ABRP Calibrated Reference Consumption

[Woeo]

Roughly even mix of Interstate, 55 mph State roads, 35-40 local. Mix of F° in the teens, 30’s, & 50’s.

Since December ABRP is consistently reporting 3.6x mi/kWh Calibrated Reference Consumption for my AWD Extended Premium—between 3.63 and 3.67.

Sponsored

 

[hitchhiker]

If temperatures have been at all similar to the 36 degrees you posted, then how is this remotely possible?

 

[Woeo]

Has creeped up to 3.8 with the warming temps.

 

[AZBill]

For my CA RT1, I have been using the Ford nav on trips and it is slightly conservative. I have played around with ABRP and found I had to set the reference to 3.7m/kWh to get it close to reality.

I recently did a trip of 300 miles at 70-75mph and got 3.5m/kWh.

 

[Woeo]

If temperatures have been at all similar to the 36 degrees you posted, then how is this remotely possible?

Don‘t shoot the messenger. I tried to be clear about my use case. Teens to 50’s during mid Dec to mid Feb. local and Highway driving. Feel free to review temps in Maryland if you think I’m trying to fool you for some reason.

I am posting my number so others using an OBD dongle (to collect live data for ABRP) can compare their result.

I assume ABRP is striving to collect accurate info so they can make better route plans.

Maybe the calibrated reference consumption metric can’t simply be multiplied by battery kWh to get range.

 

[hitchhiker]

Don‘t shoot the messenger. I tried to be clear about my use case. Teens to 50’s during mid Dec to mid Feb. local and Highway driving. Feel free to review temps in Maryland if you think I’m trying to fool you for some reason.

I am posting my number so others using an OBD dongle (to collect live data for ABRP) can compare their result.

I assume ABRP is striving to collect accurate info so they can make better route plans.

Maybe the calibrated reference consumption metric can’t simply be multiplied by battery kWh to get range.

I'm not shooting the messenger, I just think ABRP is doing something wonky. At 65mph in those temperatures, that consumption would put it about on par with a Tesla Model S Raven in terms of efficiency, which the Mach-e isn't. That would equate to a hair over 315 miles range doing 65mph at a constant elevation. Comparing to the consumption reported by the car would be interesting.

 

[Woeo]

I'm not shooting the messenger, I just think ABRP is doing something wonky. At 65mph in those temperatures, that consumption would put it about on par with a Tesla Model S Raven in terms of efficiency, which the Mach-e isn't. That would equate to a hair over 315 miles range doing 65mph at a constant elevation. Comparing to the consumption reported by the car would be interesting.

Another update.

After creeping up to 3.8 mi/kWh took a longish trip of 262 miles, about 50 interstate miles and the rest two lane State roads—hilly, periodic controlled intersections. Mostly 55-65 mph and ABRP consumption rate estimate is back near 3.5

Ford reported 3.3 m/kWh, using 100-10% on the extended battery—262/3.3= 79kw;79/88=89.8%—so I find that trustworthy.

The ABRP seems to be an average or just runs high at this point.

 

[Mach-Lee]

This is interesting, when I played with ABRP 5 months ago to figure out what a realistic reference consumption was, I came up with 280 Wh/mi or 3.6 mi/kWh to get the ranges to work out right. I see that is really close to what you folks are getting with real data.

My other conclusion was ABRP has a flawed model for the Mach-E that increases error the further you get away from a typical highway speed of 70 MPH. They are probably using some really generic numbers from a 2019 press release that are way off, as a result we have to compensate with reference consumption by an extreme amount from the real consumption.

Can somebody contact the developers and see what they are using for drag coefficient and frontal area in their model? The drag coefficient is 0.285 and I estimate the frontal area to be around 24.3 square ft. There should be enough data to update the model into a beta status instead of alpha by now.

 

[DarkStang]

May be a dumb question, but bear with me, as I don’t have my MME yet. But how is ABRP communicating with your car to get calibrated reference consumption? I’ve been playing with ABRP but seem like all I can do is type in a reference number. But it sounds like you are having it update/track based on your driving habits?

 

[BMT1071]

May be a dumb question, but bear with me, as I don’t have my MME yet. But how is ABRP communicating with your car to get calibrated reference consumption? I’ve been playing with ABRP but seem like all I can do is type in a reference number. But it sounds like you are having it update/track based on your driving habits?

Using an OBD dongle.

 

[DarkStang]

Using an OBD dongle.

Ah, that makes sense, thanks. Wasn’t sure if it could connect to your FordPass driving history or something.

ABRP gives me a default 3.13 for a SR RWD. That seems high to me @ 65 mph, since the EPA highway consumption is about 2.85 (converted using an MPGe calc). that said, when I plug in extra weight, temp and wind etc. the routes seem pretty accurate and end up in the 2.8ish range anyway.

However I’ve heard that I should be putting in an even higher reference number like 3.5 for my model to make less conservative for its baseline calculations. Anyone think that’s true or is the stock number what you should start with?

Sponsored