MME Charging Curve Data Collection

[silverelan]

In which they never gave it a chance to ramp up. 5 chargers in 90 minutes, moving around in the rain, read like a story of impatiences not an accurate charging test. Not sure you can count on that story for a data point.

You should check out Kyle Connor videos. He plays musical chairs with charging stalls looking for the fastest one.

Sponsored

 

[ajmartineau]

You should check out Kyle Connor videos. He plays musical chairs with charging stalls looking for the fastest one.

Yep, I've been watching Kyle for about 2 years. He really likes to cut it close with his range.

 

[dbsb3233]

For the first 6-months to 1 year, you should assume that after a few minutes the MME will level off at 100kW and stay close to that until near 80%.
If it is better/faster, be happy about it. You are not talking about that much of a time difference.

That would be a significant improvement over what Ford is saying (10-80% in 45 minutes). 100 kW avg from 10-80% would be 37 minutes, shaving 8 minutes off Ford's time. (More like 10 minutes if we count some time at 150 kW first).

No sure I would assume that though. Hope for, yes.

 

[silverelan]

37 minutes from 10% to 80% with a softer taper from say 50kW down to 40kW in the 80-90% bracket would be pretty nice. 37 minutes would be close enough to the Domino's Pizza charging benchmark (30 minutes or less) to stay competitive for the next 3-5 years.

 

[Shayne]

You should check out Kyle Connor videos. He plays musical chairs with charging stalls looking for the fastest one.

Link?

Yep, I've been watching Kyle for about 2 years. He really likes to cut it close with his range.

Me too and he has a few.

Not too much we can get from hopping. It may not act exactly like other EV's and someone needs to sit for a bit (at a few locations). Europe did not note a problem, like the article, except noted 80% as others. Not the smoothest with communication. I don't think they would release a hardware problem as that could be a disaster. Not sure that would help in the transformation if that is their goal? Hoping maybe handshake and coded (80% wall) problems that can be (have been) ironed out? Time will tell but we have 435 Km EPA range and 150 KW fast charging that appeared to be holding around 90 at the very limited info I have seen. For us all we have is 50 KW at the moment.

 

[silverelan]

Link?

Here's one example but if you spend any time watching Kyle road trip, it's not uncommon for him to hunt for a faster charger.

 

[Shayne]

A week with the Ford Mustang Mach-E (Dec 2020)

Norway; appears in temps around 0 to 10 oC? Good read with map follow. Bit of range info, update info and they like it.

Google translate.

The charging speed on Kjerlingland peaked at 93 kW, but mostly remained somewhere between 80kW and 90kW throughout the charging period until 80% of the battery was charged, when the charging speed dropped to 12kW. It took a little over 50 minutes to charge almost 63 kWt from 9% to 80%.

Under "good conditions", Ford itself says that it should take about 45 minutes to charge an AWD Long Range from 10% to 80%. The Standard Range has a smaller battery, but a slightly lower charging speed. It must be able to charge from 10% to 80% in 38 minutes under good conditions.

When we charged MORE on Grelland, it was a little more tricky to follow the charging speed of the charger.

To get a certain basis for comparison with the other electric cars we have charged for 19 minutes here on Grelland ( Audi e-Tron 60 S and Jaguar I-Pace EV320 ), we read that after 19 minutes it was "state of charge" SOC up to 60%, and 22.73 kWt had entered the battery.

Here we charged from 37% to a little over 80% in 38 minutes, then we got 42.1 kWt with power on the battery.

Then we will see if software upgrades affect the charging speed, we hope so.

 

[silverelan]

A week with the Ford Mustang Mach-E (Dec 2020)

Norway; appears in temps around 0 to 10 oC? Good read with map follow. Bit of range info, update info and they like it.

Google translate.

The charging speed on Kjerlingland peaked at 93 kW, but mostly remained somewhere between 80kW and 90kW throughout the charging period until 80% of the battery was charged, when the charging speed dropped to 12kW. It took a little over 50 minutes to charge almost 63 kWt from 9% to 80%.

Under "good conditions", Ford itself says that it should take about 45 minutes to charge an AWD Long Range from 10% to 80%. The Standard Range has a smaller battery, but a slightly lower charging speed. It must be able to charge from 10% to 80% in 38 minutes under good conditions.

When we charged MORE on Grelland, it was a little more tricky to follow the charging speed of the charger.

To get a certain basis for comparison with the other electric cars we have charged for 19 minutes here on Grelland ( Audi e-Tron 60 S and Jaguar I-Pace EV320 ), we read that after 19 minutes it was "state of charge" SOC up to 60%, and 22.73 kWt had entered the battery.

Here we charged from 37% to a little over 80% in 38 minutes, then we got 42.1 kWt with power on the battery.

Then we will see if software upgrades affect the charging speed, we hope so.

Elsewhere in the article, " We were told by Ford that one of the 3 updates the car was waiting for could affect the charging speed."

There's probably a bunch of software updates coming right off the bat for a whole host of things. Hopefully the charging speed update the author referenced makes a notable difference.

 

[dbsb3233]

The charging speed on Kjerlingland peaked at 93 kW, but mostly remained somewhere between 80kW and 90kW throughout the charging period until 80% of the battery was charged, when the charging speed dropped to 12kW. It took a little over 50 minutes to charge almost 63 kWt from 9% to 80%.

Those numbers don't quite add up. 63 kWh in 50 minutes would be an average of 76 kW.

Although since the MME (frustratingly) doesn't show charging power inside the car, maybe that's a result of charging loss? (Showing 80-90 on the charger but really only filling at 76?)

 

[Shayne]

Elsewhere in the article, " We were told by Ford that one of the 3 updates the car was waiting for could affect the charging speed."

There's probably a bunch of software updates coming right off the bat for a whole host of things. Hopefully the charging speed update the author referenced makes a notable difference.

He really references no updates other than 3 unknown. Hope the launch goes well also.

Those numbers don't quite add up. 63 kWh in 50 minutes would be an average of 76 kW.

Although since the MME (frustratingly) doesn't show charging power inside the car, maybe that's a result of charging loss? (Showing 80-90 on the charger but really only filling at 76?)

I have noticed about 10 to 15% lose @ 20 oC dyna so 76/90 would make sense?

Nothing on power draw inside? Update 2 for you ? I would like to see a toggle to inverse consumption to Wh/km or at least 2 decimal places on Mi/KWh (3 significant digits); all is possible with a OS onboard and a USB to update. We will see how they embrace it.

 

[dbsb3233]

I have noticed about 10 to 15% lose @ 20 oC dyna so 76/90 would make sense?

Maybe. Don't really know how much to expect. One of the other videos showed 163 kW (for a minute or two). If the car was actually drawing 150 kW (the advertised max), that would be 8% loss. No idea if that's what it actually drew, of course, but makes some sense.

I would like to see a toggle to inverse consumption to Wh/km or at least 2 decimal places on Mi/KWh (3 significant digits);

Normally I would want another digit on there too for numbers of this size. But since it's all so wildly variable based on a slew of factors, I'm ok with just 2 digits (like 3.2 miles/kWh). The extra digit is too precise to project real-world use anyway.

Not sure if there's a units selection to invert to Wh/distance or not. I much prefer distance/kWh, so I'm happy that one appears to be there.

 

[Shayne]

But since it's all so wildly variable based on a slew of factors, I'm ok with just 2 digits (like 3.2 miles/kWh). The extra digit is too precise to project real-world use anyway.

Because it is variable through further accuracy to the wind? 375 Wh/mi or 2.67 mi/KWh or 2.7 mi/KWh which is 70 mph highway consumption? I would like the Wh/mi display 375 instead of the small 2 digit 2.7 number. That is definitely something that can be toggled in and then you could have your 2.7 also.

 

[dbsb3233]

Because it is variable through further accuracy to the wind? 375 Wh/mi or 2.67 mi/KWh or 2.7 mi/KWh which is 70 mph highway consumption? I would like the Wh/mi display 375 instead of the small 2 digit 2.7 number. That is definitely something that can be toggled in and then you could have your 2.7 also.

It might. I do remember seeing a units setting somewhere on it in one of the videos. But I don't know if it included an inverter, or just miles<-->kilometers.

 

[trutolife27]

 

[dbsb3233]

So if the battery stays warm from having just driven for a while, then preheating the battery is pretty irrelevant. Because for most people, the only time we'll be DCFC charging is between legs of a road trip, where we've already been driving for 2 hours on the first leg.

Sponsored