As well as Jason Fenske at Engineering Explained.
EPA ratings are a constant discussion here at insideevs. It is very rare in evaluations and tests for any Tesla ever to reach its official numbers. On the other hand, the Taycan has repeatedly beaten them, possibly because of how low its official EPA rating is. Would Porsche have been too conservative? Is Tesla cheating on the numbers? None of that is right, as Car and Driver and Jason Fenske recently explained brilliantly.
Dave Wanderwerp analyzed all technical information regarding EPA tests and not only determined why Tesla numbers are better, but also checked why Porsche numbers are apparently conservative. It all has to do with the way the EPA ratings are structured, and both companies did everything by the book. They just chose different approaches.
After reading Wanderwerp’s article, Fenske praised him on Twitter and made a new video precisely about that article, which made the discussion even richer. We strongly advise you to both watch the Engineering Explained video and to read the Car and Driver article (the link is at the end of this text).
Wanderwerp defines three main aspects to determine the difference between the Model S range and the numbers the Taycan presents. They have to do with something called “adjustment factor” in the EPA rating tests, battery size, and how each company decided to handle energy recovery. This is all we can say without ruining the fun of learning more about that from its rightful sources.
What we would like to propose is a meaningful discussion that the article and the video raise. Fuel efficiency and range test numbers are created to allow for a fair comparison between different vehicles through standardized procedures. It helps consumers choose the most efficient options based on a neutral measurement.
In that sense, why does EPA allow manufacturers to choose between two testing methods, a simple and a more complex one? Shouldn’t all cars be submitted to the same testing procedures to allow for a fair comparison?
More than that, are EPA standards prepared to deal with electric cars? Shouldn’t they have updated the test procedures to reflect the evolution they have presented since these tests were first established? Thanks to Wanderwerp’s text and the information Fenske adds to the discussion, we can analyze that based on facts. Make sure you do not miss any of them.