For more fun car efficiency dimensional analysis, see Randall Munroe's take on mpg as an inverse area:
what-if.xkcd.com/11/

To rant, driving style makes a big difference in efficiency. I commute on a road with timed lights. Some people accelerate and speed on green only to stop at the next red. If I drive the speed limit, every light is green. Stopping and going is an energetic waste. Steady speed maximizes efficiency.

Steady state resistances (280 N, 63 lbs-f) at my average speed (30 mph) account for a bit less than half the average force exerted by the car. This makes sense as higher speeds have more air resistance, accelerating takes more force, there will be some losses, and the battery also runs the AC.

The car has a drag coefficient of 0.3, a cross-sectional area of 2.5 m^2, and weighs 4500 lbs. With this and some reasonable estimates for the density of air and rolling friction coefficient, at a steady 30 mph air resistance is 80 N (18 lbs-f) and rolling resistance is 200 N (45 lbs-f).

The units of mi/kWh are fun because it's a distance per energy, which is inverse force. Taking the inverse of my average efficiency (3.5 mi/kWh)^-1 gives a force of 640 N or 140 lbs-force. You can interpret this as the average force that the car exerts while it drives.

How does this compare to a gas car? Assuming gasoline density of 0.7 g/cm^3 and heat of combustion of 45 MJ/kg, a Honda Civic (40 mpg) gets 1.2 mi/kWh and a Cadillac Escalade (15 mpg) gets 0.45 mi/kWh. The EV is 2-4.5x more energy efficient than an efficient car and 5.5-12x an inefficient car.

My car's stated efficiency is 2.8 mi/kWh. My average is 3.5 mi/kWh, the worst I've seen is 2.5 mi/kWh (cold, highway driving), and I can get it up to 5.5 mi/kWh (warm, city driving). So the manufacturer gives a low estimate on range and under the right conditions you can do much better.