Jaguar I-Pace EV400 Forum banner

IPace UK test drive video

9K views 30 replies 12 participants last post by  Riggald 
#1 ·
#4 ·
Range video

New video from JGR, appears to be released today. I am no techie but the basic math would suggest the 240-250 mile range in some range of conditions altho it would appear to be heavily highway driving. Regardless, still excited about new vehicle I have ordered

 
#5 ·
Charged to 100%, battery 'preconditioned', set eco mode, and set climate to doesn't do a thing mode.


Yea, no thanks. I hop in our Model 3, charged to 90% and rack up 230 miles driving it like the sports car it is... and still have miles left over!



What a pointless "test". I like the car, but they might as well have not done anything.
It would have been better to simply not make this video at all...
 
#6 ·
Yeah, I see a lot of discussion, especially on UK site, questioning the merits of this test. The steady erosion of initial range claims is disappointing, to be sure. So, folks will simply need to assess whether they can live with daily ~200 miles, and perhaps stretching for longer runs. For me, 200+ will likely comprise no more than 5 out of hundreds of trips per year. . .
 
#15 ·
200 miles is exactly what I want. The Bolt is rated at 238, and I got 200 per charge driving as fast and as inefficiently as I want. I don't ever want to have to worry about power usage in a car, and 200 miles real world range does it for me. I never go more than about 160 in a day, unless it's a long trip where I'll be taking the big gas guzzler anyway. EVs are still city cars for the foreseeable future, even Teslas. So if the I-Pace delivers a solid 200 miles, that works for me. If it's less, I'd pass and wait for something better - life is just too short to waste any of it on range anxiety.
 
#7 ·
The air resistance in the tunnel (vs. real world) the lack of traffic in the tunnel. The fact that they could do the best range MPH in the tunnel.. (usually around 40-45) whole thing wreaks of legacy car maker BS.
 
#8 ·
I'm not arguing the original point (that this is not a particularly useful test of range), but I'm curious why you would assume air resistance in the tunnel to be less than air resistance in "the real world". It's a tunnel, not a vacuum. If anything, air pressure/resistance is higher in the tunnel. I know they have pressure release valves for the trains, but I doubt they have those in the service tunnel (which was used in this video).

Other than that, your point is taken. Despite having a 90 kwh battery, the "shrinking range" phenomenon for this car is disturbing. That said, for my purposes, anything over 100 miles is fairly immaterial. I recognize others need their vehicle to go longer distances, so maybe it's not the car for them. Too bad, I test drove it last week and it's a rocket ship. So much fun. Can't wait for mine to get here (late Oct/early Nov is what I was told last week).
 
#11 · (Edited)
While the static air resistance in the tunnel would be similar, you have many more variables in the 'open air' than in a tunnel. Traffic wind, 18-wheelers, cross winds, rain, snow, varying road quality leading to varying rolling resistance. I just think it looks like they really went out of their way to test unrealistic conditions. I don't personally own a 100+ mile tunnel of my own, so this exercise is not only pointless, it takes time away from valid ones... :( (Unless I'm in the minority, and each of you have your own personal tunnels, in which case, awesome, I want to check them out)!

One could even consider the more consistent temp in the tunnel, which would increase range by not having to run the AC/Heat as hard as you would 'outside'.

To Jag's credit, this is probably the world's first car test that occurred 'indoors'. You know, where most cars are used... :)


I still like the iPace, but it just wreaks of desperation. They are trying so hard to prove it's a 'real car', it comes off as detrimental... I wonder if anyone from Jag reads this site.
 
#13 ·
Some very entertaining commentary here. So, credit to the authors. Also, I think drivers in some regions might experience tunnels on a daily basis, no?


Anyway, similarly curious folks at the UK forum made inquiries with JLR. Here's a response:


"An average speed measurement was not taken, but this test was conducted on a variety of different roads and the driver took care to drive as they would normally. It was essential that our drive was representative of real-world use, not ‘hypermiling’ with comfort features such as climate control switched off. The aim of this activity was not to try and get the best range possible, but to showcase I-PACE's everyday usability."
 
#14 · (Edited)
All I know is my S was EPA rated for 300wH/mile. I averaged 365 across 50,000 miles. I admit I also took down rear tires at a rate of new tires every 10,000 miles...

A test for me would be set the (equivalent of) auto pilot to 85 mph and go for my usual weekend trip... comparing it to our Model 3. Takes a lot of the human factor out of it... which is exactly how the 3 is driven.
So far the Model 3 is a range machine. It just keeps going. I'll get the lifetime wH/mile when I get home. It has over 12,000 miles on it now.
 
#16 ·
Clearly, for long, long, long range drivers, the i-Pace isn't the best choice. Go get a Tesla 100D, a diesel sedan, or a small engined, efficiency geared pickup with a 30+ gallon tank.
 
#18 ·
lol "city cars"? I drove my Model S places because of the super charger network.

Places I'd never been before. All over the freaking place. 60,000 miles worth of places.

www.supercharge.info exactly where can't you go?


at 14 MPG in my current ride (until I pick up an EV-SUV) I'll tell you where I don't go now... anywhere. it's too **** expensive! (we take the 3)
 
#20 ·
The bottom line is, until the technology advances to the point where you can fully recharge your battery in 5-10 minutes at charging stations located at every exit on any highway, long distance travel in any EV is not going to be as convenient as it is with an ICE. Sure, absolutely, doing it in a 3 or an S is easier than an I Pace. I will totally grant that point. But it's still not nearly as easy as doing it in, say, a Toyota Camry. You just have to decide what you need the vehicle for and what trade-offs you're willing/able to make. For me, personally, I'm only using it to get to work, go around town and occasionally make a 100-mile trip to my place in the mountains (where I have a charger in my garage). So the I-Pace is perfect. Especially with the AWD and off-road capabilities. But that's me. Clearly others have different needs/priorities and this car doesn't work for them. That's fine. It doesn't mean it's a crappy car. Just means it doesn't meet their needs. (It meets mine.)
 
#21 ·
Yeah. I'm in the same boat (mostly local trips (<150 miles round trip) and sometimes to Sierras (~180 miles one-way / charge over night)) where off-road to the lakes, through snow will be great.


Off topic, but I'll observe that Audi's put together a pretty compelling set of amenities for $75k (upscale seating, 20" wheels, etc.) though some items (weight/range, imminent deliveries) are missing.


So, good news is that our options are expanding nicely. Ultimately, I-Pace fits my profile best. So, here I am.
 
#24 ·
You may want to plug your trip into the onboard computer when you get a chance, just to make sure you'll have enough juice to make the trip. I've got 107 miles door-to-door with a 4000 ft elevation gain (6,000 to 10,000 with a few ups and downs along the way). On a fully charged battery, the nav system says I arrive with 28% remaining. Add in some degradation when I make the trip in the dead of winter and temps may be below 0F for portions of it, I'm still comfortable. I'm guessing your trip starts out closer to sea level which means more of a climb. I don't know if the I Pace has the battery to get you there without a top off along the way. The good news for you is, I'm sure there are DC fast chargers in Sacramento and elsewhere on your route. There are precisely zero charging stations along my route.

Although this brings up a good question. My assumption is that, unlike ICE vehicles, EVs do not lose efficiency at altitude because there aren't any pistons relying on pressure generation nor is there combustible fuel relying on oxygen to burn. Add in the fact that air resistance is significantly lower due to decreased air pressure and EVs should see a mild bump in range at altitude. Does anyone know if this is born out in real life?
 
#31 · (Edited)
I-Pace Channel Tunnel Run:
31 miles of tunnel
8 miles of tunnel complex entry/exit roads
around 8 miles of urban stop-start
and
around 182 miles of highway (motorway and dual carriageway)

229 miles total, 8% battery remaining.

Implied total ranges:
258 miles total (292km remaining at 70% SoC @1:18)
277 mile total (169km remaining at 40% SoC @ 1:18)
249 miles total (229 miles driven at 8% SoC)

Sumner St (shown on satnav) to Mon Des Arts (mentioned on press release web page)

The satnav shows the start point (Sumner St), the graphics show the route, and the Jag web page mentions the end point.
So some Googling gets:
6.3 miles in London
19.9 miles of dual carriageway (~ = state highway) A2
41.2 miles of motorway (~= interstate) M2 and M20
39.8 miles of actual Chunnel, incl. entry/exit complexes
196km (121.5mi) of French and Belgian Autoroute, on Euroroute 20
~5km ( 3.5 mi) of urban dual carriageway
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top