News from Norway about EV performance show--Tesla comes out on top, but legacy media must not name that evil™ manufacturer because…*bangs head on wall*
Every now and then, legacy media reports™ something that quite upsets the apple cart yet there are hardly any repercussions. This week, for instance, the regional Bergens Tidende broke the story of how customers are consistently lied to by car manufacturers about the range of their EVs.
Since this isn’t the first or last time this kind of massive lying is going on, I’ll furnish you with the details below. Translation, emphases, and [snark] mine.
Range Test: Four out of Ten EVs Last Shorter Than Advertised, One Went Much Further
The Consumers’ Council [orig. Forbrukerrådet, Norway’s customer protection agency] is concerned that so many cars are travelling shorter than the manufacturer’s own figures.
‘Range anxiety’ may have subsided, but you still want your car to go as far as the manufacturer claims. [no irony there, I suppose]
By Geir Amundsen, Bergens Tidende, 11 June 2025 [source; archived]
Anyone who has driven an electric car knows that the range is affected by several factors, such as the roadand driving conditions, as well as outside temperature. There is a reason why car manufacturers state a range of ‘up to’.
‘It is nevertheless worrying that so many cars run shorter than the manufacturer’s own figures’, says senior adviser Thomas Iversen of the Consumers’ Council in reaction to NAF [Norway’s Drivers’ Association] and Motor’s recent range test [data for summer 2025].
In the test, which was carried out at the beginning of June:
15 out of 27 cars achieved a shorter range than the manufacturers themselves state.
Eight of the cars recorded a negative deviation of 4-5 per cent.
The car that tops the test table (see below) [which, presumably for reasons of political correctness—it’s a Tesla, in case you’re wondering—may not be named] achieved 11.4 per cent more kilometres than stated.
On average, the 27 cars drove 1 per cent longer than stated.
At 832 kilometres, the car that went the furthest of all, the Lucid Air, had the largest negative deviation of 13.3 per cent.
The American EV manufacturer Lucid Motors, which claims a range of up to 960 kilometres for its electric vehicles, has no comment on the deviation.
It is worth noting that the so-called WLTP [Worldwide Harmonised Light Vehicles Test Procedure] measurements, which form the basis for car manufacturers’ stated range figures, are carried out in a laboratory at 23 degrees centigrade.
Nils Sødal, Senior Communications Advisor at NAF, explains in an email that this year’s test took place in relatively cool and partly wet weather with temperatures between 7 and 17 degrees centigrade [isn’t it going to be another year of ‘global boiling’ (that would be UN Secretary General Guterres’ choice of words?].
Lucid Air, which achieved the greatest range, had temperatures as low as 5 degrees centigrade when the battery began running out. In addition, there washeavy rain in the mountains around Atnsjøen [Lake Atna], which Lucid in particular got the most of. This goes some way to explaining why this car had the greatest negative deviation [better drive in sunny, warm, and balmy conditions only, then, is what they’re saying].
In five years, the cars tested by NAF and Motor’ EV range tests have gained an average of 200 kilometres more range. This means that the vast majority of the cars in this year’s test can drive between Oslo and Trondheim without recharging [that’s quite an achievement, I’d say].
A Help For Car Buyers
Sødal emphasises that NAF is conducting this test to help car buyers, and believes that the deviation in range is important when choosing a car.
What surprised us most in this year’s test is that so many cars actually drove further than the stated range in relatively cool and partly wet weather.
‘The fact that the range deviates slightly in NAF's test should not be taken too seriously’, says Unni Berge, Head of Communications and Public Affairs at the Electric Vehicle Association [orig. Elbilforeningen], adding:
Our own tests show that most electric cars are around the WLTP range or better in the summer months
This is according to Berge’s email, pointing out that cool weather and rain showers have a negative impact on range.
Deviations from WLTP
[I had to split the below table into two images; WLTP rekkewide = range in km as per the manufacturer; oppnåd = achieved range in km; prosentavvik = difference in per cent]
Consumers at a Disadvantage
‘Since cars are marketed with “up to” the stated range, consumers are often at a disadvantage when the range in practice is lower,’ says Iversen of the Consumers’ Council [‘here, buy this product—it does this and that (terms & conditions apply)’: would you seriously buy a product that’s much crappier than advertised, if you only knew?].
He states that significant discrepancies between stated and actual range can still give consumer rights, but that it can be difficult to prove [lol, that range test just proved that manufacturers are lying—what that moron isn’t saying out loud is that the real problem is: finding a judge/jurisdiction that permits such a trial].
The Consumers’ Council encourages new electric car customers to carefully familiarise themselves with both the range and charging speed of the cars they are considering [well, I don’t need anyone telling me that…]:
Even when it comes to charging speed, there are often major discrepancies between what is stated and what you actually experience at fast charging stations [that’s a fair warning, esp. as range and charging speeds are flip sides of the very same coin—with the main problem being that the required grid upgrades are paid for by everybody and not ‘just’ by those who own EVs].
The Electric Vehicle Association’s advice is to choose a car according to your needs [perhaps because they dislike the best-performing Tesla car?]:
Range is of course relevant, but we would also particularly recommend that consumers check how the cars perform in winter, whether they can be preheated, and what the charging speed is.
Bottom Lines
Once again, legacy media falls on its face: the above-related piece is actually what I consider ‘second-hand’ reporting™ of a much more extensive original piece by the Motor magazine that appeared on 1 June 2025.
Next up, what about the top-performing models? Here, Motor is crystal-clear:
It’s easy to conclude that the Tesla siblings Model Y and Model 3 performed best of all. Model Y with its positive range deviation of 11 per cent. Model 3 with its extreme range at just over 400,000 kroner [about US$ 40,000]…
Before the popular Teslas made their way up the charts and towards a glorious result, it was all about the big and expensive prestige cars losing out to the elements up in the mountains.
It would appear that Tesla fixed many of these earlier issues, but the company cannot be named in the piece in Bergens Tidende…
So, what about the worst EV, according to the test?
We knew Lucid would go the furthest.
For a long time, we also thought it was NAF’s press officer Ingunn Handagard who was behind the wheel of the real winner.
For a long time, the car that performed the best in the most important part of the competition—competing against its own official WLTP figures—was the Zeekr 7X.
These figures mean more than who gets the furthest, but are perhaps not as exciting to follow as the competition at the two outer edges of the field.
Briefly—and not necessarily one hundred per cent calculated—Zeekr would at one point have covered 616 km. It lost so much engine power after 585 kilometres that we declared it to have stopped.
So, the test was rather a test™ whose goalposts were shifted while the driving was ongoing. That Motor piece also has way more data, although information on the charging speed is sorely lacking there, too.
Now, what about charging speeds? I’ve prompted Grok to provide me with a comparative listing of some of these vehicles, and here are the results:
[Grok provides] some general insights on charging speeds for a few of the mentioned models (Tesla Model Y, Tesla Model 3, Lucid Air Grand Touring, BMW iX, Zeekr 7X) based on available data from other sources, as charging performance is a key factor for EVs. Since the request is for a comparative listing, I’ll compile what’s known about these models’ charging capabilities, focusing on DC fast charging (Level 3) speeds, as these are most relevant for road trips and public charging. Note that exact charging times depend on factors like battery size, state of charge (SoC), charger power, and temperature, so I’ll provide approximate figures for a 10-80% charge, which is the standard range for fast charging to preserve battery health.
Note that here, too, Tesla comes out on top; here are some of the limitations that apply, according to Grok:
No Test-Specific Charging Data: The NAF/Motor test article does not provide charging speed or time data for any of the 27 EVs, including the five highlighted above. The test focused solely on range performance.
Zeekr 7X Uncertainty: As a newer model, specific charging specs for the Zeekr 7X are not widely available. Estimates are based on Zeekr’s platform trends.
Other EVs in the Test: The article mentions 27 vehicles but only names a few (e.g., Hongqi EHS7, Mercedes G-Class). Without a full list or charging data, a complete comparative table for all tested EVs is not possible.
Real-World Variability: Charging times vary due to charger availability, battery temperature, and SoC. The figures above assume ideal conditions (e.g., 350 kW charger, preconditioned battery, low SoC).
Norway’s Charging Infrastructure: Norway has ~9,000 fast chargers as of 2022, with 40% being DC fast chargers, which supports rapid charging for these EVs. However, the test doesn’t specify which chargers were used (if any) during the range test…
The NAF/Motor test was designed to measure range under real-world driving conditions, not charging performance. Charging speed tests require controlled conditions (e.g., same charger, same SoC, same temperature), which weren’t part of this range-focused experiment. To compile the table above, I relied on manufacturer specs and recent analyses from sources like Recurrent Auto and U.S. News, which provide charging data for 2025 models.
So, these charging speed data are quite problematic to compare with real-world data.
None of these facts are found in either the original Motor piece or the second-hand reporting™ by Bergens Tidende.
The lesson here, though, is as obvious as it is telling: rely on legacy media, incl. trade publications like Motor, and you’re not as well-informed as you should be.
That notion certainly applies to an even bigger gov’t-facilitated scam with regard to false labelling, racketeering, and, once more, no consequences (yet?):
My VW Golf TDI goes 1000 km on a single tank of diesel. It outputs less C02 than the equivalent gas version of the golf. I can fill up in 2min. The car cost me $20k CAD used in 2018
"In five years, the cars tested by NAF and Motor’ EV range tests have gained an average of 200 kilometres more range." What a cute phrasing. Now the batteries are bigger, the cars are even heavier, and the kids in the Congo have to work harder.
My VW Golf TDI goes 1000 km on a single tank of diesel. It outputs less C02 than the equivalent gas version of the golf. I can fill up in 2min. The car cost me $20k CAD used in 2018
"In five years, the cars tested by NAF and Motor’ EV range tests have gained an average of 200 kilometres more range." What a cute phrasing. Now the batteries are bigger, the cars are even heavier, and the kids in the Congo have to work harder.