I feel like your example uses numbers that are so aggressive one has suspect that they are not real. I don’t have a stake in this or knowledge beyond a quick Google but the EPA test does not look obviously flawed.
The more pertinent question to me would be whether the Tesla range can genuinely achieve those EPA numbers with a typical car.
No gasoline car uses the EPA fuel economy to do it's range estimation, EVEN WHEN IT WOULD BE BETTER FOR THEM TO DO SO, because it's wrong enough often enough to make a range estimation using it lose significant value.
Tesla has made a choice to stray from normal industry practice. If they have done so in an attempt to sway customers with the incorrect numbers, that should be considered fraud. That's pretty damn difficult to prove as a crime, but not hard to make likely in a civil case.
Do you have more convincing evidence of this because I have used many Toyota vehicles and they do not use EPA figures to do their range estimation, and can be conclusively shown to be using their internally measured "average mpg" figures to estimate range.
I'm mostly commenting on all manufacturers being conservative with fuel/energy use/metering. Even older vehicles I've had (carbureted pickup truck) usually have a gallon to so left in the tank on empty.
Hell, my previous car was a 2016 Subaru BRZ manual, EPA estimated at 24 city/30 highway. Despite the occasional launch, I still averaged 32 mpg.
That said, I'm not upset by it, despite only getting 240-270 miles depending on the weather (Out of the 300 mile EPA range). I know the reality of the difference in how an ICE and an EV use their energy.
Tesla is doing nothing wrong. If the range estimations are inaccurate, it's the EPA that needs to change.
This is 100% truth. It is an estimated EPA range.
What's more it's often actually measured by an EPA. The Reuters article that spurred this lawsuit said that EPA, not Tesla, tested 6 Tesla cars since 2020. That's at least half of them (Tesla has only 3 + 3 + 2 + 2 = 10 different models on sale in U.S. although they have to re-certify if they change the battery).
So it probably was a fraud, by my standards.
I'm considering buying Starlink access, but now I have to rethink what it really offers - maybe they use some different than common metric, which is 'technically true' but miscommunicates the actual performance?
If an example car can achieve 700 miles on the EPA test, but normal usage averages 150, is it fraud to advertise 700? To show 700 on the screen at full charge?
I agree it’s an interesting question. If the difference was 5% I’m not sure people would care. But at 25% off I think it is a very a fair question.
Porsche reportedly tends to outperform its EPA number significantly. They chose to lower it (a choice automakers have) to provide a more realistic picture given their customers seem more likely to use the performance at the cost of raw range.