We own EVs. Ask Us Anything.

[cyure]

Unrelated to the current line of questioning (sorry).

My family just jumped aboard the EV train earlier than expected. With the federal tax credit going away, and some seriously massive incentives by manufacturers to move product before then, combined with the likelihood of tariffs and inflation driving up vehicle prices more over the next few years, we took the plunge.

We picked up our 2026 Hyundai Ioniq 9 yesterday. We got it for almost 25% off of MSRP. Enough of a discount that instead of paying a premium for an EV, it was actually a few thousand less than a similarly equipped Toyota Sienna/grand highlander.

Still pricy for my blood, but I’ve done the math 6 ways through Sunday, and even compared to used 3 row vehicle pricing, it’s not bad. We paid a few thousand more than the avg used 3 row vehicle with <60k miles on it. And the math shows that over 5 years, the “fueling” costs for the Ioniq 9 is between $6000 -$14000 cheaper if charging at home.

Anyway, we are still learning. But our PHEV experience was good enough we wanted a 3 row family vehicle. Although we did keep the PHEV for road trips for now. Maybe the scout will be a harvester for that purpose when it arrives. Or maybe we will be comfortable enough with EV’s by the time the scout comes out to get the BeV version. We will see.
View attachment 8906

View attachment 8907


These 2 vehicles are 29 model years apart!

Start a thread so us newbies can follow your experience. Please and thank you.

 

[THil08]

Scout has said 36” fording but the question is how to do that in the harvester without choking out the engine

water fording 36" might only be allowed when harvester is off. that way water isn't sucked it.

 

[Logan]

That's awesome! We need you to share your early experiences! The learning curve can be so different for different people and different uses.

My first two learning experiences:

1) Units:

My wife has been involved heavily in the vehicle decision. But, she hasn't been as "technical" with the understanding of how EV's work. So yesterday we were talking about efficiency, and range, and charging things, and she was getting really confused between KW, and KWH, and how you'd use those terms.

Just like with gas vehicle efficiency, there are a bunch of ways you can talk about efficiency/consumption of electricity. IE, with a gas vehicle we usually use "miles per gallon". But you can also do gallons per 100 miles, or liters/100km, or a bunch of other things.

EV's have the same thing with units, and it took me a little while to find another measurement that made "sense" to me. And I've settled on "Miles per KWh" as the one that works in my brain. Its basically the same measurement as MPG, because its distance divided by "the thing you pay for".

But my wife hasn't mentally understood what any of these terms are, and its taking some time to wrap her head around it. So if I said "we got charged 4kw", she'd say "what percentage is that" or "how far can I drive with that".

So, this isn't a bad thing, just making sure you understand the units/measurements., will help de-mystify the charging experience a bit. (I say that I like I know anything about it, but so far its making sense to me).

2) Adapters:

My buddy got an almost identical vehicle (different interior/exterior colors, but same model/trim) the same weekend, for the same reasons. He doesn't have an L2 charging setup yet. His wife went to the local safeway to try to get some charging while shopping (it has free L2 charging for 2 hours). She tried and failed.

Turns out, she was using the wrong charging adapter. She was using the CCS > NACS adapter, which doesn't allow AC charging.

My buddy went back with the right adapter, and got it to work.

For the next few years, it seems like adapter tetris is going to be the name of the game.

 

[J Alynn]

water fording 36" might only be allowed when harvester is off. that way water isn't sucked it.

That’s about the only way I can figure it out maybe there will be like a snorkel button you push that cuts off harvester when you get to a water pass or questionable wet areas and once through you hit the but and back to available harvester???

 

[SpaceEVDriver]

My first two learning experiences:

1) Units:

My wife has been involved heavily in the vehicle decision. But, she hasn't been as "technical" with the understanding of how EV's work. So yesterday we were talking about efficiency, and range, and charging things, and she was getting really confused between KW, and KWH, and how you'd use those terms.

Just like with gas vehicle efficiency, there are a bunch of ways you can talk about efficiency/consumption of electricity. IE, with a gas vehicle we usually use "miles per gallon". But you can also do gallons per 100 miles, or liters/100km, or a bunch of other things.

EV's have the same thing with units, and it took me a little while to find another measurement that made "sense" to me. And I've settled on "Miles per KWh" as the one that works in my brain. Its basically the same measurement as MPG, because its distance divided by "the thing you pay for".

But my wife hasn't mentally understood what any of these terms are, and its taking some time to wrap her head around it. So if I said "we got charged 4kw", she'd say "what percentage is that" or "how far can I drive with that".

So, this isn't a bad thing, just making sure you understand the units/measurements., will help de-mystify the charging experience a bit. (I say that I like I know anything about it, but so far its making sense to me).

Note: “we charged 4 kW” is analogous to “we got 4 gallons per minute.” The unit of kW is a rate; the unit of kWh is analogous to gallons. The battery “contains 99.8 kWh" is the amount of energy that’s stored. The battery "charged at 240 kW" is the rate at which that energy was put into the battery.

I’ve noticed that units have been a source of confusion for a lot of people, even well-seasoned EV drivers. Eventually everyone seems to find a way to make it make sense to them. I created a spreadsheet for my partner so she could better understand the various numbers she’s seeing in both the Mustang and the Lightning. Because who can easily divide/multiply by 90 or 130 in their heads? Not many of us.

Here’s a sample for the Lightning. The numbers across the top row are battery state of charge in %. The numbers down the first column are the reported efficiency in miles/kWh. The numbers in the interior of the table are estimated remaining range (in miles), if the efficiency stays the same. Our table goes from 1.0 to 3.5 miles/kWh and includes every 5% instead of 10% battery state of charge.

Battery % Miles/kWh	100	90	80	70	60	50	40	30	20
1.4	183	165	147	128	110	92	73	55	37
1.6	210	189	168	147	126	105	84	63	42
1.8	236	212	189	165	141	118	94	71	47
2	262	236	210	183	157	131	105	79	52
2.2	288	259	231	202	173	144	115	86	58
2.4	314	283	252	220	189	157	126	94	63

2) Adapters:

My buddy got an almost identical vehicle (different interior/exterior colors, but same model/trim) the same weekend, for the same reasons. He doesn't have an L2 charging setup yet. His wife went to the local safeway to try to get some charging while shopping (it has free L2 charging for 2 hours). She tried and failed.

Turns out, she was using the wrong charging adapter. She was using the CCS > NACS adapter, which doesn't allow AC charging.

My buddy went back with the right adapter, and got it to work.

For the next few years, it seems like adapter tetris is going to be the name of the game.

My guess is that there will be two standards for the next 20+ years until a better standard takes over both. And even then, we’ll likely still see the odd charging station that only works with older vehicles without an adapter. One of the reasons I think the entire NACS vs CCS1 debate is silly. There are so many more CCS1 plugs out there that putting NACS on the cars isn’t making anything more compatible. In fact, those with NACS will be using adapters more often than those with CCS1. And they’ll still have to have a DC and an AC adapter.

 

[BeerParty]

We picked up our 2026 Hyundai Ioniq 9 yesterday. We got it for almost 25% off of MSRP. Enough of a discount that instead of paying a premium for an EV, it was actually a few thousand less than a similarly equipped Toyota Sienna/grand highlander.

Welcome to the fold! (fellow Hyundai Ioniq owner here) I hope the HI9 serves you well for years to come.

 

[Logan]

Note: “we charged 4 kW” is analogous to “we got 4 gallons per minute.” The unit of kW is a rate; the unit of kWh is analogous to gallons. The battery “contains 99.8 kWh" is the amount of energy that’s stored. The battery "charged at 240 kW" is the rate at which that energy was put into the battery.

I’ve noticed that units have been a source of confusion for a lot of people, even well-seasoned EV drivers. Eventually everyone seems to find a way to make it make sense to them. I created a spreadsheet for my partner so she could better understand the various numbers she’s seeing in both the Mustang and the Lightning. Because who can easily divide/multiply by 90 or 130 in their heads? Not many of us.

Here’s a sample for the Lightning. The numbers across the top row are battery state of charge in %. The numbers down the first column are the reported efficiency in miles/kWh. The numbers in the interior of the table are estimated remaining range (in miles), if the efficiency stays the same. Our table goes from 1.0 to 3.5 miles/kWh and includes every 5% instead of 10% battery state of charge.

Battery % Miles/kWh	100	90	80	70	60	50	40	30	20
1.4	183	165	147	128	110	92	73	55	37
1.6	210	189	168	147	126	105	84	63	42
1.8	236	212	189	165	141	118	94	71	47
2	262	236	210	183	157	131	105	79	52
2.2	288	259	231	202	173	144	115	86	58
2.4	314	283	252	220	189	157	126	94	63

My guess is that there will be two standards for the next 20+ years until a better standard takes over both. And even then, we’ll likely still see the odd charging station that only works with older vehicles without an adapter. One of the reasons I think the entire NACS vs CCS1 debate is silly. There are so many more CCS1 plugs out there that putting NACS on the cars isn’t making anything more compatible. In fact, those with NACS will be using adapters more often than those with CCS1. And they’ll still have to have a DC and an AC adapter.

Ah, yes, see, it got me there.

I was mentally saying 4kwh (a capacity/volume), but clearly said "4kw". Akward moment .

The upside of the Ioniq 9, is the battery is 110kwh. Which is close enough to 100, that at least the ballpark math is fairly easy. But I might end up doing a table like that to make the math easier.

And our charger is 7.7kw, which means we can charge 7.7kw into the 110kwh battery in an hour... which mathematically works out to exactly 7% of charge added per hour (7.7/110 == 0.07, or 7%). So that has been helpful for her as well.

Start a thread so us newbies can follow your experience. Please and thank you.

Will do!

Welcome to the fold! (fellow Hyundai Ioniq owner here) I hope the HI9 serves you well for years to come.

Thanks, and here is to hoping our ICCU's stay intact .

 

[Chuckles]

That’s about the only way I can figure it out maybe there will be like a snorkel button you push that cuts off harvester when you get to a water pass or questionable wet areas and once through you hit the but and back to available harvester???

That solution sounds like a nightmare. Too many car owners don't read the manual. People these days can't escape their cars when there's no power despite manual releases being present.

 

[dreamweaver]

That solution sounds like a nightmare. Too many car owners don't read the manual. People these days can't escape their cars when there's no power despite manual releases being present.

That is true. And if all fails we carry a glass breaking hand tool in each of our vehicles.

 

[SpaceEVDriver]

That solution sounds like a nightmare. Too many car owners don't read the manual. People these days can't escape their cars when there's no power despite manual releases being present.

If I were designing it, I’d consider a simple float valve that triggers a signal to consider shutting off the Harvester and alerting the driver. However, there are situations that might not work either.

 

[J Alynn]

That solution sounds like a nightmare. Too many car owners don't read the manual. People these days can't escape their cars when there's no power despite manual releases being present.

I don’t disagree but you also know people will see or hear the specs on the BEV then destroy their engine because they are naive. I dont plan heavy off roading but hope those folks pay attention

 

[cyure]

Okay I have another question. I had to go to an appointment in Chicago today and my husband drove the Supra. It was 100 miles to where we were going. Now between us and Chicago there’s long stretches where it’s just corn fields and no traffic and you look down and you are doing 90.

I keep hearing this 70 mph number for range. Let’s say you do go over that for a period of time how much does it affect your range?

 

[dreamweaver]

Okay I have another question. I had to go to an appointment in Chicago today and my husband drove the Supra. It was 100 miles to where we were going. Now between us and Chicago there’s long stretches where it’s just corn fields and no traffic and you look down and you are doing 90.

I keep hearing this 70 mph number for range. Let’s say you do go over that for a period of time how much does it affect your range?

70 mph is a magic number targeted by manufacturer’s. EVs generally perform close to their rated range when driving up to this speed. At 90 mph The range can drop sharply. This is due to increased aerodynamic drag and energy consumption, which can lead to a reduction in range by as much as 20-50%

 

[SpaceEVDriver]

Okay I have another question. I had to go to an appointment in Chicago today and my husband drove the Supra. It was 100 miles to where we were going. Now between us and Chicago there’s long stretches where it’s just corn fields and no traffic and you look down and you are doing 90.

I keep hearing this 70 mph number for range. Let’s say you do go over that for a period of time how much does it affect your range?

For 100 miles, sometimes going up to 90 mph for a little bit of time is not going to make a huge difference in real-life terms.

If you don’t have a place to charge cheaply on both ends, I’d recommend you set a speed on the cruise control. Going from 70 mph to 90 mph is likely to cost you about 60% of your range. That’s not a perfect estimate. Could be 50%, could be 40%. Could be 70%. At those speeds, things like hills, wind, temperature, all come into play.

If your truck has 120 kWh of battery:
If you did all 100 miles at 70 mph, it might be 2.5 miles/kWh. You’d have 300 miles of range at that speed. This might not require a recharge in Chicago.
At 90 mph, you might get 1 mile/kWh. You’d have 120 miles of range. This would require a recharge in Chicago.

The range loss is more obvious in an EV than in a gas vehicle because some 75% or more of the energy contained in your gasoline is wasted heating up the surroundings, so there’s always a baseline inefficiency to gas vehicles. In EVs, that baseline is much lower so you notice the speed vs efficiency change more.

Motor Trend has a decent table from tests. It’s as imperfect as all of this, but it’s pretty good.

2023 Ford F-150 Lightning XLT Yearlong Review: Road-Trip Range Strategies

Drive fast and stop more often, or slow down and stop less? We figure out what the optimal road trip strategy is for our Ford F-150 Lightning electric pickup.

www.motortrend.com

 

[cyure]

For 100 miles, sometimes going up to 90 mph for a little bit of time is not going to make a huge difference in real-life terms.

If you don’t have a place to charge cheaply on both ends, I’d recommend you set a speed on the cruise control. Going from 70 mph to 90 mph is likely to cost you about 60% of your range. That’s not a perfect estimate. Could be 50%, could be 40%. Could be 70%. At those speeds, things like hills, wind, temperature, all come into play.

If your truck has 120 kWh of battery:
If you did all 100 miles at 70 mph, it might be 2.5 miles/kWh. You’d have 300 miles of range at that speed. This might not require a recharge in Chicago.
At 90 mph, you might get 1 mile/kWh. You’d have 120 miles of range. This would require a recharge in Chicago.

The range loss is more obvious in an EV than in a gas vehicle because some 75% or more of the energy contained in your gasoline is wasted heating up the surroundings, so there’s always a baseline inefficiency to gas vehicles. In EVs, that baseline is much lower so you notice the speed vs efficiency change more.

Motor Trend has a decent table from tests. It’s as imperfect as all of this, but it’s pretty good.

2023 Ford F-150 Lightning XLT Yearlong Review: Road-Trip Range Strategies

Drive fast and stop more often, or slow down and stop less? We figure out what the optimal road trip strategy is for our Ford F-150 Lightning electric pickup.

www.motortrend.com

Wow that’s a big difference. I didn’t realize it was so dramatic. Not that I’m doing 90 all the time but these new cars are so smooth and have the power it’s so easy to speed! When we first got the Supra I know there were a few times I looked over and he was going 105. Not for very long, but I would hate to know what the range would be at that speed.

Thanks for the answers all of you!!

 

[SpaceEVDriver]

I’ve found that the ideal time for a drive, number of stops, etc., for most of my road trips is 72 mph. At that speed, on our highways, I’m passing semis, but not passing the lifted trucks and souped up cars. At that speed, I get a great efficiency, I don’t have to sit for too long, and I am far less stressed about the journey.

If I’m trying to get somewhere in a hurry, I might even slow down a bit. On a recent trip to LA, I was going to help family with a medical emergency. Our tendency is to go faster because of that urgency. But I would have had to stop to charge three or four times on the 500 mile trip and it would have cost me time. The trip took me 7.5 hours. Flying would have taken me 10 hours. Driving at 80 or 90 mph would have taken me 8-9 hours.

I would not have been able to drive that route any faster in the Tacoma or other ICE we’ve had because the actual range of those vehicles in terms of 75% of a tank is not better than the range of the Lightning.

Again, for a short distance it’s probably not a huge deal to go faster. It’s that 500-1000-1500 mile trip that you find the most benefit from slowing down a bit. Also, no speeding citations.

 

[SpaceEVDriver]

Wow that’s a big difference. I didn’t realize it was so dramatic. Not that I’m doing 90 all the time but these new cars are so smooth and have the power it’s so easy to speed! When we first got the Supra I know there were a few times I looked over and he was going 105. Not for very long, but I would hate to know what the range would be at that speed.

Thanks for the answers all of you!!

It might be better in your neck of the woods. I have a lot of hills here.

 

[SpaceEVDriver]

From the Motor Trend article. Here’s a good start to understanding range, charging, and speed trade-offs for longer trips.

The mistake Motor Trend makes here is that they don’t include the time cost of exiting the freeway and getting back on. That makes the slower speed (70-72) a slightly better option. This is for a 1000 mile trip and is based on their tests and some drag estimates. They also get the drag force incorrect. They should be using v^3, not v^2 to calculate energy cost, not drag force. But it’s fine-ish for the lower speeds.

 

[cyure]

It might be better in your neck of the woods. I have a lot of hills here.

Oh it’s flat as a pancake here. I miss hills and mountains.

And honestly he spent most of today between probably 75 and 80. It’s just that middle part where there’s nothing that he tends to go faster.

Thanks again for all the education. It’s very helpful!

 

[cyure]

I’ve found that the ideal time for a drive, number of stops, etc., for most of my road trips is 72 mph. At that speed, on our highways, I’m passing semis, but not passing the lifted trucks and souped up cars. At that speed, I get a great efficiency, I don’t have to sit for too long, and I am far less stressed about the journey.

If I’m trying to get somewhere in a hurry, I might even slow down a bit. On a recent trip to LA, I was going to help family with a medical emergency. Our tendency is to go faster because of that urgency. But I would have had to stop to charge three or four times on the 500 mile trip and it would have cost me time. The trip took me 7.5 hours. Flying would have taken me 10 hours. Driving at 80 or 90 mph would have taken me 8-9 hours.

I would not have been able to drive that route any faster in the Tacoma or other ICE we’ve had because the actual range of those vehicles in terms of 75% of a tank is not better than the range of the Lightning.

Again, for a short distance it’s probably not a huge deal to go faster. It’s that 500-1000-1500 mile trip that you find the most benefit from slowing down a bit. Also, no speeding citations.

I do remember a Myth Busters episode where they had two cars leave at the same time. One stayed right at the speed limit. Didn’t change lanes to try and find the “faster lane” whereas the other car was changing lanes etc to see if one car would get there faster. It was a difference of a couple minutes. I always remember that episode when I’m trying to get somewhere.