Breaking News from Norway-increased charging speed/capacity and range of vehicle

[Billyk24]

Can this be true? Mustang Mach-E electric SUV can charge an average of 119 km (74 miles) at just 10 minutes when using an IONITY charging station. Mustang Mach-E Long Range variant with four-wheel drive and the largest battery pack of 99 kWh gets an average 107 km (67 miles) range within 10 minutes of charging from an IONITY charging station Plus: Mustang Mach-E Long Range RWD with a range of up to 600 kilometres (375 miles). Link: https://www.electrichunter.com/elec...1gQR6tuxXm_NaFx_VuJ_-na5J5_JBDSWUjete8PG2niy4 Mustang Mach-E, Long Range variant with four-wheel drive and an electric range of up to 540 km (337 miles!). Link: https://www.electrichunter.com/electric-cars/new-mustang-mach-e-norwegian-roads Ionity information on their 150-350kW chargers: https://ionity.eu/en/design-and-tech.html

Faster charging speeds, increased range meaning more efficient drivetrain/power plant. I hope this is true and it may mean under ideal conditions. What is the EPA ratings going to be?

Sponsored

 

[ChasingCoral]

Can this be true? Mustang Mach-E electric SUV can charge an average of 119 km (74 miles) at just 10 minutes when using an IONITY charging station. Mustang Mach-E Long Range variant with four-wheel drive and the largest battery pack of 99 kWh gets an average 107 km (67 miles) range within 10 minutes of charging from an IONITY charging station Plus: Mustang Mach-E Long Range RWD with a range of up to 600 kilometres (375 miles). Link: https://www.electrichunter.com/elec...1gQR6tuxXm_NaFx_VuJ_-na5J5_JBDSWUjete8PG2niy4 Mustang Mach-E, Long Range variant with four-wheel drive and an electric range of up to 540 km (337 miles!). Link: https://www.electrichunter.com/electric-cars/new-mustang-mach-e-norwegian-roads Ionity information on their 150-350kW chargers: https://ionity.eu/en/design-and-tech.html

Faster charging speeds, increased range meaning more efficient drivetrain/power plant. I hope this is true and it may mean under ideal conditions. What is the EPA ratings going to be?

Those could be WLTP miles, not EPA miles.

 

[Billyk24]

Those could be WLTP miles, not EPA miles.

You may be correct. I don't know how to really do a rough conversion of WLTP to EPA numbers.

 

[Wildthing]

Looks like the same WPTL estimated range already announced

« Mustang Mach-E has a targeted range of 280 miles with the standard battery, or up 370 miles with the extended range battery » (from Ford UK)

 

[ChasingCoral]

You may be correct. I don't know how to really do a rough conversion of WLTP to EPA numbers.

Mach Ex range: 300 EPA, 373 WLTP
373/300=1.243333333
US announcement 60 miles in 10 minutes.

60*1.243333=74.6 miles (120 km)

Nothing new here.

 

[ajmartineau]

Sometimes that EPA/WLTP ratio is about 1 to 1, see Tesla article.

What if the Mach-E got rated 370 miles from the EPA... have a think on that. You know Ford has been sandbagging, that's why I don't like ABRP or any speculation about range or efficiency. If those two things are important to you, then wait until the car comes out to buy.

 

[timbop]

Sometimes that EPA/WLTP ratio is about 1 to 1, see Tesla article.

What if the Mach-E got rated 370 miles from the EPA... have a think on that. You know Ford has been sandbagging, that's why I don't like ABRP or any speculation about range or efficiency. If those two things are important to you, then wait until the car comes out to buy.

I don't think that's a realistic expectation. insideevs and another site mention that the ratio is 1.12 to 1.2 or so, which is encouraging - that would put the ER RWD in the 312 to 330 miles, with 312 being the more likely.

 

[dbsb3233]

Sometimes that EPA/WLTP ratio is about 1 to 1, see Tesla article.

What if the Mach-E got rated 370 miles from the EPA... have a think on that. You know Ford has been sandbagging, that's why I don't like ABRP or any speculation about range or efficiency. If those two things are important to you, then wait until the car comes out to buy.

370 has been the WLTP (target) counterpart for the Mach-e since it was announced last year. Along with 300 (target) EPA.

 

[dbsb3233]

I don't think that's a realistic expectation. insideevs and another site mention that the ratio is 1.12 to 1.2 or so, which is encouraging - that would put the ER RWD in the 312 to 330 miles, with 312 being the more likely.

And it should be a little different ratio for each vehicle, as some are more efficient at higher speeds than others. WLTP is weighted more toward favorable lower speeds.

 

[ajmartineau]

Yes, this is a rehashed article from when they announced the 61 miles in 10 minutes. We all know that.
However, just for jiggles.
Model X LR+ EPA 351, WLTP 315
Model Y Perf. EPA 315, WLTP 298
Model Y LR AWD EPA 316, WLTP 314
Model S LR+ EPA 391, WLTP 379
etc.
How does Tesla get such high EPA numbers?

 

[timbop]

370 has been the WLTP (target) counterpart for the Mach-e since it was announced last year. Along with 300 (target) EPA.

True, but it is at least encouraging that actual field tests confirm the calculations - it met the target. Also, that WLTP number has a higher ratio to EPA than other BEVs, so it is possible the WLTP number is accurate and the EPA number is a little low.

One can hope, right?

 

[dbsb3233]

True, but it is at least encouraging that actual field tests confirm the calculations - it met the target. Also, that WLTP number has a higher ratio to EPA than other BEVs, so it is possible the WLTP number is accurate and the EPA number is a little low.

One can hope, right?

That's true. It's rare to finally get a real test rather than all the "targeted" stuff.

But it could still be some fuzzy math, because the only consistent units for charging are kWh (which they didn't tell us how much was added in 10 minutes). When it's stated in miles (or kms), then it's dependent on whatever miles/kWh ratio they're using. Which for target range should be the same ones used to calculate the 300 EPA/370 WLTP.

In a real world test like this, I presume it's the reading that the recent memory of the car has (like ICE trip odometers usually use). And that could vary greatly. If they've been driving mostly slow city, the calculation could be using (for example) 3.7 miles/kWh, but if they've been driving a lot of highway it could be 2.7.

Which also begs the question... when the car is first shipped with no drive history, does the range show 300 in the US but 370 in Europe? And does that change once you get a few miles on it (like a normal trip odometer)?

What I really wish this article told us was the kWh added in those first 10 minutes of charging. And then what miles/kWh the car was averaging.

 

[dbsb3233]

Yes, this is a rehashed article from when they announced the 61 miles in 10 minutes. We all know that.
However, just for jiggles.
Model X LR+ EPA 351, WLTP 315
Model Y Perf. EPA 315, WLTP 298
Model Y LR AWD EPA 316, WLTP 314
Model S LR+ EPA 391, WLTP 379
etc.
How does Tesla get such high EPA numbers?

Many reasons have been suggested. In part, Tesla has a very low battery reserve held back. That means they push the battery further to it's limits to produce more advertised range, but also at more risk. They expect drivers to take more care to not push it that far frequently, which means practical range is somewhat less. Whereas the MME has a large 11% reserve held back, which means we should regularly be able to get more of the advertised range (i.e. charge to 100% and run down closer to 0% more frequently without fear of damaging the battery).

Also the Teslas are lighter than the MME. And more aerodynamic (that ugly low catfish front vs the MME's stout Mustang front).

Also, most of the Teslas have gone through an OTA software tweak that increased range after a lot of customer mileage data was collected and analyzed. The same will probably happen for the MME too, next year.

 

[ajmartineau]

Other than aerodynamics, none of those explain how the get a 1:1 ratio EPA/WLTP. Which is what the article explains. And what I was talking about.
https://insideevs.com/news/414786/comparison-epa-wltp-range-ratings

 

[dbsb3233]

Other than aerodynamics, none of those explain how the get a 1:1 ratio EPA/WLTP. Which is what the article explains. And what I was talking about.
https://insideevs.com/news/414786/comparison-epa-wltp-range-ratings

No idea on that one. Almost sounds like Tesla figured out a way to game the system on the tests to produce higher EPA than they should be. It's quite common to hear reports of Tesla EPA range being inflated and falling well short in the real world.