Etymologically you are absolutely correct. However zoologically speaking it is probably a Pouch.
Uses a lot of wall juice 101.2 Kwh "Recharge Event Energy (kiloWatt-hours) 101.2" . 88/101.2 or 14% lose sounds reasonable. You would not want to start sucking that much power out of your home to charge the standard battery. Or is the paperwork linked in the OP and still up on the EPA web site the rumor? Maybe we should not start a wall efficiency rumor at this stage
. Need a post from our Mexican friend.
Every time I hear "froot" Robin William's high-pitched voice from Mrs Doubtfire pops into my head: "it was a drive-by fruiting!"
We’re just getting warmed up.This is still going?
This thread has become the new "update from friends in mexico" thread; lots of off topic silliness to pass the time
Absolutely, but fruit was funnier
Another neverending Loop
Is this course dependent on the administrators discretion's of 5 cycle testing? If not it is a pretty easy read and should be done in a couple of hours. 0.7 (0.55 UDDS + 0.45 Highway) = EPA; class dismissed. I do not think you need to know the testing that goes into the UUDS and Highway numbers to grasp an EPA number. EPA range is not real world, however, based on long range BEV like Kona and Teslas (need to use 2 cycle not Teslas) it seems to provide a indication of real world at least a benchmark that one result may be more efficient than the other. It's the Kona but when you carry a smaller pack (less curb weight) that is to be expected. Efficiency is not the only thing to range and battery size is also a factor. If Ford opened more dead weight battery their efficiency would obviously go up as all else is pretty much constant.
I’d be interested in auditing the portion of the lecture that covers how they adjust the dyno load in proportion to vehicle drag. That seems a huge opportunity to game the system.
Is it a "froot loop"?
This assumes that you only get 1 shot at it, which you don't. Ford can file multiple times after tweaking the system. Tesla has done that on plenty of occasions.
No, the range would go up but the efficiency would be the same. Spent fuel is not released to the atmosphere; the battery doesn't get appreciably lighter when the electrons move from 1 electrode to another.
You got it. LOL.
May be new leadership @ EPA shortly; ask them? Freedom of info? Opportunity does not create proof.
I would think efficiency would go up also but possibly not linear. You carry around something and do not use it it should take energy and give nothing back. If at some point it gives you a hand up the hill it has provided some work. We are talking all else constant right? I would not expect the same efficiency if carrying 3 to 400# dead weight in the back? All adds up.
