Volkswagen ID Forum banner
1 - 20 of 40 Posts

Registered User
Joined
540 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Nice work here, I may have to print it. The ultimate charging card shows an estimated time of charging required to reach a certain State of Charge (SOC) depending on the starting SOC, plus an estimated starting/final range (in selected range tests).
The ultimate DC fast charging card for ID.4
 

Registered User
Joined
217 Posts
Wow, the ID.4 doesn't go below 50kW even at 90%. As a BMW i3 driver, I think that is super impressive. (Yes, I know the Hyundai Ioniq 5 might charge even faster at that level, but still)
 

Premium Member
VW ID.4 1st (picked up 3/19/21).
Joined
935 Posts
What I find interesting is that they worked this out in the winter. My Kona had an awful charging curve when it was cold out.
 

Registered User
VW ID.4 1st Max | Mangan Gray
Joined
193 Posts
Wow, the ID.4 doesn't go below 50kW even at 90%. As a BMW i3 driver, I think that is super impressive. (Yes, I know the Hyundai Ioniq 5 might charge even faster at that level, but still)
it should say 40kw at 90% depending how low SOC% you started the charging.

If you start charging from 90% and charge to 100% it wont breach 25 kw charging power and will slowly drop to 15-20 depending how cold your batteries are
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChristophW

Registered User
Joined
217 Posts
it should say 40kw at 90% depending how low SOC% you started the charging.

If you start charging from 90% and charge to 100% it wont breach 25 kw charging power and will slowly drop to 15-20 depending how cold your batteries are
thx! 40kW is still impressive.

Starting a fast charge at 90% (or even 80%) seems like an extreme rare edge case, I鈥檓 fine if the charging speeds aren鈥檛 optimized for that.
And the fact that fast charging is free for us customers makes it even better 馃榿
 

Registered User
Happy owner of a blue ID.4 FE
Joined
709 Posts
I agree, the DC charge curve is very flat and will deliver more than many cars with higher peak rates promise (looking at M3 and MY). I sort of expected this based on ID3 curves, but it's still extremely nice to see it confirmed, and in cold temperatures too.
 

Registered User
Joined
214 Posts
I agree, the DC charge curve is very flat and will deliver more than many cars with higher peak rates promise (looking at M3 and MY). I sort of expected this based on ID3 curves, but it's still extremely nice to see it confirmed, and in cold temperatures too.
That's (one reason) why I wish VW would just get a good number of cars into the hands of the owners already. They haven't managed the communication well, and on paper, the ID.4 doesn't come across as very competitive in a lot of aspects. The reviewers, either through inability to understand or just insufficient time to devote, then end up propagating sound bites like "125 kW vs Tesla's 250".

If any significant number of us, who have more thoroughly researched the vehicle and will get to spend a lot more time with it, were able to show and tell our friends all the ways in which it actually is competitive, I have to think it would build some more interest and counter some of the bad press.

ETA: To be clear, I don't want to have to do VW's job and market it in a way they seem to be unable. Primarily, I just want my car to move past step 3. lol. But we also do all benefit from the ID.4 being successful whether we have bought one or not, so if for resale value, availability of parts/accessories, continued development/support of EVs & software updates, I suppose I might need to become a bit of an evangelist.
 

Registered User
Joined
540 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 · (Edited)
The reviewers, either through inability to understand or just insufficient time to devote, then end up propagating sound bites like "125 kW vs Tesla's 250".
A much bigger feature that the reviewers mostly get wrong is believing&repeating the Tesla MY LR range numbers of 314 or 326 when it gets about 230 highway. While the ID.4 says 230 highway, and so far that appears to be about right. I don't know how they can PR about that problem, since they allow Tesla to cheat the EPA tests, and VW is being very careful to avoid that.
 

Registered User
Joined
214 Posts
A much bigger feature that the reviewers mostly get wrong is believing&repeating the Tesla MY LR range numbers of 314 or 326 when it gets about 230 highway. While the ID.4 says 230 highway, and so far that appears to be about right. I don't know how they can PR about that problem, since they allow Tesla to cheat the EPA tests, and VW is being very careful to avoid that.
VW definitely has reason not to overpromise. My understanding wasn't that Tesla was "cheating" the EPA test, but that they were using a more extensive methodology (that any manufacturer could opt to use). I guess the expectation would be that the more extensive test cycle would be more accurate, but perhaps that's not the case. I don't doubt that they achieve that range somehow - the question is how far from "typical" real world driving that test cycle is. In some set of circumstances, I imagine a Tesla driver could get 314/326. Maybe it's not practical to do so, but it must be possible if the EPA is allowing the results.

In any event, it does seem that the fault would lie with EPA for allowing the use of a different test while reporting it in the same way as other manufacturers.

From a consumer standpoint, it would be nice if the numbers were at least subject to similar error. Even that 230 highway you quote really depends on a lot of things including wind, elevation, cargo weight, tires, driver mood, etc., so nobody can be upset about not getting the quoted range. I can understand the frustration with not being able to even proportionally compare numbers, though.
 

Registered User
Joined
540 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 · (Edited)
I guess the expectation would be that the more extensive test cycle would be more accurate, but perhaps that's not the case.
Tesla is not at all more accurate, its got an adjustment factor nobody else gets. There are tons of articles online where they confirm this. As you can see, Edmunds was unable to achieve the EPA range on any of the Tesla vehicles, while they beat the EPA range by some decent margins in other electric vehicles.
Tesla range estimates called into question in independent tests

and even show how they do the cheat with an 'adustment factor':
The Secret Adjustment Factor Tesla Uses to Get Its Big EPA Range Numbers

As multiple sources have been pointing out for years, that makes the EPA's current ratings more misleading than helpful. While all the other manufacturers could do the similar adjustment factor, they are rightfully being more conservative so their number are close to real life range.
 

Registered User
Joined
217 Posts
and even show how they do the cheat with an 'adustment factor'
Can we just stop with these childish 'Tesla cheats!' posts? If you had read the article you shared yourself it's clear nobody cheated and every manufacturer can do the additional tests to get a different adjustment factor like Tesla did.

That the EPA test cycle is not representative of real world range, is clear to everyone.

VW chose to underpromise and overdeliver and Tesla chose to overpromise and underdeliver, all using the same set of rules. That's a choice they made. Deal with it.

PS: if you only get 230 miles with a Tesla Model Y, you might want to slow down a little bit.

(Also don't forget Tesla is said to have increased the battery capacity of the Y last month, but hasn't unlocked it yet. Whenever they decide to unlock the extra kWh, the newer Ys will get a nice range boost)
 

Registered User
Joined
214 Posts
Tesla is not at all more accurate, its got an adjustment factor nobody else gets. There are tons of articles online where they confirm this. As you can see, Edmunds was unable to achieve the EPA range on any of the Tesla vehicles, while they beat the EPA range by some decent margins in other electric vehicles.
Tesla range estimates called into question in independent tests

and even show how they do the cheat with an 'adustment factor':
The Secret Adjustment Factor Tesla Uses to Get Its Big EPA Range Numbers

As multiple sources have been pointing out for years, that makes the EPA's current ratings more misleading than helpful. While all the other manufacturers could do the similar adjustment factor, they are rightfully being more conservative so their number are close to real life range.
Yeah, I'm open to it not being more accurate. I'm just saying that it seems to me that the option they're using is available to any manufacturer. I can't agree that Tesla is cheating, it's unfair of them to use that option, or that it's an adjustment factor that nobody else could get. There's an argument to be made that they shouldn't use that method if it's not accurate or what their customers will experience, but that's purely from a sales/marketing perspective. Any other concern with their method is at the feet of the EPA, which allows the different test.

The fact that Edmunds couldn't get that range doesn't mean anything about whether the range is achievable. The Electrek article even mentions that. I'm not looking for opportunities to defend Tesla, but if we're being fair, this is one case where the rules allow what they're doing, even if people don't like it. And in that case, the proper solution is to place blame where it lays, and change the rules.
 

Registered User
Joined
217 Posts
One thing we all can agree is that none of the current systems (WLTP, EPA, etc) is working well for EVs. Instead of a single value that's never accurate, it would be much more helpful to model speed, outside temperature and additional weight, and perhaps even the different modes (eco, etc). Manufacturers or the EPA could create a simple widget where you can adjust the three variables to see the expected range using your scenario.

Then again, the more range EVs will get, the less relevant the range discussion will be.
 

Registered User
Joined
540 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
The EPA will have to change something since its not fair for one maker alone to be using a different test method that produces higher numbers. It will be interesting to see how that evolves if they change it.
 

Registered User
Joined
217 Posts
The EPA will have to change something since its not fair for one maker alone to be using a different test method that produces higher numbers. It will be interesting to see how that evolves if they change it.
JFC, "not fair"?? 馃う鈥嶁檪锔

Every manufacturer can choose to use the 5-cycle test Tesla uses. In fact, Porsche used the 5-cycle test as well for the Taycan. There's nothing unfair about it. It's a choice manufacturers have and can make use of if they want to.
 

Registered User
Joined
214 Posts
The EPA will have to change something since its not fair for one maker alone to be using a different test method that produces higher numbers. It will be interesting to see how that evolves if they change it.
You've certainly chosen one interpretation of the facts. Good on you for sticking to it in the face of evidence and multiple arguments (including those from your own sources) to the contrary, I guess?

It's not even clear it's an advantage to use that test cycle. Obviously it was a negative for you because now you don't believe Tesla's quoted range, so any short term benefit they have from it will be negated over time if drivers come to find the numbers are overstated.
 

Registered User
Joined
540 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 · (Edited)
Obviously it was a negative for you because now you don't believe Tesla's quoted range, so any short term benefit they have from it will be negated over time if drivers come to find the numbers are overstated.
I don't believe it since there are now so many scientifically backed articles stating that tesla overstate the numbers. Do you have some links to the contrary? So it "negates the benefits" only for those of us who read the independent tests being done all over the place. That sadly is not the typical customer. The EPA range is not supposed to be a 'this is the max range if you do everything just right". Its supposed to (and used to) represent something to compare between brands or models for US typical city/highway combined. Maybe someday the EPA will get us back to that.
 

Registered User
Joined
217 Posts
I guess you could argue that Tesla optimizes and perhaps even designs their cars around the EPA test cycle and that isn't "fair" or whatever. That's an issue inherent to any standardized testing method.

BTW, what according to you would be US typical weather the tests should be conducted in? Fairbanks, Alaska mid-winter or Miami Florida in the summer? And what is a US typical highway speed? 60 mph like in Hawaii or 85 mph like in Texas? 馃し鈥嶁檪锔
 

Registered User
Joined
540 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 · (Edited)
I guess you could argue that Tesla optimizes and perhaps even designs their cars around the EPA test cycle and that isn't "fair" or whatever. That's an issue inherent to any standardized testing method.
Yes and the EPA normally fines them if they game the tests or design to the tests.
BTW, what according to you would be US typical weather the tests should be conducted in? Fairbanks, Alaska mid-winter or Miami Florida in the summer? And what is a US typical highway speed? 60 mph like in Hawaii or 85 mph like in Texas? 馃し鈥嶁檪锔
They get real specific about all of that in the 32 pages of rules here:
Battery Electric Vehicle Energy Consumption and Range Test Procedure
But I am not paying for it to get you the details. The bottom line that they now are missing is it needs to be consistent across brands. In the adjustment factor link I gave above, they compare how the Porsche taycan rated 192 and the Tesla S performance rated 326 get equal range to each other (209, 222) in their highway tests. And I tend to believe that car&driver can do the side by side road tests at 75mph, same road, same temp, etc.and its easier to compare them, and luckily there are now many reviewers who do those independent tests.
 

Registered User
Joined
217 Posts
Yes and the EPA normally fines them if they game the tests or design to the tests.
Not what I said, nor what any of the sources you shared claim.

They get real specific about all of that in the 32 pages of rules here:
Battery Electric Vehicle Energy Consumption and Range Test Procedure
But I am not paying for it to get you the details. The bottom line that they now are missing is it needs to be consistent across brands.
Thank you, I am aware how these kinds of tests work. After you finish high school, I highly recommend trying to get into college and perhaps even pursue a PhD. As a doctoral student you'll learn a ton about designing, setting up and conducting tests. At least I did. You'll love it, I'm sure.
 
1 - 20 of 40 Posts
Top