Billyk24

Well-Known Member
First Name
William
Joined
Nov 29, 2019
Threads
88
Messages
1,582
Reaction score
794
Location
PA
Vehicles
Ford C-Max Energi, Premium Mach-E ordered
Country flag
Those statements almost seem to conflict with each other. "Scary fast performance" to me seems like a bigger power user, not a frugal one. I know they do their best it find that balance, but seems those two things are indirectly proportionate.

Their mileage estimates could very well be conservative, but I'm not expecting them to be by much. I suspect this will be more of a performance vehicle than an efficiency vehicle. Especially with the extra weight of the AWD motor and the ER batteries.

It ultimately comes down to the miles/kWh. Lesser performance vehicles like the Bolt seem to get somewhere around 3.5 with a mix of city/highway. I'm expecting something around 3 for the Mach-e. Hope I'm surprised to the upside, but I'm not finding much reason to expect better. (Maybe 3.5 city and 2.5 @ 75 MPH).
Ford's own PR photos reveal a 3.6 mile per kW usage, Why would it get 3.0 miles per kW when Elon of Tesla states the new model Y gets 4.1 miles per kW? The Y is similar in specs to the Mach E.
Sponsored

 

Stickboy46

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2020
Threads
0
Messages
209
Reaction score
229
Location
Kansas
Vehicles
2020 Tesla Model 3 AWD LR
Country flag
No worries. We both have our opinion and neither opinion makes even the slightest difference as to what the range of the Taycan actually is. :)
Not to be not picky but one person is stating facts and results and the other is stating an opinion in this conversation.
 

dbsb3233

Well-Known Member
First Name
TimCO
Joined
Dec 30, 2019
Threads
54
Messages
9,299
Reaction score
10,814
Location
Colorado, USA
Vehicles
2021 Mustang Mach-E FE, 2023 Bronco Sport OB
Occupation
Retired
Country flag
Ford's own PR photos reveal a 3.6 mile per kW usage, Why would it get 3.0 miles per kW when Elon of Tesla states the new model Y gets 4.1 miles per kW? The Y is similar in specs to the Mach E.
Most seem to think that display screen showing 3.6 was just a sample demo display, not real numbers for the vehicle.

Don't the Teslas tend to have higher energy content in their batteries than the LG Chem battery vehicles? And thus better efficiency and range?

I know the Mach-e is aimed at competing with the Model Y, but batteries are the one thing they can't really match (yet).
 

Billyk24

Well-Known Member
First Name
William
Joined
Nov 29, 2019
Threads
88
Messages
1,582
Reaction score
794
Location
PA
Vehicles
Ford C-Max Energi, Premium Mach-E ordered
Country flag
Don't the Teslas tend to have higher energy content in their batteries than the LG Chem battery vehicles? And thus better efficiency and range? LG is supplying Tesla with batteries: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesla-china-catl-idUSKBN1ZT16G Thus better efficiency and range based upon energy density?-No. Software difference need to be examined which is impossible at this time frame.
 

Billyk24

Well-Known Member
First Name
William
Joined
Nov 29, 2019
Threads
88
Messages
1,582
Reaction score
794
Location
PA
Vehicles
Ford C-Max Energi, Premium Mach-E ordered
Country flag
the EPA validates the max rang---has this been done already? I have only read of "targeted range of xxx".
 


timbop

Well-Known Member
First Name
Tim
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
Threads
63
Messages
6,729
Reaction score
13,758
Location
New Jersey
Vehicles
Solar powered 2021 MME ER RWD & 2022 Corsair PHEV
Occupation
Software Engineer
Country flag
the EPA validates the max rang---has this been done already? I have only read of "targeted range of xxx".
If it has, it has not been announced. I believe they are still tweaking settings before submitting the paperwork.
 

hybrid2bev

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2019
Threads
75
Messages
4,071
Reaction score
11,093
Location
USA
Vehicles
2021 Job 1 Premium4X - EAP Member
Country flag
I believe they are still tweaking settings before submitting the paperwork.
That’s right. Word is that final engineering is happening now and the project is on schedule.
 

dbsb3233

Well-Known Member
First Name
TimCO
Joined
Dec 30, 2019
Threads
54
Messages
9,299
Reaction score
10,814
Location
Colorado, USA
Vehicles
2021 Mustang Mach-E FE, 2023 Bronco Sport OB
Occupation
Retired
Country flag
Don't the Teslas tend to have higher energy content in their batteries than the LG Chem battery vehicles? And thus better efficiency and range? LG is supplying Tesla with batteries: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesla-china-catl-idUSKBN1ZT16G Thus better efficiency and range based upon energy density?-No. Software difference need to be examined which is impossible at this time frame.
That's a new agreement just signed. Probably won't start producing for a while yet.

Everything I've read says Tesla uses a different battery. It's a different chemistry and even a different size than the standard 18650 that everyone else uses. All to produce better energy density. And they're proprietary (i.e. they have their own patents). Panasonic has been manufacturing them for them but they could contract with any battery maker to do it. But they would still be proprietary to Tesla.

At least that's what what I keep reading.

https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-batteries-best-range-explained-auto-experts/

Here's a pair of videos on the Tesla batteries I watched recently that I found quite interesting.


 
Last edited:

ccarpen

Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2020
Threads
0
Messages
16
Reaction score
8
Location
UK
Vehicles
Jaguar I Pace
Country flag
I care because a smaller battery pack for the same range means cheaper and faster (probably) charging.

Ford have already published estimated average consumption on their pre-order page (UK link below). Using LR RWD as an example, average consumption of 16.5kWh/100km equates to 26.5485kWh/100ml, so 98.23kWh/370ml, which is the estimated WLTP range.

This implies either:

1. No buffer
2. 98.8kWh battery is net/usable capacity
3. Mistake with Ford's estimated numbers


https://www.ford.co.uk/shop/price-and-locate/pre-order/build-your-own
 

FredT

Well-Known Member
First Name
Fred
Joined
Feb 1, 2020
Threads
5
Messages
391
Reaction score
320
Location
California
Vehicles
2003 Passat Wagon
Occupation
Retired
Country flag
I care because a smaller battery pack for the same range means cheaper and faster (probably) charging.

Ford have already published estimated average consumption on their pre-order page (UK link below). Using LR RWD as an example, average consumption of 16.5kWh/100km equates to 26.5485kWh/100ml, so 98.23kWh/370ml, which is the estimated WLTP range.

This implies either:

1. No buffer
2. 98.8kWh battery is net/usable capacity
3. Mistake with Ford's estimated numbers


https://www.ford.co.uk/shop/price-and-locate/pre-order/build-your-own
None of those numbers make any sense to me. The stated efficiency is 3.8m/kWh. If you assume 90 kWh useable, range is 340 miles, which is well above the maximum range number stated in the advertisement. It is all too common for combinations of range, efficiency, and capacity to not line up.
 

dbsb3233

Well-Known Member
First Name
TimCO
Joined
Dec 30, 2019
Threads
54
Messages
9,299
Reaction score
10,814
Location
Colorado, USA
Vehicles
2021 Mustang Mach-E FE, 2023 Bronco Sport OB
Occupation
Retired
Country flag
Only if that different gas tank were a higher density one, i.e. could hold just as much gas but weigh significantly less (when full). But of course that can't happen with gas. It can with electrons though.
That's where energy density matters. Packing more electricity into means fewer batteries, which means less weight. And less weight means better performance.
 

dbsb3233

Well-Known Member
First Name
TimCO
Joined
Dec 30, 2019
Threads
54
Messages
9,299
Reaction score
10,814
Location
Colorado, USA
Vehicles
2021 Mustang Mach-E FE, 2023 Bronco Sport OB
Occupation
Retired
Country flag
I care because a smaller battery pack for the same range means cheaper and faster (probably) charging.

Ford have already published estimated average consumption on their pre-order page (UK link below). Using LR RWD as an example, average consumption of 16.5kWh/100km equates to 26.5485kWh/100ml, so 98.23kWh/370ml, which is the estimated WLTP range.

This implies either:

1. No buffer
2. 98.8kWh battery is net/usable capacity
3. Mistake with Ford's estimated numbers


https://www.ford.co.uk/shop/price-and-locate/pre-order/build-your-own
16.5 kWh/100 KM = 3.75 miles/kWh. That's pretty optimistic, but WLTP tends to be.

WLTP range for the ER RWD is stated at 370 miles. 370 / 3.75 = 98.6, which is the entire battery (no reserve). So they must be basing that on battery size and not actual 0%-100% the software limits it to after subtracting reserve on each end.

Presumably the 300 mile range they're advertising in the US for that model does account for the reserve. 300 / 3.75 = 80 kWh. That would mean a 19% reserve, if it all lines up that way.

But that all hinges on the 3.75 miles/kWh number, which is wildly variable. I suspect that's more realistic for "good condition" driving (lower speeds, good temp, modest use of climate control). Put it on an interstate or in cold weather and I'm guessing that number will be significantly lower. Just depends on the usage pattern.
Sponsored

 
 




Top