Range versus speed

I have a spreadsheet I built for calculating energy consumption. When I do the math for a Prime with 8.8kWh available, I get a range of about 75 miles at 40mph not including losses for acceleration/deceleration or accessories, both of which can be significant in some cases. It drops to 45 miles at 65mph (again, without losses for stopping and starting or keeping cool or warm).

It looks to me like the range on moderate-speed trips should be a whole lot longer than it is on high-speed trips.

If 22 miles is conservative for the US driving cycle, which includes high speeds and lots of acceleration/deceleration, does it make sense that it could be easily a heck of a lot more (like double) for a bunch of steady 35-40mph? I have a regular trip that is almost all steady 40mph with very few stops and starts, 27 miles round-trip. I calculated the energy use for that trip at 3.7kWh, not including accessories.

 

The average efficiency of the gas engine is around 30% (peaks at 40%), while the electric system is more like 90%.

 

I used air drag, rolling drag, and an assumed electric efficiency of 85%.

 

No. I get around 70mpg on steady 40mph with my gen 2. And the electric system is three times as efficient, not twice.

 

My numbers are correct - Cd = 0.25, A=2.22m^2, RR=0.008. Do the math yourself for 40mph (18m/s) at my air density of 1.05kg/m^3.

 

Same.

 

Let me be clear. What I'm asking is if owners think that driving at a steady 40mph would yield 50-100% more range than the EPA-estimated range.

 

And that's likely with accessories and some stopping and starting (i.e. acceleration losses).

 

Let me put this another way. On this route, I usually average around 65mpg on my 2004, with the AC running full time.

 

Not for me - the last mile is all coasting for me!