Connect with us

News

EPA EV range estimates challenged by new research

Tesla Cybertruck spotted on the Highway

Published

on

The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) and Car and Driver have published a report challenging the EPA’s EV range estimate calculations.

As revealed by countless surveys, one of the most critical specifications for EV buyers is how far the vehicle can drive on a single charge. But often, without a way to test it themselves, EV customers are forced to use the number printed on the window sticker or posted on the EPA’s website, which is the agency that has typically tracked and measured these capabilities. Now, those numbers are being challenged by research from SAE International and the Car and Driver magazine.

According to the research published by Car and Driver, the EV range estimates published by the EPA are, on average, 12.5% higher than the numbers they achieved in their testing, which could be quite a shock for a car buyer. In comparison, Car and Driver’s ICE vehicle testing was only 4% off of the EPA’s estimates, which were actually lower than their testing results.

As noted in the published report, this range discrepancy was entirely expected, thanks to the difference in testing methodology, but that was ostensibly the point. First, because the EPA only provides consumers with a single highway/city combined range number – which is slightly weighted toward city driving (55/45) – customers who predominantly drive on the highway will consistently fail to reach the estimated range number. Further, the inverse is true for drivers who spend most of their time in the city.

Advertisement

The EPA was not immediately available to comment to Teslarati on their testing procedures.

The second discrepancy point highlighted in the paper concerns testing methodology, in which the EPA currently provides options for automakers on how to complete the testing. This means different automakers, or even different models, will be dramatically different in their estimated range compared to their real-life range, adding to customer confusion.

Nowhere is this second point seen better than in highway testing, which is once again significantly skewed upwards. Instead of testing the vehicles at actual highway speeds, 75mph (the speed used in Car and  Driver’s testing), automakers test at a lower speed and then multiply their results by a “reduction factor,” determined by how many runs the vehicle completes.

Third and perhaps worst of all, these slight discrepancies, mixed with automakers’ self-reporting their results, can mean that different brands take wildly different approaches and report drastically different figures compared to real life. Perhaps the starkest example found by Car and Driver was the difference in EV range reported by Tesla and Porsche. While the German brand was incredibly conservative with its range estimates, Tesla was slightly more generous than the testing completed by the car magazine.

Advertisement

Luckily, according to Car and Driver, fixing these issues would be fairly simple. First, the paper suggests providing consumers with an EV highway and city range number, with each of those estimates being found by separate testing, similar to current gas vehicle testing. Second, removing or adjusting the “reduction factor” toward more realistic use (higher highway speeds) will provide a more accurate number to consumers. And third and finally, enforcing more consistent testing standards between automakers will help consumers more accurately gauge the capabilities of the cars they are buying.

What do you think of the article? Do you have any comments, questions, or concerns? Shoot me an email at william@teslarati.com. You can also reach me on Twitter @WilliamWritin. If you have news tips, email us at tips@teslarati.com!

Will is an auto enthusiast, a gear head, and an EV enthusiast above all. From racing, to industry data, to the most advanced EV tech on earth, he now covers it at Teslarati.

Advertisement
Comments

Cybertruck

Tesla Cybertruck gets long-awaited safety feature

Tesla has announced the rollout of its innovative anti-dooring protection feature to the Cybertruck via the 2026.8 software update.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla Asia | X

Tesla is rolling out a new and long-awaited feature to the Cybertruck all-electric pickup, and it is a safety addition geared toward pedestrian and cyclist safety, as well as accidents with other vehicles.

Tesla has announced the rollout of its innovative anti-dooring protection feature to the Cybertruck via the 2026.8 software update.

This safety enhancement uses the vehicle’s existing cameras to detect approaching cyclists, pedestrians, or vehicles in the blind spot while parked. Upon attempting to open a door, if a hazard is detected, the system activates: the blind spot indicator light flashes, an audible chime sounds, and the door will not open on the initial button press.

Drivers must wait briefly and press the button again to override, providing crucial seconds to avoid an accident.

Advertisement

The feature, also known as Blind Spot Warning While Parked, comes standard on every new Model 3 and Model Y, and is now extending to the Cybertruck. Leveraging Tesla’s vision-based system without requiring new hardware, it represents a cost-effective software solution that builds on community suggestions dating back to 2018.

Advertisement

This technology addresses the persistent danger of “dooring,” where a driver opens a car door into the path of a passing cyclist or pedestrian.

Tesla implemented this little-known feature to make its cars even safer

Dooring incidents are alarmingly common in urban environments.

According to Chicago data, in 2011 alone, there were 344 reported dooring crashes, accounting for approximately 20 percent of all bicycle crashes in the city, nearly one incident per day.

Advertisement

While numbers have fluctuated (dropping to 11 percent in 2014 before rising again), dooring consistently represents 10-20 percent of bike-related crashes in major cities.

A national analysis of emergency department data estimates over 17,000 dooring-related injuries treated in the U.S. over a decade, with many involving fractures, contusions, and head trauma, particularly affecting upper extremities.

By automatically intervening, Tesla’s system not only protects vulnerable road users but also safeguards its owners from potential liability and enhances overall road safety.

As cities promote cycling for sustainable transport, features like this demonstrate how advanced driver assistance and camera systems can evolve beyond highway driving to everyday urban scenarios.

Advertisement

Enthusiastic responses on social media highlight appreciation for the proactive safety measure, with some calling for broader rollout to older models where hardware permits. Tesla continues to push the boundaries of vehicle safety through over-the-air updates, making its fleet smarter and safer over time.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Tesla Roadster is ‘sorcery and magic’ and might be worth the wait, Uber founder says

Perhaps the wait will be worth it, especially according to Uber founder Travis Kalanick, who recently teased the Roadster’s potential capabilities based on what he has heard from internal Tesla sources.

Published

on

tesla roadster
Credit: Praveen Joseph/Twitter

Tesla is planning to unveil the Roadster in late April after years of waiting. But the wait might be worth it, according to Travis Kalanick, the founder of Uber, who recently shed some light on his expectations for the all-electric supercar.

We all know the Roadster is supposed to have some serious capability. CEO Elon Musk has said on numerous occasions that the Roadster will be unlike anything else ever produced. It might go from 0-60 MPH in about a second, it might hover, it might have SpaceX cold gas thrusters.

However, the constant delays in the Roadster program and its unveiling event continue to send Tesla fans into confusion because they’re just not sure when, or if, they’ll ever see the finished product.

Perhaps the wait will be worth it, especially according to Uber founder Travis Kalanick, who recently teased the Roadster’s potential capabilities based on what he has heard from internal Tesla sources.

Advertisement

Kalanick said on X:

Musk has said this vehicle is not going to be geared for safety, and that, “If safety is your number one goal, do not buy the Roadster.”

Advertisement

There has been so much hype regarding the Roadster that it is hard to believe the company could not come through on some kind of crazy features for the vehicle.

Elon Musk just dropped a huge detail on the Tesla Roadster

However, the latest delay that Tesla put on the unveiling event is definitely eye-opening, especially considering it is the latest in a series of pushbacks the company has put on the vehicle for the past several years.

Tesla has made several jumps in the Roadster project over the past few months, as it has ramped up hiring for the vehicle and also applied for a patent for a new seat design.

Advertisement

The car has been a back-burner project for Tesla, as it has been focusing primarily on autonomy and the rollout of Robotaxi and Cybercab. Additionally, its other vehicle projects, like the Model 3 and Model Y refreshes, took precedence.

Tesla still plans to unveil the Roadster next month, so we can hope the company can stick to this timeframe.

Continue Reading

Cybertruck

Elon Musk clarifies viral Tesla Cybertruck accident with driver logs

Musk has come out to say that the driver logs have already shown that the driver “disengaged Autopilot four seconds before crashing,” in a post on X.

Published

on

Credit: Fox Business | Hilliard Law Firm

Tesla CEO Elon Musk has clarified some details regarding the viral Tesla Cybertruck accident with company driver logs, which show various metrics at the time of an incident.

The logs have been used in the past to pull responsibility off of Tesla when the automaker’s Full Self-Driving (Supervised) or Autopilot platforms are blamed for a collision or accident. It appears this will be no different.

On Tuesday, a video of a Cybertruck crashing into an overpass barrier in August 2025 was shared by Fox Business in a story that reported a woman was suing the automaker for $1 million in a liability and negligence case.

In the suit, Justine Saint Amour said that, “Something terrifying happened, without warning, the vehicle attempted to drive straight off an overpass.” Her attorney, Bob Hilliard, said Amour “tried to take control, but crashed into the barrier and was seriously injured (mostly her shoulder, neck, and back).”

Advertisement

The Tesla Model Y is leading China’s electric SUV segment by a wide margin

Tesla vehicle crashes are widely popular to report by mainstream media outlets because of the sensationalism of the event. Oftentimes, these outlets will include Tesla in the headline, especially because it will pique the interest of the masses, as most who read the story are waiting to see the claim that Autopilot or Full Self-Driving was the culprit of the accident.

However, Tesla has access to the logs of every vehicle in its fleet, which will show the various metrics, like whether either FSD or Autopilot was active, if the accelerator was pressed, the speed, and other important factors.

Musk has come out to say that the driver logs have already shown that the driver “disengaged Autopilot four seconds before crashing,” in a post on X.

Advertisement

If the logs do show this, which Tesla will likely have to prove in court, the real question would be why did the Amour disengage the suite?

Tesla’s Full Self-Driving suite is still not fully autonomous, meaning the driver cannot pull attention away from the road and must be ready to take over the vehicle at all times.

Advertisement

It will be interesting to see how this particular case pans out, especially considering the clip that was released by the law firm starts at about four seconds before the collision. Tesla logs have dispelled media reports in the past that have accused the company’s suite of being responsible for an accident, so there will be some major attention on what is proven in this particular case.

Continue Reading