Efficiency

[Scratch]

I’ve seen it mentioned on various forums, that since the ID3 has been updated with software version 3.2, people are seeing an improvement with efficiency. I too have seen the car reporting better efficiency. In my case (with a 58kWh Pro Performance) the car reports somewhere between 4.4 and 5 miles/kWh. But, when I calculate my own figures I am getting exactly what I had before the update, 3.6 miles/kWh.
Dieselgate anyone?

[Caliban2005]

Hello,

I am tracking the efficiency of mine since I got it. Furthermore I compare how much charge the car says it receives versus the actual energy needed via the charger.

What I can confirm for my car is that the consumption figures reported by the car are broadly in line what I calculate. The real efficiency is of course lower due to the resistance losses from charging the battery. According to my calculation I am looking at around 4-8% loss. Longer charge session seem to have a lower percentage loss, while shorter session seem to see a higher percentage loss. For example: In a recent charging session from 10% to 80% SOC, the car reported 40.02 kwh charged while my charger reported 41.7 kwh, which represents a 4.2% loss.

In summary: In my experience so far the car reports correct efficiency figures, however if one would like to report full cost efficiency one needs to lower the figures reported by the car by about 5% due to electrical resistance while charging.

Hope this helps.

[MotMot]

Since 3.2 I've had an overall reported consumption of 4.0 m/kwh

This is (on paper) better than 3.8 I had last summer - but its a bit early to say...

[Kirkbysteve]

]I have been running on 3.2 now for a couple of months, Efficiency is definitely better, I initially thought this was due to the nice weather in the UK in June. It’s clear that this was true even in the wet cool July. Today on a trip into Nottingham teh car surpassed itself, 6.8 miles per kWh.

[Twisted enigma]

Recently have been doing day trips to London and back, 111 miles ish each way. I’ve been sitting at 60mph, use of air conditioning when required, using the eco setting in a ID3 max. See attached picture from todays trip, I know with a pre condition and tyre pressures, a little warmer first thing. This milage could be improved, 252miles ish from a full charge isn’t bad. All on 7.5p per kW on octopus intelligent.

[CarterHounslow]

Recently have been doing day trips to London and back, 111 miles ish each way. I’ve been sitting at 60mph, use of air conditioning when required, using the eco setting in a ID3 max. See attached picture from todays trip, I know with a pre condition and tyre pressures, a little warmer first thing. This milage could be improved, 252miles ish from a full charge isn’t bad. All on 7.5p per kW on octopus intelligent.

I thought the id3 max had the larger 77 kwh battery? The figures you're showing (91% to do 250 miles) seem to be in line with the 58 kwh battery. That's bloody good going because when I drive to London i get nowhere near that efficiency.

[Newfie]

I thought the id3 max had the larger 77 kwh battery? The figures you're showing (91% to do 250 miles) seem to be in line with the 58 kwh battery. That's bloody good going because when I drive to London i get nowhere near that efficiency.

It is the Tour that had the 77kWh battery.

[Sherlock]

]I have been running on 3.2 now for a couple of months, Efficiency is definitely better, I initially thought this was due to the nice weather in the UK in June. It’s clear that this was true even in the wet cool July. Today on a trip into Nottingham teh car surpassed itself, 6.8 miles per kWh.

IMG_1548.jpeg

That's remarkable. I am on 3.2 but I have only ever seen figures like that on a short downhill run (couple of miles) near where I live.
Did you achieve the same figures on your return trip?

[CarterHounslow]

I've just tried my out (updated yesterday) figures are a load of crap. Was reading 4.0 miles per kwh. I was going up the motorway at 70mph. I used 9% of battery to do 18 miles, which I calculated to be around 3.38 miles per kwh, so something is out.

[CarterHounslow]

I thought the id3 max had the larger 77 kwh battery? The figures you're showing (91% to do 250 miles) seem to be in line with the 58 kwh battery. That's bloody good going because when I drive to London i get nowhere near that efficiency.

It is the Tour that had the 77kWh battery.

Ah, that was it. Either way it's actually correct. 91% of battery for 252 miles is 4.7 miles per kwh. I do not get anywhere ever close to this.

[Twisted enigma]

That’s the combined KW per mile at 4.7, I have seen 4.8 it is driving in a relaxed and measured manner. Using B mode and adaptive cruise, I do on occasion use the accelerator to knock up to 65 to complete a lorry if required.

My daily commute can see as much as a 5kw per mile due to slower duel carriageway and single b road driving. The car is displaying an average of 4.5 over the total milage which I believe is over 6500 miles in total.

I’ve adapted to driving at 60mph on duel carriageways as it’s about getting as much per KW as possible. Which is odd as I’ve never worried about mpg in my car’s or sports bikes previously.

[CarterHounslow]

That’s the combined KW per mile at 4.7, I have seen 4.8 it is driving in a relaxed and measured manner. Using B mode and adaptive cruise, I do on occasion use the accelerator to knock up to 65 to complete a lorry if required.

My daily commute can see as much as a 5kw per mile due to slower duel carriageway and single b road driving. The car is displaying an average of 4.5 over the total milage which I believe is over 6500 miles in total.

I’ve adapted to driving at 60mph on duel carriageways as it’s about getting as much per KW as possible. Which is odd as I’ve never worried about mpg in my car’s or sports bikes previously.

I just don't understand. I drive to London and back a lot down the M40, it's about 75 miles to central London for me from home and about a mile onto the M40 from my house. Tried it at 60 on cruise control, sometimes not even having to overtake anything, even with the slower speeds getting in the A40 and into central London I've never seen above 4.0 miles per kwh on the dash, let alone when I calculate the actual usage.

Majority of my mileage is on annoying winding and hilly A roads around Oxfordshire and Northamptonshire going from 30 zones to 60 mph, if I drive ridiculously efficiently on that route of 25 miles I can just about get 4.1 miles per kwh, and that's with average speeds of about 42 mph.

Out of interest, what tyre pressures do you run?

[CarterHounslow]

I did some further running today, it does seem slightly better. I didn't drive particularly well on 38 mile run, just drove normally on twisty A roads. Car said 4.2, actually worked it out to more like 4.0. Which to be honest isn't bad for that journey, I normally have to drive a little more efficiently to try and get that kind of number.

[TimF]

Is it possible the higher displayed efficiency is mis-reporting km/kWh as mi/kWh? There are other threads where the system seems to get confused as to which units it should be using. If that's not the case, what is there in 3.2 which could deliver such a significant improvement?

[sidehaas]

Is it possible the higher displayed efficiency is mis-reporting km/kWh as mi/kWh? There are other threads where the system seems to get confused as to which units it should be using. If that's not the case, what is there in 3.2 which could deliver such a significant improvement?

We know that cars with 3.0 from factory were given an upgrade to the pulse inverter software which is definitely in 3.1+ and could also be in 3.0 OTA (I have found that 3.0 OTA gave me around 5-10% better efficiency than 2.3/4).
Pulse inverter software controls how the motor fires so can affect efficiency quite directly. But it's impossible to know how much difference that update might have made. Remember the original cars were not fully developed in reality, do I'm sure there was room for optimisation of that software as well as of all the more visible software.
Bjorn Nyland has done a test demonstrating that in a classic range test or 1000km challenge (ie, at largely constant speeds) the facelift ID3 is no more efficient than earlier models with software 2.x so the improvements must presumably be in the acceleration or regen.

[Mark55]

Hi
On a round trip to IKEA the consumption was. Out trip empty was 4.29 per KWh. Return trip full of IKEA stuff was 3.59 KWh. Kept as close to GPS indicated 70 mph as possible both ways mostly motorways. Air Temperature was 21c . All info from the Tronity app. Car is on 3.2 software.

[sidehaas]

Hi
On a round trip to IKEA the consumption was. Out trip empty was 4.29 per KWh. Return trip full of IKEA stuff was 3.59 KWh. Kept as close to GPS indicated 70 mph as possible both ways mostly motorways. Air Temperature was 21c . All info from the Tronity app. Car is on 3.2 software.

Tronity is fairly inaccurate for this sort of thing, it happens regularly even if true efficiency is similar both ways. This is because Tronity works in whole % of SoC so if you use 4% one way and 5% the other it will give results that are 20% apart in mi/kWh even if consumption was almost identical.
It's also because car's SoC prediction (which Tronity uses) is itself a calculation with errors in it and isn't entirely linear (ie one 5% does not truly equal another 5%). It's not uncommon to use 2% more one SoC (according to the display) on a return journey than the other way even when the car is displaying the same consumption in both directions. I think this is more likely to be an error in the SoC scale than the consumption figure. Consumption can be directly measured where SoC (battery energy content) can't. It is inferred from other parameters, including energy in/out. This is also why trying to infer battery capacity from change in SoC on a journey and displayed consumption data is a waste of time unless you've done a run using over 90%.

[TimF]

Is it possible the higher displayed efficiency is mis-reporting km/kWh as mi/kWh? There are other threads where the system seems to get confused as to which units it should be using. If that's not the case, what is there in 3.2 which could deliver such a significant improvement?

We know that cars with 3.0 from factory were given an upgrade to the pulse inverter software which is definitely in 3.1+ and could also be in 3.0 OTA (I have found that 3.0 OTA gave me around 5-10% better efficiency than 2.3/4).
Pulse inverter software controls how the motor fires so can affect efficiency quite directly. But it's impossible to know how much difference that update might have made. Remember the original cars were not fully developed in reality, do I'm sure there was room for optimisation of that software as well as of all the more visible software.
Bjorn Nyland has done a test demonstrating that in a classic range test or 1000km challenge (ie, at largely constant speeds) the facelift ID3 is no more efficient than earlier models with software 2.x so the improvements must presumably be in the acceleration or regen.

Interesting. Thanks.

[MotMot]

Hi
On a round trip to IKEA the consumption was. Out trip empty was 4.29 per KWh. Return trip full of IKEA stuff was 3.59 KWh. Kept as close to GPS indicated 70 mph as possible both ways mostly motorways. Air Temperature was 21c . All info from the Tronity app. Car is on 3.2 software.

Tronity is fairly inaccurate for this sort of thing, it happens regularly even if true efficiency is similar both ways. This is because Tronity works in whole % of SoC so if you use 4% one way and 5% the other it will give results that are 20% apart in mi/kWh even if consumption was almost identical.
It's also because car's SoC prediction (which Tronity uses) is itself a calculation with errors in it and isn't entirely linear (ie one 5% does not truly equal another 5%). It's not uncommon to use 2% more one SoC (according to the display) on a return journey than the other way even when the car is displaying the same consumption in both directions. I think this is more likely to be an error in the SoC scale than the consumption figure. Consumption can be directly measured where SoC (battery energy content) can't. It is inferred from other parameters, including energy in/out. This is also why trying to infer battery capacity from change in SoC on a journey and displayed consumption data is a waste of time unless you've done a run using over 90%.

It’s not quite the case.. Tronity uses percentage changes (as it can’t see the actual kWh of the battery) and then ASSUMES this is a percentage of the factory capacity. Eg 58kwh. Whereas on a year old car it may actually be 52kwh… 10% of 58kwh is 5.8, 10% of 52 is 5.2 etc… and as Sidehaas states it only uses the integer percentage to calculate this. So you may start a journey on 50.4% and end on 49.51% - use 1kwh but Tronity won’t pick it up.

I believe the ID itself calculates consumption based on the kWh being used.. as this is known by the car… rather than how the percentage changes.

[Mellons]

Have traded up from 1st 58kw (2020 model) to tour 5 (2022) 77kw. Efficiency in older 1st model was pretty good, similar to headline wltp with no diminution in battery capacity over 3 years. Older software in the 1st, so have not been able to do a before and after comprison. Current tour 5 has 3.2 upgrade done, and I am achieveing 605km range at 100% (375m) for urban driving, 498km for motorway with aircon on (307m). Pretty happy with efficiency, and good to see capacity unchanged in older one also. Battery has been checked in the tour 5, so it will be interesting to see what capacity will be in this one in a year or two.