Chris

The link works ok here. 502 indicates a server problem, so that might have been temporary.

I’ll state that we don’t really need to discuss how standardized measurements will never be able to reflect every conceivable use case in every conceivable geography, because that is simply not what these ratings are there for. They exist to make vehicles simpler to compare.

And of course manufacturers will use (and emphasize) those estimates if that makes them look better. Doesn’t make a difference if EV or ICE manufacturer.

None of my past ICE vehicles ever got close to the rated consumption. Common sense tells me I shouldn’t expect things to be different with a different propulsion system.

EPA tests all cars stationary on a dynamometer through different cycles. Influence of air drag, air condition, cold temperatures etc. are then added through a factor that is typically 0.7 according to EPA‘s official information at https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/testing-national-vehicle-and-fuel-emissions-laboratory

I agree part of the EPA range is calculated but I think it’s wrong to claim that a/c and other factors aren’t taken into account.

I’ve driven my EV better than EPA range at times and that included using A/C and having more than one person in the car. I’m not saying that driving it that way is a ton of fun and I’m not saying that I can do that in the midst of winter. But it’s definitely possible.

The article that you reference is mainly about sulphur oxide. I’m not sure how you make the leap from that to CO2. Also Business Insider is owned by the very pro oil & gas Springer who in turn is partially owned by KKR. I would say not the most credible source when it comes to environmental information.

Oh, Topf Secret kannte ich noch nicht. Danke.

Warum lassen die Hersteller bei modernen Autos nicht einfach die Parksensoren so lange an, bis die Fahrerin ausgestiegen ist? Damit ließe sich auch vor Bewegung in Fahrzeugnähe warnen.

Oh cool

Genau mein Humor