutely if time is of the essence then drive faster and recharge. However if you drive for efficiency this approach isn't the way to do it.
@@Longsnowsm if you want to drive for efficiency, then never drive above 40 MPH. But then that’s not very efficient. It all depends on what you consider efficient. Is getting there quicker and using a few more kWh less efficient?
@@ericroe The answer is always it depends. If you are focused on climate change and impacts of our energy use then driving more efficiently is important and using as little energy as possible is key. Finding the best compromise between energy consumed and the time available is a dance. I found that once I started generating my own electricity and try to live within that energy budget I am hyper focused on how much power I have to generate and every watt matters. So I drive in ways to minimize my power consumption. I also had to make significant changes to my home, and how I use electricity there. Any electricity I don't use are watts I don't have to generate and can be stored and used more wisely somewhere else. This applies to all areas of life. Such as where my food comes from, local, in season to the maximum extent possible. Every vehicle is different when it comes to getting the best efficiency. So that means doing your homework to find the sweet spots and then drive accordingly. If I am pushed for time I know how far I can push my speeds before I hurt my economy in a way that it is not worth it in energy consumed. It means I better plan better to account for the time I am going to need. My poor planning does not make up for what I think of as reckless spending of the energy I had to produce. The cost to produce the electricity is significant so I can't afford to waste it. I think if everyone had an energy budget like I do instead of just drawing off of the grid and not really understanding just how much electricity that is and just how hard it would be to generate it yourself then suddenly everyone would pay attention to when the lights are left on, or how many miles per kwh they are getting on those trips.
@@Longsnowsm not all people who drive EV’s due it to fight climate change. Riding a bicycle is much better for the environment. EV’s use a lot of carbon to build. I drive an EV because they are better vehicles and cheaper to drive. I don’t store my energy but I do produce more electricity than I use with my Solar Panels.
The usable (Netto) battery capacity is 77.4 KW. That is what the capacity should be when the car is new…. When the battery ages and milage increases the capacity gets less. The gross battery capacity is 82.5 KW. You are right about the mixed information about the netto/gross capacity when you Google arround. Thanks a lot for your nice test!!!
@@be236 I'm starting to doubt my assumption.... I'm sorry for my statement. I can't find hard evidence for the 77.4 netto capacity. Searched about all official KIA websites but they don't seem to tell weather the number is netto or gross. It looks likes they want to keep these numbers secret. Other websites are doing some guesses. Some real life tests made by Bjorn Nyland indicate the netto capacity could be closer to 72...
thank you for including the range in km for us europeans :) . I'm norwegian, and in my area the speed limit is at most 50mph. So looking good for range here. although we got colder weather.
Now you should compare Eco and Normal at these speeds. Comparing them at city speeds isn't really much difference. Curious how Eco affects it at highway speeds.
Great video and very informative, I drive 70 miles to work one way. My speed flexes 70-75 I see consistency of 3.4 and 3-7 on my way back, most of my driving on cruise control. I also have awd GT-line.
Very clear video. Thank you for carefully recording and posting your results. The EV6 efficiency makes me jealous. I am going to do the same measurements in my 2017 Bolt. I am pretty sure that at 70 MPH I get 3.5 mi/kwH. I will have to be brave to drive 55 on the freeway here.
When the EPA fuel economy is 32 KWH per 100 miles and the possible range is 274 miles, then 32x2.74 = 87,68 KWH, which they have loaded for the full range. For me this is a hint, that there is a usable battery capacity of 77.4 KWH quite realistic.
Your result very well matches my test some years ago. That was done with a -13 Leaf at speeds from about 50 to 80 km/h (50, 60, 70 and 80. Possible I did 40 and 90 as well, don't remember). Each 10 km/h increase showed around 12-13% increase in consumption. Lowest consumption should be at around 40 km/h i believe.
Hi I've just discovered your video about the relationship between EV miles/kWh (mpk) and speed of vehicle. I spent 10 years designing, developing, and testing EVs and whilst I agree somewhat with your findings I would like to draw your attention to a few other parameters affecting this relationship:- a. The State of Charge of the battery pack (SOC)- the mpk of the car at whatever speed/road conditions/level of regen. does not drop linearly as the SOC drops....the higher the SOC the greater the mpk and when the SOC (actually the Voltage of the battery pack) drops then to generate the same power to the wheels the current draw goes up and so does the kWh consumption per mile driven b. The battery temperature - this has a great effect on the power drain on the battery...the higher the battery temperature the lower the internal resistance of the pack and thus the lower the drain on the battery at whatever speed/road conditions/level of regen. c. Regen. levels and coasting - you're right about coasting being the best for highway driving consumption but what I have discovered is that regen. in the summer here in Scotland at say 20deg.C. is still only about 60% efficient, and at winter temperatures of say 0deg.C. it drops to around 40% efficient. I had an issue with my rear left ABS sensor which caused my regen. to be disengaged by the car and that resulted in a severe drop in my mpk average from around 4.4 down to 2.8 in the summer temperatures so regen. is definitely a very important feature of a BEV I hope that helps your readers understand these issues. Doug Robertson email douglasrobertson201@yahoo.co.uk
This is the kind of info that should be handed out to any customer buying a new EV to understand how speed affects their range. This is exactly why people are shocked when they drive fast that their range is so short. However the argument used is that the range lost is made up by how fast the car charges. I think the truth is in the math. There is a break even speed to net the most range using the least amount of time. Like you pointed out this mostly affects longer trips. People just think they are saving a lot of time by driving fast for local trips when the truth is that is is just a few minutes at best. Longer trips the time can add up. Plan your route, think through the charging stops and the range you need to get to maximize your efficiency and time for the trip and then adjust your speed accordingly. Keep in mind that you will want to look to see what kind of charging options you will have. I live in an EV desert and it is not uncommon that if you can find a DCFC it very well may be only a 50kw charging option(that is if it is even operational). This will certainly add into your time taken for the trip. Much like getting stuck at traffic lights in the city. You can erase any savings in time pretty fast. Infrastructure is the biggest problem for road trips. Not enough chargers, not reliable chargers, not enough faster chargers. Competition in this space might change some of this. Once you get into a urban and city context speed isn't much of a help. I drive slow, try to conserve momentum, time lights etc and the drag racers between traffic lights are usually the same people sitting next to me at the next light if I find that I had to actually stop.
I can confirm the kWh for the 55 mph speed. I have an AWD EV 6 Wind. I drive 20 min to and from work in the South Bay @ 50-55 mph. I've been able to get 4.3 - 4.7 kWh/mi. When I top off my battery, as is suggested you do once a month, my estimated range is 315-318. I also drove the same speed with my I.C.E. vehicle and was able to achieve 35 mpg when it was rated for 30.
Very helpful. Im planning a trip from Chicago to Florida and back in my EV6. Ive been trying to decide whether its better to drive faster and stop more frequently or not. But there is a stretch where the infrastructure isnt as good so conservative speeds in that area for sure to maximize range. I appreciate your succinct analysis.
I calculated your usable battery to be 74.73. This was based on 15% battery usage if you started at 100% to go 32.6 miles. I used the 2.6 mi/kwh to get 11.21 kwh used. I could be wrong, but you should be able to verify. If you do a strict test you should be able to find your actual usable amount.
I love your video, thank you for posting this and being so scientific with your approach. However... There really shouldn't be this linear decrease as your speed increases. Drag increases exponentially with speed and other EVs when they've been tested had very steep drop-offs. Is it possible your range loop just wasn't long enough? Or there's a lot of conditioning of the battery when you start driving to bring it to optimal temperature, which negates a lot of the range advantage of the lower speed. Strictly scientifically speaking, there should be an exponential drop off in range as your speed increases. I would love to see a longer test and again I really appreciate this video, not to throw any shade 😊😊 really good information like this is what will get people converting to EVs.
Thanks for a quick and to the point video. 95% of my driving is at 90k/hr with cruise set. Its nice to see that in decent weather, I should clear 500km. However, Id like to see that for winter.
Wow. Mahesh, this is very comprehensive. thank you for such clear information. Now I can see how viable is the EV6 in the city and country where I live. I may say that the EV6 has higher feasibility of achieving a convincing performance in the environment where I live. I am very appreciative of your help. Alright, I just saw your question. I think I would maintain the speed corresponding to an efficiency of >4 mi/kWh or an average of 55mph. My country is hot, so I think those numbers should be taken with a grain of salt because of the use of A/C and extra use of the batteries' cooling system. Still, I would concentrate my efforts on those numbers I mentioned above. I would also constantly maintain the tires' pressure a little above the pressure recommended by the manufacturer. ;)
Need to add remark about battery discharge rate impact on total possible energy output. Slower discharge means more kWh. Also many manufacturers keep some battery capacity hidden to later compensate capacity degradation, calming down owners with good battery health after years of ownership.
Again, very informative. I would like to see data along these lines which includes stopping to recharge on long trips. Might it happen to be that when charging is included, 55mph might actually get us there faster?
We own two Toyota Rav 4 Primes. I drive 80 mph and at times the max of 84 mph before gasoline kicks on. Of the outside temps are in the sweet spot 60 degrees and no wind on level surface I can achieve 2.6 -2.9 miles per kwh. There are some factors that impact efficiency. Temperature is a big one. Winter months are n Utah range from 40 degrees down to teens. The heat pump which warms the cabin reduces range in the Winter by about 15% Wind is another killer. Regardless of temperatures if the wind kicks up energy efficiency drops dramatically.
Do be aware these are no wind conditions. Driving with a headwind component means the energy needed is the speed of the vehicle plus headwind value. A directly ahead wind is 100% added. 60 plus 15 miles and car needs energy for 75 mph. At 45 degrees offset, it should be half. Of course road direction and topography make these calculations difficult. But, in case drivers get different data than presented or expected, the wind/topography factors are the cause. One other thing, people speed then stop for extended breaks. The journey time seems to average close to 60 mph speeds. Conclusion, speeding wastes fuels between stops and does not save time to destination.
Great video, thank you, I was trying to find this information to assist in managing remaining range. I do a similar thing in my ICE powered car with a too small fuel tank. In fact I think that my too small fuel tank has prepared me perfectly for EV life :) If you can get your hands on an Ioniq 5 it would be great to see this test repeated with that vehicle, it's a bit more of a flying brick than the EV6 is.
Well done, excellent and useful information. Not possible to drive in my area on I5 corridor near Seattle at anywhere near 60 or below the semis travel faster than that.
I generally drive my Soul EV behind a long truck at 57-60 mph on assisted cruise and the car does a pretty great work of getting close to 300 miles range. Temperature does a bigger difference than speed below 10 C
Are you able to do efficiency test in colder temperatures. I seem to be getting 2.6mi/kWh in my Ioniq 5 going 65mph. I live in Philly. I can seem to get any good efficiency numbers on the highway.
Here in Catalunya (North eastern Spain) the posted speed limit on the "autopistas" (sort of freeways) is 120 kph (about 75 mph). No one drives that, including me. More normal is 130-140 kph. That works out to be about 81-87 mph. Heck, there a tons of drivers that regularly do 150 kph (93 mph). I've been mulling over the Ionic 5 RWD, but holy shit I'm not sure if I can bring myself to "slow down" to 120! 🤷♂
Don't they give fines there😅? With speed control and cruise control you get used to the car "commanding" and you can go without problems at 120 km/h, even less.
Charging time is very fast - check out my 10%-100% test: th-cam.com/video/lNp4KupEcoY/w-d-xo.html Spare tire issue is an issue, but here is a helpful fix: th-cam.com/video/GiFHgqMhFeg/w-d-xo.html I'd certainly recommend this car...
It's very surprising you got linear results. The science says you should have an exponential curve based on the aero. I wonder if the hills on your route were the dominant factor.
Technically, it would be quadratic (the square), not exponential. At small enough ranges, quadratic is similar to linear. 65 mph leads to about 40% more drag losses compared to 55 mph, while 75 is about 86% more drag losses. You're only about 6% off from the linear approximation assuming 100% of losses are aero. In practice, you're actually off less than that because there's a constant factor (rolling resistance), and even an inverse factor -- energy consumed by the climate / car electronics decreases if you arrive at your destination faster.
It is, but there are two other factors that people often miss, and the main one is the fact that you are covering more distance per unit time. So the energy consumption per unit time is increasing by the square, but more miles are being covered in that time which effectively removes one order. You are left with a roughly linear result. Force due to wind: Fd = C v^2 where C is a constant (C = (density of air) * (drag coef) * (cross sectional area), roughly. Time per unit distance: 1/v (e.g. distance divided by velocity = time spent expending the power overcoming air resistance, per unit distance). So energy efficiency is: E = Fd * (1/v), which removes the square from the (v^2). .Thus we have a (roughly) linear relationship between velocity and distance traveled per unit energy. I'm ignoring precise units here but it doesn't matter, we are looking at the order of the equation. The second factor is that airflow becomes turbulent at higher speeds, which increases the drag coefficient as you go faster. So in fact the grand result is still non-linear, but it isn't exponential. It will basically look linear within the relatively narrow range of speeds (55 to 75) being tested. -Matt
Very informative video. Just wanted to check if driving in "eco mode" on the highway contributes to a significant increase in range/efficiency compared to "normal mode". Can you clarify in another video. Thanks!
Constant speed, doesn't matter which mode you use. Also several tests has shown that eco doesn't give lower consumption even i city driving.. Only difference will be if eco-mode uses heater/AC different.
In this case with the EV6 AWD it matters, because in normal mode without using cruise control, the front motor will be actived above 70 miles/h, which increases consumption. So if you drive in eco mode or with the cruise control on regardless of the drive mode you get the best range.
@@davidmartin3964 yes, you're correct.. Some cars with more than 1 motor can disconnect, or use the most efficient motor. Also some cars claim to use heater more efficient with some eco-setting. In general though, eco only dulles down the throttle and in most cases increases consumption rather than lowers it.
Interesting that you have linear results. Being in the Southwest, most of my highway driving is above 75mph. I get my GTL RWD in a month or so...anxious to see how it compares to your AWD in range.
@@HydraliskX considering there aren't that many data points out there except for Outofspec's, it's better than nothing. Instead of criticizing, make your own video and show us how it's done.
Matches my results tested at 50, 60, 70 and 80 km/h. Each 10 km/h increase showed about 12-13% increase in consumption. Don't see why it shouldn't be linear. Main drag is windresistance, and that steadily increases.
Thanks for doing the test, and it is useful informative. But I'd point out that what you did was not a scientific experiment (and you are not claiming it to be). Air resistance should be an exponential function. You happened to find a relatively linear range between 55 and 75.
I was going to say this as well, I would love to see your data from the same barometric pressure/weather for going 85mph vs 55mph, I bet the curve does not fit linear at that point. Kudos on the sleek aerodynamics of your car (Bolt owner) as mine would not render linear results at the speeds you chose! Thanks for the great videos!
Whilst I love your analysing of the efficiency of your EV6, which is so useful in so many ways. I drove my Tesla some 316 miles from Brighton to Coventry in the uk in Chill mode whilst having the A/C and ventilation off. It achieved 370 miles on a 100% charge taking into account what I had left on return (16%). I was stuck in a traffic jam on the M25 for 1 hr averaging about 8 mph but for the rest of the journey I tried to keep to 55mph -60 mph. I think I exceeded this twice when overtaking. The reason I am stating this is the fact that I really think the EV6 is capable of this figure if driven in the right mode, as are all EV’s of this calibre. I feel the EV6 is better all round than the Tesla model 3 or model Y which is why I am selling my model 3 and buying an EV6 GT. Its all about how you drive it and any other accessories you use at the same time. Anyway, great videos thank you!
Not quite. The starts and stops in city driving take away some efficiency because regeneration when slowing down doesn't get back all the energy you spend speeding up. So if you are driving on, say, a frontage road at 50kph without having to stop very often then, yah, you should get really excellent efficiency. But if you have to start and stop a lot you lose a lot of that potential. It will still be very good, though. -Matt
Have you done a test to see how the displayed m/kWh compares to miles travelled divided by energy put into the car at various speeds? You seem to be assuming that the displayed consumption is correct at all speeds. Ideallly these tests should be done from 100% charge and returned to 100% charge to see how much energy was really used.
Charging back to full doesn't show "how much was really used" -- it shows how much was really used plus how much is lost to charging inefficiencies. So it depends on what you're trying to measure.
@@johntlarkin Agreed. I'd like to understand how accurate the displayed m/kWh is. Obviously the car doesn't know how many kWh the charger uses so the only figure available to use for this test is percentage charge as displayed on the dash, i.e. ignoring inefficiencies. Unless there is access to better info from the OBD port as to how many kWh the car accepted.
The 20% increased efficiency at 65mph and 41% at 55mph (when compared to 75mph) tally beautifully with the Inverse Square Law. If you were going at 3 times the speed, you'd need 9 times the power. 4 times the speed would be 16 times. At least that's what the Inverse Square Law says because it takes that much more energy to push the air out of the way of the front cross-section of your vehicle. Plugging numbers in: 75 squared is 5,625. We'll say that it takes 5,625 units of energy to move at 75mph. 65 squared is 4,225 units of energy. That's around 75% of the 75mph energy need (giving us 25% difference), but then include things like the power needed to rotate the tires (which is the same number of revolutions per mile at any speed so that's a constant) and that explains the 20% savings. That 5% difference is the non-variable stuff. 55 squared is only 3,025 units of energy. That's only around 54% of the energy needed to push that air out of the way (giving around 46% difference), so include the non-variable energy use stuff as before it makes the 41% difference you saw. Science! It works.
It actually is roughly linear. The short answer: Force from wind resistance is by the square of the velocity (energy consumption per unit time), but you also cover more distance in less time (by 1/v) which removes one order. Result: linear. But in reality it isn't quite linear because the drag coefficient typically goes up a bit at higher speeds due to turbulence. So... 'roughly linear'. -Matt
What this tells me is that I'm not going to buy an EV in the foreseeable future. Not enough range, and the up-front costs are so much higher than my current "regular" hybrid (A Kia Niro LX) that it doesn't make sense for me to buy an EV when I'm ready to trade in my Niro. Of course lower speeds produce better mileage - equally true of ICE vehicles - but time is valuable, as well, and an EV turns my current 2-day drive to the Rocky Mountains from the Midwest from basically two daysf each way into four days each way, with associated costs for nights in motels, meals, etc. No, thanks. I'll keep the hybrid, or buy a new hybrid.
On the time vs speed and efficiency, if you live somewhere with many very high powered chargers (350kW/800v), the car charges so fast you're best to drive as fast as you can between chargers (keeping it somewhat legal), topping up to maybe 60% then driving it down to ~10% and charging again. This is way faster than driving slowly and stretching it out between charging.
The big difference makes sense, as at highway speeds the consumption is mostly the result of drag, which increases as a function of speed. It applies to any car, so if you still drive ICE and worry about the costs of gas: just drive at 55 instead of 75 mph and save 41%
One of the most informative EV videos I’ve seen in ages. Well done!
🙏
This meshes with what I've seen in my EV6. Took a trip with 75mph being the vast majority of the freeway speed and landed right around 225 miles before needing to charge. Whereas a different trip averaged around 65mph. On that one I made it 235 and still had 18% battery left IIRC. Thanks for the great video.
Thanks for sharing! Good to hear our results are similar...
So basically if the temperature is below freezing or very hot, the range is cut by half of this number?
@@WillWillTellStories If the temperature is around freezing, you can expect a 10% to 15% penalty on the range because of the energy needed for heating the cabin. Extreme high temperatures will also see a similar reduction of the range.
I purchased a 2023 Ioniq 6 SE RWD in late July and now have over 7000 miles on it. As of this writing, my average efficiency is 4.7 mi/kWh. Obviously most of those miles are highway miles and are largely between 65 and 70 MPH. My worst efficiency for a charge was a mere 4.3 mi/kWh with the best at a mind-blowing 5.6 mi/kWh. Just last week, running at a steady 63-65 mph between St Roch des Aulnaies QC and Plattsburgh NY, I managed 5.2 mi/kWh and that was with the heat and AC running. The temperature was in the low 50’s and even with the heat running the difference in efficiency was indiscernible.
With the EV6 being such a fast charger, if the chargers are not far from the road, it would be quicker to drive faster and charge more often than to drive slower assuming you are going on a long trip.
Good point. Plus it’s no fun to drive so slow.
This is true IF conditions are right on the trip. That means there are chargers where you need them. The chargers need to be fast chargers. The chargers need to actually work. They need to be open and available when you get there and not sitting in a queue. LOL If those conditions are met then absolutely if time is of the essence then drive faster and recharge. However if you drive for efficiency this approach isn't the way to do it.
@@Longsnowsm if you want to drive for efficiency, then never drive above 40 MPH. But then that’s not very efficient. It all depends on what you consider efficient. Is getting there quicker and using a few more kWh less efficient?
@@ericroe The answer is always it depends. If you are focused on climate change and impacts of our energy use then driving more efficiently is important and using as little energy as possible is key. Finding the best compromise between energy consumed and the time available is a dance.
I found that once I started generating my own electricity and try to live within that energy budget I am hyper focused on how much power I have to generate and every watt matters. So I drive in ways to minimize my power consumption. I also had to make significant changes to my home, and how I use electricity there. Any electricity I don't use are watts I don't have to generate and can be stored and used more wisely somewhere else. This applies to all areas of life. Such as where my food comes from, local, in season to the maximum extent possible.
Every vehicle is different when it comes to getting the best efficiency. So that means doing your homework to find the sweet spots and then drive accordingly. If I am pushed for time I know how far I can push my speeds before I hurt my economy in a way that it is not worth it in energy consumed.
It means I better plan better to account for the time I am going to need. My poor planning does not make up for what I think of as reckless spending of the energy I had to produce. The cost to produce the electricity is significant so I can't afford to waste it.
I think if everyone had an energy budget like I do instead of just drawing off of the grid and not really understanding just how much electricity that is and just how hard it would be to generate it yourself then suddenly everyone would pay attention to when the lights are left on, or how many miles per kwh they are getting on those trips.
@@Longsnowsm not all people who drive EV’s due it to fight climate change. Riding a bicycle is much better for the environment. EV’s use a lot of carbon to build.
I drive an EV because they are better vehicles and cheaper to drive.
I don’t store my energy but I do produce more electricity than I use with my Solar Panels.
Thank you for your great videos. I just picked up my ev6 wind Monday. I’ve learned so much from these videos. It’s greatly appreciated.
Great to hear! Congratulations on your new EV6!
The usable (Netto) battery capacity is 77.4 KW. That is what the capacity should be when the car is new…. When the battery ages and milage increases the capacity gets less. The gross battery capacity is 82.5 KW. You are right about the mixed information about the netto/gross capacity when you Google arround. Thanks a lot for your nice test!!!
🙏
Where is that source of info? It's so hard to find the source on the 'net that definitive about net capacity...
@@be236 I'm starting to doubt my assumption.... I'm sorry for my statement. I can't find hard evidence for the 77.4 netto capacity. Searched about all official KIA websites but they don't seem to tell weather the number is netto or gross. It looks likes they want to keep these numbers secret. Other websites are doing some guesses. Some real life tests made by Bjorn Nyland indicate the netto capacity could be closer to 72...
thank you for including the range in km for us europeans :) . I'm norwegian, and in my area the speed limit is at most 50mph. So looking good for range here. although we got colder weather.
You’re welcome! I love my international viewers!
Another very informative video…you get right to the heart of the info real drivers want in a simple way.
🙏
have enjoyed your videos - pearl white GT line AWD on order, love learning about the car from your work before I even get mine :)
🙏
Your videos are awesome. Short, to the point, clear, and easy to understand. Thanks!
Thank you!
Now you should compare Eco and Normal at these speeds. Comparing them at city speeds isn't really much difference. Curious how Eco affects it at highway speeds.
Great video and very informative, I drive 70 miles to work one way. My speed flexes 70-75 I see consistency of 3.4 and 3-7 on my way back, most of my driving on cruise control.
I also have awd GT-line.
Very clear video. Thank you for carefully recording and posting your results. The EV6 efficiency makes me jealous. I am going to do the same measurements in my 2017 Bolt. I am pretty sure that at 70 MPH I get 3.5 mi/kwH. I will have to be brave to drive 55 on the freeway here.
Having semi trucks pass you is no fun
Thank you for including the speeds in km/h and efficiency in kWh/100km.
Smaller, lighter wheels have been shown improve kWh use as well.
Evan after a year, this is the most comprehensive EV6 efficiency test on the tube, in that 5 different speeds were evaluated.
When the EPA fuel economy is 32 KWH per 100 miles and the possible range is 274 miles, then 32x2.74 = 87,68 KWH, which they have loaded for the full range. For me this is a hint, that there is a usable battery capacity of 77.4 KWH quite realistic.
Your result very well matches my test some years ago. That was done with a -13 Leaf at speeds from about 50 to 80 km/h (50, 60, 70 and 80. Possible I did 40 and 90 as well, don't remember).
Each 10 km/h increase showed around 12-13% increase in consumption.
Lowest consumption should be at around 40 km/h i believe.
Good to hear my results match yours!
Hi I've just discovered your video about the relationship between EV miles/kWh (mpk) and speed of vehicle. I spent 10 years designing, developing, and testing EVs and whilst I agree somewhat with your findings I would like to draw your attention to a few other parameters affecting this relationship:-
a. The State of Charge of the battery pack (SOC)- the mpk of the car at whatever speed/road conditions/level of regen. does not drop linearly as the SOC drops....the higher the SOC the greater the mpk and when the SOC (actually the Voltage of the battery pack) drops then to generate the same power to the wheels the current draw goes up and so does the kWh consumption per mile driven
b. The battery temperature - this has a great effect on the power drain on the battery...the higher the battery temperature the lower the internal resistance of the pack and thus the lower the drain on the battery at whatever speed/road conditions/level of regen.
c. Regen. levels and coasting - you're right about coasting being the best for highway driving consumption but what I have discovered is that regen. in the summer here in Scotland at say 20deg.C. is still only about 60% efficient, and at winter temperatures of say 0deg.C. it drops to around 40% efficient. I had an issue with my rear left ABS sensor which caused my regen. to be disengaged by the car and that resulted in a severe drop in my mpk average from around 4.4 down to 2.8 in the summer temperatures so regen. is definitely a very important feature of a BEV
I hope that helps your readers understand these issues. Doug Robertson email douglasrobertson201@yahoo.co.uk
Great video. I like these kinds of videos with usable and clear information.
🙏
Excellent test! I wondered how speed would affect range. Great info!
This is the kind of info that should be handed out to any customer buying a new EV to understand how speed affects their range. This is exactly why people are shocked when they drive fast that their range is so short. However the argument used is that the range lost is made up by how fast the car charges. I think the truth is in the math. There is a break even speed to net the most range using the least amount of time. Like you pointed out this mostly affects longer trips. People just think they are saving a lot of time by driving fast for local trips when the truth is that is is just a few minutes at best. Longer trips the time can add up. Plan your route, think through the charging stops and the range you need to get to maximize your efficiency and time for the trip and then adjust your speed accordingly. Keep in mind that you will want to look to see what kind of charging options you will have. I live in an EV desert and it is not uncommon that if you can find a DCFC it very well may be only a 50kw charging option(that is if it is even operational). This will certainly add into your time taken for the trip. Much like getting stuck at traffic lights in the city. You can erase any savings in time pretty fast. Infrastructure is the biggest problem for road trips. Not enough chargers, not reliable chargers, not enough faster chargers. Competition in this space might change some of this.
Once you get into a urban and city context speed isn't much of a help. I drive slow, try to conserve momentum, time lights etc and the drag racers between traffic lights are usually the same people sitting next to me at the next light if I find that I had to actually stop.
I can confirm the kWh for the 55 mph speed. I have an AWD EV 6 Wind. I drive 20 min to and from work in the South Bay @ 50-55 mph. I've been able to get 4.3 - 4.7 kWh/mi. When I top off my battery, as is suggested you do once a month, my estimated range is 315-318. I also drove the same speed with my I.C.E. vehicle and was able to achieve 35 mpg when it was rated for 30.
Thanks for sharing!
Very helpful. Im planning a trip from Chicago to Florida and back in my EV6. Ive been trying to decide whether its better to drive faster and stop more frequently or not. But there is a stretch where the infrastructure isnt as good so conservative speeds in that area for sure to maximize range. I appreciate your succinct analysis.
I calculated your usable battery to be 74.73. This was based on 15% battery usage if you started at 100% to go 32.6 miles. I used the 2.6 mi/kwh to get 11.21 kwh used. I could be wrong, but you should be able to verify. If you do a strict test you should be able to find your actual usable amount.
Thanks for the time you put into these videos!
Superb video, thanks from the UK.
🙏
I love your video, thank you for posting this and being so scientific with your approach. However...
There really shouldn't be this linear decrease as your speed increases. Drag increases exponentially with speed and other EVs when they've been tested had very steep drop-offs. Is it possible your range loop just wasn't long enough? Or there's a lot of conditioning of the battery when you start driving to bring it to optimal temperature, which negates a lot of the range advantage of the lower speed.
Strictly scientifically speaking, there should be an exponential drop off in range as your speed increases. I would love to see a longer test and again I really appreciate this video, not to throw any shade 😊😊 really good information like this is what will get people converting to EVs.
Thanks for a quick and to the point video. 95% of my driving is at 90k/hr with cruise set. Its nice to see that in decent weather, I should clear 500km. However, Id like to see that for winter.
🙏
Another Great video! This is important information.
🙏
Wow. Mahesh, this is very comprehensive. thank you for such clear information. Now I can see how viable is the EV6 in the city and country where I live. I may say that the EV6 has higher feasibility of achieving a convincing performance in the environment where I live. I am very appreciative of your help.
Alright, I just saw your question. I think I would maintain the speed corresponding to an efficiency of >4 mi/kWh or an average of 55mph. My country is hot, so I think those numbers should be taken with a grain of salt because of the use of A/C and extra use of the batteries' cooling system. Still, I would concentrate my efforts on those numbers I mentioned above. I would also constantly maintain the tires' pressure a little above the pressure recommended by the manufacturer. ;)
🙏
Need to add remark about battery discharge rate impact on total possible energy output. Slower discharge means more kWh.
Also many manufacturers keep some battery capacity hidden to later compensate capacity degradation, calming down owners with good battery health after years of ownership.
Yes, we also need to know the meaning of life, thanks.
Nice... so it's linear efficiency for the speed... good info!
RWD has even more range and it's also more efficient.
I think it's the sweet spot for the EV6.
Again, very informative.
I would like to see data along these lines which includes stopping to recharge on long trips.
Might it happen to be that when charging is included, 55mph might actually get us there faster?
We own two Toyota Rav 4 Primes.
I drive 80 mph and at times the max of 84 mph before gasoline kicks on. Of the outside temps are in the sweet spot 60 degrees and no wind on level surface I can achieve 2.6 -2.9 miles per kwh.
There are some factors that impact efficiency.
Temperature is a big one. Winter months are n Utah range from 40 degrees down to teens.
The heat pump which warms the cabin reduces range in the Winter by about 15%
Wind is another killer.
Regardless of temperatures if the wind kicks up energy efficiency drops dramatically.
Very informative, many thanks
Do be aware these are no wind conditions. Driving with a headwind component means the energy needed is the speed of the vehicle plus headwind value. A directly ahead wind is 100% added. 60 plus 15 miles and car needs energy for 75 mph. At 45 degrees offset, it should be half. Of course road direction and topography make these calculations difficult. But, in case drivers get different data than presented or expected, the wind/topography factors are the cause. One other thing, people speed then stop for extended breaks. The journey time seems to average close to 60 mph speeds. Conclusion, speeding wastes fuels between stops and does not save time to destination.
Great video, thank you, I was trying to find this information to assist in managing remaining range. I do a similar thing in my ICE powered car with a too small fuel tank. In fact I think that my too small fuel tank has prepared me perfectly for EV life :)
If you can get your hands on an Ioniq 5 it would be great to see this test repeated with that vehicle, it's a bit more of a flying brick than the EV6 is.
Super useful!
thanks for adding the 80mph, thats how fast i drive ive noticed lol
🤣
Well done, excellent and useful information. Not possible to drive in my area on I5 corridor near Seattle at anywhere near 60 or below the semis travel faster than that.
Thank you. Here in the Bay Area, I have to test it early on a Sunday morning to risk driving at only 55!
I generally drive my Soul EV behind a long truck at 57-60 mph on assisted cruise and the car does a pretty great work of getting close to 300 miles range.
Temperature does a bigger difference than speed below 10 C
Are you able to do efficiency test in colder temperatures. I seem to be getting 2.6mi/kWh in my Ioniq 5 going 65mph. I live in Philly. I can seem to get any good efficiency numbers on the highway.
Here in Catalunya (North eastern Spain) the posted speed limit on the "autopistas" (sort of freeways) is 120 kph (about 75 mph). No one drives that, including me. More normal is 130-140 kph. That works out to be about 81-87 mph. Heck, there a tons of drivers that regularly do 150 kph (93 mph). I've been mulling over the Ionic 5 RWD, but holy shit I'm not sure if I can bring myself to "slow down" to 120! 🤷♂
Don't they give fines there😅?
With speed control and cruise control you get used to the car "commanding" and you can go without problems at 120 km/h, even less.
How is your charging time? The range, the charging time and maybe the lack of spare tire are keeping me on the side line. I like this car.
Charging time is very fast - check out my 10%-100% test: th-cam.com/video/lNp4KupEcoY/w-d-xo.html
Spare tire issue is an issue, but here is a helpful fix: th-cam.com/video/GiFHgqMhFeg/w-d-xo.html
I'd certainly recommend this car...
Very informative, thanks for your bard work.
🙏
Thank you 👍 so much might get awd instead of RWD ioniq 5
It's very surprising you got linear results. The science says you should have an exponential curve based on the aero. I wonder if the hills on your route were the dominant factor.
Technically, it would be quadratic (the square), not exponential.
At small enough ranges, quadratic is similar to linear. 65 mph leads to about 40% more drag losses compared to 55 mph, while 75 is about 86% more drag losses. You're only about 6% off from the linear approximation assuming 100% of losses are aero. In practice, you're actually off less than that because there's a constant factor (rolling resistance), and even an inverse factor -- energy consumed by the climate / car electronics decreases if you arrive at your destination faster.
It is, but there are two other factors that people often miss, and the main one is the fact that you are covering more distance per unit time. So the energy consumption per unit time is increasing by the square, but more miles are being covered in that time which effectively removes one order. You are left with a roughly linear result.
Force due to wind: Fd = C v^2 where C is a constant (C = (density of air) * (drag coef) * (cross sectional area), roughly.
Time per unit distance: 1/v (e.g. distance divided by velocity = time spent expending the power overcoming air resistance, per unit distance).
So energy efficiency is: E = Fd * (1/v), which removes the square from the (v^2). .Thus we have a (roughly) linear relationship between velocity and distance traveled per unit energy. I'm ignoring precise units here but it doesn't matter, we are looking at the order of the equation.
The second factor is that airflow becomes turbulent at higher speeds, which increases the drag coefficient as you go faster. So in fact the grand result is still non-linear, but it isn't exponential. It will basically look linear within the relatively narrow range of speeds (55 to 75) being tested.
-Matt
65mph perhaps would be best for my long distant drive. Slower than what I am used to unfortunately but 70mph is not saving enough for me
At 55 i would get run over. Everybody is in a big hurry. Good job and a lot of research.
😀👍🙏
Ty for sharing
Very informative video. Just wanted to check if driving in "eco mode" on the highway contributes to a significant increase in range/efficiency compared to "normal mode". Can you clarify in another video. Thanks!
Yes, ECO Mode will provide greater efficiency; see manual webmanual.kia.com/STD_GEN5W/AVNT/USA/English/010_Settings_car2.html#dd1e17303
Constant speed, doesn't matter which mode you use.
Also several tests has shown that eco doesn't give lower consumption even i city driving..
Only difference will be if eco-mode uses heater/AC different.
In this case with the EV6 AWD it matters, because in normal mode without using cruise control, the front motor will be actived above 70 miles/h, which increases consumption. So if you drive in eco mode or with the cruise control on regardless of the drive mode you get the best range.
@@davidmartin3964 yes, you're correct.. Some cars with more than 1 motor can disconnect, or use the most efficient motor.
Also some cars claim to use heater more efficient with some eco-setting.
In general though, eco only dulles down the throttle and in most cases increases consumption rather than lowers it.
@@davidmartin3964 Does the EV6 have a screen that shows the front engaging above 70 mph?? Tx, Steve
Really interested if linear holds for higher speeds, like up to the maximum speed…
(Ioniq 5 driver from Germany here)
Are you driving in normal mode? Do you have the air conditioning running? Thanks!
Yes, normal mode with AC
Interesting that you have linear results. Being in the Southwest, most of my highway driving is above 75mph. I get my GTL RWD in a month or so...anxious to see how it compares to your AWD in range.
He had a grand total of 3 data points and probably not enough precision. For example - it could have been 2.86 vs. 3.5 vs. 4.14 or something.
@@HydraliskX considering there aren't that many data points out there except for Outofspec's, it's better than nothing. Instead of criticizing, make your own video and show us how it's done.
Matches my results tested at 50, 60, 70 and 80 km/h.
Each 10 km/h increase showed about 12-13% increase in consumption.
Don't see why it shouldn't be linear. Main drag is windresistance, and that steadily increases.
Thanks!
Thank you for your support! Much appreciated!
65 seems to be speed limit in most states... 55 seems to slow these days
Thanks for doing the test, and it is useful informative. But I'd point out that what you did was not a scientific experiment (and you are not claiming it to be). Air resistance should be an exponential function. You happened to find a relatively linear range between 55 and 75.
🙏
I was going to say this as well, I would love to see your data from the same barometric pressure/weather for going 85mph vs 55mph, I bet the curve does not fit linear at that point. Kudos on the sleek aerodynamics of your car (Bolt owner) as mine would not render linear results at the speeds you chose!
Thanks for the great videos!
@@rexlybrand6688 🙏
Here in Germany we go with 85 to 100 mph/h
try this test in eco mode instead of normal.
Whilst I love your analysing of the efficiency of your EV6, which is so useful in so many ways. I drove my Tesla some 316 miles from Brighton to Coventry in the uk in Chill mode whilst having the A/C and ventilation off. It achieved 370 miles on a 100% charge taking into account what I had left on return (16%). I was stuck in a traffic jam on the M25 for 1 hr averaging about 8 mph but for the rest of the journey I tried to keep to 55mph -60 mph. I think I exceeded this twice when overtaking. The reason I am stating this is the fact that I really think the EV6 is capable of this figure if driven in the right mode, as are all EV’s of this calibre. I feel the EV6 is better all round than the Tesla model 3 or model Y which is why I am selling my model 3 and buying an EV6 GT. Its all about how you drive it and any other accessories you use at the same time. Anyway, great videos thank you!
👍🙏
Thanks
Thank you for your support! 👍🙏
I will drive mostly in the city, so the average speed would be 50km/h... So I would have 600km range?😂
Not quite. The starts and stops in city driving take away some efficiency because regeneration when slowing down doesn't get back all the energy you spend speeding up. So if you are driving on, say, a frontage road at 50kph without having to stop very often then, yah, you should get really excellent efficiency. But if you have to start and stop a lot you lose a lot of that potential. It will still be very good, though.
-Matt
I'm weighing nothin' !!! Go fast!!
Have you done a test to see how the displayed m/kWh compares to miles travelled divided by energy put into the car at various speeds? You seem to be assuming that the displayed consumption is correct at all speeds. Ideallly these tests should be done from 100% charge and returned to 100% charge to see how much energy was really used.
Charging back to full doesn't show "how much was really used" -- it shows how much was really used plus how much is lost to charging inefficiencies. So it depends on what you're trying to measure.
@@johntlarkin Agreed. I'd like to understand how accurate the displayed m/kWh is. Obviously the car doesn't know how many kWh the charger uses so the only figure available to use for this test is percentage charge as displayed on the dash, i.e. ignoring inefficiencies. Unless there is access to better info from the OBD port as to how many kWh the car accepted.
Thx for showing also the numnerd in km per h an kWh per 100km.
You’re welcome! I make sure to take care of my international viewers, too!
Good info however, perhaps you should repeat the tests multiple times to be more statistically accurate.
We need a Tesla video like this
so it is oh noble one
The 20% increased efficiency at 65mph and 41% at 55mph (when compared to 75mph) tally beautifully with the Inverse Square Law.
If you were going at 3 times the speed, you'd need 9 times the power. 4 times the speed would be 16 times. At least that's what the Inverse Square Law says because it takes that much more energy to push the air out of the way of the front cross-section of your vehicle.
Plugging numbers in: 75 squared is 5,625. We'll say that it takes 5,625 units of energy to move at 75mph.
65 squared is 4,225 units of energy. That's around 75% of the 75mph energy need (giving us 25% difference), but then include things like the power needed to rotate the tires (which is the same number of revolutions per mile at any speed so that's a constant) and that explains the 20% savings. That 5% difference is the non-variable stuff.
55 squared is only 3,025 units of energy. That's only around 54% of the energy needed to push that air out of the way (giving around 46% difference), so include the non-variable energy use stuff as before it makes the 41% difference you saw.
Science! It works.
60
80 mph is not good and most road are or people driving is 75 to 85 now days
Running any test just 3 times cannot quantify a reliable average result... Good idea though nonetheless
Hum... not convinced it's linear.....
It actually is roughly linear. The short answer: Force from wind resistance is by the square of the velocity (energy consumption per unit time), but you also cover more distance in less time (by 1/v) which removes one order. Result: linear. But in reality it isn't quite linear because the drag coefficient typically goes up a bit at higher speeds due to turbulence. So... 'roughly linear'.
-Matt
xD 30miles ofc.. cuz that will give me 500mile of range? xD
What this tells me is that I'm not going to buy an EV in the foreseeable future. Not enough range, and the up-front costs are so much higher than my current "regular" hybrid (A Kia Niro LX) that it doesn't make sense for me to buy an EV when I'm ready to trade in my Niro. Of course lower speeds produce better mileage - equally true of ICE vehicles - but time is valuable, as well, and an EV turns my current 2-day drive to the Rocky Mountains from the Midwest from basically two daysf each way into four days each way, with associated costs for nights in motels, meals, etc. No, thanks. I'll keep the hybrid, or buy a new hybrid.
Your videos are way too much of you talking to a camera...