The YouTube Channel RealEngineering has created a nice page for nerding out on the math of EVs: battery, range, cost, etc.
https://battery.real.engineering/
https://battery.real.engineering/
EV math
1 - 4 of 4 Posts
Joined
·
3,133 Posts
Nice. So according to that calculator and working in some updated variables my 300 mile range Equinox sized BEV would need a 75KWh battery.
I made some assumptions based on the next generation GM EV platform (and 30% cost reduction).
Changes Below
Density: 300Wh/Kg
Pack Cost: $130/KWh
Total vehicle weight (GVWR): 2600Kg
Cd drag: 0.33
Frontal Area: 2.8 m^2
I made some assumptions based on the next generation GM EV platform (and 30% cost reduction).
Changes Below
Density: 300Wh/Kg
Pack Cost: $130/KWh
Total vehicle weight (GVWR): 2600Kg
Cd drag: 0.33
Frontal Area: 2.8 m^2
Seems like something has to be off in the assumptions somewhere - the Tesla X is far more aerodynamic than the average SUV (and pays for it in rear headroom/space behind the third row,) but they struggle to get 240 EPA miles out of 75 kWh. It seems unlikely that an Equinox EV could come close to that, let alone go 25% further.
Joined
·
3,133 Posts
And Equinox CUV would have somewhat less frontal area than a Model X and weigh a lot less. The Model X is a very heavy vehicle. I also made assumptions on an increase in energy density on the next generation battery.
When I plug in the Model X numbers for 240 miles of range.
Frontal area: 3m^2
Total weight (GVWR): 3100Kg
Cd (drag): 0.24 - This drag number doesn't seem right. I assume this is with stationary wheels. While GM tests with wheels in motion.
It spits out a battery of 58KWh. I presume this is usable energy. If I stick to a Cd of 0.33 it comes out needing close to 68KWh.
I presume their battery to wheels efficiency and braking efficiency numbers are a bit high. If I play with these more I can get fairly different numbers.
1 - 4 of 4 Posts
