MSN’s roundup of “The 15 electric cars with the longest range” landed in readers’ feeds this week and — as with every range leaderboard — it has reignited the perennial debate: which EVs actually go the farthest in real life, and how much can you trust on-paper figures? The item the user supplied via the Google News feed mirrors a syndicated gallery that lists the current long‑range EV contenders, but it mixes different test cycles and manufacturer claims in a way that demands closer scrutiny.
This feature decodes that list for WindowsForum readers: a clear summary of the vehicles named, an explanation of the measurement differences that matter (EPA vs WLTP vs manufacturer test cycles), verification of the load‑bearing claims using independent sources, and a practical, risk‑aware guide to what “long range” really means for everyday driving and long trips.
Background: why range numbers are messy and why that matters
Range numbers are headline‑friendly, but they are not a single truth. Two basic realities drive confusion.
- Different test cycles (EPA in the U.S., WLTP in Europe, CLTC in China) produce very different numbers for the same car. WLTP and CLTC tend to be more optimistic than EPA because of test conditions and assumptions.
- Manufacturer press figures sometimes reflect best‑case configurations, proprietary test protocols, or pre‑production estimates that haven’t been validated by regulators or independent testers. Those estimates can appear in lists without clear labeling, which amplifies confusion.
Why this matters to buyers: an EV advertised as “450 miles” under WLTP may realistically deliver 300–370 miles in mixed U.S. driving. That gap affects trip planning, charger selection, total cost of ownership projections, and whether a given EV will work as a primary long‑distance vehicle.
Overview of the MSN / syndicated gallery list
The gallery published under the headline “The 15 electric cars with the longest range” (as surfaced in the supplied feed) compiles models from luxury sedans to full‑size pickups and large SUVs. The list emphasizes top headline figures — the very high numbers that attract clicks — but does not consistently specify which test cycle produced each figure. The same gallery appears to be published by MoveElectric and syndicated on sites like MSN; the MoveElectric piece is the most accessible online mirror and contains the specific model entries and quoted ranges. Key patterns in the gallery:
- Luxury sedans and large battery platforms dominate the top slots (Lucid, Mercedes, Audi).
- Several large SUVs and pickups appear with very high claimed ranges — these are often manufacturer or WLTP numbers rather than EPA‑certified figures.
- The gallery mixes models that use different testing standards without consistently labeling the cycle, which makes direct comparisons misleading.
The top entries (what the list actually says — and what independent checks show)
Below are the most load‑bearing claims from the gallery, with verification and context. Where possible, two independent sources are used to validate each high‑profile claim.
Lucid Air (Grand Touring / Pure) — headline range claims and reality
- What the gallery lists: Lucid Air variants appear at or near the top of the list with ranges quoted in the 500+ mile band.
- Verification: Independent range trackers and specialist compilations regularly place the Lucid Air Grand Touring or Air Pure at the top of EPA‑rated range leaderboards — EPA figures for certain Lucid trims have been published in the high‑400s to low‑500s (manufacturer and EPA figures vary by trim and battery). ElectricCarWiki and other consolidated EV resources list Lucid among the highest EPA ranges.
- Caveat: Lucid’s top numbers are tied to specific battery and drivetrain choices; the real‑world range depends heavily on speed, temperature, and accessory use. Buyers should check the exact EPA certification for the trim they intend to purchase.
Mercedes‑Benz EQS (EQS 450+/EQS 580 etc. — big WLTP numbers vs EPA reality
- What the gallery lists: The EQS appears with very large range claims — often in the mid‑400s, numbers that align with WLTP figures in some markets.
- Verification: U.S. EPA figures for some EQS trims are lower than WLTP claims; cross‑check with KBB and other U.S. outlets shows the common delta between WLTP and EPA here. 247WallSt and KBB both list the EQS among long‑range models but report lower U.S. figures than some European WLTP claims.
- Caveat: If an MSN/MoveElectric figure references WLTP, U.S. buyers should not expect the same number on the EPA label.
Chevrolet Silverado EV — a truck that headlines huge numbers
- What the gallery lists: The Silverado EV appears with extremely large range figures (the gallery references the pickup’s most efficient spec).
- Verification: Chevrolet advertises very large battery capacities and long EPA ranges for high‑end Silverado EV specs. In addition, Car and Driver recently documented a hypermiling record run where a Silverado EV covered over 1,000 miles on a single charge — a carefully executed endurance run, not a standard EPA result. That record is notable but not representative of everyday use.
- Caveat: The 1,000‑mile-plus record was achieved under special conditions and strategies (very low average speed, drafting, hypermiling techniques). Do not equate that record with the vehicle’s EPA rating or normal expected range.
Audi A6 E‑tron, Volkswagen ID.7, Porsche Taycan, Rivian R1S/R1T, Tesla Model S — where they sit
- What the gallery lists: Audi’s A6 e‑tron, Volkswagen ID.7 Pro S, and Porsche Taycan variants are included with headline figures ranging from the high 300s to mid‑400s (depending on cycle and trim). Rivian and Tesla variants also appear with large numbers.
- Verification: These models are consistently flagged by aggregated EV lists (ElectricCarWiki, car magazines) as among the long‑range producers when configured with the largest battery packs. Their EPA ranges vary significantly by configuration, and independent testers (Car and Driver, MotorTrend) often record real‑world numbers that are lower than WLTP/manufacturer claims.
- Caveat: The gallery’s ordering can change depending on whether WLTP or EPA numbers are used; always check the specific cycle.
What the gallery got right — notable strengths
- The list correctly surfaces the obvious trend: in 2025–2026, large‑battery luxury EVs and optimized aerodynamics are producing ranges previously unimaginable in mass‑market cars. The top positions reflect real engineering gains in energy density, thermal management, and drivetrain efficiency.
- It highlights a cross‑segment shift: pickups and SUVs (e.g., Silverado EV, Rivian variants) are now competitive on range with sedans — a meaningful change from earlier EV generations. The Silverado’s engineering (very large pack options) is a concrete example.
- For readers who want a high‑level snapshot, the gallery functions as a quick discovery tool — it collects the current “big range” names in one place.
Where the gallery falls short — the risks and omissions
- Mixed test cycles without transparent labeling: the gallery too often presents range numbers without explicitly stating “WLTP” vs “EPA” vs “manufacturer estimate.” That omission systematically inflates perceived parity between models and misleads readers who apply U.S. expectations to WLTP numbers. This is the single biggest interpretive risk.
- Lack of context for extreme claims: notable headlines — such as hypermiling runs or manufacturer target figures — are sometimes placed alongside EPA labels. A real‑world hypermiling record (Car and Driver’s Silverado report) is not an EPA certification and should be contextualized as a demonstration, not a practical metric for typical owners.
- Battery capacity vs usable capacity: a listed “kWh” or “battery size” number is rarely the same as usable energy. Some brands quote gross pack size; others quote usable kWh. That distinction materially affects how the number translates to miles. The gallery rarely clarifies which figure is used.
- Charging rates and energy consumption are absent: range is only one axis of long‑distance usability. Charging network access, sustained DC charge rates, and energy consumed per mile (kWh/100 mi) are critical for realistic trip planning, and they are unevenly referenced in the gallery.
How to read any “longest range” list like a pro — a practical checklist
- Confirm the test cycle: look for EPA (U.S., WLTP (Europe), or CLTC (China). If the article does not say, treat the figure as likely optimistic for U.S. roads.
- Check the specific trim and battery: maximum range figures usually apply only to the largest battery / most efficient motorization. If you plan to buy a lower trim, expect materially less range.
- Look for independent testing: trusted outlets (Car and Driver, MotorTrend, KBB) publish real‑world tests that are usually closer to buyer experience than WLTP numbers. Cross‑check headline claims there.
- Factor climate and speed: cold weather and sustained highway speeds reduce range more than city or moderate driving. A rough rule: expect 10–30% lower range on long highway trips or in winter conditions, depending on vehicle and battery thermal systems.
- Consider charging infrastructure and charging speed: a long‑range EV with slow charging or poor network coverage may still be worse for road trips than a slightly shorter‑range car with a dense fast‑charging network.
Short, actionable buyer guidance (prioritized)
- If you regularly do coast‑to‑coast trips without relying on slow destination charging, prioritize EPA‑rated range and fast sustained DC charge power over headline WLTP numbers. Use independent road‑test data to plan actual routes.
- If you live in a cold climate, give extra weight to battery thermal management, not just pack size. Some EVs lose mzero conditions than others.
- For fleets and commercial users, model duty cycles: heavier loads, rooftop racks, and repeated high‑speed driving will drop range significantly. Plan charging infrastructure accordingly.
A frank word on “range racing” and buyer expectations
Long‑range leaderboards are useful marketing fodder, but they are a poor substitute for informed purchase decisions. Two specific caveats are essential:
- Records and demo runs are not consumer benchmarks. The Silverado EV’s 1,000+‑mile demonstration was a controlled exercise that used low average speeds and optimized driving techniques — impressive engineering, but not a consumer expectation.
- Test cycles evolve. Some models on the gallery are reported using WLTP or manufacturer targets that may never become EPA numbers in the U.S. market. Until EPA labels are posted and independent long‑distance tests are performed, treat such claims as provisional.
Conclusion — how to use the MSN/MoveElectric gallery responsibly
The MSN‑syndicated gallend which manufacturers are pushing range limits, and it serves well as a discovery list. However, it is not a substitute for buying research. The featured models — Lucid, Mercedes, Audi, Porsche, Rivian, Tesla, and Chevrolet among them — represent real engineering achievements; their headline numbers are rooted in advances in battery chemistry, 800–900V electrical architecture, and aerodynamic design. Those claims are real, but their practical value to an individual buyer depends on test cycle, trim, charging capability, and the driving conditions they expect to face. Practical next steps for anyone who clicked the gallery:
- Use the gallery to shortlist models.
- Confirm the test cycle (EPA vs WLTP) for your market.
- Read two independent road tests (Car and Driver, MotorTrend or KBB) for real‑world range figures.
- If possible, test drive in your typical conditions and plan one representative long trip using public chargers to validate route feasibility.
The range race is real and exciting — it expands what electric vehicles can do — but in practical ownership,
verified EPA numbers, independent road tests, and charging strategy matter far more than a headline mile‑figure from a syndicated gallery.
- Quick reference: reputable publications and databases worth consulting when you evaluate any “longest range” claim
- Car and Driver (real‑world tests and reporting).
- Kelley Blue Book (consumer‑oriented EPA comparisons).
- ElectricCarWiki and other specialist aggregators for compiling test cycle variations.
- National EPA registrations and the manufacturer’s U.S. spec pages for official labels.
- The syndicated gallery itself as a discovery tool, keeping in mind the need to verify cycles.
This appraisal summarizes the gallery’s central claims, cross‑checks the most visible examples against independent reporting, and flags the principal measurement and interpretive risks buyers face. Treat long‑range lists as a starting point — not the final word — and use independent EPA labels and real‑world tests to form purchase decisions that match how you actually drive.
Source: MSN
https://www.msn.com/en-ae/news/othe...=696aacc7532c49bebe542fc9221095f9&ocid=hpmsn]