Tesla committed fraud by “grossly” exaggerating EV range, class action says
arstechnica.comTesla's display shows the EPA range. While this is probably a bad idea and that's why no other manufacturer does it, "nobody else does it" is nothing but an informal standard and it seems a bit awkward to claim the approved government standard, in use at government agencies, is so obviously wrong that it constitutes fraud.
Clearly Tesla knew the EPA range isn’t what customers commonly got in the real world. They’re famous for all their telematics.
If an example car can achieve 700 miles on the EPA test, but normal usage averages 150, is it fraud to advertise 700? To show 700 on the screen at full charge?
I agree it’s an interesting question. If the difference was 5% I’m not sure people would care. But at 25% off I think it is a very a fair question.
Porsche reportedly tends to outperform its EPA number significantly. They chose to lower it (a choice automakers have) to provide a more realistic picture given their customers seem more likely to use the performance at the cost of raw range.
I mean… no, it’s not fraud.
I feel like your example uses numbers that are so aggressive one has suspect that they are not real. I don’t have a stake in this or knowledge beyond a quick Google but the EPA test does not look obviously flawed.
The more pertinent question to me would be whether the Tesla range can genuinely achieve those EPA numbers with a typical car.
I'm able to beat rated range pretty easily on my '15 Model S on local roads. It's tough once I get on highways and exceed 65MPH. EPA is 290 Wh/mi. I typically get 330-350 on highways, going about 75 MPH, without the OEM low rolling resistance tires, and with roof bars and a bike rack on top (but no bike).
That’s on the regulators to define a metric, lest EVs compete on made up numbers. EVs are so new of course that organizations are still figuring this out globally.
But Tesla is using that metric in a place most normally don't, and they are doing that purposely as elsewhere they use an in house estimation like everyone else.
No gasoline car uses the EPA fuel economy to do it's range estimation, EVEN WHEN IT WOULD BE BETTER FOR THEM TO DO SO, because it's wrong enough often enough to make a range estimation using it lose significant value.
Tesla has made a choice to stray from normal industry practice. If they have done so in an attempt to sway customers with the incorrect numbers, that should be considered fraud. That's pretty damn difficult to prove as a crime, but not hard to make likely in a civil case.
I thought it was common in all cars these days. My gas car (Prius) uses the EPA fuel economy rating to estimate range at full, and is progressively pessimistic as I use up gas in the tank. On empty I can still get another 50-100 miles. My 3 also exhibits this behavior, although it's not quite as pessimistic as the Prius.
> My gas car (Prius) uses the EPA fuel economy rating to estimate range at full, and is progressively pessimistic as I use up gas in the tank
Do you have more convincing evidence of this because I have used many Toyota vehicles and they do not use EPA figures to do their range estimation, and can be conclusively shown to be using their internally measured "average mpg" figures to estimate range.
That sounds right. It could just be coincidence that the range estimate for the Prius is close to the product of EPA fuel economy figure and the tank size.
I'm mostly commenting on all manufacturers being conservative with fuel/energy use/metering. Even older vehicles I've had (carbureted pickup truck) usually have a gallon to so left in the tank on empty.
I think the suit is just referencing the rated range meter. The trip planner (which is what predicts how much battery you need to get to your destination) uses real world conditions, not rated range.
When you look at web page of Tesla (or any other EV manufacturer), when they describe the range it's always "est. EPA range".
This is 100% truth. It is an estimated EPA range.
What's more it's often actually measured by an EPA. The Reuters article that spurred this lawsuit said that EPA, not Tesla, tested 6 Tesla cars since 2020. That's at least half of them (Tesla has only 3 + 3 + 2 + 2 = 10 different models on sale in U.S. although they have to re-certify if they change the battery).
In my opinion if people responsible for the choice of such and not another metric realized it will mislead the clients, then it was a fraud. You can do a lot of philosophical gymnastics proving fraud or no-fraud, but in the end of the day you're communicating something to your clients, and if you deliberately confuse them to think your product is better than it really is, is a fraud.
So it probably was a fraud, by my standards.
I'm considering buying Starlink access, but now I have to rethink what it really offers - maybe they use some different than common metric, which is 'technically true' but miscommunicates the actual performance?
Most, if any, cars don’t get close to their epa fuel economy numbers under “normal” conditions.
I usually hit the EPA numbers on any car I've owned, when I drive the way people are supposed to drive. Although as horsepower and vehicle handling has drastically improved over the past 30 years, "normal" driving seems to have changed a bit.
My Tesla Model 3 Performance is the 4th car I've owned and it's the only car that hasn't achieved EPA estimations.
Hell, my previous car was a 2016 Subaru BRZ manual, EPA estimated at 24 city/30 highway. Despite the occasional launch, I still averaged 32 mpg.
That said, I'm not upset by it, despite only getting 240-270 miles depending on the weather (Out of the 300 mile EPA range). I know the reality of the difference in how an ICE and an EV use their energy.
Tesla is doing nothing wrong. If the range estimations are inaccurate, it's the EPA that needs to change.
Tesla display that but also displays highly accurate estimates of any trip you plan. To me the real party at fault with EV range in the USA is the EPA, which combines city and highway range in a single number, which inflates the highway number. Every EV that is sold advertises this inflated EPA number. Nobody cares about city range, just publish highway range, or both, like we do with gas cars.
There are two important things you're missing:
1. Tesla's estimates are not "highly accurate". They are alleged to use a deliberately optimistic estimate when the battery is near full, then gradually switch to a more realistic estimate as the battery drains. In particular they are alleged to incorrectly account for the weather. This means the car will always display nearly the advertised number at full charge (and on a test drive). Supposedly Tesla used to use a more accurate estimate but then got orders from on high to fudge the numbers.
2. For other car manufacturers, the range estimates are not terribly inflated. The report from Edmunds claim that most EV models meet or exceed their range estimates, and cars that miss their estimates don't miss by anywhere near as much as Teslas.
I know we are talking about EVs here, but my ICE has an estimated range display and _it_ isn't super accurate _and_ it doesn't take potential weather (or other factors like elevation) into account either. Why would you expect it to factor in _potential_ weather when giving a range estimate?
Allegedly,
1. Other companies have more accurate estimates than Tesla.
2. Tesla uses a different and more accurate algorithm when charge is low.
3. Tesla's estimates used to be more accurate.
It doesn't make sense to argue the problem is intractable when it has supposedly been solved by many companies, including Tesla itself.
>Why would you expect it to factor in _potential_ weather when giving a range estimate?
I wouldn't expect that. The cars have thermometers.
It's not the potential weather, the one mode for the range estimator apparently isn't taking the current ambient conditions into account. So it's not factoring in the likely load from the heat or AC when it's cold or hot and they need to run to keep the vehicle comfortable.
One important thing you are missing, there are two different estimates being referred to. The "miles remaining" display on the battery charge gauge (which can be toggled to show percentage instead) and the trip planner / navigation estimate. The trip planner is very accurate, you can view a burn down charge of realtime estimate as it changes while you drive and it says what component contributed what % to deviate from the initial estimate. The "miles remaining" display is an imaginary number that is only meaningful if you are driving the same highway mix as the EPA test in the same climate conditions
This is correct. If you tell it the destination the range estimate is astonishingly accurate. And it will list all the reasons it turned out to be wrong down to what fraction a headwind impacted range.
There are two tests you can run for the EPA. What I’ve heard is one favors EVs more and only Tesla uses those numbers for their EVs.
I agree the test needs a redesign. No one drives 55, and speed has a big impact on EVs due to wind resistance.
Pretty sad that we can't just drive 55 on highways. Not even trucks that are towing will drive 55 always.
You can. Just do it in the right lane, please.
Seems OK at first glance, but if you're in a 65 then the trucks (in the right lane) will want to go 65+. Going 55 in the right lane means they all need to pass you, which causes a domino effect onto the other lanes of traffic. If you're on a 4-lane highway (2 in each direction), going 55 means that trucks that pass you will have to go in the fast lane.
If there aren't a lot of trucks around, then going 55 in the right lane has less of an impact on other drivers. But if there are many trucks (which there usually are, IME), then going 10 MPH under the limit will cause a lot of headaches for all the other drivers around you.
And that’s 65. I’ve been in places where the speed limit is 70 but people usually go 75-80.
That’s 20-25mph faster than you. At that point you’re practically impeding traffic, and having a big truck pass you is terrifying.
Just because you can legally drive 55 or maybe even less doesn’t make it safe.
> Just because you can legally drive 55 or maybe even less doesn’t make it safe.
Generally, you actually can't legally drive that much slower than prevailing speed.
I remember seeing minimum speed limit signs in Iowa. I was told this was to keep tractors off the highways.
Where these signs aren’t present, I think you’d have to be going more than 10 under the maximum limit to get a ticket.
Why do people need to drive slow? Sometimes you gotta get somewhere. If they are willing to pay the premium to driver faster and follow the law while doing so, what’s the harm?
I think you know why: efficiency and safety. Driving fast greatly increases fuel consumption and wear on tires. It makes crashes more likely and more serious.
Why do people need to drive fast? The gains are minimal even if you stay exclusively on a lightly-trafficked freeway. In more realistic scenarios, the gains are almost nothing. You'll just be the first one to the light or traffic jam.
Air resistant. For most vehicles the sweet spot for efficiency is around 45-50 miles an hour. If you go faster than that you start spending more energy fighting wind resistance than going faster
They are not willing to pay the premium, though.
Tell me when highways, bridges, and streets are not paid by gas taxes -- you won't.
Tell me when I can trade money for reliably sequestered CO2 -- you can't.
edit: I didn't downvote them btw
So you downvote me because you are refusing to engage in the “we live in a society” meme?
We’ve decided collectively how to fund infrastructure and engage in climate action as a society. If you don’t like it, feel free to lobby your neighbors and representatives to change the law.
How can you say nobody cares about city range? That's all I care about.
Because people don't tend to drive non-stop for hundreds of miles at cities (except perhaps taxis)? You also always have a charger nearby.
But the range is calculated based on the energy efficiency, and all drivers (should) care about that number, since that's the cost.
Range != Efficiency. Electric motors are all pretty efficient. It has more to do with how big a battery they were able to squeeze into the thing.
This is different from ICE vehicles where fuel efficiency is more variable and does affect range more.
People don't generally drive 200 miles in the city in one stretch.
My memory from the first article I saw on this is that Tesla convinced the EPA to not use the EPA's measurement, and instead to trust Tesla's "measurement."
This take is a bit weird to me. It’s like saying because other companies aren’t lying that Tesla should be excused from lying. It sounds like Tesla has been displaying this number in car regardless of the accuracy; and in my opinion leaned into lying. From the article:
> The complaint cited testing that found three Tesla models fell short of their advertised ranges by an average of 26 percent. In addition to alleging false advertising, the lawsuit said that range estimates provided by Tesla vehicles during car trips fail to account for temperature and other factors that reduce range.
I’ve heard people on HN talk about this saying there are two separate values the car shows you and one is wildly and consistently wrong. The one that’s wrong, by the sounds of it aligns with their marketing materials.
I won’t buy a Tesla, but to me, their advantage is range. Right now their only competitors in range are more expensive (though quite a bit nicer imho). I imagine if I had bought a Tesla and the range wasn’t as good as it should be, I would be quite pissed…
Right, and the one that is accurate is what you get when you put in a destination. The car can't tell you how far you can go if it doesn't know where you are going, because of all these factors (altitude gain, direction of wind, speed limits on the various roads involved, etc) which have a very significant effect on the range.
The idea of a single value for "range" is fundamentally flawed. Is it Tesla's fault that people don't understand basic physics?
Every single other car ever made with a range estimation functionality uses past data to estimate your range. For like a decade Toyota had this on nearly every vehicle despite none of them having GPS integration, and nearly all of them were accurate enough to rely on.
You are bending over backwards to come up with an excuse for Tesla, when they quite clearly made a choice to either be lazy or misleading.
When my gasoline car says "You have 12 miles left", I KNOW I can drive 12 miles minimum, as long as it isn't at wide open throttle. The car has mountains of data at it's disposal, but in reality this technique has been used ever since a car could figure out how much gas was flowing into the injectors. The assumption is that how you have driven for the past ten minutes is a reliable indicator for how you will drive over the next ten minutes, and for most ten minute periods that is an accurate assumption.
Gas cars have had destination-less range estimates for decades, and as far as I know have never based it off of EPA fuel economy. Instead, they use the car’s own recent fuel economy.
Which concept more useful for drivers, the concept of remaining range if you keep driving the way you’ve been driving, or “how many miles the car can get in the EPA test cycle”?
> The car can't tell you how far you can go if it doesn't know where you are going
But the car can use your recent driving experience to get a good estimate. After all, if you've spent the past 10 minutes driving at 70 mph into a strong headwind, there's a decent chance that your next hour will be spent doing that. (Although this does get amusing on I-68 where my range estimates are markedly different after cresting the hill versus bottoming out in the valleys).
Sure, it's not the best estimate possible. But it's trivial to implement "assume recent past", and it's a far better estimate than "synthetic estimate that relies on a weighted average of two very different driving conditions."
According to the article, that sounds like what they do. When the battery hits 50% they switch to estimating the range based on your driving on the top of the battery.
Does your Tesla really account for the wind along your route?
Yes.
Wrong. There are leaks saying that the fraud-dumbass himself forced the developers to display the incorrect number because it looks better.
You can buy a Tesla, run the EPA test cycle, and get the exact same numbers.
You will get less than "the range" if you drive 90mph on the highway until the battery is depleted. Where is Tesla lying anywhere in there? The consumer was just ignorant of what the EPA rated range means.
The government agency is at fault here not Tesla. They need to come up with a better test.
No, the EPA test is designed to produce a characteristic value that is useful for comparing between vehicles, it's not designed to produce an algorithm that takes the state of charge of the battery and recent energy demand and produces an estimated remaining driving range.
And it's good that it's designed to produce a characteristic value that is useful for comparison.
The lawsuit claims this is false, and that for the first 50% of the range, they use a rosy algorithm, then a more realistic one.
At least, at some point.
I'll try to get the filing and paste from it, give me a few.
It's "Porter et al v. Tesla, Inc.", in case someone beats me to it.
Maybe we should also ask our selves, why is Tesla's EPA range so high in comparison to all others?
I recall reading over and over in car reviews how the other EVs had low EPA estimates and during tests got an avarage above the EPA range. Why is that?
Anecdata, but a few weeks ago I drove from LA to SF in my 2018 Model 3 (long range, single motor). It has a 75 kWh battery pack, my drive was 417 miles, and I drove 70 mph for probably 90-95% of the trip. I used a total of 95 kWh, which equates to ~329 miles on a full charge (100-0%). My efficiency was 226 Wh/mi.
There are absolutely other times when I'll get substantially less range, but it's understandably when I'm driving faster of more aggressive, or it's colder outside, or it's primarily uphill, or there's a strong headwind, etc.
There are a lot of different factors that can affect a car's range (regardless if it's an EV or ICE), and it seems like Tesla has decided to show the EPA range on the dashboard because there's no way they could magically know where you're driving if it's not entered in the navigation system. Once you start navigation however, it's able to factor in all these externalities and give a very accurate estimate. On the first leg of the above trip, I arrived to charge within 3% of Tesla's estimate.
Shouldn't the car know the current temperature (or at least the battery temperature), whether or not the AC is on, etc? Other EVs take those into account regardless of whether or not something is plugged into navigation.
Personally I just toggle to only show the percentage and ignore the battery range estimate. When on longer trips, the nav estimate is usually spot on, or at worst a couple of % off due to my not-predictable driving behavior.
Same regarding percentage. But anecdote: just drove 135mi from my home to bend Oregon. Left at 90% soc, and arrived at 34%.
If my gas vehicle had that kinda range (my old pickup had this kind of range), I’d be annoyed.
My iPhone can send me alerts that I’m going to be late to work based on its tracking of my daily commute and you’re telling me that a machine that is constantly connected to a GPS network, sending data back to home base, and (almost?) capable of driving itself has “no way” of “magically knowing where you’re driving” unless you tell it?
If only they could use some of that data and processing power to back out someone’s standard commute, driving behavior, and local temperature.
On top of that, my car can remember the MPGs I got for the last tank (and every tank before that) and estimates my range off of that. Apparently that’s “magic” according to the comment you replied to. Tesla apologists always have some excuse.
That's exactly what the Tesla does. When I get into the car at 8AM, the car assumes I want to drive to my partner's workplace, and gives me directions to get there, taking into account current traffic and weather conditions, and a reliable estimate of what the battery will be when I get there.
Seems like a pretty weak claim to be honest. I think it is pretty obvious that maximum range refers to maxium range under ideal conditions and that using more eletronics in the car reduces the range.
Porsche isn't lying about their max speed either, just because you can't reach it with 300kg of load and bad weather.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/07/tesla-exaggerate...
Hypothetical Porsche didn't setup customer service teams to lie to customers on a mass-scale when the complaints came in though.
We have evidence of Tesla service-cancellation teams. We have evidence of Tesla's software purposefully being inaccurate when above 50% charge, and then slowly becoming more accurate when reaching 50% or less charge.
This is literally and precisely, a conspiracy perpetrated by Tesla and its executives to trick users into thinking Tesla cars have more range than they truly do.
>lie to customers
Is that alleged? I saw only the support telling customers that this is expected. "There is nothing wrong with your car, don't bother comming. It is expected that sometimes your car gets galf the range." is not a lie at all. It seems absolutely truthful and in fact the total opposite of exaggerating the range of the car.
>We have evidence of Tesla service-cancellation teams. We have evidence of Tesla's software purposefully being inaccurate when above 50% charge, and then slowly becoming more accurate when reaching 50% or less charge.
The algorithm claim seems extremely weak. Unless you can get some actual developer to testify that he was explicitly ordered to build the algorithm to report a range which he knew was impossible to reach or something similar, this seems practically irrelevant.
The "service-cancellation teams" seem somewhat stranger. I don't think cancelling a service appointment is damning in any way, though.
> Is that alleged?
The fuel-meter is absolutely lying to you at 50%+. And the customer-service reps know it, and they even have trained responses over this conspiracy.
No, this is about the claim that representatives told customers that is normal, that their cars have lower ranges than advertised.
The allegedy cospiracy would be that Tesla managment and its employees were conspiring to quickly deal with customer complaints. But what is actually illegal there? Note that the representatives were truthful when they dismissed customers. Their cars were not broken.
Fraud is illegal. And all fraud is ... is just lying to a degree enough that the courts care.
The more-and-more it is proven that your "just lying" is a coordinated effort across your company, the more and more it looks like fraud to ... well everybody.
But the suggestion that tesla was lying seems already far fetched. If anything their adertising was misleading.
>The more-and-more it is proven that your "just lying" is a coordinated effort across your company, the more and more it looks like fraud to ... well everybody.
But there is zero evidence for this. There is no lie here. At best there are misleading statememts about performance.
Intentionally misleading people.. is exactly the definition of lying?
To be fair, "lying" isn't a legal term.
"Fraud" is a legal term, and "intentionally misleading people" is the very definition of Fraud. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fraud
In fact, it seems like Fraud is still Fraud at the reckless or negligent levels. No intent needed (though I'm sure proving it at the "intent" level will get them more of a case).
So... is this Fraud? Well, yes. It would be. But the next step is for these plaintiffs to prove the fraud in court. It seems like they have a strong argument though.
There is no fraud or misleading people. The EPA test cycle is an official test, you can run the test and get the same results yourself. It's not fraud that some dumb consumers don't understand what an EPA range estimate means
It's fraud. There's already internal leaks documenting Teslas fraud perpetrated on the insistence of Elon.
I didn't know that VW owned Tesla!
>The algorithm claim seems extremely weak. Unless you can get some actual developer to testify that he was explicitly ordered to build the algorithm to report a range which he knew was impossible to reach or something similar, this seems practically irrelevant.
Of course he was ordered to build it that way, it's not like some worker is just going to decide by himself.
>Of course he was ordered to build it that way
Zero evidence for that.
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/tesla-ba...
> The directive to present the optimistic range estimates came from Tesla Chief Executive Elon Musk, this person said.
> “Elon wanted to show good range numbers when fully charged,” the person said, adding: “When you buy a car off the lot seeing 350-mile, 400-mile range, it makes you feel good.”
-------
This is evidence, is it not?
Depends.
If the plaintiffs have a sworn, signed statement from the person claiming that then it could be presented as evidence during the trial, subject to cross-examination.
If all they have is the article it's hearsay i.e. "evidence based not on a witness's personal knowledge but on another's statement not made under oath"
Also known as: bupkis.
Certainly not for anything illegal.
If you believe Musk on this the lawsuit is practically pointless. Having an optimistic algorithm is not illegal and even alledging that it somehow is seems absurd.
> If you believe Musk on this
Seriously, you shouldn't believe Musk with regards to lawsuits.
If Musk knew anything about law, he wouldn't have been forced to buy Twitter last year. The world was revealed to how ignorant this guy is to the law.
-------------------
By the way, this is a civil case, not a criminal case. "Illegal" is almost a non-sequitur.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fraud
> In civil litigation, allegations of fraud might be based on a misrepresentation of fact that was either intentional or negligent. For a statement to be an intentional misrepresentation, the person who made it must either have known the statement was false or been reckless as to its truth. The speaker must have also intended that the person to whom the statement was made would rely on it. The hearer must then have reasonably relied on the promise and also been harmed because of that reliance.
All they have to do to successfully sue here is prove that the other side was "misleading", and that they "knew about being misleading" (intentional), or even the lower-standard of recklessness (they didn't know they were misleading, but they didn't do enough research to prove their own statements true before telling customers).
Welcome to Civil Law. The standards are much lower than criminal law. But its just money, so that makes sense.
A tale of moving goalposts, as presented by constantcrying:
“Unless you can get some actual developer to testify that he was explicitly ordered to build the algorithm to report a range which he knew was impossible to reach or something similar, this seems practically irrelevant.”
“Zero evidence for that.”
When confronted with evidence that the algorithm was specifically designed to show an unrealistic, misleading, and apparently impossible to meet range based on orders from the highest authority in Tesla:
“Certainly not [evidence] for anything illegal.”
>specifically designed to show an unrealistic, misleading, and apparently impossible to meet
You are making stuff up. Musk said optimistic, which directly implies that it should be truthful and accurate, just not representative of average performance.
And it absolutely isn't moving the goalpost. If you didn't think I was initially asking for evidence that would support the legal claim against Musk I don't know what to tell you...
> Is that alleged? I saw only the support telling customers that this is expected. "There is nothing wrong with your car, don't bother comming. It is expected that sometimes your car gets galf the range." is not a lie at all. It seems absolutely truthful and in fact the total opposite of exaggerating the range of the car.
It demonstrates that their original range claim was a lie.
I've worked tech support at a couple of different organizations early in my career. It does not seem at all unusual to create a team dedicated to a particular class of issue so other support staff can focus on a broader range of issues.
This is an issue that tesla created on purpose though. These people are confused that their car is not going as far as THE RANGE DISPLAY shows they will go. Hundreds of millions of cars have been made over the past twenty years with range displays that you can trust to hit zero BEFORE you run out of gas, due to estimating with recent driving data, and probably a gentle bump down of the number to make sure drivers have a safety net when they are stupid.
Has there ever been a single one of these systems overestimating by tens of miles consistently and for nearly every individual?
And what should Tesla do instead?
Putting a team together to tell customers their cars are fine seems completly legal and not a conspiracy in any way.
Do the same, less inaccurate thing that every single other car maker has always done and give more accurate range estimations? Something Tesla already does in the route planner, and also show they know how to do as the battery meter gets closer to empty, when they switch out their estimation for more accurate ones?
This isn't difficult. Tesla is not required to use the EPA range estimation figures to do any range estimation internally, it's literally only something that goes on the window sticker. Tesla instead chose to design their range display to do something that no other automaker did, and use a KNOWN OVERESTIMATOR as their methodology for range estimation.
Nobody else has to set up these call centers because nobody else chose to set up their range meters in such a way to mislead customers. It's really that simple.
Stop lying about their ranges in the first place...?
In tech support parlance, this is called "setting expectations".
unfortunately the expectations were already set by the pre-sales marketing.
What lie to customers? A team to stop ignorant customers from wasting everyone's time isn't a conspiracy, there was nothing wrong with the car or performance, what would a service visit achieve?
Basically every other EV tries to give a realistic range based on the temperate and your driving habits.
Teslas appear to always show the EPA range at full and it sounds like they stay very optimistic for quite a long time, giving drivers a very unrealistic picture.
That’s lying to the customer. They’re not trying to be useful but to look good.
And in every EV range comparison I’ve ever seen, teslas are the ones that can’t meet their claimed range by a fair margin. Other brands are almost always close to accurate or in some cases do noticeably better than claimed.
Only Tesla does this.
https://insideevs.com/reviews/443791/ev-range-test-results/
Take a look for yourself. EPA range vs a "real world" test is all over the place depending on vendor, and even depending on the car. Rivian, Kia, Nissan all have ranges that are under by similar percentages as Tesla. Only Porsche seems to heavily sandbag here.
I think what the person above you is talking about is not EPA range vs "real world" range. It is "car's estimate of remaining range before you have to recharge" and " real world remaining range before you have to recharge".
E.g., suppose the EPA range is 300 miles, you started from with a full charge, are 100 miles into your trip, and are at 1/2 charge. If what others have said is correct by default Tesla will estimate you have another 150 miles of range left (EPA range of 300 x 1/2 charge), whereas many others would say you have 100 miles of range left (you went 100 miles so far on 50% charge so if nothing changes the remaining 50% should give another 100).
If you use the navigation, or use the Energy app on the car, then both of those will appropriately tell you your expected remaining range and the arrival state of charge. It does this quite well.
If you look at the state of charge % (and use the miles setting, instead of %), then sure. It'll be optimistic unless you drive the standard EPA route.
Honestly though, because battery drain is so dependent on route, elevation traveled, temperature, etc, I find the 'guess-o-meter' estimates to be mostly useless. You'll frequently find other vehicles that will start optimistic and degrade over time as well.
> in every EV range comparison I’ve ever seen, teslas are the ones that can’t meet their claimed range by a fair margin. Other brands are almost always close to accurate or in some cases do noticeably better than claimed.
What's your source? Cause I don't think that's true... [1][2]
Carwow is in the UK and tests the claims against the European WLTP test. The claim is that Tesla doesn't meet their EPA range ratings.
Here's InsideEV's comparison to EPA range where Tesla is a huge outlier:
https://insideevs.com/news/679024/recurrent-tesla-range-lowe...
>Only Tesla does this.
The question is if it is illegal.
I agree that reporting a maximum possible range is meaningless and might be misleading. But it is still a truthful metric making it a quite dubious legal claim.
>other EV tries to give a realistic range based on the temperate and your driving habits.
What I saw was specifying the test conditions under which the range was achieved and including disclaimers about possible factors which can reduce the range. Certainly more honest.
If you want the accurate range prediction, navigate to somewhere, the prediction is always spot on to the percent. Or view the energy screen, also extremely accurate. Just don't depend on the EPA range, go with what the car calculates when you navigate and you will never have an issue.
So the car only lies to you about its capabilities in some contexts? That's reassuring.
The car is optimistic in general, if you drove at city speeds on flat land. But if you tell it exactly where you're going, it calculates based on the route required. If you started at the top of a mountain pass, the more accurate range would actually show MORE miles than the general gauge. "Omg, Tesla is under promising range now!!"
The tiny battery gauge is just showing what % the charge is, either in % or in % * epa range. There is no lie, just showing you the state of your battery pack currently. If you want to see what charge you will have in the future taking into account your driving then you navigate to your destination and the car makes a very detailed estimate of state of charge in % at your destination.
I leave my car showing battery as % all the time, because the % * epa range number is meaningless
All that says to me is the car knows how to calculate that, which undermines Tesla’s position in my mind. Otherwise they’d use the EPA range everywhere.
tesla has two settings for range calculations, I forget what they were, but it was like realistic and ideal or similar.
EDIT: wait, I don't see it. I think there was a setting in older software?
I swear there was a range calculation setting that was like "average" and "ideal"
Bad example. Porsche's performance numbers are famously conservative. Most reviewers easily exceed what is advertised.
Take the 911 GT3, a car I picked at random. Car and Driver testing found the following:
>The GT3 offers both a seven-speed dual-clutch automatic (a.k.a. PDK) or a six-speed manual. ... At our test track, the automatic managed a 2.7-second 60-mph time while the six-speed manual test vehicle snapped off an impressive 3.3-second run to 60 mph.
https://www.caranddriver.com/porsche/911-gt3-gt3-rs
Porsche advertises 0-60 times of 3.2 seconds for the PDK and 3.7 seconds for the manual. They undersold the car by 10-15%.
I'm more cynical than most, but it actually isn't normal to over-promise and under-deliver to the extent Tesla does.
Yeah, I've got no problem with the range on my Tesla. It's not difficult to achieve. Tesla gives you all the software tools you need to achieve it onboard. No, it's not the way most people would want to drive their car regularly, but it's definitely achievable if you're really in a pinch such as when we were driving through South Dakota in bad weather, very far from the next charger. It wasn't fun but we did make it, driving very carefully and doing exactly what the car said to do.
That's not to say there aren't other class actions that ought to be considered, such as the whole FSD debacle. Now that is one I would definitely join.
I think it’s a disingenuous to use this argument. Even if you drive at 25mph on a flat road on a day with moderate temperatures and no wind, Tesla’s range drops quite a lot more than a mile for every mile driven. Like yeah, if you’re using air conditioning and driving at 70 mph, it makes sense your range will drop more. The problem is that they’re pretending under ideal conditions, you can achieve that max range, but ideal conditions would literally require you to turn its computer off, which would not be possible to do as a consumer.
In my experience, a Tesla driven at 30km/h will exceed its EPA range by about 20%.
data from 3300 drivers from the very article we are discussing disagrees with your single anecdote.
It's not an anecdote, it's physics.
EPA created a repeatable test where the car runs at a certain speeds, most likely without wind resistance.
If you drive faster, the car will use more energy per mile therefore will have lower range than the EPA estimate.
If you drive slower, they car will use less energy per mile therefore will have higher range than the EPA estimate.
If there's head or side wind, the car will use more energy => lower range.
Someone drove Model 3 for 606 miles, at extremely low speeds: https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/29/17405906/tesla-model-3-hy...
And yet, data from 3300 drivers disagrees with your physics. What’s more likely: the data is wrong or the model is flawed?
3300 drivers did 30km/h tests?
Are you looking at a different article? In my reading of the linked article there are three anecdotes of ~200 mile trips, most assuredly not done at 30km/h.
You're talking about hypermiling, and that isn't the condition under which the Tesla EPA ratings are achieved. I have done hypermiling from time to time (and Tesla's navigation will request you do it if your range runs low) and you can indeed get better results than the EPA rated figure.
No, the indicated range is no maximum range under ideal conditions! Its just a mix of city and highway driving, which is better than pure highway driving.
If you did ONLY low speed city driving you would do even better!
These claims are always ambiguous, but there are reasonable limits. Every car has a 0-60 of 3 seconds — if it's falling off a cliff.
The issue is that the number displayed on the dash can be toggled between "% battery remaining" or "miles remaining". The "Miles remaining" is actually "EPA rated miles x % battery remaining", and NOT "miles remaining based on last 10 miles driven, or current navigation destination".
If they removed the 'Miles remaining' number and only showed a percentage, you would end up having to do the exact same conversion in your head anyways. "Oh I have 43% remaining of my 330 mile battery, how much is that?" so this is really just a quick shortcut.
Tesla has a separate screen with very clear range estimates that the user can toggle (based on last n miles or based on current exact 'instant' reading). In addition, when navigating to a destination, the nav tells you the estimated battery % on arrival, which is also based on current driving and is generally quite accurate. In addition, it will tell you during & after the trip exactly why the estimated and actual range differed. Eg "0.5% extra battery used due to a 5.6mph headwind, 2% extra battery used by driving over 70mph", etc.
Having a count-down 'Miles remaining' on the dashboard doesn't always make sense, particularly when you haven't entered a destination, or if you're switching between highways and back rounds a bunch. Either way, it's never going to actually be accurate down to the last mile. In reality, you just have to know that the miles on the dashboard are "EPA miles", meaning if you're driving on a flat surface in good conditions at ~55mph, that's what you'll get. If you change your speed, or conditions get worse, you know you'll need to adjust it in your head (or use the dedicated in-car screen to automatically figure it out for you!).
I don't know how it is done with EVs but my gas car usually underestimates my range despite me burning more fuel than what's written on the brochure.
It is common sense to take conservative estimates when you are missing data. The range indicator on the dashboard is a "will I make it" indicator. To help me decide if I need to plan a refuel/recharge. I don't want a best case scenario, not even an average, I want something like a 90 percentile.
In good conditions, the "enhanced" estimate (with nav) should be more than the baseline, as some of conservative estimates can now be replaced with more accurate data.
Good thing Tesla is not doing airplanes.
Lots of people here missing a part of the issue: Tesla receives carbon credits based on the range of the vehicle. If that range was exaggerated, they defrauded the government.
Are carbon credits based on the EPA certified range or Real World Range accounting for aggressive driving? I'm skeptical that it would be the second
Lots of people are missing that Tesla doesn't do EPA tests, the EPA does.
But why is the Tesla EPA range so high when all other EVs have such conservative EPA ranges?
That's interesting ! Could you elaborate please ? Or give some links relevant to how the carbon credits are calculated.
The biggest fail IMO is that if you use this range constantly, you'll basically degrade the battery heavily. These top ranges require a full 100% charge (bad for the battery) and a pretty low level of discharge (bad for any weak cells in the pack). So yes in a special case you have that range. Using it often will cause faster battery pack degradation.
My Chevy Volt has a 15kwh pack, and only lets you use 10kwh. The bottom 2 and the top 2 are never accessible. Which means the batteries are never depleted, and never fully charged. I bought it knowing I have 10kwh to use around town or on trips (afterward the gas engine turns on). I use those 10kwh every single day, for all 177k miles of the cars life so far. I still get the same 10.3kwh I got on day one I made my purchase decision based on.
Tesla should advertise their packs the same way, explaining that the outlier 10kw are for emergencies too.
Full 100% charge is good for the LFP batteries which have been standard in Model 3 and Model Y since 2021.
Indeed, Tesla recommends to charge to 100% at least once per week.
https://insideevs.com/news/557527/tesla-model3-lfp-charging-...
edit: read response below
As far as I know this isn't true, LFP batteries degrade more when charged to 100% than if they're charged to less, but the remaining charge can't be estimated accurately unless you do:
https://www.torquenews.com/15475/battery-charging-behavior-t...
https://www.reddit.com/r/TeslaModel3/comments/yh5ts5/m3_lfp_...
(They still degrade much less than the other kind of battery Tesla uses, however).
Interesting, it seems they want people to charge to 100% so they can precisely estimate the state of charge on the road. Still, as you say it doesn't seem LFPs get degraded that much when sitting at full charge.
https://www.autoevolution.com/news/the-puzzling-reason-why-t...
I think you could use the range and if the battery fails within the 8 year warranty they should give you a new one.
Many consumer goods work like this. Lots of cheap power tools are sold with the understanding that the consumer will use them a few times and no claims will be made during the warranty period. Many (most?) gym memberships are sold with the understanding that many clients will come a few times, then never return.
EV batteries are very expensive both to produce and to install.
No sane company wants to deal with the possibility of paying for battery replacement if they don't absolutely have to.
Using the "whole battery" at the expense of its lifespan is not only worse for manufacturers, but it's worse for the environment as well. I think responsible charging and usage is critical for current battery technology.
You can get close to EPA estimate if you drive the speed limit and avoid aggressive acceleration, something that almost no one does.
The EPA estimate is for 55mph driving in optimal conditions, and is fairly accurate in my experience.
It's very easy to exceed EPA estimates in the city. The optimal speed to drive a Tesla is about 15mph. At that speed a Tesla will exceed EPA range by about 20%.
I saw a YouTube video where some guys “maximalised” the range to see how far they could go on one charge, and by reducing weight and disabling cabin AC and going under 25 mph were able to travel I think over 600 miles. Good to know in a pinch.
Honestly the cabin AC makes very little difference.
You’re right though, that’s how you set world records. If you drive an EV at like 10 mph you could go a pretty insane distance. But no normal person would ever do that.
Cabin AC doesn't, but Cabin heat can in older vehicles with resistive heating. Heat Pump heating in newer Teslas is in the middle.
Absolutely. Resistive heating is less than the motors doing work, but is easily noticeable compared to AC.
Electric car range varies widely depending on how you use it and conditions, regardless of which car brand or model you use. Our family has a Nissan Leaf and a Tesla Model 3 and both ranges vary widely depending on how you drive.
Driving at 80mph on a highway will greatly reduce the range of any EV, compared to 45 mph. Using high-draw features like heating (also depends on the type of heating used) will also drain the battery faster.
Cold temperatures also reduce range, but it depends on the EV. Teslas cool or heat the battery to keep an optimal battery temperature. Nissan Leaf uses air cooling, which means repeated supercharging in hot weather overheats the battery, so they cannot make long trips. So Teslas are less affected by hot and cold temperatures than some other EVs. So it depends on the EV.
EV users need to educate themselves on how electric cars operate regarding range. It's not unique to Tesla by any means.
It's not exclusive to EVs either.
ICE, and hybrid ICE, can all be more efficient depending how well you match its optimal driving profile.
It's very easy to see how favorably or unfavorably Tesla's claimed range compares to competitors based on independent tests of multiple EVs in the same conditions:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LWL90paufE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynCaTDR4rDQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFB6hsYXDiA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvwOa7TCd1E
Spoiler alert: Tesla models fare about as well, if not better, than their EV cousins, hitting around 80% of the stated range in the wild.
My EV6 shows me a range that seems to be based on recent driving. When I've been conservative, the range is high; when I've been driving sportily, the opposite. Does Tesla do the same?
It does, but only once you put a destination into the navigator. At that point, the car will tell you how much power remains at the end of the trip (and for a return trip) and that number in my experience is always highly accurate.
Ioniq 5 seems to do the same. If I keep speeding overtaking etc range goes down. If I drive conservatively I actually gain range while driving.
Which makes sense since the EV6 and the Ioniq 5 are pretty much the same car.
I get about 230 miles of range in our model 3, my wife gets about 270. Head winds actually effect range far more than you’d expect, and the difference between 65 and 75 is dramatic. There is a reason Teslas have no door handles for aerodynamics, and it’s not because they secretly have shitty range.
It’s a bit of a stretch to say Tesla lied to customers here. I’d probably say Tesla didn’t carefully enough explain the laws of physics to uninformed customers is more accurate a statement.
I always found it interesting that almost every EV in real-life exceeds their EPA range, while Tesla in real-life cannot even get close.
I would not be surprised that Tesla over-optimized everything with the EPA test as an utility function. (reminds anyone of the VW scandal?)
Did you read the link? 12/37 exceed their range and Porsche is half those. Remove 1 very high end maker and you're at 6/31 exceed. Not exactly "almost everyone"
Tesla doesn't have high end cars? Right, their quality is terrible
Tesla may want to see themselves as high end, but the Model 3/Y are around the average cost of a new car. That is less than half what a starting Porsche EV costs.
I'm selling mine and probably not buying any more Teslas. This is exactly the kind of thing that makes it an easy decision.
I almost bought one about 5 years ago, and I'm glad I didn't. If I had, I would be upset if I wasn't able to simply return the car for a full refund, subscription features included, instead of what, $50? in any class action payout.
The class action payout will be more substantial than $50. Think something very valuable like an entire year of credit monitoring or $500 off your next purchase of a qualified Tesla automobile.
* Some restrictions apply; not valid in CA, MT, AK; must take delivery of existing stock; not valid with other rebates and discounts; value of coupon reported as income to IRS....Why would I want a new Tesla if they burned me on my last purchase of one? That does not sound like a good outcome nor one that punishes Tesla in anyway
Does anyone remember VW DieselGate the latest estimate costing VW aprox 30 Billion in fines and buybacks? Company executives, convicted of fraud to increase sales and market share. History repeats itself, now with Tesla knowingly putting out false information on mileage estimates.
This one actually seems fair - literally the only reason I ever considered Tesla was the range. The only reason I didn’t buy any other EV was because I was waiting for them to catch up to the Tesla range. Turns out that advantage was a lie - I hope their competitors also sue them.
https://www.edmunds.com/car-news/electric-car-range-and-cons...
It's pretty dang high on the list in actual real world tested range.
I had a friend buy a Model Y Long Range (EPA 326mi) over a Mach E AWD Extended Range (EPA 270mi) mainly because the Y supposedly had better advertised range (they were similarly priced at the time). 56mi of range along with the big mental idea of a bit over 300 or under 300.
In Edmonds testing the difference was really only 13mi. Really not that significant in the end.
The cars are just very different. MachE is a car with batteries. Model Y is an iPhone with wheels. Trying to buy for a single spec is a bit of crapshoot anyway.
I also suspect the range gap is more than 13 in winter, as the model Y has more advanced heat pumps.
This suit isn't about the advertised range -- everybody advertises the EPA's rated range. The way the range is calculated does favour Teslas, but if you want that changed, you'd have to sue the EPA, not Tesla.
Tesla is the only one using that "EPA advertised range" as a way of calculating your remaining range. Everyone else uses the normal, ICE car way of monitoring current driving behavior to get instantaneous efficiency, and rolling average over time multiplied by remaining "fuel" in the tank.
Tesla is the only odd one out. Surely Tesla employees have driven cars before right? Surely they should understand that.
It should probably show "range-range", i.e the range of minimum and maximum range with the current battery status. For example: "100-300 miles", rather than "300 miles" which it currently does.
@dang Editorialized title that tries to manifest an allegation. The only thing missing now is all caps… “X KILLED Y by using Z!!!! (reports say)”
It's the exact title of the article.
No, the exact title is ‘Angry Tesla customers sue firm over “grossly” exaggerated EV range’
There’s a difference between “sued” and “committed fraud”.
A lot of the comments here are focusing on Tesla defaulting to the EPA range, and that there are a lot of factors involved. This isn't the whole story. From the linked lawsuit text:
> Tesla developed algorithms for estimating the range of its electric vehicles, which would display to drivers “rosy” projections for the distance the vehicle could travel on a full battery. However, once the battery reached 50% capacity, the algorithm would change and begin showing the driver more realistic projections. This would cause the estimated range of the vehicle to fluctuate drastically from that point.
According to the lawsuit, this was something Musk asked for:
> The decision to include these algorithms to present inflated range estimates came directly from Tesla’s chief executive officer, Elon Musk. As the Reuters report indicates, “Elon [and Tesla] wanted to show good range numbers when fully charged....When you buy a car off the lot seeing 350-mile, 400-mile range, it makes you feel good."
Hard coding a range algorithm to make new customers "feel good" is pretty on brand for Elon. When coupled with the establishment of a dedicated "Diversion Team" to cancel service appointments from complaining customers (because they already knew nothing could be "fixed"), this is all pretty scummy and lends legitimacy to the lawsuit IMO.
This isn’t the title of the article, please follow the guidelines :) No need to editorialize.
@dang Editorialized title.
What I really want is the FSD class action.
The same is happening with inflation. Corps are grossly overstating the 'effects' of inflation when in reality they are price gouging simply because they can.
I feel like I have a mild case of schadenfreude for all of these Tesla mental gymnastics. All of this is one of the reason I am absolutely not an early adopter of technology. I am looking forward to when EVs are equitable range, quick charging and ubiquitous fueling stations comparable to gas guzzlers. I never have to think about things like whether or not it is cold, I’m going up hills, or any of this other stuff. I just drive and when my tank gets low I pull into a gas station and fill up in a few minutes and move on with my day. The only time I have budgeted my gas on a trip is through long expanses of desert driving where stations are far apart.
These are not mental trade offs I’m willing to make. I owe a debt to the early adopters who sacrifice their sanity for alpha/beta testing this kind of tech. A solemn and respectful nod from me to those that have lost their lives due to this technology.
> I just drive and when my tank gets low I pull into a gas station and fill up in a few minutes and move on with my day.
In my ICE, I have to think "dang, getting low on gas, I better leave a bit earlier to make sure I can get gas next time" and then take time out of my day every other week to get gas.
In my EV, I practically never stop at all because I leave the house every day with a full tank.
That’s awesome! I guess you live in a house? Or at least a place that you can park your car and charge every night? And drive 30-40 miles a day?
Lots of folks don’t have those privileges.
The majority of US households do. It's not like it's some massive outlier. Especially with people who commute to work by car instead of living in denser areas where car ownership rates are lower.
Lots of people always point to this idea that charging a car is a huge pain point compared to just pumping gas, but the majority of commuter cars would have the exact same experience as me.
For most commuters they spend more time pumping gas than they would waiting for their cars to charge, their travel costs fluctuate more, and they have to think more about buying gas than if they just had an EV for their commuter car.
No point in discussing it really I guess. My anecdotal evidence says otherwise. I’m happy you have these conveniences though; I’m looking forward to when EVs catch up to the conveniences of ICE vehicles and infrastructure.
Cool, I base my data off actual statistics instead of just anecdotes.
https://www.statista.com/topics/5144/single-family-homes-in-...
82 out of 129 million units are single family detached homes. 62%. That's the majority. And I imagine most car-free households probably don't live in single-family detached by a large margin, so whatever percentage of that moves more car owners towards being the single family homes. Then another percentage of non-single-family-home dwellers probably aren't in the market for $40k cars, which for sure EVs have an upfront cost penalty.
Plus some of the other sizes like 2-4 units still often have garage or at least private parking spaces (carports and driveways) which would probably be easy to add individual chargers as well so another 16M units or 92/129 or 71% of housing units.
Average miles driven is like 16k these days.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar8.htm
16,000 / 300 or so days driven is like 53 miles a day on average. Easily doable by any EV, even doubling or tripling that average use.
Maybe you should look outside your bubble. The majority of US households who could afford a $40k car probably live in a place that can add charging without too much difficulty. And they also don't drive much more than 50mi a day on average, by a large measure.
> I’m looking forward to when EVs catch up to the conveniences of ICE vehicles
For most US households in the market for a car priced like an EV, an EV can be more convenient than an ICE, today.
I appreciate the source, but averages don’t really mean much in the real world.
I’ll tell my neighbors they should get an EV even though they can’t charge it at home and have commutes in areas where there aren’t super chargers yet, but on average they should be just fine, and let you know what they say, if you’d like.
So far we’re talking about refueling logistics, but a huge chunk of all the other uses of a vehicle preclude EVs as well.
So, I will say that this has negatively impacted me, and I have since sold my Tesla, and consider this to be a bad business practice that they should get fined a lot for, and probably just stop doing this immediately...
That being said, in the closest thing I will ever muster to a defense of Tesla... I think the thing that the articles might be missing on this, is this: Would people have adopted electric cars that work for them in all of their usecases, if Tesla hadn't lied about range to alleviate fears of range anxiety?
People overly sample issues with electric cars based on how far they can go, without ever acknowledging the part about them not actually needing the full range of the car. And Teslas still work for the majority of long drives as well, just with more frequent stops than they should have.