Nav

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2020
Messages
147
Reaction score
163
Location
No.VA
Vehicles
2021 Mustang Mach E4 Premium RapidRed / SpaceGray
Country flag
#7 was a two parter. Efficiency is lower than the leader in the segment (but better than ID4). As far as the range calculation goes, here's the thing: Unless everyone uses the same testing cycle, however idiotic that cycle is, you have no basis to compare. When a consumer is shopping for a car and car X gets 15% "better" economy than Y, you'd expect that to be more or less the case in real world driving, even if the actual numbers are off. Likewise with EVs when one EV says 320 miles and the other says 270, most shoppers will assume the car that's listed at 270 won't go as far, even if that's not reality. A level playing field, no matter how insane that field is, would benefit Ford.
Alex! 👋





Advertisement

 

AoA

Member
First Name
Alex
Joined
Mar 3, 2021
Messages
9
Reaction score
83
Location
California
Vehicles
Mach E
Occupation
Professional Car Talker
Country flag
On the sticky subject of EPA range it is important to remember this: The EPA essentially allows two different testing methods to be used.

A car is placed on a dyno under controlled conditions and run through 5 cycles. There is a city cycle (UDDS or FTP-75), a gentle highway cycle (HWFET or HFEDS), an aggressive higher-speed cycle (US06), an air conditioning cycle (SC03) and a cold-start cycle (cold UDDS). In EVs this typically yields the LONGEST range possible, but the testing is more expensive.

OR, and this is key, a manufacturer can opt to run only the UDDS and HWFET cycles and apply correction factors to estimate the other cycles. This typically yields a SHORTER range, but is less expensive.

I personally can't blame Tesla or anyone else who tests in the manner the EPA has allowed, butI can blame the EPA for allowing two methods to be used. It's dumb.
 

TheSteelRider

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2019
Messages
568
Reaction score
1,066
Location
Texas
Vehicles
Premium RWD
Country flag
#7 was a two parter. Efficiency is lower than the leader in the segment (but better than ID4). As far as the range calculation goes, here's the thing: Unless everyone uses the same testing cycle, however idiotic that cycle is, you have no basis to compare. When a consumer is shopping for a car and car X gets 15% "better" economy than Y, you'd expect that to be more or less the case in real world driving, even if the actual numbers are off. Likewise with EVs when one EV says 320 miles and the other says 270, most shoppers will assume the car that's listed at 270 won't go as far, even if that's not reality. A level playing field, no matter how insane that field is, would benefit Ford.
Thanks, when I viewed the video it sounded more like a "efficiency is worse but battery is bigger so who cares". At any rate, I edited my post to prevent future confusion. Thanks for clarifying!
 

TheSteelRider

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2019
Messages
568
Reaction score
1,066
Location
Texas
Vehicles
Premium RWD
Country flag
10. Ground clearance is too low (lower than the Polestar 2 and Model Y) YES!!!
I have to say, apparently I'm in the minority but the lower the better. What others view as a disadvantage (e.g. Mach E ride height too low), I say dang wish it was almost 1 inch more LOWER! To each his own I suppose.
 

Mirak

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2020
Messages
563
Reaction score
787
Location
Kansas
Vehicles
"Sonic" 2021 MME Grabber Blue First Edition
Country flag
Yes welcome and I enjoy the videos. But when I saw the title I thought it would be a review of the more serious problems early adopters have been experiencing. None of these ten things seem like a big deal at all by comparison.

The coil whine and wind noise, dead batteries, error codes, and DCFC charging problems are the bigger concerns. I guess encouraging that Alex hasn’t experienced any of them!
 

SnBGC

Well-Known Member
First Name
Greg
Joined
Apr 20, 2020
Messages
2,132
Reaction score
3,442
Location
Phoenix
Vehicles
Ford Focus Electric, Ford C-Max Energi, 1999 F250 PSD, 2000 F250 PSD, 1968 GTO, 1955 Bel Air
Occupation
Managet
Country flag
  1. PaaK functionality does not always work
    1. Note: This is balanced on the positive side with door code and passcode-to-start
  2. Only get 1 remote with the Mach E
  3. No button on the FOB remote to open the frunk
  4. Frunk divider
    1. Note: this is balanced that if you take the divider out, the frunk is super spacious
  5. Apple Carplay is unreliable
    1. Note when this happens the track forward/backward buttons stop working
  6. The panoramic glass roof has no shade
    1. Note: same complaint for other EVs with similar roof
  7. Less efficient than competition, but has a larger battery than competition.
  8. Alex's complaint is that Ford should have gamed the EPA system just like Tesla so the cars could be more easily compared. Real-world range is very close to EPA range vs. Tesla which is not.
  9. Tires are too skinny
  10. Ground clearance is too low (lower than the Polestar 2 and Model Y)
I echo #1-#6
#7 was to be expected seeing how this car isn't all about maximum range at the expense of features, comfort and driving dynamics.
#8 I am glad Ford played it straight up. If I am not mistaken....they are also the first company to disclose the usable HVB capacity also. Was anyone else doing that before?
#9 I don't understand this comment. Generally speaking, you want the narrowest tread possible for rolling resistance. Traction is a function of weight, so since this vehicle is quite heavy.....it can get away with a thinner tire. It's all a compromise. Too wide and you lose some range. Too narrow and you lose some traction for acceleration as well as braking. The load carrying capacity of the tire is in the sidewall primarily so that explains why the profile is so tall. I haven't had any issues with traction myself. Seems like the tires on this car has perfect proportions for traction, weight capacity and rolling resistance. ????
#10 I kinda think the ground clearance is too high. I wonder why Ford didn't go with active ride height on this car like Jaguar did with their iPace? Must be very expensive and unreliable.
🤔
 

TheSteelRider

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2019
Messages
568
Reaction score
1,066
Location
Texas
Vehicles
Premium RWD
Country flag
#9 I don't understand this comment. Generally speaking, you want the narrowest tread possible for rolling resistance. Traction is a function of weight, so since this vehicle is quite heavy.....it can get away with a thinner tire. It's all a compromise. Too wide and you lose some range. Too narrow and you lose some traction for acceleration as well as braking. The load carrying capacity of the tire is in the sidewall primarily so that explains why the profile is so tall. I haven't had any issues with traction myself. Seems like the tires on this car has perfect proportions for traction, weight capacity and rolling resistance. ????
Let's ask @trutolife27

 

buffasnow

Well-Known Member
First Name
Jeff
Joined
Oct 20, 2020
Messages
337
Reaction score
586
Location
Buffalo, NY
Vehicles
Grabber Blue FE, 85 Mustang GT (pasturized)
Country flag
wait wait wait the complaint is "how dare Ford be more accurate on range?"

that's a truly idiotic complaint.

the proper complaint would be to hammer Tesla about this like so many other things that they get away with. everybody else in the industry except them seems to be underplaying or nailing their range estimates - Porsche, Kia/Hyundai, etc.

unfortunately such a stupid complaint invalidates the entire video as sus. (*)

(*) the kids tell me this is a word now.
I don't know about idiotic, but I think the complaint should be with the entity that is plainly fudging the numbers rather than the one that is less glamorous but seems pretty truthful.

It would be ideal if there was a consensus EPA test or series of tests that allowed apples-to-apples comparisons, and all mfrs HAD to use them.
 
Last edited:

Ixoye

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2021
Messages
120
Reaction score
188
Location
Washington
Vehicles
GB FE Mach e, ‘16 fusion energi, ‘14 Focus EV
Country flag
I am in agreement with Alex on this. In fact if they wanted to poke the bear a bit they could say we estimate it at 270, but using Tesla math we are 330. :)

#7 was a two parter. Efficiency is lower than the leader in the segment (but better than ID4). As far as the range calculation goes, here's the thing: Unless everyone uses the same testing cycle, however idiotic that cycle is, you have no basis to compare. When a consumer is shopping for a car and car X gets 15% "better" economy than Y, you'd expect that to be more or less the case in real world driving, even if the actual numbers are off. Likewise with EVs when one EV says 320 miles and the other says 270, most shoppers will assume the car that's listed at 270 won't go as far, even if that's not reality. A level playing field, no matter how insane that field is, would benefit Ford.
 

Ixoye

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2021
Messages
120
Reaction score
188
Location
Washington
Vehicles
GB FE Mach e, ‘16 fusion energi, ‘14 Focus EV
Country flag
I have to say, apparently I'm in the minority but the lower the better. What others view as a disadvantage (e.g. Mach E ride height too low), I say dang wish it was almost 1 inch more LOWER! To each his own I suppose.
Agreed, I am not buying this as an alternative to the Explorer. If I wanted to worry about ground clearance I would jump all over the new Bronco coming soon.
 

buzznwood

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
Messages
404
Reaction score
366
Location
california
Vehicles
focus st & rs
Country flag
I have to say, apparently I'm in the minority but the lower the better. What others view as a disadvantage (e.g. Mach E ride height too low), I say dang wish it was almost 1 inch more LOWER! To each his own I suppose.
I would also add a +1 to the lower ride height :), however the concern I have with the mach-e is that is uses the cuv/suv style of a full sill height door, so the base of the door is much lower than it would be of a car with a similar ride height so when parked next to a large curb clearance when opening the door may need to be taken into account.
 

RyZt

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2019
Messages
497
Reaction score
540
Location
San Jose
Vehicles
Mach E4X, previously CMax Hybrid
Country flag
wait wait wait the complaint is "how dare Ford be more accurate on range?"

that's a truly idiotic complaint.

the proper complaint would be to hammer Tesla about this like so many other things that they get away with. everybody else in the industry except them seems to be underplaying or nailing their range estimates - Porsche, Kia/Hyundai, etc.

unfortunately such a stupid complaint invalidates the entire video as sus. (*)

(*) the kids tell me this is a word now.
I agree with @AoA for this particular complaint.

EPA set the rules. If the rule is inappropriate, EPA should change the rules or introduce a new revision of it. Alternatively, auto manufacturer could decide to collectively report their mileage under a second standard in addition to EPA's. Tesla did nothing wrong in maximizing the numbers within the rules.

You're basically saying that every player should refrain from maximizing their own scores under the rules of the game. I disagree. By that same "accurate" argument you're making, you could say that Ford should use 300 miles for their WLTP and NEDC rating as well, which would be clearly stupid. EPA is not fundamentally different, even though it's closer to real life numbers.

Fundamentally, our difference is this: you look at EPA range primarily as having a particular real life meaning (how much miles do I get in real life). I look at EPA range primarily as a score for comparison.
 

TheSteelRider

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2019
Messages
568
Reaction score
1,066
Location
Texas
Vehicles
Premium RWD
Country flag
You know what this argument reminds me of? The ".9" gasoline prices in the US. Let's not repeat that debacle.
 

Stang68

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2020
Messages
195
Reaction score
264
Location
USA
Vehicles
Ordered RR ME Premium 4X
Country flag
The tires are WAY too skinny and/or WAY too slippery. There's simply no excuse for this lack of grip in a vehicle with the Mustang on the front, back, keys, wheels, steering wheel, etc. etc.

It's either a Mustang, or it has Prius grip, but not both.
I don’t know about you, but my ‘06 Mustang was NOT known for grip lol
 

Stang68

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2020
Messages
195
Reaction score
264
Location
USA
Vehicles
Ordered RR ME Premium 4X
Country flag
I have to say, apparently I'm in the minority but the lower the better. What others view as a disadvantage (e.g. Mach E ride height too low), I say dang wish it was almost 1 inch more LOWER! To each his own I suppose.
Same here! I want as close to an electric wagon as possible and this Mach E is (mostly) delivering.
 

Advertisement





 


Advertisement
Top