Wife no longer wants the ordered MME after road trip in my Lightning !

[ripperAZ]

At no point should technology impact experience adversely.

Agreed. I don’t want the pain in the neck on long multiple day trips about charging, which is why the maverick hybrid I bought is the perfect green alternative to no charging stress.
It’s probably not as comfortable or cooler fast as the MachE but boy it holds everything and it gets the job done with a 600 mile range and 45 miles per gallon
Jes sayin. The order books are open right now for the 23s right online but I don’t think they’re gonna be able to make any more hybrids. They thought 30% would be hybrid and it’s running at 80% requested. I ordered two more.

Sponsored

 

[sotek2345]

That's a common misconception. Road tripping is more about efficientcy and range. Here is a common trip I take from saint Paul to Chicago first is with my 400v Mach E 6h 59 minutes second with a Hyundai Ioniq 5 800v 7h 26 minutes.

Those are interesting results. The charging time is the same, but the Ioniq has ~30 minutes more driving time on the same route. That doesn't make sense unless you set a different driving speed for them.

 

[tuminatr]

Those are interesting results. The charging time is the same, but the Ioniq has ~30 minutes more driving time on the same route. That doesn't make sense unless you set a different driving speed for them.

I just let ABRP pick the route, probably the difference is ioniq has a 254 mile range mach e 290

Try it yourself. Put in a few specific addresses and then click on the account icon and change the vehicle the recalculate

 

[Vulnox]

At no point should technology impact experience adversely.

Right, Dnorwood98s comment is actually a contradiction. We don't still use a horse/carriage because speed, reliability, and cost of owning a vehicle was lower. We shouldn't have just said "you just need to sit back and enjoy the experience!" and never gone to automobiles. If something is better, it will become the standard.

Right now EVs are better than ICE vehicles on average in terms of reliability and cost of ownership (although not always in up front cost if buying new), but in terms of long distance (speed) they aren't.

So no, we don't have to change our mindset if our priority is road trip speed. I have a 5 and 8 year old who, like their parents even, get a bit bored on 5+ hour road trips. Especially when the destination is going to be better than the road trip itself. Expanding that to 6-7 hours just to take an EV doesn't help anyone, especially if it limits your time at your destination. In Michigan going up north is a welcome vacation for many, but most places you want to go are 3-4 hours away, and you might just be going for the weekend. Cutting an extra hour each way out of your vacation to charge your EV is just poor time management.

I am a HUGE fan of EVs, I mean I just put down a ton of cash to buy one. And the technology will improve. But if someone doesn't want to switch both cars over to EVs until the tech matures a bit there is nothing wrong with that. Especially when none of the car companies are incentivizing it. If Ford was selling the Mach-E for $30k for a Premium AWD because they know you can buy an Edge for that much and go further on a tank of gas and refill easier, but they want you to try the EV so they are taking the loss, then yeah I would alter my mindset a bit to get the EV advantages for both vehicles. But when you are talking about average $60k cars, I think it's fine to just have the one and let the segment mature a bit before going all in.

 

[RedStallion]

Gas is so ridiculously expensive in California these days, surely an extra stop or two on an (infrequent?) Las Vegas road trip every so often is worth the savings.

On the other hand, I think @mkhuffman is right on the money.

There ain't any savings. Even in CA you pay the same for 1 gal of gas as for 12-14kWh at EA charger, which makes 2mi/kWh on freeway equivalent to 24-28 mpg, which many gasoline cars exceed.

 

[RedStallion]

I just let ABRP pick the route, probably the difference is ioniq has a 254 mile range mach e 290

Try it yourself. Put in a few specific addresses and then click on the account icon and change the vehicle the recalculate

I never got realistic numbers from ABRP on any of my trips. It was always way off, whether with default parameters, or when you do customization.

 

[RedStallion]

It's not so much charging -- same base 2017 400v platform. The difference is miles per minute recovered. The lightning and its 2 miles per kwh at best vs the mach e getting more than 50% better per kWh, especially at speed means more range per unit of time charging.

Now compare the mach e range gained compared to say a hummer, and they're about the same.

Truth is the 400v platform is NOT a road-trip vehicle. More than a single 30m charge required, forget it. ICE wins. PHEV w/ 50 mile range is the sweet spot for us Mucrians with our major cities several hours driving distance apart.

It's really very simple calculations (disregarding the minor factors). A 150kW charger puts 300miles per hour (less in reality), thus losing some 80 miles of driving distance for the same hour. So you get 27% reduction in driving range for the same period of time. A 350kW charger reduces those losses more than by half. ICE vehicle reduces it even more.
The real solution is not trying to make a faster charging vehicle, which creates many serious problems. The solution is making a bigger battery, say 500miles real range, so that you don't need to charge it on the road.

 

[sotek2345]

It's really very simple calculations (disregarding the minor factors). A 150kW charger puts 300miles per hour (less in reality), thus losing some 80 miles of driving distance for the same hour. So you get 27% reduction in driving range for the same period of time. A 350kW charger reduces those losses more than by half. ICE vehicle reduces it even more.
The real solution is not trying to make a faster charging vehicle, which creates many serious problems. The solution is making a bigger battery, say 500miles real range, so that you don't need to charge it on the road.

You would need a very very big battery for that. Some drive much longer distances (1000mi+ per day), some drive in Winter and/or poor weather so you get range reduction, some tow, which really hurts range.

If you want to make it all about range and make sure that no one need to stop and charge, you need enough to cover driving ~20 hours at highway speeds, in the dead of winter, in a snowstorm, while towing a big boxy trailer. About 4000 miles of EPA range should do it!

Adding more range increases the weight of the vehicle (which takes an even bigger battery for the same range), decreases safety, and drives cost way up. It also means less EVs can be made since battery production is the bottleneck for the foreseeable future. More and better charging is the answer. It is safer to take a break every few hours of driving anyways.

 

[ARK]

There ain't any savings. Even in CA you pay the same for 1 gal of gas as for 12-14kWh at EA charger, which makes 2mi/kWh on freeway equivalent to 24-28 mpg, which many gasoline cars exceed.

I assumed they would do most of their charging at home. I agree that if someone is looking for primarily a roadtrip car or has to always commercially charge, an EV is probably not the wisest option.

 

[sotek2345]

I assumed they would do most of their charging at home. I agree that if someone is looking for primarily a roadtrip car or has to always commercially charge, an EV is probably not the wisest option.

Depends on the comparison. Our Mach-e (and soon to be Lighting) replaced my ICE F150 as our road trip vehicle. That got 15 to 16 mpg on the highway. Way cheaper to go electric even with DC charging rates.

 

[mkhuffman]

See if you can sell her on this
https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/2024-hyundai-ioniq-6-first-drive-review/

Rumors it will have 380 miles worth or range, 350 kw fast charging, I feel if those numbers turned to be true, this will make a huge fuss in the EV world.

380 miles is the EU WLTP cycle test, which is next to impossible to achieve. The EPA range rating is much more realistic, though it is also very optimistic compared to highway range. Which is really all that matters IMO.

 

[RedStallion]

You would need a very very big battery for that. Some drive much longer distances (1000mi+ per day), some drive in Winter and/or poor weather so you get range reduction, some tow, which really hurts range.

If you want to make it all about range and make sure that no one need to stop and charge, you need enough to cover driving ~20 hours at highway speeds, in the dead of winter, in a snowstorm, while towing a big boxy trailer. About 4000 miles of EPA range should do it!

Adding more range increases the weight of the vehicle (which takes an even bigger battery for the same range), decreases safety, and drives cost way up. It also means less EVs can be made since battery production is the bottleneck for the foreseeable future. More and better charging is the answer. It is safer to take a break every few hours of driving anyways.

Let's not go overboard, there is never a goal to cover every possible need of every individual. You just need to cover the major markets and the majority of people. That in mind, and assuming 2mi/kWh holds for a larger battery, you would need to supply 250kWh battery for a like of Mach-E. With the current Li-ion chemistry it's not practical, but if the solid state batteries eventually succeed, they will provide double the power density and will be a viable solution.

 

[mkhuffman]

Let's not go overboard, there is never a goal to cover every possible need of every individual. You just need to cover the major markets and the majority of people. That in mind, and assuming 2mi/kWh holds for a larger battery, you would need to supply 250kWh battery for a like of Mach-E. With the current Li-ion chemistry it's not practical, but if the solid state batteries eventually succeed, they will provide double the power density and will be a viable solution.

^^^ 100% this.

When we get 250 kWh batteries in normal cars, we will have finally reached the point of no return to ICE. I agree it will take new battery technology, and SSB is the likely path. But there could be continual advances in existing technology that gets the weight and size down, so it works in a car. Or mid-sized SUV, which is really where it needs to work.

The other key improvement area is L2 charging. If the L2 charging network at destinations can be built out so that cars can fully charge overnight, the need for DCFC stations will go way, way down. Assuming 250 kWh batteries of course. Or 200 kWh batteries and other efficiency improvements.

 

[Rabidsquirrel22]

If the Mach-E you have coming in is an extended range Premium, it could make that trip with fewer stops and significantly less time charging than a standard range Lightning.

If her main concern is added time for road tripping then it’s just something to consider.

 

[tuminatr]

For your enjoyment here is that same journey in a F150 lightning standard range

For this vehicle faster charging would make a big difference. if you travel it's better to have a bigger battery.

Sponsored