The Environmental Protection Agency has tested the Coda Sedan and officially determined it to have the longest range for an all-electric vehicle that doesn't carry a Tesla Motors badge: 88 miles. On the EPA's test cycle, the car gets 73 miles per gallon equivalent. That breaks down to 77 in the city and 68 on the highway.

According to Coda Automotive, the Coda EV's 88-mile range is class-leading (this number is not yet up on the EPA site, but we have it on good authority), however, Coda is still using "up to 125 miles" in its marketing materials because it believes drivers will likely be able to get more than the EPA estimate with sensible driving and agreeable weather.

How does this compare with other plug-ins? Well, the Ford Focus Electric gets 105 MPGe and has a range of 76 miles. The 2012 Chevrolet Volt gets 94 MPGe, the Toyota Prius Plug-In Hybrid gets 95 MPGe, the Nissan Leaf gets 99 MPGe and has an all electric range of 73 miles and the Mitsubishi i is rated at 112 MPGe with a 62-mile range. The long-distance runner in the EV class is the Tesla Roadster 2.0, which officially gets 119 MPGe and can go for 245 miles.

The EPA says the Coda EV requires 46 kWh of energy per 100 miles (combined), which is a bit higher than the car's competitors. The Leaf, for example, needs 34 while the Mitsubishi sips just 30 kWh.

*UPDATE: Added official EPA label below.

coda sedan epa label


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 110 Comments
      Greg Y
      • 7 Months Ago
      http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/evsbs.shtml OK, either this article is screwed up, or the Fed website. The EPA website says that FORD has a 46kW/100 mile usage, while the CODA is only 32 compared with 34 on the Leaf. Furthermore, it lists the CODA at 105MPGe combined, not 73, although range is at least right with 88miles, which is still 15 or so miles better than anyone else except Tesla. Further, why are you folks even talking about the Volt, it's not an EV, calling an extended range EV a pure EV is somewhat semantics, because when a pure EV runs out of juice in the middle of Kansas, you're truly dead in the water. With an extended range, could one not run the motor for a while and build up a recharge, plus you are still using an internal combustion engine to extend the range of an otherwise insufficient battery, which defeats the purpose of an EV, i.e, not using gasoline or emitting CO and other pollutants.
        Grendal
        • 7 Months Ago
        @Greg Y
        Greg Y is right. If you go to the EPA mileage site it says the Coda is 105MPGe not 73. Sebastian says Coda Automotive is the reference. If they messed this up themselves, this is beyond incompetence. But I just visited their site and didn't see any reference to the EPA and official ratings.
        JakeY
        • 7 Months Ago
        @Greg Y
        The correct number is here: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=32277 That link just has the Ford Focus numbers and the Coda numbers swapped. Here's the numbers for the Focus EV: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=32278
          Grendal
          • 7 Months Ago
          @JakeY
          Here's a side by side comparison chart that's screwed up: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/evsbs.shtml The EPA fuel economy numbers are swapped with the FFE along with the annual fuel cost. Oddly, the Cost to Drive 25 Miles, Miles on a Charge, Time to Charge Battery are all correct. Now where's the "see how Obama is wasting our tax dollars for hiring incompetent government workers!" crowd? :)
      Peder Norby
      • 7 Months Ago
      The BMW ActiveE is EPA rated at 94mile range and 102MPGe. The Coda is way way below those numbers, I guess that's what engineering is all about. Here is the EPA sticker for the ActiveE http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qDvGpXO1aBQ/TxOsTCmNSHI/AAAAAAAAA98/7p3lEpwpEf8/s400/ActiveE+010.jpg As a driver of the ActiveE, I have no problems getting 110-120 miles per charge in mixed everyday driving at everyday speeds. I would estimate that the BMW ActiveE is 15%-20% higher than the Mini-E. All of this while impressive, will go to a much higher level with the BMW i-3 coming late 2013. That car will be 1300lbs lighter than the ActiveE shedding a full1/3rd of the weight thus a corresponding increase in the MPGe number. Here's a great post about the range of the ActiveE from another driver. http://electragirl.com/oh-what-a-beautiful-day/ Cheers!
        Peter
        • 7 Months Ago
        @Peder Norby
        You are comparing German engineering from BMW against Chinese/American from unknowns and a car that costs more than BMW can sell a 1 series for, against one that can be bought for $37,250.
        Greg Y
        • 7 Months Ago
        @Peder Norby
        I'll give BMW credit for their lease plan, going to be hard to beat $500/month. However, this is only for the duration of the test fleet that is being leased, these are not vehicles that you can buy and own, so what will the real price be after they do go on sale? I guarantee it will not be less than the $37,000 for a CODA, and for which you gain 6 miles. Granted, handling and styling are better and there will always be the crowd that will buy it simply for the BMW badge.
      JeremyD
      • 7 Months Ago
      I have been following EVs for quite some time... even expressed my interest in the Coda after the price drop... now with this and the Chinese cells... hell no! The focus looks like the EV to buy now, while the Volt looks like the extended range EV to buy... mostly because they still have no direct competition.
        Greg Y
        • 7 Months Ago
        @JeremyD
        Jeremy, where do you think components for the Volt come from? If you said "China or south of the Border" then you'd be right. Also, pretty much every electronic gadget including the computer you posted this thread on (including Apple) is built in China. And sorry, i won't buy a FORD, even though I agree their new cars are sharp looking. Coming from the automotive supply business and being a direct supplier to Ford on numerous new product launches only to watch them force us, and other companies to move to Mexico, compared to transplants like Toyota and Hyundai who actually encourage manufacturing in the states, Ford and GM can kiss my...
        Grendal
        • 7 Months Ago
        @JeremyD
        I'll make that three for the Leaf over the FFE. The Leaf also has lots of cars on the road testing the technology. Improvements have already been made while the FFE is starting from scratch.
        Spec
        • 7 Months Ago
        @JeremyD
        I'd go with the Leaf over the Focus. Nissan has spent far more time developing and refining the technology. And it is cheaper too!
        2 Wheeled Menace
        • 7 Months Ago
        @JeremyD
        I'd go with the Leaf as well. It's a more polished product, it's cheaper, and you get room in the back ... only downside to me is the looks.
      EZEE
      • 7 Months Ago
      Me again.... It occurs to me that when looking at price and range between this, the volt, the focus, and the leaf - the volt just keeps looking better and better. Right now simply the most practical vehicle for the most people. I would still opt for the Prius C (cheap SOB that I am), but the Volt would be the dream car. Hopefully gen 2 can get the price down a bit....
        EVnerdGene
        • 7 Months Ago
        @EZEE
        do you guys know the Volt is "premium fuel only" ? 20+ cents per gallon more
        carney373
        • 7 Months Ago
        @EZEE
        Go to agree. I just desperately wish GM had kept its promise to make the Volt flex fuel.
          Jim McL
          • 7 Months Ago
          @carney373
          I wonder if it has to do with how hygroscopic E85 is? While the E96 that they use in Brazil (4% water) is not corrosive at all, mixing in 15% gasoline as the US does can generate formic acid when the fuel absorbs moisture and the engine is only run for short times, as the Volt might do.
          EZEE
          • 7 Months Ago
          @carney373
          Odd they didn't. It really doesn't take that much to handle the conversion (ford had the ancient Vulcan V6 converted over for the Ranger, for goodness sake).
        Spec
        • 7 Months Ago
        @EZEE
        Yeah, if they can just refine the Volt a little bit more and get the costs down a bit more, it could be a real winner. Replace that iron block with a more efficient and lighter gas engine. And hopefully Envia comes through on those cheaper cells.
        2 Wheeled Menace
        • 7 Months Ago
        @EZEE
        The disappointing part of it all is that Coda seemed like they would have filled the gap between the ~75 mile EVs and the Tesla Roadster (200? 250 mile range? i forget.. ). Someone needs to step up to the plate and make a $40k >100 mile EV..
      Dan Frederiksen
      • 3 Years Ago
      the difference from 73 to 105 of the ford is substantial and the ford is not exactly an ultralight. the ford is 43% better. that's 43% more battery you get for free. that's costly missed opportunity.
      elctrNmbliT
      • 7 Months Ago
      Maybe what they aren't telling us is that it has a very twitchy accelerator and does 0-60 in 4 flat. I kid.
        Greg Y
        • 7 Months Ago
        @elctrNmbliT
        don't know about the 4 second part, but even with 4 adults in it, it had pretty decent acceleration for an "econobox", I was pleasantly surprised. Sounds like it's back to the drawing board to squeeze out some efficiencies in power management to get that 46kW/h down....
      EVnerdGene
      • 7 Months Ago
      @SVX The EV1 had airbags. A jewel of a car. The CODA ?
      JakeY
      • 7 Months Ago
      That "official" sticker seems to be iffy (the font for the numbers is all wrong and misaligned). But anyways, it looks like the numbers are out on the fuel economy website: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=32277 It really is 46kWh/100 mi. I wonder what the reason is. The weight is actually quite decent at 3670 lbs (vs ~3400lbs for the Leaf and ~3800lbs for the Volt). http://www.codaautomotive.com/pdf/11_CODA_PressKit_Info_Final.pdf The drag coefficient likely isn't that bad either (the 95 Mitsubishi Carisma had a cd of 0.29; the Coda is based on the Hafei Saibao which was based on the Carisma). http://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/car/?car=29260 Only two possible reasons: 1) Drivetrain is really inefficient 2) Onboard charger is really inefficient (keep in mind the EPA efficiency numbers are plug-to-wheel, which means it includes charging losses) 3) The "active air thermal management system" uses a lot of extra energy It seems like #2 and #3 is more likely. The battery-to-wheel efficiency is 31kWh/88mi = 35.2kWh/100mi, which isn't too bad. Leaf is 24kWh/73mi =32.9kWh/100mi. Note I'm aware the Leaf doesn't use the whole capacity (probably true for the Coda too) but the full capacity is enough to give a good estimate.
        Dan Frederiksen
        • 7 Months Ago
        @JakeY
        hmm I could have sworn the Leaf weighed 1700kg but multiple sources now indicate it's a little over 1500. wasn't there confusion about how quick its acceleration is too? some said over 10 seconds, others said 7. infact checking both nissanusa, nissan zeroemission and the danish site I had to dig deep to find a weight and on none of them could I find acceleration spec. there was a claimed Cd of 0.29 which for a purpose built EV isn't entirely impressive.
        2 Wheeled Menace
        • 7 Months Ago
        @JakeY
        You forgot voltage sag. If the EPA is including plug to wheel, and the voltage is dropping under load, that is basically turning tons of wHrs into heat. This is a factor with all electric cars on the market today. In fact most battery packs are designed this way intentionally, losing 5-15% of the watt hours to heat from internal resistance. I'll bet you that they are using some cells that are really stretching the C rate. Thermal management doesn't use a lot of energy, about 1000W in the worst situation. I guess we can play armchair engineer all day, but the consensus is that they dropped the ball.
          JakeY
          • 7 Months Ago
          @2 Wheeled Menace
          "If the EPA is including plug to wheel, and the voltage is dropping under load, that is basically turning tons of wHrs into heat." I don't think sag during discharge will be that big an issue, since the average load likely won't draw from the battery at much more than 1C. At 1C, the nominal rating of the battery pack should be a fairly good approximation. ~30-40kW is good enough for 80mph, and the 31kWh pack @1C = 31kW. http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/roadster-efficiency-and-range Plus I don't see why the Coda should be much more affected by this than other EVs.
          2 Wheeled Menace
          • 7 Months Ago
          @2 Wheeled Menace
          You can still get major sag at 1C, on say, a 3C battery. If you have experimented with any lithium batteries, you would know that batteries perform awful at their rated C, and are best used at 1/4th of their rated C or less. For this reason, i run a very oversized, high C rate pack at a low C rate ( 2C on a 20C rated cell ). This ensures that i get >99.5% energy efficiency. If i ran my pack at 10-15C, i'd be getting more like 90% efficiency or even lower, due to heat buildup. I'd almost bet you money that Coda is running some crap Chinese cells with an exaggerated C rate. They never mentioned their battery supplier - wonder why? Tesla's setup uses a gigantic battery for a reason - the cells are around 1C capable but can burst higher since they are cooled. That's why the Model S gets a better 0-60 time the bigger the battery is. if your 30-40kW number is correct, then the Tesla is using their batteries at 0.5-0.75C nominally, and the pack also liquid cooled, which could explain why those dopey Panasonic 18650's don't blow up after a year :)
      Ryan
      • 3 Years Ago
      460 Watts per mile sounds very high. The EV1 was 160-200 Watts per mile. And the S10 and Ranger EVs were something like 250-300 W per mile. The Volt and leaf are in the 300's if I remember right. They really need to get the price down on this car. The problem is that I can go on a used car lot and get a Saturn Ion or SL2 that is a few years old for $6,000. It is a hard sell.
        Sasparilla Fizz
        • 7 Months Ago
        @Ryan
        Thanks for those numbers Ryan I always wondered what the EV1's numbers were in comparison to our current day EV's. Your right though, take that SL2 and have it converted to an EV and you'll still probably get better efficiency numbers (if you use Li)...
        Neil Blanchard
        • 7 Months Ago
        @Ryan
        Yes, and the Cd on the EV1 was 0.19. This car is lucky if it gets a Cd of 0.31-0.33, what with the open wheels, and boxy shape. Folks, remember the SIM-LEI? Super efficient hub motors, Cd 0.19 and nearly 190 miles on a battery just a bit larger than the Leaf. 0-60MPH in 4.8 seconds! MPGe would well over 200MPGe http://green.autoblog.com/2011/12/30/sim-lei-ev-electric-vehicle/ Neil
        Spec
        • 7 Months Ago
        @Ryan
        Yeah, that efficiency sucks. I wonder if the big battery pack is making it very heavy and thus reducing the efficiency. And the aerodynamics of a kludgy sedan probably don't help. And I think a lot of people are going to be disappointed when Tesla Model S is given official numbers . . . they are constrained by the same laws of physics as everyone else.
      • 7 Months Ago
      Has the same window sticker been posted for the Ford Focus BEV for comparison?
        Gwido
        • 7 Months Ago
        http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=32278
      Herm
      • 3 Years Ago
      Could also be very high housekeeping energy usage.. such as conditioning the battery
        Neil Blanchard
        • 7 Months Ago
        @Herm
        The Tesla Roadster and the Volt have active cooling while driving, if I understand it correctly. Neil
        2 Wheeled Menace
        • 7 Months Ago
        @Herm
        Conditioning the battery occurs during charging, and stops as soon as you take it off the charger. Sorry, but that theory is not probable.
          Greg Y
          • 7 Months Ago
          @2 Wheeled Menace
          I think Herm is referring to climate control on the battery which can be active at any time dependent upon external ambient temperature. That's the whole purpose of the system, to maintain a steady state temp for the battery, in order to have a more consistent range regardless of season.
          jeffwishart
          • 7 Months Ago
          @2 Wheeled Menace
          The conditioning that occurs during charging may also be adding to the consumption numbers. That Wh/mile is in AC, not DC, so the total power drawn from the grid by the EVSE is what is used to get the consumption numbers.
      bearfriend
      • 3 Years Ago
      I think this article went really light on them. These numbers are terrible. "...a bit higher..."? That's more than 35% higher! Or about 75% as efficient. That's effing horrible. I really bought they'd do a lot better than this. Yesterday I would have considered buying one. They're a complete joke in my book now.
        SVX pearlie
        • 7 Months Ago
        @bearfriend
        Not that much different from "Nissan miles" in the Leaf (in Nissan's vie en rose, 73 real-world miles stretches to 100 niles). Or "Fisker mileage" in the Karma, where 32 real-world miles is actually 50 miles. So like the rest, Coda only gets about 60-75% of what their marketing team claimed.
          JakeY
          • 7 Months Ago
          @SVX pearlie
          That's a different issue. Right now dg is talking purely about the EPA efficiency number, 46kWh/100 miles, which is terrible. This number is independent of the battery pack size and the range. Anyways, right now the numbers are kind of fishy. If this was the 31kWh pack, the pack efficiency given the 88mi range would work out to 31kWh/88mi=35kWh/100mi. If this as the 36kWh pack, 36kWh/88mi = 41kWh/100mi. The charging efficiency must be fairly bad if it uses up (46-45) 9kWh/100mi or (46-41) 5kWh/100 mi. I'll wait for the official EPA sticker.
          2 Wheeled Menace
          • 7 Months Ago
          @SVX pearlie
          Discharging efficiency could be really bad ( tons of voltage sag ) Motor could be particularly low RPM.. electric motors like super high RPMs.. Could be a low voltage / high amperage situation where there are lots of losses due to the amperage.. All i know is that they seriously dropped the ball somewhere.
        SVX pearlie
        • 7 Months Ago
        @bearfriend
        @Jake: Sorry, I was just looking at AER numbers EPA vs claimed: 88 / 125 = 70%, or "about 75". 125 / 88 = 142%, or "more than 35% higher".
    • Load More Comments