pbojanoski

Well-Known Member
First Name
Peter
Joined
Jan 4, 2020
Messages
395
Reaction score
437
Location
Pennsylvania
First Name
Peter
Vehicles
Jaguar I-Pace
Country flag
That would be a very optimistic interpretation of it. Hope it's the case. But twice in there they contradicted that - in the footnote, and in the 3rd paragraph where they reiterated the 45 minute stat. Both would have to be wrong.

So either the press release is correct and it has an exceptionally short 150 kW window with a fast taper, or they majorly screwed up the press release to the point of questioning if any of it is correct.
Simplest answer normally being the correct one, I'd say something is screwed up. Some is correct, some is not. I would guess the main points are correct. Someone may have neglected to confirm the notes and disclaimers.
 

dbsb3233

Well-Known Member
First Name
Tim
Joined
Dec 30, 2019
Messages
1,513
Reaction score
1,084
Location
Colorado, USA
First Name
Tim
Vehicles
2013 Ford Escape
Occupation
Retired
Country flag
Some of the EV websites are confused too. Like this from Electrek...

Electrek’s Take

It’s good news that there are improvements, but it’s still hard to understand the actual capacity.

“61 miles of range in approximately 10 minutes” sounds good, but do I need to be at 1% state of charge to get those 61 miles in just 10 minutes? Because most people don’t start charging on the road at 1%.

The best metric they shared is “a 10 percent to 80 percent charge in approximately 45 minutes” while charging on a DC fast charging station. With the 98 KWh extended-range battery pack, it would mean an average charge rate of ~90 kW throughout the charging session.

That’s not bad at all, but we will know more once we are able to see a full charging cycle on the Mustang Mach-E.


https://electrek.co/2020/05/15/ford-mustang-mach-e-electric-car-charge-rate/
 

silverelan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2019
Messages
729
Reaction score
681
Location
Seattle
Vehicles
2015 Subaru Outback
Country flag
Someone may have neglected to confirm the notes and disclaimers.
I would have to think that the Team Edison people working on the Mach-E would sign off on any/all claims made by the marketing folks. Maybe this one slipped by but everything I've seen over the last six months has been very deliberate by Ford so I'm not sure it's a mistake.

What further baffles me is the reduction in miles of range on the L2 chargers. Does it mean efficiency went down?
 

dbsb3233

Well-Known Member
First Name
Tim
Joined
Dec 30, 2019
Messages
1,513
Reaction score
1,084
Location
Colorado, USA
First Name
Tim
Vehicles
2013 Ford Escape
Occupation
Retired
Country flag
I would have to think that the Team Edison people working on the Mach-E would sign off on any/all claims made by the marketing folks. Maybe this one slipped by but everything I've seen over the last six months has been very deliberate by Ford so I'm not sure it's a mistake.

What further baffles me is the reduction in miles of range on the L2 chargers. Does it mean efficiency went down?
I hadn't noticed that. You're right, L2 went down about 5%. 48A charging went from 32 miles added per hour to 30, and 32A went from 22 to 21. That's curious.

Could be lower mileage efficiency. Or could be slower charging, although there shouldn't be any taper on L2. Maybe factoring in some overhead drain?
 

EVer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2020
Messages
68
Reaction score
102
Location
California USA
Vehicles
Model 3P, F150, Volt <- looking to replace with MachE
Country flag
Try some math here to see if clears or muddies.

1. Mach-E battery is 98kWh
2.10%-80% is 70% of that is 68kWh in 45 minutes.
3.45/60 minutes, .75 of an hour.
4.68kWh/.75hr = 91kWh in 45 minutes.
5.91kW hr/.75 hr = 121 kWh average rate.

That's pretty good average rate per hour to 80%.

Unless I've botched the math.
You have.

4.68kWh/.75hr = 91kW <--- should have stopped there
 

Billyk24

Well-Known Member
First Name
William
Joined
Nov 29, 2019
Messages
561
Reaction score
206
Location
PA
First Name
William
Vehicles
Ford C-Max Energi, Premium Mach-E ordered
Country flag
If the extended range battery pack is the same for the RWD and AWD version, then what is the reason for the different charge rates?
 

dbsb3233

Well-Known Member
First Name
Tim
Joined
Dec 30, 2019
Messages
1,513
Reaction score
1,084
Location
Colorado, USA
First Name
Tim
Vehicles
2013 Ford Escape
Occupation
Retired
Country flag
If the extended range battery pack is the same for the RWD and AWD version, then what is the reason for the different charge rates?
When represented in miles, it should be the difference in mileage efficiency. Same reason range is 10% lower on AWD.
 

EVer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2020
Messages
68
Reaction score
102
Location
California USA
Vehicles
Model 3P, F150, Volt <- looking to replace with MachE
Country flag
If the extended range battery pack is the same for the RWD and AWD version, then what is the reason for the different charge rates?
I have not looked enough to see whether there is a difference when expressed in kW rather than miles, however note that the battery pack is not the only limiting factor. The onboard charger could be different between trims.
 

dbsb3233

Well-Known Member
First Name
Tim
Joined
Dec 30, 2019
Messages
1,513
Reaction score
1,084
Location
Colorado, USA
First Name
Tim
Vehicles
2013 Ford Escape
Occupation
Retired
Country flag
You have.

4.68kWh/.75hr = 91kW <--- should have stopped there
And that didn't include any reserve. No one really knows for sure, but most of us are assuming something around a 10% of the 98.9 kWh being held in reserve. Or roughly 90 kWh of available battery. 70% (10-80% SOC) of that is 63 kWh / .75 hr = 84 kW average charge rate.

(Lower if one chooses to charge beyond the 80% SOC point.)
 

silverelan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2019
Messages
729
Reaction score
681
Location
Seattle
Vehicles
2015 Subaru Outback
Country flag
The 30% faster that I want to see is from 10% to 80%.

Low 30 minutes would be a huge deal and would rival the Audi e-tron for charge times, especially if you're comparing range gained over time charging. The MME's 45 minutes is nothing to brag about and may become a liability relatively quickly if 800V architecture is introduced by rivals in the next 1-2 years.
 
Last edited:

dbsb3233

Well-Known Member
First Name
Tim
Joined
Dec 30, 2019
Messages
1,513
Reaction score
1,084
Location
Colorado, USA
First Name
Tim
Vehicles
2013 Ford Escape
Occupation
Retired
Country flag
The 30% faster that I want to see is from 10% to 80%.
Of for sure, that would be a biggie. Unless it was the mileage efficiency that really got 30% better, in which case range increases by 30% (thus why the 10-80% recharge stayed at 45 mins). That would be even bigger.

But I'm doubtful either of those is actually the case. My money is on the press release being correct and it just has a very fast taper on the charge curve.
 

ChasingCoral

Well-Known Member
First Name
Mark
Joined
Feb 3, 2020
Messages
1,069
Reaction score
970
Location
Maryland
First Name
Mark
Vehicles
Mach-E FE reserved, Nissan Leaf, Toyota Tacoma
Country flag
Of for sure, that would be a biggie. Unless it was the mileage efficiency that really got 30% better, in which case range increases by 30% (thus why the 10-80% recharge stayed at 45 mins). That would be even bigger.

But I'm doubtful either of those is actually the case. My money is on the press release being correct and it just has a very fast taper on the charge curve.
More range would be spectacular that could be why everything is in miles. However, I’m not holding my breath.

I tend to believe the engineers are careful and the ad copy writers were not. I see it as likely that the writers of the piece were given the new 10-minute charging specs to write an article about. Then one of them decided to use the old 45-minute 10-80% number to round out the article but didn’t check back with the engineers to see if that had changed, too. See “business consultant” below.

1589890196493.jpeg
 
Top