Chevy Spark EV Range Test, 97.8 miles @ 62mph, Aug 5, 2013

This course is driven at 100km/h (62mph) ground speed:

http://youtu.be/TPsgnI4vRoQ

I guess it's safe to say that the spark is significantly more efficient than the Leaf.

Good to know... Thanks for doing it.
Now I have to replicate it.

charlestonleafer said:

I guess it's safe to say that the spark is significantly more efficient than the Leaf.

Click to expand...

Well, I would be careful with at observation. With smaller size and the exact same efficiency, the smaller car would likely go farther.

But, the Spark EV does seem well suited for 62mph down the freeway.

TonyWilliams said:

charlestonleafer said:

I guess it's safe to say that the spark is significantly more efficient than the Leaf.

Click to expand...

Well, I would be careful with at observation. With smaller size and the exact same efficiency, the smaller car would likely go farther.

But, the Spark EV does seem well suited for 62mph down the freeway.

Click to expand...

But by definition, a car that goes further using less energy is more efficient, no? Unrelated question, how much do you think the range is affected by thermal management?

charlestonleafer said:

But by definition, a car that goes further using less energy is more efficient, no? Unrelated question, how much do you think the range is affected by thermal management?

Click to expand...

We try to test as close to 70F-75F, as this is the temperature that a TMS will attempt to heat or cool the batteries to. In other words, our test is idealized so that TMS efficiency isn't part of the game.

On the LEAF, temperature is more important for standardized range tests because the battery capacity will change significantly with changes in temperature.

When it is really, really hot, the LEAF will have a tiny advantage because the hot battery has slightly more capacity. Any TMS car will be consuming power to limit battery temperature, both limiting the capacity of the battery and consuming power the LEAF won't.

During cold weather, the reverse is true. The heated battery in a TMS car will have more capacity in cold than a LEAF. There are lots of variables to consider, but in general a hot battery will go farther and have less durability, and a cold battery will have less range and last longer.

The Kia Soul EV beats the 2014 Spark EV in the 62mph range test:

http://insideevs.com/kia-soul-ev-range-autonomy-demonstration-nets-100-miles/

TonyWilliams said:

The Kia Soul EV beats the 2014 Spark EV in the 62mph range test:

http://insideevs.com/kia-soul-ev-range-autonomy-demonstration-nets-100-miles/

Click to expand...

That's not really an apples to apples comparison unless you do it along the same exact route.

I get 5.3 miles/kWh from my Spark. 21.3 kWh from my pack times 5.3 ~ 113 miles. I've done over 100 miles several times before charging with 5-10 miles to spare.

I'm glad the Soul does well though as the EV community needs more efficient vehicles regardless.

nozferatu said:

That's not really an apples to apples comparison unless you do it along the same exact route.

I get 5.3 miles/kWh from my Spark. 21.3 kWh from my pack times 5.3 ~ 113 miles. I've done over 100 miles several times before charging with 5-10 miles to spare.

I'm glad the Soul does well though as the EV community needs more efficient vehicles regardless.

Click to expand...

It is an "apples to apples" comparison. Read the report, and if you can find some exception to the parameters, that would be awesome. There's a reason that I am as thorough with documenting all the parameters, as I've done these types of tests at the highest levels of scrutiny.

Your off-the-cuff data isn't quite the same league comparison, wouldn't you agree? Have you EVER driven your Spark EV in a 62mph ground speed range test?

If you have a detailed range test to share, let's see it here for all to scrutinize. Heck, I've gotten over 8 miles per kWh in one of my former LEAF's, but that doesn't make it go 8 * 21.3kWh useable = 170 miles at 62mph steady speed.

The 2014 Spark EV, under the specific detailed tests that I perform, will not go as far as the Soul EV. Close, but no cigar. Your car will not go over 100 miles when restricted to the parameters of my test.

Also, I predict that Kia will move beyond selling 50 cars a month in two CARB-ZEV compliance states, like the Spark EV. Kia is actually making all the motions to take on the world leader in this market, the Nissan LEAF with over 150,000 sales. The Kia dealers are installing DC quick chargers (GM dealers clearly are not). Kia is actively promoting the car. GM does not.

I guess we will see next year what Kia really does, but I'm hopeful that they cross over to the auto makers that really want to promote and produce electric powered cars, like Nissan, Tesla, Mitsubishi, Renault, and BMW.

I will close my interaction here with you by stating that you can believe anything you want, but I don't work in a belief world. I use facts. The 2014 Spark EV is quite impressive in its own right, but the Soul EV is, too. Either car would be an excellent choice for somebody who needs more range than the handful of 80-ish mile EV's.

With GM reducing the battery size of the 2015 Spark EV, I'll be anxious to test it, too.

TonyWilliams said:

nozferatu said:

That's not really an apples to apples comparison unless you do it along the same exact route.

I get 5.3 miles/kWh from my Spark. 21.3 kWh from my pack times 5.3 ~ 113 miles. I've done over 100 miles several times before charging with 5-10 miles to spare.

I'm glad the Soul does well though as the EV community needs more efficient vehicles regardless.

Click to expand...

It is an "apples to apples" comparison. Read the report, and if you can find some exception to the parameters, that would be awesome. There's a reason that I am as thorough with documenting all the parameters, as I've done these types of tests at the highest levels of scrutiny.

Your off-the-cuff data isn't quite the same league comparison, wouldn't you agree? Have you EVER driven your Spark EV in a 62mph ground speed range test?

If you have a detailed range test to share, let's see it here for all to scrutinize. Heck, I've gotten over 8 miles per kWh in one of my former LEAF's, but that doesn't make it go 8 * 21.3kWh useable = 170 miles at 62mph steady speed.

The 2014 Spark EV, under the specific detailed tests that I perform, will not go as far as the Soul EV. Close, but no cigar. Your car will not go over 100 miles when restricted to the parameters of my test.

Also, I predict that Kia will move beyond selling 50 cars a month in two CARB-ZEV compliance states, like the Spark EV. Kia is actually making all the motions to take on the world leader in this market, the Nissan LEAF with over 150,000 sales. The Kia dealers are installing DC quick chargers (GM dealers clearly are not). Kia is actively promoting the car. GM does not.

I guess we will see next year what Kia really does, but I'm hopeful that they cross over to the auto makers that really want to promote and produce electric powered cars, like Nissan, Tesla, Mitsubishi, Renault, and BMW.

I will close my interaction here with you by stating that you can believe anything you want, but I don't work in a belief world. I use facts. The 2014 Spark EV is quite impressive in its own right, but the Soul EV is, too. Either car would be an excellent choice for somebody who needs more range than the handful of 80-ish mile EV's.

With GM reducing the battery size of the 2015 Spark EV, I'll be anxious to test it, too.

Click to expand...

I did read the report and unless you tested the Soul on the same path under the same conditions, your test means little unfortunately as far as outright comparisons go. So it's not apples to apples comparison. Have you EVER driven the Soul at 62 mph along the same course as was done by the Spark EV? Or did you EVER test the Spark EV under the same conditions and circuit that the Soul was driven on?

The course taken by the Spark EV was entirely different. If you like you can test the Soul along the same circuit as was taken by the Spark EV and then we can have a fair comparison. San Diego's weather is pretty consistent so weather and temperature shouldn't be an issue.

And yes, like I have said over and over again, I've driven my car over a 100 miles on one charge multiple times so I know it's both reproducible and able.

I've driven all the way to Chino Hills and back without charging and had about 10-15 miles to spare....giving a window of mileage range of 102-107 miles. That coincides pretty well with my 5.3 mi/kWh (actually 5.4 miles/kWh now since yesterday). I drive out there every 3 weeks or so hence my mileage being so high. I have gotten there in 45-50 minutes with no traffic and that calculates to 55-61 MPH for the entire trip. That means that the majority of trip was well over 62 mph in order for me to achieve those averages.

I have no worry or doubt that this little car can do well over 100 miles on one charge given the miles/kWh I'm getting. And for everyone else, my mileage is split about 80/20 between freeway/city currently.

I also deal with facts like you do. Your distaste for GM and the Spark is clear however it does not take away from the Spark's ability to go further than you believe it can.

TonyWilliams said:

The Kia Soul EV beats the 2014 Spark EV in the 62mph range test:

http://insideevs.com/kia-soul-ev-range-autonomy-demonstration-nets-100-miles/

Click to expand...

Those are interesting results. Most interesting is that you suspect that the advertised battery capacity is the useable and not the total, as other manufactures opt to do. It makes sense that the Kia would go a bit farther considering it has about 8 more kWh of battery storage than the Spark. I'll be interested in the results of the eGolf and i3!

xylhim said:

TonyWilliams said:

The Kia Soul EV beats the 2014 Spark EV in the 62mph range test:

http://insideevs.com/kia-soul-ev-range-autonomy-demonstration-nets-100-miles/

Click to expand...

Those are interesting results. Most interesting is that you suspect that the advertised battery capacity is the useable and not the total, as other manufactures opt to do. It makes sense that the Kia would go a bit farther considering it has about 8 more kWh of battery storage than the Spark. I'll be interested in the results of the eGolf and i3!

Click to expand...

I may be doing an extended test drive for an i3 shortly...I'll give my own report on this if I get a chance...long waiting list!

Nozferatu, if you don't like Tony's range test results, go run your own range tests on the same course (possibly your own), preferably a constant speed one, like Tony's providing the same level of detail and measurement involving a Spark EV and a Kia Soul EV. Then, post the results and all the details.

As Tony's pointed out, just because you and others have driven their respective Leafs or Spark EVs over 100 miles on a charge doesn't mean it will achieve that in a 62 mph constant speed test w/minimal to no elevation change. You yourself are comparing apples to oranges.

Many of the posts were deleted, but in a nutshell, range tests under prescribed parameters are just that. You can't compare that data on par with data derived from different methods.

In other words, just saying that you can drive your Chevy Spark EV 300 miles does not mean that it will go 300 miles at 62mph ground speed. The two scenarios are not "apples to apples".

In the case of the Kia Soul EV range test, just like the Spark EV test before it, we make every attempt to make the parameters match. That doesn't mean the exact same road, as that's not even pertinent to the outcome.

Of all the things that affect range autonomy on a car during steady speed, speed is the prime criteria. The aerodynamic drag is a product of velocity squared. Simply doubling the speed does not double the drag; it becomes (2 * speed) squared. That's a huge difference; when somebody just nonchalantly suggests that a different speed compares, believe me, it doesn't.

Anyhoo, I'm happy to find a willing victim to drive their 2015 Spark EV.

The aerodynamics of cars is more complex than just velocity^2. Air must be pushed laterally by a car as it drives. As the car goes faster the kinetic energy required to do this increases geometrically as you described. Only considering velocity everyone's gas mileage should decrease at the same rate, but it doesn't. Big vehicles get a much worse penalty than small cars though.

The drag coefficient of a vehicle also changes with speed. A car leaves a "tail" of low pressure behind the car that grows longer as the car goes faster. This "tail" is formed by the air pushed laterally by the car not being able to come back together fast enough. The size of the "tail" on a large vehicle can grow larger than the vehicle itself with much worse turbulent air flow.

FutureFolly said:

The aerodynamics of cars is more complex than just velocity^2. Air must be pushed laterally by a car as it drives. As the car goes faster the kinetic energy required to do this increases geometrically as you described. Only considering velocity everyone's gas mileage should decrease at the same rate, but it doesn't. Big vehicles get a much worse penalty than small cars though.

The drag coefficient of a vehicle also changes with speed. A car leaves a "tail" of low pressure behind the car that grows longer as the car goes faster. This "tail" is formed by the air pushed laterally by the car not being able to come back together fast enough. The size of the "tail" on a large vehicle can grow larger than the vehicle itself with much worse turbulent air flow.

Click to expand...

Thanks for that. Obviously, aerodynamics is far more complex than your overview, too.

All these issues can (and are) measured and defined according to drag coefficient and area.

That perfect aerodynamic shape (that no car comes close to) increases exponentially in drag relative to velocity. How a car, bullet, airplane, boat, spaceship, etc, gets to its final design is not as much consequence for comparison as solid data with which to compare.

For instance, saying car "A" has more or less low pressure drag tells me nothing as to how much power it takes relative to propel car "B". It's the overall data measured, again, in drag coefficient and area that matters for the entire vehicle that matters.

Of course, they can be specified in any configuration:

Tractor without trailer
Tractor with trailer (huge difference)
Car with bike rack
Car without
Plane with speed brakes deployed
Plane with them retracted
Motorcycle at 150mph
Motorcycle at 50mph

et al...

Our range test takes a holistic approach to all those parameters to achieve comparable data. For the purpose of our comparisons, drag increases at Velocity squared.

My only real point was that the Spark being a small car means that in adverse conditions like higher speeds or bad head winds will see a more minimal penalty to its mileage. The Kia Soul will do well in a narrower spectrum of real world road conditions. Being electric vehicles their excellent efficiency also means they can return excellent range when the conditions favor them as well.

Aerodynamics can also quickly become meaningless if there is a large elevation change as part of a commute. You're totally correct in how you don't try to replicate every condition because you can't make all conditions equal. What is most important is plenty of sampling of the same vehicles. Difficult in your position, but the only definitive way to compare vehicles apples-to-apples is to drive each vehicle as many times as possible at similar speeds with a similar driving style. Even that won't be an evaluation of what the machines are capable of.

FutureFolly said:

Aerodynamics can also quickly become meaningless if there is a large elevation change as part of a commute.

Click to expand...

Not true. Aerodynamics plays EXACTLY the same roll, either on level ground, up a hill, or down a hill.

You are confusing the energy required to raise the vehicle.

One kilowatt hour = 2,655,224 pound feet of energy.

Driving your 4000 pound Electric vehicle up a 1000 foot elevation requires 4000 * 1000 = 4,000,000 foot pounds of energy divided by 2,655,224 equals 1.5kWh of energy to lift the car.

1.5kWh of energy at an economy of 4 miles per kWh (250 watts per mile) = 6 miles of range used to drive up 1000 feet for a Nissan LEAF type car.

For a 5000 pound Tesla Model S (just two occupants) equals 5 million foot pounds to go up 1000 feet.

5 million divided by 2,655,224 equals 1.883kWh of energy to lift the car.

1.833kWh of energy at an economy of 3 miles per kWh (333 watts per mile) = 5.5 miles of range used to raise the car 1000 feet.

You're totally correct in how you don't try to replicate every condition because you can't make all conditions equal. What is most important is plenty of sampling of the same vehicles. Difficult in your position, but the only definitive way to compare vehicles apples-to-apples is to drive each vehicle as many times as possible at similar speeds with a similar driving style. Even that won't be an evaluation of what the machines are capable of.

Click to expand...

Well, what you describe is EXACTLY how planes, cars, etc are tested.

Yes, a test pilot crawls in a Boeing and flies it over and over to verify data.

We do try to replicate EVERY condition that matters to the test; I never said otherwise.

TonyWilliams said:

FutureFolly said:

Aerodynamics can also quickly become meaningless if there is a large elevation change as part of a commute.

Click to expand...

Not true. Aerodynamics plays EXACTLY the same roll, either on level ground, up a hill, or down a hill.

Click to expand...

You're correct. I miss spoke. I meant aerodynamics can become insignificant relative to the other forces acting on the car.

Having a fixed elevation change doesn't mean the amount of energy required to climb that high is fixed. Climbing a substantial grade is less efficient than flat-ish terrain because of the higher torque from the motor and higher power draw from the battery pack.

An EV buyer living on a hill/mountain may learn that they lose say... 10 miles(just for the point of discussion) of range coming home. Other than making their Guess-O-Meter less useable, this means they live with an EV that for THEM has 10 less miles of useable range than they would have had. Any range lost to elevation is probably manageable for most owners, but when you start with a sub-100 mile range vehicle any decrease has added significance. Generic EV buyer on a hill may not consider most EVs because of those range loss concerns. People want a vehicle they don't have to think about. Right now, owners need to consider their speed, the weather, the terrain, and traffic conditions when they look at their G-O-M. All drivers want a vehicle with either plenty of margin in the range or one they aren't concerned will lose range dramatically.

Remember, most people don't drive their IC cars with as little margin for error as EV drivers are forced to. A lot of factors can push an acceptable range EV into the unacceptable category.

We do try to replicate EVERY condition that matters to the test; I never said otherwise.

Click to expand...

I said that poorly. I meant that just because you don't drive on the exact same roads at the exact same ambient temperature and relative humidity with the exact same traffic patterns and the exact same tire manufacturer and compound and so on and so forth doesn't mean comparing results is invalid. Of course disregarding variables isn't acceptable either.

In general, very small samplings are difficult to compare statistically regardless of how well variables are controlled. This is why I appreciate sites like Fuelly.com. It's a good way to compare models overtime. It also bursts the bubbles of many hybrids.

FutureFolly said:

TonyWilliams said:

FutureFolly said:

Aerodynamics can also quickly become meaningless if there is a large elevation change as part of a commute.

Click to expand...

Not true. Aerodynamics plays EXACTLY the same roll, either on level ground, up a hill, or down a hill.

Click to expand...

You're correct. I miss spoke. I meant aerodynamics can become insignificant relative to the other forces acting on the car.

Having a fixed elevation change doesn't mean the amount of energy required to climb that high is fixed.

Click to expand...

Actually, it does.

Climbing a substantial grade is less efficient than flat-ish terrain because of the higher torque from the motor and higher power draw from the battery pack.

Click to expand...

You are once again mixing your issues. The amount of energy to elevate the vehicle at the same velocity is easy to calculate. You are adding additional factors that may or may not apply.

You assume that there is a loss of efficiency to climb a hill, when quite the opposite may be true. Just generically assigning less efficiency to all vehicles in that scenario isn't proper.

The energy required to climb that hill is that energy which is required to propel it at a given velocity and configuration plus the energy to elevate that mass.

In addition, any loss of efficiency would indeed increase the overall energy required, but this isn't a factor of vehicle mass and dynamics. Thankfully, electric motors can be very stable in efficiency over a wide range of loads and speed.

The Spark EV motor has been specifically tuned to be uber efficient at 60mph, and I don't imagine that there would be a significant reduction in that efficiency with the marginal increase in power (at the same speed) to propel it up a hill.

If you have data to prove a specific EV motor's loss of efficiency under load at static RPM, I'd like to see it.

We do try to replicate EVERY condition that matters to the test; I never said otherwise.

Click to expand...

I said that poorly. I meant that just because you don't drive on the exact same roads at the exact same ambient temperature and relative humidity with the exact same traffic patterns and the exact same tire manufacturer and compound and so on and so forth doesn't mean comparing results is invalid. Of course disregarding variables isn't acceptable either.

In general, very small samplings are difficult to compare statistically regardless of how well variables are controlled. This is why I appreciate sites like Fuelly.com. It's a good way to compare models overtime. It also bursts the bubbles of many hybrids.

Click to expand...

Im not sure you read our range tests. You do know that we specifically document all those things you mentioned, and far more. All tires are OEM at OEM recommended air pressure. "Traffic patterns" don't even apply in a steady speed test which makes it seems that you're just fishing for flaws, and not really cognizant of what we actually do.

You're welcome to perform those large samples of data, and I'm sure there is something to be gleaned from that in the certification of aircraft performance, or auto manufacturer fuel economy data (Ford, Hyundai and Kia should have done a bit more of this).

But, for the purpose of folks comparing the range of EV cars in controlled demonstrations, we are very well within acceptable tolerances for such an endeavor.