Car & Driver Ranks FFE #2 in EV Comparo

[unplugged]

I finally had time to read my March edition of Car & Driver, and I was surprised to find a comparison article of six EVs. #6 Smart ForTwo ED Cabriolet - #5 Fiat 550e - #4 Nissan Leaf SL - #3 Honda Fit EV - #2 Ford Focus Electric - #1 Chevy Spark EV

It actually was a well-informed article. The FFE was downgraded because of the powertrain: The FFE was the slowest and the least efficient according to their testing. That fact is what lost the FFE first place.

Otherwise, the fit, finish, features/amenities, styling and ergonomics all surpassed the other cars. The conclusion for the FFE, "The EV to get if you ache for a Tesla but can't afford it."

Go buy the March 2014 issue, it is a fun read, especially as to the #4 ranking of the Nissan Leaf.

 

[kaboomaboom]

Very cool. I'll check it out. Thanks!

 

[davideos]

Reviews....I don't know if I'd trust any of them as I don't think they are unbiased reports. But even if the FFE was #6, I still wouldn't want any other. Obviously there are different criteria as to what motivates other drivers because I've seen these other cars on the road. I suppose I can check out the new stand and help support a diminishing industry thanks for the note.

 

[Bloggin]

Reviews....I don't know if I'd trust any of them as I don't think they are unbiased reports. But even if the FFE was #6, I still wouldn't want any other. Obviously there are different criteria as to what motivates other drivers because I've seen these other cars on the road. I suppose I can check out the new stand and help support a diminishing industry thanks for the note.

Focus Electric was #2 in the comparison.

Vehicle: Fit/Finish/styling/price - 77 highest score (Focus had low 13 score but before new $6,000 price drop, Spark 20)

Powertrain: 27 (11 below the highest at 38 Spark EV)

Chassis: 51 (below the highest 21 Spark EV)

Experience: 19 (below highest 18 spark/Fiat 500e)

Grand Total: 173 (below highest 181 Spark EV)

 

[michael]

I've always said the FFE was the #2 EV, but not to the Spark...to the vaunted Tesla.
With its tiny size and 3kW charging, the Spark holds no appeal for me

 

[davideos]

I've always said the FFE was the #2 EV, but not to the Spark...to the vaunted Tesla.
With its tiny size and 3kW charging, the Spark holds no appeal for me

I totally agree. There are other cars that I think are more attractive, but I think of all the electric cars, the FFE is one of the best looking. I do like the Tesla for its exterior looks and drivetrain, but I really don't like the interior...but that is all subjective to the individual. So for me, the appearance weighs high, and therefore, the Spark just doesn't cut it for me. If FFE didn't exist, I think the next runner up considering price and looks would be the Rav4. I might wait for the Kia Soul....or buy a used Tesla Roadster.

 

[hcsharp]

I've always said the FFE was the #2 EV, but not to the Spark...to the vaunted Tesla.
With its tiny size and 3kW charging, the Spark holds no appeal for me

Those were my thoughts as well. I would rather own any one of the other EVs than the Spark. Did they test the iMiev?

 

[Bloggin]

I've always said the FFE was the #2 EV, but not to the Spark...to the vaunted Tesla.
With its tiny size and 3kW charging, the Spark holds no appeal for me

Those were my thoughts as well. I would rather own any one of the other EVs than the Spark. Did they test the iMiev?

1. Spark EV
2. Focus EV
3. Fit EV
4. Leaf SL
5. 500e
6. Smart For Two ED

 

[unplugged]

Did they test the iMiev?

No. Mitsubishi did not have any to provide. The 2014 won't be out for a few months.

As to the overall ranking, as I mentioned, the slow performance of the very heavy Focus is what tilted the score in favor of the Spark in this review. One thing for sure, Car & Driver is quite biased in favor of performance. But in their defense, they are very clear that they are biased in favor of performance. Still, placing second when the FFE placed near the bottom in terms of acceleration and efficiency provides an indication as to how well the FFE did in all other categories.

Car & Driver twice favorable compares the FFE to the Tesla: "This Tesla Model S for the rest of us only suffers from high power consumption, as its battery gushes juice to move the Focus's 3632 pounds." And in the summary, states, "The EV to get if you ache for a Tesla but can't afford it."

They also call it, "The Benz S-class of lower-priced electrics, comfortable, quiet, and suave-looking."

More surprising is the Leaf, that to C&D lacked power, handling ("The Leaf lists and rolls with languid motions, like a sailboat tacking in a middling swell.") and finally looks ("...the baggy styling could use a little work."). Concluding with, "The real problem for us is that the Leaf isn't as composed as the Focus and the Fit, and it isn't much fun to drive."

 

[michael]

The observed range difference between the Focus and Spark is, in my opinion, inconsequential....64 vs 66 miles, call it 3%

Similarly, the observed difference MPGe is small....94 vs 89 MPGe. If you drive 1000 miles a month, this is 11.2 gallons vs 10.6 gallons equivalent, a difference of 0.6 gallons, 20 kWh, or about $3 a month. whoopie-doo.

Even assuming one wants a tiny little car such as the Spark (I don't) the lack of 6 kW charging is almost a deal killer. It's been said that the most important factor in an EV is range (which is break-even in this case) and charging time (which is 2:1 in favor of the FFE)

 

[WattsUp]

The observed range difference between the Focus and Spark is, in my opinion, inconsequential....64 vs 66 miles

Where did these numbers come from? (Did I miss it in this thread?)

Are you not using the EPA range of 76 miles for the Focus?

 

[unplugged]

The observed range difference between the Focus and Spark is, in my opinion, inconsequential....64 vs 66 miles

Where did these numbers come from? (Did I miss it in this thread?)

Are you not using the EPA range of 76 miles for the Focus?

No these are C&D's observed numbers. I actually wrote a letter to the editor asking how the magazine managed to determine that the Focus was inefficient as compared to the Leaf, but had the same range (both observed at 64 miles) while having a smaller battery (FFE with 23kWh vs. Leaf with 24).

 

[Bloggin]

The observed range difference between the Focus and Spark is, in my opinion, inconsequential....64 vs 66 miles

Where did these numbers come from? (Did I miss it in this thread?)

Are you not using the EPA range of 76 miles for the Focus?

No these are C&D's observed numbers. I actually wrote a letter to the editor asking how the magazine managed to determine that the Focus was inefficient as compared to the Leaf, but had the same range (both observed at 64 miles) while having a smaller battery (FFE with 23kWh vs. Leaf with 24).

Not quite sure about C&D's testing.

Here is a link from Edmunds that tested the same Focus EV along with 8 other EVs, where the tested range was 99.8 miles. Note that even though it's a test from Jan 2013, it's still the same winter testing. It seems C&D may struggle moving from 'performance' testing to real world 'range' testing. Where Edmunds did a pure real world range test, using the same driver with each vehicle, starting the same time of day.

The Spark EV did not exist when this test was done, but remember that the Spark is a smaller City car, below the B-Segment(Fiesta/Fit) and the even larger C-Segment Focus.

Also note that the 2014 Leaf, with it's unprotected battery, is now allowed to use 100% of the same 24kWh battery pack to extend the range to Max 84 miles, but with greater and sooner battery capacity loss, leading to their $100/mo battery rental for life revenue generator. But the Focus EV still goes further and charges faster, with a smaller 23kWh battery pack. Engineering wins!

Ok, enough of that....here is the link. http://www.edmunds.com/fuel-economy/testing-electric-vehicles-in-the-real-world.html

 

[michael]

The observed range difference between the Focus and Spark is, in my opinion, inconsequential....64 vs 66 miles

Where did these numbers come from? (Did I miss it in this thread?)

Are you not using the EPA range of 76 miles for the Focus?

Right, as unplugged noted, I used THEIR numbers, both for range and MPGe as it was those numbers they used to draw their conclusions.

 

[michael]

The observed range difference between the Focus and Spark is, in my opinion, inconsequential....64 vs 66 miles

Where did these numbers come from? (Did I miss it in this thread?)

Are you not using the EPA range of 76 miles for the Focus?

No these are C&D's observed numbers. I actually wrote a letter to the editor asking how the magazine managed to determine that the Focus was inefficient as compared to the Leaf, but had the same range (both observed at 64 miles) while having a smaller battery (FFE with 23kWh vs. Leaf with 24).

Efficiency is measured "wall to wheels". It measures the energy drawn from the AC outlet and the miles driven. Charging efficiency therefore comes into the equation as well. Battery size is not a factor.

 

[WattsUp]

Efficiency is measured "wall to wheels". It measures the energy drawn from the AC outlet and the miles driven. Charging efficiency therefore comes into the equation as well. Battery size is not a factor.

Right, let's assume we have two cars, A and B, which can achieve exactly the same range under the same driving conditions. Note that we've said nothing of their motor, battery, or any other system, yet -- merely that both can achieve the same range on a full charge.

Let's assume all things are equal except that B happens to have a horribly inefficient motor, and so needs a much larger battery than A to travel the same distance. In this case, A will be more efficient overall, since A will require the least "wall to wheels" energy to travel the same distance as B. In other words, A will require less energy per mile of travel, making it more efficient than B.

Or, again assume all things are equal, except that A happens to have a horribly inefficient charger. In this case, B will come out more efficient overall, since B will require the least "wall to battery" (and, by extension, "wall to wheels") energy to reach a full charge (and thus its full range). In other words, B will require less energy per mile of travel, making it more efficient than A.

Same range. Different efficiencies.

 

[WattsUp]

Efficiency is measured "wall to wheels". It measures the energy drawn from the AC outlet and the miles driven. Charging efficiency therefore comes into the equation as well. Battery size is not a factor.

Sure, but it should be noted that the EPA efficiency of 320 Wh/mi for the FFE is also measured wall to wheels. So, I'm just wondering why Car & Driver measured a range of 64 miles, where the EPA measured 76. C&D's testing must involve driving their FFE around at an average energy usage of something like 300 Wh/mi. That is potentially a more realistic level if you always do over 70 mph on the freeway, or perhaps run the heat or A/C a lot.

I still think the EPA's rating is valid, though. From it, you can work backwards to the FFE range of 76 miles. Assuming an average charging efficiency of 80%, the FFE will have have 256 Wh/mi available for each of its 76 miles of range (320 Wh/mi from the wall). From my experience, it turns out this is about right. If you drive around in your FFE with an average energy usage of 256 Wh/mi, you can indeed go about 76 miles.

 

[unplugged]

Not quite sure about C&D's testing....
Ok, enough of that....here is the link. http://www.edmunds.com/fuel-economy/testing-electric-vehicles-in-the-real-world.html

One thing to remember is that winter in Lancaster (the upper desert, where C&D' test was made) is not like the rest of SoCal, especially Orange County (where the Edmunds test was made). In fact, the temperature starts in the 30's usually, with a high in the mid 60's. As C&D writes, the test was made "in the wintery-cold Lancster...." Winter in Orange County can range from the low 60's at night to the upper 80's at times. OC would never get near the 30's unless it was record setting.

So the Lancaster test by C&D was done in much lower temperatures than the Edmunds test. As gas guzzler drivers, C&D probably had but a little idea of how cold effects battery range. Although they did mention how much using the heater effected the range on the Focus Electric. So the observed range by C&D is going to be quite different than what Edmunds recorded.

I do note that the only two SAME vehicles in both tests, the Fit EV and the FFE, had strikingly different results on the range tests between C&D and Edmunds. The Fit with 52 miles and the FFE with 64 miles in the C&D. And the Fit doing a mile and a half better in the Edmunds test. I think all this shows is that unless the cars are all following one another, tests will definitely vary.

 

[v_traveller]

I like the mini-reviews of each vehicle. For me, it shed light on how refined the FFE is as an EV compared to the others. How they scored the vehicles in the comparison was good for the most part (in my biased opinion), just a few sore spots that threw the FFE into second place.

Their comparison sat well with me since it seems the FFE strengths they identified were spot-on, i.e. relating it to the Model S and S-Class. In the "Final Results", they rated cargo space at 5 - the highest rating - matched only by the Leaf (although I think the data on the Leaf cargo volume might be off). The FFE got a perfect 10 in features/amenities - everyone else had 7 or less. In the Chassis category, the FFE got the highest score on all the subjective criteria (handling, ride steering and brake feel).

The FFE got the highest rating of the group in 13 of the 20 criteria; the Spark only got 10 high scores (there were many ties). The rest of the pack got high scores in 4 or less criteria. So if the winner was determined by the number of categories won, Focus would be a clear victor.

Here's where the scoring was messed up...

In the "Fuel Economy" criteria, the Smart got a 10, the Spark got a 4, and the FFE got a 1. In the real world, all of these cars get excellent fuel economy when compared to anything else you can buy, so they all should have gotten 9 or 10, if not 10 across the board. In any case, the Spark and FFE should be dead even in this category, which would bring the total score of the FFE within 2 points of the Spark.

In the "As Tested" price, the Spark got a 20 ($27995), Smart got an 18 ($30040), Fiat got a 16 ($33095), and everyone else including the FFE got a 13 (Focus was $36,990). No points were given to any of them for having rebates, which seems unfair when the FFE has had a decent rebate going for it, and it just got a whole lot better. The Spark still has no rebate on a purchase, according to the Chevy website.

It's great to have EVs covered in an auto enthusiast magazine, but it's disappointing that this particular article may do more harm than good in helping enthusiasts realize that EVs are a viable option to meet their everyday wants and needs. Overall, what's most disappointing to me is that there's misinformation when it comes to range and charge times. Hopefully readers will be smart enough to know that the across-the-board crappy range numbers during the test were not real-world. Sure, it's winter, but weather shouldn't have been an issue since average daytime temps in the Antelope Valley in winter are in the high-50s. So the crappy range was most likely due to the fact that they were flogging those things nonstop, not so much that they had the heaters cranked on high all of the time. And the long L2 charge times for the cars with 6.6kW chargers were because the Turbocord doesn't have the capacity to take full advantage of the on-board 6.6kW chargers.

 

[unplugged]

Car & Driver posted the comparo to its website. Here is the link:
http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/2014-chevy-spark-ev-vs-fiat-500e-ford-focus-electric-honda-fit-ev-nissan-leaf-smart-fortwo-ed-comparison-test