[VW TECHNICIAN]

I'm excited to see more photos in Q2 when they reveal more - so much teasing, VW!

My dad is definitely interested... i could not hide it from him.

 

[CTNP]

You can look for pictures on BMW 5 Grand Turismo... it will be more deep than BMW and additional storage close to the rear bumper. People who have bulky staff when they travel will find this vehicle little limited. If equipped with biggest battery pack there will be some sacrifice for trunk space ( double stack modules at the end of battery pack for biggest battery). With rear seats down there will be very little number of people who will not find additional cargo space good enough.

Just looked at some photos - yes this would be something I'd be interested in. Not as much cargo space as the ID.4, but since we already have the ID.4 we don't necessarily need two cars with that much cargo space. If I can fit a couple of suitcases in the back and maybe a little extra, in exchange for the longer range, I'd prefer that.

 

[JnArango]

And for many that are not aware....to make affordable EV with long range there will be no SUV ...this is the way to make low Cd aerodynamic and squeeze most miles out of the pack. I do own 2 SUV type of vehicles but I personally like hatchbacks and this type of vehicles. And it will be built in US also. Big huge SUV that are not very aerodynamic and are quite heavy because they need much bigger size batteries will eventually become quite expensive to travel on long trips using fast DC chargers ( price of fast DC charging will double if not triple in incoming years) .... and having soccer mam 7 seater huge SUV that delivers less than 2.6 miles per kw will be quite expensive on long journeys using fast DC chargers.

I bought an ID.4 because I couldn't wait for the Aero/ID.7, but I have preferred hatchbacks all my life. Or rather, as long as we owned an SUV too for when cargo capacity is a must.
In fact, I had two orders still active back in September: One for the '22 from Germany and the other for the '23 from Tennessee. We entertained the idea of buying both, trading in my wife's SUV, but decided that it was much better to keep her SUV a few years until we could replace it with an EV with far better range and faster changing than the ID.4. The ID.7 is a step in the right direction, but we can wait for the next generation after it.

 

[SulfuricOlive]

Shockingly, the 2-3 times more Jettas are sold than Golfs. I always thought Golfs were popular in the States, but I guess not. Can't wait for the wagon version of the ID.7. Hope they still plan on releasing it.

 

[agzand]

Shockingly, the 2-3 times more Jettas are sold than Golfs. I always thought Golfs were popular in the States, but I guess not. Can't wait for the wagon version of the ID.7. Hope they still plan on releasing it.

Jetta is better priced and has more rear seat legroom. It is more Americanized than Golf, which is a Euro focused product.

 

[agzand]

Electric cars will kill off SUVs, says Citroen CEO

I agree to some degree, once people experience the electric SUV and its diminished performance, they will go back to electric wagon/sedan.

 

[Islander]

I am more interested in the range improvement using the same 77kWh battery.

Let's try some math! At 70 MPH, the range of an ID.4 in more-or-less ideal conditions tests out to 230 miles, or 3.0 miles/kWh. Just look at the testing done by Inside EVs and some of the YouTubers. The ID.4's efficiency is (like @VW TECHNICIAN says) limited by its SUV body shape. Kudos to VW for designing an ID.4 with a 0.28 coefficient of drag and an (estimated by me) 2.45 square meter frontal area. But there's only so much you can do to improve the efficiency of a car shaped like an SUV.

Let's assume that the ID.7 weighs the same as the ID.4, but is designed with a 0.23 coefficient of drag and a frontal area of 2.35 sq. m. That would bump the ID.7's efficiency at that same 70 MPH to a bit more than 3.4 miles/kWh and give it a range of a bit north of 260 miles with a 77 kWh battery pack. Of course, your mileage will vary. But I think at a 70 MPH highway speed, you'll see about a 15% improvement in range with an ID.7 over an ID.4, if weight and battery sizes are the same for both cars. If you're driving faster than 70 MPH, the ID.7's range improvement over the ID.4 will widen a bit.

And, this is @VW TECHNICIAN 's point. With an ICE vehicle's inherent inefficiency, a lot of us bought into the idea that the ideal ICE car is shaped like an SUV. I used to drive a RAV4 hybrid and got about 35 MPG, which didn't seem all that wasteful at the time. To give a car like that more range, simply design a larger gas tank. But we're in a different world with our BEVs. Like you, I don't relish lugging around 250 more lbs of battery to extend the range of what I drive. If I can get another 30 or 40 miles of range merely by changing the shape of what I drive, then sign me up for that.

Eventually ... form follows function. Eventually ... lighter sedans are going to take over.

 

[agzand]

Let's try some math! At 70 MPH, the range of an ID.4 in more-or-less ideal conditions tests out to 230 miles, or 3.0 miles/kWh. Just look at the testing done by Inside EVs and some of the YouTubers. The ID.4's efficiency is (like @VW TECHNICIAN says) limited by its SUV body shape. Kudos to VW for designing an ID.4 with a 0.28 coefficient of drag and an (estimated by me) 2.45 square meter frontal area. But there's only so much you can do to improve the efficiency of a car shaped like an SUV.

Let's assume that the ID.7 weighs the same as the ID.4, but is designed with a 0.23 coefficient of drag and a frontal area of 2.35 sq. m. That would bump the ID.7's efficiency at that same 70 MPH to a bit more than 3.4 miles/kWh and give it a range of a bit north of 260 miles with a 77 kWh battery pack. Of course, your mileage will vary. But I think at a 70 MPH highway speed, you'll see about a 15% improvement in range with an ID.7 over an ID.4, if weight and battery sizes are the same for both cars. If you're driving faster than 70 MPH, the ID.7's range improvement over the ID.4 will widen a bit.

And, this is @VW TECHNICIAN 's point. With an ICE vehicle's inherent inefficiency, a lot of us bought into the idea that the ideal ICE car is shaped like an SUV. I used to drive a RAV4 hybrid and got about 35 MPG, which didn't seem all that wasteful at the time. To give a car like that more range, simply design a larger gas tank. But we're in a different world with our BEVs. Like you, I don't relish lugging around 250 more lbs of battery to extend the range of what I drive. If I can get another 30 or 40 miles of range merely by changing the shape of what I drive, then sign me up for that.

Eventually ... form follows function. Eventually ... lighter sedans are going to take over.

70 mph is not an ideal speed for road trips. In most highways people drive at 75 mph, and in some 80 mph is common. Several states have 80 mph speed limits, which means people will drive 85 mph or even higher. I think 75 mph is a better indication of how sedans perform vs SUVs.

 

[Islander]

70 mph is not an ideal speed for road trips. In most highways people drive at 75 mph, and in some 80 mph is common. Several states have 80 mph speed limits, which means people will drive 85 mph or even higher. I think 75 mph is a better indication of how sedans perform vs SUVs.

If you "drive" at 75 MPH, you're probably not going to average 75 MPH. But I'll do the estimated math for you at a steady 75 from 100% to 0% SOC. ID.4: efficiency 2.74 miles/kWh, range 211 miles. ID.7: efficiency 3.17, range 244 miles. Efficiency gain: 15.6%.

To which you and others might say, hey, I drive my ID.4 all the time at 75 MPH and I do a lot better than 2.74 miles/kWh. And, you might. Your conditions might be better than the good conditions I'm using for my calculations, or your tires might be a little more efficient (tires matter a lot), or like I said, you're probably averaging closer to 70 MPH overall even if you're mostly cruising at 75. The point holds. The energy required to propel a car shaped like the ID.4 is greater than that needed for a car shaped like an ID.7, and your efficiency should increase in an ID.7 by about 15% over what you'd see in an ID.4 under the same conditions and subject to the assumptions I stated earlier.

 

[agzand]

If you "drive" at 75 MPH, you're probably not going to average 75 MPH. But I'll do the estimated math for you at a steady 75 from 100% to 0% SOC. ID.4: efficiency 2.74 miles/kWh, range 211 miles. ID.7: efficiency 3.17, range 244 miles. Efficiency gain: 15.6%.

To which you and others might say, hey, I drive my ID.4 all the time at 75 MPH and I do a lot better than 2.74 miles/kWh. And, you might. Your conditions might be better than the good conditions I'm using for my calculations, or your tires might be a little more efficient (tires matter a lot), or like I said, you're probably averaging closer to 70 MPH overall even if you're mostly cruising at 75. The point holds. The energy required to propel a car shaped like the ID.4 is greater than that needed for a car shaped like an ID.7, and your efficiency should increase in an ID.7 by about 15% over what you'd see in an ID.4 under the same conditions and subject to the assumptions I stated earlier.

Thank you for providing these calculations.

I think the average speed is usually lower because you have a few sections with much lower speed, but those sections will not control the efficiency. I guess if you drive 90 miles at 75 mph and 10 miles at 20 mph your average speed is 69.5 mph, but probably you will still use more energy than driving 100 miles at 69.5 mph.

Using your numbers, 90 miles at 75 mph: 32.85 kWh, 10 miles at 20 mph, lets say 6 mile per kWh (1.67 kWh), total consumption: 34.52 kWh
Driving at 69.5 mph for 100 miles, 33.3 kWh

So my gut feeling is that the speed you set your cruise control mostly dictates how much you will use.

 

[VW TECHNICIAN]

Let's try some math! At 70 MPH, the range of an ID.4 in more-or-less ideal conditions tests out to 230 miles, or 3.0 miles/kWh. Just look at the testing done by Inside EVs and some of the YouTubers. The ID.4's efficiency is (like @VW TECHNICIAN says) limited by its SUV body shape. Kudos to VW for designing an ID.4 with a 0.28 coefficient of drag and an (estimated by me) 2.45 square meter frontal area. But there's only so much you can do to improve the efficiency of a car shaped like an SUV.

Let's assume that the ID.7 weighs the same as the ID.4, but is designed with a 0.23 coefficient of drag and a frontal area of 2.35 sq. m. That would bump the ID.7's efficiency at that same 70 MPH to a bit more than 3.4 miles/kWh and give it a range of a bit north of 260 miles with a 77 kWh battery pack. Of course, your mileage will vary. But I think at a 70 MPH highway speed, you'll see about a 15% improvement in range with an ID.7 over an ID.4, if weight and battery sizes are the same for both cars. If you're driving faster than 70 MPH, the ID.7's range improvement over the ID.4 will widen a bit.

And, this is @VW TECHNICIAN 's point. With an ICE vehicle's inherent inefficiency, a lot of us bought into the idea that the ideal ICE car is shaped like an SUV. I used to drive a RAV4 hybrid and got about 35 MPG, which didn't seem all that wasteful at the time. To give a car like that more range, simply design a larger gas tank. But we're in a different world with our BEVs. Like you, I don't relish lugging around 250 more lbs of battery to extend the range of what I drive. If I can get another 30 or 40 miles of range merely by changing the shape of what I drive, then sign me up for that.

Eventually ... form follows function. Eventually ... lighter sedans are going to take over.

SiC inverter will easily deliver another 5% (4-6% depending rotor speed)efficiency side alone and 3D map will be much wider for 99% inverter efficiency.
Like electric motor efficiency at various different RPM levels.... inverters have also 3D map depending on set RPM and torque requirement ( that is received from human soul by pressing Go pedal).
Where most people are clueless...Electric motors are not efficient at low RPM speeds ( unless they are designed with this). Battery pack internall resistance has been improved... some other revisions have been done on propulsion units. Inverter will operate at much higher frequency and this will improve electric motor efficiency and there will incorporated other things ( something similar what ICE engines doing by cylinders deactivation) but it is done by software on inverter....In future design coolant heater for battery pack will be eliminated ( electric motor will have this function to heat coolant for battery warming.
Cd aerodynamic properties will be necessary for taking full advantage of SiC inverters.

 

[VW TECHNICIAN]

Thank you for providing these calculations.

I think the average speed is usually lower because you have a few sections with much lower speed, but those sections will not control the efficiency. I guess if you drive 90 miles at 75 mph and 10 miles at 20 mph your average speed is 69.5 mph, but probably you will still use more energy than driving 100 miles at 69.5 mph.

Using your numbers, 90 miles at 75 mph: 32.85 kWh, 10 miles at 20 mph, lets say 6 mile per kWh (1.67 kWh), total consumption: 34.52 kWh
Driving at 69.5 mph for 100 miles, 33.3 kWh

So my gut feeling is that the speed you set your cruise control mostly dictates how much you will use.

You have to take in calculations...... inverter efficiency and electric motor efficiency. ...resistance losses over long sustained speed will be higher. If you have carscanner app or obdeleven...and by doing experiments at various different speeds you will be able to graph 📊 ( not individuall efficiency for inverter and electric motor) but combined together.
For this experiment...
You will need this
Rotor speed
Rotor Torque
Power going to the electric motor.
DC-DC converter energy ( this will have to be deducted from total energy to get more accurate information
Transmission losses 📉 will be part of 3D map once all is done....but you can easily find this information on internet and narrow down more accurate details.
Key factors
Electric motor Rotor speed is what dictates efficiency
Torque at specified rpm is what dictates inverter efficiency and they are closely related to electric motor efficiency because electric motor is mechanical force that is responding to inverter demand.
And you will be pretty close to draw 3D efficiency map.....
To calculate resistance losses from battery pack that would require more advanced tools.
Good luck and make me proud.
This is usually kept under the carpet by manufacturers.
Advertising department is usually talking about motor density ( weight vs power).
Unfortunately I'm not in power to discuss this numbers.

And once you master this process you will be able to graph 3D map efficiency for any EV on the market.

 

[Jon B. Ross]

Following the ID.7's debut at CES 2023, we have new photos of the ID.7 without camouflage in grey!

View attachment 19688 View attachment 19690 View attachment 19689 View attachment 19686 View attachment 19687 View attachment 19682 View attachment 19683 View attachment 19684 View attachment 19685 View attachment 19691

No camouflage?

Plenty of camouflage - remember the Buzz "no camouflage"-reveal? It looked markedly different, once it was finally revealed in full by VW.

 

[Islander]

@VW TECHNICIAN, I AM relatively clueless when it comes to EV design. But at highway speeds at least, EVs appear to be very efficient as they're currently designed.

The math I'm using is simply the published equations for the power required to overcome air and rolling resistance. (I can also calculate the power required for elevation gains, but I'm not using those calculations to design the ID.4's efficiency under near-ideal conditions.) With one caveat I'll get to in a minute, even a patzer like me can calculate the power it takes to propel a car with the shape and weight of an ID.4 at a steady speed down a flat road at 70 MPH.

The caveat is, I don't know the rolling resistance variable to use in these equations. This variable itself varies based on road type, but it's also dependent on tire type. I'm guessing a variable of 0.013, which at least is ballpark. But as you know, a tiny improvement in this variable has an outsized effect on EV efficiency. If I drop that variable to 0.011, that boosts my calculation of ID.4 ideal range by 15 miles.

So ... to reach my calculation of ID.4 range at 70 MPH, I use the standard equations for computing the power necessary to overcome air and rolling resistance. I assume we're driving at sea level. I assume a weight for the ID.4 of 2128 kg, a coefficient of drag of 0.28 and a frontal area of 2.45 square meters. I assume a rolling resistance variable of 0.013. I assume we're using 500 watts for ancillary systems. And, I assume that the energy stored in the ID.4's batteries is being converted to power to the wheels with 93% efficiency. Some of these assumptions are pretty close to rock solid, and some are guesses. But combined and added to the standard equations, they predict ID.4 range of 232 miles at a steady 70 MPH, which is close to exactly what people are seeing when they do a 70 MPH test under close to ideal conditions. (These same assumptions also do a very good job of predicting the highway range of other BEVs.)

Now ... I know that an assumption of 93% efficiency is probably on the high side. Regardless ... the ID.4 is already a very efficient vehicle at highway speeds. For fun ... let's stick with all of my assumptions but double that efficiency (or better put, let's cut the inefficiency in half) and try the math with 96.5% efficiency. That would add 9 miles of range to the ID.4. Of course, I could be overestimating the ID.4's current efficiency, but even if I am, there is a hard limit on the amount of range you can add to an ID.4 by improving the way it converts stored energy to power delivered to the wheels.

If it's our goal to add 9 miles to the ID.4's range as in the calculation above, we could achieve this per my calculations by reducing the ID.4's coefficient of drag to 0.26, or cutting 10% from the car's weight, or reducing that rolling resistance variable by around 0.001. And again, even though my calculations are likely off by some factor, I think they point to a hard truth: the surest way to increase an EV's range is by making it lighter and more slippery.

Let's try these same calculations again, with the only change being to change the ID.4 from an SUV to a sedan. This reduces the car's height, and the frontal surface area of the car that experiences wind resistance. Just reducing the ID.4's surface area from 2.45 square meters to 2.35 square meters adds 6 miles of range per my calculations. A sedan shaped car can also have a lower coefficient of drag, and simply by reducing the ID.4's coefficient of drag to 0.23, we add another 27 miles of highway range. That's 36 more miles in total, a lot more than what we were seeing by improving the ID.4's ability to convert stored energy to power.

If the EV of the future is going to be considerably more efficient than those on the road today, they're not going to be shaped like SUVs.

Where most people are clueless...Electric motors are not efficient at low RPM speeds

Well ... the math I use does not seem to predict real-world results below (say) a steady 50-55 MPH. My math would predict around 370 miles of range for an ID.4 driven in very good conditions at a steady 40 MPH, and I don't think any of us have ever experienced anything like this. So ... this is where I shut up (at long last!) and listen to people who know.

 

[d287]

I think that explains the Hyundai Ioniq 6 style

 

[Islander]

I think that explains the Hyundai Ioniq 6 style

Well, it helps. We can look at the Kia EV6 as a prequel to the Ioniq 6. The EV6's coefficient of drag is no better than the ID.4, but the EV6 has a smaller frontal area and (comparing RWD to RWD) it's about 200 kg lighter than the ID.4. The combo helps add about 20 miles to the EV6's range at 70 MPH, compared to the ID.4. Kia EV6 AWD Exceeded 250 Miles In 70 MPH Range Test

 

[VW TECHNICIAN]

@VW TECHNICIAN, I AM relatively clueless when it comes to EV design. But at highway speeds at least, EVs appear to be very efficient as they're currently designed.

The math I'm using is simply the published equations for the power required to overcome air and rolling resistance. (I can also calculate the power required for elevation gains, but I'm not using those calculations to design the ID.4's efficiency under near-ideal conditions.) With one caveat I'll get to in a minute, even a patzer like me can calculate the power it takes to propel a car with the shape and weight of an ID.4 at a steady speed down a flat road at 70 MPH.

The caveat is, I don't know the rolling resistance variable to use in these equations. This variable itself varies based on road type, but it's also dependent on tire type. I'm guessing a variable of 0.013, which at least is ballpark. But as you know, a tiny improvement in this variable has an outsized effect on EV efficiency. If I drop that variable to 0.011, that boosts my calculation of ID.4 ideal range by 15 miles.

So ... to reach my calculation of ID.4 range at 70 MPH, I use the standard equations for computing the power necessary to overcome air and rolling resistance. I assume we're driving at sea level. I assume a weight for the ID.4 of 2128 kg, a coefficient of drag of 0.28 and a frontal area of 2.45 square meters. I assume a rolling resistance variable of 0.013. I assume we're using 500 watts for ancillary systems. And, I assume that the energy stored in the ID.4's batteries is being converted to power to the wheels with 93% efficiency. Some of these assumptions are pretty close to rock solid, and some are guesses. But combined and added to the standard equations, they predict ID.4 range of 232 miles at a steady 70 MPH, which is close to exactly what people are seeing when they do a 70 MPH test under close to ideal conditions. (These same assumptions also do a very good job of predicting the highway range of other BEVs.)

Now ... I know that an assumption of 93% efficiency is probably on the high side. Regardless ... the ID.4 is already a very efficient vehicle at highway speeds. For fun ... let's stick with all of my assumptions but double that efficiency (or better put, let's cut the inefficiency in half) and try the math with 96.5% efficiency. That would add 9 miles of range to the ID.4. Of course, I could be overestimating the ID.4's current efficiency, but even if I am, there is a hard limit on the amount of range you can add to an ID.4 by improving the way it converts stored energy to power delivered to the wheels.

If it's our goal to add 9 miles to the ID.4's range as in the calculation above, we could achieve this per my calculations by reducing the ID.4's coefficient of drag to 0.26, or cutting 10% from the car's weight, or reducing that rolling resistance variable by around 0.001. And again, even though my calculations are likely off by some factor, I think they point to a hard truth: the surest way to increase an EV's range is by making it lighter and more slippery.

Let's try these same calculations again, with the only change being to change the ID.4 from an SUV to a sedan. This reduces the car's height, and the frontal surface area of the car that experiences wind resistance. Just reducing the ID.4's surface area from 2.45 square meters to 2.35 square meters adds 6 miles of range per my calculations. A sedan shaped car can also have a lower coefficient of drag, and simply by reducing the ID.4's coefficient of drag to 0.23, we add another 27 miles of highway range. That's 36 more miles in total, a lot more than what we were seeing by improving the ID.4's ability to convert stored energy to power.

If the EV of the future is going to be considerably more efficient than those on the road today, they're not going to be shaped like SUVs.


Well ... the math I use does not seem to predict real-world results below (say) a steady 50-55 MPH. My math would predict around 370 miles of range for an ID.4 driven in very good conditions at a steady 40 MPH, and I don't think any of us have ever experienced anything like this. So ... this is where I shut up (at long last!) and listen to people who know.

I do like your post.... you are getting pretty close with some calculations.

 

[VW TECHNICIAN]

Well, it helps. We can look at the Kia EV6 as a prequel to the Ioniq 6. The EV6's coefficient of drag is no better than the ID.4, but the EV6 has a smaller frontal area and (comparing RWD to RWD) it's about 200 kg lighter than the ID.4. The combo helps add about 20 miles to the EV6's range at 70 MPH, compared to the ID.4. Kia EV6 AWD Exceeded 250 Miles In 70 MPH Range Test

This is related to 800V design ( less losses between HV battery pack and propulsion unit)
Propulsion unit that operate at higher voltage will draw less current for same torque and rotor speed vs 400V design that will use more current draw ta maintain same torque and rotor speed.
If Cd aerodynamic properties are same on both vehicles....frontal area is irrelevant ( because it already part of Cd)
Additional weight will affect additional 6-10 watts per Km ( conservative number)