dbsb3233

Well-Known Member
First Name
Tim
Joined
Dec 30, 2019
Messages
1,476
Reaction score
1,058
Location
Colorado, USA
First Name
Tim
Vehicles
2013 Ford Escape
Occupation
Retired
Country flag
While reading that, I had many of the same head-scratching questions some of you posted. A lot of it just doesn't add up if the 10-80% times haven't also improved.

If the improvement is because they're seeing better miles/kWh drive efficiency, then that would apply to range as well. But no mention of range increase which would surely be the lead headline.

If it's because the charge curve has improved (i.e. they're able to keep it at 150 kW max longer than originally expected), it makes no sense that they would then slow it down even more later in the SOC than originally planned (offsetting those gains).

I almost get the feeling they just forgot to update the original "10-80% in 45 minutes" info to reflect a better charging curve.
 

timbop

Well-Known Member
First Name
Tim
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
Messages
771
Reaction score
717
Location
New Jersey
First Name
Tim
Vehicles
2015 Mustang Convertible, 2016 Dodge Durango
Occupation
Software Engineer
Country flag
Both all-wheel-drive and rear-wheel-drive configurations are estimated to achieve a 10 percent to 80 percent charge in approximately 45 minutes while charging on a DC fast charging station
This is definitely great news! It's interesting to me that the 10% to 80% times have not changed but the miles per minute on a 150kW DCFC have gone up.

Does this mean that range has increased?
Either that or the charging curve at the start is faster than estimated, followed by a faster decline. That would mean the same overall charging time but faster up front.
The fact that the stated overall time hasn't changed but the rate over 10 minutes is faster means one of:
  • The marketing crew made a mistake by not reporting the updated overall session time from 10-80%
  • As @silverelan said the overall range is much higher
  • As Mark said the improved 10 minute time is not the average but refers to the rate at a low SOC.
Of those options, I would guess the most likely is the first. The least likely is the last, as the previous reported 10 minute times were obviously an average of the overall charge time from 10%->80%. My preference would be for longer range, but I think if that was the case Ford would be crowing about it.
 

timbop

Well-Known Member
First Name
Tim
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
Messages
771
Reaction score
717
Location
New Jersey
First Name
Tim
Vehicles
2015 Mustang Convertible, 2016 Dodge Durango
Occupation
Software Engineer
Country flag
I almost get the feeling they just forgot to update the original "10-80% in 45 minutes" info to reflect a better charge curve.
great minds think alike! And so do ours
 

RyZt

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2019
Messages
47
Reaction score
33
Location
San Jose
Vehicles
CMax Hybrid
Country flag
It doesn't charge faster for RWD vs. AWD. You just go farther on the same amount of energy.
52 miles / 10 minutes (AWD ER) is only 85% of 61 miles / 10 minutes (RWD ER). The original EPA range estimate is 270 miles (AWD ER) and 300 miles (RWD ER), which is 90%. That does not add up unless the range estimate has changed (likely) or somehow AWD charges slower despite having the same battery (unlikely).
 

dbsb3233

Well-Known Member
First Name
Tim
Joined
Dec 30, 2019
Messages
1,476
Reaction score
1,058
Location
Colorado, USA
First Name
Tim
Vehicles
2013 Ford Escape
Occupation
Retired
Country flag
Just read this footnote at the bottom:

1. Estimated miles added are based on the first 10 minutes of charging

That's a bit disconcerting. That could mean just from the 10% SOC point, meaning it's not really an average of the 10-80% spread, but an average of just the first 10 minutes. Which we already knew would add miles much faster (what we usually refer to as the peak area of the charging curve).

Could this really just be a marketing spin on the existing data, and nothing really changed?
 

silverelan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2019
Messages
704
Reaction score
644
Location
Seattle
Vehicles
2015 Subaru Outback
Country flag
@dbsb3233, kudos to you sir for reading the "small print"!

I'm glad we're crowd sourcing this thing to try and understand what we're being told.

Basically, it's hard to make too much out of this without the full context of the charging curve.
 

RyZt

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2019
Messages
47
Reaction score
33
Location
San Jose
Vehicles
CMax Hybrid
Country flag
Just read this footnote at the bottom:

1. Estimated miles added are based on the first 10 minutes of charging

That's a bit disconcerting. That could mean just from the 10% SOC point, meaning it's not really an average of the 10-80% spread, but an average of just the first 10 minutes. Which we already knew would add miles much faster (what we usually refer to as the peak area of the charging curve).

Could this really just be a marketing spin on the existing data, and nothing really changed?
You're likely right.

The original 47 miles per 10 minutes number was clearly an average because that adds up to 211 miles in 45 minutes, which is exactly 70% of battery capacity in 45 minutes.

Many people, including me, find it misleading/confusing to use the 10-80% average number in a statement like "X miles per 10 minutes". This update clears that confusion. (Maybe not, see reply from dbsb3233 below.)
 
Last edited:

LYTMCQ

Well-Known Member
First Name
Lyt
Joined
Feb 2, 2020
Messages
1,046
Reaction score
385
Location
Portland
First Name
Lyt
Vehicles
Telsa Model 3 LR AWD
Country flag
150kWh would be 600mph charging. 100/10 minutes vs. Ford saying 52 miles in 10 minutes. At 10% of battery a 150kWh charge capable car should be doing the 600mph 100/10 minutes for at least fir the first 30% of battery capacity so I'm not understanding the math.

On a 98kWh battery, some of us were expecting a higher charging curve similar to Audi's which can do the 150kwh rate to near 80%. Ford's rate would be equivalent to a 65kWh initial rate.

Hope I'm missing something.
 

dbsb3233

Well-Known Member
First Name
Tim
Joined
Dec 30, 2019
Messages
1,476
Reaction score
1,058
Location
Colorado, USA
First Name
Tim
Vehicles
2013 Ford Escape
Occupation
Retired
Country flag
You're likely right.

The original 47 miles per 10 minutes number was clearly an average because that adds up to 211 miles in 45 minutes, which is exactly 70% of battery capacity in 45 minutes.

Many people, including me, find it misleading/confusing to use the 10-80% average number in a statement like "X miles per 10 minutes". This update clears that confusion.
Yep, I've done that same calculation, and it was comforting getting that cross-confirmation that 47 miles per 10 minutes is exactly 10-80% in 45 minutes. So I felt good understanding what that really meant.

Frankly, if 61 miles refers to just the first 10 minutes (from 10% SOC), that's worse than I was expecting. Elsewhere it was stated by a Ford rep that it would charge at 150 kW peak "only briefly", so I expected a quick taper in the charging curve. But 61 seems quite poor.

With a 300 mile range and a 98.9 kWh battery, that's a 3.0 miles/kWh efficiency avg. Or perhaps they're assuming a reserve (10%?), which bumps that up to around 3.3. I'll assume 3.3 for calculations. 61 miles at 3.3 translates to 18.5 kWh added in those first 10 minutes. A full 150 kW rate adds 2.5 kWh per minute. 10 minutes of peak would add 25 kWh. But adding only 18.5 would mean the taper starting after only like 5-6 minutes or something. That would be quite disappointing.
 

RyZt

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2019
Messages
47
Reaction score
33
Location
San Jose
Vehicles
CMax Hybrid
Country flag
Yep, I've done that same calculation, and it was comforting getting that cross-confirmation that 47 miles per 10 minutes is exactly 10-80% in 45 minutes. So I felt good understanding what that really meant.

Frankly, if 61 miles refers to just the first 10 minutes (from 10% SOC), that's worse than I was expecting. Elsewhere it was stated by a Ford rep that it would charge at 150 kW peak "only briefly", so I expected a quick taper in the charging curve. But 61 seems quite poor.

With a 300 mile range and a 98.9 kWh battery, that's a 3.0 miles/kWh efficiency avg. Or perhaps they're assuming a reserve (10%?), which bumps that up to around 3.3. I'll assume 3.3 for calculations. 61 miles at 3.3 translates to 18.5 kWh added in those first 10 minutes. A full 150 kW rate adds 2.5 kWh per minute. 10 minutes of peak would add 25 kWh. But adding only 18.5 would mean the taper starting after only like 5-6 minutes or something. That would be quite disappointing.
Exactly, if 61 miles refers to just the first 10 minutes (from 10% SOC), it seems quite a bit too low.

Maybe it's still the average, and we're looking at a 30% range increase? (That would explain the 85% AWD/RWD ratio. And maybe foot note 1 can be explained by miscommunication between the engineers and the comms people)
 

dbsb3233

Well-Known Member
First Name
Tim
Joined
Dec 30, 2019
Messages
1,476
Reaction score
1,058
Location
Colorado, USA
First Name
Tim
Vehicles
2013 Ford Escape
Occupation
Retired
Country flag
The 61 miles vs 52 for the ER RWD vs AWD doesn't add up either. That's a 15% drop. It's the exact same battery. It's logical that it should have the same charging curve (i.e. adding KWh at the same rates). Seems like the miles difference would only be a product of different mileage for the AWD (miles/kWh). Since the RWD is reported at 300 miles of range, and the AWD at 270, that's a 10% different in mileage. A 10% drop from 61 miles added in 10 minutes would be 55 miles added in 10 minutes, not 52. Not a huge difference, but inconsistent enough to see something is wrong.
 

Billyk24

Well-Known Member
First Name
William
Joined
Nov 29, 2019
Messages
545
Reaction score
200
Location
PA
First Name
William
Vehicles
Ford C-Max Energi, Premium Mach-E ordered
Country flag
I'm skipping the math of this PR release and just looking at it as a "copy" of the Tesla playbook in that increased "performance" is noted as a way to enhance more reservations/orders. Some of us were stating Ford was sandbagging the initial specifications during the November 2018 launch. As for the math portion, the ER version was initially labeled 278(?) mile range but in the past several months the FORD engineers have (?) stated "exceeding" the targets. Until the consumer gets their hands on the MME, we won't know the whole story.
 

dbsb3233

Well-Known Member
First Name
Tim
Joined
Dec 30, 2019
Messages
1,476
Reaction score
1,058
Location
Colorado, USA
First Name
Tim
Vehicles
2013 Ford Escape
Occupation
Retired
Country flag
On a 98kWh battery, some of us were expecting a higher charging curve similar to Audi's which can do the 150kwh rate to near 80%.
All indications were it was never going to be remotely close to the Audi charging curve. 10-80% SOC at 150 kW the whole way (2.5 kWh per minute) would be adding 69 kWh in just 28 minutes. Ford has said 10-80% in 45 minutes all along (on the ER RWD).

One Ford rep was also quoted saying it would only charge at the max 150 kW rate ("briefly") before tapering. The data added up to a charge curve profile more similar to that of the Model 3 (a brief early peak before quickly tapering down).
 

dbsb3233

Well-Known Member
First Name
Tim
Joined
Dec 30, 2019
Messages
1,476
Reaction score
1,058
Location
Colorado, USA
First Name
Tim
Vehicles
2013 Ford Escape
Occupation
Retired
Country flag
The SR battery figures show a similar pattern. It says 46 miles in the first 10 minutes (RWD) and 42 miles (AWD). The peak charge rate on the SR is 115 kW. If assuming 3.3 miles/kWh, 46 miles is 14.0 kWh in 10 minutes.

115 kW charge rate is 1.92 kWh added per minute. 10 minutes at that peak would add 19.2 kWh. But the above figured suggest it only adds around 14 kWh in 10 minutes, suggest that SR battery has a very early taper too (maybe 5-6 minutes).

I was expecting the peak 115 kW rate to hold longer before tapering than the 150 peak (seemed logical). Yet another odd conclusion, perhaps suggesting something wrong/inconsistent in the numbers they're giving us (or perhaps more likely wrong in my assumptions).

Curiouser and curiouser. As others have said, guess we'll just have to wait and see. None of it affects me much since I'm not planning to use public chargers. But still, it would be nice to know just in case.
 

LYTMCQ

Well-Known Member
First Name
Lyt
Joined
Feb 2, 2020
Messages
1,046
Reaction score
385
Location
Portland
First Name
Lyt
Vehicles
Telsa Model 3 LR AWD
Country flag
10-80% SOC at 150 kW the whole way (2.5 kWh per minute) would be adding 69 kWh in just 28 minutes.
69kWh would be 70% of the 98kwh. Ford is saying 69kWh in 45 minutes vs. the "flat 150kWh of 28 minutes above. I think Audi curve was 150kWh to 80% on a 92kWh battery or 73kWh but the curve doesn't have a time to it. So the Mach-E is 60% less of the charging curve of the Audi though I don't have much confidence on my late night calcs.

Audi-e-tron-charging.jpg


https://electrek.co/2018/12/18/audi-e-tron-155-kw-fast-charge-rate/
 
Top