Volvo XC40 Forum banner

Range/Consumption Thread

43K views 226 replies 43 participants last post by  mr.ajrob 
#1 ·
I thought I would start one as people get their cars delivered.

So far most of my driving has been pure city, all lights and stop signs, pretty low average speeds. I've been driving in one pedal mode.

My consumption and my battery depletion have seem mostly aligned with each other.

Right now my round trips are averaging in the in 30-35 KwH range, in mild but not super warm weather. If my math is correct, that means pure city driving has a range of around 215 to 250 miles. That seems pretty reasonable given the WLTP range of 208 but seems a bit low compared to the EPA of 258. But I'm also not adjusting my driving and having to deal with all the normal city driving issues that will reduce efficiency even with regen, notably sudden stops for less courteous drivers/bikes/people. Oh, it's also been hella windy in Philly as of late...so there's that too.
 
#132 ·
Good luck finding any 20s. Tire shops say coming form overseas due around 3-4 weeks. Called Volvo dealer and they think they may see 1 (rear) in the system and are checking on it, but not holding out hope. Ironically the tire shop told me from shoulder to hole has to be 1/2 inch, I am right at 1/2 inch (where is my lottery when I need it) so it could go either way, but once they pull the screw I am toast.
 
#135 ·
Unfortunately, the reality is....once you get into any luxury car, most likely, costs of ownership geerally creeps up..... insurance coverage alone goes up.... I guess the other way of looking at it is, less cost in electricity (vs. gas expenses) to subsidize for the more expensive tires.
 
#138 ·
Ford knew that all but the GT version would be mainstream and equipped it as such. The Mach E does get some beef on handling becasue of the smaller tires, but they traded that for range.
 
#143 ·
I picked up my XC40 P8 today and asked the maintenance person if there was any chance I would be able to use my winter wheels 18" from 2018 XC60 that I just traded in and was told the smallest wheel this car will take is 19" due size of brake disk and he mentioned specs for winter wheels up front being 8" wide and rear being 8 1/2 " wide, so that should be fun.
 
#144 ·
I am not messing with the design of my car in such a fundamental way. Volvo painstakingly designed it to be staggered then staggered it will be.

That is just my opinion and I love science so will enjoy reading about those that do go non staggered :)
 
#145 ·
Ditto…. Although I was inquiring of square possibilities etc for the ease of rotation etc, but at the end, after much reading on Google, yeah I’m sticking with the way it’s design. As long as I still LOVE the car, I can deal with its “unique” characteristics :)
 
#146 ·
I love getting new tires especially when it rains and you can feel how well they are working.

From quick research the continental pro contact rx’s mine comes with will cost about 900 to replace.

Interestingly for some rx sizes you can get a modified tire version that has an extra sound absorbing layer. Read this in their material but then could not find anything at tire dealers …
 
#147 ·
This was very enlightening around tire size/width and range. Wide tires dont; hurt as much as I thought, so seems odd why ford ran narrow tires on the Mach-E. Talks about rolling resistance as having higher impact.



Now with all the push on fuel economy I question if any mainstream tires are horribly bad rolling resistance today. So in his example same tire maybe hurts a little, but look at wheel size impact a 1 inch increase in wheel does on the model 3
 
  • Like
Reactions: improvius
#150 ·
Interesting video. The only thing I did not know was smaller wheel part alas this is the only section which he did not explain why a smaller tire has this effect.

Is it a tendon model where energy is stored and released as it turns the way your calves work?

Do smaller wheels weigh less? This would course more energy to be used to spin them up

Do small tires have better or worse rolling resistance? As the wheels are more efficient I would guess less but why would this be the case. I would imagine a smaller wheel with larger side walls would deform more than a larger wheel.

Anyone know or can point me at an article that covers the hard science of why ?

All this makes me even happier I got to order 19s and was that Volvo defaults to 20s
 
#151 ·
Smaller wheels weigh less. Even though the difference between a 19 and 20 tire is not 1 inch, the wheel is 1 inch smaller and the weight gain is in the wheel. Physics is a tough master. Heavier wheels and moments of inertia are your enemy. More energy to accelerate and move from rest.

The hard science is physics.
 
#152 ·
1. The over all size of the wheel (wheel hub + tire) is the same is it not. So over all it is not smaller.

2. The mass of a smaller wheel is not necessarily smaller as it is easy to forget that there is a tire on the wheel hub and tires have either a greater or lesser weight than the wheel hub depending on materials used for both.

In the example below it is stated that the 20 inch is actually lighter than the 19:


3. As we are talking about efficiency it is not necessarily true to talk about stored inertia as being the enemy. Unlike friction which is a thermal loss from the system stored inertia is stored and in-fact is one of the ways of storing energy in some systems (not used in our cars ). So the effect of this is not as clear as just more is bad. Of course the extra mass needing to be spun up is extra load on the motor which causes more heat generation and loss from the system. Though if the 19 has more mass than the 20 this would further invalidate this.

My back ground is physics which is why I was asking for articles with specifics information about why.

I could of course be missing something here :)
 
#153 ·
You are correct in that the overall sizes are the same. The issue is that the 20 inch wheel and tire have more mass.

19 inch Pirelli Tires weighs 29 lbs
20 inch weighs 35 lbs.

20 inch wheel weight 29.3lbs
19 inch wheel weight 28 lbs

The 20 inch wheel has more mass at the wheel and more rotating mass in the tire.

The end results i more energy to rotate the tire/wheel and accelerate.

These numbers were obtained through a Google search and the Volvo web site and online sellers of OEM Volvo parts.
If they are wrong, it is not a deliberate error.
 
#154 ·
Thank you for the data. That is a lot different than the post I had read. I believe you of course. I have respect for everyone who posts here and if I implied differently ever it was a typo and not what I meant.

I still wonder about the stored energy part. I agree it takes more to spin them up but hopefully we get it back with regenerative.

Still the loss has to be somewhere and the size seems to make a massive difference.
*hugs my 19 inches^
 
#155 ·
From what I read in the comments of the video, one of the factors is simply increased drag from the larger wheels. Presumably the tire itself produces less drag because the sidewall is a solid, flat surface as compared to the spokes of the wheel. More space in between the spokes = more drag.

Incidentally, I think overall drag is one of the reasons the XC40 is less efficient than lower-profile crossovers like the Y and the Mach-E. The XC40 has a drag coefficient of .34, whereas the Y is .23 and the Mach-E is .30. But that's a price you're going to pay with any vehicle that has a higher, more SUV-like profile.
 
#157 ·
Volvo Recharge with heat pump and 20" wheels garaged in Massachusetts. Just experienced on the road charging during a 338 mile round trip adventure on major interstate (Mass Turnpike) highway. Left home with a 90% charge with an outside temperature of 60 degrees. At 70 MPH with no AC, energy consumption was steady 40-43 kWh/100 miles. Drove 146 miles and stopped at an EVgo charging station with remaining charge at 12%. Trip meter reported 39.0 kWh/100miles with average speed of 60 mph. EVgo DC charging was very easy at 1:17 hrs (77 min total) with 47.92 kWh delivered for $24.20 ($ 00.17/mile). While at the destination we connected to a non DC Chargepoint charger for 5.76 kWh (delivered in 1 hour) for $1.79. On return we stopped at another EVgo charger and charged to 55% ( 00:34 for +24.150 kWh @ $10.84)) for remaining trip home. Energy consumption for the day averaged 36.9 kWH/100 miles (Promised software updates in the Fall may improve the range.) We arrived home with 16% charge remaining. Overall trip was uneventful however we were fortunate no one was at either EVgo charger on our arrival. Infrastructure is not ready for a large influx of EVs (other than Teslas). Of note, each stop had a separate area for Tesla charging with at least 8 stations available! Charging infrastructure network, at least in New England, needs significant improvement.

992
 

Attachments

#158 ·
Started to take note of what the car said we used of the battery and what the EVSE said it used to replenish that much battery to see how much might be wasted. The car said we got 32.8kWh/100 miles which for the 68.3 miles we drove is 22.4 kWh and the EVSE to replenish that was 24.1kWh which translates into 35.3 kWh/100mi of actual electricity used, which still is not bad at about 7% wasted to charging.
 
#160 ·
Cool website. I have been letting the car get down below 50% most times and then charge it, but do charge on Friday night to make sure it is full for weekend. Even on level 2 I can tell the time to get from 80-90% is longer as my short charges at times take longer than excepted compared to my 30-40% refills. So far in June I paid basically nothing to charge the car and have about a week left on my July billing cycle. I have right around 800 miles on the car and averaging between 32-35kWh/100mi. Using my wife's T5 that is about $115-120 in saved fuel in 6 weeks. If I can keep the car out of the shop (dealer and tires) I forecast about a 3 year break even for the cost once I factor the $7500 and ~$4k premium over the T5 equivalent. Could be even sooner as I have not included oil and other maintenance, but also assuming the P8 we eat tires quicker.
 
#161 ·
I have the June update installed and I think range may have improved. I do a regular drive of about 50 miles round-trip to see a relative every week or so, and I've gotten the best efficiency in my most recent trip (after June update). Most of the trip is on a highway with lots of traffic (welcome to Boston), so not super fast, but efficiency was 27.2 kWh/100 mi in 68 degree weather. So, with a 75 kWh battery, that's 275 mile total range. Not bad!

1031
 
#162 ·
Sure it is not weather? I also only charge to 90% and would not run car down to 0%. We have been averaging around 33 +/- 1-2 kWh/100mi and I have not noticed much difference since getting the June update. I still feel like reasonable usage around town provides easily 150 miles without a lot of effort and staying between 20-90% SOC. Finally have 850 miles on the car, we have been on edge about crashing infotainment, but only failed 2-3 times in one day and not again since I did a reboot. Will see what dealer says when I take it Monday.
 
#163 ·
I notice that weather plays a huge difference in consumption. Same route and distances, I would see low 30s when weather is < 75 and high 30s when weather is >95.
In Texas, weather can swing up to 30 degrees difference on the same day so I’m able to see these differences in short period of time.
 
#164 ·
@He Keith and @MMK - you may well be right. I’m comparing this drive to the same drive under similar weather conditions (~68 F), but other things like traffic could easily account for the difference. @MMK - perhaps car AC is affecting your range. I‘m guessing that you are using a lot more AC in hot, >90 F, weather and that’s going to use more battery.
 
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