What is life like with your car? Let us know and win £500 in John Lewis vouchers | No thanks
VOLVO EC40, twin engine, electric - Range not as advertised - Nico Nico

Hello I would like some advice on the above which I purchased Sept with fixed finance in place. The range advertised is 331 but getting 230 on run London to Oxford.

I fully appreciate variants as have had another Volvo for 3 years with an older battery with less capacity and I am getting similar range. I would realistically expect to get 280/300 range.

Whole purpose of another car was specifically for longer range which I highlighted whilst searching. Complaint made and I advised through Finance Dept (all part of Volvo themselves sadly) I was rejecting car within first 30 days of receipt.. The misrepresentation side was not even touched upon. Case dismissed, no fault on car. Won't reopen just told to go to Ombudsman.

If this 29% drop in range for longer journeys is known I feel this should have been highlighted to me prior to sale/when choosing model and surely constitutes misselling /mispresentation.

Any assistance/advice I would appreciate. Thank you.

VOLVO EC40, twin engine, electric - Range not as advertised - mickyh7

Welcome to the Real world!

No car, Electric, Diesel or Petrol, will do anything close to manufacturers figures.

It's been like this for decades.

I had a 3.0 litre Audi A7, manufacturers quoted 65mpg. I got 39 on a run, high 20s around town! And I was pleased with that.

Good luck with the ombudsman, but he's pretty toothless these days, so I doubt you'll get anywhere there.

If you think your range is bad now, wait for winter.

You'll be lucky to get ½ what they advertise.

Electric cars, whilst OK for some, are lacking for most people, who are used to the convenience of a ICE car.

VOLVO EC40, twin engine, electric - Range not as advertised - catsdad

If you are relying on Volvo advertised figures then you will undoubtedly find that these were qualified in the small print. They are standard figures from a standard test, not real life. It’s the same procedure with all makes.

If the car you bought was advertised by the dealer making mileage claims without qualification you might have a claim. Or if they put something in writing. Even then they are not going to roll over and any claim via the ombudsman will take weeks or months with almost no chance of success.

It’s going to be very hard to argue that you did research but didn’t become across the way the official figures work.

VOLVO EC40, twin engine, electric - Range not as advertised - Nico Nico

mickyh7 Thank you for your prompt reply. Yes I fully appreciate the 331 is the optimum range, which is not obtainable. Having a Volvo different model for 3 years and achieving similar range, you would think the newer engine would perform better. Obviously they knew all along I would not get a better range as I clearly specified was the reason for buying a second vehicle.

VOLVO EC40, twin engine, electric - Range not as advertised - Nico Nico

mickyh7 strange as they advise 230 on a run is "normal" and higher around so opposite to our experience.!

VOLVO EC40, twin engine, electric - Range not as advertised - Andrew-T

No car, Electric, Diesel or Petrol, will do anything close to manufacturers figures. It's been like this for decades.

That's a very downbeat statement. First define 'anything close' - if we agree 'within 10%' then my 1991 Pug 205 (petrol) has averaged ~55 mpg while the handbook suggests 61 at steady 56mph. So the next consideration (much more significant) is how and where you drive. My figure above comes from 40-mile trips on 40% dual carriageway, 40% A-road and the rest rural lane or urban.

But I would have thought that an EV should return more predictable figures than an ICE car, partly because its control system must be intrinsically simpler ? Is tearaway driving more wasteful as it is with ICE ?

VOLVO EC40, twin engine, electric - Range not as advertised - skidpan

Just looked on the Volvo website and unless I am missing something the quoted figures are very odd.

With an ICE car the "theoretical" range is pretty easy to calculate. My previous 1.4 TSi 150 PS Superb would do about 52 mpg on a long run and had a 14 gallon tank. That would give a range of 728 miles (but in reality only a fool would run much into the red on the gauge and you can never get the tank totally full).

Volvo quote the battery of the twin engine as 82 kWh and the energy consumption as 28 kWh/100 miles (WLTP total figure). Mr Casio says that the "theoretical" range is therefore 293 miles, 40 miles short of the advertised range.

Those figures would be obtained in a nice dry and warm lab, not out in the real world. So you would never achieve them.

Don't think you get the full amount of electricity in the battery so that's another deduction. (some brands allow you to choose the max % charge).

Just like with an ICE only a fool would run the battery "dry".

Take 30 miles off for a 90% charge, allow 20 miles safety for getting to a charge point and your range is 243 miles.

Then the real world factor, take off another 10% (more in winter).

So the range drops to about 220 miles.

Makes your 230 miles look about right.

Just found a website where they give info for the real range. EC40 twin motor combined mild weather 284 miles. Cold weather 212 miles.

Did you do any research? The info is out there.

VOLVO EC40, twin engine, electric - Range not as advertised - Andrew-T

.... only a fool would run much into the red on the gauge and you can never get the tank totally full ....

Take all your calcs, Skidpan. But only your fool would try to get a tank 'totally full', for obvious gravitational and centrifugal reasons ?

VOLVO EC40, twin engine, electric - Range not as advertised - skidpan

.... only a fool would run much into the red on the gauge and you can never get the tank totally full ....

Take all your calcs, Skidpan. But only your fool would try to get a tank 'totally full', for obvious gravitational and centrifugal reasons ?

Lots of fools about.

VOLVO EC40, twin engine, electric - Range not as advertised - Nico Nico

Have a Volvo CX40 for over 3 years electric and getting similar range to that of the newer twin engine on the EC40. Doesn't make sense to me.

VOLVO EC40, twin engine, electric - Range not as advertised - RT

Have a Volvo CX40 for over 3 years electric and getting similar range to that of the newer twin engine on the EC40. Doesn't make sense to me.

There has been a change in the standardised test for both IC cars and EVs - it means that results from the two tests aren't comparable.

I find the best comparison is the American EPA test - but lots of models sold in Europe aren't sold in North America so not subject to the EPA test.

VOLVO EC40, twin engine, electric - Range not as advertised - Nico Nico

Thank you for your information, very informative.

I have had a Volvo XC40 for over 3 years electric and getting similar range to that of the newer twin engine on the EC40. Doesn't make sense to me.

I particularly advised the representative that the only reason I was buying another car was that I was looking for a suitable model to provide a better range for longer distances when travelling abroad.

I would have expected the new engines to perform better than my 3 year old one.

VOLVO EC40, twin engine, electric - Range not as advertised - FiestaOwner

Hello I would like some advice on the above which I purchased Sept with fixed finance in place. The range advertised is 331 but getting 230 on run London to Oxford.......

......Any assistance/advice I would appreciate. Thank you.

How fast are you driving? The reason I'm asking is that the RAC reckon the most economical speed to drive an ICE car at is 45-50mph. My experience with ICE cars matches this. I would expect electric cars to be the same. See the end of point 2 on the following link.

www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/how-to/fuel-saving-tips/

VOLVO EC40, twin engine, electric - Range not as advertised - Andrew-T

<< ... the RAC reckon the most economical speed to drive an ICE car at is 45-50mph. My experience with ICE cars matches this. I would expect electric cars to be the same. >>

The explanation is quite simple. The optimum economical cruising speed is when in top gear with the engine near its peak power output, around 3000rpm for petrol and 2000 for a diesel. Once past that point more effort is needed to overcome air and rolling resistance, so mpg will decrease.

VOLVO EC40, twin engine, electric - Range not as advertised - RT

<< ... the RAC reckon the most economical speed to drive an ICE car at is 45-50mph. My experience with ICE cars matches this. I would expect electric cars to be the same. >>

The explanation is quite simple. The optimum economical cruising speed is when in top gear with the engine near its peak power output, around 3000rpm for petrol and 2000 for a diesel. Once past that point more effort is needed to overcome air and rolling resistance, so mpg will decrease.

You might mean "with the engine near its peak TORQUE point" as that's where is most efficient.

In top gear, my 3.0 TDi can't reach it's peak power point as it would be 180 mph !!!

VOLVO EC40, twin engine, electric - Range not as advertised - FiestaOwner

<< ... the RAC reckon the most economical speed to drive an ICE car at is 45-50mph. My experience with ICE cars matches this. I would expect electric cars to be the same. >>

The explanation is quite simple. The optimum economical cruising speed is when in top gear with the engine near its peak power output, around 3000rpm for petrol and 2000 for a diesel. Once past that point more effort is needed to overcome air and rolling resistance, so mpg will decrease.

Sorry, this just isn't true. My car sits about 2,200 rpm at 60mph in top gear. It's definitely less economical at 70 than 60mph. It's even more economical at 50.

3000rpm equates to around 80mph (not a chance of good economy at that speed). I'll stand by my original statement of between 45-50mph. As stated by the RAC, in the link.

However, I found that a 50kwh Renault Zoe set a record of travelling 425 miles on a charge. The optimum speed to achieve that was 19mph!!!

https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/features/beyond-hypermiling

Edited by FiestaOwner on 16/11/2024 at 20:01

VOLVO EC40, twin engine, electric - Range not as advertised - RichardW

Whilst the engine may be most efficient at its peak torque point and use less fuel per kW developed, the increase in air resistance with increasing speed is relentless, and more power (and therefore more fuel) is required to travel faster.

VOLVO EC40, twin engine, electric - Range not as advertised - Andrew-T

<< Sorry, this just isn't true. My car sits about 2,200 rpm at 60mph in top gear. It's definitely less economical at 70 than 60mph. It's even more economical at 50. >>

I don't see how that conflicts with what I wrote ? Any car feels more wind and rolling resistance at higher speeds, so is less economical.

OK, I meant torque ,not power. I'm sure y'all understand the basic science. But how does this affect an EV ? Is its speed/torque curve similar ? It has rapid acceleration, but how does that affect economy ?

VOLVO EC40, twin engine, electric - Range not as advertised - Adampr

I don't think you have a case in terms of mis-selling. The advertised range is the WLTP range and isn't the manufacturer's responsibility.

However, I think you might have a fault. Given that the EC40 is marginally lighter and probably more aerodynamic than the XC40, it is indeed odd that it is not achieving a better range with a larger battery.

When I had an electric Corsa, it would sometimes have a significantly lower range on identical journeys in similar conditions. Eventually, that turned out to be an intermittent fault whereby the regenerative braking wasn't working (the brakes were, it just wasn't charging the battery).

I think that, rather than getting excited about whether you've been lied to, your first stop should be to take it back to the dealer and ask them to run a diagnostic scan on it.