4.2 miles per kW on Mach E dash

[dbsb3233]

The car is traveling 38 mph on a 45 mph stretch of road, at 9:30 in the morning in Chicago. With no driver. In complete fog. The photographer is crazy to be in the back seat under those conditions.

Is that a real photo? It looks a lot like a rendering to me. Click to zoom in and nearly all the details look computer-generated, especially the gray cloth on the speakers. But also all the buttons. and the white background color on the displays. Not to mention the view out the windows.

I think it's all manufactured.

Sponsored

 

[macchiaz-o]

Is that a real photo?

No.

It looks a lot like a rendering to me.

Agreed. An old one.

 

[dbsb3233]

Not to mention the photo ID says 2020 when you roll your cursor over it.

Looks like the same image on this website:

https://www.automobiledimension.com/models/ford/mustang-mach-e-2020

 

[FredT]

But, you were saying Model 3 is rated at 4.13 m/kWh based on EPA estimate of 28 kWh/100 miles. I was pointing out it's actually 3.57.

 

[dbsb3233]

Tesla's are hard to compare to because they generally have better (proprietary) battery technology than everyone else, and have a reputation for building in very little reserve (leaving it up to drivers to do that).

I know the Mach-e is trying to compete with the Model Y, and in most ways it does. But that superior battery is likely not one they're be able to match.

 

[symos]

Tesla's are hard to compare to because they generally have better (proprietary) battery technology than everyone else, and have a reputation for building in very little reserve (leaving it up to drivers to do that).

I know the Mach-e is trying to compete with the Model Y, and in most ways it does. But that superior battery is likely not one they're be able to match.

Can you explain what this "better technology" does, in your opinion?

I would understand a better battery technology allowing you to increase battery density, for example, so you would have larger capacity with less weight. Or a battery that would degrade less over time, or maybe it would charge faster.

But I can't see how better battery technology could lead to a higher efficiency for the car (miles/kWh). Do you think that a battery's kWh can be "better" than another battery's kWh?
When you feed the car with 1 kWh of energy, how would the source of this energy affect how many miles the car would run on this 1 kWh?

 

[dbsb3233]

Can you explain what this "better technology" does, in your opinion?

I would understand a better battery technology allowing you to increase battery density, for example, so you would have larger capacity with less weight. Or a battery that would degrade less over time, or maybe it would charge faster.

But I can't see how better battery technology could lead to a higher efficiency for the car (miles/kWh). Do you think that a battery's kWh can be "better" than another battery's kWh?
When you feed the car with 1 kWh of energy, how would the source of this energy affect how many miles the car would run on this 1 kWh?

"technology" probably wasn't quite the right choice of words. You're right, it's implies something a little different.

I've read (or seen in YouTube videos) that Tesla gets better battery density through larger cells and a different battery chemistry (something about the mixture of chemicals and metals). Better density means less space and (more importantly) weight. Vehicle performance is very dependent on weight. It simply take less power to move a lighter vehicle than it does a heavier vehicle. Which means the power you have goes further. That should translate into higher miles/kWh numbers (all else being equal).

Different motors make a difference too. As do vehicle aerodynamics. And again, overall vehicle weight.

 

[dbsb3233]

That's not what I've read. Tesla uses a different size cell, and tweaks the chemistry (in proprietary fashion) to produce better energy density (which means less weight). There's a lot of videos and stories on it. I posted one here the other day.

 

[macchiaz-o]

We don't know weight of MME or MY, nor battery size of MY. I don't think it matters, though. If top-efficiency is a very important factor to a buyer, the Mustang Mach-E should be removed from one's consideration. Look instead at the Tesla Model 3 SR+ or the Hyundai Ioniq Electric. Or the Tesla Model Y if you prefer that size and shape.

We could be very fortunate to learn, later this year, that the MME has achieved or beaten 4.2 miles per kWh... I'm not going to get my hopes up for that, though. I'll still be happy with this vehicle if it is reliable, handles well, is fun to drive, comfortable, well put together, and offers enough range for me to get through each day with no worries.

 

[dbsb3233]

The lighter weight of the battery would make it more efficient relative to what it would be if it weren't lighter. But if you're right about the E and the Y weighing about the same, there's obviously more going on.

I haven't seen a weight on the Y yet. Even the E weight appears to be rumored rather than confirmed.

 

[FredT]

We could be very fortunate to learn, later this year, that the MME has achieved or beaten 4.2 miles per kWh... I'm not going to get my hopes up for that, though. I'll still be happy with this vehicle if it is reliable, handles well, is fun to drive, comfortable, well put together, and offers enough range for me to get through each day with no worries.

My prediction is 3.1 for ER AWD and 3.4 for ER RWD.

 

[dbsb3233]

My prediction is 3.1 for ER AWD and 3.4 for ER RWD.

That sounds like a logical ballpark to me. A 10% reserve on the ER RWD would mean 300 miles / 88.9 = 3.37. With luck they might squeeze a bit more out.

Of course, that doesn't mean we won't have some people reporting 4.6, while others report 2.4.

Sponsored