My 2021 Mach-E received 91 kWh upgrade (useable at 100% SoC)

[nvabill]

I am unsure of exactly which update unlocked it, but after applying all updates in FDRS, my car now has 91kwh useable at 100% SoC.

I did reach out to a contact at Ford and got permission to share that yes the car does in fact have 91kwh useable now. However, the extra 3kwh has been added as a buffer below 0 on the GOM so that you can still drive a short distance after 0.

I thought I'd start a discussion on this as it seems to be a weird way to add in the extra capacity. It feels like the people that made this decision were trying to make it more like an ICE vehicle where you still have some range after you hit empty. However, I don't think EV drivers are normally driving their cars past 0 miles and would much rather have this capacity in the normal useable range.

Isn't this exactly as the 22's are configured, always leaving a buffer below 0 miles range remaining? To regularly use this additional power would be detrimental to the batteries therefore it is in reserve, am I correct on this?

Sponsored

 

[Neil4Real]

Isn't this exactly as the 22's are configured, always leaving a buffer below 0 miles range remaining? To regularly use this additional power would be detrimental to the batteries therefore it is in reserve, am I correct on this?

There is still a buffer, on both the top and bottom of the remaining 7.7 kWh (98.7 kWh gross battery size), with most of the buffer being on the bottom. It is not advisable to let your car get to 0% and/or stay there for an extended period of time, but if you do use these extra kWhs that have been "unlocked" to get to a charger and not be stranded, you do still have a bottom buffer when you actually fully stall with no more juice.

I would assume Ford's thinking is that it is extremely rare people will need to utilize these extra 3 kWhs of battery so, most of the time, they still act as an additional buffer since 99% of people won't even realize they have access to this emergency power, so to speak, since the GOM and on screen battery percentage doesn't take it into account.

 

[Shayne]

No.

What I’m saying is that it can be divided by a percentage. And that’s exactly what Ford displays on your % gauge.

But what I’m also saying is that the percentage is not exact.

We aren’t dealing with exact science here, no matter how closely you measure it.

The math is NOT exact. “100%” changes constantly and again is still just a guess. Batteries aren’t like gas tanks where you can measure exact volume.

Just read some of the threads about the scan logs or get your own scanner and you’ll see.

No clue what you’re saying about the % display throwing off your math. The car does the math for you with range til empty. You don’t need to figure math based on 99 or 100% charge and shouldn’t be trying to do that math anyways. Do you plan your trips where a 1% difference in displayed charge will matter? I hope not.

I thought no one is to trust the GOM ?. As noted some are more comfortable with a gauge and the odometer, the math is not hard and it should be where the GOM cals starts.

Pretty sure this is not science and just poor programing. If you travel 25 miles in the first percentage (100 to 99 = 1%) what would you calculate you should get for 100% (2500 miles range)? Since that first % is off the following math is also as it is based on it (error will get progressively less over distance). Only way percentage works is if it is linear at least in the ballpark.

You need to charge yours to 100% and tell me what distance was traveled on your "odometer" when yours drops to 99%. I have the same observation as Bjørn Nyland had when he tested the vehicle so I thought everyone's is like that because of his vid; may be not?

As noted a bit of a bug. Ford maybe looking to get more involved in tech and may embrace public observations to make their product better or may just defend and not listen? Not a game changer just another glitch.

 

[nvabill]

There is still a buffer, on both the top and bottom of the remaining 7.7 kWh (98.7 kWh gross battery size), with most of the buffer being on the bottom. It is not advisable to let your car get to 0% and/or stay there for an extended period of time, but if you do use these extra kWhs that have been "unlocked" to get to a charger and not be stranded, you do still have a bottom buffer when you actually fully stall with no more juice.

I would assume Ford's thinking is that it is extremely rare people will need to utilize these extra 3 kWhs of battery so, most of the time, they still act as an additional buffer since 99% of people won't even realize they have access to this emergency power, so to speak, since the GOM and on screen battery percentage doesn't take it into account.

Ok I forgot there was more than 91 kwh in the batteries.

 

[Mach1E]

I thought no one is to trust the GOM ?. As noted some are more comfortable with a gauge and the odometer, the math is not hard and it should be where the GOM cals starts.

Pretty sure this is not science and just poor programing. If you travel 25 miles in the first percentage (100 to 99 = 1%) what would you calculate you should get for 100% (2500 miles range)? Since that first % is off the following math is also as it is based on it (error will get progressively less over distance). Only way percentage works is if it is linear at least in the ballpark.

You need to charge yours to 100% and tell me what distance was traveled on your "odometer" when yours drops to 99%. I have the same observation as Bjørn Nyland had when he tested the vehicle so I thought everyone's is like that because of his vid; may be not?

As noted a bit of a bug. Ford maybe looking to get more involved in tech and may embrace public observations to make their product better or may just defend and not listen? Not a game changer just another glitch.

Again, haven’t seen anyone go 25 miles on the first %.

But even if they did, if it says 99% and range 300 miles, would you really try to do your own math to get to 2500 mile range?

The reason people say “don’t trust the GOM isn’t because it isn’t accurate.

It’s because it’s a GUESS based on many moving variables.

It could “guess” 300 miles range. But it doesn’t know if you are about to drive 110 mph the whole way or go 5 mph the whole way.

And neither do you! You could “hope” to cruise at 70 mph and then you hit traffic. You seem to want to do a bunch of calculations predicting range but they’re entirely unnecessary.

You also aren’t going to use all the range anyways. Most will charge with around 20% remaining.

And again, accuracy of it being 99% or 100% charged doesn’t affect any of this.

 

[Mirak]

I don't understand your response. 100% = maximum charge allowed by the car. 0% = 3 kWh or more (maybe 4-5 kWh). I am not running my car to 0% to validate what Ben reported, however.

I want the 100% to reflect the full 91kWh. If 100% = 91kWh (under nominal conditions), the 0% should be…. 0kWh. If 0% is a false floor, then the SOC isn’t reflecting the full 91kWh. Right?

 

[mkhuffman]

I want the 100% to reflect the full 91kWh. If 100% = 91kWh (under nominal conditions), the 0% should be…. 0kWh. If 0% is a false floor, then the SOC isn’t reflecting the full 91kWh.

OK but depending on conditions your car reaches maximum charge at 89 kWh. So do you want the car to report 89/91 = 98% when it is fully charged? How many people would complain about that? A crap ton. And a crap ton is a lot.

100% does not mean 91 kWh. It means the car is fully charged and will not charge any more.

By the way, you realize the actual battery size is 99 kWh, right? So would you prefer full charge to be 89/99 = 90%? Now people would really be complaining. People would be returning their cars.

 

[Mach1E]

OK but depending on conditions your car reaches maximum charge at 89 kWh. So do you want the car to report 89/91 = 98% when it is fully charged? How many people would complain about that? A crap ton. And a crap ton is a lot.

100% does not mean 91 kWh. It means the car is fully charged and will not charge any more.

By the way, you realize the actual battery size is 99 kWh, right? So would you prefer full charge to be 89/99 = 90%? Now people would really be complaining. People would be returning their cars.

I think these forums prove that people complain no matter what.

We are getting an extra 3 kWh if usable capacity that was never promised nor paid for……and we get 8 pages of complaints because the numbers on the screen don’t move or display the way different people want them to.

 

[Mirak]

OK but depending on conditions your car reaches maximum charge at 89 kWh. So do you want the car to report 89/91 = 98% when it is fully charged? How many people would complain about that? A crap ton. And a crap ton is a lot.

100% does not mean 91 kWh. It means the car is fully charged and will not charge any more.

By the way, you realize the actual battery size is 99 kWh, right? So would you prefer full charge to be 89/99 = 90%? Now people would really be complaining. People would be returning their cars.

No. I don’t understand why this is so hard to understand. We appear to be taking past each other, or I don’t even know what.

I want the SOC to reflect all available kWh. Not the buffers that cannot be used. And I understand that useable capacity might fluctuate slightly based upon external factors. But hiding the extra 3kWh under a 0% floor is stupid.

 

[mkhuffman]

No. I don’t understand why this is so hard to understand. We appear to be taking past each other, or I don’t even know what.

I want the SOC to reflect all available kWh. Not the buffers that cannot be used. And I understand that useable capacity might fluctuate slightly based upon external factors. But hiding the extra 3kWh under a 0% floor is stupid.

It sounds like we agree then. I also want 0% to really be 0%. Stupid is as stupid does.

 

[Mach1E]

No. I don’t understand why this is so hard to understand. We appear to be taking past each other, or I don’t even know what.

I want the SOC to reflect all available kWh. Not the buffers that cannot be used. And I understand that useable capacity might fluctuate slightly based upon external factors. But hiding the extra 3kWh under a 0% floor is stupid.

This seems like a reasonable ask. At 0% battery, the car should stop moving.

But for whatever reason, Ford decided to go a different route.

At the end of the day, if you know how it works (and now we do) the end result is the same. You can travel the same distance on a full charge (no matter what the display percentage says) and it’s unlikely you’ll ever drive to 0% or anything close. But if you do, now you know you’re running on fumes rather than stuck on the side of the road.

A few things I hope I never do during my ownership of the car:

1. DC charge
2. Drive below 20% charge

And in 8 months of ownership I’ve never even gotten below 50%. So far so good!

 

[Mach-Lee]

I'm watching this topic devolve into something akin to the 5-second rule topics...

Personally I'm happy with the limits Ford set the SoC curve to. The voltage levels of 90-20% for daily use and 100-10% for trips provide a good balance of range and pack preservation. 10% is positioned right before the "cliff" at the bottom of the discharge curve. Going down the cliff (and going up the peak at the the high end) is hard on the cells. You want to stay on the flat part of the curve for the least damage. 0% displayed on the Mach-E is comparable to around 7% on the below graph, it gives you a little room in case of emergency, but is on the side of the cliff so you're being hard on the cells going past 0%.

 

[mkhuffman]

I'm watching this topic devolve into something akin to the 5-second rule topics...

Personally I'm happy with the limits Ford set the SoC curve to. The voltage levels of 90-20% for daily use and 100-10% for trips provide a good balance of range and pack preservation. 10% is positioned right before the "cliff" at the bottom of the discharge curve. Going down the cliff (and going up the peak at the the high end) is hard on the cells. You want to stay on the flat part of the curve for the least damage. 0% displayed on the Mach-E is comparable to around 7% on the below graph, it gives you a little room in case of emergency, but is on the side of the cliff so you're being hard on the cells going past 0%.

Great points, and I like the graph.

I think the reason we don't like how Ford hides the 3 kWh below 0% is because we don't like to be treated like children. We understand that going below 10% is not good for battery health.

It is kind of like the BlueCruise nanny that yells at you to look at the road. Or the adaptive cruise nanny, that yells at you to put your hands back on the wheel. We are adults. We don't like the Ford nanny standing over us and thinking for us.

But not everyone is like us. Some people like the nanny. Some people don't want to learn about their car and want Ford to keep them from doing something stupid. We are just not those people. At least, I am not.

 

[Mach-Lee]

This is interesting, and likely a reason for the increase:

This was a test done by Edmunds in March 2021 (so 88 kWh limit on the Mach-E). After the 91 kWh update the range past zero is probably in the 10-12 mile range, which would be comparable to the other brands instead of being dead last.

I think the reason we don't like how Ford hides the 3 kWh below 0% is because we don't like to be treated like children. We understand that going below 10% is not good for battery health.

But not everyone is like us. Some people like the nanny. Some people don't want to learn about their car and want Ford to keep them from doing something stupid. We are just not those people. At least, I am not.

Yeah, I'd like an "engineering mode" where everything shown is as exact as possible and the battery buffers are as small as possible. But that would kill way too many batteries since most laypeople wouldn't bother to read about proper care and feeding of lithium cells.

Spoiler: Here's another nanny you might not know about...

The speedometer is programmed to display exactly 1 MPH fast (due to federal law), but the odometer is accurate. So if you set the cruise at 75 MPH the odometer will increase 74 miles in one hour. From now on, you will have to set the cruise to +1 with this knowledge. ?

 

[Deleted member 11332]

I'm confused... but happy. I've had my MME (LR-RWD) since late March this year and, until yesterday, have never had a displayed range of more than about 300 miles when charged to 100%. I tried resetting the range calculation thingy but it made no difference. Yesterday, however, after a visit to "Peoples Ford Edinburgh", my displayed range jumped to about 370 at 100%, i.e. pretty close to the published figure of 379. Not only that, but I'm suddenly getting about a mile of real travel for each mile of displayed range, whereas before it was more like 0.8 mile travel per mile displayed. What's happened? Does the dealer have a box of extra miles that they stuff into a socket somewhere?

Sponsored