This really really needs to happen and if Ford doesn’t have engineers actively pursuing this goal on they are nuts. Because it would be a huge win and change some minds.
Agree. What impressed me more was his comment about the elevation, and the fact that if it was straight freeway, the gap between the Mach-E and MY may have been even greater.
Great video as usual @AoA . Thanks for publishing it.
He also said how much more efficient the Tesla is and that Ford's "much bigger" battery made the difference. He doesn't mention the wh/mi at the end, but what he does mention is a (not) whopping 14% better efficiency (.14 = 43/303). Computing the overall efficiency for the MME we get 3.05 mi/kwh. Using that number, the SR AWD MME would have had a range of 207 miles.
Yeah I noticed that, too - but he did say the return leg had faster speed limit. The computed wh/mi for the MME for the whole journey is 327. The updated miles for the Y was 244, so 72000/244 = 297 wh/mi. That comes to a 30 wh/mi advantage to the MY for the whole route, and not far off from the 43 wh/mi advantage on the first leg since it was uphill.
Get the curve humming just below Mercedes for the full session and pump it up to 94 KWh it would be a force to be reckoned with. There is a mustang in there.
Based on 0.7 of 2 cycle dyna numbers Tesla should be 297 but the vid says on the bottom end of that. Ford used a scalar of 0.76 also but appear on the upper end with close to a 30% swing? Does this show us EPA test may require tweaking for EV's? It is possible if the variance during Alex's vid is the case. I see no reason to release bogusly low dyna numbers when all it will do is free you up to slap whatever you want on a window sticker. The test or the numbers are a bit weird. Like the error on the side of the good guys thou
.
If the Y is 20% more efficient than the Mach-E and the Mach-E did it in 327 wh/mi, the Y would be around 262 wh/mi, which sounds more correct. 262 wh/mi equates to 287 miles of range assuming fully draining the battery, or 273 miles down to 0%. This is still off from the 244 updated miles, or 297 wh/mi. I wonder what charging habits the owner of the Y is doing and if the BMS needs to be recalibrated. It needs to be drained down below 10% on occasion otherwise the BMS thinks the available nominal battery remaining is lower than what it actually is. If you're bored, there's some info here: https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/thr...lf-of-my-batterys-lost-capacity.204712/unread
here's the LR Y AWD EPA cert nu mbers and here's the link to the full document. Page 23 for the LR Y AWD. This cert is for the 2021 LR Y AWD but it's the same battery as the 2020. If Tesla eliminated the three additional urban cycles, range drops from 330 to 308. The rated range is heavily slanted towards urban driving and not highway speeds. Take out all the pure urban cycles and you'll see ~ 300 miles.Get the curve humming just below Mercedes for the full session and pump it up to 94 KWh it would be a force to be reckoned with. There is a mustang in there.
Based on 0.7 of 2 cycle dyna numbers Tesla should be 297 but the vid says on the bottom end of that. Ford used a scalar of 0.76 also but appear on the upper end with close to a 30% swing? Does this show us EPA test may require tweaking for EV's? It is possible if the variance during Alex's vid is the case. I see no reason to release bogusly low dyna numbers when all it will do is free you up to slap whatever you want on a window sticker. The test or the numbers are a bit weird. Like the error on the side of the good guys thou
Yeah... That was ME!
I wonder if Ford geared it towards the real work and said to the epa numbers. I was comparing 2 cycle and not the stuff at the discretion of the administrator. Maybe my math is wrong? Not sure how current my numbers are now either not much sense now I own one. The wall loss on a tesla is the highest?
