this post was submitted on 26 Dec 2025
103 points (99.0% liked)

Electric Vehicles

1970 readers
29 users here now

Overview:

Electric Vehicles are a key part of our tomorrow and how we get there. If we can get all the fossil fuel vehicles off our roads, out of our seas and out of our skies, we'll have a much better environment. This community is where we discuss the various different vehicles and news stories regarding electric transportation.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
sabreW4K3@slrpnk.net
sabreW4K3@lazysoci.al
threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works
Sunshine@piefed.ca
103
China to enforce world’s first mandatory EV energy standard in 2026, capping two-tonne models at 15.1 kWh per 100 km (carnewschina.com)
submitted 2 days ago by schizoidman@lemmy.zip to c/electricvehicles@slrpnk.net
18 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Authorities stated that, following technical upgrades, vehicles with the same battery capacity are expected to see an average increase of about 7 percent in driving range due to reduced energy consumption.

top 18 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I hope this isn't like what the EPA did in the states...

I can't remember the exact specifics, but they did something like changed the EPA rating to be the average rating of all possible driving settings, so then Tesla removed some driving settings that weren't as efficient (creep was one of them)

There should be a standard mode a car ships with and that's the rating. Then if you change it, it should simply warn you that this will affect your rating.

This might be a little different given it's about an efficiency minimum and not total distance rating... but this could kill comfort features if done incorrectly, and could be rational to kill something like creep everywhere.

And I know creep isn't needed, but at slow speeds in things like parking lots finessing the brake is safer than managing the accelerator where a mistake triggers an accident vs simply stopping you.

[–] manualoverride@lemmy.world 16 points 2 days ago (2 children)

4.11 miles/kWh for the folks who still use miles.

[–] dan@upvote.au 12 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Energy per distance is a more useful unit than distance per energy though.

[–] nawa@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I don't know tbh. I think it's the same as Celsius/Fahrenheit, you're just more used to it this way and none is better than the other.

Obviously this doesn't apply to metric/imperial, imperial makes no sense, so don't consider me an apologist for imperial lol

[–] prodigalsorcerer@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Mpg is worse than its inverse gpm, because it's not linear, and humans are really bad at comparisons of non-linear values.

Consider 3 vehicles. They get 10 mpg, 20 mpg, and 40 mpg. With these numbers, it's obvious which is the most efficient, but it's not easy to tell how efficient. For instance, will you get more fuel savings trading in your 10 mpg for the 20 mpg, or the 20 mpg for the 40 mpg vehicle?

Instead, if we look at those vehicles with their gpm ratings, we can quickly tell how much benefit we get from upgrading. Respectively, they are 10, 5, and 2.5 gallons per 100 miles, and it's much easier to see that going from 10 to 20 mpg is a much bigger improvement than going from 20 to 40 mpg.

[–] Dogyote@slrpnk.net 1 points 9 hours ago

I'm confused. It's 2x either way.

10mpg -> 20mpg is 2x increase. 10gal per 100 miles -> 5 gal per 100 miles is 2x decrease.

20mpg->40mpg is a 2x increase. 5 gal per 100 miles -> 2.5 gal per 100 miles is a 2x decrease.

[–] sorghum@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 days ago (2 children)

So why 100 km and not some other arbitrary number?

[–] Lemmyoutofhere@lemmy.ca 17 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Because most of the world already uses L/100 km currently for gas powered cars.

[–] sem@piefed.blahaj.zone 7 points 2 days ago

Huh, til

[–] cron@feddit.org 14 points 2 days ago (1 children)

My guess, because it works fine for fuel. The result is a number that is easy to read, e.g. 5 or 10 liters per 100 km.

Sure, we could also pick other numbers, but 100 works well.

[–] sorghum@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

The ease for calculating my estimated distance or energy usage based on units of distance per 1 kWh is so much easier. I say that because I would bet most cars on the highway go a distance not evenly divisible by 100 km on a total charge. The 65 kWh pack on my Bolt EUV makes it easy to calculate total distance with just a simple multiplication instead of division. 3.9 mi/kWh is 253.5 miles per charge (6.21 km/kWh is 403.65 km per charge) is a much more useful metric for calculating legs for planning charge spots.

kWh is already a cursed unit, having multiples of a unit per multiples of another unit feels even more cursed.

[–] kameecoding@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

This is some superfluous american argument, you grew up with MPG, so MPKWH is closer to what you are used to.

i drive a lot, I don't ever calculate my remaining range in my head, it's on the car, and it's a guesstimate, even for ICE cars, BEVs just more erratic as the change in driving style matters more.

What I care about is my long term consumption per 100km, then I can easily calculate my consumption over 1000 or 10 000km and then I know the long term running costs of the car.

The only time I use the km per liter is when I back check the consumption, i.e car says I went 820kms since last refueling then I refill to full and calculate if the average fuel consumption shown to me is accurate.

Per 100 units are also much more intuitive, lower number means lower consumption, as opposed to higher number meaning lower consumption.

But as I said, this is at this point mostly a cultural difference, if you told me a car does 5kms for 1 kwh, I would have no idea what that means realistically, if you tell me it consumes 10kwh per 100km, that means I can immediately calculate how much it will cost me to drive 100kms and then 1000, 10000, 100 000, as it is a simple multiplication by 10.

[–] sorghum@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 days ago

It's the only measurement like that in all of my dealings AFAIK. RPM, hertz, watts, amps, velocity, are all things that we deal with on the daily that are expressed as number of things per 1 unit of something. When charging, out and about, calculating how long I need to stay plugged in to get to a certain SoC is calculated out by the hour on level 2 chargers (not fast enough to bump up against the charge curve so the charge rate is practically linear). Even paying for fuel is listed as currency per 1 L (or gal here in the US).

Here's my usage so far for the year:

Even then, I want to measure that in terms of cost so multiplying that number by my rate is how to calculate the long term cost which is still currency per 1 kWh. Which for me works out to $371 for the year on charging at home.

[–] manualoverride@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

It’s a measure of efficiency- to me finding out how much work can be done per unit of energy in, is a really good way of calculating efficiency.

But equally it could be just because our first electric car uses this metric.

[–] sem@piefed.blahaj.zone 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

So in other words, this law mandates that electric vehicles must get at least 4.11 miles per kilowatt hour of efficiency? To be sold or what?

[–] eleijeep@piefed.social 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Once the standard takes effect, manufacturers will be required to carry out technical upgrades on newly produced vehicles to ensure compliance. For pure electric passenger cars with a curb weight of around two tonnes, the new requirement sets a maximum electricity consumption of 15.1 kilowatt-hours per 100 kilometers.

Additional policy measures will link the new energy consumption standard directly to financial incentives. Chinese authorities, including the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, the Ministry of Finance, and the State Taxation Administration, have issued updated technical requirements for new energy vehicles to qualify for purchase tax exemptions in 2026 and 2027. Under these rules, pure electric passenger cars must meet the new mandatory energy consumption limits to remain eligible for tax exemptions, aligning fiscal policy with regulatory efficiency targets.

[–] sem@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I read it too, still not sure I undetstood

[–] manualoverride@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

Your assumption was the same as mine… they have to reach this efficiency to be sold… or possibly get a penalty if they don’t hit the target. But there was not that much detail in the article

It’s not difficult to hit that target, so I don’t think it will be a problem, but it may encourage some budget manufacturers to be a bit more careful with aero and weight decisions.