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

[silverelan]

I will still counsel patience until we see the actual EPA range and real world head-to-head comparisons with Tesla Model Y but there's no way to spin this information in a positive light. This is not good. I'm not spending $60,000 to only come up short against a friggin' Chevy Bolt EV.

EPA 250 miles is literally laughable.

Sponsored

 

[1pt21Gigawatts]

I’ll be cancelling mine if that’s real.

 

[Wildthing]

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...

EPA too. I think the numbers are exactly the same of very close... but in kilometers

 

[Musbie]

That's disappointing if true. I was wondering why we haven't seen reviews and EPA results. Maybe that's the reason.

 

[agoldman]

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.

I have to agree.

 

[FPLiptak]

If this is true, they really should think about unlocking some of that extremely conservative 10kw battery buffer. No other EV I can think of restricts that much of the pack from being usable.

My 2018 Bolt has a 66 kWHr battery but when I charge it to full capacity it only shows that it is at 88% from the Chevy Bolt app. So the 12% buffer amounts to nearly 8 kWHr.

Yes that is 12% buffer.

My normal procedure is to drive it until <40 mi range and then do a full charge overnight. Each and every time I do a full charge it show 87 - 88% full when completed.

 

[FPLiptak]

I will still counsel patience until we see the actual EPA range and real world head-to-head comparisons with Tesla Model Y but there's no way to spin this information in a positive light. This is not good. I'm not spending $60,000 to only come up short against a friggin' Chevy Bolt EV.

EPA 250 miles is literally laughable.

Yes, I may have to just keep my Bolt if I only get 10 more miles with the ER AWD. Yes I know the Bolt is FWD and that accounts for a large difference but it still may tip the scales.

 

[sockmeister]

That's disappointing if true. I was wondering why we haven't seen reviews and EPA results. Maybe that's the reason.

I think it's probably because Ford is revising the car and running the other two tests to use a different reduction.

I think it's ill advised to make any decisions or conclusions based on this data. Wait until the official EPA results come out.

 

[VegStang]

Disappointing, but will await the official EPA numbers before any decision (sadness.) Brings to mind the button on our Mercedes, the reserve on it's battery is about 15%, pushing the button gives you access to the full battery on the next charge so the range becomes 100+ mi instead of the usual 85, having something similar via OTA update on the MME might be nice for occasional use. But this isn't a great solution for lower than expected EPA numbers when we were all expecting better than announced (why did we?) Maybe this leak will make us all happy with 300/270 when the results are final?

 

[Nak]

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

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

Unfortunately that data is worthless. What was the wind, headwind or tailwind? What speed was he driving? Was he drafting other vehicles? What tire pressure was he running? Were the tires the production tires, or ultra low rolling resistance tires used exclusively for this test? Any of these factors would have large impacts on the outcome, yet none are mentioned.

I will still counsel patience until we see the actual EPA range and real world head-to-head comparisons with Tesla Model Y...

This. As we saw with the Porsche Taycan, real world highway range may be quite different than the EPA rating. A lot of the EPA testing really ends up being about day to day expense, and to be honest I don't think that's a huge deal. Most EVs are cheap enough to run. Most people--not all--think about "How far can I go on the highway?" when they think about range. Day to day you plug it in at night and forget about it. What we need is a side by side range test against a Y.

I do not mean this as anything negative about EVmodeler's posts. He has done the community a great service and has provided important data to consider.

 

[krafty81]

If I am a Ford exec, I would worry about the long-term success of this platform if those EPA numbers prove to be true. GM, NIssan and others are bringing out new EVs that may beat those range numbers handily. When it is time to sell the car, those ranges may be pretty outdated.

 

[agoldman]

When it is time to sell the car, those ranges may be pretty outdated.

That is a real concern. Even a year from now. I have hope that Ford can tweak this up. The battery size is there. What magic does Tesla have that Ford can't figure out?

 

[EVer]

That is a real concern. Even a year from now. I have hope that Ford can tweak this up. The battery size is there. What magic does Tesla have that Ford can't figure out?

I wouldn't say mean Ford can't figure it out; it's just that Tesla has been focusing on improving efficiency of electric drive systems for 17 years.

The Model Y likely has more favorable aerodynamics as well.

 

[1pt21Gigawatts]

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.

Does anyone know if that’s true, or have a source?

a bit confused on how that could be true if theunadjusted number is still substantially higher in the Y? If the ratio between unadjusted and EPA held true between the two, then it would be a Mach-E EPAof ~260 at best still. And I’m not sure how the unadjusted would go up, the test is the test.

Sponsored