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

[ChasingCoral]

Is it a "froot loop"?

This whole forum often heads to fruit loops!

Sponsored

 

[timbop]

This whole forum often heads to fruit loops!

or are the forum members the fruit loops?

 

[Shayne]

OK, I think I see where you're getting thrown off. the ER RWD has a 300 mile range with a 99 kwh battery, so doing the math 300/99 = 3.03 mi/kwh. But the range is derived from only using 88 kwh, not 99. So the actual efficiency is 300/88 = 3.41. If Ford opened up the whole 99 kwh battery the range would be 300*(99/88) = 337.5 miles.

Look at it another way:
The SR RWD is targeted for 230 miles using 68 kwh of the battery: 230/68 = 3.382
The ER RWD is targeted for 300 miles using 88 kwh of the battery: 300 / 88 = 3.409

The efficiency is essentially identical; Ford likely rounded the numbers off for publication

Not thrown off yet. Would the car not go farther if you opened the size of the battery and be greater than 94/88 x 88 range since the weight of the 6 KWh would do work? I understand that you need to fed the 6 KWh's however do not think it is linear? If you ripped out those 6 KWh (not doing anything) and reduced weight do you think you would see a difference? Possibly similar in magnitude to the change from sr to er you quote?

For accuracy current epa suggests 101.2 KWh for the MME LR not 88. Just like Tesla's Y AWD LR is based on a Recharge Event Energy (kiloWatt-hours) 87.868 but the battery is only 77 KWh.

So The the MME ER RWD is 300/101.2 = 2.964 mi/kwh or 34 KWh/100 mi. MME AWD ER @ 270 is 101.2/2.7 = 37 KWh/100.

 

[Shayne]

Got me hence the +/- and open for debate. Definitely not 88.

 

[dbsb3233]

Would the car not go farther if you opened the size of the battery

For the first handful of years before the battery degraded faster, yes. But after you've degraded the battery too fast, no.

You're leaving out the entire reason why there's a battery reserve in the first place -- to protect the battery from as much degradation so as to make it last longer.

Now, it's possible (maybe even likely) that Ford will collect and analyze enough battery data in the coming months/year to determine that they can shrink the reserve some and avoid too much battery degradation. But they haven't come to that conclusion yet.

 

[engnrng]

Have you driven over 500 different car models in all conditions? Must keep you VERY busy!! When do you have time to read the posts on this Forum?

 

[engnrng]

There is no heat pump in my US Kona. Heat pumps were installed in those sold in Canada, though.

 

[timbop]

Not thrown off yet. Would the car not go farther if you opened the size of the battery and be greater than 94/88 x 88 range since the weight of the 6 KWh would do work? I understand that you need to fed the 6 KWh's however do not think it is linear? If you ripped out those 6 KWh (not doing anything) and reduced weight do you think you would see a difference? Possibly similar in magnitude to the change from sr to er you quote?

For accuracy current epa suggests 101.2 KWh for the MME LR not 88. Just like Tesla's Y AWD LR is based on a Recharge Event Energy (kiloWatt-hours) 87.868 but the battery is only 77 KWh.

So The the MME ER RWD is 300/101.2 = 2.964 mi/kwh or 34 KWh/100 mi. MME AWD ER @ 270 is 101.2/2.7 = 37 KWh/100.

OK, you have to decide if you're trying to account for the roughly 15% overhead lost to heat during the charging process or you're worrying just about the amount in the battery. Let's do an analogy first:

• Fill an empty 5 gallon gas can all the way; you'll have to pay for 5 gallons
• Use 4 gallons from the can
• Fill the can again. Since it already had 1 gallon in it, you only pay for 4 gallons

Now let's do the same thing with a 99kwh battery that has a 10% buffer. We'll assume they reserve 5% at the bottom and 5% at the top. We'll also assume for ther sake of argument that having 0 charge doesn't damage the battery.

• Fill a completely empty battery as far as it can go, which will mean that you put (99 * .95) 94 kwh into the battery because the car won't let you charge that last 5kwh. Since there was about a 15% heat loss, the electric meter will measure that you drew 108kwh (1.15 * 94)
• Drive the car 300 miles until it reads 0% on the guess-o-meter. Since 5% is reserved by the car at the bottom, you still have 5kwh left in the battery. So, you USED 89kwh driving.
• Now charge the battery again so that it reads 100%. Only 89kwh went into the battery because it already has 5kwh in it, and it won't let you charge above 94kwh. Due to heat overhead, the 89kwh you put into the battery means you drew 101 kwh from the grid.

If Ford had 0 buffer the car would go 12% farther (337 miles), but every time you charge it to 100% you'd have to put 99kwh in the battery, which means you'd draw 114kwh from the grid.

Regardless 337/99 = 300/88

 

[Shayne]

For the first handful of years before the battery degraded faster, yes. But after you've degraded the battery too fast, no.

You're leaving out the entire reason why there's a battery reserve in the first place -- to protect the battery from as much degradation so as to make it last longer.

Now, it's possible (maybe even likely) that Ford will collect and analyze enough battery data in the coming months/year to determine that they can shrink the reserve some and avoid too much battery degradation. But they haven't come to that conclusion yet.

When am I going to charge to 100%? Once at home on an L2 at the start of longer trips? 80% will work a lot of the time for me around home and 80% is all I will want to sit around for when I am on the road (if charger spacing is good). The 80% range would shift also obviously and the option of use would be there.

I get the concern of degradation and software that thinks for you. Do you still assume degradation of 10% on the MME? ABRP appears to default to 5% degradation on their alpha for my model? Do you think it will be OTA feed back if degradation takes place; wonder at what % intervals of degradation if so? Bird in the hand and all .

 

[dbsb3233]

When am I going to charge to 100%? Once at home on an L2 at the start of longer trips? 80% will work a lot of the time for me around home and 80% is all I will want to sit around for when I am on the road (if charger spacing is good). The 80% range would shift also obviously and the option of use would be there.

I get the concern of degradation and software that thinks for you. Do you still assume degradation of 10% on the MME? ABRP appears to default to 5% degradation on their alpha for my model? Do you think it will be OTA feed back if degradation takes place; wonder at what % intervals of degradation if so? Bird in the hand and all .

Yeah, that's an issue in itself -- how much reserve should there be? The Tesla approach seems to be a less conservative "let people decide for themselves how much they want to degrade their batteries", while so far, Ford's is a more conservative "we'll make sure people can't abuse it". Although I believe Tesla was more conservative at first before unlocking more, so seems logical Ford might too.

I'm kinda with you on wishing Ford would allow us more choice to occasionally go deeper (for infrequent road trips, or emergencies). If it's just a few times/year, I wouldn't think it would hurt much.

But I'm also not sure that may not be possible anyway. The question is "What actually happens when we hit 0%?". Maybe they do allow us to use another 6% in emergency mode, but they just don't advertise it. And that's how they keep people from overusing it?

Just speculation. I don't think we'll know until some people actually test it and report what happens.

 

[trutolife27]

Yeah, that's an issue in itself -- how much reserve should there be? The Tesla approach seems to be a less conservative "let people decide for themselves how much they want to degrade their batteries", while so far, Ford's is a more conservative "we'll make sure people can't abuse it". Although I believe Tesla was more conservative at first before unlocking more, so seems logical Ford might too.

I'm kinda with you on wishing Ford would allow us more choice to occasionally go deeper (for infrequent road trips, or emergencies). If it's just a few times/year, I wouldn't think it would hurt much.

But I'm also not sure that may not be possible anyway. The question is "What actually happens when we hit 0%?". Maybe they do allow us to use another 6% in emergency mode, but they just don't advertise it. And that's how they keep people from overusing it?

Just speculation. I don't think we'll know until some people actually test it and report what happens.

Ford is playing safe to start. Kinda like tesla. The more data they get the more they will know what they can get and do with the battery.

Sponsored