The GT never had a 5 second limit

[HuntingPudel]

<SNIP>
My concern now is, if I am driving long distances, and want to set cruise control to say, 80/85 mph (in those states that allow 80 on the motorway), are we now saying the car will not be able to maintain that speed? See, am confused!

And, before anyone says I should have researched first, prior to purchase, I am not interested. In my research, I didn't find this '5 second limit' data...

The car makes more than enough power to maintain 80. It tops out at 124 and will sustain this. The problem is that at about 80 the car loses ~40% of its power, making acceleration rather lackluster. ??

Sponsored

 

[dtbaker61]

Not sure they all agree with you.

CarAndDriver- “We noticed that the GT Performance started to severely limit power after about 80 mph.” No mention of a time based limit.

Motor1 source “people on the forum speculate…..” ? Need I say more?

Insideevs- no mention of a time limit, they actually measure the voltage of what’s happening, but don’t know why.


I dunno, at this point if you don’t understand what I’m saying about the “what” vs the “why,” it feels like we are just talking past each other.

We both agree there are multiple limiting factors.

We both agree power gets limited after about 5 seconds from a dig.

Where we disagree? You call the latter a “rule,” while I say it’s just a possible description of what can happen because of the rules.


Another analogy since you didn’t like those?

You are talking about SYMPTOMS, I am talking about the DISEASE.

5 seconds is a symptom, but not the cause. The cause is the disease is the rule.

it is not simply speed
or time
or temp
or WOT followed by regen


.... as far as we can tell is is a complex formula based on all of these factors. Formula based because there are no sensors in exactly the right places to allow for direct feedback and modification.

basically ALL SPECULATION since ford has not disclosed the formula.
thus, really not worth arguing about since there is nothing we can do or change to affect it.

 

[dtbaker61]

Honestly, I am rather confused, and a little frustrated with this 5 second limit 'feature'/topic from Ford (not the forums).
Maybe Ford expressed this, somewhere on their website, etcetera. However, during my research in purchasing my GTPE, I never came across this.

My concern now is, if I am driving long distances, and want to set cruise control to say, 80/85 mph (in those states that allow 80 on the motorway), are we now saying the car will not be able to maintain that speed? See, am confused!

And, before anyone says I should have researched first, prior to purchase, I am not interested. In my research, I didn't find this '5 second limit' data...

the car will be able to reach and maintain any speed below hard cap... it just may take a while to get there if too high or during extended uphill.

 

[DennisD]

To my knowledge (take this with a grain of salt) a limiter is simply an advanced Governor if you will. It's intent is to solely "limit" the components on the motor. Whether it is electric or mechanical really doesn't make any difference. It is the excessive heat that matters in the end with either device.

With that being said, time really is not the factor in this equation. Now does time exist, yes but that is not the "limiting" intent but instead the outcome of how long it took. I think it is just a mere coincidence that it takes 5 seconds to disengage. I would guess (once again take this with a grain of salt), the sensors are only looking at RPM of said motors and not monitoring the time per se.

Take a lawn mower for example, the Governor is simply a device used so as to not overheat the engine. If you took it from idle and went to WOT, the time it took to get to the "limit" is irrelevant. Now if you went from idle to WOT and the Governor throttled it back in exactly 5 seconds, that would not constitute it being a 5 second limiter. Could it be called a "5 second limiter"? The short answer is maybe but the "technical" answer is no. It should instead be called a Rev limiter and if someone were to ask you "how much time does it take?", you could answer that it takes 5 seconds to approach that but I am really not concerned with the time but rather speed.

Once again, I am no Engineer but my "educated" guess is that it is not limited to time but rather rotation speed, thus 5 seconds is just a gauge of approximately when it engages said limit.

I know it is semantics but one can conclude that time is just present and not the determiner of said limiter.

 

[johnmark]

The only way to really test is to start at a higher speed - say 10, 20 and 30 mph and count the seconds until you see a plethora of jail bars, and then compare that to starting at zero. It it's always 5 secs on the dot, then we have our answer.

But there's the caveat that we will never know exactly because ford isn't transparent about this, so it will always be guesswork.

This is the Mach e equivalent of how many angels dance on the head of a pin - we'll never know definitively, so why inflict pain on ourselves arguing about it.

 

[mkhuffman]

 

[Mach1E]

The only way to really test is to start at a higher speed - say 10, 20 and 30 mph and count the seconds until you see a plethora of jail bars, and then compare that to starting at zero. It it's always 5 secs on the dot, then we have our answer.

But there's the caveat that we will never know exactly because ford isn't transparent about this, so it will always be guesswork.

This is the Mach e equivalent of how many angels dance on the head of a pin - we'll never know definitively, so why inflict pain on ourselves arguing about it.

We have done this, it’s only 5 seconds starting at zero. Anything above that is less and less to the point they’re almost instant at 72 mph.

Hopefully this doesn’t inflict pain. Just trying to understand it all better because it will help set expectations.

 

[DevSecOps]

We have done this, it’s only 5 seconds starting at zero. Anything above that is less and less to the point they’re almost instant at 72 mph.

Yes because the car is so severely limited as we increase in speed that the draw can't be the same. Ford takes away power as we increase in speed as we all agree. Therefore if you're going 80mph you'll already have 6 or so bars, there's no way to pull the same amount of power as you did at 0mph.

Same goes for cold climate, lower SOC etc. The video I did the other day I was at 72% SOC and therefore I already had 1 bar and was power limited from 0.

5 seconds of power delivery is, and always has been, 0-(whatever you get to in 5 seconds) when in tepid climates and fully charged. Once you start changing those parameters then the 5 seconds becomes 6 or 7, etc.

The argument being made here is the exact same as saying the Mach E can't increase 60mph in 3.5 seconds. From 0 in good weather, fully charged it can, but it can't go 50-110 in 3.5 seconds. It can't do 0-60 in 3.5 seconds when it's cold or low SOC either.

 

[AKgrampy]

While I enjoy the discussion I can’t wail until January to see what the changes are for the Rally model. That may (or may not) give us an idea of what they will provide down the road as to opening up the “5 Second 72 MPH SOC Cold Temp” rules for the GT with an OTA update.

 

[DennisD]

The only way to really test is to start at a higher speed - say 10, 20 and 30 mph and count the seconds until you see a plethora of jail bars, and then compare that to starting at zero. It it's always 5 secs on the dot, then we have our answer.

But there's the caveat that we will never know exactly because ford isn't transparent about this, so it will always be guesswork.

This is the Mach e equivalent of how many angels dance on the head of a pin - we'll never know definitively, so why inflict pain on ourselves arguing about it.

Once again for clarity, the 5 seconds has nothing to do with this "limit" therefore the debate is a silly one at best. This limit is only designed for preventive failure due to heat i.e. rotation thus limiting the premature failure of said parts.

While I see where some here are hung up on "time", the 5 seconds is merely a way of putting into perspective and not the ultimate determiner.

In other words, if it took 10 seconds to obtain the rotation speed of near failure, one could call it a 10 second limiter but once again, time is secondary in this analysis.

 

[AKgrampy]

Once again for clarity, the 5 seconds has nothing to do with this "limit" therefore the debate is a silly one at best. This limit is only designed for preventive failure due to heat i.e. rotation thus limiting the premature failure of said parts.

While I see where some here are hung up on "time", the 5 seconds is merely a way of putting into perspective and not the ultimate determiner.

In other words, if it took 10 seconds to obtain the rotation speed of near failure, one could call it a 10 second limiter but once again, time is secondary in this analysis.

Not to add any fuel to the discussion but if you do not have devices measuring heat then it becomes time versus operation. So time is part of the algorithm reducing power. I am not saying there is a hard 5 second limit as I have no idea but time is certainly one of the major factors. If there was more instrumentation in the HVBJB and battery pack Ford could probably more easily expand the power curve. Without this instrumentation they basically have to test and model results. It seems like Ford is going to open things up a bit next year with the Rally model but I have no idea what physical changes will also be included.

 

[DennisD]

Not to add any fuel to the discussion but if you do not have devices measuring heat then it becomes time versus operation. So time is part of the algorithm reducing power. I am not saying there is a hard 5 second limit as I have no idea but time is certainly one of the major factors. If there was more instrumentation in the HVBJB and battery pack Ford could probably more easily expand the power curve. Without this instrumentation they basically have to test and model results. It seems like Ford is going to open things up a bit next year with the Rally model but I have no idea what physical changes will also be included.

I see your point but imagine this if you will.

I am quite confident that the engineers at Ford were not sitting around the desk wondering if 5 seconds would be a good "limit".

Instead, they were (I am guessing at this) wondering when the heat was about to tip over to failure of said parts whether it was mechanical or chemical or something I am not thinking of and place the limit at that temperature.

So once again, the 5 seconds was not the intent but rather the outcome.

 

[DevSecOps]

I see your point but imagine this if you will.

I am quite confident that the engineers at Ford were not sitting around the desk wondering if 5 seconds would be a good "limit".

Instead, they were (I am guessing at this) wondering when the heat was about to tip over to failure of said parts whether it was mechanical or chemical or something I am not thinking of and place the limit at that temperature.

So once again, the 5 seconds was not the intent but rather the outcome.

The argument from the OP is that 72mph is the point of the limit, that's what myself and others are arguing. 72mph is one limit, it's not the limit as a result of a hard acceleration event from 0mph. It's in addition to.

I don't think anyone is trying to guess as to why it's limiting. Could be heat, could be some battery pack chemistry wizardry. It doesn't really matter why.

 

[AKgrampy]

I see your point but imagine this if you will.

I am quite confident that the engineers at Ford were not sitting around the desk wondering if 5 seconds would be a good "limit".

Instead, they were (I am guessing at this) wondering when the heat was about to tip over to failure of said parts whether it was mechanical or chemical or something I am not thinking of and place the limit at that temperature.

So once again, the 5 seconds was not the intent but rather the outcome.

Agreed, unless they felt 5 seconds of fun was all we can stand. The discussion is about what parameters and rules Ford programmers are using to protect the “undersized” hardware from overheating.

 

[DennisD]

The argument from the OP is that 72mph is the point of the limit, that's what myself and others are arguing. 72mph is one limit, it's not the limit as a result of a hard acceleration event from 0mph. It's in addition to.

I don't think anyone is trying to guess as to why it's limiting. Could be heat, could be some battery pack chemistry wizardry. It doesn't really matter why.

I am merely going off the thread title for my assertion of a "5 second limit".

Once again, it is heat. That is the only thing they (Ford) are concerned with. Ford is covering their ass against premature failure of warranted parts therefore, they "limit" the damage of this with their set limit of 72 mph.

Once again, the mph or time is secondary with their worries. It is all about heat. Heat is the biggest destroyer of almost all parts in the end and I am quite confident (once again this is an educated guess), heat was primary and the rest were just happen chances as far as gauges if you will.

Sponsored