Range and charging rate.

Faults and Technical chat for the Honda E
Post Reply
Rei
Posts: 249
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2020 3:01 pm

Post by Rei »

It's such a shame, if it had decent efficiency that battery would go far and it would be pretty much perfect.

User avatar
Reuben80
Posts: 551
Joined: Mon May 25, 2020 3:29 pm
Location: Malta

Post by Reuben80 »

You can always change to lower roll resistant tyres but that would come with a hefty price.
These would be the best tyres for it, front and back.
https://www.mytyres.co.uk/cgi-bin/rshop ... p=R-392831

https://www.mytyres.co.uk/cgi-bin/rshop ... p=R-392541
Rei
Posts: 249
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2020 3:01 pm

Post by Rei »

I wonder how much difference they would make to range and noise.
User avatar
londiniumperson
Posts: 1764
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 2:37 pm

Post by londiniumperson »

The Michelin Pilot Sport 4 tyres at the size on the Honda e are rated either C or E depending on which exact version is fitted.
Those Primacy tyres are A rated and the difference in economy is around 9% between A & G rated tyres, therefore if we assume 6% between A & E and 100 mile range, then that's about a 6 mile difference.
This does not account for the differences banded about by the reviewers.

I suspect that is a controller software issue, in which case if Honda maintain and improve the software then there's a possibility of increased efficiency in the future.

See an official EU website consumer guide here:
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/ ... res_en.pdf

Main website regards tyres here:
https://ec.europa.eu/info/energy-climat ... s/tyres_en
Last edited by londiniumperson on Thu Jul 30, 2020 6:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
2022 Advance in Crystal Black Pearl on 17's - 08/2020-Current
2015 VW Tiguan (Pure White) - 04/2018-Current
1991 Honda Beat PP1 (Festival Red) - 11/2022-Current
User avatar
Reuben80
Posts: 551
Joined: Mon May 25, 2020 3:29 pm
Location: Malta

Post by Reuben80 »

3 years ago I changed all 4 tyres on my Yaris Hybrid and went from E to C and made a 10% difference in mpg. I went from 70mpg to almost 80mpg instantly. I could clearly notice the difference while driving. It made less effort to go forward. Also I went 4db less on the label and even that made a noticeably huge impact in noise on bad asphalts. So from that time I started to believe that tyres choice make a huge difference and I cannot imagine what would be the mpg if I had A rated tyres. After 3 years I am still doing around 77mpg on 15miles round trip. On longer trips I will do more than 80mpg, typical hybrids.
User avatar
rickwookie
Posts: 848
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2019 1:30 am
Location: St Albans, UK
Contact:

Post by rickwookie »

Reuben80 wrote: Thu Jul 30, 2020 1:30 pm You can always change to lower roll resistant tyres but that would come with a hefty price.
These would be the best tyres for it, front and back.
https://www.mytyres.co.uk/cgi-bin/rshop ... p=R-392831

https://www.mytyres.co.uk/cgi-bin/rshop ... p=R-392541
*The best for the 17” rims. Low resistance tyre on the 16” should be even more efficient, since the wheels are narrower. Would be interesting to see a side-by-side of the most efficient 17” vs the most efficient 16”, to see how much can be achieved just through tyre choice and how much is fundamentally down to the smaller overall contact surface and air resistance.
User avatar
rickwookie
Posts: 848
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2019 1:30 am
Location: St Albans, UK
Contact:

Post by rickwookie »

Reuben80 wrote: Thu Jul 30, 2020 3:40 pm Also I went 4db less on the label and even that made a noticeably huge impact in noise
Not surprising since -3dB corresponds to halving the sound power.
User avatar
iHansz
Posts: 563
Joined: Fri May 22, 2020 11:32 am
Location: Utrecht, The Netherlands
Contact:

Post by iHansz »

New (Dutch, sorry) test in practice for range at 100 and 130 km/h (= +/- 60 and 80 mph). https://www.autowereld.com/nieuws/auton ... en-100-kmh
Dutch Advance in Charge Yellow on 17"
1st registered Oct 2020
Home charger: public charging stations only
Rei
Posts: 249
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2020 3:01 pm

Post by Rei »

Thank you. Confirms Bjorn's findings, 160km / 100 miles range at 100 kph / 62 mph.

So really you need to charge every 130km / 80 miles or so, and charging is rather slow.
Trykpaa
Posts: 229
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2020 9:18 pm

Post by Trykpaa »

Possible explaination why some EV apparently are more efficient, could be that the board computers are simply off. According to ADAC.de the computer of the Mini SE is off by 15% and the Tesla 3 as much as 25% (including charging losses). I get around 10% for the Honda.

https://www.adac.de/rund-ums-fahrzeug/t ... uchswerte/
Consumption Computer Actual Difference
Audi e-tron 55 quattro 22,2 25,8 13,95%
BMW i3 120 Ah 15,8 18,0 12,22%
Hyundai IONIQ Elektro 14,3 16,3 12,27%
Jaguar i-Pace (2018) 22,8 27,6 17,39%
KIA e-Niro (64 kWh) 16,3 18,1 9,94%
KIA e-Soul (64 kWh) 16,5 18,8 12,23%
Mercedes EQC 400 4Matic 23,2 27,6 15,94%
Mini Cooper SE 15,0 17,7 15,25%
Nissan Leaf e+ (62 kWh) 18,7 22,7 17,62%
Renault ZOE ZE50 R135 15,4 19,0 18,95%
Renault ZOE ZE50 R110 15,1 18,5 18,38%
Seat Mii electric 13,7 17,3 20,81%
Tesla Model 3 Long Range 15,7 20,9 24,88%
Tesla Model 3 Standard 16,0 19,5 17,95%
VW e-up! (2018) 14,9 17,7 15,82%

Update: I have 9,2% charging loss over 1500km. Indicated consumption 17,8 vs. actual 19,44
Last edited by Trykpaa on Wed Aug 19, 2020 12:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply

  • You may also be interested in...
    Replies
    Views
    Last post