Thank goodness all ICE vehicles always get the EPA stated MPG, and the range (miles remaining to empty) on the gas gauge is never overstated. The range figure on the gas gauge is/has been overstated more often than not on every ICE or HEV we’ve ever owned from any brand until you’re down to a quarter tank or so.
I don't know how out-of-whack the EV estimates are to real world, but I've found the EPA ratings to most of the cars I've owned to be pretty close to what I'm actually getting. Those that are new enough to have an EPA rating, that is.
However, most people might not know this, but there are actually THREE sets of EPA numbers, for ICE engines. There's the raw laboratory numbers, which is also what was posted on the window sticker, in 1984 and earlier. Then there's the "dumbed down" 1985-2007 numbers, which were an attempt to more realistically portray what people were getting in the real world. By 1985, people were driving faster, a/c was more common in cars, and so on.
Starting in 2008, the numbers were "dumbed down" again. They also revised the EPA ratings on older cars, going back through 1984.
So basically, 2008-current cars have two sets of numbers (raw and dumbed-down).
2007-1985 have THREE sets (raw, dumbed-down, double-dumbed down)
1984 has two sets (raw and double-dumbed down)
1983 and earlier only have one set (raw).
Just to show how those numbers vary, here's the ratings for the old '85 LeSabre my grandmother had, which had a 307-4bbl/4-speed overdrive automatic....
19 city/30 highway/23 combined (Raw)
17/24/19 (window sticker/dumbed down)
15/22/18 (2008+ double-dumbed down)
As for the real world, that 15/22 is probably about what I got out of it, when she gave it to me in 1999 after she couldn't pass the eye test and gave up her license. By that time, it was almost 15 years old, and had around 140,000 miles on it. It also sat around a lot, was used for a lot of ultra-short trips. I delivered pizzas with it on occasion. I also learned that, despite the Olds 307's reputation as being a slow engine, that if you shifted manually, it performed a LOT better. And, once you pegged the 85 mph speedo needle, the car actually seemed to catch its second wind. So, in short, you had to dog that car to get the current estimate.
Meanwhile, back when that car was newer, I remember Granddad had no trouble at all getting close to 30 mpg on a highway trip. The 307 had a lot of low-end torque, so it could just loaf along. Its overall gear ratio was something like 1.82:1 once it went into overdrive, so if you didn't have a heavy foot, it could be quite economical. Now I don't know what kind of "city type" mileage Granddad would have gotten out of it, but it just shows that driving style can make a big difference.
Anyway, I wonder if the EPA's estimate for EVs is similar? Do they just publish whatever raw number they get under laboratory conditions, or do they take that number and adjust it downward, so it might be more reflective of the real world?
As for misleading numbers, while nobody likes to get a car that's more of a guzzler than they were expecting, with EVs, it's a bit more crucial, at least at this point. If my car or truck runs low on fuel quicker than I anticipated, chances are there's going to be a gas station somewhat close, and 5-10 minutes later I'm on my way, with a full tank. With an EV, you have to be more on your toes about that.
Also, with EVs I notice people tend to talk more about range, but with ICE's it's all about MPG. So if you expect 400 miles out of your EV but only get 350, that 50 sounds like a big number. Meanwhile, if I'm expecting my 2012 Ram to get around 17.9 mpg but it really only gets 16.1, that doesn't sound like a HUGE difference. But that also knocks down the range of its 28 gallon tank from 500 miles to 450...again a 50 mile drop.
