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

[dbsb3233]

..

You carry around something and do not use it it should take energy and give nothing back. If at some point it gives you a hand up the hill it has provided some work. We are talking all else constant right? I would not expect the same efficiency if carrying 3 to 400# dead

The ER battery does give us 2 things:

1. More range.
2. A bit more power.

They also appear to be giving us the ability to tap more of that power via selecting Unbridled drive more. At least I think that gives more power.

Sponsored

 

[timbop]

I would think efficiency would go up also but possibly not linear. You carry around something and do not use it it should take energy and give nothing back. If at some point it gives you a hand up the hill it has provided some work. We are talking all else constant right? I would not expect the same efficiency if carrying 3 to 400# dead weight in the back? All adds up.

The physical battery is identical regardless how much of it they hold in reserve. Opening up more reserve does not in any way change the physical characteristics of the battery. If they were to change the number of cells in the ER to go from 99 kwh to 90kwh then yes it would change efficiency. However, it is clearly far too late in the process to change the physical battery size.

Now, technically using the energy in the battery does give off heat that is lost to the atmosphere and energy does relate to mass. But given that mass equals energy divided by the speed of light squared the amount of mass lost is virtually immeasurable, which is why I qualified with "appreciably lighter".

 

[Shayne]

The physical battery is identical regardless how much of it they hold in reserve. Opening up more reserve does not in any way change the physical characteristics of the battery. If they were to change the number of cells in the ER to go from 99 kwh to 90kwh then yes it would change efficiency. However, it is clearly far too late in the process to change the physical battery size.

Now, technically using the energy in the battery does give off heat that is lost to the atmosphere and energy does relate to mass. But given that mass equals energy divided by the speed of light squared the amount of mass lost is virtually immeasurable, which is why I qualified with "appreciably lighter".

Let not get in to the theory of relativity. With all else constant. If part of the battery does no work it is less efficient/lb; correct? And less range of course. The lighter the better; is that not why they rip out the back seats?

 

[efisher]

Once past a point range is less a factor. Where that point is depends on the person, and the alternatives...

For most people, when comparing vehicles dropping 10% from 100 to 90 on range is far worse than dropping range from 1000 to 900 miles, even though it's dropping 10x as many miles of range...

For me, sub 250 miles range is probably #1. (Meaning it's not all that I would consider, but if it's below that point, most everything else (price, acceleration, cargo space, etc) must be a lot better). Over 250, it's still fairly important comparing two options, but less critical. ie: Can sacrifice 30 mile range (out of 300) to get AWD and better 0-60 time. If it was only 200 mile range, I wouldn't give up 20 mile range for that.

I would agree that 250 miles is a good cutoff for diminishing returns as long as that is real world miles and not EPA miles.

 

[dbsb3233]

Let not get in to the theory of relativity. With all else constant. If part of the battery does no work it is less efficient/lb; correct? And less range of course. The lighter the better; is that not why they rip out the back seats?

Blocking off part of the battery as a reserve has a purpose, just not one you benefit from immediately. It's like rust protection... it improves longevity.

 

[timbop]

Let not get in to the theory of relativity. With all else constant. If part of the battery does no work it is less efficient/lb; correct? And less range of course. The lighter the better; is that not why they rip out the back seats?

No. You are confusing not using the battery with having a smaller physical battery to carry around. If I charge to 100% and drive 30 miles at steady speed on a dynomometer I use X amount of energy, giving an efficiency of of 30/X mi/kwh efficiency. If I continue the test and drive another 30 miles with everything the same, then the amount of energy I use will be 2X and the efficiency will be 60/2X. That ratio will continue until the battery gets low enough that the car's software goes into "eco mode" and limits the speed of the car. Ford reserving some of the charge to be "off limits" just affects how much of the battery you can use in the test.

The reservation of 5%, 10%, or 50% doesn't change the value of X, it just limits how long you can drive. If it did then cars would have to publish different efficiency numbers dependent upon the state of charge.

 

[EVer]

May be new leadership @ EPA shortly; ask them?

I know the EPA's position. SAE J1263, 2263 and 2264 (coast down techniques) are commonly used, however they also allow manufacturer discretion provided good engineering judgment is applied.

The manufacturer has to disclose and certify the method by which they determined road load, and they have to use NIST-traceable dyno loads with resolution ±0.05% or ±0.2lbs (whichever is greater), but that in itself isn't sufficient to guarantee apples-to-apples comparisons. If company A is super optimistic and uses analytical modeling, and company B is very conservative and uses a coast down test, then company A will under-load the dyno and overstate range, while company B will do the opposite.

 

[efisher]

If you were only going straight, then you could make that argument. But once you introduce turns the situation is more complex.

 

[efisher]

Note that the article includes an important caveat: "We're going to stick to front engine for these scenarios as it gets murky when you consider mid and rear engine."

 

[Kamuelaflyer]

Etymologically you are absolutely correct. However zoologically speaking it is probably a Pouch.

Are you making a suggestion that the Mustang Mach-E be reclassified into the Marsupialia interclass?

I'll just hop along and see if I can scare up some range related posts for this thread. Although after 34 pages, I'm not sure why we'd want to start now.

 

[timbop]

Let not get in to the theory of relativity. With all else constant. If part of the battery does no work it is less efficient/lb; correct? And less range of course. The lighter the better; is that not why they rip out the back seats?

OK, I think I see where you're getting thrown off. The efficiency of the battery is relatively constant. Not using part of it doesn't change the efficiency of the part you did.

Look at it another way:
The SR RWD is targeted for 230 miles using 68 kwh of the battery: 230/68 = 3.382
The ER RWD is targeted for 300 miles using 88 kwh of the battery: 300 / 88 = 3.409

The efficiency is essentially identical; Ford likely rounded the numbers off for publication

 

[Badger_Prof]

Blocking off part of the battery as a reserve has a purpose, just not one you benefit from immediately. It's like rust protection... it improves longevity.

Except that much rust protection (historically speaking) was more a scam to milk money from customers than a benefit to the customer.

 

[Nak]

Except that much rust protection (historically speaking) was more a scam to milk money from customers than a benefit to the customer.

The famous undercoating. One reason I am not a fan of dealer networks. Not only was undercoating just a dealer scam--that some dealers still run--it usually made rust worse. I've restored a few cars, and when I used to make the foolish mistake of working on cars that had been undercoated, I always found areas where water & road chemicals had been trapped by the undercoating and just made a mess of things.

Real rust protection--like galvanized steel--good. Undercoating bad.

 

[ChasingCoral]

Finally the important thing is to know if the front trunk will be delivered on the Mach-E.

There’s no question there will be a frunk. The questions revolve around the frunk divider.

Sponsored