Advertisement



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
The US06 cycle has a top speed of 80.3mph. Aero measurements are done to this speed, anything higher would be extrapolated.
I wish the EPA would just give us a range number using that, instead of diluting it with so much low speed data and coming up with a 48 MPH average which is woefully slow as a "highway" number.

If they averaged, say, 60, 70, and 80, I'd be fine with that as a reasonable highway speed.
 

timbop

Well-Known Member
First Name
Tim
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
Messages
1,781
Reaction score
2,677
Location
New Jersey
First Name
Tim
Vehicles
2015 Mustang Convertible, 2016 Dodge Durango
Occupation
Software Engineer
Country flag
I wish the EPA would just give us a range number using that, instead of diluting it with so much low speed data and coming up with a 48 MPH average which is woefully slow as a "highway" number.

If they averaged, say, 60, 70, and 80, I'd be fine with that as a reasonable highway speed.
I'm going to disagree here: absolute range applies if you do the unthinkable in practical terms: drain the battery to 0%. So, any time you want to compute how far you can go in between chargers, you've go to first compute the percentage of that max range first, and then to figure out your costs you have to further know how many kilowatts "100%" is. Since many manufacturers hide that, you have to guess on costs.

IMHO both range and mi/kwh are useful, because you can then easily compute in real terms how far you can practically go, and how much that trip will cost. You can then also easily predict what your home charging costs will be based on your weekly commute, etc. The inverse number of kwh/100mi is a little silly, particularly since it is counter intuitive to MPG that we're used to: a lower kwh/mi number is better.
 

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
I'm going to disagree here: absolute range applies if you do the unthinkable in practical terms: drain the battery to 0%. So, any time you want to compute how far you can go in between chargers, you've go to first compute the percentage of that max range first, and then to figure out your costs you have to further know how many kilowatts "100%" is. Since many manufacturers hide that, you have to guess on costs.

IMHO both range and mi/kwh are useful, because you can then easily compute in real terms how far you can practically go, and how much that trip will cost. You can then also easily predict what your home charging costs will be based on your weekly commute, etc. The inverse number of kwh/100mi is a little silly, particularly since it is counter intuitive to MPG that we're used to: a lower kwh/mi number is better.
Oh ITA. I just meant I wish they'd give us a highway number based on actual highway speed (60-80 MPH), not 48. That was the key point.

Whether it's listed as range in miles or mileage in miles/kWh, either works for me since I'm fine doing the calculation. But I agree that best would be miles/kWh (MPK), as the perfect counterpart to MPG. That would be my first choice too: a city MPK at ~30 MPH, and a highway MPK at ~70 MPH. So like 3.6/2.6.

And even if they use "range" instead (or in addition), I think it should be 2 numbers (city/highway), with highway at ~70 MPH. Like 330/240.
 

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
From the email i received from the local Ford dealer:

I have just received an answer from Ford Netherlands. The towbar for the Mustang Mach-E will be available as an accessory and will therefore be available locally at the dealer.

However, please note that the nose weight is only 30kg, so that will soon be insufficient to be able to transport bicycles with it.


In contrast with what the norwegian said.....

The Mustang Mach-E will be able to pull trailers with permissible total weight up to 750kg, but it will not be type approved for roof load. Ford will offer solutions for ski freight, bike freight, and the like on the available towbar.

very confusing
Seems that nose weight is now confirmed at 75kg, which makes sense

https://www.elbilnyheter.no/2020/09/na-apnes-det-for-bestilling-av-ford-mustang-mach-e/
 

Mach-MI

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2020
Messages
460
Reaction score
330
Location
USA
Vehicles
Tesla Model 3
Country flag
I'm going to disagree here: absolute range applies if you do the unthinkable in practical terms: drain the battery to 0%. So, any time you want to compute how far you can go in between chargers, you've go to first compute the percentage of that max range first, and then to figure out your costs you have to further know how many kilowatts "100%" is. Since many manufacturers hide that, you have to guess on costs.

IMHO both range and mi/kwh are useful, because you can then easily compute in real terms how far you can practically go, and how much that trip will cost. You can then also easily predict what your home charging costs will be based on your weekly commute, etc. The inverse number of kwh/100mi is a little silly, particularly since it is counter intuitive to MPG that we're used to: a lower kwh/mi number is better.
I guess I disagree with the opening statement - if I didn't want to use the entire "300 miles" I wouldn't have paid extra for it. Is 100-0% and stuck on the side of the road the goal? Of course not. Is 100-1% (or 2%, or 3%) to a charger the goal, sure.

The rest, yes, though Wh/mi is much easier to mentally calculate while driving than mi/kWh, IMO.
 

Yoliber

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2020
Messages
83
Reaction score
63
Location
Irvine, CA
Vehicles
TM3 SR+
Country flag
Part of it is the EPA allows additional tests to alter the adjustment factor, which on a few companies (like Tesla) have done. From: https://www.caranddriver.com/featur...-factor-tesla-uses-for-big-epa-range-numbers/ :
The default adjustment factor reduces the window-sticker range by 30 percent. So a car that achieves 300 miles of range during the city-cycle dynamometer test ends up with a 210-mile city rating. However, the EPA allows automakers the option to run three additional drive cycles and use those results to earn a more favorable adjustment factor. Currently, only Tesla and Audi employ this strategy for their EVs, and Tesla scores the most advantageous results, with adjustments that range from 29.5 percent on the Model 3 Standard Range Plus to 24.4 percent on the Model Y Performance. If Tesla had used the standard adjustment factor of 30 percent, the Model Y Performance's window-sticker range would drop to 292 miles. But because Tesla takes advantage of the EPA's alternate methodology, the company can instead claim a 315-mile range.​
Yeah I read that. I think their bias towards off "throttle" regen braking is also a big factor.

I personally trust WLTP the most. Both of them are inaccurate but the WLTP is at least more precise. EPA varies too much to be a good guideline between electric cars. The Taycan should not be rated at 200 miles...
 



 









Advertisement


Top