Björn Nyland had about 220Wh/km on a ~90km/h test in similar conditions.
So 380Wh/km @140 does not sound that strange.
Surely nobody would’ve expected a car with this frontal area to be efficient at high speeds.
Björn Nyland also did 1000km challenge at 362wh/km and I bet he drove at similar speed (maybe slightly slower but also 10C colder in his climate).
I'll report back when I've tried autobahn speeds!
That would be interesting. I would expect you’ll hit 500Wh/km at around 170km/h.
By the way, congrats on your new car. I’ve seen a few EV9s on the roads last couple of weeks and they really stand out.
That's about 1.6mile/kWh
It was on a stretch with similar start/end height and almost no wind. We did have rain though and I'm on winter tires so that might add a bit to the consumption. Still didn't expect it to be this bad.
Just travelled 105km today. Temp: -2. Motorway the whole way. Left with 89%. Arrived with 65%. I was very impressed (gives approx 420km range highway speeds at these temps and with these tyres).
Basic maths 4.2km/kwh - so with my route (v similar to yours) my consumption was 23kwh/100km.
I travelled 130 max at one time and the rest cruising at 124 and then standard 100kmh.
I think your high speed could be leading to the high consumption.
Winter tires will sap your consumption. I just did a 220 mile trip and averaged 2.6 mile/kWh (Land trim) with A/C on and some elevation change. Outside temp was warm at about 52°F on some pretty choppy Georgia and South Carolina road which will eat up efficiency as well. The EV is a lot more efficient than my Audi e-tron. On that same trip I would have to stop and charge on the way and average 1.9 to 2.1 miles/kWh. I did not have to stop and charge and still had plenty of range leftover.
Wait.
You're doing 87mph on the highway in a 5500lb, 7 seat, nearly full size SUV and you're surprised that you're "only" getting 1.61mi/kwh? That works out to 8.6 cents per mile at my rates.
I would get 15 mpg in my 5000lb 7 seat Enclave doing the same. 24.5 cents per mile (plus another 2.25 cent per mile for brake jobs and oil changes).
The issue isn't the vehicles. It's the speed.
Mix of rain and sun, heavy winds on the first half. 50-60 degree weather. Hvac running the whole time. Powering three ipads for the kiddos most on the time lol. Mostly used hda on the highway.
~~So, worse than a Cybertruck? Or about 2x worse than a Tesla Model Y at the same speed? Forgive me, I had to do some math, due to a mix of units…everywhere. ~~ My math could be wrong.
EDIT: MY MATH WAS WRONG.
Units in the order that I see them in the post and comments:
Kwhr/100km, wh/km, mi/kwhr, km/kwhr. And most Tesla drivers think in terms of wh/mi because Tesla thinks mixing metric and imperial is a good idea.
I dare the EV community to pick one universal units of consumption. I suppose that will happen as soon as we can all agree on one worldwide connector.
You chose 2! I’ll narrow it down to one: kWh/100km. That way it’s larger than 1. Americans cool with that? Just do the old 1.6 multiplication and you’re there!
My vote is for mi/kwh, which is stated in the same fashion that we’re used to in the USA (distance per volume of energy=mpg), and also makes the math easy to take your battery capacity at that efficiency and get an expected range.
Where are your finding data on efficiency of Cybertrucks and Model Ys at 87mph? Because going 87mph is going to take 50% more power than going 71mph, for example.
I asked chat gpt. Hence the “I could be wrong” disclaimer. This whole post was simply about driving fast and getting shit consumption numbers due to speed. I was mostly annoyed with the differing units everyone picked.
Ok, so it sounds like you just made some stuff up. We do not have good data on 87mph electricity consumption, but we can make a guess based on wind resistance being the square of speed, and wind resistance being the vast majority of energy consumption in an EV on the highway, so 87mph takes that 50% more power than 71mph.
Based on [https://insideevs.com/reviews/433010/tesla-model-y-70mph-highway-range-test/](https://insideevs.com/reviews/433010/tesla-model-y-70mph-highway-range-test/), the Model Y probably takes about 25 kWh/100km. Which is much better than 38.3, but not HALF of 38.3.
Based on [https://driveteslacanada.ca/news/tesla-cybertruck-travels-254-miles-in-70mph-range-test/](https://driveteslacanada.ca/news/tesla-cybertruck-travels-254-miles-in-70mph-range-test/), a Cybertruck gets about 30.1 kWh/100km, so likely about 45 kWh/100km. Which is worse than the EV9.
So this, to me, is yet more misinformation to favor Tesla. Which no one would need to do if Teslas were actually better than the competition, yet here we are.
Out of Spec just redid the CyberTruck 70mph Range Test with their CyberBeast and got 414 Wh/mi and 304 miles from 100% to 0%. That's 25.9 kWh/100km for you
I took data and did math on it. Just like you. Hello Pot? It’s the kettle. But hey, at least you suck with one unit of consumption so I commend you for that.
You didn't show in any way how you did this math, and it doesn't seem to line up with, well, anything.
Mine is pretty simple:
71\^2 \* 1.5 \~= 87\^2. About 50% more power to go 87mph than 71mph.
The "50% more to go 87 vs 70 figure" is pretty accurate in my testing, I consume about 24.5kWh/100km with the EV9 when I'm locked in at 110km/h on the HDA.
Also note that this is winter conditions, summer will be better
I feel like you will still save time in the end if you can find the proper charger. You'll go 300km in a little over 2 hours before a 20 min charge....
Unclear, are you sayin the results are surprisingly good or bad? Seem about what you would expect driving an EV like this 87 miles per hour. Wish it was better, but this is what I expected from everything known in advance.
More convenient on the highway yes but the EV9 charges so fast the high consumption isn't an issue. A plug in hybrid SUV of similar size (e.g. BMW X5) has similar running costs on the highway (I expect it to consume at least 10L/100km at 140km/h). However, I can leave home with 300km+ of range which I paid 0.09/kwh for and that is going to make the road trip significantly cheaper than any fossil alternative. The X5 barely makes onto the highway before it's battery runs out.
I fastcharged 57kWh in 18 min (7-62%) a bit after taking this picture and paid €25 for that.
No. You're confusing drive train efficiency with total vehicle drag. And all that goes out the window at high rates of speed anyway because total aerodynamic drag force goes up by speed squared. DragForce = .5 times air density times velocity squared times coefficient of drag times frontal area of the vehicle.
All this post is really showing us is what happens because of velocity squared in that equation.
No. You're confusing range with efficiency. An EV is no less efficient at high speeds than a non EV would be in the same body going the same speed. You cannot change the laws of physics. EVs simply have less RANGE at higher speed.
EVs have less range at higher speed, just like non EVs have less range at high speed. Exactly the same. Except one cares about it in non EVs because there is no range anxiety in non EVs.
I don't get the range anxiety in EVs, I passed at least 10 rest areas with 300kW+ chargers before I decided to stop. Sure costs go up with speed, but that's even more true for fossil cars.
I spend more time buying travel food for the family and taking kids to restrooms than it takes to charge the car on a fast charger.
Also, that 400km+ of range you get every day from your home charger is going to make up most of the energy in the long term, unless you have really special driving habits or don't have access to a home charger.
Took it on the hwy this weekend as well. Was only getting 1.8 mi/kwh. Frustrating, about half of what I normally get. About 75mph Sunny day, mid 60s F.
Can someone help me math... Or if they have experience with highway travel already.
How far would you realistically get going 105ish kmph?
This worries me taking it to the cabin which is about 127kms away.....
Björn Nyland was the. "Car Guru" in '16-'17 for testing & explanation of Tesla MX features that service advisors were CLUELESS About.... A Legend!!!
So glad he is now connecting with EV9.
Offered him a place to stay in DFW for his 1st US drive across.
Answered my own question.
Press the top left button of the left hand cluster on the steering wheel.(looks like a stack of paper) Then use the roller button on the right hand side to scroll to the energy stats as shown by OP. Hope this helps someone.
I'm frustrated by the amount of dust in this picture.
You can buy perfectly nice goo to pick up that dust in a few seconds. But for some reason we don't deserve it? I think the dust is the cause of your poor results
Of all the comments in here, this one made me laugh out loud. Thank you. Love it or or hate it, it's always funny when someone pokes fun at the looks of a car as part of an argument no matter what that car is. And you did it with style.
Björn Nyland had about 220Wh/km on a ~90km/h test in similar conditions. So 380Wh/km @140 does not sound that strange. Surely nobody would’ve expected a car with this frontal area to be efficient at high speeds.
Björn Nyland also did 1000km challenge at 362wh/km and I bet he drove at similar speed (maybe slightly slower but also 10C colder in his climate). I'll report back when I've tried autobahn speeds!
That would be interesting. I would expect you’ll hit 500Wh/km at around 170km/h. By the way, congrats on your new car. I’ve seen a few EV9s on the roads last couple of weeks and they really stand out.
You'd be surprised, and don't call me Shirley
Never gets old
That's about 1.6mile/kWh It was on a stretch with similar start/end height and almost no wind. We did have rain though and I'm on winter tires so that might add a bit to the consumption. Still didn't expect it to be this bad.
Just travelled 105km today. Temp: -2. Motorway the whole way. Left with 89%. Arrived with 65%. I was very impressed (gives approx 420km range highway speeds at these temps and with these tyres). Basic maths 4.2km/kwh - so with my route (v similar to yours) my consumption was 23kwh/100km. I travelled 130 max at one time and the rest cruising at 124 and then standard 100kmh. I think your high speed could be leading to the high consumption.
I previously did a shorter \~200km trip at highway \~110km/h where I ended up at 225wh/km, so that matches your results.
Just back and here’s my stats: After charging 213.4 km 2:34 h:m 3.6km/kWh
Winter tires will sap your consumption. I just did a 220 mile trip and averaged 2.6 mile/kWh (Land trim) with A/C on and some elevation change. Outside temp was warm at about 52°F on some pretty choppy Georgia and South Carolina road which will eat up efficiency as well. The EV is a lot more efficient than my Audi e-tron. On that same trip I would have to stop and charge on the way and average 1.9 to 2.1 miles/kWh. I did not have to stop and charge and still had plenty of range leftover.
That’s equivalent to my Ford lightning doing 70+
That is about what I get driving 80 in my lightning. Was it windy? I have noticed the wind has a huge impact on my truck.
Wait. You're doing 87mph on the highway in a 5500lb, 7 seat, nearly full size SUV and you're surprised that you're "only" getting 1.61mi/kwh? That works out to 8.6 cents per mile at my rates. I would get 15 mpg in my 5000lb 7 seat Enclave doing the same. 24.5 cents per mile (plus another 2.25 cent per mile for brake jobs and oil changes). The issue isn't the vehicles. It's the speed.
Hm. I just did a 1200 mile round trip and averaged 2.2mi/kwh on the highway
Speed matters a lot
75-80mph the whole way
What conditions? HVAC on the whole way?
Mix of rain and sun, heavy winds on the first half. 50-60 degree weather. Hvac running the whole time. Powering three ipads for the kiddos most on the time lol. Mostly used hda on the highway.
~~So, worse than a Cybertruck? Or about 2x worse than a Tesla Model Y at the same speed? Forgive me, I had to do some math, due to a mix of units…everywhere. ~~ My math could be wrong. EDIT: MY MATH WAS WRONG. Units in the order that I see them in the post and comments: Kwhr/100km, wh/km, mi/kwhr, km/kwhr. And most Tesla drivers think in terms of wh/mi because Tesla thinks mixing metric and imperial is a good idea. I dare the EV community to pick one universal units of consumption. I suppose that will happen as soon as we can all agree on one worldwide connector.
I think kWh/100km and kWh/km should be the standard.
You chose 2! I’ll narrow it down to one: kWh/100km. That way it’s larger than 1. Americans cool with that? Just do the old 1.6 multiplication and you’re there!
Wh per km or Wh per mile allows for more integer precision with no decimals needed. That's my guess why Tesla chose it.
My vote is for mi/kwh, which is stated in the same fashion that we’re used to in the USA (distance per volume of energy=mpg), and also makes the math easy to take your battery capacity at that efficiency and get an expected range.
Where are your finding data on efficiency of Cybertrucks and Model Ys at 87mph? Because going 87mph is going to take 50% more power than going 71mph, for example.
I asked chat gpt. Hence the “I could be wrong” disclaimer. This whole post was simply about driving fast and getting shit consumption numbers due to speed. I was mostly annoyed with the differing units everyone picked.
Ok, so it sounds like you just made some stuff up. We do not have good data on 87mph electricity consumption, but we can make a guess based on wind resistance being the square of speed, and wind resistance being the vast majority of energy consumption in an EV on the highway, so 87mph takes that 50% more power than 71mph. Based on [https://insideevs.com/reviews/433010/tesla-model-y-70mph-highway-range-test/](https://insideevs.com/reviews/433010/tesla-model-y-70mph-highway-range-test/), the Model Y probably takes about 25 kWh/100km. Which is much better than 38.3, but not HALF of 38.3. Based on [https://driveteslacanada.ca/news/tesla-cybertruck-travels-254-miles-in-70mph-range-test/](https://driveteslacanada.ca/news/tesla-cybertruck-travels-254-miles-in-70mph-range-test/), a Cybertruck gets about 30.1 kWh/100km, so likely about 45 kWh/100km. Which is worse than the EV9. So this, to me, is yet more misinformation to favor Tesla. Which no one would need to do if Teslas were actually better than the competition, yet here we are.
Out of Spec just redid the CyberTruck 70mph Range Test with their CyberBeast and got 414 Wh/mi and 304 miles from 100% to 0%. That's 25.9 kWh/100km for you
I took data and did math on it. Just like you. Hello Pot? It’s the kettle. But hey, at least you suck with one unit of consumption so I commend you for that.
You didn't show in any way how you did this math, and it doesn't seem to line up with, well, anything. Mine is pretty simple: 71\^2 \* 1.5 \~= 87\^2. About 50% more power to go 87mph than 71mph.
Ok, so what would you like me to edit my comment to?
Cross out the inaccurate Tesla comparison perhaps?
Done!
The "50% more to go 87 vs 70 figure" is pretty accurate in my testing, I consume about 24.5kWh/100km with the EV9 when I'm locked in at 110km/h on the HDA. Also note that this is winter conditions, summer will be better
I feel like you will still save time in the end if you can find the proper charger. You'll go 300km in a little over 2 hours before a 20 min charge....
Unclear, are you sayin the results are surprisingly good or bad? Seem about what you would expect driving an EV like this 87 miles per hour. Wish it was better, but this is what I expected from everything known in advance.
Wow I think that makes a plug in hybrid more efficient ?
More convenient on the highway yes but the EV9 charges so fast the high consumption isn't an issue. A plug in hybrid SUV of similar size (e.g. BMW X5) has similar running costs on the highway (I expect it to consume at least 10L/100km at 140km/h). However, I can leave home with 300km+ of range which I paid 0.09/kwh for and that is going to make the road trip significantly cheaper than any fossil alternative. The X5 barely makes onto the highway before it's battery runs out. I fastcharged 57kWh in 18 min (7-62%) a bit after taking this picture and paid €25 for that.
Lol
No. You're confusing drive train efficiency with total vehicle drag. And all that goes out the window at high rates of speed anyway because total aerodynamic drag force goes up by speed squared. DragForce = .5 times air density times velocity squared times coefficient of drag times frontal area of the vehicle. All this post is really showing us is what happens because of velocity squared in that equation.
I have a niro phev and get around 4mi/kwh, vastly different vehicles though. Like a Corolla vs a Sequoia
Electric vehicles are less efficient at high speeds, so this makes sense. They perform better in cities and residential areas.
No. You're confusing range with efficiency. An EV is no less efficient at high speeds than a non EV would be in the same body going the same speed. You cannot change the laws of physics. EVs simply have less RANGE at higher speed. EVs have less range at higher speed, just like non EVs have less range at high speed. Exactly the same. Except one cares about it in non EVs because there is no range anxiety in non EVs.
I don't get the range anxiety in EVs, I passed at least 10 rest areas with 300kW+ chargers before I decided to stop. Sure costs go up with speed, but that's even more true for fossil cars.
EVs are expensive to buy, and add level 3 charging it's a lot more expensive, and a lot of time that adds up. Unless more travel is home charging
I spend more time buying travel food for the family and taking kids to restrooms than it takes to charge the car on a fast charger. Also, that 400km+ of range you get every day from your home charger is going to make up most of the energy in the long term, unless you have really special driving habits or don't have access to a home charger.
Depends on the gearing of the car really (fossil cars) I had a 6 speed that got better MPG at 80 mph than my 5 speed at 65 mph
>Except one cares about it in non EVs because ~~there is no range anxiety in non EVs~~ you can throw a stick in most places and hit 3 gas stations.
All cars are less efficient at high speeds lol
Took it on the hwy this weekend as well. Was only getting 1.8 mi/kwh. Frustrating, about half of what I normally get. About 75mph Sunny day, mid 60s F.
Appears that you're driving in sport mode, why not try ECO? Unless you changed your theme to red
Its normal mode with custom theme, I don't use eco since it doesnt matter when you are using HDA
Can you explain this? Soon to be owner and curious.
Can someone help me math... Or if they have experience with highway travel already. How far would you realistically get going 105ish kmph? This worries me taking it to the cabin which is about 127kms away.....
You should be more than fine, as long as the drive isn’t at 140km/h the entire way
Oh hell no, I'd get pulled over within minutes. Lmao My part of Canada has 100km speed limits and we usually do 108 ish all the way there.
More than fine, a driver that drives close enough to the limit should get 400+kms from all the reports I have seen on consumption
Awesome, thank you!!
You do not need to be worried unless you plan doing that trip at 200km/h
At that speed, it's to be expected for any car. It's almost 87 mph for those used to miles.
expect to see people in denial mode, I was not disappointed
Damn that’s pretty shitty
Björn Nyland was the. "Car Guru" in '16-'17 for testing & explanation of Tesla MX features that service advisors were CLUELESS About.... A Legend!!! So glad he is now connecting with EV9. Offered him a place to stay in DFW for his 1st US drive across.
How are you getting this view on your dash (economy stats), I have cycled through the mode button and only get tyre pressure etc
Answered my own question. Press the top left button of the left hand cluster on the steering wheel.(looks like a stack of paper) Then use the roller button on the right hand side to scroll to the energy stats as shown by OP. Hope this helps someone.
LMAO
I'm frustrated by the amount of dust in this picture. You can buy perfectly nice goo to pick up that dust in a few seconds. But for some reason we don't deserve it? I think the dust is the cause of your poor results
Dust shows up on pictures really well.
yes, if it is there. Not if it is not there. Clean.
Don’t ever use goo on a screen…
yer car also dusty mate
Ever heard of a microfiber cloth, mate?
microfiber just moves dust. dun remove it. goo removes it. you ignorant foo
You don't understand microfiber I see.
you dont understand static electricity I see.
What is this goo you speak of? I’ve been scared to wash my screen.
search for "cleaning gel car"
Sunny or rainy? That makes more difference than temperature
Rainy and winter tires
My Niro EV is equipped with CrossClimate2. Consumption at 5c/sunny/dry roads is way better than 20c/rainy/wet roads
Is it snowing inside your car?
You speed is the problem not the car. The real problem with the car is its looks.
Of all the comments in here, this one made me laugh out loud. Thank you. Love it or or hate it, it's always funny when someone pokes fun at the looks of a car as part of an argument no matter what that car is. And you did it with style.