Mileage for Extended Range Mach-E Models Revealed in EPA Emissions Certifications

[Regularmache]

Can I ask about your particular scenario? Extremely long commuter, or roadtripper?

Long commute, its going to limit at work availability for lunch, meetings, offsites. It brings range anxiety up to a place of consciousness especially with accident delays, road construction etc. Not wanting to use climate control if I'm watching my battery deplete and sitting in a hot car isn't pleasurable.

Sponsored

 

[Chiefsfan]

You can’t expect Ford to be able to match Tesla on their first try.

 

[RyZt]

You can’t expect Ford to be able to match Tesla on their first try.

Sure, I expect Mach E to be a bit worse in terms of miles per kWh. But I expect the bigger battery to make up for it.

 

[agoldman]

You can’t expect Ford to be able to match Tesla on their first try.

Why not?

 

[EVmodeler]

Someone asked about fuel economy ratings - yes that info is in the certificate.
Note that EPA MPGe is based on 33.7 kWh/gal and is for the AC energy from the grid, not the DC energy from battery.
The listed values for unadjusted are City = 123.6 MPGe or 27.27 AC kWh/100 mi (consumption), and Hwy = 112.8 MPGe or 29.88 AC kWh/100 mi. This gives 28.4 AC kWh/100 mi or 118.5 MPGe combined unadjusted, so only about 83 MPGe adjusted label.

 

[sockmeister]

These numbers are likely the result of one test. Tesla, and other manufacturers, make use of the EPA's allowance of three drive cycles to get better performance. That's from the article listed earlier in this thread at Car & Driver: https://www.caranddriver.com/featur...-factor-tesla-uses-for-big-epa-range-numbers/

"However, the EPA allows automakers the option to run three additional drive cycles and use those results to earn a more favorable adjustment factor. Currently, only Tesla and Audi employ this strategy for their EVs, and Tesla scores the most advantageous results, with adjustments that range from 29.5 percent on the Model 3 Standard Range Plus to 24.4 percent on the Model Y Performance. If Tesla had used the standard adjustment factor of 30 percent, the Model Y Performance's window-sticker range would drop to 292 miles."

To me, there are some unknowns here that we are all speculating on without all of the information available to us yet.
1. This is likely one of the three test runs. Ford has the option to perform more and take the best rating, perhaps making adjustments to the car in the meantime.
2. We all know there is a huge locked battery buffer in the Mach-E; I think it's likely a little bit more of it will be unlocked at the very least to hit the 270mile and 300 mile targeted range estimates, if it's needed.
3. Nobody has any real-world independent test data on how the range actually holds up yet. We won't have that until December at least. From what I've seen in the Ford webinars with Darren Palmer, Ford is targeting a much more realistic displayed range with these cars than some other manufacturers. That could mean that what you see is actually on par with what you get, instead of the big drops in actual vs expected range in other EVs.

I cannot forsee Ford releasing the car with published EPA ranges that are worse than targeted. The negative press around it would kill the project.

 

[tomterky]

I'll go with what came out of Norway...

https://insideevs.com/news/442601/ford-mach-e-484-km-norway/

 

[solarmoo900]

This is huge for us, its a big factor and outs the MachE in a much less desirable place and we have two on order.

Yep, big road tripper here and quite worried to share this news with my wife. If EPA is 20 miles lower I can't imagine how low actual will be

 

[EVmodeler]

These numbers are likely the result of one test. Tesla, and other manufacturers, make use of the EPA's allowance of three drive cycles to get better performance. That's from the article listed earlier in this thread at Car & Driver: https://www.caranddriver.com/featur...-factor-tesla-uses-for-big-epa-range-numbers/



To me, there are some unknowns here that we are all speculating on without all of the information available to us yet.
1. This is likely one of the three test runs. Ford has the option to perform more and take the best rating, perhaps making adjustments to the car in the meantime.
2. We all know there is a huge locked battery buffer in the Mach-E; I think it's likely a little bit more of it will be unlocked at the very least to hit the 270mile and 300 mile targeted range estimates, if it's needed.
3. Nobody has any real-world independent test data on how the range actually holds up yet. We won't have that until December at least. From what I've seen in the Ford webinars with Darren Palmer, Ford is targeting a much more realistic displayed range with these cars than some other manufacturers. That could mean that what you see is actually on par with what you get, instead of the big drops in actual vs expected range in other EVs.

I cannot forsee Ford releasing the car with published EPA ranges that are worse than targeted. The negative press around it would kill the project.

I agree that this is speculation. But when Tesla and Audi use the extra cycles, that data is included in the emissions certification, and also usually in the EPA test car list data. The Mach-E certification only includes the UDDS and HWFET cycles (as do almost all EVs), so I am speculating they will use the standard adjustment. The vehicle must have the Monroney sticker to be sold, and that includes fuel economy ratings.

 

[JDRGolfer1]

I'm "ok" if they come in slightly lower but I'd like some type of credit or reduction in price for the lack of range.

 

[K1TT]

Unfortunately this will probably settle it for me, I was already leaning out of the first model of Mach-E since 230mi wasn’t enough and 300 was too expensive. The plan is to get the Bronco until battery tech and charging stations catch up. With the price drop happening after I ordered I couldn’t get the ER added to my order, now even that isn’t 300. Usually EPA mileage isn’t great since nobody does less than 70 on the highway in MI. I take too many long trips and don’t have a second car, I’ll wait till battery tech improves. Bronco will be worth it though ?

 

[KAustin]

For those of you on the ledge, these are not official numbers. Although there may be some inferred logic behind the calculations, you may want to wait until Ford/EPA provides official data.

 

[jlauro]

I suppose it wouldn't be too hard for a manufacturer (including Ford) to get a multiplier other than 0.7 if they are serious about an EV, and determines that EPA range matters for their customer. I could be wrong though as I really have no idea.

I read (not credible source) that Model Y LR AWD would have an EPA range of 292 miles had it used 0.7 multiplier.

Therefore, even if Ford did get a different multiplier, it would still look pretty bad. Honestly, I'm disappointed.

Here is a source that has the Model Y performance uses 24.4%.
https://www.caranddriver.com/featur...-factor-tesla-uses-for-big-epa-range-numbers/

If Ford used that, then the AWD ER would come out to 270 (the planned range) instead of 250.

I haven't actually ordered yet (waiting for a test drive, or at least sit-in), so I will not cancel, but still have my reservation from last year.... 8% is getting close to significant, but they also dropped the price so I'll call it a wash.

Wonder if they will try to get their adjustment factor changed from the default of 30%. I know it doesn't make any difference in real world if the label says 250 miles or 270 miles, but can to the uninformed.

 

[Wildthing]

If these numbers are real and the standard battery AWD are around or below 200 miles I'm out unless they make an heavy discount. I always expect more than 210 miles, especially after seeing the test in Norway.
And I'm one of the biggest fan of the Mach-E but those numbers will affect the resale value too much and I will end making weekend road trip in the Kia Soul EV Limited 2020 and leaving the Mach-E in the garage.

 

[jlauro]

If these numbers are real and the standard battery AWD are around or below 200 miles I'm out unless they make an heavy discount. I always expect more than 210 miles, especially after seeing the test in Norway.

I assume they use wltp instead of epa in Canada? Not that it will make a difference real world which standard you use, but wltp will likely be reported higher...

Sponsored