Mileage for Extended Range Mach-E Models Revealed in EPA Emissions Certifications

[EVmodeler]

All vehicles have emissions certification posted by EPA, even zero emissions vehicles.
Today I finally found the Mach-E certificate summary information (CSI) posted (see links below).

There are two Mach-E vehicles posted; AWD ER and RWD ER.

This data is the unadjusted City/UDDS and Highway/HWFET range
derived from a single test, the SAE J1634 Multi-Cycle Test (MCT).

The data does not look to too promising.

1. All-Wheel Drive Extended Range Mach-E

• https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/
  https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=51317&flag=1
• For AWD ER, UDDS unadjusted range = 371.5 miles, Hwy = 338.9 miles
• The unadjusted combined range is then 0.55*371.5 + 0.45*338.9 = 356.8 miles
• The adjusted, label range is expected to be 0.7 * 356.8 = 249.8 miles = 250 miles (rounded).
• So not 270 miles as expected.

2. Rear-Wheel Drive Extended Range Mach-E

• https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=51318&flag=1
• UDDS range = 434.9 mi, Hwy = 382.9 mi, so Unadjusted combined range = 411.5 mi
  and adjusted label = 288 mi

The certificate also has the road load and test mass information;

The Mach-E is not too svelte at 14.9 road load hp (at 50 mph).

 

[Davedough]

Can you help my simple mind wrap around the concept of unadjusted range? What is it and why is it so much higher than the outcome?

 

[EVmodeler]

All vehicles have emissions certification posted by EPA, even zero emissions vehicles.
Today I finally found the certificate summary information (CSI) posted at
https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/
https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=51317&flag=1
(please let me know if this link works - not sure since its search result)

There are two vehicles posted; AWD ER and RWD ER.
This data is the unadjusted City/UDDS and Highway/HWFET range
derived from a single test, the SAE J1634 Multi-Cycle Test (MCT).
The data does not look to too promising.
For AWD ER, UDDS unadjusted range = 371.5 miles, Hwy = 338.9 miles
The unadjusted combined range is then 0.55*371.5 + 0.45*338.9 = 356.8 miles
The adjusted, label range is expected to be 0.7 * 356.8 = 249.8 miles = 250 miles (rounded).
So not 270 miles as expected.
The certificate also has the road load and test mass information;
The Mach-E is not too svelte at 14.9 road load hp (at 50 mph).
I will post the info for the RWD ER is just a bit.

Here is the link for the RWD ER
https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=51318&flag=1

UDDS range = 434.9 mi, Hwy = 382.9 mi, so Unadjusted combined range = 411.5 mi
and adjusted label = 288 mi

I expect they may post the standard range battery soon?

 

[EVer]

Can you help my simple mind wrap around the concept of unadjusted range? What is it and why is it so much higher than the outcome?

The vehicles are tested in a laboratory. They aren't moving, and there is a fudge factor to account for real world effects. While the dyno is supposed to be load-adjusted to simulate aerodynamic drag, it isn't perfect, and doesn't account for everything.

Electric Vehicle - Adjustment Procedure used to Derive FE Label (Window Sticker) Estimates - EPA regulations require fuel economy, energy consumption, CO2 and driving range values listed on the FE Label (window sticker) to be adjusted to more accurately reflect the values that customers can expect to achieve in the real world. EPA currently allows fuel economy, energy consumption, CO2 values, and range values listed on the FE Label (window sticker) for electric vehicles to be adjusted using one of the following methods:

• By multiplying city/highway fuel economy and range values by 0.7 and dividing city/highway energy consumption and CO2 values by 0.7;
• using the derived 5-cycle method described in 40 CFR 600.210-12(a)(2) and EPA guidance letter CD-15-15, June 22, 2015 (available at https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/cert/dearmfr/dearmfr.htm);
• using a method which is equivalent to the vehicle specific 5-cycle method described in 40 CFR 600.210-12(a)(1) (with prior EPA approval) such as the method provided in Appendix B of SAE J1634 July 2017 Recommended Practice;
• using adjustment factors which are based on in-use data (with prior EPA approval).

 

[EVmodeler]

Can you help my simple mind wrap around the concept of unadjusted range? What is it and why is it so much higher than the outcome?

Its the results from the dynamometer tests for the very mild standard drive cycles that have been used since the 1970s, and are known not to represent real world driving. For most vehicles, the label fuel economy (and range) have been adjusted using the 5-cycle method since 2008. The 5-cycle testing including US06 and heating and A/C test cycles would be very complex for long range BEVs, so the J1634 MCT test was developed. EPA settled on a simple adjustment factor of 0.7 for both MPGe and range (they are related of course) and most vehicles use this factor. Only Tesla (I believe) has applied for and gotten a different (higher) adjustment factor.
As has been discussed extensively, how you drive and the conditions (hills, A/C, heat) matter a lot for both conventional and EVs, more so for very efficient EVs.
So Adjusted is an attempt to give a standard but more realistic expectation of real world range.

 

[imstriker]

Interesting, thanks for posting! The rated motor power is odd too. It adds up to 258 on the AWD. I would think rated power would be the true stamped label.

If those numbers pan out, I wonder what cancellations would look like. Also wonder if they can play any games with the numbers like Tesla does. Coming in with a decent sized decrease in range after stating an approximate number for this long is not going to look good.

 

[agoldman]

still, had hoped for a bit better on the AWD ER.. Well it could be worse, like the pathetic Polestar and Volvo XC40 EPA scores. This doesn't bode well for the GT scores though.

 

[darren]

This is bad. Hopefully, Ford can make some adjustments and re-submit for testing.

 

[EVmodeler]

Anther related file, the Application for Certificate
https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=51341&flag=1

Has a bit more information, and says
"Application Release Date: December 7, 2020"

So that may be the first date of sale.

 

[RyZt]

I suppose it wouldn't be too hard for a manufacturer (including Ford) to get a multiplier other than 0.7 if they are serious about an EV, and determines that EPA range matters for their customer. I could be wrong though as I really have no idea.

I read (not credible source) that Model Y LR AWD would have an EPA range of 292 miles had it used 0.7 multiplier.

Therefore, even if Ford did get a different multiplier, it would still look pretty bad. Honestly, I'm disappointed.

 

[jdmrc93]

OOOOF

Ouchie.

 

[engnrng]

Interesting, thanks for posting! The rated motor power is odd too. It adds up to 258 on the AWD. I would think rated power would be the true stamped label.

If those numbers pan out, I wonder what cancellations would look like. Also wonder if they can play any games with the numbers like Tesla does. Coming in with a decent sized decrease in range after stating an approximate number for this long is not going to look good.

288 EPA vs 300 predicted is a difference of 4%. But, there is the magic number of 300 that people seem to focus on. Real world experiences will be interesting. Some EV models seem to have better owner experiences than EPA, others have worse. Same with ICE cars. A one size fits all factor of 0.7 from 2015 is perhaps a bit outdated. Besides, I drive my Kona like a sports car (well, almost) and get range predictions on my GOM of about 4% less than the EPA rating, cruise control is often set at 75 mph (not very often pre-COVID, but pretty consistent since). I am less interested in EPA ratings than in actual owner experiences. Might a sub-300 EPA number cause cancellations? Maybe a few, but there are many existing orders for models previously estimated at well below 300. Thanks for the info! Onward!!

 

[eltonlin]

Yikes.

As comparison:
Tesla Y LR AWD UDDS = 446 / Hwy = 398
Tesla Y Perf AWD UDDS = 409 / Hwy = 376

 

[EVer]

What's the unadjusted combined range of Mach E competitors? I'd be curious about Model 3 LR AWD, Model Y LR AWD, Kona, Niro, Bolt.

From that list, I've only ever seen the Model 3 LR, and the test is old, before the release of firmware which improved efficiency.

 

[agoldman]

Yikes.

As comparison:
Tesla Y LR AWD UDDS = 446 / Hwy = 398
Tesla Y Perf AWD UDDS = 409 / Hwy = 376

So what are they doing different to get that rating?

Sponsored