It sounds like your talking about you put an address in gps and it gives you an accurate number.

The article is talking about it's version of a gas gauge, where it says X miles remaining, and that is what's inflated.

Trying to lie on the gps would cause more complaints as people got stranded, the fraud was lying on the "gas gauge" where it would be hard for a customer to realize they had less juice than they were being told.

I concur, this is also my experience. The car GPS has never directed us to travel further than the charge allows--and it will include stops at superchargers on the way as necessary. It's really not that big an issue.

But, the range that it presents you in the UI is not the actual range that you can travel. The fact that the car won't plan out a route for a location 300 miles away when it claims you can travel 320, but will instead include a stop at a supercharger at around 200, kinda proves they know this.

I think the projected range is basically the platonic ideal if you were traveling in a perfectly flat landscape, with no wind, with an external temperature of 18.2°C, traveling at 37.25 miles per hour or whatever. Every deviation from that ideal will hurt your range. In my experience, I tend to get probably 250-ish miles on a 320 mile charge, depending on the time of year.

Gas vehicles tend, on the other hand, to undersell the range in my experience, and people are used to going further than the car says they can.

Counter counter point: if the Tesla is doing fraud with the range estimate there is no need to estimate anything that precisely. Just make the software show the same number as guessed when you arrive let's say you end up with 86 km left as "estimated" at the end of the trip but in reality it's more like 42 km and the Tesla just shows something else.

Not sure why you're being down voted. This has been my experience as well.

The remaining battery estimate given at the beginning of the trip is fairly accurate.

How do you know it's accurate if you don't run it to empty?

I believe it would be Teslae.

Yes, if the projected range is more optimistic than reality, it’s always because I drive faster than 120-130 kph. Otherwise it’s absolutely spot on or even better than projected, for example if I drive 100-110 kph for a while.

In Europe the manufacturers are legally bound to quote the WLTP range. Which is hopelessly inaccurate.. But nowhere near as bad as the NEDC that preceded it. Of course people still come on forums wondering why they don't get <50% more than actually possible> out of their car, and I don't blame them.. the law is an ass.

TBF to Tesla though the in-car estimate is (I think) EPA and isn't far off.. It's doable in summer, at least. Winter you'll lose 30% but that's normal for all cars.

I think that would be "Teslae" 😉

Kia makes the Niro, not Nissan.

Yeah... EVs are totally built for stop-and-go traffic or city driving. For those uninitiated, everytime you slow down with a ICE car, all that kinetic energy is just being turned into heat on your break pads. Meanwhile for an EV car, that energy is then converted back into electricity to charge the battery - this is the same reason why Hybrids have so much better fuel economy. Adding to that, an ICE engine is only ~30% efficient in converting the energy in gasoline to energy for moving the car (the rest being turned into heat, vibrations, noise) whereas an EV is about ~70-80% efficient. You might not go as far while highway driving an EV, but it took a lot less chemical energy to take you there, meter for meter.