Advertisement



OP
macchiaz-o

macchiaz-o

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2019
Messages
1,746
Reaction score
3,205
Location
Valley of the Sun
Vehicles
Fiesta » '21 InfB/SG
Country flag
    Featured
  • Thread starter
  • Thread Starter
  • #61
The efficiency numbers shown on the ford.no builder are puzzling.

On the RWD, the standard battery range is 10 km lower than originally estimated in November, while the RWD long range battery provides 10 more km than originally expected. For the AWD, the standard battery loses 20 km range from what was anticipated, while the long range battery remains as predicted.

The RWD SR vehicle consumes more kWh per 100 km travelled (WLTP) than the heavier long range battery vehicle? How can that be right? The same sort of difference is shown for AWD SR versus AWD ER.

Am I reading this wrong?
 

jlauro

Well-Known Member
First Name
John
Joined
Dec 29, 2019
Messages
441
Reaction score
272
Location
Owosso, MI
First Name
John
Vehicles
Charger R/T AWD, Rav4, future Mach-E
Country flag
The efficiency numbers shown on the ford.no builder are puzzling.

On the RWD, the standard battery range is 10 km lower than originally estimated in November, while the RWD long range battery provides 10 more km than originally expected. For the AWD, the standard battery loses 20 km range from what was anticipated, while the long range battery remains as predicted.

The RWD SR vehicle consumes more kWh per 100 km travelled (WLTP) than the heavier long range battery vehicle? How can that be right? The same sort of difference is shown for AWD SR versus AWD ER.

Am I reading this wrong?
Don't know if you are reading it wrong or not (I'm not looking at the numbers), but my guess is a fixed size buffer between the two batteries, so the smaller battery the buffer takes a larger %.
 
OP
macchiaz-o

macchiaz-o

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2019
Messages
1,746
Reaction score
3,205
Location
Valley of the Sun
Vehicles
Fiesta » '21 InfB/SG
Country flag
  • Thread starter
  • Thread Starter
  • #63
The reserved battery is about the same between SR and ER (as a percentage of the whole). And here in the order screens, they are showing overall battery capacity instead of usable capacity. So that doesn't explain the updated numbers.

Here are screen shots of the numbers I'm looking at... Notice how Norway's numbers have been updated (since they've recently announced certain test results updates, and are taking real orders now), while the Dutch text for the Netherlands hasn't been updated:

1600443573713.png


1600443593931.png
 

jlauro

Well-Known Member
First Name
John
Joined
Dec 29, 2019
Messages
441
Reaction score
272
Location
Owosso, MI
First Name
John
Vehicles
Charger R/T AWD, Rav4, future Mach-E
Country flag
The reserved battery is about the same between SR and ER (as a percentage of the whole). And here in the order screens, they are showing overall battery capacity instead of usable capacity. So that doesn't explain the updated numbers.
Are you certain about that?
If I run the numbers with a 20% reserve of the SR, and then use that same reserve (15.2) on the ER then the distance matches after scaling (rounding to 2 significant digits). (That would mean a 15.35% buffer on the ER and 20% on SR)
 
Last edited:

Zandje

Member
Joined
May 4, 2020
Messages
19
Reaction score
15
Location
Netherlands
Vehicles
VW Passat GTE, MME AWD TP+ Lucid Red (2021)
Country flag
And the AWD SR adjusted to 400KM. That is a bit disapointing...
AWD ER to 540KM.
 

Marcel

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2020
Messages
93
Reaction score
92
Location
The Netherlands
Vehicles
e-Golf
The reserved battery is about the same between SR and ER (as a percentage of the whole). And here in the order screens, they are showing overall battery capacity instead of usable capacity. So that doesn't explain the updated numbers.

Here are screen shots of the numbers I'm looking at... Notice how Norway's numbers have been updated (since they've recently announced certain test results updates, and are taking real orders now), while the Dutch text for the Netherlands hasn't been updated:

1600443573713.png


1600443593931.png
This can't be correct 17,5kWh/100km for the standard range (lighter) and 16,5kWh/100km for the long range (heavy) same car only ?150kg? Weight difference
 

jlauro

Well-Known Member
First Name
John
Joined
Dec 29, 2019
Messages
441
Reaction score
272
Location
Owosso, MI
First Name
John
Vehicles
Charger R/T AWD, Rav4, future Mach-E
Country flag
And the AWD SR adjusted to 400KM. That is a bit disapointing...
AWD ER to 540KM.
540km = 335.5 miles, which would be great, if EPA... will be disappointed if those come out lower than originally planned.
 

jlauro

Well-Known Member
First Name
John
Joined
Dec 29, 2019
Messages
441
Reaction score
272
Location
Owosso, MI
First Name
John
Vehicles
Charger R/T AWD, Rav4, future Mach-E
Country flag
This can't be correct 17,5kWh/100km for the standard range (lighter) and 16,5kWh/100km for the long range (heavy) same car only ?150kg? Weight difference
Shows 17,2 (not that it's much better than 17.5). I am guess it's because they have same size reserve/buffer instead of increasing the reserve with the larger battery. That said, the buffer shouldn't count toward to kWh/100km, but it would explain the max range difference.
 

timbop

Well-Known Member
First Name
Tim
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
Messages
1,781
Reaction score
2,679
Location
New Jersey
First Name
Tim
Vehicles
2015 Mustang Convertible, 2016 Dodge Durango
Occupation
Software Engineer
Country flag
Are you certain about that?
If I run the numbers with a 20% reserve of the SR, and then use that same reserve (15.2) on the ER then the distance matches after scaling (rounding to 2 significant digits). (That would mean a 15.35% buffer on the ER and 20% on SR)
Ford already published the reserves: the 99kwh ER has an 11kwh reserve (11%), and the 75.7kwh SR has a 7.7kwh reserve (10%). So, almost exactly the same percentage, but different kwh values.
 

jlauro

Well-Known Member
First Name
John
Joined
Dec 29, 2019
Messages
441
Reaction score
272
Location
Owosso, MI
First Name
John
Vehicles
Charger R/T AWD, Rav4, future Mach-E
Country flag
Ford already published the reserves: the 99kwh ER has an 11kwh reserve (11%), and the 75.7kwh SR has a 7.7kwh reserve (10%). So, almost exactly the same percentage, but different kwh values.
I don't think those were declared final when published (and who is to say they are the same over all regions... they could adjust that based on climate). That said, it does seem strange that the ER would have a larger by %....?
 

timbop

Well-Known Member
First Name
Tim
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
Messages
1,781
Reaction score
2,679
Location
New Jersey
First Name
Tim
Vehicles
2015 Mustang Convertible, 2016 Dodge Durango
Occupation
Software Engineer
Country flag
I don't think those were declared final when published (and who is to say they are the same over all regions... they could adjust that based on climate). That said, it does seem strange that the ER would have a larger by %....?
I dunno. Maybe the guy that wrote the software likes integers, or the 88kwh and 68kwh are rounded-off figures because they don't want to say 67.373kwh. Either way it feels like a distinction without a difference. It seems like they're close enough to call them effectively the same in practical terms.
 

jlauro

Well-Known Member
First Name
John
Joined
Dec 29, 2019
Messages
441
Reaction score
272
Location
Owosso, MI
First Name
John
Vehicles
Charger R/T AWD, Rav4, future Mach-E
Country flag
I dunno. Maybe the guy that wrote the software likes integers, or the 88kwh and 68kwh are rounded-off figures because they don't want to say 67.373kwh. Either way it feels like a distinction without a difference. It seems like they're close enough to call them effectively the same in practical terms.
Yes, they probably like iteger / 2 significant digits. If you go by the base numbers and calculate useable both assuming 10% buffer they come up with the numbers posted at https://www.ford.com/buy-site-wide-content/overlays/mach-e-overlays/mach-e-faq/ which makes more sense then ER having 11% and SR having 10%.
 

Marcel

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2020
Messages
93
Reaction score
92
Location
The Netherlands
Vehicles
e-Golf
Shows 17,2 (not that it's much better than 17.5). I am guess it's because they have same size reserve/buffer instead of increasing the reserve with the larger battery. That said, the buffer shouldn't count toward to kWh/100km, but it would explain the max range difference.
What they did is calculate, battery size devided by energy consumption that's why it is wrong
 
OP
macchiaz-o

macchiaz-o

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2019
Messages
1,746
Reaction score
3,205
Location
Valley of the Sun
Vehicles
Fiesta » '21 InfB/SG
Country flag
  • Thread starter
  • Thread Starter
  • #74
Energy consumption per 100km isn't impacted by battery reserve.

I just find it puzzling that Ford's standard battery configuration is less efficient than the 400 lb heavier extended range configuration. Especially on the RWD trim, where the available battery power exceeds the single motor's power limit in both battery sizes.

Maybe they put the numbers backwards on the web site?
 

dbsb3233

Well-Known Member
First Name
Tim
Joined
Dec 30, 2019
Messages
3,549
Reaction score
3,282
Location
Colorado, USA
First Name
Tim
Vehicles
2013 Ford Escape
Occupation
Retired
Country flag
Energy consumption per 100km isn't impacted by battery reserve.

I just find it puzzling that Ford's standard battery configuration is less efficient than the 400 lb heavier extended range configuration. Especially on the RWD trim, where the available battery power exceeds the single motor's power limit in both battery sizes.

Maybe they put the numbers backwards on the web site?
Yeah, just sounding like a mistake. I'd ignore it.
 



 









Advertisement


Top