So, if we want to keep our boxy shape, the solution would be batteries with higher energy density; that is, more kWh with the same weight. Hopefully in the not-too-distant future, but probably not what the OP wants to hear. Maybe there could be some minor improvements with programming, IDK.I think the most impactful part of the vehicle is the shape. The efficiency at low speeds is actually quite good, and compares favourably to “long rage” EVs. Get it up to highway speed and it’s pretty much a brick.
xc40 has 0.34A Tesla model 3 has a reported wind resistance of .23. Assuming aerodynamic drag is proportional to the square of velocity, and hence the power needed to overcome drag is proportional to the cube of velocity. This means that there is a very strong relationship between the speed that a vehicle is travelling and the proportion of the fuel used to overcome drag.
A 10% reduction in the drag will give a 2% increase in mileage at highway speeds. Using crude math approximations, the different wind resistance numbers would allow the Tesla a 6% mileage advantage. So, the Volvo, if shaped like a Tesla, would go about 15 miles further per charge.
A jeep Wrangler is .454
For those who have driven cars with very aerodynamic windshields, the dash is huge and the sun reflection is significant.
I personally dislike the huge cowl/dash slanted windshield configuration of the low aerodynamic cars.
Assuming you mean 15 miles more than it currently does, which is about 200, more or less, our model 3 AWD gets about 270 more or less. The Tesla still does better for some reason(s). I haven't had the Volvo for very long, and need to accumulate more data to compare to the Tesla under similar conditions. Our weekly trip is 180 miles with a 2000 ft elevation gain. It would probably make it with no room to spare, but I really don't want to have to push it the last few hundred yards (uphill)!So, the Volvo, if shaped like a Tesla, would go about 15 miles further per charge.
Well, it would be unfair, anyway. That is why I project the range in either case using the measured efficiency (Wh/mile or kWh/100 mile) to add to the miles traveled. Tesla doesn't generally get EPA range, either.So, comparing EPA range on a Tesla to real world range on a Volvo is impossible.
and has a range of about 260-275 miles, far short of either EPA figure.
There are folks reporting charging between 150-155 for the Polestar 2 and XC40. The problem is peak speeds are kind of meaningless for most drivers, it's really the average speed that matters. Well at least until we have way more fast chargers and people feel comfortable driving their EV down into the single digits. In one test where the battery was brought down to 0%, it took only 12 minutes to get to 30% It took another 30 minutes to go from 30% to 80%. Since very few people are going to deliberately take their EV under 10% and even less under 5%, the car charging fast between 0% and 10% isn't all that useful. Here's the charging "curve." Full video on it:I thought they had increased the charging rate to 148 at compatible charging stations which is basically the 150 max as advertised with the software updates. I could be wrong of course.