dbsb3233

Well-Known Member
First Name
Tim
Joined
Dec 30, 2019
Messages
1,140
Reaction score
823
Location
Colorado, USA
First Name
Tim
Vehicles
2013 Ford Escape
Occupation
Retired
Country flag
It would be volume on the fuel tank comparison. The 11 gallon Prius tank providing 550 miles, the 24 gallon F150 tank providing 432 miles.

It's all about the Wh/mi efficiency.
Oh of course, it's not ONLY about the weight of the fuel storage. In ICE cars that's a fairly modest part of it. The various engines have far more to do with it.

But on BEVs, the batteries are a MUCH bigger part of it. The Mach-e battery pack weights 900-1200 lbs. That's 25% of the entire GVW. Much bigger impact.

You're entirely correct about it being about efficiency though (Wh/mi, or miles/kWh). How many miles they can go on a kWh of electricity. The motors, the aerodynamics, the weight, etc all impact that.
 
Last edited:

ccarpen

Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2020
Messages
12
Reaction score
8
Location
UK
Vehicles
Jaguar I Pace
Country flag
16.5 kWh/100 KM = 3.75 miles/kWh. That's pretty optimistic, but WLTP tends to be.

WLTP range for the ER RWD is stated at 370 miles. 370 / 3.75 = 98.6, which is the entire battery (no reserve). So they must be basing that on battery size and not actual 0%-100% the software limits it to after subtracting reserve on each end.

Presumably the 300 mile range they're advertising in the US for that model does account for the reserve. 300 / 3.75 = 80 kWh. That would mean a 19% reserve, if it all lines up that way.

But that all hinges on the 3.75 miles/kWh number, which is wildly variable. I suspect that's more realistic for "good condition" driving (lower speeds, good temp, modest use of climate control). Put it on an interstate or in cold weather and I'm guessing that number will be significantly lower. Just depends on the usage pattern.
I agree it infers no reserve/buffer. Alternatively, the quoted battery size is net capacity after the buffer, but I would've thought Ford would have stated this clearly, much like VW are doing with ID.3.

The 16.5kWh/100km or 3.75 miles/kWh are WLTP numbers, so not sure you can apply to EPA range.
 

dbsb3233

Well-Known Member
First Name
Tim
Joined
Dec 30, 2019
Messages
1,140
Reaction score
823
Location
Colorado, USA
First Name
Tim
Vehicles
2013 Ford Escape
Occupation
Retired
Country flag
I agree it infers no reserve/buffer. Alternatively, the quoted battery size is net capacity after the buffer, but I would've thought Ford would have stated this clearly, much like VW are doing with ID.3.

The 16.5kWh/100km or 3.75 miles/kWh are WLTP numbers, so not sure you can apply to EPA range.
I think it's safe to assume the 98.8 kWh for the ER battery is the raw battery capacity, not after reserve. I've seen technical stories about it that actually spell out the # of battery cells and how it adds up to 98.8.

Agree about the 3.75 number used in the WLTP numbers probably being different than what's used in the EPA calculation. Probably lower. They could still get to 300 miles with something like a 3.5 number and a 13% reserve. Or some combination there of. Not sure we're likely to see an EPA range much above 300 though (with reserve accounted for).
 

LYTMCQ

Well-Known Member
First Name
Lyt
Joined
Feb 2, 2020
Messages
942
Reaction score
348
Location
Portland
First Name
Lyt
Vehicles
Telsa Model 3 LR AWD
Country flag
Oh of course, it's not ONLY about the weight of the fuel storage.
Weight of the fuel not an issue. It's miles per "tank" or "battery". Saying one has a 100kWh battery or a 75kWh battery is meaningless in determining range.

Alternatively, the quoted battery size is net capacity after the buffer, but I would've thought Ford would have stated this clearly, much like VW are doing with ID.3.
Where does Ford state battery kWh and where does it state this is "available" or "total"?
 

dbsb3233

Well-Known Member
First Name
Tim
Joined
Dec 30, 2019
Messages
1,140
Reaction score
823
Location
Colorado, USA
First Name
Tim
Vehicles
2013 Ford Escape
Occupation
Retired
Country flag
Weight of the fuel not an issue. It's miles per "tank" or "battery". Saying one has a 100kWh battery or a 75kWh battery is meaningless in determining range.



Where does Ford state battery kWh and where does it state this is "available" or "total"?
No, by "fuel" I meant the total weight involved for fueling both types of vechicles (ICE and BEV). The fuel component for ICE cars is the tank + gas. The fuel component for BEVs is the battery pack. My point is the battery pack weighs a lot (literally around half a ton). And being able to squeeze more electricity into a battery pack (because of better energy density) helps efficiency.

(The 2nd quote was from who I was replying to.)
 

timbop

Well-Known Member
First Name
Tim
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
Messages
583
Reaction score
525
Location
New Jersey
First Name
Tim
Vehicles
2015 Mustang Convertible, 2016 Dodge Durango
Occupation
Software Engineer
Country flag
Where does Ford state battery kWh and where does it state this is "available" or "total"?
They say battery capacity here: https://www.ford.com/cmslibs/conten...df/seo-pdfs/Mustang_Mach-E_Tech_Specs-SEO.pdf

What they DON'T say is battery buffer. Using the 3.75 mi/kwhr value, the battery's reported range is just about 80% of capacity (227.1 and 296) - so that leaves 20 percent for combined buffer and speed penalty. Which means that either there is very little buffer, the buffer is hidden capacity, or that 3.75 mi/kwhr already includes a fudge factor. only time and Ford will tell
 
  • Like
Reactions: UW2

LYTMCQ

Well-Known Member
First Name
Lyt
Joined
Feb 2, 2020
Messages
942
Reaction score
348
Location
Portland
First Name
Lyt
Vehicles
Telsa Model 3 LR AWD
Country flag
No, by "fuel" I meant the total weight involved for fueling both types of vechicles (ICE and BEV).
Got that but weight of the fuel is meaningless. How far you can go on full tank/battery is the question, what is the car's MPGe.
 

dbsb3233

Well-Known Member
First Name
Tim
Joined
Dec 30, 2019
Messages
1,140
Reaction score
823
Location
Colorado, USA
First Name
Tim
Vehicles
2013 Ford Escape
Occupation
Retired
Country flag
Got that but weight of the fuel is meaningless. How far you can go on full tank/battery is the question, what is the car's MPGe.
Yes. I just shorthanded it trying to refer to "fuel" in general which I though would be understood within the context of the prior discussion. Guess that didn't work.
 

timbop

Well-Known Member
First Name
Tim
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
Messages
583
Reaction score
525
Location
New Jersey
First Name
Tim
Vehicles
2015 Mustang Convertible, 2016 Dodge Durango
Occupation
Software Engineer
Country flag
Wouldn't that mean Ford's battery is 72kWh x 3.75 = 270 miles.
Not sure what you mean, or where you get 72kwhr? The SR batt is 75.7kwhr. The 3.75mi/kwhr is best-case WLTP for RWD. So RWD SR unbuffered best case max is 75.7 * 3.75 = 283 miles. 80% of that 283 is 227.1 miles. Published target range of SR RWD is 230.
 

LYTMCQ

Well-Known Member
First Name
Lyt
Joined
Feb 2, 2020
Messages
942
Reaction score
348
Location
Portland
First Name
Lyt
Vehicles
Telsa Model 3 LR AWD
Country flag
Not sure what you mean, or where you get 72kwhr?
Someone said Mach-E is 3.75 Wh/mi so 270 miles range would be require 72kWh. At 98.8kWh battery, that would be 362Wh/mi.
 

dbsb3233

Well-Known Member
First Name
Tim
Joined
Dec 30, 2019
Messages
1,140
Reaction score
823
Location
Colorado, USA
First Name
Tim
Vehicles
2013 Ford Escape
Occupation
Retired
Country flag
Someone said Mach-E is 3.75 Wh/mi so 270 miles range would be require 72kWh. At 98.8kWh battery, that would be 362Wh/mi.
Those are (approx) the WLTP figures shown on the Ford UK website.

https://www.ford.co.uk/shop/price-and-locate/pre-order/build-your-own#/intro

It shows 16.5 kWh/100km, which translates to 3.75 miles/kWh. And 370 mile range for the ER RWD.

We're just trying to decipher that, and project it to what the EPA numbers here might be. When we do the math, it appears the WLTP numbers may be based on the full installed battery, with no reserve. But that's obviously not real world (like EPA tries to estimate) because manufactures include a reserve. We're just not sure how much Ford will put in. And we're guessing that the 300 mile range Ford estimates for the US might account for that reserve.

But we're also not so sure about the 3.75 miles/kWh either. That could be lower when applying the EPA driving parameters.
 

timbop

Well-Known Member
First Name
Tim
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
Messages
583
Reaction score
525
Location
New Jersey
First Name
Tim
Vehicles
2015 Mustang Convertible, 2016 Dodge Durango
Occupation
Software Engineer
Country flag
Someone said Mach-E is 3.75 Wh/mi so 270 miles range would be require 72kWh. At 98.8kWh battery, that would be 362Wh/mi.
the 3.75 number is miles per Kilowatt-hour, not watt-hours per mile. Tesla has you thinking in terms of how much energy you use to go somewhere (wh/mi) and the rest of us think in terms of how far I can go with the energy I have (mi/kwhr) :)
 

FredT

Well-Known Member
First Name
Fred
Joined
Feb 1, 2020
Messages
107
Reaction score
54
Location
California
First Name
Fred
Vehicles
1999 Mercedes 320E. 2003 Passat Wagon, just finished lease of 2017 Audi A3 Enron
Occupation
Retired
Country flag
the 3.75 number is miles per Kilowatt-hour, not watt-hours per mile. Tesla has you thinking in terms of how much energy you use to go somewhere (wh/mi) and the rest of us think in terms of how far I can go with the energy I have (mi/kwhr) :)
And EPA adds to confusion by giving us MPGe and kWh/100 miles.
 

dbsb3233

Well-Known Member
First Name
Tim
Joined
Dec 30, 2019
Messages
1,140
Reaction score
823
Location
Colorado, USA
First Name
Tim
Vehicles
2013 Ford Escape
Occupation
Retired
Country flag
the 3.75 number is miles per Kilowatt-hour, not watt-hours per mile. Tesla has you thinking in terms of how much energy you use to go somewhere (wh/mi) and the rest of us think in terms of how far I can go with the energy I have (mi/kwhr) :)
That is an annoying inverse that Tesla displays. Not sure why they did that.
And EPA adds to confusion by giving us MPGe and kWh/100 miles.
I wish we could wave a magic wand and say "OK people, from now on the counterpart to MPG is MPK (miles/kWh)!!!".

If they really want to get mainstream consumers (especially in the US) onboard with BEVs, it would really help if they'd use consistent terminology. And MPK is the logical counterpart to MPG.
 
Last edited:
Top