Ford Range Increase Coming?

[dbsb3233]

I didn't want to cite a higher kW charger because then the charging curve comes into play. We can't really calculate a straight 150 kW charge for 30 minutes, for example, because the car won't accept that (it'll taper before that).

I get what you're saying about a slower charger, it's just extraneous to the point I was making about the charger loss.

Sponsored

 

[dbsb3233]

To be clear. It's not about babying anything. You can drive an EV like any other car and it will perform just fine. Over time however you will notice (learn) that there are things you can do that will change/enhance the experience and performance.

For example, a lot of people new to EV's choose to go without HVAC or use it intermittently to decrease battery consumption. Turns out once you really get connected with your car, you find out that may not be necessary. To illustrate this, my son has for years sworn on turning off the HVAC system completely except when absolutely needed. Turns out if you simply leave the system in normal defogger position there's no change in range from when it's on, to when it's off and the windows are always clear (even with Heat & A/C turned off for you fellow Bolt drivers). It's little things like this that engineers have already thought of that may not be apparent until you really get to know the car.

As for cruise control, great on flat roads. If you're up and down hills though, you can probably do better yourself once you're used to the feedback the car is giving you.

I didn't mean to imply that it "can't" do it, only that most mainstream buyers won't put up with having to drive slower up hills, turn climate control off periodically, etc. Maybe doing those types of things can squeeze an extra 10 miles of range from a charge, but it that's what it takes to get acceptable range out if it, they just won't mess with buying a BEV at all then.

BEVs will remain niche if people can't get sufficient range just driving them normally.

 

[timbop]

No, it actually is the exact opposite.

How do they adjust for wind speed? How do they adjust for traffic? How do they adjust for moisture on the road? How do they adjust for climate control usage at different exterior temperatures?

All of those variables *are* standardized in a lab test, so lab tests are, definitionally, the only tests worth comparing, because they are the only test where the variable is the vehicle.

Yes, the tests on a dynamometer are reproducible and thus can be considered "scientific".

The problem is, none of us are going to drive around in a sealed room on a dynamometer. We're going to all be driving on real highways with real weather, real wind, and actual inclines/declines. Those approximations that went into those carefully controlled situations will not necessarily translate to what actually happens on the highway, especially for those cars that didn't go through the full cycle of tests but instead used the 30% "fudge factor guesstimate". That fact alone disqualifies absolute comparisons.

A more USEFUL test is to run the different cars on the same course concurrently at real highway speeds in different conditions so that the "uncontrollable" factors are removed from the equation, and one is left with not just a relative performance but relative performance under varying "real world like" circumstances.

 

[MailGuy]

Most times, no change at all. It really depends upon how many KWH's the car is consuming which the cluster happily provides feedback on in real-time numbers and colors on the screen and if my SOC (State of Charge) is low. Down hill I stick to the speed limit and let regen do all the work.

The point is I'm not afraid of any of these scenarios at this point, but there was a small learning curve to get comfortable and drive without range anxiety.

 

[MailGuy]

I didn't mean to imply that it "can't" do it, only that most mainstream buyers won't put up with having to drive slower up hills, turn climate control off periodically, etc. Maybe doing those types of things can squeeze an extra 10 miles of range from a charge, but it that's what it takes to get acceptable range out if it, they just won't mess with buying a BEV at all then.

BEVs will remain niche if people can't get sufficient range just driving them normally.

Agreed. Range anxiety is a real problem until you realize after real world use that it is actually a rare problem if you: 1) Plan ahead, 2) Have access to a home charger.

As to hypermiling to get the extra 10 miles, most people eventually realize it's not worth it. 10 miles at $0.10/KWH with 4 mi/KWH is worth the $0.25 of carefree driving.

 

[Maric]

As a former Tesla zealot, I’ll take Fords experience, infrastructure, and the MachEs features over even a 50 mile difference in range any day.

 

[dbsb3233]

Agreed. Range anxiety is a real problem until you realize after real world use that it is actually a rare problem if you: 1) Plan ahead, 2) Have access to a home charger.

As to hypermiling to get the extra 10 miles, most people eventually realize it's not worth it. 10 miles at $0.10/KWH with 4 mi/KWH is worth the $0.25 of carefree driving.

Yep. I liken those hypermiling techniques to something I might do in my younger (unwise) years when I'd take a road trip and let the car run on fumes before I'd stop for gas. There were a few times I cut it stupidly close. And got nervous so I slowed down. We literally coasted into a gas station in Kansas City one time.

But that was 40 years ago. I'd never do that now. I play it safer, and I buy much nicer vehicles now. Vehicles that better be good enough to drive like normal without compromising (especially for 60 grand).

 

[dbsb3233]

Yes, the tests on a dynamometer are reproducible and thus can be considered "scientific".

I wouldn't even mind a dynamometer test so much, if it would just measure and report the right thing for what we need to know the most -- high speed. But the "highway" number they give us uses a ridiculously low 48 MPH.

Just give is a 70 MPH average number, and it would be useful (even if not perfect).

 

[DBC]

And cheaper is better than more expensive and better handling is better than worse handling and more reliable is better than less reliable and more space is better than less space.There are lots of things to consider and slightly more or less range isn't really one of them.

Range is path dependent. It's possible that you can go from A to B but not B to A. It's also dependent on many variables. And of course the range you get in year one may not be what you get in year three.

It's also not terribly relevant since the location of DC charging trumps range. For example, imagine there are three drivers, each with an EVs with different ranges. One has a range of 250 miles. One a range of 300 miles. And one a range of 350 miles. Now the three drivers are going to go on a trip of 375 miles. There are four DC charging stations along the way: one at 126 miles; one at 188 miles; one at 255 miles; and one at 338 miles. (As you can tell this is an actual example). Where are the three cars going to stop? They'll likely all stop at the 188 mile charger. Now two could easily stop at the 255 mile charger but that makes the drive asymmetric between stops so isn't as appealing. IOW, given the current number of DC fast chargers, more range may may not change where you charge.

Which brings is to the question: Would an EV with a 400 mile range able to charge at 50 kW be better or worse for a longer trip than one with 300 miles of range which could charge at 150 kW?

But if you just have to have a number, just use the Highway range. It should be close.

I'll also say that if you plan to be frequently going on long trips then you won't be happy with an EV.

 

[Nak]

A more USEFUL test is to run the different cars on the same course concurrently at real highway speeds in different conditions so that the "uncontrollable" factors are removed from the equation, and one is left with not just a relative performance but relative performance under varying "real world like" circumstances.

THIS.

There are a lot of variables that you can't account for in lab testing. There will also be variables that affect different cars differently. For instance, Let's assume that for the sake of argument that the Y's HVAC is more efficient than the E's. Does that mean that the Y will do better in the winter? Not necessarily. Let's say you live in the PNW, like I do. What is the predominant characteristic of winter here? It's rain and wet roads. The E is going to suffer less of a penalty on those wet roads than the Y will, because the E has narrower tires which will have less rolling resistance on wet roads the the Y's wider tires. So the end result might be that the E does better even with a less efficient HVAC system. (Remember this is a hypothetical; I'm not trying to open that can of worms again.) That's just one variable, there are many more. The only way to know, is to test two cars side by side in a variety of conditions and speeds. I will bet you my 401k that the results and relative advantage of one car over the other will change at every condition change.

Sponsored