EV Range: Everything You Need to Know
When it comes to electric vehicles, range is the all-important stat. Whether or not you make it to the next public charging spot, are able to complete your daily commute, or are instead stranded on the side of the road depends on it.
Range is so heavily scrutinized because EVs can travel on average barely half the distance of gas-powered vehicles before they require a "fill-up," and because gas pumps are far more ubiquitous than public fast chargers. Most EV range discussions are centered around the EPA combined range, as that's the one that's published prominently on the window sticker. For the 2025 model year, 256 EVs have EPA ratings (this includes multiple variants of the same vehicle), and the EPA's combined-range figures span from 141 miles for the Fiat 500e to 512 miles for the Lucid Air Grand Touring on 19-inch wheels and tires.
As with fuel-economy figures for gas-powered vehicles, EV's range figures are determined by running the vehicle inside a test lab on a dynamometer—think of it like a treadmill for cars—on the EPA's drive cycles.
These tests result in separate city and highway figures, which are weighted 55 percent city and 45 percent highway to arrive at the combined figure that's shown on an EV's window sticker. Unlike gas-powered vehicles, whose highway efficiency almost always exceeds the city figure, most EVs have higher city range ratings than highway. Part of electric vehicles' magic in low- and variable-speed scenarios is their ability to recapture energy when decelerating by slowing the vehicle using the electric motor (or motors) rather than the traditional brakes.
Another way EVs are different is that range and efficiency aren't directly related. That's because of charging losses; roughly 85 to 90 percent of the total energy that comes from the wall makes it into the battery pack. That's why there are two terms used: efficiency, which can be expressed in MPGe, includes charging losses, while consumption, the energy use while driving, doesn't include them.
Our EV range test is done at a steady 75 mph, because highway driving is where range matters most. If you're looking to cover 500 or 1000 miles in a day, it necessarily has to be done at high speeds. There are just not enough hours in the day to do otherwise. Even the shortest-range EV can manage more than seven hours of slogging through city traffic at an average speed of, say, 15 mph. Also, unlike a gas-powered vehicle, an EV's consumption increases dramatically as speeds rise. Of course, as with all cars, aerodynamic drag inflates with the square of speed, but EVs are particularly affected as most do without multiple gears. So, a higher vehicle speed means the electric motor is spinning at a faster and less efficient point.
Included below is a subset of the data from our EV range testing and how it compares to the EPA range figure. Unlike with gas-powered cars, which tend to meet or exceed their EPA fuel-economy figure in our 75-mph highway test, EVs on average only achieve roughly 85 percent of their label value. However, some vehicles, typically those from German automakers, have outperformed their EPA label value in our highway test. It seems that those automakers in particular rate their vehicles' range much more conservatively than some others. For example, Lucid, which makes some of the longest-range EVs, is far more aggressive in its EPA range values. Although the 410 miles we achieved in a Lucid Air Grand Touring is the longest result of all of the EVs we've tested, its only 80 percent of its 516-mile EPA range.
You'll notice that the biggest underperformer is the electric Mercedes-Benz G-wagon, which achieved a mere 67 percent of its EPA range in our test (160 miles to its 239-mile EPA range). But it makes sense that this brick-shaped vehicle would do comparably worse at the higher speed of our test.
If you want to dive deeper into this topic, we co-authored a technical paper for SAE International outlining this difference between internal combustion vehicles and electrics using our test data.
Two major factors are speed and ambient temperature. Traveling at a steady high rate of speed, as in our 75-mph test, is the worst case for EVs. Aerodynamic drag increases dramatically at higher speeds and when maintaining those speeds there's no opportunity to recapture energy while slowing.
Cold weather can also affect range dramatically. One of the many reasons for that is that using the heater to warm the cabin—particularly on EVs that have resistive heaters—sucks a lot of juice. In a test with our long-term Model 3 we found that using the heat can increase consumption by as much as 35 percent and kill 60 miles of range, a significant chunk of the Model 3's 310-mile EPA rating.
If you're driving in cold weather, it will help dramatically to pre-condition the vehicle while it's plugged in before you leave. This will warm both the cabin and the battery using energy from the grid rather than from the battery pack, which will preserve more energy to use for driving. Another simple way to improve range is to simply keep your speed modest.
You should consider our real-world highway range figures the absolute maximum possible in high-speed highway conditions and, as with our zero-to-60-mph times, it will be difficult to achieve them with any regularity. That's because it involves charging the battery all the way to 100 percent, which is not the EV norm. Topping off the last 10–15 percent is when the rate of charging using a Level 3 DC fast charger slows considerably, and it also leads to increased degradation in battery capacity over time. For example, Tesla recommends limiting charging to 90 percent for daily use. Even on long-distance trips, the stops are determined more by the charging infrastructure than anything else, and the most expeditious method is to top up the battery just far enough—to maybe 80 or 90 percent, keeping it in the speedy part of the charge-rate curve—to get to the next charger.
Range is critical; range is complicated. And if you want to drive an EV long distances and you live in a place where it gets cold, plan on a large buffer between the EPA combined rating and what you actually will be able to use.
You Might Also Like
Car and Driver's 10 Best Cars through the Decades
How to Buy or Lease a New Car
Lightning Lap Legends: Chevrolet Camaro vs. Ford Mustang!

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Governors should end California's ludicrous and harmful electric vehicle mandate
In the Biden administration's waning days, the Environmental Protection Agency granted California permission to implement an electric vehicle mandate that several other states adopted, despite the economic turmoil it would create for American consumers and businesses. In granting a waiver to implement California's Advanced Clean Cars II regulations, the EPA attempted to clear the road for other states to go beyond existing federal regulations and sign on to California's pledge to meet escalating annual electric vehicle sales quotas that effectively ban gas-powered and conventional hybrid cars by forcing zero-emissions vehicles to comprise 100 percent of all new car sales by 2035. Twelve states and the District of Columbia have hitched their wagons to California's regulations. In response, Congress recently passed a Congressional Review Act measure to revoke the EPA waiver that gave California effective permission to ban new gas and hybrid power vehicles. Notably, 35 House Democrats and Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) joined with Republicans in voting to repeal the waiver. President Trump should waste no time in signing the Congressional Review Act resolution into law, despite California's promise to challenge Congress's authority to rescind the waiver in court. Legal challenges aside, when it comes to electric vehicles, reality is proving to be a stubborn obstacle to politicians' zeal and environmentalists' wishful thinking. Traditional cars with gas engines and newer hybrid engines are widely popular because they are budget-friendly. In addition, the market conditions and infrastructure capabilities are nowhere near ready for the fantastical transition demanded by the new mandates — one that will be massively expensive for American families and taxpayers. A recent national survey showed that 65 percent of America's middle class struggles financially. Forty percent of all Americans are unable to plan beyond their next paycheck. Factor in inflation and the costs and effects of Trump's tariffs, and consumers agree the future looks bleak. Out of all their wallet worries, electricity prices are an extra-sore spot for consumers, with already spiking rates expected to increase as much as 30 percent for more than 65 million Americans. Consumers' grim economic outlook, shaky purchasing power and genuine infrastructure concerns are reflected in zero-emissions vehicles' lackluster national sales. Even the more ambitious forecasts have sales falling short, recognizing that national electric vehicle sales may reach only 16 percent in 2028 — the same year California's and the others states' rules would require electric vehicles to account for a whopping 51 percent of new vehicle sales. Some of these states have electric vehicle sales rates in single digits. Even California, where electric vehicles account for a relatively high 25 percent of new car sales, is lagging far behind its own requirements. Electric vehicles currently make sense for affluent early adopters with large amounts of disposable income and lifestyle habits to transition ahead of others — not so much for those in less fortunate economic positions. Even groups pushing for more adoption of electric and hybrid vehicles admit that 'electric cars still cost 25 percent more' than other vehicles. Electric vehicle owners in more privileged situations also face challenges. Some are stranded in 'charging deserts,' far from public infrastructure, and thus face a lose-lose proposition: They have to choose between installing a $1,000-$2,500 at-home charger or overload their circuits and run up electricity bills by plugging into existing outlets. If drivers are fortunate enough to live a reasonable distance from one of the 64,000 public electric vehicles chargers, data shows one in five simply don't work. New Jersey was quick to hitch itself to California's electric vehicles mandate, and businesses in the state have been sounding the alarm. The New Jersey Business and Industry Association recently urged Gov. Phil Murphy (D) to stop this rule taking effect, which they said 'will significantly add costs for both consumers and businesses during a severe affordability crisis.' In contrast, governors in Maryland, Delaware, New York and Massachusetts — all Democrats — have taken recent executive actions to steer their states away from onerous and unworkable sales quotas by delaying or withdrawing the associated penalties. Too many Americans are worried their families' income will not be enough to afford high housing, grocery and electricity prices, as well as price hikes from tariffs. Instead of adding to that burden by leaving Sacramento in the driver's seat, governors of all these states should give their constituents a reprieve from California's impractical and economically back-breaking mandate by delaying enforcement or withdrawing entirely. Mario H. Lopez is the president of the Hispanic Leadership Fund, a public policy advocacy organization that promotes liberty, opportunity and prosperity for all. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


Politico
2 hours ago
- Politico
A good day to be a fossil fuel
The Trump administration is intensifying its efforts to boost the fossil fuel industry. Its latest move: proposing a free pass to pollute. The Environmental Protection Agency today announced it would roll back Biden-era limits on carbon and toxic air pollution from power plants. While the nation is the world's second-biggest climate polluter, lagging only behind China, EPA argues that the U.S. power sector's pollution does not contribute enough to global climate change to justify regulating it, write Alex Guillén and Jean Chemnick. That's even though the power sector alone emits more carbon pollution than most countries and accounts for one-quarter of U.S. greenhouse gases. Former President Joe Biden's climate rule for power plants requires new natural gas plants and existing coal-fired units to eventually capture and store their greenhouse gas emissions. Analysts had anticipated that the measure — which the Trump administration aims to repeal by the end of the year — would make a significant dent in power sector climate pollution. The administration does not plan to issue a replacement rule, a person familiar with the agency's plans told Jean and Zack Colman. EPA also announced today that it aims to repeal a separate rule that curbs toxic mercury pollution from power plants. The agency's moves build on a slew of other Trump administration efforts to decimate U.S. climate policy. Trump plans to sign a trio of resolutions Thursday to revoke California's national-leading vehicle emissions standards, writes Alex Nieves. The administration has also taken a sledgehammer to executive branch programs dealing with climate change, from NASA's climate research division to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's heat team. And congressional Republicans are weighing to what extent they will unravel hundreds of billions of dollars in tax credits for clean energy production from Democrats' 2022 climate law. Era of inertia: If Trump's newest EPA rule repeal sticks, it will extend a 15-year-long streak of setbacks for regulators' and lawmakers' attempts to address one of the nation's biggest climate pollution sources, Zack, Benjamin Storrow and Annie Snider write: 'The years of whipsawing moves have left Washington with no consistent approach on how — or whether — to confront climate change, even as scientists warn that years are growing short to avoid catastrophic damage to human society.' It's Wednesday — thank you for tuning in to POLITICO's Power Switch. I'm your host, Arianna Skibell. Power Switch is brought to you by the journalists behind E&E News and POLITICO Energy. Send your tips, comments, questions to askibell@ Today in POLITICO Energy's podcast: Josh Siegel breaks down why Sen. Martin Heinrich of New Mexico, the top Democrat on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, thinks the GOP megabill will cost Republicans at the ballot box. Power Centers AI boom could boost 'forever chemicals'The artificial intelligence boom isn't only driving up demand for power, it's also spurring production of so-called forever chemicals used to build semiconductor chips needed for data centers, writes Miranda Willson. Chemical giant Chemours, for example, is pushing to expand production of forever chemicals to meet surging demand, raising concerns about whether the company can scale up its output without releasing more toxic pollutants. Heat déjà vuLast month was the world's second-warmest May on record, European scientists have found, writes Louise Guillot. The same scientists found that this April was also the second-warmest April globally on record. It followed a March that was the warmest on record. In Other News AI futures: Data centers are building their own natural gas power plants in Texas. Trash sucks: A Norwegian city uses vacuum tubes to whisk waste away. Subscriber Zone A showcase of some of our best subscriber content. Energy Secretary Chris Wright was put in the uncomfortable position of defending Trump's decision to save a New York offshore wind project that it had pushed to the brink of collapse. Federal employee unions secured a legal victory this week when a federal court issued an order blocking the Office of Personnel Management from giving DOGE access to its records. The Transportation Department is set to release a draft of its overhauled guidance for the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure program later this month. That's it for today, folks! Thanks for reading.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Consumer Reports urges Congress to drop electric vehicle tax proposal
By David Shepardson WASHINGTON (Reuters) -An influential consumer organization on Wednesday urged Republican lawmakers to drop a plan to impose a proposed $250 annual fee on electric cars to pay for road repairs. Consumer Reports, which also tests and rates new vehicles, noted that Republican Senator Bernie Moreno has called for boosting the proposed yearly fee to $500 for EVs and $250 for plug-in hybrids versus the tax and budget bill over the fee in the bill approved by the U.S. House in May. WHY IT'S IMPORTANT The fees would mean consumers would pay anywhere from three to seven times as much as owners of similar conventional gasoline vehicles in federal gas taxes, Consumer Reports said. The new fees could hit Tesla, GM other EV owners. KEY QUOTES Chris Harto, senior policy analyst at Consumer Reports said the EV fees were "punitive taxes designed to confiscate fuel savings from consumers who just want to save money for their families." CONTEXT Lawmakers in April dropped a $20 federal yearly registration fee on all vehicles starting in 2031 to fund road repairs. The U.S. House bill would end a $7,500 tax credit for new EVs for most automakers by Dec. 31, end a $4,000 used car EV tax credit, repeal vehicle emissions rules and kill an Energy Department loan program that supports the manufacture of green advanced technology vehicles. It would also phase out EV battery production tax credits in 2028. Ford said the bill's provision to eliminate EV battery production using Chinese technology threatens the automaker's projected $3 billion investment in a Marshall, Michigan, plant that is 60% complete and slated to employ 1,700 workers. On Thursday, President Donald Trump will sign three resolutions approved by lawmakers barring California's electric vehicle sales mandates and diesel engine rules, auto industry and House aides told Reuters.