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

[kdryden99]

How are you figuring 20%? 88 of 98.8 is about 11% reserve.

It was mentioned here that there was 10% on the bottom and 10% off of the top giving you only 80% of the battery capacity

Sponsored

 

[EVmodeler]

A member on the Mach E Club suggested that these documents were the 2-cycle test for "emissions" certification, not the full 5-cycle test for the range.

Most manufacturers use the Multi-Cycle Test (MCT) 2 cycle results, which can also be seen in the EPA test car list data
https://www.epa.gov/compliance-and-fuel-economy-data/data-cars-used-testing-fuel-economy
but have the option to use the 5-cycle test like conventional and hybrid vehicles use.
If they use this option, the data for those cycles are in the emissions cert file and usually in the test car list data.

 

[Kamuelaflyer]

I think we've known for quite a while this was not going to be the most efficient car out there. Neither is the ICE Mustang.

1. it's heavy. Not made of all aluminum or all plastic.
2. It's heavy.
3. It's heavy.

As @trutolife27, yourself, and many others have said; just wait and see. It's a bit early to eject.

 

[engnrng]

I’m in no rush so I’ll wait until the final EPA range estimates are released and a couple production MME’s have been thoroughly reviewed.

On my point about spending more money to charge a bigger battery, what I was trying to say is if the MME is rated for more or less the same avg miles per full battery as my Kona, then I’m spending more to fully charge an 88 kWh MME battery rather than the 64 kWh Kona (37% more). Is it worth the extra charge cost for the comfort, handling and other tech? Probably. While my Kona has no sex appeal, it is very comfortable, has stop & go adaptive cruise, emergency braking, blind spot alerting, and lane keep assist. I don’t need to move away from it, but if the MME offers enough incentive to me, then I’ll gladly part with it. ?

The Kona is very efficient - I average 4 mi/kWh driving pretty sporty and 75 mph cruise on open freeways (far more common since March), and Climate left at 68 F all the time (A/C or Heat as required). Rated EPA is 258 miles, and 4 x 64 = 256. If I get 3.5 mi/kWh on my Ca Rt 1, I will be very happy, but I will not be surprised if I get 3.6 to 3.8. At 88 kWh, that gives a comparable 320+ miles of range. The Kona also has 3 driving modes. Sport mode requires more attention (!) but drops GOM range by almost 10%. I have driven my Kona on business trips of over 400 miles round trip in length, stopping for a 30 to 45 minute charge each way. To me, GOM accuracy is more important than range, and the Kona GOM has proved to be VERY accurate for me after a few charge cycles. Ford is claiming they have done a LOT of work on the GOM, so I am expecting great things!

 

[dbsb3233]

It was mentioned here that there was 10% on the bottom and 10% off of the top giving you only 80% of the battery capacity

Ah, thanks. I suspect that was just an attempt to back-fit the numbers above, which are appearing to be increasingly fuzzy. Ford has officially announced 88 kWh as the usable portion of the ER battery (~11% reserve), so I'd stick with that.

But even with an 11% reserve, yes, many of us are hoping for an OTA range increase sometime later in 2021 by unlocking a bit more of that 11% (similar to Tesla). Hoping for that as a subsequent bonus above and beyond the EPA numbers though, not used up just to get the initial EPA numbers up to 300 miles.

 

[Shayne]

I think we've known for quite a while this was not going to be the most efficient car out there. Neither is the ICE Mustang.

How have we known that? I watched webinars in which the smirks were abundant leading us to believe how good the epa range was? Right now the gov site has

AWD EXT (4x)
Recharge Event Energy (kiloWatt-hours) 101.2 (lousy power)
Charge Depleting UDDS 371.5
Charge Depleting Highway 338.9
0.7(0.55*371.5+0.45*338.9)= 250 mi (2.47 mi/kwh)

Route 1
Recharge Event Energy (kiloWatt-hours) 101.5
Charge Depleting UDDS 434.9
Charge Depleting Highway 382.9
0.7(0.55*434.9+0.45*382.9)= 288 mi (2.84 mi/kwh)

Model Y Long Range AWD
Recharge Event Energy (kiloWatt-hours) 87.868
Charge Depleting UDDS 446
Charge Depleting Highway 398
0.7(0.55*446+0.45*398)= 297 mi (3.38 mi/kwh)

Ford AWD EXT (4x) is 27% less efficient than the Tesla Model Y LR AWD based on 2 cycle test.

How long have we known it was 30% less efficient than the small tesla suv? Must have missed that thread?

Unlocking battery does not change efficiency. Not like it is any faster either; so a ICE stang analogy is confusing? I think it was a bit disappointing for all and was not known or expected. We will hold tight to see the outcome, as Ford has requested, and then all can make their decisions.

 

[engnrng]

Hmm. You are correct, the other submission does clarify.

That is also curious. 288Ah @ 404V is over 116kWh.

"Ah" should be forbidden with Li-Ion batteries, since it is meaningless with EV. It is only meaningful with a constant voltage battery like lead acid. Take up the banner, sound the horn! Fight for using correct terminology!

 

[Woeo]

Well how much of the battery in the Y is locked about 5%. The model Y LR gets just over 300 miles in real world testing done by many online reviewers. From what we see here the closest to real world testing gets 250miles but with 20% locked. So if Ford changes the 20% to lets say 10% do the math. 250/80*90=281 miles.

Recent InsideEVS report claims real world MY LR was 3.43 m/kWh, or 247 miles from 72 kWh.
https://insideevs.com/reviews/434897/video-tesla-model-y-long-range-vs-performance-range/

 

[kdryden99]

Ah, thanks. I suspect that was just an attempt to back-fit the numbers above, which are appearing to be increasingly fuzzy. Ford has officially announced 88 kWh as the usable portion of the ER battery (~11% reserve), so I'd stick with that.

But even with an 11% reserve, yes, many of us are hoping for an OTA range increase sometime later in 2021 by unlocking a bit more of that 11% (similar to Tesla). Hoping for that as a subsequent bonus above and beyond the EPA numbers though, not used up just to get the initial EPA numbers up to 300 miles.

Thanks for clarifying that for me

 

[Shayne]

A member on the Mach E Club suggested that these documents were the 2-cycle test for "emissions" certification, not the full 5-cycle test for the range.

Don't need or want the 5 cycle results. 2 cycle which all can calculate is fine for me. It is not real world and is just a comparative test. Hard to trust or even calculate the 5 cycle.

 

[cjljr41]

? Too many engineers on this forum! I can't keep up with the explanations, and the math!

 

[KAustin]

So, if Ford comes in at their initial targets, as they have said they will, does their official data end this debate or will there still be those that complain that it isn't as good as the Tesla models in range? BTW... I never expected to be as efficient as the M3 or MY. I do, however, expect them to come it at the targeted range.

My driving methods are such that I try to maximize fuel efficiency and it is always front and center on the screen. My wife, on the other hand, doesn't care and doesn't care about the price of gas. She figures I have some place to be and the car needs gas.

 

[dbsb3233]

So, if Ford comes in at their initial targets, as they have said they will, does their official data end this debate or will there still be those that complain that it isn't as good as the Tesla models in range? BTW... I never expected to be as efficient as the M3 or MY. I do, however, expect them to come it at the targeted range.

Oh there will likely always be debate and opinions and complaints. That's just human nature. But yes, I think if the official EPA number comes in at 300+, most of the reaction you're referring to in this thread becomes moot.

I think everyone looking at the specs knew the MME would never be as efficient as the Model Y, simply based on similar range between the two while the MY only has a 75 kWh battery and the MME a 98.8. That one's just obvious that the miles/kWh in the MME has to be less.

The issue is how much.

 

[Shayne]

? Too many engineers on this forum! I can't keep up with the explanations, and the math!

When it comes to new tech it is hard to get rid of geeks . ?

The range is not the end of the world. It means you may be waved at while sitting at a charger. It is a bit disappointing, at this point, as many want to see Ford succeed and all hope for the best in this new tech. When reviews come out build quality, noise, comfort, handling all will come into play.

I am still on board with the MME and hope they met that 270 mi (actually was hoping for a rounded 450 km). Even if it is letting us manage the battery and write it up in the owners manual. See no reason to carry around that much weight in batteries like a spare tire. If you don't change the oil for 4 years what do you expect. Anything you can buy someone will abuse

Sponsored