XPeng G6 + Caravan: Inconsistent route planning, incorrect profile handling and unrealistic trailer consumption model

Hello ABRP Team,

I would like to report several issues I encountered while using ABRP Premium with my XPeng G6 Performance (2024) towing a caravan.

Vehicle setup

- XPeng G6 Performance (2024)
- ABRP Premium
- Live connection via Enode
- Vehicle only reports SoC (no live power or consumption data)

1. The "Large trailer / Caravan" profile cannot be configured correctly

The predefined "Large trailer / Caravan" profile appears to contain a very high reference consumption (approximately 57 kWh/100 km).

The problem is that ABRP does not allow entering a realistic lower value.

The minimum selectable reference consumption is still somewhere in the 40+ kWh/100 km range, which is significantly above the real consumption of my vehicle.

My actual average consumption while towing is approximately:

30 kWh/100 km (300 Wh/km)

This value is consistently reported by the XPeng onboard computer over long trips.

Because ABRP does not allow entering this value in the trailer profile, I am forced to use the Standard profile as a workaround and manually configure:

- Reference consumption: 300 Wh/km
- Maximum speed: 90 km/h

In my opinion this is a bug, because users cannot configure measured real-world vehicle data.

I suspect the trailer profile is based on a generic consumption model with only a very limited dataset, especially for the XPeng G6 towing a caravan.

2. Vehicle profile settings are not consistently used

Even when using my manually configured Standard profile, ABRP sometimes switches internally to different values during navigation.

For example:

Configured profile:
- 300 Wh/km
- 90 km/h

Live data page:
- 295 Wh/km
- 98 km/h

These values do not match my saved profile.

3. Consumption calibration appears inconsistent

Since Enode only provides SoC for the XPeng G6, I do not believe the high consumption values originate from Enode.

Instead, I suspect ABRP derives them from its own calibration process or internal database.

This leads to contradictory results.

For example, ABRP may calibrate the vehicle to approximately 57 kWh/100 km, while simultaneously predicting route segments of around 300 km with more than 20% remaining SoC.

Those values are physically inconsistent.

4. Minimum arrival SoC is not respected

My routing settings are:

- Minimum SoC at charger: 10%
- Minimum SoC at destination: 9%

During navigation ABRP repeatedly predicted arrivals at chargers with 0% or even -1% SoC, without recalculating the charging plan.

Suggestion

I believe ABRP should allow users to enter any realistic measured reference consumption, regardless of whether a trailer profile is selected.

When confidence in automatic calibration is low (my calibration confidence is only 38%), manually entered values should take precedence over estimated values.

This would make route planning considerably more reliable for vehicles towing caravans, especially for less common vehicle/trailer combinations where little historical calibration data is available.

I have attached screenshots illustrating the issues.

Thank you for looking into this.

Best regards,

Stefan Schadick