[mr-nik]

I am starting one with my testing. The biggest issue comparing honestly is how huge small things can affect results. Specially in short test runs I have done. You also need to note HVAC as it can be a significant energy eater. Tire pressure also needs notation as well as rain/wet/dry roads. I am finding tire rr/friction has a much greater role on range than wheel aero.

My general recommendation for those who might find it too laborious to capture all that detail (I agree, they are all relevant parameters), would be to capture what they can and submit it anyway.This chart will be all over the place anyway, even where most of the variables seem the same between drivers, but what will be interesting to see is how it clusters.

 

[Grug]

I'm getting about 2.3 miles/kwh currently driving my new GT. My trade-in, the Chevy Bolt, was getting around 3.8 miles/kwh.

The GT puts the biggest smile on my face when driving, worth it in every way.

I'm probably going to have to get an ICE vehicle for long range travels, etc... looking at the new prius for that.

But for now, the GT is just pure awesomeness.

Going to try a round-trip to work (about 30 miles) in pure eco mode with no climate control and see how it does.

 

[Unobtanium]

I'm getting about 2.3 miles/kwh currently driving my new GT. My trade-in, the Chevy Bolt, was getting around 3.8 miles/kwh.

The GT puts the biggest smile on my face when driving, worth it in every way.

I'm probably going to have to get an ICE vehicle for long range travels, etc... looking at the new prius for that.

But for now, the GT is just pure awesomeness.

Going to try a round-trip to work (about 30 miles) in pure eco mode with no climate control and see how it does.

I found that eco mode doesn't do much, really. I drive in MY set up to be like GT but with more nannies, for daily use.

 

[Lamrith]

Yeah I am still trying to figure out what it is killing the GT range. I still have grippy all seasons on it, but expected some improvement.

It will probably take low grip (and performance) tires to improve range. Only time I saw noticeable change was when I put some old worn out tires that had gotten hard and had limited grip.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

 

[Grug]

I've noticed that if I drive quite well in GT mode, I can get to about 3 miles/kwh... but just one takedown of an innocent results in it going back to an avg of 2.2.

 

[Trykpaa]

Had a easy-ish roll-about today (21" winters, Mixed weather, city and backroad, no heating).

The GT range continues to impress me. Some numbers don't add up, though. 0,163Wh/km = 450km but I have driven 100,6km on 19% = 530km.

I bet 95% of the difference in range between GT and other versions is down to wheel/tires.

 

[Lamrith]

I've noticed that if I drive quite well in GT mode, I can get to about 3 miles/kwh... but just one takedown of an innocent results in it going back to an avg of 2.2.

Pretty much what I have noticed as well.

Had a easy-ish roll-about today (21" winters, Mixed weather, city and backroad, no heating).
View attachment 12541
The GT range continues to impress me. Some numbers don't add up, though. 0,163Wh/km = 450km but I have driven 100,6km on 19% = 530km.

I bet 95% of the difference in range between GT and other versions is down to wheel/tires.

Based on testing I have done I agree. My challenge is cold weather is not letting me see true potential and gain vs stock.
The stock get so hard in this colder weather that I think they actually get better mileage than they will in summer. So far changing to a good high perf AS tire I have not gained anything vs the stock ones in this cold weather.

HOWEVER! Based on my testing I do see pretty clearly that tire will make a difference, and so will wheel, though I think tire wins out. Compare the 5 runs below, all performed on the same day, same route.

• TIRES: Note line 2 vs line 3/4 these are all same wheel set. Line 2 was old very hard tires from another car. While they were wider than stock got MUCH better mileage, I noticed this when them on a long trip when I got the car but did not have OBD2 to get hard data. Lines 3/4 are the same wheel, same model of tire, but brand new and factory width. .55mi/kw difference hard (low RR) vs new (high rr). A low RR tire could spike GT's range right up to the GTLine AWD region.
• WHEELS: Note line 1 vs line 4 these are same tires moved from one wheel set to another. The Lago poke out of the wheel well a bit more and are pretty open (not as bad as stock GT) The Shift are tighter faces and do not poke out as much. .28mi/kw

So my original Shift wheels with AS-05 tires looks like the best range option so far. I switched to DWS-06+ as I was not seeing any range increase Vs stock and another GT owner has had great range with his DWS-06 and they are reported to have good RR vs other tires in class. The DWS06+ are definitely quieter than the AS-05. I am waiting on a GTLine owner I know to change out his stock tires for a more winter tire and hope to get his GTLine tires to mount on the Shift wheels this summer and test with as well as along side the stock GT wheelset.

 

[SNOWnCARBON_EV6GT]

Had a easy-ish roll-about today (21" winters, Mixed weather, city and backroad, no heating).
View attachment 12541
The GT range continues to impress me. Some numbers don't add up, though. 0,163Wh/km = 450km but I have driven 100,6km on 19% = 530km.

I bet 95% of the difference in range between GT and other versions is down to wheel/tires.

It’s baffling to me that you’re getting the equivalent of 228 miles at 100% SOC and are also running Winters and (I assume) the OEM 21s?

Had a easy-ish roll-about today (21" winters, Mixed weather, city and backroad, no heating).
View attachment 12541
The GT range continues to impress me. Some numbers don't add up, though. 0,163Wh/km = 450km but I have driven 100,6km on 19% = 530km.

I bet 95% of the difference in range between GT and other versions is down to wheel/tires.

Your range figures are very impressive and imo “outlier-ish” especially considering that you’re running winter tires AND 21s (the OEM wheels or perhaps a different, lighter aftermarket set?) and are still getting ~228 miles at 100% SOC. On my side, I am also running winters and OEM 21s and my range has plummeted from a max seen of 220 miles at 100% SOC on the OEM summers to 180 @ 100% SOC (or -19%) on Pirelli Scorpion Winters.
Another GT owner from another forum showed 233 miles of range on his GOM, but is known to be running OEM summers (the Michelins) and the gent lives in Jordan, where I reckon is considerably warmer than your Denmark and my Chicagoland.

 

[Unobtanium]

It’s baffling to me that you’re getting the equivalent of 228 miles at 100% SOC and are also running Winters and (I assume) the OEM 21s?

Your range figures are very impressive and imo “outlier-ish” especially considering that you’re running winter tires AND 21s (the OEM wheels or perhaps a different, lighter aftermarket set?) and are still getting ~228 miles at 100% SOC. On my side, I am also running winters and OEM 21s and my range has plummeted from a max seen of 220 miles at 100% SOC on the OEM summers to 180 @ 100% SOC (or -19%) on Pirelli Scorpion Winters.
Another GT owner from another forum showed 233 miles of range on his GOM, but is known to be running OEM summers (the Michelins) and the gent lives in Jordan, where I reckon is considerably warmer than your Denmark and my Chicagoland.

Quality winter tires like the Michelin XICE have lower rolling resistance than their PSAS4 or AS4. Very LRR. I don't have any data on Pirelli, but I've never found them to be a leader at anything except tire roundness defects. In fact, a new Pirelli on my C40 had to be replaced due to failed RFB. Literally 1 in 4 failure due to manufacturing, the only car I've ever had that brand on, lol!

 

[Trykpaa]

It’s baffling to me that you’re getting the equivalent of 228 miles at 100% SOC and are also running Winters and (I assume) the OEM 21s?

Your range figures are very impressive and imo “outlier-ish” especially considering that you’re running winter tires AND 21s (the OEM wheels or perhaps a different, lighter aftermarket set?) and are still getting ~228 miles at 100% SOC. On my side, I am also running winters and OEM 21s and my range has plummeted from a max seen of 220 miles at 100% SOC on the OEM summers to 180 @ 100% SOC (or -19%) on Pirelli Scorpion Winters.

Due to lack of rim availability I got Continental TS870 WinterContact 255/40 on the original rims. I can confirm that they roll mind bending better than the original Michelins. And are quiter and much more comfortable. Also mess up the TC though.

It is definitely an outlier for me. My average is 240Wh/km. I routinely get 200Wh but most often around 250Wh.
The legal part of the mentioned trip the computer indicated 150Wh/km which I therefore assume to be as good as it gets.

Based on my experience, I will look into getting a third wheels set - winters, summer and track (with the original Michelins). The first two set with focus on comfort and range.

 

[Unobtanium]

Like I've been saying, it actually HITS its EPA rating. Which means if you compare it to other EV's that just don't, the "epa rating you'd expect" is much higher than the one it has. If that makes sense.

 

[mr-nik]

Like I've been saying, it actually HITS its EPA rating. Which means if you compare it to other EV's that just don't, the "epa rating you'd expect" is much higher than the one it has. If that makes sense.

I fully expect this car to be able to do more than EPA if you drive it under certain conditions. This is probably stating the obvious for readers here (I'm a newbie), but I decided the look up the EPA test parameters, and having originally assumed they were "real world" tests, turns out they are not. The bottom line is, they are still using weighted averages from a Dyno. That means for high speed runs in particular, they are essentially guessing at air-resistance (indeed they specifically exclude the C coefficient (drag factor), for example, they simply multiply results by 0.7).

Their web page is a little confusing at first as it covers ICE (for MPG) and BEV (for range), but I've extracted the relevant parts: For the curious, this is what they say

In general, vehicles are tested over 5 defined test cycles that were created to represent typical driving conditions in the U.S.:

1. City test - no heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) operation
2. Highway test - no HVAC operation
3. More aggressive/high speed test - no HVAC operation
4. Hot test at 95° F - HVAC set to cool the cabin
5. Cold test at 20° F - HVAC set to specific settings for heat and defrost

Then the way these cycles are combined to produce a figure

For EV range testing:

1. A vehicle with a fully charged battery is driven continuously over the EPA city cycle until the battery is depleted and the vehicle can drive no further. The distance driven is recorded. This is repeated, again starting with a full charge, over the EPA highway cycle, again recording the distance driven when the battery is depleted. This “single cycle” test consists of multiple repeat drives of the city or highway cycle.
2. Automakers also have the option of doing a multi-cycle test, which consists of four city cycles, two highway cycles, and two constant speed cycles.*
3. All testing is done in a laboratory on a dynamometer.
4. The city and highway driving ranges determined from this testing are adjusted to account for real-world factors that are not represented on the laboratory test procedures. These factors include such things the impact of air conditioning, of cold temperatures, and of high speed and aggressive driving behavior. Although the regulations allow some optional approaches, the most common approach is to use a factor of 0.7 to adjust all the test parameters, including range. For example:
   • An EV achieves 200 miles on the highway laboratory test. Real-world highway driving range → 200 x 0.7 = 140 miles to account for aggressive driving and HVAC use.
5. The adjusted city and highway range values are weighted together by 55% and 45%, respectively, to determine the combined city and highway driving range that appears on the EPA fuel economy label. For example:
   • Assume an adjusted city range of 168 miles and an adjusted highway range of 140 (from example above). The official combined range value → (0.55 x 168) + (0.45 x 140) = 155 miles (values are rounded to the nearest whole number).

some notes/observations:

• I read the detailed info correctly it suggests that anything done in Turtle mode isn't include - i.e the vehicle has to meet the max speed criteria set for the test.
• This is intended to "represent typical driving conditions in the US."
  • It's certainly the case that driving conditions in other countries differ to some degree, and I suppose you might achieve less or more as a result. Kia continue to advertise the GT in the UK as "up to 265 miles"
• The highway cycle peaks at 80 mph, and averages 48.37 mph
  • I suspect that while the test in the video had a lower top speed, it averaged more than 48mph.
  • So, why would a lower speed EPA test appear to predict a worse outcome?
    • because the EPA driving cycles are a combined measure - and simply cannot predict any single journey
    • who's to say the 0.7 multiplier applies well to the GT.
• In Europe, of course, WLTP figures are quoted, which typically read higher than EPA.
  • ultimately no test is perfect.

What we can say is that if EPA reports 206 miles, then their test result average returned 294 miles from the lab (that's 207 divided by 0.7) after combining city and highway tests using the weight formula. Obviously we'd assume that city cycles got something higher than that, and highway cycles something less.

source: Testing at the National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory | US EPA | Federal Register :: Request Access

 

[thebimbo]

Thanks for the summary… my takeaway is that none of that sounds ‘real world’ and a good example is that these days most of us always have AC on…

 

[Lamrith]

Thanks for the summary… my takeaway is that none of that sounds ‘real world’ and a good example is that these days most of us always have AC on…

Ac was on in the YouTube test and tire pressures low IMHO. So car does better than EPA rating.

I run 40psi as it is more efficient and tires still provide more performance than can use legally in public roads.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

 

[E-Zilla]

Worth noting (if it hasn't already been noted in this thread) that the range quoted everywhere other than the US is around 250 miles.

 

[npgeorgeuw]

Worth noting (if it hasn't already been noted in this thread) that the range quoted everywhere other than the US is around 250 miles.

makes sense. With stock tires I could get 230 easily. That required an efficiency minded driving as did my Bolt, Bolt EUV and Mach E GT PE to exceed their range estimates. I think if you just drive it, the epa rating is pretty accurate. If you drive it efficiently you can push it another 30-40 miles. What I’m seeing is that even though others like the MME GT PE have bigger batteries it’s offset by their inefficiency whereas the EV6 GT can be pushed further with technique settings and tires.

 

[Paul ev6 GT]

I took an 160+ mile road trip up the canyon here in Idaho and the car reported 2.3mi/kWh going up and 3.3mi/kWh coming back down. It got as high as 4 but at the end of the canyon is another little summit to go over so the downhill trip average took a hit. This is mostly in normal mode with a handful of GT bursts. Some hard cornering too. What a blast!

However, I checked the app when I go home and this is what it showed:

I’m terrible at math as I’m an art major but doesn’t this show 2.6 and 3.6 mi/kWh?

The car reported 22% battery with 45 miles remaining. Started at 100% and 206 miles. So the distance estimate seems pretty accurate for this trip.

Paul

 

[Lamrith]

Put over 230mi on gt sat, cruising/ripping mountain backroads. Even with gtmode and spirited driving in a few places I got 3mi/kw with 20" wheels and DWS06+ tires @ 40psi. No HVAC running as it was a beautiful day.

Estimations said I was fine, but not knowing specific road or play opportunities I played it safe, since absolutely no emergency charge spots in these remote areas. I topped up at an evgo charger and got 200kw rate which was sweet. I was in and out before the teslas across from me, and they were charging before I pulled in and wasted 10 min with a cranky charger before switching to next one over...

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

 

[J/Slater]

I’m new to EV (and not got it yet) so I’m sure the next question falls under “don’t be daft, there’s no fixed answer” but….

just wondering if there are any examples of real world economy/range for the GT yet?

I’ve seen one YouTube video where the reviewer was returning about 2.6 - 2.7 miles per KWh - ie about 200 miles on a full charge; significantly less than the quoted (which I realise is somewhat artificial, but the same time forms the basis of the sales pitch)
And to be fair, not a long term owner.

I’m wondering whether the different driving modes will make a material difference (eg is eco 2 wheel drive?)

My GT is less that a week old. I live in rural North Georgia and 80% 0f my driving is on 2 lane highways with posted speed limits of 55mph..The roads are curvy and hilly. I chose a route that was 25 miles round trip. Charged the battery too !00% and showed a range of 217miles
Yesterday it was rainy and 39* I drove the speed limits in eco and used IPedal only in a school zone, going down hills with regen in 1 and no regen when going uphill
Today I repeated the same route but it was sunny and 51*
upon return home the total miles were 50.1 (for both days) and the remainIng range was 168 miles
That is like 218 range on the F1 tires in less than ideal weather. Tomorrow I am changing tires to Michilen Pilot Sports all season tires and the weather will be inlow To mid 70’s. Will repeat the same test hoping for a nice improvement
will post the results

 

[npgeorgeuw]

My GT is less that a week old. I live in rural North Georgia and 80% 0f my driving is on 2 lane highways with posted speed limits of 55mph..The roads are curvy and hilly. I chose a route that was 25 miles round trip. Charged the battery too !00% and showed a range of 217miles
Yesterday it was rainy and 39* I drove the speed limits in eco and used IPedal only in a school zone, going down hills with regen in 1 and no regen when going uphill
Today I repeated the same route but it was sunny and 51*
upon return home the total miles were 50.1 (for both days) and the remainIng range was 168 miles
That is like 218 range on the F1 tires in less than ideal weather. Tomorrow I am changing tires to Michilen Pilot Sports all season tires and the weather will be inlow To mid 70’s. Will repeat the same test hoping for a nice improvement
will post the results

PSAS4s were a significant loss in range for me. Especially in cool temps I could push the F1s upwards of 3 miles per kWh. I’m about 10% decreased from that even though the temps are warmer and my pack is warmer is general.