Thread: EV general discussion

Originally Posted by NavyDiver

4000km clocked up now. (MG4 ev) I had thought 400ish would be the highway speed range. It is over 300 but not stretching to 400 at 110 or highway speeds. Melb - Ballarat return yesterday was about 280km. I had 25% left in the tank when I got back "Range of up to 435km (WLTP)‡" is possible at low speeds! AC was on.

Clearly not as advertised or my interpretation of "Range of up to 435km". The "‡" means come in spinner.

If you want the WLTP range you just have to set the cruise control to follow this speed profile:

Originally Posted by DiscoDB

If you want the WLTP range you just have to set the cruise control to follow this speed profile:

Now I get it thanks. Silly me travels at the speed limit.

Originally Posted by NavyDiver

Now I get it thanks. Silly me travels at the speed limit.

WLTP is truly meaningless to be used to determine “range”. “Range” implies long distance driving and the WLTP doesn’t test for this.

For EV’s they really should also have a published range for cruising at 110kph.

So how many kWh do you use per 100km when doing 110kph?

Sounds like you are using around 17kWh/100km giving a range of up to 375km for country driving.

And you can forget about claiming MG published misleading range information. The High Court today ruled in favour of Mitsubishi in their appeal over the case that fuel consumption labels are misleading and deceptive.

This was the case where a Triton owner took Mitsubishi to court because his vehicle was using up to 36.8% more fuel than the official fuel consumption label. He won in VCAT, and then in the Victorian Supreme Court, but lost when Mitsubishi appealed to the High Court.

Basically gives car companies and dealers the right to continue to publish misleading and deceptive consumption figures.

Originally Posted by DiscoDB

And you can forget about claiming MG published misleading range information. The High Court today ruled in favour of Mitsubishi in their appeal over the case that fuel consumption labels are misleading and deceptive.

This was the case where a Triton owner took Mitsubishi to court because his vehicle was using up to 38% more fuel than the official fuel consumption label. He won in VCAT, and then in the Victorian Supreme Court, but lost when Mitsubishi appealed to the High Court.

Basically gives car companies and dealers the right to continue to publish misleading and deceptive consumption figures.

Not stopping peoples from knowing who tells porkies and who is honest happily.

A EV diving record attempt was NOT by me Upcoming Lancia Ypsilon has made a splash, quite literally, as the electric hatchback was revealed undisguised… having plunged into a French river.



https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other...dda0741d5&ei=9

The things they do for publicity.

And it didn’t self combust in the process…..

Originally Posted by NavyDiver

Not stopping peoples from knowing who tells porkies and who is honest happily.

Looking forward to seeing the full results from the real world fuel consumption and emissions testing program.

Real-World Testing delivering for motorists - Australian Automobile Association

This is the worst offender so far (but they haven’t tested the Mitsubishi Triton yet):

2022 Toyota RAV4 | Real-World Testing Program

The mistake the Triton owner made was going after a car company, and not the government for mandating unrealistic fuel consumption testing.

Only 13% more than the lab test. That is much better than I would have expected.

If that is the worst, then I don't know what we are worried about.