Heat Pump Performance - Anything to Report?

[cswebster]

This is exactly my situation, though I live in Northern VA. I have records for my 2021 and am keeping track of my 2025. So far the range has been reducing a comparable amount (from 240 or so to 210 or so at 90% - note, my highest range was in October when I did not use AC or heat, even though the exterior temperature was a bit lower. Also note that I used the seat heater and steering wheel heater when making this comparison - I will also attempt w/o those items on), but I don't think I have enough cold weather yet to make a definitive judgement. As for the comfort level, I have been pleasantly surprised that the heat provides warmer air than expected and makes for a comfortable cabin quickly.

I will report back again later in December.

Glenn

It’s 28°f in northern NJ but feels like 16. At 80% I’m showing 182 mile range in an unheated garage. That’s down about 25% from summer/fall. Tracks about the same (maybe slightly better) as my ‘21 MME AWD as far as I can tell even with the heat pump in my ‘25 GT. FWIW, this from a Ford advisor:

“When the heat is on for an extended time, the heat pump uses residual heat from other systems like the battery, motors, or ambient air and can help reduce climate usage energy. The system provides both heating and cooling functions so it can be utilized year round.”

“The Ford Vapor Injection Heat Pump with a 34cc compressor can produce flow rates equivalent to a 40-plus cc compressor, improving overall efficiency. A heat pump can operate up to three times more efficiently than an electric heater, which is an important factor for EVs”

Sponsored

 

[highland58]

Not going to happen. Guaranteed not going to happen.

Ford has stated ZIPPO about increased range due to the heat pump in either the Mach-E or Lightning. Therefore, they never will.



This is a non sequitur. Correlation does not imply causation. The GOM could be predicting a higher range due to the temp being higher than when your 21 showed 180-200, due to a change in the GOM algorithm, due to recent driving being the reason the range is higher, or to the all time favorite "shit happens".

My Mach-E is currently showing 219 at 90% for a range of 243. Over the last 200 miles, all local driving, we have achieved an overall average of 1.97 miles per kWh. 1.97 x 91 x 96.5% SOH = 173 miles.

If I use the last 100 miles of driving, efficiency is 2.17. Doing the math, that's 191 miles.

To get 243 miles, I need an efficiency of 2.77. That was last achieved in mid October, 800 miles ago.

If this doesn't show you that the GOM is basically useless, I don't know what does. My guess is that it reacted to Sunday's 50 degree temps when it poured rain, and hasn't yet realized that it's currently 28 degrees outside. I suspect when we start driving later today, it will drop substantially.

Well, I drove 115 miles to Bellingham and showed 54% charge left. As I headed back, my predicted battery stayed above 0%, so it would appear that my GOM was pretty accurate, as it usually is. I didn't want to push it, so I stopped and added enough charge to get my predicted charge above 10%. I got home with 12% charge left. I was averaging 2.7kWh/mile on the way until I hit some hills the last 15 miles, then dropped to 2.6 kWh/mile. The temps were in the low 40s the entire time. I drove mostly at 5mph above the speed limit, and traffic was light.

Not my first rodeo, my third MME since 2021.
I am well aware of how the GOM works.
Perhaps I drive more conservatively than you do...

 

[highland58]

In spite of what the label says, the GOM is not your range. Way too many variable to attribute a random number to a single cause.

Styx made a song about it….

I am well aware of how the GOM works, I KNOW it is not my range. I joined this overly friendly forum six years ago.

 

[MachSteve]

Energy use (for driving) depends entirely on the motor load. Load depends on acceleration/speed requested by the driver. The only real difference between modes is whether that demand is created more at the start of or at the end of pedal travel. Therefore it's completely at the pleasure of your right foot!

Thanks!

 

[Doobster6]

I know it does not. Posted very often. It impacts pedal response. So if I feather the pedal in Unbridle, it's like driving in Whisper.

…..yes, but why would you choose unbridled and then have to feather the pedal? I always choose whisper because for me it’s then easier to hit the pedal hard if I need to than to feather the pedal in unbridled to help preserve range. So I DO think that staying in the two higher modes promotes less range. Sometimes I notice it immediately when the software has (for some random reason) switched me up to Engaged from Whisper. So IMHO, throttle response is harder to control in unbridled than in whisper. You can get max power from whisper mode although you really do have to slam the pedal down. So the ‘default’ behavior in whisper is, as intended, range maximization, and the default behavior in the two higher modes is driving fun at the expense of range.

 

[RickMachE]

…..yes, but why would you choose unbridled and then have to feather the pedal? I always choose whisper because for me it’s then easier to hit the pedal hard if I need to than to feather the pedal in unbridled to help preserve range. So I DO think that staying in the two higher modes promotes less range. Sometimes I notice it immediately when the software has (for some random reason) switched me up to Engaged from Whisper. So IMHO, throttle response is harder to control in unbridled than in whisper. You can get max power from whisper mode although you really do have to slam the pedal down. So the ‘default’ behavior in whisper is, as intended, range maximization, and the default behavior in the two higher modes is driving fun at the expense of range.

It is not. All modes are the same efficiency.

 

[E90alex]

Fast acceleration in an EV doesn’t really affect efficiency anywhere near as much as it does in a gas vehicle.

 

[Doobster6]

It is not. All modes are the same efficiency.

Not the point I was making. Yes, when driving at a steady speeds under identical conditions, all modes are equally efficient. But the rate at which you accelerate a car to those speeds will change the energy being used to do so, and especially so around town where there are lots of stops, and so too acceleration opportunities. Gentle acceleration draws less energy from the battery pack than more aggressive acceleration, and is far easier to accomplish in whisper mode than unbridled. Unbridled users who are enjoying the awesome instant torque of their MMEs around town will usually get efficiencies below 2 mi/Kwh, even under ideal driving conditions. I am always in whisper mode and see 4.1 mi/Kwh whilst never holding up traffic.

Fast acceleration in an EV doesn’t really affect efficiency anywhere near as much as it does in a gas vehicle.

Wrong. Energy is energy, and otherwise identical cars weighing the same would need the exact same amount of energy to accelerate identically, whether one is an ICE vehicle or an EV. The fact that EVs are way more efficient than ICE cars just means it won’t waste as much of the energy it’s given in order to get the energy it actually needs/uses. But make no mistake, harder acceleration means moving the vehicle to a speed more quickly and over a shorter distance, which means you use more power which in turn means you need more energy. In an ICE vehicle that means you’ve burned more gas; in an EV you burn more of its stored electricity. In both cases you will have less left in your tank/battery than with easier acceleration, which means you will also have less range.
There are articles all over the internet that explain the thermodynamic engineering behind this, complete with equations and such. Or you could ask AI if harder acceleration in an EV (or any kind of car really) will reduce its range compared to easier acceleration. You don’t have to take my word for it.

 

[Kamuelaflyer]

the rate at which you accelerate a car to those speeds will change the energy being used to do so, and especially so around town where there are lots of stops, and so too acceleration opportunities

The rate at which you accelerate the Mach-e is entirely dependent on how you’re using the accelerator pedal and nothing else. Drive mode has nothing to do with how you press down on the accelerator.

 

[RickMachE]

Love the Ignore function!

 

[E90alex]

Wrong. Energy is energy, and otherwise identical cars weighing the same would need the exact same amount of energy to accelerate identically, whether one is an ICE vehicle or an EV. The fact that EVs are way more efficient than ICE cars just means it won’t waste as much of the energy it’s given in order to get the energy it actually needs/uses. But make no mistake, harder acceleration means moving the vehicle to a speed more quickly and over a shorter distance, which means you use more power which in turn means you need more energy. In an ICE vehicle that means you’ve burned more gas; in an EV you burn more of its stored electricity. In both cases you will have less left in your tank/battery than with easier acceleration, which means you will also have less range.

Wrong. Energy is indeed energy.

Let’s say two identical vehicles are accelerating to 40 mph. One does it in 2 seconds and the other does it in 10 seconds. The total amount of energy needed to being both vehicles to 40 mph is going to be essentially the same. The faster accelerating vehicle needs a stronger force over a shorter period of time to achieve that amount of acceleration. The slower vehicle uses less force over a longer period of time. But once they both reach 40 mph they both have the same amount of kinetic energy, so the law of conservation of energy states that they both used the same amount of energy to get to 40 mph.

Now there are other factors at play that would cause energy to be “lost” and not utilized in moving the vehicle.

In an ICE vehicle, accelerating quickly means higher RPMs and lower gears, which is highly inefficient and creates a lot of extra heat and noise and friction and vibrations which all means significantly more energy wasted to get to the same speed.

In an EV you basically just have the resistive losses of all the wiring. There is no engine/transmission/gears to worry about. Higher current for higher acceleration would cause more resistance which does create more heat. So yes technically accelerating faster would lose more energy to heat than accelerating slowly. But this is a minuscule amount of difference compared to an ICE vehicle.

I’m not saying quickly doesn’t use any extra energy. It has to. But the difference in wasted energy from fast acceleration is very dramatic and clearly noticeable in an ICE vehicle, but barely noticeable in an EV.

 

[Doobster6]

Wrong. Energy is indeed energy.

Let’s say two identical vehicles are accelerating to 40 mph. One does it in 2 seconds and the other does it in 10 seconds. The total amount of energy needed to being both vehicles to 40 mph is going to be essentially the same. The faster accelerating vehicle needs a stronger force over a shorter period of time to achieve that amount of acceleration. The slower vehicle uses less force over a longer period of time. But once they both reach 40 mph they both have the same amount of kinetic energy, so the law of conservation of energy states that they both used the same amount of energy to get to 40 mph.

Now there are other factors at play that would cause energy to be “lost” and not utilized in moving the vehicle.

In an ICE vehicle, accelerating quickly means higher RPMs and lower gears, which is highly inefficient and creates a lot of extra heat and noise and friction and vibrations which all means significantly more energy wasted to get to the same speed.

In an EV you basically just have the resistive losses of all the wiring. There is no engine/transmission/gears to worry about. Higher current for higher acceleration would cause more resistance which does create more heat. So yes technically accelerating faster would lose more energy to heat than accelerating slowly. But this is a minuscule amount of difference compared to an ICE vehicle.

I’m not saying quickly doesn’t use any extra energy. It has to. But the difference in wasted energy from fast acceleration is very dramatic and clearly noticeable in an ICE vehicle, but barely noticeable in an EV.

I don’t mean to be demeaning here, but go talk to someone with an actual degree in engineering, and who has had to apply these principles at their job, who has slogged through classes in physics and thermodynamics (which I have), and see what they think. Accelerating to 40 mph in two seconds instead of eight seconds requires more power, and in electrical energy terms, power goes up as the square of current. If it were purely linear, your argument would make more sense. Anyway, you’ll all be happy to know that I’m done with this topic.

 

[lightnin]

I kept fairly complete records of range for my 2021 Mach-E, so I will have a good basis of comparison for my 2025 Mach-E. First bit of data is mildly discouraging in regard to range: for the week of November 2 - December 3, when it's been quite cool in East Tennessee (lows in upper 20s, highs in mid 40s), range (between charges) was about 240 miles. For my 2021 MEE for the week of November 24, 2022 - December 3, range was about 225. Sorry that I didn't note the temperature in 2022. So the heat pump seems to have helped some. At the end of the heating season, I plan to publish a more complete comparison.

For information, the operation of the heat pump seems OK. It doesn't start blowing warm air in force for a few seconds after turning on the car. Only bug-a-boo is that the AC indicator on the main sync screen comes on sometimes. Not sure why. I turn it off immediately.

I have complete charging activity through February on my 2025 Mach-E, which is the same configuration as my 2021: extended range, rear wheel drive.

Average range for my 2021 Mach-E during the winter of 2021-2 (November - February) was 216.8 miles. For my 2025 Mach-E: 242.0 miles. A couple of caveats: I think this winter in East Tennessee was colder than last winter, and I used remote start to warm the car more this year than in 2021-2. So maybe the nearly 12% improvement in range would have been higher if it were absolute apples to apples.

 

[Billyk24]

Well, I drove 115 miles to Bellingham and showed 54% charge left. As I headed back, my predicted battery stayed above 0%, so it would appear that my GOM was pretty accurate, as it usually is. I didn't want to push it, so I stopped and added enough charge to get my predicted charge above 10%. I got home with 12% charge left. I was averaging 2.7kWh/mile on the way until I hit some hills the last 15 miles, then dropped to 2.6 kWh/mile. The temps were in the low 40s the entire time. I drove mostly at 5mph above the speed limit, and traffic was light.

Not my first rodeo, my third MME since 2021.
I am well aware of how the GOM works.
Perhaps I drive more conservatively than you do...

The temps were in the low 40s the entire time-----Those that live in bitter cold northern states low 40f is considered a warm day for early March.

 

[Billyk24]

Not going to happen. Guaranteed not going to happen.

Ford has stated ZIPPO about increased range due to the heat pump in either the Mach-E or Lightning. Therefore, they never will.



This is a non sequitur. Correlation does not imply causation. The GOM could be predicting a higher range due to the temp being higher than when your 21 showed 180-200, due to a change in the GOM algorithm, due to recent driving being the reason the range is higher, or to the all time favorite "shit happens".

My Mach-E is currently showing 219 at 90% for a range of 243. Over the last 200 miles, all local driving, we have achieved an overall average of 1.97 miles per kWh. 1.97 x 91 x 96.5% SOH = 173 miles.

If I use the last 100 miles of driving, efficiency is 2.17. Doing the math, that's 191 miles.

To get 243 miles, I need an efficiency of 2.77. That was last achieved in mid October, 800 miles ago.

If this doesn't show you that the GOM is basically useless, I don't know what does. My guess is that it reacted to Sunday's 50 degree temps when it poured rain, and hasn't yet realized that it's currently 28 degrees outside. I suspect when we start driving later today, it will drop substantially.

Ford has stated ZIPPO about increased range due to the heat pump in either the Mach-E or Lightning. Therefore, they never will.------True. One item that is forgotten--the battery pack in my 2021 Premium allows cold air rushing over the top-bottom and sides causing extra conductive heat losses. Has the 2025 Mach E undergone a design change in which the battery pack is now protected from these winds that cool the battery pack? If not the work of the heat pump is going to be somewhat wasted with this design flaw.
Rick has a Lightning which does not demonstrate the excess battery temperature drop as the Mach E in cold winter weather. I do not know the design difference between the Lightning and Mach E on this issue.

Sponsored