That's a little bit optimistic, considering that the fact that Toyota announced 40% efficiency for a new gasoline engine was big news (and that's the manufacturer claimed efficiency).
More like 30%, or so, with any luck.
That's still much too optimistic.
An ICE has 30-40%, but not an ICE in an ICE car.
The average efficiency of an ICE in a car is 14% (gas) to 19%(Diesel).
So yes, there are more than 80% losses, except in the few seconds of optimum load of the engine (when accelerating)
it's a rolling heater, so yes, it has an advantage in the winter.
This thread has an amazing amount of mixing non-comparable numbers - on both sides of the aisle.
14% efficiency number for ICE is IMHO, the efficiency through the drive train, and includes parasitic loads like power steering and alternator in addition to friction losses in the transmission, drag from the brakes and also friction losses in the tires. The numbers in the 30-50% range are measuring engine only efficiency. The manufacturers who throw these numbers around are often carefully ambiguous about things like this because the only reason for publishing such figures is marketing and for much of the audience bigger is gooder is the level of comprehension.
Some of these losses are common to EV, some are intrinsically different and some are different because of different markets.
Transmission losses are generally lower in EV due to the need for fewer gears, but there is a large variation due to layout. There is no real need for an alternator, so no comparable parasitic load in EV.
Things like brake and tire friction are in principal the same, but often yield an advantage for EV since these vehicles are generally smaller and lighter than the average ICE and are more heavily optimized for efficiency.
It takes a lot of effort to make an apples to apples comparison, and that effort is often clearly missing. The 14% efficiency number would be meaningful in a range discussion if a few other conditions were met. 1. The starting point for using the number was the total number of Joules available in the gas tank (from full to effective empty, even if that left a few liters in the tank). 2. The comparison EV was somewhat similar in market aim (small sedan vs small sedan, or ultra compact vs ultra compact). 3. A number for to the wheels efficiency for the EV were available. I don't have such a number, but assume that it is in the 60-90% range, probably on the lower half of that range. 4. The number of usable Joules in the battery were known.
Numbers on both sides of this fence could be checked by comparing the known ranges of the vehicles with the calculated values. There shouldn't be any large discrepancies.
Without such comparable numbers all these figures have as much meaning as the meaningful range extension claimed by an apparently defunct planned maker of electric vehicles through some solar panels embedded in the roof of the passenger compartment. The kindest thing you can say about such a claim is that an ignorant marketeer didn't know any better.