Real-world electric-car test results, ranked. Highway 1000 km time, steady-speed consumption and kerb weight — measured, not brochure figures.
All figures are Bjørn Nyland's own measured tests, not manufacturer WLTP/EPA claims. The 1000 km challenge is a fixed long-distance drive (driving time including charging stops). Consumption is measured at a steady 90 or 120 km/h. Weight is measured kerb weight on a scale.
You asked for a WLTP consumption ranking. Nyland's sheet doesn't contain WLTP consumption — only real-world consumption at 90 and 120 km/h (shown here) and, on other tabs, WLTP range vs achieved range. Official WLTP consumption would have to come from manufacturer sites as a labelled secondary source. Say the word and I'll add it.
Consumption depends heavily on temperature. Each car's figure is the mean of its summer tests where available; cars with only winter data are tagged, and winter values run higher. Use "Summer only" for the fairest comparison. The 1000 km challenge is run year-round, so its times carry a cold-weather tag where the test average was below 0 °C.
Swap = Nio battery-swap run (not charging). Trailer = towing (much slower; excluded from the yearly trend). H₂ = hydrogen Toyota Mirai. The fossil reference (Nissan X-Trail e-Power, 8:35) is the benchmark line, not an EV, and is excluded from every EV ranking and from the trend average.
Only runs with a dated test and a battery EV are averaged per year; trailer, hydrogen, bus and the fossil car are excluded. The best of year line goes a step further and ignores Nio battery-swap runs, so it reflects genuine charging performance. Early years rest on few tests, so 2019–2020 swing on a handful of cars — hover a year on the chart to read its average and best.
The pinned amber row is the Nissan X-Trail e-Power e-4orce. Its 1000 km time (8:35) is Nyland's own. Its weight (1903 kg) and fuel use (6.1 L/100 km combined) are maker spec from carsales.com.au (retrieved 2026-10-28), not Nyland tests. The ≈543 Wh/km shown on the consumption tabs is a derived tank-to-wheel energy equivalent (petrol ≈ 8.9 kWh/L); it is a combined rating, not a steady-speed test, so treat it as a rough energy benchmark rather than a like-for-like number. On the Range tab the fossil reference shows ≈902 km, from a 55 L tank (user-provided) at that same 6.1 L/100 km combined rating — again a rating, not a steady-speed test. EV ranges on the 90/120 tabs are Nyland's measured distances from the sheet; eco ranges are achieved distances from the Sunday drive.
The "Eco drive" view is Nyland's "Sunday drive" — the same cars driven gently to minimise consumption. Values are whole-drive Wh/km (not a fixed speed); achieved range and the gap over the WLTP figure are shown per car.
Practicality is measured in banana boxes, Bjørn Nyland's signature unit: how many standard banana boxes fit in the boot. "Seats up" is the normal boot; "Seats folded" is with the rear seats down. More boxes = more practical. Some cars have only one of the two figures. Where the sheet gives two numbers, such as "17+4" (boot plus frunk), they are added together. Vans and MPVs (VW e-Crafter, ID Buzz, Mifa 9, EQV, and the like) are tagged "van / MPV" — they carry far more, so they top the list; use the filter to exclude them for a car-only comparison. There is no fossil reference here — the X-Trail wasn't box-tested.
Each ranking is kept within its own source tab and is not merged across tabs, because the same model appears under slightly different variant names (battery size, drivetrain, model year) and merging would mix variants. "Implied range" in the consumption view is derived (usable kWh ÷ consumption) at that steady speed — it is not WLTP range.
Prototype for review, built from a live read of the public sheet. Open the raw rankings as CSV in the files sent alongside this page.