Mach-E GT and GT Performance Edition Hit Final EPA Range of 270 miles and 260 miles!

[RetiredDP]

Anyone have any idea what the difference is between the two seats in the GT and GT PE (I think one is called like a sport seat and the other is a performance seat)?

The Performance seat is about a half-inch lower in seated height, has bigger side-bolsters, has shoulder-bolsters, and has fixed headrests (they aren't adjustable up-and-down, and they aren't reversible).

Sponsored

 

[MachTee]

Maybe I'm misremembering, but didn't Tesla previously bump the range on the Model 3 with a re-certification and not actually make any changes to the buffer or efficiency?

Yes, they "bumped" the older long range RWD cars from 310 to 325. The dual motor cars remained at 310 which is what I had. I'd be lucky to get 260 miles out of it since new. Under 250 was the norm. Last I drove that car it went 95 miles consuming 40% of the charge at 260Wh/mile (or 3.85 miles/kWh). The car is rated for 310 miles at 245Wh/mile. The numbers don't add up. That's just what they do, over hype everything. Like another poster mentioned above, BS sells. Hope Ford does not resort to that.

 

[benk016]

I'd still expect around 5-10% worse range in the GT vs the AWD. I don't see how they can put in a bigger motor (more weight), and bigger/stickier tires and get the same MPK. (If/when both get the same software, that is.)

Maybe having a bigger motor in the front causes the rear motor to not have to work quite as hard and evens out the weight difference?

 

[RetiredDP]

The adaptive damping is tempting to me, but I really don't want the overly narrow sport seats or the summer tires. (Can't have the perfect car, I guess.) {Jonathan}

I'll be getting a 2nd set of wheels and tires for winter/snow use (I ski). Planning on the Michelin CrossClimate2 tires, because they performed VERY well in wet braking and snow use, and still performed okay in the dry.

 

[harrysiii]

I wonder how much, if any, of the GT's 10 mile range advantage compared to the Performance Edition is due to the all season tires vs summer tires. I'm planning to switch my GT PE to all season tires.

My guess is it's the GT's aero covers versus the PE not having any.

 

[Davedough]

This. This pleases me. I am pleased by this news

 

[praxiscat]

Ford likely did a better job testing this time. They really underestimated their epa range on the SR and ER vehicles during their first go round. Now they likely have a better grasp on the test.

 

[JonathanEzor]

I'll be getting a 2nd set of wheels and tires for winter/snow use (I ski). Planning on the Michelin CrossClimate2 tires, because they performed VERY well in wet braking and snow use, and still performed okay in the dry.

I don't think I can justify the investment of a second set of tires, let alone wheels, on an AWD car I'll be leasing, and which I'll never take out on the track *or* into deep snow. (I do have winter tires for my two FWD plug-in hybrids, but probably don't need them, given where I live on Long Island; anyway, the all-season tires on the MME are likely better in snow than the stock low-rolling-resistance tires on my C-MAX Energi.)

 

[RedStallion]

Not half, but yeah, EPA overestimates where range actually matters: highway road trip driving.

I'm averaging 2.8 MPK on 4000 miles of road trips at mostly 75-80 MPH speed limits (AWD ER) across CO/UT/NV. That's 10% below the EPA 3.1. Not too bad of a high speed penalty. Of course, then we have to adjust for driving between 10-80% SOC, and any elevation gains, wind, cold, wet roads, etc. All those reduce realistic road trip leg range down to around 60% of EPA.

I've ranged anywhere from 2.1 to 3.5 MPK on high speed road trips legs. 2.8 +/- 25%.

I was also averaging 2.8m/kWh on a recent trip. That doesn't mean every portion of the trip hit that number. On one more than 100 mile portion between the chargers the efficiency dropped to 2.1mi/kWh, which is about 65% of EPA numbers. The worst number determines the range, not the average, it's enough to run out of charge just once to regret it.
So assuming the worst efficiency is 65% of the EPA (likely worse for GT) and the battery can only be reasonably charged to 80% the result is 52% of the EPA.

 

[dbsb3233]

Maybe having a bigger motor in the front causes the rear motor to not have to work quite as hard and evens out the weight difference?

Maybe, but from what I've read the motors have a fairly even (RPM) spread in their efficiency, rather than major "sweet spots" like ICE has.

The larger front motor probably does take some of the load off the rear motor, but that's probably a wash (just shifting more from the rear to the front). And overall it should be extra weight to push around, thus take a bit more juice.

 

[RetiredDP]

The Performance seat is about a half-inch lower in seated height, has bigger side-bolsters, has shoulder-bolsters, and has fixed headrests (they aren't adjustable up-and-down, and they aren't reversible).

BTW, I wear a huge helmet (XXL, with a bit of padding thinned out for my Neanderthal 8.25" long-oval head), and I always raced with the head-rests reversed to make room for my helmet. Since the Performance seat has fixed headrests, I may have to consider seat head-rest mods to accommodate my helmet size...maybe a halo? Stay tuned...

 

[dbsb3233]

I was also averaging 2.8m/kWh on a recent trip. That doesn't mean every portion of the trip hit that number. On one more than 100 mile portion between the chargers the efficiency dropped to 2.1mi/kWh, which is about 65% of EPA numbers. The worst number determines the range, not the average, it's enough to run out of charge just once to regret it.
So assuming the worst efficiency is 65% of the EPA (likely worse for GT) and the battery can only be reasonably charged to 80% the result is 52% of the EPA.

Yep, that's kinda the way I looked at it too. I tend to use 2.2 as the "reasonably safe" low end for projecting how far I can go each leg. I usually do better on most legs, but gotta plan for the low end just to be safe.

Although I've really found it easiest just to charge to 80% nearly every time, and just forget about trying to cut it close by running down to 10% each leg. Top-down (like ICE) instead of bottom-up. More peace of mind, and the charging time difference is insignificant.

 

[RetiredDP]

I don't think I can justify the investment of a second set of tires, let alone wheels, on an AWD car I'll be leasing, and which I'll never take out on the track *or* into deep snow. (I do have winter tires for my two FWD plug-in hybrids, but probably don't need them, given where I live on Long Island; anyway, the all-season tires on the MME are likely better in snow than the stock low-rolling-resistance tires on my C-MAX Energi.)

I don't know what the temperature ranges are on Long Island, but usually summer tires are not supposed to be used below 45° F. Where I live (near Lake Tahoe), temps range from 15° F to 105° F. Hence the need for two sets of wheels/tires. Canada requires two sets on all new cars sold, I believe (my RS winter set was labeled "Canada set").

 

[HuntingPudel]

BTW, I wear a huge helmet (XXL, with a bit of padding thinned out for my Neanderthal 8.25" long-oval head), and I always raced with the head-rests reversed to make room for my helmet. Since the Performance seat has fixed headrests, I may have to consider seat head-rest mods to accommodate my helmet size...maybe a halo? Stay tuned...

I think a lot of us will be modifying our headrests for use with our helmets.

 

[blue92lx]

Ugh, this is good and bad news. The nail in the coffin for me on the GTPE was the limited range. Even at 250 miles on the GT I was just a little worried thinking about my trips from FL to NC a few times a year. But now that the GTPE is looking to be around that mileage it almost makes me want to reconsider and upgrade to a Performance model. The real issue though is that the only thing I REALLY want off of the Performance model is the suspension, maybe the wheels but it's hard to say without seeing the GT wheels in person. I feel like those wheels are the type that could look better in person than in a picture. So then I'm looking at basically $6k for Magnedride suspension and I still have to come to those terms. Now that I'm seeing you all say the seats aren't as adjustable I think it just takes me back down to the GT again. After renting a Mach E on Turo even for one day my wife had me adjust her headrest, I can only imagine telling her the seats in my expensive new car can't be adjusted. I've never ridden a magneride suspension, maybe I should keep it that way so I don't know what I'm missing.

Oh, and being up in NC during the year I agree with what some people are saying with new tires. You really have to factor in a pretty high cost of four new all weather performance tires too... I guess I'll stick with the GT but I'm loving the 270 mile range report on that model.

Sponsored