Range and charging rate.
Also don't think it has to do with electronics either, but more with the inefficient powertrain and e.g. sticky Michelins. Read that MINI's powertrain comes from the revolutionary BMW i3, that car is built for efficiency and giving MINI an edge over Honda. Also read somewhere that the electric motor (from Hitachi) of the e is the same as they use at the Honda CR-V Hybrid. It's Honda's first (well, not quite) fully electrically powered car and Japanese automakers aren't exactly at the forefront of developing it. Cause they see no benefit in it? I am curious about the first practice tests of the Mazda MX-30, would it do better?
Dutch Advance in Charge Yellow on 17"
1st registered Oct 2020
Home charger: public charging stations only
1st registered Oct 2020
Home charger: public charging stations only
Agreed, the E is heavy and its felt in the way it rides - good and bad (acc. review the Mini suffers more from battery weight though). Regarding build quality and ergonomics the E is a completely different league than the Mini, maybe because of the weight? Minis are offensively substandard on those 2 parameters considering the price.
- Sousaphone
- Posts: 168
- Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2020 5:28 am
- Location: Denmark
To be fair to the electric Mini, the petrol and diesel versions have equally horrible ergonomics - and don’t get me started on the horrendous engine characteristics of the 1.6 diesel. In short, it’s probably as good as the heritage allows it to be, and converting ICE cars is a stop gap measure at best.
I have for obvious reasons never tried the Cooper SE but the wife had a 2018 Mini Cooper petrol before we got the E. The petrol engine is a gem - refined, fast, quite - but boring. The petrol Cooper handles way better than any EV but it is also quite lightweight.Sousaphone wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 9:24 am To be fair to the electric Mini, the petrol and diesel versions have equally horrible ergonomics - and don’t get me started on the horrendous engine characteristics of the 1.6 diesel. In short, it’s probably as good as the heritage allows it to be, and converting ICE cars is a stop gap measure at best.
I see the Cooper SE gets about 10% better energy efficiency than the Honda (acc. to EV-database.org) which of cause is interesting since they are so similar. Given the rather low losses in an EV drive train I find it unlikely the difference shall be found here. The batteries are from Panasonic who also supplies for Tesla.
The 100kg extra I believe is the major contributor. I don't loose 10% by having 2 persons aboard, but more than half. So fair to assume the same trend by going the other way. If the WLTP test has a lot of start/stop like the old NEDC it may be close. Will be interesting to see how the Mini does at constant speed. I wouldn't be surprised if the tires account for the rest.
Btw: we have about 10% charging loss on the home charger
Just read a test in a Dutch car magazine. The battery of the Mazda MX-30 is also 35.5 kWh, but the consumption is 19.0 (!) KWh / 100km. So not really economical either.
Dutch Advance in Charge Yellow on 17"
1st registered Oct 2020
Home charger: public charging stations only
1st registered Oct 2020
Home charger: public charging stations only
To elaborate on resonable suspects for apparently relative poor eneegy efficiency of the Honda E.Trykpaa wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 1:27 pm I see the Cooper SE gets about 10% better energy efficiency than the Honda (acc. to EV-database.org) which of cause is interesting since they are so similar. Given the rather low losses in an EV drive train I find it unlikely the difference shall be found here. The batteries are from Panasonic who also supplies for Tesla.
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv-ev.shtml
This study based on a Leaf concludes that drive train losses for an BEV should be around 10-14% in combined cycle. Should one EV be 5% less efficient than another due to drive train alone, that would mean drive train should be 50% less efficient. Such big differences are highly unlikely. 10-20% difference on such systems would be hughes but only affect range by 1-2%
Rolling resistance is 2,5 times bigger factor, so 20% increase here would cause 5% reduced range.
Its fair to assume that the slick body of the E has a decent drag coefficient (noise levels suggest it does). Shorter cars always have more drag but this is the same for Mini and Honda.
The last big factor is the ability to regen kinetic energy. Maybe Mini have an advantage here from years of experience with the i3.
I don't think that can be the main cause of the inefficieny of the Honda e. As I mentioned elsewhere, on my test drive I managed 3.6 mile/kWh, whereas in my Nissan LEAF 40kWh I managed 5.2 miles/kWh (same roads, same day, etc.). So the Honda e is about 30% less efficient than the Nissan LEAF, and yet the LEAF weighs slightly more than the Honda e. Hence the Honda can't use the excuse of more weight increasing the power consumption.
At one point during my test ride I was surprised while driving gently at about 20mph in traffic (not accelerating or slowing, and at that speed there is very little aerodynamic drag) that the intantaneous power consumption meter was displaying way more power consumption than I would get in my LEAF. I can't figure out why it would need to be consuming so much power at that speed, when it should have barely been consuming any power at all. It's almost as if the electric motor in the Honda is just very inefficient at lower speeds (and maybe higher speeds too!).
-
- You may also be interested in...
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
- 5 Replies
- 3666 Views
-
Last post by Swiss Navy Commander
-
- 2 Replies
- 6965 Views
-
Last post by iHansz
-
- 6 Replies
- 6647 Views
-
Last post by Rizzoe
-
- 6 Replies
- 14177 Views
-
Last post by 5thcivic
-
- 3 Replies
- 15243 Views
-
Last post by Reuben80