Kia EV6

From this and the other you tube range tests I have seen for the ev6 and Ionic5 they seem fall similarly as short as the other car brand that uses the 5 cycle epa range rating. I would love.to see a Niro vs EV6 side by side range test. Guessing they are almost identical in terms range.

DougWantsALeaf said:

From this and the other you tube range tests I have seen for the ev6 and Ionic5 they seem fall similarly as short as the other car brand that uses the 5 cycle epa range rating.

Click to expand...

It is a given that any company that used the 5 cycle test regimen will come up shorter in fair weather testing. After all, that is the entire point: these manufacturers using the 5 cycle test have a better winter result, which then bumps up their amalgamated EPA number. The converse is also true: all the 2 cycle testers will have a winter result worse than their EPA number suggests compared to the 5 cycle testers.

Pick your poison, although I think it is pretty obvious that the EV winter performance is a lot more important for every driver in a 4 season climate.

In one of Bjorn Nyland's road tests, the Tesla Model 3 in winter driving was close to its summer result. That is just phenomenal, and it is the promise of 5 cycle testing. These car magazines that publish fair weather EV range testing and imply their tests show which EV has the better range without disclosing the limited applicability of the results are blowing smoke up the rears of the ignoranti.

WetEV said:

GRA said:

ACC, so just following traffic. Breeze was variable, from calm up to 4-6 i.e. Beaufort 1-2, maybe an occasional gust higher (Beaufort 3). General wind direction was the same on both trips up (normal prevailing winds). The day after I arrived we were getting winds of 20-30 mph, fortunately not blowing the fire smoke that we could see our way.

In short, conditions for the two trips were about as close to identical as you're likely to find off a test track, temp's within 1 deg. of each other, winds essentially the same, traffic ditto. The range difference is fairly small and wasn't worth worrying about on this particular trip owing to the limited number of charging stops being concentrated well within both cars practical range, but the info may be useful on other trips, such as choosing where to charge when
tooling up or down I-5 or S.R. 99 where charging opportunities are more frequent and more evenly spaced. And now I think we've beaten this poor horse to death. The info is there for anyone to use or ignore, as they choose.

Click to expand...

Wind Beaufort 1-2 covers the range of 1 to 7 MPH. Add calm and Beaufort 3 and that covers 0 to 12 MPH.

A 12 MPH difference in wind speed is much more than enough to make your observations meaningless. Meaningless isn't information.

Click to expand...

Been house/dog sitting again so busy and haven't been reading, and heading out of town tomorrow on another trip to the same area in a Niro this time, but wanted to post a short reply. As noted, Force 3 was only the case for an occasional gust. BTW, I'm used to using Beaufort in knots, i.e. 1 = 1-3, 2 = 4-6, 3 = 7-10 etc.

Likewise traffic speed. Average doesn't count, the average of speed squared is needed. You can have a low average speed, consisting of 75 MPH for an hour and 5 MPH for an hour, and your energy use will be rather higher than just driving at 40 MPH for the whole trip. Ditto for wind speed. A 20 MPH headwind for half the trip and 20 MPH tailwind for the other half does not average to zero.

Click to expand...

I noted that both trips involved average speeds and a mix of speeds that were very similar, somewhat slower than is typical for me In this trip owing to the time I was driving. But I've been making this drive for 45 years now, so I know how long it takes in a variety of conditions as well as when there are any major deviations from same.

Generally, you need more experience than your audience to have useful information to give. You do have more information on the Kia EV6 than I do, so there was some value to what you wrote. But firstly putting a howler comment in on climate control vs range, and then not accepting feedback is annoying. Do feel free to drop being annoying at any time. We will like you more if you do.

Click to expand...

I'm curious, just how much of a difference in energy use between two cars with the same battery pack in essentially the same real-world conditions do you think would be significant enough to conclude that A/C vs. fan-only use is reflected by the results, when the car which gets 21% more EPA combined range still manages to uses 2% more energy for the same trip while using A/C than the less-efficient car not using it?

As to your comments about being annoying, were you shaving at the time you wrote them?

SageBrush said:

DougWantsALeaf said:

From this and the other you tube range tests I have seen for the ev6 and Ionic5 they seem fall similarly as short as the other car brand that uses the 5 cycle epa range rating.

Click to expand...

It is a given that any company that used the 5 cycle test regimen will come up shorter in fair weather testing. After all, that is the entire point: these manufacturers using the 5 cycle test have a better winter result, which then bumps up their amalgamated EPA number. The converse is also true: all the 2 cycle testers will have a winter result worse than their EPA number suggests compared to the 5 cycle testers.

Pick your poison, although I think it is pretty obvious that the EV winter performance is a lot more important for every driver in a 4 season climate.

In one of Bjorn Nyland's road tests, the Tesla Model 3 in winter driving was close to its summer result. That is just phenomenal, and it is the promise of 5 cycle testing. These car magazines that publish fair weather EV range testing and imply their tests show which EV has the better range without disclosing the limited applicability of the results are blowing smoke up the rears of the ignoranti.

Click to expand...

Re the bolded section, depends on the driver. Most people take extended road trips in summer when snow and heat aren't issues and AWD doesn't matter, so the 2-cycle results are probably more representative, although I prefer InsideEVs 70 mph or even better C&D's 75 mph real-world range tests with climate control (A/C) set to a standard temp.

OTOH, those drivers who do a lot of winter driving for weekend ski trips probably care more about colder-temp testing.

Many sites that do range tests describe the conditions under which they are achieved, often with caveats as to uncontrolled variables. The ones that don't have far less value, especially when comparing results between models.

So, as with most things, it depends. Best you can hope for is to make use of tests that come closest to your own situation, then apply whatever personal mod that, from experience, you feel is appropriate.

GRA said:

I'm curious, just how much of a difference in energy use between two cars with the same battery pack in essentially the same real-world conditions

Click to expand...

How much wind is allowed and still be "essentially the same weather conditions" ?
How do you exclude wind above your "essentially the same weather conditions" ?

Retail numbers are not looking good.

https://insideevs.com/news/610329/kia-ev6-wholesale-shipments-august2022/

I'd say the lack of tax credit is starting to hurt EV6 sales, but sales were also down in Korea too - so maybe an inventory issue?
But the larger problem I see is that overall is that the production numbers are no better than the first month it went on sale. No ramp up.

If you want mass adoption of EVs, you need to actually produce more than 6k units.

SageBrush said:

GRA said:

I'm curious, just how much of a difference in energy use between two cars with the same battery pack in essentially the same real-world conditions

Click to expand...

How much wind is allowed and still be "essentially the same weather conditions" ?
How do you exclude wind above your "essentially the same weather conditions" ?

Click to expand...

I consider +-3 mph average with no major excursions to be normal real world variability for a trip. The only time you can have identical conditions on a real world trip is in a dead calm, which is highly unlikely in our area let alone over such a large distance with such wide variations in speed, terrain and elevation, and I'm interested in real-world trip effects, not driving on a test track. I've been driving this route since 1977 or so, in all weather conditions, so I've got a fairly large personal knowledge base to work from when estimating the weather and the effects of changes in same. Granted, the vast majority of those have been in a variety of ICEs, but I've now driven this route in 4 different BEVs, so I'm acquiring some useful background on how they are or aren't affected by weather and other variables, and how those effects may differ from ICEs. Which is one reason why my baseline is fan-only, as that's how I typically drive this route. If I'd been driving up and down I-5 over the years as often as I've done this trip, my baseline would be different.

GRA said:

SageBrush said:

How much wind is allowed and still be "essentially the same weather conditions" ?
How do you exclude wind above your "essentially the same weather conditions" ?

Click to expand...

I consider +-3 mph average with no major excursions to be normal real world variability for a trip.

Click to expand...

Then your earlier conclusions are groundless

SageBrush said:

GRA said:

SageBrush said:

How much wind is allowed and still be "essentially the same weather conditions" ?
How do you exclude wind above your "essentially the same weather conditions" ?

Click to expand...

I consider +-3 mph average with no major excursions to be normal real world variability for a trip.

Click to expand...

Then your earlier conclusions are groundless

Click to expand...

You're entitled to your opinion.

Sage is correct. Variability in traffic speeds and winds is often far larger impact on range than running the AC.

WetEV said:

Sage is correct. Variability in traffic speeds and winds is often far larger impact on range than running the AC.

Click to expand...

Which isn't relevant to the point I was making. The car's range algorithm instantaneously calculated turning on the A/C instead of just using the fan will lose 5-8% of range, despite the conditions being about as economical as possible, i.e. Eco mode, Driver-only, and in ambient temps only a bit higher than the A/C was set, while in steady-state conditions. So, either the people who wrote the range algorithm and/or the engineers who spec'd and measured the A/C's energy usage and supplied that info to the software people are incompetent, or turning on the A/C will decrease the range on an easy road trip leg by at least 5%, with even greater % range loss in less benign conditions. Which do you think is the case?

GRA said:

You're entitled to your opinion.

Click to expand...

If I tell you that 1 + 1 does not equal 3, is that an opinion ?

SageBrush said:

GRA said:

You're entitled to your opinion.

Click to expand...

If I tell you that 1 + 1 does not equal 3, is that an opinion ?

Click to expand...

Not if it's backed up by evidence. I've provided such showing the amount the DTE drops instantaneously when switching between fan-only and A/C, AOTBE (which is the point at issue). The dispute is over how much effect. Now, the Niro's software estimates 5-8% range loss in the conditions I experienced and described in that trip,. Do you believe that estimate is incorrect?

I saw DTE range reductions (but didn't record them, so can't give % figures) for the EV6 and Ioniq 5 in different but very similar conditions on those two trips, and the EV6, which should have gone further/used less battery than the Ioniq 5 AOTBE, used more while using A/C. It's your contention that can be explained by differences in conditions with A/C having only a minor effect, and it's mine that A/C has a much larger effect than the varying conditions did. Feel free to provide evidence backing your opinion.

GRA said:

WetEV said:

Sage is correct. Variability in traffic speeds and winds is often far larger impact on range than running the AC.

Click to expand...

Which isn't relevant to the point I was making. The car's range algorithm instantaneously calculated turning on the A/C instead of just using the fan will lose 5-8% of range, despite the conditions being about as economical as possible, i.e. Eco mode, Driver-only, and in ambient temps only a bit higher than the A/C was set, while in steady-state conditions. So, either the people who wrote the range algorithm and/or the engineers who spec'd and measured the A/C's energy usage and supplied that info to the software people are incompetent, or turning on the A/C will decrease the range on an easy road trip leg by at least 5%, with even greater % range loss in less benign conditions. Which do you think is the case?

Click to expand...

You are putting way too much stock in the GOM. All EVs do the same and I have yet to see one of mine come anywhere near the range loss the GOM predicts when using A/C.

So using a worst case scenario is only protecting the driver? Preventing them from possibly being stranded? Well, I drove from Salem to Olympia in 100º heat last August and the A/C hit was nowhere near what the GOM predicted when I turned it on at 90% SOC. Reality says too many other variables to accurately say what the AC took but in my guesstimation, was under half.

DaveinOlyWA said:

GRA said:

WetEV said:

Sage is correct. Variability in traffic speeds and winds is often far larger impact on range than running the AC.

Click to expand...

Which isn't relevant to the point I was making. The car's range algorithm instantaneously calculated turning on the A/C instead of just using the fan will lose 5-8% of range, despite the conditions being about as economical as possible, i.e. Eco mode, Driver-only, and in ambient temps only a bit higher than the A/C was set, while in steady-state conditions. So, either the people who wrote the range algorithm and/or the engineers who spec'd and measured the A/C's energy usage and supplied that info to the software people are incompetent, or turning on the A/C will decrease the range on an easy road trip leg by at least 5%, with even greater % range loss in less benign conditions. Which do you think is the case?

Click to expand...

You are putting way too much stock in the GOM. All EVs do the same and I have yet to see one of mine come anywhere near the range loss the GOM predicts when using A/C.

So using a worst case scenario is only protecting the driver? Preventing them from possibly being stranded? Well, I drove from Salem to Olympia in 100º heat last August and the A/C hit was nowhere near what the GOM predicted when I turned it on at 90% SOC. Reality says too many other variables to accurately say what the AC took but in my guesstimation, was under half.

Click to expand...

I would love to see all GoMs use a very conservative calc to protect the driver from getting stranded, so that everyone knows they can do at least that. Unfortunately, commercial pressure (to show more range) may prevent that, which is why I'd like to see it mandated in the same way that speedometers are allowed to read high but not low. I kind of like the Bolt's approach, showing max./avg./min. DTE, and leaving it up to the driver to decide which best reflects their usage/willingness to accept risk. Personally I'm not going to rely on any car's calcs, but will base my own decisions on range and where I need to charge on battery SoC (assuming I've developed trust in the accuracy of that reading) and my own experience in that car in similar conditions, plus a reserve inversely-sized to the density and reliability of the charging infrastructure, plus the likely variability of the weather. Sounds like you do much the same.

GRA said:

I would love to see all GoMs use a very conservative calc to protect the driver from getting stranded, so that everyone knows they can do at least that. Unfortunately, commercial pressure (to show more range) may prevent that, which is why I'd like to see it mandated in the same way that speedometers are allowed to read high but not low. I kind of like the Bolt's approach, showing max./avg./min. DTE, and leaving it up to the driver to decide which best reflects their usage/willingness to accept risk. Personally I'm not going to rely on any car's calcs, but will base my own decisions on range and where I need to charge on battery SoC (assuming I've developed trust in the accuracy of that reading) and my own experience in that car in similar conditions, plus a reserve inversely-sized to the density and reliability of the charging infrastructure, plus the likely variability of the weather. Sounds like you do much the same.

Click to expand...

Well, I have the advantage of LEAF Spy so my task is quite easy. Several times, I have passed stations with ZERO SOC on the dash for a better station down the road that had preferred amenities; something people think I am crazy for doing. Personally I think people who stop at 10% SOC at a place they don't like is craziness but it is how many people roll. They are risk adverse while I am simply unaware risk exists.

DaveinOlyWA said:

GRA said:

I would love to see all GoMs use a very conservative calc to protect the driver from getting stranded, so that everyone knows they can do at least that. Unfortunately, commercial pressure (to show more range) may prevent that, which is why I'd like to see it mandated in the same way that speedometers are allowed to read high but not low. I kind of like the Bolt's approach, showing max./avg./min. DTE, and leaving it up to the driver to decide which best reflects their usage/willingness to accept risk. Personally I'm not going to rely on any car's calcs, but will base my own decisions on range and where I need to charge on battery SoC (assuming I've developed trust in the accuracy of that reading) and my own experience in that car in similar conditions, plus a reserve inversely-sized to the density and reliability of the charging infrastructure, plus the likely variability of the weather. Sounds like you do much the same.

Click to expand...

Well, I have the advantage of LEAF Spy so my task is quite easy. Several times, I have passed stations with ZERO SOC on the dash for a better station down the road that had preferred amenities; something people think I am crazy for doing. Personally I think people who stop at 10% SOC at a place they don't like is craziness but it is how many people roll. They are risk adverse while I am simply unaware risk exists.

Click to expand...

I suspect it depends on the level of risk. Run out of charge in an area with lots of chargers and no problem getting in touch, and you're just facing a short tow. OTOH, taking a chance on being stranded at a trailhead 25 miles off-pavement where you're unlikely to see anyone else for day(s), where there's no cell-service and where you may have trouble finding a tow truck even willing to come out where you are, or charge an arm and a leg if they will, and your awareness of the risk is likely to be more acute!

There's a reason I do such trips (in an ICE) with a full-size spare, jack and jack base (to spread the weight on soft ground) and tire iron, plus jumper cables, tools etc. A BEV now means I've got two more factors (less range, especially in bad weather) potential failure (inadequate and unreliable charging infrastructure) to add to my risk awareness. Besides, I'm an old boy scout, so leaving it to luck isn't an option

GRA said:

SageBrush said:

GRA said:

You're entitled to your opinion.

Click to expand...

If I tell you that 1 + 1 does not equal 3, is that an opinion ?

Click to expand...

Not if it's backed up by evidence. I've provided such showing the amount the DTE drops instantaneously when switching between fan-only and A/C, AOTBE (which is the point at issue).

Click to expand...

Is Physics evidence in your world ?

But to you observation, the basic problem is that A/C power draw is high for a couple of minutes and then drops 50 - 70% to maintain a steady-state. Moreover, the A/C power draw is weighted by the consumption of the recent past and since the last charge, itself proprietary for each manufacturer.

You conclusion is hopeless

SageBrush said:

GRA said:

SageBrush said:

If I tell you that 1 + 1 does not equal 3, is that an opinion ?

Click to expand...

Not if it's backed up by evidence. I've provided such showing the amount the DTE drops instantaneously when switching between fan-only and A/C, AOTBE (which is the point at issue).

Click to expand...

Is Physics evidence in your world ?

But to you observation, the basic problem is that A/C power draw is high for a couple of minutes and then drops 50 - 70% to maintain a steady-state. Moreover, the A/C power draw is weighted by the consumption of the recent past and since the last charge, itself proprietary for each manufacturer.

You conclusion is hopeless

Click to expand...

Your point is based on the assumption that the manufacturer's DTE algorithm doesn't take account of the initial higher energy usage when first cooling the car down, before it reduces once the set temp's been achieved, even though they and we are all aware that happens. So please provide evidence that the algorithm ignores that. As I doubt you have access to one of the models I've driven recently, please provide evidence of same for your Model 3, Bolt or whichever car you do have access to. While it doesn't prove the case for any of the cars I've driven, it will at least be proof that some manufacturer's algorithms do indeed ignore the A/C energy drop.

Now we are back to a li'l physics, and a tad of common sense.

How would the car know how much retained heat is in the car's interior mass ?
Or the angle of radiation ?
Or whether it is night or day ?
Or whether you tinted the windows ?
Or have the windows open ?

In any case, it is your silly conclusions. Defend them if you must.