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

[1pt21Gigawatts]

all I can say is don't start overacting right now. Everything is fine. The amount held back in the battery pack is more than any other EV on the market.

The range will be met.

I don’t think the issue is meeting it by unlocking more pack. Most of us here had been anticipating receiving more of that pack capacity in the future as an OTA to boost range. If they unlock it now it means we don’t get it later, and also means the total range is even less competitive going forward.

Sponsored

 

[Woeo]

Would never reward VW so soon after Dieselgate.

Kona is a a good car, but I am at a point in life where I would not consider a ‘Corolla’.

At this point trusting Darren will deliver as he promised.

 

[dbsb3233]

You‘ve a better bladder than I, Gunga Din.

Part of the "long vs short" legs on road trip tendency is likely location-dependent too. People that live on the coasts probably lean more toward shorter trips with more stops, as those are usually more highly populated states with more along the highways. While us people out here in flyover country tend to have a lot more wide-open space between cities where "just get there" driving makes more sense (especially west of the Mississippi). Driving across UT and NE and TX and NV takes a long time with long stretches of wide open space. We're just more used to longer drive legs.

 

[sockmeister]

Regardless of anything else, I’m having a hard time understanding how a recertification with the EPA is going to change anything here.

what is clearly demonstrated here is that, with not too much going wrong, the car is capable of getting 250mi on an extended pack. Which corresponds at very best to real world, if not worse because it’s still 48mph.

By all accounts if we had nothing to worry about then it shouldn’t have been possible for the car to do this poorly on the test. I don’t want a glitzy number polished to a sheen to squeeze 275 when realistically we can just expect 250 and the improvements now are just working on optimizing for the test.

I guess at this point I hope the real world journalist reviews and range test from Alex on Autos come out before December because otherwise I’m not going to be comfortable based on this. 260mi highway @70mph of bust in my book, anything else is a resale value of nil

That's not quite right. Keep in mind that the AWD ER car actually got *358* miles on the EPA test. What we're all wondering about is how that translates to real-world driving; the standard deduction is 70%, which is how we calculated 250miles. Ford can demonstrate better than expected results and get a different deduction.

They're not the final results. All of this is pointless speculation.

I am 100% confident that the EPA numbers they targeted will all be met, if not exceeded, based on the two statements from Ford at this point.

 

[JamieGeek]

Not that I really want to jump in to this highly contentous thread but here goes....

Keep in mind that Ford has been "real world" testing the Mach-E for quite some time now. I'm pretty sure they know how far it can go at 40mph, 50mph, heck even 90mph. Thus if the initial EPA measurements aren't lining up to their experience they will likely do something about that...

Ok that will be my only comment here...I'm out.

 

[DBC]

The problem with this conclusion is that the Tesla numbers are outliers as evidenced by the fact that Tesla's EPA range number overstate the real world range numbers by far more than the EPA range numbers from from other manufacturers. Not sure why this is the case but it clearly is.

If the MME numbers similarly overstate real world range that's one thing. If the MME range numbers vs real world numbers are consistent with other manufactuer's -- like for the Kia or Bolt -- that's another. IOW the error would be in looking at one outlier of a data point.

 

[dbsb3233]

I am 100% confident that the EPA numbers they targeted will all be met, if not exceeded, based on the two statements from Ford at this point.

Hope you're right.

Granted, EPA is a crappy range benchmark. But with lack of anything else, it's the next benchmark that will tell us something relative.

Ultimately all I care about for range is how far it can go on cruise control set to 75 MPH. And even then, the number I actually want is miles/kWh at a constant 75. From there I can easily project my trips.

 

[Wildthing]

I think we've known for quite a while this was not going to be the most efficient car out there. Neither is the ICE Mustang.

There is a large margin between not being the most efficient and being the second wrost to the Audi E-Tron. It's especially important in canadian winter where the range will drop by 35-40% between December and February (it drop by 30% in my Kona EV with an heat pump so I expect a drop of close to 40% in the Mach-E, that's 126 miles, that's why every miles is important for me). And that is if the target is met. Less efficient also means longer charging time during winter when you charge a cold battery, the charging speed is very slow.

 

[Thevanin]

Exactly... I want the EPA numbers to be competitive just to avoid all the "the range is garbage" hot takes, but I'm much more interested in range at a constant 70/75/80 mph.

 

[dbsb3233]

Less efficient also means longer charging time during winter when you charge a cold battery, the charging speed is very slow.

It also means more time spent at highway chargers to fill up extra for the next leg. Meaning, instead of just filling to 70 or 80%, might need to fill to or 90 or 95%. That's annoying for that driver, but also annoying for other drivers waiting for that charger to open up.

 

[EVer]

Here is something I find curious about those data. This if from the ER submission:

Battery energy capacity is 288...
288 what, mega joules? That’s 80kWh, which is close to 20% less than the advertised ER battery.

 

[dbsb3233]

Thus if the initial EPA measurements aren't lining up to their experience they will likely do something about that...

That gives me a little bit of pause too though. Depends on what that "do something" is, like compromising something else just to meet a mostly artificial EPA number.

It's kinda like how the tax code forces people and business to do many things that aren't logical or sensical, but they do them anyway because taxes mean so much.

 

[macchiaz-o]

Here is something I find curious about those data. This if from the ER submission:

Battery energy capacity is 288...
288 what, mega joules? That’s 80kWh, which is close to 20% less than the advertised ER battery.

Ampere hours (Ah).

If you read the associated submission document, there's all sorts of engineering details that you all can obsess and fret over while anxiously awaiting your vehicle, like curb weight, gear ratios, pack energy density, and so on.

 

[sockmeister]

Here is something I find curious about those data. This if from the ER submission:

Battery energy capacity is 288...
288 what, mega joules? That’s 80kWh, which is close to 20% less than the advertised ER battery.

That's a really good point. I think that further shows that the model tested was a prototype here. If that's the case, then that means they tested with 90% of the stated battery capacity for the ER.

Which means that, if extrapolated to 100%.... the range on this test should be about 398 miles on the EPA test, and a standard reduction of 0.7 gets the car to a final range of 278.4 miles.

Obviously all of this could be completely bogus, but that's encouraging at least.

Sponsored