Range and charging rate.

Faults and Technical chat for the Honda E
Rei
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2020 3:01 pm

Re: Range and charging rate.

Post by Rei » Mon Jul 27, 2020 8:40 am

I don't think the electronics will make much difference. It's probably all in the drivetrain and maybe the body shape. It's heavy too compared to the Mini.

User avatar
iHansz
Posts: 123
Joined: Fri May 22, 2020 11:32 am
Location: Utrecht, The Netherlands

Re: Range and charging rate.

Post by iHansz » Mon Jul 27, 2020 9:17 am

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?
- Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless -

Trykpaa
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2020 9:18 pm

Re: Range and charging rate.

Post by Trykpaa » Tue Jul 28, 2020 7:54 am

Rei wrote:
Mon Jul 27, 2020 8:40 am
I don't think the electronics will make much difference. It's probably all in the drivetrain and maybe the body shape. It's heavy too compared to the Mini.
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.

User avatar
Sousaphone
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2020 5:28 am

Re: Range and charging rate.

Post by Sousaphone » Tue Jul 28, 2020 9:24 am

Trykpaa wrote:
Tue Jul 28, 2020 7:54 am
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.
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.

Trykpaa
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2020 9:18 pm

Re: Range and charging rate.

Post by Trykpaa » Tue Jul 28, 2020 1:27 pm

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 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.

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

User avatar
iHansz
Posts: 123
Joined: Fri May 22, 2020 11:32 am
Location: Utrecht, The Netherlands

Re: Range and charging rate.

Post by iHansz » Tue Jul 28, 2020 3:41 pm

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.
- Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless -

Trykpaa
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2020 9:18 pm

Re: Range and charging rate.

Post by Trykpaa » Wed Jul 29, 2020 7:26 am

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.
To elaborate on resonable suspects for apparently relative poor eneegy efficiency of the Honda E.
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.

User avatar
bogga
Posts: 100
Joined: Wed May 20, 2020 2:41 pm

Re: Range and charging rate.

Post by bogga » Wed Jul 29, 2020 12:03 pm

Well that's good news to know that potentially its in our hands, we can change the tires to our driving requirements; range vs grip.

User avatar
keithr
Posts: 83
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2020 1:30 pm

Re: Range and charging rate.

Post by keithr » Wed Jul 29, 2020 1:13 pm

Trykpaa wrote:
Tue Jul 28, 2020 1:27 pm
Given the rather low losses in an EV drive train I find it unlikely the difference shall be found here.

The 100kg extra I believe is the major contributor.
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!).

User avatar
bogga
Posts: 100
Joined: Wed May 20, 2020 2:41 pm

Re: Range and charging rate.

Post by bogga » Wed Jul 29, 2020 8:32 pm

Honda doesn't think it's the weight. They reckon the range is the same between the standard Honda E and the Honda E Advance (16" wheels), even though the Advance weighs more.

Post Reply