Mach-E EPA Ratings Revealed in Window Sticker!

[EVer]

That's why so many people say 1-pedal is more efficient. It's more efficient for a Tesla, but not any different in a car with blended brakes, like Mach-E.

See above analysis. Tesla does blend brakes, but evidently only the rear.

Sponsored

 

[zhackwyatt]

See above analysis. Tesla does blend brakes, but evidently only the rear.

Right, which in their case would still make OPD more efficient because it's not fully blended.

C-Max blends but only the front wheels (since it's a FWD car). You hit a slight bump that makes the front wheels lose traction and the car will jerk forward a little because the rear aren't doing anything at that point.

 

[EVer]

Right, which in their case would still make OPD more efficient because it's not fully blended.

Correct.

 

[Daniel M]

And Ford has had no recalls? Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

I get the folks who don't like the looks of a Tesla. That's totally subjective and in the eyes of the beholder. I get preferring the Mach-e over a Tesla. The Mach-e GT has some serious potential and I'm going to look very closely at trading in when I can finally look at a production model. But seriously, this having to jump on this "Teslas are crap" bandwagon whenever some news comes out you don't like is childish. Certainly there is an issue with a small number of Tesla's having build problems. I'll even stipulate that the number will be higher than that of the Mach-e. But surprisingly, My two Tesla's, along with everyone's Tesla's I personally know, have outstanding fit and finish. I'm more than happy to bet beers against anyone who wants to bring their Mach-e to compare fit and finish against my Model Y. Maybe you'll win; I'd like that actually. But I promise you your Mach-e is going to have to work for this win.

That's actually a great idea anyways. I've offered this before and no one has taken me up on it: Why doesn't someone in the Portland area getting a Mach-e plan on doing a side by side efficiency test with my Model Y Performance? My car is only rated at 280 miles of range, so it should give everyone here a great real world range comparison. The results should be pretty darned close. We can meet at a destination charger, both charge to 90% while we look at each other's cars, and then drive side by side for 30 miles at 70 mph. Then we will have a real, no-shit, range comparison. Because let's face it, "Real world" drive tests on Youtube are mostly worthless. There are way too many variables. If the test isn't side by side you can't know all the variables that were different. Plus, you want two drivers who are actually motivated to win. It's way too easy to skew the numbers on something like this.

Car forums should be fun. Excessive trash talking is simply pathetic and makes you look like you are very insecure about something. This thread is supposed to be about the Mach-e EPA range? Why does every thread like this have to devolve in to "But Teslas are crap!" Even if true, who the F%$# cares? Why the hell are people so nervous about the Mach-e that they have to constantly throw stones at Tesla? Be a little more secure in your choice of cars.

Yes, the AWD Y slaughters the AWD E in EPA range numbers. So what? First, pretty much everyone knew that going in. Second, we've pretty much established that very well might not hold up in the real world. So, this is a car forum. We have a bunch of members getting Mach-Es soon. We have at least one member with a Y. Why are people waiting for some Youtuber? Aren't we car guys??? How about we do the test ourselves instead of talking so much trash?

We own a M3, and it has had more service calls than both my 2010 F-150 and 2014 Explorer combined. I am not speaking out of naivety. Also, I had a close friend work on the end of line QC at the Tesla factory for almost a year before he quit due to management changing guidelines of what he should pass through final inspection just to make quotas of getting cars out the door. He rejected more cars that he passed due to issues, but those "acceptable" thresholds kept getting widened away from the good end of the spectrum before he had enough and quit.

 

[Daniel M]

I dont think that is true. I charge to 100% every night and the vehicle has regen braking while leaving the driveway.

Our M3 will not show regen braking when it is at full charge.

 

[DBC]

Our M3 will not show regen braking when it is at full charge.

The MME might be able use regen with a full charge since it has a decent buffer (not saying that's a good thing). But yes, if there isn't any room on the elevator you can't add more passengers.

 

[DBC]

It will also be more expensive because charging will be less efficient due to more waste heat being produced.

I thought it was more efficient because the charging overhead was constant.

 

[Nak]

I found this fairly interesting writeup of the braking system Tesla. It suggests they do a little of both. Front brakes provide feel; rear brakes can blend regen up to .3g deceleration:

Tesla Regen, Brakes and Sudden Acceleration
by
Ronald A. Belt, 1 June 2020

Interesting article, I've read his stuff before. I have to say I'm not a fan of Dr, Belt's method. (And it's about more manufacturers than just Tesla.) My main complaint about his work is he tries to prove unintended acceleration, rather than investigate it without bias. But that's a whole different thread.

The iBosch is certainly capable of blending brakes, but it's not capable of full brake by wire. I believe it can only generate enough pressure to achieve .3g with friction brakes? Remember, just because a system is capable of something, doesn't mean that capability has been implemented. At any rate, Tesla is not forthcoming about exactly how they implement the braking system, so we have to rely on folks hacking the code, driver testing, Tesla engineer interviews and logic.

We have two main applications, RWD and AWD. It's certainly possible that RWD does more with blending the brakes as it can only regen at the rear. I can't speak to RWD as I have not personally tested it, but I have seen a few folks surmise that RWD Teslas do exactly that.

AWD:
I have tested an AWD 3 and Y. I just tested "Low regen" this morning. Applying the brakes has no effect whatsoever on total regen, other than indirectly, as you slow down power generated by regen decreases. This holds true with both standard and low regen. Total regen is controlled by throttle position, not brake pedal application. Is it possible that the brakes are being blended? it's possible, but not likely. There's no benefit that I can see with an AWD. Then again, I could be wrong about that. Regardless, I can say with certainty that the throttle position controls total regen.

RWD:
I can't speak to this with any authority. I'd have to test drive a RWD extensively to make conclusions about system operation, I could then perhaps make a few logical deductions. As it is, I've seen suspect opinions both ways.

Hmmm... I have never looked at Tesla's braking strategy, now I am curious. This would be an extremely low tech system, and it would surprise me if Tesla's regen strategy was so poor.

Not a poor design at all. Teslas are designed around one pedal driving. Certainly Audi's and Porsche's "Brake by wire" system is higher tech, but is it better? I'd have to drive one to have an opinion on that. Certainly as implemented it's less efficient than Tesla's approach.

 

[Nak]

I thought it was more efficient because the charging overhead was constant.

I should have labeled my post with "IMHO", as it is only an unsubstantiated guess.

 

[SnBGC]

Has anyone seen the numbers for the extended range RWD?
Both the Polestar and the Model X have a small difference in fuel economy between combined, city and hwy. The model X is extremely close city 90, hwy 89
For the Mach-E AWD, the numbers are combined 90, city 96, hwy 84
In my view, the hwy range is the one that count. So for the Mach-e awd it would be (270/90)*84= 252 miles.

I ran that math the same way you did but then @DBC pointed out the city and hwy number are closer to a 2:1 ratio so dividing 270 by 90 to come up with a factor to apply to the city and hwy numbers could be skewed.

Perhaps more realistic number is 245 for AWD EX Hwy range. It sort of fits......here is my warped logic:
Let's write down your (and my previous) number of 252 for AWD EX HWY range.
Then take 83(hwy)/96(city)=87.5% times 270 miles is 236.25. Blend 252 and 236.5 for a mean average of 244 which works with my number above. That compares well to a 35.6 mile trip we took in an AWD EX back in October. It was all freeway driving....around 65-70 mph. I only have the data for the one way trip so I really would need the figures from the other direction to get a good sampling but I do feel pretty good about the 245 number at the moment.

If you are still with me this far....
245/270 AWD EX = hr/300 RWD EX (where "hr" is RWD EX highway range). Solve for "hr" = 272 miles. So, maybe 270 miles is about where that number will land? That indicates about a 10% reduction in range at 65-70 mph. Logic says it would be even greater at higher speeds of course. I didn't test a higher speed for long enough to learn anything so we'll just have to get our cars and figure it out then.

 

[EVer]

Interesting article, I've read his stuff before. I have to say I'm not a fan of Dr, Belt's method. (And it's about more manufacturers than just Tesla.) My main complaint about his work is he tries to prove unintended acceleration, rather than investigate it without bias. But that's a whole different thread.

100% agreed with that,. While he clearly has an agenda, I think his description of the system is likely accurate. Whether he has it nailed exactly how tesla implimented it is another story, as are his conclusions.

 

[Woeo]

I wouldn't consider it low tech, it works just fine. In my last 500 miles of driving, my Model Y has regen 43% of the energy consumed. Brake regen is one of the things people tend to discuss when talking about range, efficiency, etc

A pencil is low tech and it works just fine.

 

[Gilles]

I ran that math the same way you did but then @DBC pointed out the city and hwy number are closer to a 2:1 ratio so dividing 270 by 90 to come up with a factor to apply to the city and hwy numbers could be skewed.

Perhaps more realistic number is 245 for AWD EX Hwy range. It sort of fits......here is my warped logic:
Let's write down your (and my previous) number of 252 for AWD EX HWY range.
Then take 83(hwy)/96(city)=87.5% times 270 miles is 236.25. Blend 252 and 236.5 for a mean average of 244 which works with my number above. That compares well to a 35.6 mile trip we took in an AWD EX back in October. It was all freeway driving....around 65-70 mph. I only have the data for the one way trip so I really would need the figures from the other direction to get a good sampling but I do feel pretty good about the 245 number at the moment.

If you are still with me this far....
245/270 AWD EX = hr/300 RWD EX (where "hr" is RWD EX highway range). Solve for "hr" = 272 miles. So, maybe 270 miles is about where that number will land? That indicates about a 10% reduction in range at 65-70 mph. Logic says it would be even greater at higher speeds of course. I didn't test a higher speed for long enough to learn anything so we'll just have to get our cars and figure it out then.

Thanks for the math. Looks like I will be getting my MME soon, so any early measurements will be in cold weather.
Just saw the sticker for the MME XR RWD. It has 300 miles combined, 97 mpge combined, city at 104 and hwy at 90
So by your math, it would be (300/97)*90 = 2780/104= .865 * 300 = 259
Blending 278 and 259 = 268 miles range (431 KM for us Canadians).

 

[pt19713]

A pencil is low tech and it works just fine.

And if a pencil breaks, it's cheap to replace.

Sponsored