Hyundai IONIQ Forum banner

61 - 80 of 91 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
1,554 Posts
Probably, that difference is mostly due to the lower Winter temperature you experience in the far north of Europe, compared to the temperature for the WLTP-test. That can make a difference of 30%. Also, a different speed may play a role. The current list of reported range estimations in the Google Sheet (starting in October, so no Summer temperatures) is:

348
281
332
327
340
278
255
282
286
309
264

The average of them is now 300 km. When we have had Summer 2020, the numbers will have become higher.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30 Posts
Hum. Would have expected to loose so much given that we are still comfortably in the plus :)
But I guess it will be a wait and see as the weather goes warmer :)
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
1,554 Posts
This is a comparable overview for the pre2020 28kWh version. As you can see, it varies with temperature (and speed) from 100 to 400 km range.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
1,554 Posts
I think I did not copy the link correctly. It should work now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
It works for me too. Make sure you use the link given in the original post, not the link in the quoted post. The quoted post still has the wrong link.

Does anyone have experience with the Ioniq ev during extreme cold, such as on days when it is - 20F / -29C? I have an 80 mile commute and a few days every few years get that cold. The car would sit outside for 8 hours while I'm at work, so will it continue to lose range while parked in extreme cold? I'm thinking an EV may not be the right option, but I hate to give up the benefits for those very rare days.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
431 Posts
It works for me too. Make sure you use the link given in the original post, not the link in the quoted post. The quoted post still has the wrong link.

Does anyone have experience with the Ioniq ev during extreme cold, such as on days when it is - 20F / -29C? I have an 80 mile commute and a few days every few years get that cold. The car would sit outside for 8 hours while I'm at work, so will it continue to lose range while parked in extreme cold? I'm thinking an EV may not be the right option, but I hate to give up the benefits for those very rare days.
I imagine the Norwegians do, and until recently they were the country with the most EV owners. Maybe Bjorn has a video on it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
Not a range issue as such, but may be of interest. Having had the 12v battery go flat - apparently a common problem, I had to sit in the car while it recharged from the main battery. (Incidentally, this took 2 miles/1% off the battery status. Re-charging took an hour) I killed off the auto climate control etc, so sat in a quiet, fan-free car. Did a short journey - just a few miles - and noticed 5.2kWh performance. Reminded me to reset the auto CC. Return journey showed 3.8kWh. I was surprised at the difference.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
286 Posts
Not a range issue as such, but may be of interest. Having had the 12v battery go flat - apparently a common problem, I had to sit in the car while it recharged from the main battery. (Incidentally, this took 2 miles/1% off the battery status. Re-charging took an hour) I killed off the auto climate control etc, so sat in a quiet, fan-free car. Did a short journey - just a few miles - and noticed 5.2kWh performance. Reminded me to reset the auto CC. Return journey showed 3.8kWh. I was surprised at the difference.
You had a battery go flat and were able to charge it just by waiting for an hour? Or was this after jump starting?

Reset the auto CC? Do you mean changing to AUTO CC meant the efficiency dropped to 3.8kWh/mi from 5.2kWh/mi?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
You had a battery go flat and were able to charge it just by waiting for an hour? Or was this after jump starting?

Reset the auto CC? Do you mean changing to AUTO CC meant the efficiency dropped to 3.8kWh/mi from 5.2kWh/mi?
After it had been charged a bit via the AA's mobile charger. Yes, changed back to Auto, 21C, driver only from Off.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
1,554 Posts
In Norway, a comparative test was done of the 2020 Ioniq EV and the Model 3 Short Range. In cooperation with a towing service, both cars were driven from 100% until they stranded totally empty. After this, they were charged again (after 20 minutes delay due to the towing). Some of the outcomes were:
  • Prices in Norway: Ioniq from NOK 272 000; Model 3 from NOK 385 000
  • Battery and consumption: Ioniq 38.3 kWh battery, 37.2 kWh consumed; Model 3 54 kWh battery, 50.3 kWh consumed
  • Achieved range: Ioniq 272 km; Model 3 314 km
  • Achieved efficiency: Ioniq 13.7 kWh/100km; Model 3 16 kWh/100km
  • Energy loss during charging (percentages of total input delivered by the charger): Ioniq 9.5%, Model 3 15.9%
  • Charging power: Ioniq average 30 kW, max 45 kW; Model 3 average 81 kW, max 100 kW
The temperatures while driving were between +8 degrees C and -10 degrees C.

So, in contrast to the EPA data on efficiency, in this test, the Ioniq was the most efficient one (16% more efficient in terms of kWh/100km). So, don't consider the EPA numbers as a gold standard; maybe they can also be manipulated. Also, the loss percentage during charging was much lower for the Ioniq (40% lower). In summary, in this test, the Ioniq proves to be by far the most efficient one of the two, both from wall to driving and from battery to driving.

For range vs price also the Ioniq wins with 1 km/1000NOK versus 0.8 km/1000NOK, so for each 1000 NOK you pay, you get 22% more range with the Ioniq.

Concerning the last bullet, the provided info was not 100% clear. 1) Charging up to 80% or up to 100%? 2) There seem to be inconsistencies between the numbers in the graph and the numbers mentioned in the text. 3) How much did the battery cool down during the 20 minutes of towing?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Hi everyone. I'm interested in efficiency and google bought me here. Good work on gathering data so far but I notice that it's a bit thin on the ground. Would anyone be willing to do some experiments at different speeds to test their effects on efficiency? I appreciate that most of the submissions to Jan's spreadsheet are people just driving normally so it might be a little inconvenient but it might be helpful.

My understanding is that the efficiency rating (KWh/100km) is accurate. If so it wouldn't be necessary to do long trips unless it's inaccurate over small distances. A tester could drive on a nice quite flat road at a variety of speeds (10/20/30mph etc) gently accelerating, driving for a short distance before rolling to a stop. Ideally this would happen after a warm up period to account for any effect starting from cold would have and ideally repeated on different days at different temperatures.

While fuel costs are much lower than on petrol or diesel cars efficiency is still important. For every 1kwh/100km you save that's 3,200kwh over 320,000 km (200k miles). For me, at £0.14/kwh that'd be a saving of £448 for each 1kw/100km, that's £9856 for a car that gets 6kwh/100km over one that gets 28kwh/100km. Apparently the Nissan Leaf is most efficient at 12mph so I'm surprised that most of the speeds on the spreadsheet are 60mph+ and the lowest is around 28mph
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
1,554 Posts
Welcome to the forum!
Can you add some details to your profile and tell a bit more about your context and aims?
Are you aware that there actually are two Google Sheets? One is for the previous 28kWh Ioniq and one for the current 38kWh Ioniq.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Thanks Jan. I am aware there are two spreadsheets. I suppose my request applies to both of them but mainly to the 38kw version, which is why I posted here. I'd still be interested in the results should an owner of a 28kwh Ioniq try it.

Can you confirm whether my beliefs about the efficiency measurement in my original post are correct?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
677 Posts
I can't remember where I saved this these range curves from any more. Perhaps somebody on the forum knows. You could reverse engineer the curves to yield kWh/100km. The general take away is that the slower and less aggressively you drive, the better the consumption.

32246
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
1,554 Posts
Can you confirm whether my beliefs about the efficiency measurement in my original post are correct?
My understanding is that the efficiency rating (KWh/100km) is accurate. If so it wouldn't be necessary to do long trips unless it's inaccurate over small distances. A tester could drive on a nice quite flat road at a variety of speeds (10/20/30mph etc) gently accelerating, driving for a short distance before rolling to a stop. Ideally this would happen after a warm up period to account for any effect starting from cold would have and ideally repeated on different days at different temperatures.
Yes, we use the efficiency rating (kWh/100km) as accurate enough for a useful estimation and then to get the range for a full 38.3 kWh battery you can do, for example

38.3 kWh * 100/efficiency (kWh/100km)

If the efficiency is 12.5 kWh/100km, for example, you get 38.3 *100/12.5 km = 38.3*8 km = 306.4 km.

As an alternative, the battery SoC % could be used, but over time that has turned out less accurate; for example, if the battery SoC gets 50% lower when you drive 150 km, you could estimate that by a full battery you could have driven 300 km.

I fully support your suggestion of doing experiments with systematic variations.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
1,554 Posts
I can't remember where I saved this these range curves from any more. Perhaps somebody on the forum knows. You could reverse engineer the curves to yield kWh/100km. The general take away is that the slower and less aggressively you drive, the better the consumption.
I would not be surprised if this is one of my graphs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ou Boet
61 - 80 of 91 Posts
Top