Featured Edmunds EV-charging test: How fast does each EV charge?

Looks like this chart is just DC quick charging. It's a shame they didn't show a chart for $240V home charging as it is an equally wide swing from as high as between 19kW/20kW while some are only pulling a puny 3.6 KW.
.

 

I would prefer to see a longer list that covered my 2019 Tesla Model 3 Std Rng Plus and 2017 BMW i3-REx. But I've already benchmarked mine and a larger, more complete list would be redundant except to confirm the accuracy of my measurements.

Also, I may have missed it but the shape of the charging curve is important too. My Tesla has ~2 min initial followed by a near triangular curve with the peak rate near the beginning and tapers off in an hour. The BMW i3-REx has a rectangular curve out to ~80% SOC followed by a smooth, ramp down curve, in about 45 minutes. Knowing the charging curve lets me estimate time on station.

Bob Wilson

 

what if someone makes a battery that is faster charging then others, but they start failing after 5 years?

 

This notion is best exemplified by the Chevy Volt that started with a measly 3 KW onboard charger. Once they realized it wasn't necessary for pack longevity, they bumped it up to 7.2kW. Several gen2 volts are now passing thru the 150K mile threshold w/ less than 5% capacity loss .... a testament to good thermal management. gen2 hit production some 7+ yrs ago.

 

Interesting article - thanks for posting.

It looks like the test took in maximiozing battery life expectancy also

"Why do Edmunds and P3 test average charging power from 10% to 80%?
Beginning at a low 10% battery charge allows a vehicle's battery pack enough capacity to accept a large flow of energy. By stopping at 80% state of charge, you spare a battery's overall lifespan and better maintain its long-term performance. Charging power for most, if not all, vehicles also significantly slows beyond 80%, so it's often best to unplug at that point and free up that charging station for the next person"

 

Porsche/Audi has taken a different tack when it comes to faster charging. What they do is provide a larger upper & lower battery buffer .... unusable - that you can't see on your gauge. That's why they will charge faster - yet not endanger pack integrity. It's not technically charging to a true full/safe capacity. The downside is it's more expensive to have that larger unusable battery portion and it's more expensive.
.

 

one of many duplicate posts

 

one of many duplicate posts

 

one of many duplicate posts

 

Rollout of the bZ4X software update for pre-conditioning just began in Japan, so there won't be a presence on Edmunds DC fast-charging chart for awhile. As interesting as that will be, it doesn't really apply to ordinary usage. The need for speed is limited to just long road trips. Stating charge times in terms of miles-per-hour is all that informative anyway. In fact, it is rather misleading. Know your audience. Far more realistic is information pertaining to a question an ordinary consumer is likely to ask: How many miles cans I get if I stop to charge for 25 minutes?

Other information that applies directly to long road trips was indeed included... observed efficiency. That's a nice improvement, data very useful for trip planning. Original reviews didn't even bother to collect that data. You can see in their spreadsheet documented consumption. There's no bZ4X data yet, but I can share mine for basis of comparison. My real-world observation (271-mile round-trip same-day) during the summer was 3.56 mi/kWh (measured by kWh delivered from charging stations). That's 28.1 kWh/100 mi, which would place it in above position #8 of the 43 vehicles report. For an AWD vehicle with an 8-inch ground-clearance, that is especially noteworthy.

With regard to pre-conditioning expectations, there isn't much to go on. With temperatures in the upper 30's, I was able to test out the battery-heater in my 2023. It fired up immediately upon plugging into the DC station. With that upcoming software update, the expectation is being able to use the heat for faster DC charging via battery power. With Toyota, there's an obvious effort to do that in the most efficient manner. The 6kW draw isn't too bad in terms of consumption, but you know how some owners will freak seeing their remaining available range drop as a result. During my test, I watched battery-temperature climb to 90°F.

It's nice to see Edmunds work to collect real-world data informative for comparisons, but the choice of charging to 80% contradicts advice we have been given for years from supposed experts. Countless many have shared their experiences stating a recommended stop at 60%. That is what we are constantly being told about charging curve & courtesy. Owners are more likely to stop before dropping to 10% too. That's where efficiency comes in. If you are targeting 40% charge (from 20-ish to 60-ish), knowing how many miles that will deliver is a big deal. For me (post update, increase usable capacity to 67 kWh), that's 26.8 kWh. At 3.5 mi/kWh, that's about 94 miles.

 

isn't 10% too low on a regular basis?

 

No harm, just pointless to target intentionally. We'll have lots of DCFC going forward. Setting your route-planner to 20% makes more sense.