Mileage Complaint

[Blinkin]

Bellshill is bullshit. Let's just call it for what it is. Lol.

Intentional ignorance and lack of research is also something that should be called out. You didn't even bother learning how the WLTP standard works before you made a very large purchase. 30 minutes on this forum would have taught you everything you needed to know and more.

And guess what? Because of that excessively generous WLTP measure, literally ANY electric car you could have bought in the UK would have underperformed its range estimate. I don't even live in a WLTP market but I knew that because I did basic due diligence before buying an electric car.

Sponsored

 

[IMDIDOC]

Depending on your driving YMMV. Local driving and charging to 100% has displayed over 300 miles. Driving 1600 miles at 70 mph and sometimes into a headwind really reduces the range. So much so, I had to slow and get behind a trailer to break the wind to make it to the next charging station.

Look at the miles/kWh on the trip display. I average 3.3, but into that wind at that speed I was getting 2.2 miles/kWh. That works out to about 196 miles with the extended battery on a FE.

 

[Cuddlecool]

Your estimated range will get better over time as the car learns your driving style. I have the Premium AWD extended range, which is rated at 270 miles on a 100% charge. The first few times I charged to 100%, the estimated range showed as only 240 to 250. Now after 3000+ miles, I charged to 85% last night, and my range estimate is currently showing 267. Two times recently I charged to 100% I got 305 and 314. And yes, I drive fast and always in Unbridled mode. It also helps to use 1-pedal drive to take maximum advantage of the regenerative braking function. So be patient.

 

[Scrannel]

I don't use GOM. Pos.

I get that, but in UK it is sold as doing 335 miles. Not 270.

Are those Imperial Miles..?

 

[dbsb3233]

Depending on your driving YMMV. Local driving and charging to 100% has displayed over 300 miles. Driving 1600 miles at 70 mph and sometimes into a headwind really reduces the range. So much so, I had to slow and get behind a trailer to break the wind to make it to the next charging station.

Look at the miles/kWh on the trip display. I average 3.3, but into that wind at that speed I was getting 2.2 miles/kWh. That works out to about 196 miles with the extended battery on a FE.

Yep. High speed, headwinds, and elevation all have dramatically outsized impact on mileage relative to ICE. I dip down to 1.8 MPK on some stretches across Utah at 80 MPH. Although that's usually just for 20 miles or something. By the end of that leg I usually creep up to 2.3. While other stretches are 3.5.

 

[mkhuffman]

No old test, years ago was a single number not the current standard

The current EPA BEV range test is just as bad as the old MPG test, because the average consumer does not understand that a range of 270 miles is not highway miles. Applying all the years of experience consumers have with ICE vehicles traveling farther on the highway when compared to city driving, it is natural to assume 270 miles means 270 miles on the highway. Which is totally incorrect, of course. The BEV range test should provide a highway range at a typical speed (like 75 mph) and a city range. One combined range is very misleading.

The EPA test may be better than WLTP, but it sucks also and it should be updated to better educate the consumer. Lots of people will make buying decisions based on that number, and then be very disappointed, just like the OP. I know that a few years ago I would have been one of those people, and I would have been very, very pissed off. I would have blamed Ford AND the EPA. Especially the EPA, but Ford should not be off the hook either.

The OP is correct that the entire industry, not just the government (although I love to the blame the government, because all governments generally screw-up everything they try to do) is responsible. At least Ford took a better approach in the US and has not reported unrealistically high EPA numbers, like Tesla sometimes does. (Or always does, depending on your perspective.)

Ford and other manufacturers could set their own standard, and they could report highway range and city range, in addition to the EPA (or WLTP) range. But they have not done that, and while I understand why Ford does not want to be the first to tell consumers how low their real highway range is, it would be the right thing to do. I agree with @Trevor.

 

[RobO]

I get that 335 is the highest figure, but 253 or 278 are nowhere near that figure and it is being sold as doing 335 (their ads, not mine).

I know how to drive 'economically' and could ( but rarely did) get 65 mpg from my X Drive 335d. I wa happy to get 40+ the way I drove it, but I simply can't get this up anywhere near the 335 (or above 300) figure.

I'd be happier with 300, or if they had said 270. But they didn't.

I’ve managed to get 280miles with ER AWD at 70mph. But terrain and weather conditions play a big role in mileage. If rainy and windy it can impact it by 10% or more. Also, lot of hills suck power. If Ford claimed 335 miles in UK, love to see where they claimed that, it would have to be flat, ideal conditions at 50mph. Believe it possible tho.

 

[dbsb3233]

The current EPA BEV range test is just as bad as the old MPG test, because the average consumer does not understand that a range of 270 miles is not highway miles. Applying all the years of experience consumers have with ICE vehicles traveling farther on the highway when compared to city driving, it is natural to assume 270 miles means 270 miles on the highway. Which is totally incorrect, of course. The BEV range test should provide a highway range at a typical speed (like 75 mph) and a city range. One combined range is very misleading.

The EPA test may be better than WLTP, but it sucks also and it should be updated to better educate the consumer. Lots of people will make buying decisions based on that number, and then be very disappointed, just like the OP. I know that a few years ago I would have been one of those people, and I would have been very, very pissed off. I would have blamed Ford AND the EPA. Especially the EPA, but Ford should not be off the hook either.

The OP is correct that the entire industry, not just the government (although I love to the blame the government, because all governments generally screw-up everything they try to do) is responsible. At least Ford took a better approach in the US and has not reported unrealistically high EPA numbers, like Tesla sometimes does. (Or always does, depending on your perspective.)

Ford and other manufacturers could set their own standard, and they could report highway range and city range, in addition to the EPA (or WLTP) range. But they have not done that, and while I understand why Ford does not want to be the first to tell consumers how low their real highway range is, it would be the right thing to do. I agree with @Trevor.

Yep, good points. And it's really even worse than that. Realistic highway range is shorter still because after the first leg, people usually won't DCFC above 80%. So there's another 20% off range on those legs that people are used to having with ICE.

And then the scarcity of DCFC stations along highways means there's very few choices. Which means the location of stations heavily controls where you stop. You may have 180 miles of realistic range for the next leg, but if the chargers are 120 miles and 220 miles away, you're stuck stopping at the 120 mile one.

The EPA numbers do actually include a highway number, but it's not presented well. You have to back-calculate it from the MPGe numbers. In my FE, for example, combined MPGe is 90 (for the 270 mile range number), city is 96 and highway 84. That puts highway 6.7% lower, thus 252 highway range.

 

[mkhuffman]

Intentional ignorance and lack of research is also something that should be called out. You didn't even bother learning how the WLTP standard works before you made a very large purchase. 30 minutes on this forum would have taught you everything you needed to know and more.

And guess what? Because of that excessively generous WLTP measure, literally ANY electric car you could have bought in the UK would have underperformed its range estimate. I don't even live in a WLTP market but I knew that because I did basic due diligence before buying an electric car.

I agree the consumer is always responsible for making informed purchases, but I think all businesses have a responsibility to provide accurate information when marketing their products. I do NOT think it is the government's job to force car manufacturers to be honest with their marketing, and I think people like @Trevor and others do have a responsibility to call them out and put the heat on them so they are honest.

Maybe the EU or the UK requires all car advertisements and promotional material to include the WLTP estimate, but I bet Ford, Mercedes and others are not prevented from reporting more accurate estimates. I bet they could include the EPA estimate if they wanted, or they could include an estimated highway range if they wanted. They could do it, so why don't they?

They don't do it because a real highway estimate will look bad, and will not help sell their vehicles, right? Is that something consumers should just accept? Or should we complain about it? In a free market, which is what I believe we should have, the consumers need to complain, they need to push back, they need to punish companies that deceive or mislead consumers with bad word-of-mouth that hurts their brand image. That is the best way to get them to change. If we all just go along, and say "oh well", then they will keep deceiving us and we will keep taking it. No thanks.

BTW - because I am an educated consumer of the MME, am not going to be disappointed with my range. I am very educated in what to expect, but that does not mean Ford should be off the hook. And not Ford specifically, but all of the industry needs to get together and fix this. They can create a standard that is better than the EPA one, one that we can all appreciate. They can do it, and they will if consumers demand it.

 

[IMDIDOC]

The current EPA BEV range test is just as bad as the old MPG test, because the average consumer does not understand that a range of 270 miles is not highway miles. Applying all the years of experience consumers have with ICE vehicles traveling farther on the highway when compared to city driving, it is natural to assume 270 miles means 270 miles on the highway. Which is totally incorrect, of course. The BEV range test should provide a highway range at a typical speed (like 75 mph) and a city range. One combined range is very misleading.

The EPA test may be better than WLTP, but it sucks also and it should be updated to better educate the consumer. Lots of people will make buying decisions based on that number, and then be very disappointed, just like the OP. I know that a few years ago I would have been one of those people, and I would have been very, very pissed off. I would have blamed Ford AND the EPA. Especially the EPA, but Ford should not be off the hook either.

The OP is correct that the entire industry, not just the government (although I love to the blame the government, because all governments generally screw-up everything they try to do) is responsible. At least Ford took a better approach in the US and has not reported unrealistically high EPA numbers, like Tesla sometimes does. (Or always does, depending on your perspective.)

Ford and other manufacturers could set their own standard, and they could report highway range and city range, in addition to the EPA (or WLTP) range. But they have not done that, and while I understand why Ford does not want to be the first to tell consumers how low their real highway range is, it would be the right thing to do. I agree with @Trevor.

You kind of get the idea when the mileage equivalent to gasoline is stated 100mpg city/90 highway. Just opposite of ICE.

 

[dbsb3233]

You kind of get the idea when the mileage equivalent to gasoline is stated 100mpg city/90 highway. Just opposite of ICE.

True, but I think most buyers don't even look at that. You usually have to look at the details on the window sticker to see it. It's the advertised EPA range number that gets the headline. And unfortunately it's somewhat misleading.

But the fact is there's really no ideal range number for BEVs. There's such huge mileage variable from speed, elevation, cold, win, and other factors that no matter what number they pick as "the" range number, it's gonna be significantly off for most situations.

 

[Njia]

Actually, I have been doing a LOT better than the published, “official” range. I have a Preimium with SR battery and AWD. Over the last few months, range has actually gone up considerably. It’s not uncommon for me to get 195 miles at 80% SOC (about 245 at 100%). This is WAY better than I had expected.

Once cold weather sets in again (I live in Michigan) the range will come back down to earth. But for now, I’m really enjoying the ability to go almost whether I want without stopping to recharge.

 

[kikibop]

The ER AWD is advertised with a range of 335 miles. Mine shows 278, at best. Speaking to the dealer and my Mach E Support Concierge, this is normal.

I paid for a FE with a 335 mile range. 278 is NOT 335.

You should probably read up on WLTP estimates vs. real-world range. Sorry to say that your lack of awareness is the problem, not the Mach-E's performance.

Also, I am curious. Do you *need* 335 miles on a daily basis? Or are you just upset because the number on the screen is different than your desire?

 

[JRT]

From reading about ev, I knew an adjustment to long distance driving is needed. The best notes I took away was to look at planing stops every 2-3 hrs for short quick charges and have a plan to overnight to 100% if needed.

 

[dbsb3233]

From reading about ev, I knew an adjustment to long distance driving is needed. The best notes I took away was to look at planing stops every 2-3 hrs for short quick charges and have a plan to overnight to 100% if needed.

Generally true, although I wouldn't call a charge after 2-3 straight hours on the road "short". That's pretty much maximum realistic leg range, at least if talking interstate speeds. 2.5 hours at 75 MPH = 187 miles. That's pretty close to max leg range at high speed from 100% down to a 10-20% arrival target at the next DCFC. I'd call that a pretty long charge (to 80%).

But yes, 100% overnight is perfect if a charger is available. L2 at the hotel is ideal.

Sponsored