That I don't know.
But I do know that if you were to take two identical EVs with the same charge to the Nordschleife, drive one around it sedately and the hammer the other one round on the ragged edge you'd cover the same distance but the 2nd one would have used more charge.
Ergo there is the potential to extend the range of a car by limiting its performance.
Yes, of course it would - as would an ICE, given the same treatment. But when you look at more "real world" usage, there's very little in it. My car is a good example, because BMW tried exactly that. Mine (which was bottom-of-the-range at the time), has an 80 kWh battery, 335 horsepower and an (official) energy consumption of 3.57 miles to the kWh. Kerb weight of 2125 kg
BMW then brought out a lower spec one, with a smaller battery and less power. Otherwise, an identical car. It had a 70 kWh battery, 280 horsepower, official energy consumption of 3.63 miles to the kWh and a kerb weight of 2075 kg.
So as you can see, the average energy consumption is hardly any different. That's because in everyday usage, they're not getting pasted round "the Ring" all day. That's one of the things it was hardest to get my head round with EVs at first. A very powerful ICE car, is likely to be pretty thirsty - even when driven gently. This is particularly true of petrol cars, whose volumetric efficiency goes down the toilet at small throttle openings. With an EV, the drivetrain efficiency is incredibly high, and doesn't really alter much with throttle position, so you can have a really powerful one with little downside in "real life" energy consumption where they're not being thrashed.
Of course, both are still "thirstier" (in EV terms) than (say) a Citroen Ami or a Dacia Spring, and I agree that nobody really "needs" 300 horse, but for as long as the motor car has existed, people have wanted a choice of power outputs and performance envelopes. EVs aren't going to change that.
