330 Range ?

[rodbin]

Hi Has anyone in UK got anywhere near 330 range

Sponsored

 

[grovep]

Hi Has anyone in UK got anywhere near 330 range

There is already a similar discussion on this topic see https://www.macheforum.com/site/threads/mileage-complaint.9119/

 

[SteveUk]

Yeah I can achieve that sort of range with no heating, no aircon and no motorway use!

 

[rodbin]

Yeah I can achieve that sort of range with no heating, no aircon and no motorway use!

Well done I have done a check on journeys with no climate 60% of the journey under 50 mph
My driving record was 84% acceleration 99% speed 96% speed and my mms/KWH was 3.3 which would give total range of 290 if you increased this by the average of the deficiency from 100% say 7% it gives a total range of 310
Throughout the posts on this issue it says the problem is with the WLRT which superseded the old NEDC method and ACEA state for the WLRT over the NEDC it should provide :-

1. More realistic driving behaviour
2. Higher maximum speed
3. Different driving scenarios: urban, rural, motorway
4. Strict car set-up for comparability
5. Longer test routes
6. Realistic ambient temperatures for Europe
7. Dynamic acceleration and braking
8. Shorter stops
   
   It was also expected that the WLRT would on average be worse by 18% than the NEDC IN view of the points listed 1-7 you would expect the 330 WLRT figure for the MME AWD would with careful driving produce better than 330, which is clearly not the case with the MME and Ford could probably not believe their luck when in US the range for the AWD is 270 and In Europe its 330, different tests of course but same car. Something is wrong somewhere

 

[Andeh]

Nothing is wrong. The WLTP is a crap test with an average speed of 29mph. Drive everywhere at 29, in warm weather and you'll get your 330.

 

[portlandg]

Hi Has anyone in UK got anywhere near 330 range

I am. Having done nearly 4500 I am averaging 4.1 miles/kwh which = 360 miles if you allow for the 88kwh usable charge

 

[rodbin]

I am. Having done nearly 4500 I am averaging 4.1 miles/kwh which = 360 miles if you allow for the 88kwh usable charge

That is very good I have been driving very sedately and best I have got is 3.5

 

[Rex]

I have just driven to Scotland from the South Coast. I did all my arithmetic based on 300 miles to be safe. I achieve 320 on long journeys driving at 70mph on motorways the same way as I used to drive my Mondeo.
In order to see what I could achieve I drove at a max of 60mph on the journey to Scotland. I drove gently but not so that drivers behind me went nuts. My calculations show that I am achieving about 350 miles.

300 = 3.4 miles/kWh
320 = 3.6
350 = 3.98

 

[rodbin]

I have just driven to Scotland from the South Coast. I did all my arithmetic based on 300 miles to be safe. I achieve 320 on long journeys driving at 70mph on motorways the same way as I used to drive my Mondeo.
In order to see what I could achieve I drove at a max of 60mph on the journey to Scotland. I drove gently but not so that drivers behind me went nuts. My calculations show that I am achieving about 350 miles.

300 = 3.4 miles/kWh
320 = 3.6
350 = 3.98

Gives me encouragement

 

[SteveUk]

Well done I have done a check on journeys with no climate 60% of the journey under 50 mph
My driving record was 84% acceleration 99% speed 96% speed and my mms/KWH was 3.3 which would give total range of 290 if you increased this by the average of the deficiency from 100% say 7% it gives a total range of 310
Throughout the posts on this issue it says the problem is with the WLRT which superseded the old NEDC method and ACEA state for the WLRT over the NEDC it should provide :-

1. More realistic driving behaviour
2. Higher maximum speed
3. Different driving scenarios: urban, rural, motorway
4. Strict car set-up for comparability
5. Longer test routes
6. Realistic ambient temperatures for Europe
7. Dynamic acceleration and braking
8. Shorter stops
   
   It was also expected that the WLRT would on average be worse by 18% than the NEDC IN view of the points listed 1-7 you would expect the 330 WLRT figure for the MME AWD would with careful driving produce better than 330, which is clearly not the case with the MME and Ford could probably not believe their luck when in US the range for the AWD is 270 and In Europe its 330, different tests of course but same car. Something is wrong somewhere

I tested by logging the actual miles covered from a full charge by logging the odometer value at 100% charge then the odometer at 50%.

Then double the value to get what 100% range would be.

Not perfect but better than looking at the guessedrangeometer!

 

[SteveUk]

That is very good I have been driving very sedately and best I have got is 3.5

Turn off Eheat and aircon!

 

[Rex]

I have just driven down from Scotland and did not get the performance I got on the way up.
The temperature going up was 14C and probably higher in the week before the journey (I don't know the thermal capacity of the battery but guess it lags the air temp).
In the two weeks away the temp was more typically 6C and was on the start of the journey back down.
No E-Heat up, some on way down.
Whatever wind on the way up was a tail wind. Very strong winds down mainly head on to 45 deg.
No rain up, very heavy rain down, most of the way.

Range 100% 300 miles

 

[Rex]

I tested by logging the actual miles covered from a full charge by logging the odometer value at 100% charge then the odometer at 50%.

Then double the value to get what 100% range would be.

Not perfect but better than looking at the guessedrangeometer!

I constantly do the mental arithmetic to compare the range via my calculation vs the dash indication. I reckon on an error in the dashboard of 15-25 miles underestimate. I keep doing it as we go. I wondered if that was deliberate so you have some range at 0 miles? At least the "error" is in the safe direction.
I calculate both the 100% range and the remaining range. To "entertain" my wife I get her to do some of the sums on her iPhone calculator but usually beat her, however she has to get it out of her handbag
Easy ones to calculate are 25%, 50%, 75%, all the 10's, 33%. & 66%. The inbetweenies can be done with a bit of intelligent adjustment.

 

[rodbin]

I do similar calcs latest journey mostly at 50 because of traffic, started journey at 100% 242 mls 1747 on odometer at end of journey GOM showed 172 miles @ 70% odometer 1843 So actual mileage for journey 86. Using original Gom at 242 less 86 would be 156 but actual on GOM is 172 this is a under calc by original GOM of 16 miles which equates to 9% difference in GOM and achieved. Using this the 100% figure would be (242x9%) 264 mile actual range. The mls/kw showed 3.1 for the journey which should give a range of 272.8. Climate control for the journey was 5%. I would not want to do a journey any slower than this and it is still a long way short of the 330 Which I never expected to get but would have hoped for better than I am achieving.

 

[Rex]

18.3miles/kw. Car was only driven less than a mile to drop off my son at school.
Hope it encourages you!

I think that just demonstrates that you cannot use data associated with short journeys. I have a got a figure over 5160 miles and it is 3.6 miles/kWh.
A lot of my journeys are well within the car's range so I enjoy the performance.
Here are the totals as my miles progress
Miles Miles/kWh
1189 3.70
2050 3.66
2986 3.71
4011 3.68

Sponsored