According to VW there’s 82 gross and 62 gross. I know the 82 gross has 77 useable and I’ve seen automotive publications say the 62 gross has 58 useable.

 

Depending on market there are different pack sizes.

 

I was aware of two (62 and 82) but I had never heard of a 77 kWh gross / 72 kWh net configuration before seeing it recently on this board. I bought mine with the understanding that it was 82 gross and 77 net usable.

 

The easiest way to think about it is that it's actually 82 gross, 72 usable. The display 0-100 covers 72 ish kWh when new and fully healthy. I'm not sure exactly what the right terms are and how those buffers might change over time, but if you want to know how much electricity you can use from 100% displayed to 0% displayed, it's about 72 new, as measured in the real world.

 

Here's a recent 5 page thread that gets into the gory details. There'll always be honey left stuck to the sides of the honey pot, even if it's never filled to the brim. The pot can hold 82, is only ever filled to 77, but you're only ever going to get 72 out of it

Don’t trust efficiency numbers

We all know that ICE cars overestimate their efficiency/mileage numbers. But this seems to be even with EVs. Here is a sample. We left at 49% and after using 41% battery (31.6 kWh of 77 kWh battery), we went 91 miles. That is 2.9 and not 3.2 mi/kWh that the car stated. Needless to say, we had...

www.vwidtalk.com

 

On my 2023 Pro AWD, CarScanner told me ~ 79.9 kWh max capacity while it was approximately new. I think ID Software v3.1 is supposed to open up a bit more usable battery, so I think this is in comparison to the 77 kWh figure you mention perhaps on older sofware (?).

 

Yes the Max. energy content is increased on 23s, but the usable part of the battery is still 72kwh according to 1 report here. We won't know for sure until some more people with dongles charge to 100% and then report their HV battery energy content (not the Max.)

 

It's strange, though. A new ID.4 has less available energy in its battery than you'd expect (about 72 kWh from 100% to 0% SOC), but it seems to have better efficiency than advertised (perhaps 3.25 miles/kWh at a 70 MPH on a flat road in good conditions, versus the 3.1 miles/kWh you'd expect from its highway MPGe rating) -- so long as you compute that efficiency using the HV battery energy content shown in Car Scanner, or by using SOC percentages assuming 72 kWh actual energy content in the battery at 100% SOC. So from a range standpoint, it evens out: even with the smaller-than-I-thought battery energy content from 100% to 0% SOC, I still get that roughly 230 miles of 70 MPH range promised in the EPA estimates.

My assumption is that a new ID.4 actually has 77 kWh of available energy, provided that we're willing to drive the car after it reports 0% SOC, until the car actually runs out of available energy and can be driven no further. I don't know if this is the case. I DO know that when I drove my ID.4 to a 0% reported SOC, CarScanner reported a small negative figure for HV battery energy content. (Evidently, I drove the car a tiny bit below that 0%.) We know that most EVs have an available energy buffer below reported 0% SOC. I think the ID.4 is reputed to have something like 12-15 miles of range in "turtle mode" after the car reports 0% SOC. That could translate to something close to the 5 kWh of energy "missing" between 0% and 100% SOC. I guess someone will have to drive a new ID.4 until it runs out of juice and then hook up Car Scanner to find out for sure. (That person won't be me!)

More strangeness is that in my experience, the ID.4's infotainment system consistently underreports efficiency. I've been tracking this for about a month now, using CarScanner's reported HV battery content before and after charging to calculate what I think is true efficiency. Moreover, the ID.4's reported efficiency is very close to what I would calculate if I assumed a full 77 kWh available from 100% to 0% SOC. More precisely: the actual 72 kWh of energy available in an ID.4 between 0% and 100% SOC is about 6.5% less than the 77 kWh reported ... and the efficiency reported by the ID.4 so far in my experience is close to 6.5% less than what I'm measuring using Car Scanner as described above.

Why would the ID.4 underreport efficiency? I'm thinking, it's doing this because (1) they'd be at a competitive disadvantage if they reported "true" available battery capacity as 72 kWh (I think all EV makers include the battery buffer below 0% reported SOC when they report available battery energy) and (2) they need to report lower than actual efficiency so that our in-route calculations and the calculations made by apps like ABRP will show an accurate estimated range between 0% and 100% SOC.

But it's still strange to me.

[Please note, for the sake of simplicity, I did not factor battery degradation into any of these calculations.]

 

But , that makes little sense considering the 3.9 miles/kWh (300 miles ) I am getting .

Where are you seeing 300 miles? If its the GOM that explains it since its known to be very inaccurate.

So in reality , is as always been .. 82 kWh battery, 77kWh useable with low range warning set in BMS at 72kWh

Not sure which low range (20,10, or 0% SOC?) warning you mean, but after you use the 72kwh you are at 0% on the display. Thanks for the added data point showing the 23s with SK have 72.6kwh usable, which is a little 0.6kwh improvement over the many 21-22s who have reported 72.0

 

Where are you seeing 300 miles? If its the GOM that explains it since its known to be very inaccurate.

Not sure which low range (20,10, or 0% SOC?) warning you mean, but after you use the 72kwh you are at 0% on the display. Thanks for the added data point showing the 23s with SK have 72.6kwh usable, which is a little 0.6kwh improvement over the many 21-22s who have reported 72.0

GOM is only inaccurate via short trips.. I put on over 100 miles everyday, I have over 130,000 miles driving EVs.

Next time I decide to runa charge test I'll do a 1% to 80% and see where we are in realtion to the 72kWh, btw..assuming 73 considering showing 72 @99%

 

You are showing the GOM is inaccurate, since if the 3.9mi/kwh is accurate, then your 73kwh x 3.9 = 285 it should display. It looks like that is a change they made for 23s is to include the bottom buffer ~15 miles you can get after it displays 0% in their GOM. Since 77x3.9 = 300 its including miles you can (dangerously) get below 0%.

 

This is the conundrum since 3.9 is accurate and 300 miles is accurate .. I believe the real number is still 77kWh. 73kWh IMO is justa earl;y warning system.. 77 is still useable , not that you always want to run down to 1-2% . 1-2% was a almost daily activity for me with the Bolt (and that has no bottom buffer !) ..

I'll try and find a day to run down to 1% , thats going to be a very very long day if I do it in city , long day even at hwy speeds. But you know what , tired of seeing all hwy speed range tests .. time for real city range test..

 

Yes compare SOC display when near 0% to SOC BMS. This tells the size of the bottom buffer, which nobody has reported for a 23. For my 21 (and a few others) reporting its 5%.

 

Should be a great test to determine actual useable in the 23 (at least with the SK battery)

I have a Viofo 129 dash camera I'll use for timelapse , and also just purchased a cheap alternative to a go pro.. . complete noob putting video together , may pass that part off to someone else . I'll play with youtube editor a bit se if I can get something watchable

I'll do a Video next Sat morning.,less traffic at least until around 10 am. Will leave fully charged from home and try and make it back home1-2%. No acc , listen to radio and Android auto like usual. Will make multiple stops during the trip just as I normally do....ummm I almost could just run a regular Uber day + another 3 hours or so, but then I need to go through and make sure not showing any passengers so that would be a pain going through all that video and editing out people

 

VW Tech Specs dont show 72kWh anywhere ..

 

77kWh..

HV Battery display 73300 wh but SOC through Battery Management System is displaying 96% ... (soc Display 100%) .

96% of 77= 73.15

 

This is the thing I can't reconcile with the buffers on the ID.4 - its like a buffer on top of the buffer.

So the 82KWH as new battery has max content of lets say 77KWH but it only charges to 72-73KWH or ~10-12% less than gross capacity. My 22k mile 2021 has a max energy content anywhere between 71.5-71.8KWH but going to 100% only gets me ~66KWH. Basically charging to 90% is more like ~80% so battery care is keeping it ~70% which lines up with the range I am getting at 80% (~160-170 miles) - I might say to hell with battery care and just start charging to 90%.

 

This is the thing I can't reconcile with the buffers on the ID.4 - its like a buffer on top of the buffer.

😁 Yeah that's what It looks like, again IMO I dont think it makes any difference because in reality it's still 82kWh battery with 77 kWh useable (per my testing)
I really think it is just low battery warning mark. I wake up every morning with 285-305 miles range , that's not happening if the limit were truely 72 instead of 77

Charging, I charge to 100% daily @home 32 amps .(did so for 3 yeasr on my Bolt) , with such a huge buffer virtually no chance of harming your battery at all . DCFC on the other hand, well if your charging at say 80kW, thats 80,000 WATTS of electricy going in... umm yeah probably a good idea to back off at 80-90% full.

the 80% charging recommendation IMO is similar to a FHA Home Loan where the borrower also pays PMI (Private Mortgage Insurance ) , that Payment isnt to protect the Borrower but rather protects the lender ! , in that same vein all the EV Manufacturers only want their EV buyers to charge to 80% iis to Proect THEM not the Driver, they dont want premature battery failures that THEY have to cover within that 8 years/ 100,000 mile WARRANTY .

When drivers start to understand that they will do whats in thier best interest (charge to 100% daily) instead of whats in the Manufacturers best interest (charge to 80%).

I suspect sometime in the future the warranty wording will change (to protect their interest) to something where they wont cover or only partially cover batteries that are DCFC charged daily to 100% or a set number of DCFC charges ..

always the optimist 😁

 

another interesting Car Scanner pull showing 77.8 wh

 

Has anybody checked whether a new 2024 ID.4 battery has the same 73 kWh capacity corresponding to 100% displayed SOC?