Joined
·
5 Posts
I am curious about everyone's efficiency.
My average is 3.2 miles per kwh, and the best I've mustered was 3.8 on a short trip
My average is 3.2 miles per kwh, and the best I've mustered was 3.8 on a short trip
Miles per kWh
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Joined
·
44 Posts
I'm in Minnesota winter and the best of averaged is 2.2.
Joined
·
1,525 Posts
I'm in IL and so far my average is 3.0 mi/kWh (some highway, mostly suburban driving). I reset each time I charge back up to 100% (end of month or before long trip).
Edit: HVAC set to Eco, 64 F (18 C).
I've seen a few short trips in the upper 3s. It's still mostly cold here, but not Minnesota cold.
Edit: HVAC set to Eco, 64 F (18 C).
I've seen a few short trips in the upper 3s. It's still mostly cold here, but not Minnesota cold.
Joined
·
196 Posts
How is this m/kWh displayed in the car and when? I am sure this is obvious to almost all but I am low vision and accordingly do not drive the car. Need to point out how it is displayed to the driver. I assume it is not really accurate but still helpful as guidance.
Joined
·
1,525 Posts
Press the menu button on the left side of the steering wheel.
Use the up/down arrows to get to Power Consumption (the leaf icon).
The car will keep a running average until you hold the OK button to reset it.
Each time the car is powered off (pref with P engaged and foot off brake), it will display the mi/kWh for the current trip.
A little off topic. but related to HVAC efficiency.
We often have -20C or colder weather here.
When I first got the car, like many of you, I tried to see how efficiently I can drive it.
At some point, I realize that I don't usually do long distance driving. The grid here uses mostly hydro dam power. Electricity is relatively cheap compared to us. And I bought a 60+k car after tax.
So forget about efficiency, and focus on comfort. Now I preheat the car for 10-20 min prior to getting in, enjoy the acceleration as much as I like. set the temp, fan speed, heated steering/heated seats.
We often have -20C or colder weather here.
When I first got the car, like many of you, I tried to see how efficiently I can drive it.
At some point, I realize that I don't usually do long distance driving. The grid here uses mostly hydro dam power. Electricity is relatively cheap compared to us. And I bought a 60+k car after tax.
So forget about efficiency, and focus on comfort. Now I preheat the car for 10-20 min prior to getting in, enjoy the acceleration as much as I like. set the temp, fan speed, heated steering/heated seats.
Joined
·
139 Posts
The EPA official number is 3.23 miles per kWh for standard Solterra (228 miles Total Range) and 3.13 miles per kWh for Limited/Touring trim (222 miles Total Range).
The EPA official number is 3.57 miles per kWh for 2 wheel drive Toyota GR86 (252 miles Total Range)
Joined
·
139 Posts
Of course. I blame it on old age.
Joined
·
196 Posts
Those m/kWh do not seem to use the same battery size. Are the different miles / kWh for the different models EPA numbers?
Joined
·
139 Posts
I am not sure what your question means
228 mile EPA range divided by a 70.6 kWh useful battery size = 3.23 miles per kWh
Joined
·
196 Posts
I have not seen the 70.6 kWh listed as the useful battery size. I suspect this is someone's calculation and how it is calculated differs. I have seen usable capacity listed as low as 64.8 kWh. That includes subtracting the buffer. The only thing agreed upon seems to be the 72.8 kWh total capacity for the North American version or is it US and Canada only?
From the window sticker for a Limited.
![Font Rectangle Parallel Number Screenshot]()
MPGe is how far the vehicle could go on 33.7 kWh, which is the equivalent energy in a gallon of gasoline. (Why they didn't choose to emphasize kWh/100mi or mi/kWh on the windows stickers is anyone's guess. It's not like you can really compare an EV to an ICEV using MPGe. kWh/100 miles is on there in smaller print as 33.) So...
102 miles on 33.7kWh gives you 3.0 mi/kWh overall.
111 miles on 33.7kWh gives you 3.3 mi/kWh in the city.
93 miles on 33.7kwH gives you 2.8 mi/kWh on the highway.
I would say that is the efficiency rating. How Toyota/Subaru convert that to range is another story. If you take 222 and divide by 3.03 mi/kWh (efficiency at 102 MPGe), you get 73.3 and nobody is claiming the battery is that big. I've heard that range is calculated by running the battery until it's empty. Which seems a bit shady, however, if they counted range until "0" on the range in the car, no manufacturers would leave a buffer at the bottom.
www.inchcalculator.com
MPGe is how far the vehicle could go on 33.7 kWh, which is the equivalent energy in a gallon of gasoline. (Why they didn't choose to emphasize kWh/100mi or mi/kWh on the windows stickers is anyone's guess. It's not like you can really compare an EV to an ICEV using MPGe. kWh/100 miles is on there in smaller print as 33.) So...
102 miles on 33.7kWh gives you 3.0 mi/kWh overall.
111 miles on 33.7kWh gives you 3.3 mi/kWh in the city.
93 miles on 33.7kwH gives you 2.8 mi/kWh on the highway.
I would say that is the efficiency rating. How Toyota/Subaru convert that to range is another story. If you take 222 and divide by 3.03 mi/kWh (efficiency at 102 MPGe), you get 73.3 and nobody is claiming the battery is that big. I've heard that range is calculated by running the battery until it's empty. Which seems a bit shady, however, if they counted range until "0" on the range in the car, no manufacturers would leave a buffer at the bottom.
Miles Per Gallon Gasoline Equivalent to Miles Per Kilowatt-hour Conversion
Convert miles per gallon gasoline equivalent to miles per kilowatt-hour (MPGe to mi/kWh) with the electric car efficiency conversion calculator, and learn the formula.
Finally got the miles/kWh is stay on the dash. Driving down on a long hill around 12 miles got 7.2 miles/kWh (that's 242 MPGe) and driving home on the highway at 65 mph with cruise control on and s step engaged got 2.1 miles/kWh or 70.8 MPGe. What does this mean?
Joined
·
196 Posts
How did you get miles/kWh to stay on the dash display?
Upper left button on steering wheel.
Joined
·
16 Posts
From Subaru's technical data for the Solterra on its Canadian website, it states that their StarDrive e-Axle has an efficiency of "3.1 mi/kWh," with an asterisk noting the following: "Based on Natural Resources Canada’s (NRCan) approved guidelines. Refer to NRCan’s Fuel Consumption Guide available at Fuel consumption ratings search tool for more information."
Referring then to NRCan's site for the official data on the Solterra yields its combined efficiency rating: 20.3 kW (kW/100 km). Converted, this comes to 3.06 mi/kWh, which indeed rounds up to 3.1. This efficiency would infer a combined range of ~199 miles to 0%, or ~184 miles if including <0% 'turtle mode.'
Assuming a ~65 kW net battery capacity, this simply 'does not compute' when comparing these figures against the vehicle's NRCan rated range: 360 km [223.7 miles]; just as it does not compute with the slightly higher U.S. EPA figures, either. Neither the NRCan site nor its U.S. EPA equivalent (fueleconomy.gov) state whether their ratings apply to the 18" or 20" wheel models, but based on what we know of the advertised specs (which come from government ratings), I have a hunch that NRCan—unless their test cycle differs fundamentally from EPA's—refers to a Limited or Touring model, while perhaps EPA references a base model with 18" wheels.
In fact, the officially estimated range figures from either the US or Canada only compute when you multiply the official combined efficiency figures by the full or nearly full gross battery capacity.
NRCan: 3.06 kWh/mi x 72.8 = 223 miles range (which coincidentally is the officially advertised figure for higher trim models)
U.S. EPA: 3.23 kWh/mi x 72.8 = 235 miles range (a hair under 3% higher than officially advertised figures for lower trim models)
I increasingly suspect that Toyota made a last minute decision to increase the unusable portion of the battery's buffer (the portion between ~65 kWh and 72.8 kWh) well after all of the pre-production checkboxes had already been ticked (such as EPA testing, etc). While including usable range below 0% in official range ratings may be a bit deceptive, it's not beyond the pale. Including some portion of an unusable buffer in these ratings, however, would be—by any objective interpretation—because it's akin to cooking the numbers.
But at this point, it's the only thing that logically explains all of the discrepancies, including the commonly observed poor range—even in decent weather—and the bizarre GOM readings which seem to develop a 'hole in the tank' at SOC's <50%. The decision to change battery suppliers, I suspect, also likely came late in the game and probably factors in to some of this.
Referring then to NRCan's site for the official data on the Solterra yields its combined efficiency rating: 20.3 kW (kW/100 km). Converted, this comes to 3.06 mi/kWh, which indeed rounds up to 3.1. This efficiency would infer a combined range of ~199 miles to 0%, or ~184 miles if including <0% 'turtle mode.'
Assuming a ~65 kW net battery capacity, this simply 'does not compute' when comparing these figures against the vehicle's NRCan rated range: 360 km [223.7 miles]; just as it does not compute with the slightly higher U.S. EPA figures, either. Neither the NRCan site nor its U.S. EPA equivalent (fueleconomy.gov) state whether their ratings apply to the 18" or 20" wheel models, but based on what we know of the advertised specs (which come from government ratings), I have a hunch that NRCan—unless their test cycle differs fundamentally from EPA's—refers to a Limited or Touring model, while perhaps EPA references a base model with 18" wheels.
In fact, the officially estimated range figures from either the US or Canada only compute when you multiply the official combined efficiency figures by the full or nearly full gross battery capacity.
NRCan: 3.06 kWh/mi x 72.8 = 223 miles range (which coincidentally is the officially advertised figure for higher trim models)
U.S. EPA: 3.23 kWh/mi x 72.8 = 235 miles range (a hair under 3% higher than officially advertised figures for lower trim models)
I increasingly suspect that Toyota made a last minute decision to increase the unusable portion of the battery's buffer (the portion between ~65 kWh and 72.8 kWh) well after all of the pre-production checkboxes had already been ticked (such as EPA testing, etc). While including usable range below 0% in official range ratings may be a bit deceptive, it's not beyond the pale. Including some portion of an unusable buffer in these ratings, however, would be—by any objective interpretation—because it's akin to cooking the numbers.
But at this point, it's the only thing that logically explains all of the discrepancies, including the commonly observed poor range—even in decent weather—and the bizarre GOM readings which seem to develop a 'hole in the tank' at SOC's <50%. The decision to change battery suppliers, I suspect, also likely came late in the game and probably factors in to some of this.
Attachments
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
