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

[dbsb3233]

I get what you're saying. And I'm sure if you wanted to drive 11 miles on the highway that day, 2.1 mi/kwhr might have been pretty accurate. Merge that number with all the city driving you're surely doing and you'll have much better efficiency.

Back to my first post though, if you're doing any sort of range, in my current car, it takes about 30 miles of driving for that number to read accurately. It doesn't matter if you're highway driving, city driving, or mixed. Anytime you reset that number, it takes a while for the computer to read the correct efficiency.

Whether that is the same in the MME, I have no idea.

I think that's more of an ICE thing, since measuring the flow of gasoline (especially small amounts) is less accurate.

Conversely, measuring the flow of electricity is easy and accurate. So even just going a short distance should give a pretty accurate reading of efficiency.

Sponsored

 

[Dan G]

I think that's more of an ICE thing, since measuring the flow of gasoline (especially small amounts) is less accurate.

Conversely, measuring the flow of electricity is easy and accurate. So even just going a short distance should give a pretty accurate reading of efficiency.

Yeah, my current car is a BEV, a Hyundai Ioniq. But it can also comes in a hybrid trim and a PHEV trim. So I'm sure they reused some technology.

My only unknown is exactly what you said though. My electric car reads off of driving history. When you reset that efficiency reading, you seem to delete that driving history as well. Does the MME do the same? Or does it have an instantaneous reading that can tell what the draw is at that exact moment? I have no idea.

Even Tesla gives you an efficiency rating base off of your last 5, 15 and 30 miles of driving.

 

[dbsb3233]

Yeah, my current car is a BEV, a Hyundai Ioniq. But it can also comes in a hybrid trim and a PHEV trim. So I'm sure they reused some technology.

My only unknown is exactly what you said though. My electric car reads off of driving history. When you reset that efficiency reading, you seem to delete that driving history as well. Does the MME do the same? Or does it have an instantaneous reading that can tell what the draw is at that exact moment? I have no idea.

Even Tesla gives you an efficiency rating base off of your last 5, 15 and 30 miles of driving.

Looks like the Mach-E has either 2 or 3 trip meters. Owners manual says Trip1 and Trip2, but it also makes reference to "current trip" that resets every time the car is powered on. I assume that's a fixed meter that's independent of the two user-defined ones.

With a nav route set, it uses Ford's algorithms for the route and applies that to range predictor. But what history it draws from for the generic range calculation (without a nav route set) is anyone's guess.

 

[kdryden99]

With everything said ALL bev's range suffer in winter. A friend of mine told me that even with preconditioning her m3 range plumments fast in winter. So no matter which BEV you get, if you really need to drive 3-4hours without stopping, than you might want to wait for the next gen BEV cause no matter what EPA rates it, 300miles in summer and 200 miles winter is pretty much what you can expect to get from any EV highway driving only, and i might even be generous. And b4 anybody says heatpump, we still dont know how much it helps, but in minus 20 30 like i had this week, i dont think itll help much.

 

[kdryden99]

With everything said ALL bev's range suffer in winter. A friend of mine told me that even with preconditioning her m3 range plumments fast in winter. So no matter which BEV you get, if you really need to drive 3-4hours without stopping, than you might want to wait for the next gen BEV cause no matter what EPA rates it, 300miles in summer and 200 miles winter is pretty much what you can expect to get from any EV highway driving only, and i might even be generous. And b4 anybody says heatpump, we still dont know how much it helps, but in minus 20 30 like i had this week, i dont think itll help much.

The above goes for ALL BEV's, Tesla Gm Ford, its the battery's weakness

 

[RonTCat]

I think that's more of an ICE thing, since measuring the flow of gasoline (especially small amounts) is less accurate.

Conversely, measuring the flow of electricity is easy and accurate. So even just going a short distance should give a pretty accurate reading of efficiency.

ICE is fairly accurate immediately. Fuel injectors have precise metering, and the system can count injector pulses/time to calculate fuel use accurately.

 

[kdryden99]

I think that's more of an ICE thing, since measuring the flow of gasoline (especially small amounts) is less accurate.

Conversely, measuring the flow of electricity is easy and accurate. So even just going a short distance should give a pretty accurate reading of efficiency.

I wouldnt be so sure. From cell phone and laptop history i dont ever remember the expected battery usage matching the actual time used. How many times have you looked at your cell seeing 10% left and 2 minutes later its dead.

 

[RonTCat]

I wouldnt be so sure. From cell phone and laptop history i dont ever remember the expected battery usage matching the actual time used. How many times have you looked at your cell seeing 10% left and 2 minutes later its dead.

Yeah, I think phones just go by battery voltage, and a typical cell phone battery will hold voltage fairly constant until it is almost "dead", then the voltage falls off a cliff. It is hard for the software to exactly determine where this cliff is.

 

[MightyJawa]

Time To Empty (TTE) calculations are always complex in a battery system. It’s hard enough to track the exact State Of Charge (SOC). Depends on voltage, temperature, and the individual resistance profiles of each cell, which change over the life of the cell. But then how do you predict what the user is going to want to do in the future? You can base it on past behavior, but when the user does something different, that’s when your predictions get out of wack, especially at the end of the discharge curve. Things get better when you have a specific route entered. Easier to make more accurate predictions.

I used to work in a group that made battery monitoring chips for consumer electronics. The algorithms were way more complex than just measuring cell voltage.

 

[Shayne]

Agree that it depends on each situation. But overall range means more than chargers spaced closer, IMO. Not needing a charger stop at all is always better than having to stop, from a function/convenience standpoint.

But it is a trade-off for cost and weight. Until batteries improve so much that the energy density (range) and cost both improve significantly.

Whether solid state will do that is anyone's guess. As is when it can be achieved for mass production. 50-50 chance they'll be the standard for most new BEVs by 2025, perhaps?

You keep thinking of what we need today while I am discussing the future. When charging speed is no longer a problem (solid state thru out) then it may be 150 mi real world range cars and a 5 minute break. Your second one may be even less for the running around. Battery weight reduces the efficiency and lighter is better that is where we should go "efficient as we can". That takes fast charging batteries and lots of plug ins to the grid. Grid efficiency is a lot better at transporting those electrons to your fill up than you. At the time those batteries evolve it would be great to have the infrastructure in place. 2025 is coming, perhaps, if so hoping you and me see it.

 

[dbsb3233]

I wouldnt be so sure. From cell phone and laptop history i dont ever remember the expected battery usage matching the actual time used. How many times have you looked at your cell seeing 10% left and 2 minutes later its dead.

Agree about measuring the charge inside the battery itself. But measuring the actual consumption as it's coming out of it is much more accurate.

 

[dbsb3233]

You keep thinking of what we need today while I am discussing the future. When charging speed is no longer a problem (solid state thru out) then it may be 150 mi real world range cars and a 5 minute break. Your second one may be even less for the running around. Battery weight reduces the efficiency and lighter is better that is where we should go "efficient as we can". That takes fast charging batteries and lots of plug ins to the grid. Grid efficiency is a lot better at transporting those electrons to your fill up than you. At the time those batteries evolve it would be great to have the infrastructure in place. 2025 is coming, perhaps, if so hoping you and me see it.

That's why I said "Until batteries improve". Yes, if/when batteries take a quantum leap with energy density and charging time (and cost), the equation would change. But we don't know whether all that will happen, and by how much.

Until then we just hope and speculate.

 

[dbsb3233]

300miles in summer and 200 miles winter is pretty much what you can expect to get from any EV highway driving only, and i might even be generous.

Generous for highway, yes. Probably about right for city.

The other wildcard for highway is whether talking leg 1 (starting from a 100% L2 charge) vs leg 2+ (starting from under 80%). That's where long road trips become a bigger problem, but short ones may not.

 

[guyofthesky]

While true, I still contend all that's mostly moot for most people. Driving style mostly matters for city driving (hard starts, how much regen, which drive modes, etc). Those things can hurt city range. But city range doesn't really matter much for most people that just charge at home at night and have plenty of range for a day around home.

Where range matters for most people is on long road trips, which is typically at high speed steady cruising most of the way. Where driving style barely impacts it.

I agree with what you say, unless you include the speed that you select in "driving style". Obviously, your cruise speed has a huge effect on range on the highway.

 

[guyofthesky]

From the few consumption numbers coming in off media test drives (3 vids and/or articles and no one given enough time with the vehicle) it appears the 4x may be a 250 mi vehicle just like the numbers state. Still possible a Tesla fudge factor to state 270 mi on the windows sticker; but time will tell. Numbers do not lie; can window stickers?

Wonder if new numbers will be released? I have based my decision on 250 mi with 22% more useable battery and 16% less range than a competitor (on numbers and not a in your face window sticker). Makes this vehicle tight, possibly unusable, for travel at -20C with our current charger spacing. -15 C in the sun today maybe alright? Not a upfront or spectacular showing to date and should be mentioned just like the numerous good points.

Dropping the DCFC to almost 0 at 80% does not help. They look 10% more of the usable battery as buffer, than they required, and now I understand they may force you to only charge to to 80%; that is close to 30% now of battery dead weight which is not being used that should be. If the batteries are that sh!t that they need to protect their warranty by locking off close to 30% plus the normal buffer than maybe it should not be offered at all? What we have is a 98.8 KWh battery with 70 KWh useable (0.8 x 88) and will mention you do not want to reach the charger at 0%. Baffling and this is the only thing that I will complain about when it comes to Fords lack of communication. It will be here when it gets here. More consumption or new epa numbers before it does would not hurt.

I want to drive the car before I really complain, but I agree that it is at least odd that the DCFC charge rate drops precipitously at 80%, given the very large battery buffer built in.

I would really like to hear Ford's explanation of this.

Sponsored