MME wins real-world range test vs. 9 other BEVs

[Shayne]

Here are the full results. No need to watch the video.

Based on this for someone whos annual driving is 20,000 miles the mach-e would consume 5882 KW and the model 3 would consume 4878 KW. That would be an additional 1000 KW/year for the mach-e. At 10 cents a KW you are looking at $100/year. I will take the suv with the longer range over a small sedan. But unfortunately you are going to pay the extra $500 or so every 100,000 miles with the mach-e. Range is king not efficiency and both are a whole lot greener and cheaper than ICE.

 

[RedStallion]

Offcourse but this isn't a $ vs mi test either (purchase wise). I was just pointing out that this test doesn't mean a lot if you don't put the outcome against other aspects such as price and/or miles per $.

That's not the reason people buy electric cars, if they want the cheapest per mile car then hybrids, diesel, and even gas cars would be cheaper to drive on highway. EVs are fun to drive, provide great acceleration, have low maintenance, and other wonderful features, the cost is not part of the equation.

 

[RedStallion]

Exactly, the idea to add range by adding batteries is a catch 22. The heavier the car is the less efficient it is and the longer it takes to charge. Sure you can develop faster chargers but then your battery suffers.

They really need to focus more on efficiency over range, especially since you can obviously fudge the numbers.

That's true that the bigger the battery the more weight, so the law of diminishing returns kicks in. But the cars still have pretty small batteries and there is a room to grow before it becomes impractical.
OTOH, great efficiency is actually an illusion, because even small factors can cause a dramatic drop. Add two more adults, add a few suitcases, add a bit of elevation, or hot temperature, or 80mph speed, or wind, or rough road surface, etc. etc. and the efficiency of that highly efficient car will drop like a rock. And since with better efficiency you would expect a smaller battery, the range would drop to unacceptable levels. I would take a larger battery compared to better efficiency on any day.
I've been driving large SUVs and trucks for the last 20 years, and I was lucky if I had 15mpg on average. But on positive side, none of those factors which kill the efficiency of EVs would make any difference.
BTW, it's not true at all that the bigger the battery the longer you need to charge it or the more damage it experiences from a fast charger. Each of the elements of a large battery takes the same current and the same time to charge as a small one and have the same lifetime. The only difference is how much power the battery draws from the charging station. So far, the charging stations are not the limiting factor. I would expect we can grow the battery to 200kWh and 800V before facing the charging difficulties.

 

[Motomax]

That's true that the bigger the battery the more weight, so the law of diminishing returns kicks in. But the cars still have pretty small batteries and there is a room to grow before it becomes impractical.
OTOH, great efficiency is actually an illusion, because even small factors can cause a dramatic drop. Add two more adults, add a few suitcases, add a bit of elevation, or hot temperature, or 80mph speed, or wind, or rough road surface, etc. etc. and the efficiency of that highly efficient car will drop like a rock. And since with better efficiency you would expect a smaller battery, the range would drop to unacceptable levels. I would take a larger battery compared to better efficiency on any day.
I've been driving large SUVs and trucks for the last 20 years, and I was lucky if I had 15mpg on average. But on positive side, none of those factors which kill the efficiency of EVs would make any difference.
BTW, it's not true at all that the bigger the battery the longer you need to charge it or the more damage it experiences from a fast charger. Each of the elements of a large battery takes the same current and the same time to charge as a small one and have the same lifetime. The only difference is how much power the battery draws from the charging station. So far, the charging stations are not the limiting factor. I would expect we can grow the battery to 200kWh and 800V before facing the charging difficulties.

Those efficiency drops would be more drastic in a less efficient drivetrain than a more efficient drivetrain so I don’t see how that justifies bigger batteries over efficiency?
Making a vehicle more efficient doesn’t mean an inadequate battery, it means you utilize that battery more efficiently which translates to more range in every environment compared to an less efficient version of the same car.
Also, battery size is directly related to charging time so I don’t follow you there. Adding a more powerful charger isn’t a factor in making a vehicle more efficient so is not really a valid justification for not doing it. It’s also well known that Fast DC charging is more damaging than level 1 and level 2, so I don’t follow you there either.

 

[Shayne]

Those efficiency drops would be more drastic in a less efficient drivetrain than a more efficient drivetrain so I don’t see how that justifies bigger batteries over efficiency?
Making a vehicle more efficient doesn’t mean an inadequate battery, it means you utilize that battery more efficiently which translates to more range in every environment compared to an less efficient version of the same car.
Also, battery size is directly related to charging time so I don’t follow you there. Adding a more powerful charger isn’t a factor in making a vehicle more efficient so is not really a valid justification for not doing it. It’s also well known that Fast DC charging is more damaging than level 1 and level 2, so I don’t follow you there either.

It is more efficient partly due to less weight in batteries. Put the tesla model Y up against the standard range MME would be more of a comparison on efficiency. Comparing the efficiency of a 100 KWh pack against an 80 KWh pack is not apples to apples. Comparing a sedan to an SUV is not apples to apples. Range is king and for the same price as a Y the MME wins. If Ford opened up the whole 100 KWh pack as tesla does on its packs the MME's range would blow the tesla away.

 

[Motomax]

It is more efficient partly due to less weight in batteries. Put the tesla model Y up against the standard range MME would be more of a comparison on efficiency. Comparing the efficiency of a 100 KWh pack against an 80 KWh pack is not apples to apples. Comparing a sedan to an SUV is not apples to apples. Range is king and for the same price as a Y the MME wins. If Ford opened up the whole 100 KWh pack as tesla does on its packs the MME's range would blow the tesla away.

One test I found the model y extended range was about 3.85m/kw, so still more efficient. Again, opening up battery for more range is completely irrelevant. The vast majority of drivers will use less than 40 miles per day so a 350 mile range is kinda pointless (this doesn’t mean you, but it’s the reality). The beauty of an efficiency ratings is that it has a much better correlation to MPG that we are all used to than range numbers. Efficiency of an electric car should be king. This includes battery tech, drivetrain improvements, hvac improvements, and aero. Once they get that figured out they can take their sub 300 mile car and add cold weather package or a road trip package which adds more capacity for the very few that need them.
People are just stuck on charge time that they freak out about range when in reality a plug in hybrid would have been the perfect vehicle for them.

 

[RonTCat]

One test I found the model y extended range was about 3.85m/kw, so still more efficient. Again, opening up battery for more range is completely irrelevant. The vast majority of drivers will use less than 40 miles per day so a 350 mile range is kinda pointless (this doesn’t mean you, but it’s the reality). The beauty of an efficiency ratings is that it has a much better correlation to MPG that we are all used to than range numbers. Efficiency of an electric car should be king. This includes battery tech, drivetrain improvements, hvac improvements, and aero. Once they get that figured out they can take their sub 300 mile car and add cold weather package or a road trip package which adds more capacity for the very few that need them.
People are just stuck on charge time that they freak out about range when in reality a plug in hybrid would have been the perfect vehicle for them.

If efficiency was truly king, everyone would drive a golf cart or electric bike. Clearly, the only "truly" thing about these efficiency differences are that they are truly irrelevant.

 

[Shayne]

If efficiency was truly king, everyone would drive a golf cart or electric bike. Clearly, the only "truly" thing about these efficiency differences are that they are truly irrelevant.

That's it forget the suv I am buying an electric scooter.

Opening up the battery obviously increase the efficiency as it is hauling that weight around anyway and would get mileage out of them.

 

[Motomax]

If efficiency was truly king, everyone would drive a golf cart or electric bike. Clearly, the only "truly" thing about these efficiency differences are that they are truly irrelevant.

Don’t be ridiculous, I’m obviously talking about comparing a vehicle to its unimproved version and other similar models.
To match your ridiculous example, why don’t people go by massive dual tank trucks for the best range out of any vehicle. Because efficiency matters in gas vehicles and it should matter for electric vehicles.
Once people get over their misplaced range anxiety, I guarantee you efficiency will be the new prominent factor.

That's it forget the suv I am buying an electric scooter.

Opening up the battery obviously increase the efficiency as it is hauling that weight around anyway and would get mileage out of them.

Would opening battery capacity give better efficiency or would simply removing that extra capacity improve efficiency more?

 

[Shayne]

Would opening battery capacity give better efficiency or would simply removing that extra capacity improve efficiency more?

Not sure which is more and do not care as I bought a 100 Kwh pack for a reason. Hauling 4 kids and a dog will reduce your efficiency. Carrying any dead weight will reduce your efficiency included unused battery weight. That is obvious. I have ranted about the inefficiency of carrying a big buffer around on this forum enough. Not going there again as I talked to myself most of the time.

You go on a road trip at -25C range is king not the additional cost of less than $100/year because of efficiency.

 

[Motomax]

Not sure which is more and do not care as I bought a 100 Kwh pack for a reason. Hauling 4 kids and a dog will reduce your efficiency. Carrying any dead weight will reduce your efficiency included unused battery weight. That is obvious. I have ranted about the inefficiency of carrying a big buffer around on this forum enough. Not going there again as I talked to myself most of the time.

You go on a road trip at -25C range is king not the additional cost of less than $100/year because of efficiency.

I don’t think anyone will disagree that carrying that extra weight is a negative for range. Eliminating that buffer would essentially be a result of improved battery efficiency, which is exactly what I’ve been saying.
Your stuck on range and battery size that you assume improved efficiency means less range. Take your vehicle and make it more efficient. Everything else being the same, your range goes up not down.
This isn’t an argument over large batteries. This is an argument against using battery size as a crutch for not spending the time to make something more efficient. I understand that getting a product to market quickly was probably a factor but consumers have also kinda shot themselves in the foot by only focusing on range and range only.

I own a 4runner so I’m not opposed to consciously trading efficiency for various reasons but, unlike gas vehicles, most people don’t even know the efficiency of the electric car they are buying.

 

[Shayne]

I don’t think anyone will disagree that carrying that extra weight is a negative for range. Eliminating that buffer would essentially be a result of improved battery efficiency, which is exactly what I’ve been saying.
Your stuck on range and battery size that you assume improved efficiency means less range. Take your vehicle and make it more efficient. Everything else being the same, your range goes up not down.
This isn’t an argument over large batteries. This is an argument against using battery size as a crutch for not spending the time to make something more efficient. I understand that getting a product to market quickly was probably a factor but consumers have also kinda shot themselves in the foot by only focusing on range and range only.

I own a 4runner so I’m not opposed to consciously trading efficiency for various reasons but, unlike gas vehicles, most people don’t even know the efficiency of the electric car they are buying.

Increasing efficiency means less range? Now you are putting words in my mouth. What I am saying is who cares when you are talking about such small differences in efficiency numbers. As noted range is king not efficiency. I will go for the more range 10 out of 10 times as I do not live in California and need it when the temps drop down to -20 F and I need to travel 120 miles between DCFC. Do the math on lithium batteries. Your assumption that longer range is not needed is only for yourself and does not take into account all conditions or everyone's needs. I would feel a whole lot better with more range than the MME or the use of the whole pack in it.

 

[pt19713]

One test I found the model y extended range was about 3.85m/kw, so still more efficient. Again, opening up battery for more range is completely irrelevant.

Sounds about right. My 2020 Y Long Range after 12 months was 260 Wh/mi, or 3.84 miles/ kWh, so that accounts for both summer and winter driving. In non-winter conditions with the factory 19" wheels, I am able to get 240 Wh/mi highway (4.1 miles/ kWh).

Most of my drives are 120-140 miles in my area, so more range/ heavier battery doesn't mean much for me. I'm perfectly happy with a 78 kWh pack to keep the weight down (1052 lbs).

 

[Mirak]

Based on this for someone whos annual driving is 20,000 miles the mach-e would consume 5882 KW and the model 3 would consume 4878 KW. That would be an additional 1000 KW/year for the mach-e. At 10 cents a KW you are looking at $100/year. I will take the suv with the longer range over a small sedan. But unfortunately you are going to pay the extra $500 or so every 100,000 miles with the mach-e. Range is king not efficiency and both are a whole lot greener and cheaper than ICE.

Ding Ding Ding - we have a winner! I did a similar analysis for the MYLR to the MME 4X. Now consider that the MYLR is roughly $5k more expensive than the MME 4X Premium thanks to no tax credit for the Tesla. You’ll just never come close to making up the price premium is electricity savings.

 

[Motomax]

Increasing efficiency means less range? Now you are putting words in my mouth. What I am saying is who cares when you are talking about such small differences in efficiency numbers. As noted range is king not efficiency. I will go for the more range 10 out of 10 times as I do not live in California and need it when the temps drop down to -20 F and I need to travel 120 miles between DCFC. Do the math on lithium batteries. Your assumption that longer range is not needed is only for yourself and does not take into account all conditions or everyone's needs. I would feel a whole lot better with more range than the MME or the use of the whole pack in it.

Well the idea that you’ll get a smaller battery with more efficiency is the only thought process where your argument would possibly work.

Let me put it in terms you will understand. 68kwhr x 3.3miles/kw = 224 miles, 68kwhr x 3.85miles/kw = 261.8
How can anyone argue just add more batteries instead on working on efficiency?

Btw just because YOU feel like you need all the range possible doesn’t mean that’s a reality of the car business. Like I said before the average American commutes under 80miles a day.

Sponsored