Excellent Q&A with Ford/Mach-E Electric Vehicle Engineer

[hybrid2bev]

The engineer said that Ford was being conservative with the range and that the Mach-E's performance was basically scary fast (enough so that guys who drove GT350s were intimidated).

If 270 & 300 miles are the stated range for AWD and RWD, respectively, what do you think the actual EPA will be? Will the EPA range be on-target, low or high compared to real world?

I think the Mach-E actual EPA range numbers will exceed the targets. The current EPA targets are the 'at least' number that the actual EPA numbers should be. I wouldn't be surprised if the actual EPA numbers are 5% higher than the targets.

But for real world range, like any vehicle, it depends on how you drive. For example, my C-MAX Hybrid is rated for 38 mpg combined, but in the summer I usually get closer to 54 mpg and 47 mpg in winter.

Sponsored

 

[silverelan]

The EPA number for the Porsche Taycan are wildly off of real world numbers. I mean, it's not even close. The Taycan road tripper in frozen Canada is getting over EPA and Nextmove YouTube channel did an 81mph avg range test on the Autobahn and got 196mi.

Contrast the Taycan with Tesla Model 3 Performance which doesn't get even close to EPA falling way short of stated range.

Seems like Bolt EV and Model 3 LR RWD are spot on with their numbers in real world (YMMV).

If Ford is accurate with their EPA rating and the current range target is conservative, I'm gonna say 8-10%. So 295mi for AWD and 325 for RWD.

 

[Nak]

The EPA number for the Porsche Taycan are wildly off of real world numbers. I mean, it's not even close. The Taycan road tripper in frozen Canada is getting over EPA...

I'm not really seeing that on his thread. Maybe I'm missing something, but it sure looks to me like he's validating the EPA numbers for the Taycan. He beat the EPA when he "hypermiled"--heat off, lights off, no stereo, drove slow...--But that's expected. I'm too busy to dig through the thread now, but I believe his consumption during hypermiling was about 39 kwh per 100 miles.

 

[silverelan]

I'm not really seeing that on his thread. Maybe I'm missing something, but it sure looks to me like he's validating the EPA numbers for the Taycan. He beat the EPA when he "hypermiled"--heat off, lights off, no stereo, drove slow...--But that's expected. I'm too busy to dig through the thread now, but I believe his consumption during hypermiling was about 39 kwh per 100 miles.

Yup, he's getting EPA numbers driving in the middle of Canadian winter on Pirelli snow tires. He's currently in the Rockies at Lake Louise. EPA numbers on any vehicle, fossil or EV, in those conditions should not be possible. Yet it's happening.

 

[dbsb3233]

The engineer said that Ford was being conservative with the range and that the Mach-E's performance was basically scary fast (enough so that guys who drove GT350s were intimidated).

If 270 & 300 miles are the stated range for AWD and RWD, respectively, what do you think the actual EPA will be? Will the EPA range be on-target, low or high compared to real world?

Those statements almost seem to conflict with each other. "Scary fast performance" to me seems like a bigger power user, not a frugal one. I know they do their best it find that balance, but seems those two things are indirectly proportionate.

Their mileage estimates could very well be conservative, but I'm not expecting them to be by much. I suspect this will be more of a performance vehicle than an efficiency vehicle. Especially with the extra weight of the AWD motor and the ER batteries.

It ultimately comes down to the miles/kWh. Lesser performance vehicles like the Bolt seem to get somewhere around 3.5 with a mix of city/highway. I'm expecting something around 3 for the Mach-e. Hope I'm surprised to the upside, but I'm not finding much reason to expect better. (Maybe 3.5 city and 2.5 @ 75 MPH).

 

[dbsb3233]

Just a clarification question... Are we assuming that the official "Range" number is based on using 100% of the battery as the software limits it? So for instance, if Ford reserves 10% of the 98.8 kWh battery for an internal safety buffer for the ends, they're basing "Range" on 88.8 kWh?

(Which, for instance, would translate to an expected 3.37 miles/kWh avg.)

 

[silverelan]

Just a clarification question... Are we assuming that the official "Range" number is based on using 100% of the battery as the software limits it? So for instance, if Ford reserves 10% of the 98.8 kWh battery for an internal safety buffer for the ends, they're basing "Range" on 88.8 kWh?

(Which, for instance, would translate to an expected 3.37 miles/kWh avg.)

I believe EPA range is based off of what the OEM says it will do on the amount of available energy. In the case of the ER, that'd be like 90kWh.

As for range being in conflict with performance, I'm not sure that's how it works exactly as there are opportunities for efficiency despite the powerful motors. Hyundai/KIA get over 200hp out of their motors with wheel spinning torque yet get around 240-260 miles out of 64kWh.

 

[dbsb3233]

I believe EPA range is based off of what the OEM says it will do on the amount of available energy. In the case of the ER, that'd be like 90kWh.

As for range being in conflict with performance, I'm not sure that's how it works exactly as there are opportunities for efficiency despite the powerful motors. Hyundai/KIA get over 200hp out of their motors with wheel spinning torque yet get around 240-260 miles out of 64kWh.

True, but those are also lighter vehicles. The Kona EV and eNiro both come in around 3800 lbs. Reports are the Mach-e is roughly 900-1200 lbs heavier.

I suppose it's possible they found a way to make a more efficient motor, or do something else with the overall management of the powertrain to make it more efficient than the competition. Maybe that'll happen, but I don't really see much reason to expect it to.

 

[Nak]

Yup, he's getting EPA numbers driving in the middle of Canadian winter on Pirelli snow tires. He's currently in the Rockies at Lake Louise. EPA numbers on any vehicle, fossil or EV, in those conditions should not be possible. Yet it's happening.

Those pics are from page 5, before he hit the mountains. Pretty darn flat country. Yes, it's cold but bare & dry roads. I have Michelin Alpin 4 snow tires on my 3, and I have no problems exceeding EPA numbers at those speeds. I will give you that a car with a regular, insulated, roof is going to be less affected by the cold than a car with a glass roof. (Less heat required.) But that only goes to make the EPA numbers more believable for the Taycan. It's range is going to be less affected by cold weather. And the 3, or any car with a glass roof, is going to lose more range in cold weather than the Taycan.

All I'm saying is so far I don't see any reason to doubt the EPA numbers. I have zero trust in a test paid for by Porsche. I have just slightly more than zero trust in a test supported by advertising dollars from Porsche. Numbers are easily fudged. What's the tire pressure, how old are the tires, what tires are used, and most importantly: how motivated is the driver to get the best numbers possible? Shoot, I could go out and get a screen shot of my 3 showing .180 kwh over 30 miles at 60 mph. Over 400 mile range. I could even do better than that. It would be real, but it would also be BS that no one in the real world would ever reproduce.

If you think the EPA somehow cheated the Taycan, the only way to prove it is a side by side test with comparably tired cars with drivers in each car motivated to win. Barring that, I trust the EPA to give numbers that may not be wholly accurate, but do give a good idea how one car will compare to another. I've seen way too many drivers who love their car fudge their own tests so they can fool themselves into thinking their car is better than it really is. I've seen the media lie way too often when it meant making advertisers happy, or even just to get more "clicks." I have seen no one offer any evidence that the EPA had any motive to cheat Porsche. That doesn't mean the EPA couldn't screw up, sure they could. I've just not seen any compelling evidence that they have.

 

[silverelan]

We've gone off on a tangent but it's worth noting that Porsche supplied the EPA numbers for approval and publication.

You're right to be skeptical of EPA ratings because manufacturers have motives to fudge the EPA numbers. That said, the EPA numbers for the Taycan do not align with what multiple people are reporting from North America and Europe.

The one theory that fits so far is that Porsche used the EPA's two-cycle protocol with the 0.7 cold weather multiplier to reach the 201 mile EPA range.

 

[dbsb3233]

Shoot, I could go out and get a screen shot of my 3 showing .180 kwh over 30 miles at 60 mph. Over 400 mile range.

Totally agree, with that and the rest of what you wrote. That's what makes this all so frustrating, because there's such wide variance. One person says they get X, another Y, and another Z. Yet they're ALL probably right. Because it varies so greatly based on driving speeds and conditions.

My favorite YouTube videos on the subject are ones where people show us miles/kWh (or equiv) live on the screen while driving, so we can see the speed too. Since range is really only an issue for most people on road trips, I have most interest in the highway tests. I wanna see (steady) instantaneous readings at 75 MPH, and 65, and 55, etc. Range at a particular speed is what matters. I wish the EPA would add a "@75 MPH" number. Their ""highway" number is way too generous (as best I can find out, it appears that's only a 55 MPH average).

 

[silverelan]

Totally agree, with that and the rest of what you wrote. That's what makes this all so frustrating, because there's such wide variance. One person says they get X, another Y, and another Z. Yet they're ALL probably right. Because it varies so greatly based on driving speeds and conditions.

My favorite YouTube videos on the subject are ones where people show us miles/kWh (or equiv) live on the screen while driving, so we can see the speed too. Since range is really only an issue for most people on road trips, I have most interest in the highway tests. I wanna see (steady) instantaneous readings at 75 MPH, and 65, and 55, etc. Range at a particular speed is what matters. I wish the EPA would add a "@75 MPH" number. Their ""highway" number is way too generous (as best I can find out, it appears that's only a 55 MPH average).

The NextMove Autobahn range test was fascinating of the Taycan. Their control car was a Model 3 LR RWD that drove with the Taycan around a circuit at an average speed of 81mph and the Taycan finished with an estimated range of 196mi against the Tesla which was able to get ~11 miles farther.

https://teslamag.de/news/test-porsc...a-model-3-26776/amp?__twitter_impression=true

 

[Nak]

The NextMove Autobahn range test was fascinating of the Taycan. Their control car was a Model 3 LR RWD that drove with the Taycan around a circuit at an average speed of 81mph and the Taycan finished with an estimated range of 196mi against the Tesla which was able to get ~11 miles farther.

https://teslamag.de/news/test-porsc...a-model-3-26776/amp?__twitter_impression=true

I really don't think much of this test. The Taycan up in Canada seems to be doing about the same at a much lower speed. The Model 3 numbers aren't too far off, but I think they're artificially low to a certain extent. NextMove claims a range of 206 at 81 mph for a LR RWD 3. My own experience with a 3 at 86 mph in a driving rain with snow tires on and rolling hill to flat terrain is a range of about 210. (Portland to Seattle. Flat by Western standards, mountainous by midwest standards. ) My 3 is a LR AWD, so less range than a LR RWD by about 15 miles. Dry roads make about a 10% to 20% improvement.

So, yeah, not thinking much of the NextMove test. I'm mean I know it's shocking. Who could believe a German company would want to demonstrate a German car is better than it is! The Germans are NEVER totally biased against American engineering compared to German engineering! LOL!

 

[silverelan]

I really don't think much of this test. The Taycan up in Canada seems to be doing about the same at a much lower speed. The Model 3 numbers aren't too far off, but I think they're artificially low to a certain extent. NextMove claims a range of 206 at 81 mph for a LR RWD 3. My own experience with a 3 at 86 mph in a driving rain with snow tires on and rolling hill to flat terrain is a range of about 210. (Portland to Seattle. Flat by Western standards, mountainous by midwest standards. ) My 3 is a LR AWD, so less range than a LR RWD by about 15 miles. Dry roads make about a 10% to 20% improvement.

So, yeah, not thinking much of the NextMove test. I'm mean I know it's shocking. Who could believe a German company would want to demonstrate a German car is better than it is! The Germans are NEVER totally biased against American engineering compared to German engineering! LOL!

Unfortunately, I cannot validate your feelings. I can only show you the rapidly accumulating pile of evidence that shows the 201 miles EPA range for the Taycan is incredibly conservative.

 

[Nak]

Unfortunately, I cannot validate your feelings. I can only show you the rapidly accumulating pile of evidence that shows the 201 miles EPA range for the Taycan is incredibly conservative.

No worries. We both have our opinion and neither opinion makes even the slightest difference as to what the range of the Taycan actually is.

Sponsored