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

[timbop]

Thanks for the info. Seems to answer the question.

So here is another question: At this point it's clear the MME will hit the range targets. Ford has suggested the test scores for emissions aren't entirely relevant for the EPA range. Assuming the EPA range is in fact equal or greater than the targeted range -- which is a good assumption -- how you explain the discrepancy?

Offhand I would say "iterative development". A great deal of this car's capabilities are controlled by software, and from video I've seen of team Edison they followed a software model called "agile". In that model there is a constant process of refinement and rework; the initial software is functional but over time constantly improved. Among those improvements are significant increases in performance. You'd be surprised how different the efficiency of functionally identical code can be.

I also suspect that iterative philosophy applies to the entire project, thus a great deal of time has been spent over the course of the last 6+ months tweaking not only the software itself but also the configuration of that software (ie tweaking parameters). Among those parameters are the balancing of acceleration, handling, and of course fuel economy.

Another point to consider: Ford knows the real numbers and that they will be out in less than a month; why would they insist that they'll meet the targets only to look like liars in a few weeks?

Sponsored

 

[kdryden99]

Offhand I would say "iterative development". A great deal of this car's capabilities are controlled by software, and from video I've seen of team Edison they followed a software model called "agile". In that model there is a constant process of refinement and rework; the initial software is functional but over time constantly improved. Among those improvements are significant increases in performance. You'd be surprised how different the efficiency of functionally identical code can be.

I also suspect that iterative philosophy applies to the entire project, thus a great deal of time has been spent over the course of the last 6+ months tweaking not only the software itself but also the configuration of that software (ie tweaking parameters). Among those parameters are the balancing of acceleration, handling, and of course fuel economy.

Another point to consider: Ford knows the real numbers and that they will be out in less than a month; why would they insist that they'll meet the targets only to look like liars in a few weeks?

I agree 100% the documrntation was submitted quite a while ago. A friend of mine works for a Tier 1 supplier, i studied in computer engineering and computer science in university and the common theme always was and is more efficient and better coding all the time. Until these cars get on the road they will have "their" best version of software in the car but there will be multiple iterations and revisions done software wise to improve efficiency once they have all the data.

 

[Kamuelaflyer]

Oh sure. That's just all well beyond what I was referring to. I was simply trying to clarify why it would raise a red flag to see the range meter go from 300 to just 270 knowing 100 were actually driven. I could see that being 210, or 190, due to driving variables. But not 270 (counting 100 miles driven as just 30).

I still suspect that's not what the initially described scenario actually meant to imply.

I quite understand. I just wanted to toss out the probabilities that we're dealing with much ado about nothing (That too was a comedy as some may recall) when it comes to our current range speculation. KTB occurs in 12 days. I think we'll see some numbers that are directly related to the range tests around that time.

 

[SnBGC]

So one permanent, pre-loaded number for the vehicle? Interesting.

I'm pretty sure our 2013 Escape changes dynamically. I don't really track it, but I remember being surprised at seeing it showing 400+ for a rare time on a recent road trip. Normally it shows something around 360+ upon a fill-up around town.

It is a dynamic calculation. Not a fixed pre-loaded number.

Your question about how dynamic is exactly what we would need to know in order to properly evaluate the range calculation shown on the display.

 

[DBC]

The sales numbers for EV‘s don’t include the hundreds of thousands of people who laugh at them and don’t even consider them viable because of the range numbers, we are just the very few that would even consider it, and some of us are on the edge.

My point is 30 miles when you're talking 300 miles is irrelevant as a practical matter. People have been driving BEVs for ten years. Other than planned stunts we haven't seen anyone end up with a drained battery 100 feet from a charger.

If you're on the edge, as someone who is risk averse, I can assure you range won't be an issue. It may be for a couple of months, but then you figure out how much range you actually have, allowing you to plan accordingly. I think you're going to be surprised at how much of a problem it isn't.

Also, unless you are constantly gong on road trips, I'd recommend losing the Toyota in favor of Costco rentals. That way you always get exactly the vehicle you want, and the price is usually about equal to the wear and tear on the vehicle (for example lease mileage overage is $.25/mile and leasing an SUV for a week for a 1000 mile trip will be less than $200). I've never had a vehicle that will seat three or four people along with a couple of dogs, but I'm also not buying or leasing a full sized SUV or minivan for that one time a year I'd need it.

As for people laughing, I laugh all the time at people who haven't figured out how this works. These people don't include those who don't have access to overnight charging. That is a problem.

 

[1pt21Gigawatts]

My point is 30 miles when you're talking 300 miles is irrelevant as a practical matter. People have been driving BEVs for ten years. Other than planned stunts we haven't seen anyone end up with a drained battery 100 feet from a charger.

If you're on the edge, as someone who is risk averse, I can assure you range won't be an issue. It may be for a couple of months, but then you figure out how much range you actually have, allowing you to plan accordingly. I think you're going to be surprised at how much of a problem it isn't.

Also, unless you are constantly gong on road trips, I'd recommend losing the Toyota in favor of Costco rentals. That way you always get exactly the vehicle you want, and the price is usually about equal to the wear and tear on the vehicle (for example lease mileage overage is $.25/mile and leasing an SUV for a week for a 1000 mile trip will be less than $200). I've never had a vehicle that will seat three or four people along with a couple of dogs, but I'm also not buying or leasing a full sized SUV or minivan for that one time a year I'd need it.

As for people laughing, I laugh all the time at people who haven't figured out how this works. These people don't include those who don't have access to overnight charging. That is a problem.

If you think 10% is trivial then I’d be glad to take a donation of 10% of your take home since you won’t miss it

My point is, this weekend I’m driving up to the ADK mountains. It’s cold out. I couldn’t help but think I could have never made this ~210mi trip without charging up somewhere, especially because I’m in the middle of the woods. Am I supposed to just say “well I guess I’ll never go hiking again”? The range is important. Another 30mi and I wouldn’t have to worry about making it back to a DCFC station or scrounging for a 120v outlet in the middle of nowhere.

Or, more realistically, a second car as a single guy.

 

[ClaudeMach-E]

The range-o-meter is misleading without programming the navigation system and probably without significant data points from past driving techniques. There’s also the possibility that the vehicle is actually a bit more efficient at higher speeds than we might think. Not 100=30* more efficient, but more efficient at high speeds than we’ve thought to this point.

Honestly in all of this we ought to be considering that the car was engineered to an reach an obtainable set of criteria before it even became the Mach-e. If things had not panned out at target mileage as it evolved, I think we’d have far more real data (not just tour static displays) indicating a lower target range and probably official word from Ford as well.

It would not surprise me if at some point we get some test results with high speed range figures designed to give a better idea of real world use.

Just my 2¢ worth. I’ve been known to be wrong.


* The Paper Towel and Toilet Tissue Industry preferred method of explaining less is more.

The range-o-meter usual name is guess-o-meter or GOM.

 

[SteveUk]

The ER battery is approx 30% larger than the SR battery so it will be a massive hit in range difference picking the the SR version. Add to that AWD and it's even worse.

This is why I say they should abandon the SR version and come up with realistic prices for the range.

 

[ClaudeMach-E]

I did cancel my Kia Niro EV FWD 385km/240mi range because it was only available in FWD. The reason being that FWD EV with all that torque available has the problem of the wheels spinning easily all the time, especially in wet or snowy conditions being hard on the tires and also if you floor the go pedal a bit too much. Then the choice for the MME AWD 335km/210mi range and with the OTA has a bonus plus other things. So no I don't think FWD EV is an advantage and the MME RWD with the motor on the rear axle is yet a better choice then a FWD just because when you accelerate and the motor like in the NIRO EV is in front all the weight goes in the back causes the front goes up during acceleration so the weight on the front wheels becomes minimal thus a lost of traction.

 

[SnBGC]

I am not sure that is true about range being the #1 concern for everyone. I think for my niece that is probably true. My brother wants more cargo and passenger capacity I want more driving performance. We all drive a Focus Electric because it's basically the best available choice for us at the price point. (We each purchased our vehicles for $16k with a couple hundred miles on the clock.)

 

[EVer]

I am not sure that is true about range being the #1 concern for everyone.

It's not. Lytmq even posted survey results in another thread showing that fewer than half of would-be buyers are detered by insufficient range. Within the margin of error, price is of equal concern.

In the real world, I expect price is a bigger concern than range, otherwise most EVs on the road would be long range Tesla Model S.

 

[SnBGC]

It's not. Lytmq even posted survey results in another thread showing that fewer than half of would-be buyers are detered by insufficient range. Within the margin of error, price is of equal concern.

In the real world, I expect price is a bigger concern than range, otherwise most EVs on the road would be long range Tesla Model S.

Agree. Initial purchase price is one of the top concerns for most buyers still.

 

[jlauro]

I am not sure that is true about range being the #1 concern for everyone. I think for my niece that is probably true. My brother wants more cargo and passenger capacity I want more driving performance. We all drive a Focus Electric because it's basically the best available choice for us at the price point. (We each purchased our vehicles for $16k with a couple hundred miles on the clock.)

Once past a point range is less a factor. Where that point is depends on the person, and the alternatives...

For most people, when comparing vehicles dropping 10% from 100 to 90 on range is far worse than dropping range from 1000 to 900 miles, even though it's dropping 10x as many miles of range...

For me, sub 250 miles range is probably #1. (Meaning it's not all that I would consider, but if it's below that point, most everything else (price, acceleration, cargo space, etc) must be a lot better). Over 250, it's still fairly important comparing two options, but less critical. ie: Can sacrifice 30 mile range (out of 300) to get AWD and better 0-60 time. If it was only 200 mile range, I wouldn't give up 20 mile range for that.

 

[jlauro]

It's not. Lytmq even posted survey results in another thread showing that fewer than half of would-be buyers are detered by insufficient range. Within the margin of error, price is of equal concern.

In the real world, I expect price is a bigger concern than range, otherwise most EVs on the road would be long range Tesla Model S.

Unable to locate a stat, but pretty sure there are more long range Tesla Model S than performance Model S.

Sponsored