2021 Mach-E won't get 2022 usable Battery Increase

[Bill S]

Thanks to those who are not happy, this thread has earned the "IGNORE" designation.

Sponsored

 

[tannerk89]

Let’s not forget the constant revenue stream Ford gets from selling our personal data that pays for many of these updates. They did sell the car stating it would get better in time. That is part of the purchase price of the car and also being paid for by the use of the data that you give them when using FordPass and PaaK, etc.

Should give this info to Edmunds/Top Gear/Car and Driver. Ford will retract that statement saying older cars won’t get the improvement updates really quickly…

 

[Wildthing]

I know that I bought a car with a 68 kWh battery and without and heat pump. If they add an heat pump in 2023 I will not be mad an ask for one. Usable battery capacity is different, especially if they change their mind over time. I knew that the buffer was too large when I bought the car but knowing the OTA possibilities I expected an improvement. A few months later they admit that I was right by adding capacity to 2022 models.

What I don't accept is that they sell the car telling that it will improve over time but and administrative decision with no technical justification will let our 2021 with a lower resale value.

I admit that this is not so much but every mile is welcome in Canada during the winter. But if I had to choose, I would prefer faster charging speed during the winter with battery preheat. That's another thing that I would be mad if they add it to 2022 but not 2021. If I knew they intend to act like ICE car by adding 5 horsepower each year with the same engine, I would not have bought a 2021 and would have wait for the second year model.

I still think that's a communication mistake by Ford. I would like as technical explanation. Maybe they want a few 2022 out to collect the data about the increase before giving it to 2021 owner? That would seems logic to me.

But a simple no as an answer is not acceptable. If they do this, they will just justify potentiel clients to look elsewhere. OTA improvement is the future (and the present) for electric cars.

 

[generaltso]

I'm just waiting for the public outcry on here when the 2022s start getting delivered with frunk buttons on their (2) fobs.

 

[sotek2345]

Would anyone here be willing to pay for the increase in usable battery for 2021 cars? Not sure how I feel about it personally. I have no issue paying for meaningful improvements (as long as the price is reasonable), but that sets the precedent that they need to be paid for. On the other hand, having it be a revenue stream means Ford would put WAY more attention on it and we would get much better / faster updates.

 

[generaltso]

Would anyone here be willing to pay for the increase in usable battery for 2021 cars?

Depends how much.

On the other hand, having it be a revenue stream means Ford would put WAY more attention on it and we would get much better / faster updates.

You mean like BlueCruise?

 

[saywhat4412]

I'm just waiting for the public outcry on here when the 2022s start getting delivered with frunk buttons on their (2) fobs.

Great point. I will be writing this down to add to my bitching manifesto for 2022.

 

[SnBGC]

Would anyone here be willing to pay for the increase in usable battery for 2021 cars? Not sure how I feel about it personally. I have no issue paying for meaningful improvements (as long as the price is reasonable), but that sets the precedent that they need to be paid for. On the other hand, having it be a revenue stream means Ford would put WAY more attention on it and we would get much better / faster updates.

I would not pay for the meager increase. 88 kWh is more than I ever need already. The top end buffer gets consumed over time anyway so a 91kWh car will consume its buffer faster than an 88 kWh car (all else being equal). The question is how long will it take before we have less than 88kWh usable due to degredarion. Hoping it will be quite a while......

 

[mkhuffman]

I would not pay for the meager increase. 88 kWh is more than I ever need already. The top end buffer gets consumed over time anyway so a 91kWh car will consume its buffer faster than an 88 kWh car (all else being equal). The question is how long will it take before we have less than 88kWh usable due to degredarion. Hoping it will be quite a while......

I agree - the 3 kWh is barely an improvement, and I very rarely charge to 100% anyway. In fact, I am planing a four hour drive next week to see my parents, and even if I charge the car to 100% I will need to stop two times. So I am going to charge to 80% at my house. Normally I would charge to 90% but I am planning to do a test to see how much battery FordPass says I used and compare that to the amount needed to get my car to 80% at the EV chargers.

The point is I don't need another 3 kWh, so I will take it if it is free, but I will not pay for it.

 

[Logal727]

Sorry I didn't wade through all the complaining to see, but does anyone in the know actually know if this is true or another instance of one hand not talking to the other?

 

[generaltso]

Sorry I didn't wade through all the complaining to see, but does anyone in the know actually know if this is true or another instance of one hand not talking to the other?

Those who know can't say and those who say don't know.

 

[agoldman]

I just think Ford oversold the OTA as a feature. So far it really hasn't done much. I guess there is still time for that to happen if they decide to get moving on it.

 

[Logal727]

I just think Ford oversold the OTA as a feature. So far it really hasn't done much. I guess there is still time for that to happen if they decide to get moving on it.

Seems like they are still figuring out how to deploy it, guessing once that's settled, we'll get rolling more. The time between 1.7.1 and 2.1.0 for some shortened than previous releases, so there is some hope that they are getting it figured out.

 

[timbop]

The top end buffer gets consumed over time anyway so a 91kWh car will consume its buffer faster than an 88 kWh car (all else being equal).

This is the operative point about the buffer that seems to have people confused, and why Ford started with such a big buffer anyway. With 2 otherwise identical cars except for an 88kwh and 91kwh usable capacity that are driven exactly the same and identically charged to 80kwh will degrade at about the same rate over time. Within manufacturing variances they will both likely reach the point that the battery can ONLY hold some nominal capacity (say 85khw) at roughly the same time. HOWEVER, the fact that the battery has degraded will be noticeable in the 91kwh car first when one attempts to charge it up to 100% and it can only reach 88 to 90 kwh.

The bigger issue is if both cars are regularly charged to their full accessible capacities (88kwh and 91kwh) and driven identically, the car charged to 91kwh will see degradation much sooner (in that it no longer can reach its nominal 100% SoC) AND it will degrade to only being able to hold that same nominal 85kwh capacity before the 88kwh car even shows any degradation. That is because more damage occurs to Li-ion batteries the closer they get to "true" 100% capacity. That's the reason the buffers exist in the first place.

With that said, it would still be a foolish and shortsighted for Ford to already be limiting what software updates go to older cars. They've been hyping the OTA process to compete with Tesla; playing games with it already will clearly send the signal that they don't understand the value of it. Unlike hardware, distributing duplicate copies software is essentially "free" to so would cost Ford virtually nothing to do. Arbitrarily choosing NOT to distribute that software WILL cost them lost customers when other manufacturers don't make the same mistake.

 

[JamieGeek]

This is the operative point about the buffer that seems to have people confused, and why Ford started with such a big buffer anyway. With 2 otherwise identical cars except for an 88kwh and 91kwh usable capacity that are driven exactly the same and identically charged to 80kwh will degrade at about the same rate over time. Within manufacturing variances they will both likely reach the point that the battery can ONLY hold some nominal capacity (say 85khw) at roughly the same time. HOWEVER, the fact that the battery has degraded will be noticeable in the 91kwh car first when one attempts to charge it up to 100% and it can only reach 88 to 90 kwh.

The bigger issue is if both cars are regularly charged to their full accessible capacities (88kwh and 91kwh) and driven identically, the car charged to 91kwh will see degradation much sooner (in that it no longer can reach its nominal 100% SoC) AND it will degrade to only being able to hold that same nominal 85kwh capacity before the 88kwh car even shows any degradation. That is because more damage occurs to Li-ion batteries the closer they get to "true" 100% capacity. That's the reason the buffers exist in the first place.

With that said, it would still be a foolish and shortsighted for Ford to already be limiting what software updates go to older cars. They've been hyping the OTA process to compete with Tesla; playing games with it already will clearly send the signal that they don't understand the value of it. Unlike hardware, distributing duplicate copies software is essentially "free" to so would cost Ford virtually nothing to do. Arbitrarily choosing NOT to distribute that software WILL cost them lost customers when other manufacturers don't make the same mistake.

But but but this is the way it has always been done.

Bolt example: I had a 2018 Bolt, in 2019 they changed the software to allow you to set the % charged to. GM publicly said that they were not going to update the 2018's with the same software (granted this isn't via OTA but via the stealership).

Same as it ever was...

Sponsored